Day on Torts

February 21, 2024

No TPPA immediate appeal from order denying voluntary dismissal of defendant.

Where defendants filed a motion to dismiss under the TPPA and plaintiff thereafter filed a voluntary dismissal of one of the defendants, but the trial court denied the voluntary dismissal, defendants did not have the right to automatically appeal the voluntary dismissal denial under the TPPA, as the TPPA petition was still pending.

In Kent v. Global Vision Baptist, Inc., No. M2023-00267-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2023), plaintiffs filed suit against defendant church and pastor for nuisance, trespass, and violation of local ordinances. The suit largely related to the church’s use of a tent as a structure. Defendants filed a petition to dismiss the complaint under the Tennessee Public Participation Act (“TPPA”). Thereafter, plaintiffs attempted to voluntarily dismiss the pastor without prejudice. At a hearing regarding the dismissal, the trial court denied the voluntary dismissal, and defendants argued that plaintiffs could only dismiss the pastor with prejudice. During the hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel allegedly orally agreed to a dismissal with prejudice, but then repudiated that agreement. Ultimately, the trial court denied dismissal of the pastor with or without prejudice.

Defendants filed this appeal under Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-17-106, a provision of the TPPA which “allows a party to immediately appeal a court’s order dismissing or refusing to dismiss a legal action pursuant to a petition filed under the TPPA.” Plaintiffs argued that the Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction under this statute, and the Court agreed.

February 20, 2024

Practical Procedure and Evidence Blog

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

My other blog is Practical Procedure and Evidence. This is where I share new case law and practical tips on using the rules of procedure and evidence in your Tennessee law practice.

By way of example, today’s post addresses the issue of whether a plaintiff who is facing a motion to amend may amend his, her or its complaint without filing a motion to amend. The answer is “yes,” so long as the plaintiff has not previously amended the complaint and no answer has been filed. The post includes citations to the relevant case law.

There are 100 other posts similar to this one – posts the advise (or remind) you on a given issue of procedure or evidence and give you citations to the relevant case law. Each post gives you a real head start on researching evidence and procedure issues.

February 19, 2024

HCLA dismissal based on statute of limitations partially reversed.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where plaintiff’s HCLA complaint cited alleged negligent acts that occurred at different times over a period of a few months, the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint as time-barred was affirmed in part and reversed in part. Dismissal of the claims related to the care plaintiff received less than one year prior to the filing of his complaint was reversed.

In Vandergriff v. Erlanger Health Systems, No. E2022-00706-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2023), plaintiff was assaulted with a baseball bat on February 20, 2020, and he sought medical treatment from defendants on March 1. After his initial surgery on March 1, plaintiff returned several times with complications and for further treatment. On March 25, plaintiff had a second surgery; on April 6, plaintiff returned and complained about pus drainage; on May 4, he again complained about pus drainage; he was readmitted on May 8 for his third surgery; he was diagnosed with a bone infection after the third surgery; he had a seizure on June 29; and he noticed increased drainage on July 4.

Plaintiff sent pre-suit notice to four defendants on December 15, 2020, but the HIPAA release he sent with the notice did not specify which providers could release records or obtain records from each other. Plaintiff then filed his pro se complaint on April 14, 2021.

February 15, 2024

No negligence per se where tenant had co-extensive knowledge of dangerous condition.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where plaintiff was an employee of the company that leased a building, and she brought a negligence and negligence per se claim against the owner of the building after she fell off a staircase that allegedly was not up to code, summary judgment for the building owner was affirmed; plaintiff, plaintiff’s employer, and defendant landlord had co-extensive knowledge of the allegedly dangerous condition.

In Lewis v. Fletcher, No. W2022-00939-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2023), plaintiff was going down a set of stairs at the entrance of the building leased by her employer when she fell off the stairs and was injured. The stairs had a handrail on only one side.

Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting negligence and negligence per se against the building owners, who were not the original builders of the property. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendant building owners “based on the rule of non-liability of a landlord to its tenant or third parties when the landlord and tenant have coextensive knowledge of the condition of the property[.]” (internal citation omitted). On appeal, summary judgment was affirmed.

February 13, 2024

No joint and several liability? No credit for other tortfeasor’s payments

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where a trial court’s judgment did not include a finding of joint-and-several liability, a defendant against whom a judgment was entered could not be credited with payments made by another defendant or by a non-party.

In Gerrish & McCreary, P.C. v. Lane, No. W2022-01441-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2023), plaintiff originally filed suit against defendant, who was plaintiff’s bookkeeper, for fraud, misrepresentation, conversion, and negligence. Plaintiff also brought a claim against defendant’s husband for conversion. The trial court found for plaintiff, and it entered a judgment for over $600,000 against defendant. A judgment of approximately $44,000 was entered against defendant’s husband. The judgment was entered in 2003 and did not find defendant and her husband jointly and severally liable. Later, in 2005, an order of judgment satisfied was entered as to the husband, and the order specifically noted that it was “not intended, nor shall it be construed, as having any applicability to the separate judgment rendered against the other defendant in this cause[.]”

In addition to the case against defendant and her husband, plaintiff reached a confidential settlement with a bank related to the fraud. The settlement was for $140,000, but the bank was never made a party to this action.

January 31, 2024

Impact of noncompliant HIPAA authorization

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where an HCLA plaintiff sent pre-suit notice to a hospital and two doctors, the hospital had all the relevant documents, the doctors were independent contractors of the hospital who could only access the records for treatment purposes, and plaintiff’s HIPAA form was noncompliant and only allowed records to be released to plaintiff’s counsel, dismissal for the doctors was affirmed, but dismissal of the claim against the hospital was reversed.

In Christie v. Baptist Memorial Hospital d/b/a Baptist Memorial Hospital for Women, No. W2022-01296-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2023), plaintiffs filed an HCLA claim based on the lack of treatment received by their newborn daughter, who was born and died on the same day at defendant hospital. Before filing suit, plaintiffs sent pre-suit notice to defendant hospital and two doctors who had been involved in the baby’s treatment. It was undisputed that the HIPAA authorization sent with the notice only allowed records to be released to plaintiff’s counsel rather than to other parties receiving notice.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss based on the faulty HIPAA authorizations, which the trial court “reluctantly” granted. On appeal, dismissal of the claims against the doctors was affirmed, but dismissal of the claim against the hospital was reversed.

January 26, 2024

Notice – Actual or Constructive – Required in Fall Down Cases

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where claimant tripped on a laptop cord while participating in a class activity, but she had no evidence showing how long the cord had been there or who put the cord there, the Claims Commission’s finding that the professor of the class was not negligent was affirmed.

In Bryant v. State, No. W2022-00968-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2023), claimant was a student in an occupational therapy class at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center. During one class, the teacher set up an activity which required the students to walk to different areas of the room to fill out papers. The professor testified that she checked the area for hazards while setting up the activity and that she asked all the students to move their personal belongings so that they would not be in the way. The professor further stated that both before and during the activity, she did not see a cord in the floor. The evidence showed that the other students in the class had already walked in the area of the fall without issue. In addition, the professor had done this activity three other times and never had an issue.

Claimant testified that she did not see the cord before she fell, but instead saw it several minutes after she fell. Some of her deposition testimony conflicted slightly with her trial testimony, but she testified that no other classmates reported that they had seen the cord or had an issue with the cord.

January 23, 2024

Tennessee’s Discovery Rule Applied by the Court of Appeals

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where there was a question of fact regarding when plaintiff was put on notice of his potential HCLA claim, and plaintiff provided an expert affidavit in support of his claims, summary judgment based on the statute of limitations and a lack of proof on causation and damages was reversed.

In Vilas v. Love, No. W2022-01071-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2023), plaintiff had his appendix removed by defendant surgeon. At a follow up appointment on March 27, 2017, plaintiff was given a pathology report that stated that “no intact vermiform appendix is identified.” There was a disagreement between plaintiff and defendant regarding what defendant told plaintiff at the follow up appointment. Two weeks after the follow up appointment, plaintiff began experiencing pain and went to another hospital, where they discovered that his appendix had not been removed in the first surgery.

Plaintiff sent pre-suit notice of his HCLA claim to defendant on March 1, 2018, and filed his complaint on August 6, 2018. Defendant moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted on two grounds. The trial court ruled that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations and that plaintiff had not provided sufficient proof of causation or damages. On appeal, the trial court’s rulings were reversed in part, vacated in part, and the case was remanded.

January 22, 2024

3000th Post on this Blog

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

On February 17, 2005, this blog offered its first post. Almost 19 years later, this post represents the 3000th post that has appeared on this site.

That’s right – 3000 posts.

In that time period, both of my older children have finished grade school, high school, and college. They are living independent lives with excellent jobs. My oldest is living in Minneapolis and the youngest in Atlanta. My youngest daughter, not born when this blog was launched, is a junior in high school and actively exploring where she wants to attend college.

January 19, 2024

Black Boxes in the Operating Room?

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Every time there is a airplane crash, we hear about the efforts to locate “the black box.”

The “black box” is a flight data recorder – a device that constantly gathers information from dozens of sources about the operation of the airplane. There is also a cockpit voice recorder, which captures sounds in the cockpit, including the conversations among the pilots. The collective data is essential to understand how plane crashes occur.

(By the way, a “black box” is not black – it is orange. Federal law requires that they be painted orange so they are easier to find after a crash.)