Court reviews whether a medical expert failed to identify the standard of care in a wrongful death case

BRENDA GRIFFITH, NEXT OF KIN OF DECEDENT, BOB GRIFFITH v. DR. STEPHEN GORYL AND UPPER CUMBERLAND UROLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.C. (Tenn. Ct. App. November 1, 2012)

In this medical malpractice, wrongful death action the plaintiff alleges the defendant physician, a urologist, failed to timely diagnose and treat the decedent’s bladder cancer which caused his death. At the close of the plaintiff’s case in chief, the defendant moved for a directed verdict.

The trial court held that the plaintiff’s only medical expert witness erroneously defined the standard of care and, upon that basis, excluded his testimony concerning the standard of care and breach thereof. With the exclusion of the plaintiff’s only expert testimony, the trial court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for medical malpractice and granted the motion for a directed verdict.

We have determined the plaintiff’s medical expert did not erroneously identify the standard of care, he is competent to testify and, thus, the trial court erred in excluding his testimony and directing a verdict in favor of the defendant. We, therefore, reverse and remand for a new trial.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/griffithb_110112.pdf

Court reviews a medical malpractice involving permanent injuries sustained by an infant during surgery

MICHAEL H. GAW, ET AL. v. THE VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. April 20, 2012)

This is an appeal from a jury verdict in a medical malpractice case. A surgeon performed a procedure on an infant to repair a birth defect at the defendant hospital. The infant sustained permanent injuries after the surgery. The parents filed suit on the infant’s behalf against the hospital for failing to adhere to the expected standard of care.

At the conclusion of trial, the hospital moved for a directed verdict on all claims, with only the claims for informed consent and post-operative negligence being denied. The jury entered a judgment in favor of the infant. The hospital has appealed. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/gawm_042012.pdf

Court Reviews Whether Plaintiff Should be Allowed to Reopen Proof in a Motor Vehicle Accident Case

WILLIAM J. REINHART v. GEICO INSURANCE (Tenn. Ct. App. September 30, 2010)

The plaintiff owned a 1988 Porsche that was damaged by a collision with a deer. His insurer offered him $6,000 under his policy, after determining that the cost of repair was greater than the cash value of the car. The plaintiff, acting pro se, sued the insurer, and attempted to prove at trial that the auto was worth more than the insurer offered. After the plaintiff rested his case, the insurer moved for a directed verdict because the plaintiff had not introduced the insurance policy into evidence. The trial court granted the motion.

The plaintiff argues on appeal that he did not intend to rest his case and that in any event the trial court should have allowed him to reopen his proof so he could introduce the insurance policy. Because there is neither a transcript of the proceedings nor a Rule 24 Statement of the Evidence in the appellate record, we must affirm the trial court.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/reinhartw_093010.pdf

Court Reviews Liability and a Directed Verdict Ruling in a Property Insurance Case

ENGLISH MOUNTAIN RETREAT, LLC, ET AL. v. SUSANNE CRUSENBERRY-GREGG, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. September 21, 2010)

Plaintiffs purchased property insurance from defendants. The insured building was destroyed by a fire and plaintiffs received the full coverage limit. Nonetheless, plaintiffs sued defendants claiming that the building was under-insured and that they relied on the defendants' negligent advice. A jury trial occurred and after the close of plaintiffs' proof, defendants moved for a directed verdict on all issues. The trial court granted defendants' motion and dismissed plaintiffs' complaint. Plaintiffs appeal. We find that a directed verdict is inappropriate because plaintiffs presented sufficient facts for a jury to decide liability. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's order and remand for a full trial.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/englishmountain_092110.pdf

Court reviews whether trial court properly denied a motion for a directed verdict in a medical malpractice case

TERESA LYNN STANFIELD, ET AL. v. JOHN NEBLETT, JR., M.D., ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. July 23, 2010)

This is a medical malpractice case. The jury returned a verdict, finding that the Appellee/Doctor deviated from the standard of care, but that his deviation was not the legal cause of the injury. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a directed verdict, erred in ruling on her objections to Appellee's experts and the impeachment of her experts, that she was prejudiced by the language used on the verdict form, and that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Appellee to make a powerpoint presentation during opening statements and closing arguments. Finding no error, we affirm.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/stanfieldt_072310.pdf

Court reviews denial of motion for directed verdict in medical malpractice case

TERESA LYNN STANFIELD, ET AL. v. JOHN NEBLETT, JR., M.D., ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. June 4, 2010)

This is a medical malpractice case. The jury returned a verdict, finding that the Appellee/Doctor deviated from the standard of care, but that his deviation was not the legal cause of the injury. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a directed verdict, erred in ruling on her objections to Appellee's experts and the impeachment of her experts, that she was prejudiced by the language used on the verdict form, and that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Appellee to make a powerpoint presentation during opening statements and closing arguments. Finding no error, we affirm.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/stanfieldt_060410.pdf

Court upholds lower court verdict and judgment award

ROBERT NICELY v. BERKLINE, LLC. (Tenn. Ct. App. July 7, 2009)

Robert Nicely ("Plaintiff") was employed as a truck driver for Evinco Professional Services, Inc. ("Evinco"). Evinco contracted with Blue Mountain Trucking Corporation for the delivery of various goods. In March 2004, Plaintiff was injured while unloading furniture that had been loaded onto his truck by employees of Berkline, LLC. Plaintiff sued Berkline, LLC, ("Defendant") for personal injuries. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that an employment agreement signed by Plaintiff barred this lawsuit. The Trial Court disagreed and allowed the case to go to the jury. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff in the amount of $500,000. Because the jury found Plaintiff 20 percent at fault for his own injuries, the judgment was reduced to $400,000. Defendant thereafter filed a motion for a new trial or for a remittitur, both of which the Trial Court denied. Defendant appeals. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

The full text of this opinion may be found at the TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/nicelyr_070709.pdf