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 motion for a directed verdict in a medical malpractice case involving a permanent neurological impairment

DIANE R. CANNON KELLON and WILLIAM T. KELLON v. MARSHA LEE, M.D. and SEMMES-MURPHEY CLINIC (Tenn. Ct. App. May 21, 2012)

This is a medical malpractice case wherein a patient suffered permanent neurological impairment after delay of surgery to correct a ruptured disc in her spine. The patient sued the doctor who treated her at a minor medical clinic, and a neurological clinic, alleging that both failed to ensure that the patient was treated promptly. The jury found that the doctor did not breach the standard of care, but awarded damages against the neurological clinic.

The neurological clinic moved for judgment in accordance with a motion for a directed verdict on the ground that the patient failed to prove causation. The trial court granted the motion, as well as a conditional motion for new trial as to the neurological clinic only. The trial court concurred in the jury verdict in favor of the doctor.

We reverse the grant of the motion for judgment in accordance with a motion for a directed verdict and affirm the grant of a new trial as to the neurological clinic only. The jury verdict in favor of the minor medical clinic doctor, as concurred in by the trial court, is affirmed. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/kellond_052112.pdf

Court reviews a motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice case

WILLIAM MISE, ET. AL. V. METHODIST MEDICAL CENTER OF OAK RIDGE, ET. AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. April 23, 2012)

This is an appeal from the grant of summary judgment in a medical malpractice case. Virginia Mise was admitted to Methodist Medical Center of Oak Ridge following complaints of abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting. She was diagnosed with chronic renal failure. Several days later, she died following a medical procedure.

Her sons filed suit, alleging that Virginia Mise’s treating physicians and nurses failed to comply with the requisite standard of care, causing her death. Methodist Medical Center of Oak Ridge and the treating physicians filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motions for summary judgment. We affirm the grant of the motions for summary judgment.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/misew_042312.pdf

'Due care' law went into effect July 1

A new state law that will levy penalties for failure to "exercise due care" while driving a motor vehicle went into effect July 1. According to the bill's sponsor, the law also makes it easier for those injured, or the survivors of those killed, to prevail in civil lawsuits by "making it clear that the law requires people in a car to exercise proper driving restraint around people on a bicycle and pedestrians."

The Murfreesboro Post has the full story, which you can read here: 'Sorry I Didn’t See You' is no longer a legal excuse

Court reviews whether defendant negated causation in his motion for summary judgment in a wrongful death medical malpractice case

JEFFEREY D. KEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF RANDALL EUGENE KEY ET AL.v. BLOUNT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC. ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2011)



This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment to the defendant hospital in a medical malpractice wrongful death case. The trial court struck as untimely the materials filed by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The responsive materials were filed less than five days before the date originally scheduled for a hearing on the defendant's motion; however the hearing was continued for several months. Having struck the plaintiff's filings, the court held that the motion negated violation of the standard of care and causation and granted the motion as unopposed.

The plaintiff contends on appeal that the defendant did not negate either violation of the standard of care or causation; that the materials responsive to the motion should not have been stricken; and that, if the materials filed in opposition to the motion are considered, the plaintiff presented issues of material fact for trial. We vacate the trial court's grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. 


Opinion available at:

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/keyj_053111.pdf

TN Supreme Court Reviews Whether Claims Brought in a Wrongful Death Suit Were Based Upon Medical Malpractice or Ordinary Negligence

ESTATE OF MARTHA S. FRENCH v. STRATFORD HOUSE ET AL. (Tenn. January 26, 2011)

The administratrix of the estate of the deceased brought this wrongful death suit against the defendant nursing home and its controlling entities, alleging damages as the result of ordinary negligence, negligence per se, and violations of the Tennessee Adult Protection Act.

The trial court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, holding that the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act applied to the ordinary negligence claims, thereby precluding allegations of negligence per se or violations of the Tennessee Adult Protection Act. The trial court also dismissed a claim for punitive damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed, but vacated the portion of the order dismissing the punitive damages claim. This Court granted the administratix's application for permission to appeal in an effort to clarify the standards governing nursing home liability and to resolve a conflict in the decisions rendered by the Court of Appeals.

We hold that, because the administratrix of the estate of the deceased has alleged violations of the standard of care pertaining to both medical treatment and routine care, she has made claims based upon both medical malpractice and ordinary negligence. Further, she may offer proof of negligence per se and violations of the Tennessee Adult Protection Act as support for her ordinary negligence claims. We affirm the Court of Appeals' reinstatement of the punitive damages claim. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, affirmed in part and reversed in part. The cause is remanded to the trial court.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC/2011/frenchm_012611.pdf

KOCH dissenting
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC/2011/frenchm_DIS_012611.pdf

Court Reviews Whether Plaintiff Received Sufficient Time to Procure Representation and Expert Testimony in a Medical Malpractice Case

KATHY D. PARTEE V. JAIME VASQUEZ, M.D. (Tenn. Ct. App. January 6, 2011)

A woman who suffered prolonged bleeding, pain and disabling injury after gynecological surgery filed a pro se malpractice suit against the doctor who performed the surgery.

The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, accompanied by an affidavit in which he testified that in his treatment of the plaintiff he complied at all times with the relevant standard of acceptable professional practice. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, she was unable to find an expert witness to controvert that affidavit.

The trial court granted the plaintiff several continuances to give her the opportunity to procure representation and expert testimony, but when she was unable to do so, the trial court granted the defendant's motion. We affirm.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/parteek_010611.pdf

Court Reviews Whether Plaintiff Satisfied his Burden of Proof in a Medical Negligence Case

ROBERT BROWN, An Incompetent, by and through next friend ANGELA ANDERSON v. STATE OF TENNESSEE (Tenn. Ct. App. December 15, 2010)

Appellant, who was not placed on fall observations until after his fall, suffered a fall while under the care of the Western Mental Health Institute. A CAT scan performed three days after the fall revealed no hemorrhaging, however, a repeat scan performed approximately one month later revealed a subdural hematoma for which Appellant subsequently underwent two surgeries.

Appellant, by and through his next friend, filed suit against the State in the Claims Commission alleging medical negligence. Following a trial, the Claims Commission found that a Western nurse breached the standard of care in completing the initial fall risk assessment, but that Appellant had failed to prove that such breach was a proximate cause of his fall. Additionally, the Commission found that Appellant had failed to prove that Western's failure to later place Appellant on fall observations was a proximate cause of his fall. Finally, the Commission found that Appellant had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Western's failure to order repeat brain imaging prior to January 26, 2006, was a breach of the standard of care. We affirm the judgment of the Commission.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/brownr_121510.pdf

Court Reviews Whether Plaintiff Established the Elements of her Medical Malpractice Claim

EDNA N. ZULUETA v. WINIFRED LASSITER, M.D., OF THE LASSITER CLINIC (Tenn. Ct. App. October 1, 2010)

Plaintiff appeals the summary dismissal of her medical malpractice complaint against Winifred Lassiter, M.D. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Lassiter breached her duty of care by negligently performing a physical Fitness for Duty Examination. The trial court summarily dismissed the complaint finding that Plaintiff failed to establish the elements of her claim or show a genuine issue of material fact. We affirm.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/zuluetae_100110.pdf

Court Reviews Whether Appellant Proved that her Expert was Familiar with the Standard of Care in a Community Similar to that of the Defendant

TINA JOHNSON, ET AL. v. DAVID J. RICHARDSON, M.D. (Tenn. Ct. App. August 13, 2010)

This is a medical malpractice case. Plaintiff/Appellant appeals from the trial court's disqualification of her expert witness and grant of the Defendant/Appellee's motion for directed verdict. Finding that the Appellant failed to show that her expert was familiar with the standard of care in a community similar to the defendant's community, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/johnsont_081310.pdf

KIRBY concurring
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/johnsont_CON_081310.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 whether plaintiff failed to establish the standard of cared owed by prison officials

SHIRLEY ANN ATKINSON, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT LEE PATTEE, JR., DECEASED v. STATE OF TENNESSEE (Tenn. Ct. App. July 12, 2010)

This is an appeal from the Tennessee Claims Commission. The claimant/appellant alleged that state employees or their agents negligently caused the death of her fiancé, who committed suicide while incarcerated at the Lois M. DeBerry Special Needs Facility in Nashville, Tennessee. The Commission determined the claimant was not entitled to recover because she failed to produce expert testimony to establish the standards of care by which to judge the conduct of the prison officials and mental health professionals allegedly responsible for the care, custody, and control of the deceased. Because the Commission correctly determined that the claimant is unable to prove a breach of duty without expert evidence to establish the applicable standards of care, we affirm.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/atkinsons_071210.pdf

Court reviews the standard of care owed by a physician to a patient in a medical malpractice case.

MELISSA MICHELLE COX v. M. A. PRIMARY AND URGENT CARE CLINIC et al. (Tenn. June 21, 2010)

We granted permission to appeal in this case to address the standard of care that applies to a physician assistant in a medical malpractice case. The plaintiff sued for injuries she allegedly suffered as a result of physician assistant Michael Maddox's failure to diagnose her condition accurately. The plaintiff did not sue Maddox, but sued the clinic which he owned and in which he practiced and Dr. Austin Adams, Maddox's supervising physician.

The defendants filed a joint motion for summary judgment, supported by their testimony that (1) Maddox did not violate the standard of care applicable to physician assistants and (2) Dr. Adams did not violate the standard of care applicable to physicians. The plaintiff responded with her cardiologist's testimony that Maddox violated the standard of care applicable to primary care physicians. The cardiologist testified that he was not familiar with physician assistants or their supervision.

The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff had failed to establish that Maddox violated the professional standard of care applicable to him. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the standard of care applicable to physician assistants is the same as that applicable to physicians. We reverse the Court of Appeals and hold that the standard of care applicable to physician assistants is distinct from that applicable to physicians. The trial court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants is reinstated, and the case is dismissed.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC/2010/coxm_062110.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

Plaintiff successfully defends multiple challenges to experts, jurors, jury instructions and amount of damages awarded.

ROBIN FARLEY, ET AL. v. OAK RIDGE MEDICAL IMAGING, P.C., ET AL. CORRECTION (Tenn. Ct. App. August 13, 2009)

This is an appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in the amount of $2,780,000 in a medical malpractice action based upon a failure to detect and report an abnormality on a mammogram. Robin Farley ("the Patient") and her husband, Dennis Farley ("the Husband"), are the plaintiffs in this action; they are referred to collectively in this opinion as "the Plaintiffs." Dr. James Rouse and his employer, Oak Ridge Medical Imaging, P.C., dba Oak Ridge Breast Center, P.C. ("the Breast Center"), are the defendants, referenced collectively as "the Defendants." The Patient reported to the Breast Center on November 15, 2001, for a mammogram. Dr. Rouse read the mammogram and reported his findings as normal. In 2004, the Patient noticed an indentation in her right breast. Follow-up care revealed stage IV incurable breast cancer.

According to the Plaintiffs, the cancer was present in 2001, and was treatable and curable had it been properly detected and reported. The Defendants conceded very little and alleged, as an affirmative defense, that the Patient knew that repeat mammograms were needed but failed to come back until it was too late. The case was tried to a jury over four consecutive days. The jury began deliberations on a Friday and resumed and announced its verdict on the following Monday. It found the Defendants negligent, but apportioned 20% of the fault to the Plaintiffs, apparently based upon the Patient's failure to have a timely follow-up mammogram. The Defendants appeal, raising a host of issues. We affirm.

The full text of this opinion is available at the TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/farleyr_CORR_081409.pdf

"The points of contention in this case – which are initially less than clear – are, (1) whether, and if so, the extent to which the medical expert’s knowledge of the matters set out in subdivision (a) (1) must be “personal” knowledge , (2) whether an expert licensed in a contiguous state in the relevant time frame must also know the standard of care in a comparable community in order to qualify as a causation expert, and (3) the extent to which the contiguous state requirement can be established to the trial judge’s satisfaction through material not admitted or admissible into evidence." Id.

"We do not believe Eckler went so far as to hold that the bridge of similarity from the community where the expert practices to the community where the defendant doctor practices, must all be built on personal, firsthand knowledge." Id.

"We agree completely with the approach taken in Russell. The quoted language from Payne concerning the “entwined” nature of causation and standard of care testimony is true enough, but should not be read to impose requirements not imposed by the language of the statute. This is especially true given that Payne based its holding on the “clarity” of the statute. We hold that a causation expert who does not testify on the standard of care is not required to establish familiarity with the standard of care." Id. (Case citations omitted)

"To conclude the point, we agree with the trial court that for Dr. Mitchell to take the stand and testify that he reviewed the 2001 mammogram and read it as normal, with no indicators of cancer, was to indirectly comment on the standard of care. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in so limiting the scope of Dr. Mitchell’s testimony." Id.

Court reviews whether defendant properly showed that it met the standard of care in medical malpractice case

ALVIN FLATT v. CLAIBORNE COUNTY HOSPITAL AND NURSING HOME (Tenn. Ct. App. April 8, 2010)

In this medical malpractice action, the plaintiff offered evidence of the standard of care required of defendant by an expert witness, and defendant offered evidence that it complied with the standard of care by an expert witness, who was accepted as an expert by the Trial Court. The Trial Judge ruled in favor of defendant, essentially accepting the defendant's evidence that it had met the standard of care for the deceased. Plaintiff appealed, insisting that the Trial Court did not "correctly weigh the conflicting expert testimony" in its ruling for the defendant. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/flatta_040810.pdf

Court reviews whether Defendants met the standard of care in a medical malpractice suit

SHERRI J. HAGER, et al., v. RAMSEY G. LARSON, M.D., et al. (Tenn. Ct. App. February 16, 2010)

In this medical malpractice action, defendants filed affidavits along with a summary judgment motion, setting forth that they had met the standard of care in their treatment of plaintiff, Sherri J. Hager. The hearing on the summary judgment was continued and plaintiffs were directed to furnish the Court with an affidavit to support their claims. Plaintiffs filed the affidavit of a physician who specialized in internal medicine, who opined that defendants failed to meet the standard of care in treating plaintiff, but stated repeatedly in the deposition that he could not offer an opinion on causation of any injury that would merit an award of damages, since he was an internal medicine specialist. The Trial Court granted defendants summary judgment and, on appeal, we affirm.

Full opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/hagers_021610.pdf