HARRISON KERR TIGRETT v. JOHN E. LINN, M. D, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. March 31, 2010)
This is a Tenn. R. App. P. 9 appeal of the denial of a motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice case. The trial court denied Appellants/Defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding that the statute of repose, Tenn. Code Ann.section 29-26-116(a)(3), was tolled as a result of fraudulent concealment on the part of Appellants/Defendants. Finding that there are material issues of fact in dispute, we affirm the trial court's denial of Appellants' motions for summary judgment. We, however, vacate any decision that the statute of limitations was tolled as a result of fraudulent concealment.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/tigretth_033110.pdf
Tennessee Personal Injury Law Blog - published by Bryan L. Capps and Stephen A. Burroughs. The Law Office of Stephen A. Burroughs – proudly serving clients throughout East Tennessee.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
TWCA reviews whether the trial court properly awarded permanent partial disability benefits where employee's employer was sold to another entity
REGINA DAY v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE (TWCA March 31, 2010)
In this workers' compensation action, the employee, Regina Day, sustained compensable injuries to both of her shoulders. She returned to her pre-injury job, but the holding company which owned her employer had been sold to another entity. The employer, which had been a corporation, became a limited liability company (LLC). The trial court, applying existing case law, held that she had not returned to work for her pre-injury employer and awarded permanent partial disability benefits in excess of the statutory cap contained in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(d)(1)(A). Her employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by failing to apply the cap or, in the alternative, that the award is excessive. We affirm the judgment.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2010/dayr_033110.pdf
In this workers' compensation action, the employee, Regina Day, sustained compensable injuries to both of her shoulders. She returned to her pre-injury job, but the holding company which owned her employer had been sold to another entity. The employer, which had been a corporation, became a limited liability company (LLC). The trial court, applying existing case law, held that she had not returned to work for her pre-injury employer and awarded permanent partial disability benefits in excess of the statutory cap contained in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(d)(1)(A). Her employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by failing to apply the cap or, in the alternative, that the award is excessive. We affirm the judgment.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2010/dayr_033110.pdf
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Court reviews summary judgment ruling based on the Equine Activities Act
LOWELL SMITH ET AL. v. STEPHEN DOUGLAS PHILLIPS, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. March 30, 2010)
A man was bitten by a horse while on a trail ride with friends. He sued the owner of the horse that bit him, claiming that the owner had failed to properly restrain or control his animal. The trial court granted summary judgment to the owner, ruling that he was entitled to immunity under the Equine Activities Act, Tenn. Code Ann. section 44-20-101 et seq. The Act must be strictly construed, since it is in derogation of common law. We hold that under a strict construction of the act, the defendant is not entitled to immunity, and we accordingly reverse the trial court.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/smithl_033010.pdf
A man was bitten by a horse while on a trail ride with friends. He sued the owner of the horse that bit him, claiming that the owner had failed to properly restrain or control his animal. The trial court granted summary judgment to the owner, ruling that he was entitled to immunity under the Equine Activities Act, Tenn. Code Ann. section 44-20-101 et seq. The Act must be strictly construed, since it is in derogation of common law. We hold that under a strict construction of the act, the defendant is not entitled to immunity, and we accordingly reverse the trial court.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/smithl_033010.pdf
Friday, March 26, 2010
Memphis Daily News: Tenn. Doctors Continue Pursuit of Malpractice Caps
Tenn. doctors shift focus on malpractice caps (March 26, 2010)
Tennessee doctors pushed for Congress to cap malpractice awards in the new national health care law, but the final bill included no such limits. The Memphis Daily News reports they now are turning their attention to the next General Assembly. The incoming president of the Tennessee Medical Association says the group will poll state legislative candidates about their position on malpractice caps and post responses on its web site. While the association argues that Tennessee is losing talented doctors to states that have malpractice caps, a number of those states are dealing with court challenges to the laws, making the legal landscape uncertain for lawyers and physicians alike.
Tennessee doctors pushed for Congress to cap malpractice awards in the new national health care law, but the final bill included no such limits. The Memphis Daily News reports they now are turning their attention to the next General Assembly. The incoming president of the Tennessee Medical Association says the group will poll state legislative candidates about their position on malpractice caps and post responses on its web site. While the association argues that Tennessee is losing talented doctors to states that have malpractice caps, a number of those states are dealing with court challenges to the laws, making the legal landscape uncertain for lawyers and physicians alike.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Court reviews an employer's petition to intervene in employee's tort case.
EDUARDO SANTANDER, Plaintiff-Appellee, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO., Intervenor-Appellant, v. OSCAR R. LOPEZ, Defendant (Tenn. Ct. App. March 25, 2010)
Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident during the course and scope of his employment. Plaintiff brought a tort action against the driver of the other vehicle, and subsequently entered into a settlement with his employer and the workers' compensation carrier. Plaintiff then reached a settlement in the tort case, but before Judgment was entered his employer filed a Petition to Intervene in that case, asserting a subrogation lien on the tort recovery. The Trial Judge refused to allow intervention on the grounds that the Petition to Intervene was not timely filed. On appeal, we reverse and remand.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/santandere_032510.pdf
Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident during the course and scope of his employment. Plaintiff brought a tort action against the driver of the other vehicle, and subsequently entered into a settlement with his employer and the workers' compensation carrier. Plaintiff then reached a settlement in the tort case, but before Judgment was entered his employer filed a Petition to Intervene in that case, asserting a subrogation lien on the tort recovery. The Trial Judge refused to allow intervention on the grounds that the Petition to Intervene was not timely filed. On appeal, we reverse and remand.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/santandere_032510.pdf
Monday, March 15, 2010
Knoxville News Sentinel: Physicians, lawyers watching for law to impact premiums
Medical malpractice law has mixed results (March 15, 2010)
Changes in Tennessee's medical malpractice laws has produced a dramatic drop in the number of lawsuits filed according to data released by the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts. Anecdotal reports by doctors, however, indicate little relief in malpractice insurance premiums. Under legislation passed in 2008, patients must give a 60-day notice before filing a malpractice lawsuit and get documentation that the claim has merit. Data shows a 59 percent drop in suits since the law went into effect. By contrast, physicians report they have not seen a dramatic decrease in insurance premiums; but have not had dramatic increases either.
Changes in Tennessee's medical malpractice laws has produced a dramatic drop in the number of lawsuits filed according to data released by the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts. Anecdotal reports by doctors, however, indicate little relief in malpractice insurance premiums. Under legislation passed in 2008, patients must give a 60-day notice before filing a malpractice lawsuit and get documentation that the claim has merit. Data shows a 59 percent drop in suits since the law went into effect. By contrast, physicians report they have not seen a dramatic decrease in insurance premiums; but have not had dramatic increases either.
Court reviews trial court's rulings on the sufficiency of an amended complaint and its dismissal of wrongful death and loss of consortium claims in a medical malpractice case.
TINA TAYLOR, ET AL. v. LAKESIDE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SYSTEM (Tenn. Ct. App. March 15, 2010)
This is a medical malpractice case. Appellant filed suit against Appellee Hospital after Appellant's decedent suffered several falls and a broken hip while a patient at Appellee Hospital.
The trial court granted Appellee Hospital's Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion, thereby dismissing Appellant's amended complaint. Specifically, the trial court held: (1) that the amended complaint was ineffective to give notice to Appellee Hospital because it did not reference the date(s) of decedent's falls, (2) that the medical malpractice claim and hedonic damages of the widow arising therefrom were dismissed by previous orders of the court, and (3) that the proof did not support the averments made in the amended complaint.
After review, we conclude: (1) that the amended complaint is sufficiently specific to satisfy Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8, and to state a claim for medical malpractice against the Appellee Hospital, (2) that the previous orders of the trial court only dismissed the wrongful death claims and widow's loss of consortium claims arising therefrom, and not the medical malpractice claims, and (3) that the trial court reviewed matters outside the pleadings so as to trigger summary judgment analysis under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.03, and (4) that there are disputes of material fact in this case so as to necessitate a full evidentiary hearing on the medical malpractice claim. Reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the medical malpractice claim against Appellee Hospital and on the widow's loss of consortium claims arising from the alleged medical malpractice.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/taylort_031510.pdf
This is a medical malpractice case. Appellant filed suit against Appellee Hospital after Appellant's decedent suffered several falls and a broken hip while a patient at Appellee Hospital.
The trial court granted Appellee Hospital's Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion, thereby dismissing Appellant's amended complaint. Specifically, the trial court held: (1) that the amended complaint was ineffective to give notice to Appellee Hospital because it did not reference the date(s) of decedent's falls, (2) that the medical malpractice claim and hedonic damages of the widow arising therefrom were dismissed by previous orders of the court, and (3) that the proof did not support the averments made in the amended complaint.
After review, we conclude: (1) that the amended complaint is sufficiently specific to satisfy Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8, and to state a claim for medical malpractice against the Appellee Hospital, (2) that the previous orders of the trial court only dismissed the wrongful death claims and widow's loss of consortium claims arising therefrom, and not the medical malpractice claims, and (3) that the trial court reviewed matters outside the pleadings so as to trigger summary judgment analysis under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.03, and (4) that there are disputes of material fact in this case so as to necessitate a full evidentiary hearing on the medical malpractice claim. Reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the medical malpractice claim against Appellee Hospital and on the widow's loss of consortium claims arising from the alleged medical malpractice.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/taylort_031510.pdf
Court reviews products liability and negligence claims in a case about a bus accident
CLIFTON LAKE, ET AL. v. THE MEMPHIS LANDSMEN, L.L.C., ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App March 15, 2010)
This is an appeal from a jury verdict in a negligence and products liability case. Appellant-Husband was injured when the bus, on which he was a passenger, collided with a concrete truck. Appellant-Husband and Appellant-Wife filed suit against Appellees- the bus manufacturer, the bus owner, and the franchisor.
Following trial, the jury found that the Appellants had suffered $8,543,630.00 in damages, but found that none of the Appellees were at fault and apportioned one hundred percent of the fault to a non-party. Appellants appeal.
We find that Appellants' claims based on the use of tempered glass in the side windows of the bus, and the lack of passenger seatbelts in the bus are preempted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. section 30101 et seq. Further, we find that the Appellants failed to present evidence that the use of perimeter seating in the bus caused the injuries. Consequently, we find that the trial court erred in not granting Appellees' motions for directed verdict on the Appellants' claims based on the use of perimeter seating. Reversed and remanded.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/lakec_031510.pdf
This is an appeal from a jury verdict in a negligence and products liability case. Appellant-Husband was injured when the bus, on which he was a passenger, collided with a concrete truck. Appellant-Husband and Appellant-Wife filed suit against Appellees- the bus manufacturer, the bus owner, and the franchisor.
Following trial, the jury found that the Appellants had suffered $8,543,630.00 in damages, but found that none of the Appellees were at fault and apportioned one hundred percent of the fault to a non-party. Appellants appeal.
We find that Appellants' claims based on the use of tempered glass in the side windows of the bus, and the lack of passenger seatbelts in the bus are preempted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. section 30101 et seq. Further, we find that the Appellants failed to present evidence that the use of perimeter seating in the bus caused the injuries. Consequently, we find that the trial court erred in not granting Appellees' motions for directed verdict on the Appellants' claims based on the use of perimeter seating. Reversed and remanded.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/lakec_031510.pdf
Friday, March 12, 2010
Standards for Nursing Services in Residential Hospices
Standards for Nursing Services in Residential Hospices (TN Attorney General Opinions March 12, 2010)
In this opinion, the Attorney General examines whether a federal interpretive guideline contained in the recent interim final Hospice Program Interpretive Guidance preempts or modifies the applicable Tennessee Department of Health rule
regarding nursing services in residential hospices. He determined that the federal guideline does not modify the Tennessee rule because the federal guideline requires that hospice staff comply with both state and federal laws and that in the case of a difference in licensing requirements between the state law and federal law, the regulation requires the hospice to meet the more stringent of the two requirements.
The full opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/AG/2010/ag_10_32.pdf
In this opinion, the Attorney General examines whether a federal interpretive guideline contained in the recent interim final Hospice Program Interpretive Guidance preempts or modifies the applicable Tennessee Department of Health rule
regarding nursing services in residential hospices. He determined that the federal guideline does not modify the Tennessee rule because the federal guideline requires that hospice staff comply with both state and federal laws and that in the case of a difference in licensing requirements between the state law and federal law, the regulation requires the hospice to meet the more stringent of the two requirements.
The full opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/AG/2010/ag_10_32.pdf
TWCA reviews award of benefits for hearing loss in worker's compensation case
ARETIES McKAMEY v. LOCKHEED MARTIN ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL. (TWCA March 12, 2010)
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found that the employee had sustained a hearing loss as a result of exposure to noise during her work from 1944 to 1989 as a telephone operator for her employer, and awarded 50% permanent partial disability ("PPD") of the hearing of both ears. The employer has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding on the issue of causation. Alternatively, it argues that the award is excessive. We reverse the judgment and dismiss the complaint.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2010/mckameya_031210.pdf
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found that the employee had sustained a hearing loss as a result of exposure to noise during her work from 1944 to 1989 as a telephone operator for her employer, and awarded 50% permanent partial disability ("PPD") of the hearing of both ears. The employer has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding on the issue of causation. Alternatively, it argues that the award is excessive. We reverse the judgment and dismiss the complaint.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2010/mckameya_031210.pdf
TCA affirms Summary Judgment finding Plaintiff's expert witness did not meet statutory requirements
GEORGE H. BADGETT, ET AL. v. ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEMS SUNBELT, INC. d/b/a TENNESSEE CHRISTIAN MEDICAL CENTER (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2009)
In this action concerning alleged malpractice by hospital staff, the trial court found plaintiff's expert affidavit failed to meet the locality test of Tenn. Code Ann. section 29-26-115 where the only similarities proven between the medical communities were population, existence of feeder hospitals and existence of medical school. Finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
The full text of this opinion may be found at the TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/badgettg_080309.pdf
In this action concerning alleged malpractice by hospital staff, the trial court found plaintiff's expert affidavit failed to meet the locality test of Tenn. Code Ann. section 29-26-115 where the only similarities proven between the medical communities were population, existence of feeder hospitals and existence of medical school. Finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
The full text of this opinion may be found at the TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/badgettg_080309.pdf
Court holds that amended medical expert afffidavit met Tenn. Code requirements
NANCY L. LANE v. JODI D. MCCARTNEY, M.D., ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2009)
Nancy L. Lane ("Plaintiff") sued Karen K. Lauer-Silva, M.D. and Medical Education Assistance Corporation d/b/a ETSU Physicians & Associates ("Defendants") alleging medical malpractice. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. After a hearing on Defendants' motion, the Trial Court entered an order finding and holding, inter alia, that Plaintiff's expert witness did not meet the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. section 29-26-115, and granting Defendants summary judgment. Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend along with a Second Supplemental Affidavit from Plaintiff's expert. The Trial Court considered the Second Supplemental Affidavit and found that Plaintiff's expert still did not satisfy the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. section 29-26-115, and again granted Defendants summary judgment. Plaintiff appeals to this Court. We reverse.
The full text of this opinion may be found at the TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/lanen_073109.pdf
Nancy L. Lane ("Plaintiff") sued Karen K. Lauer-Silva, M.D. and Medical Education Assistance Corporation d/b/a ETSU Physicians & Associates ("Defendants") alleging medical malpractice. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. After a hearing on Defendants' motion, the Trial Court entered an order finding and holding, inter alia, that Plaintiff's expert witness did not meet the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. section 29-26-115, and granting Defendants summary judgment. Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend along with a Second Supplemental Affidavit from Plaintiff's expert. The Trial Court considered the Second Supplemental Affidavit and found that Plaintiff's expert still did not satisfy the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. section 29-26-115, and again granted Defendants summary judgment. Plaintiff appeals to this Court. We reverse.
The full text of this opinion may be found at the TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/lanen_073109.pdf
Michigan hospital reduces lawsuits by admitting mistakes
University of Michigan Hospital has reduced lawsuits by admitting mistakes.
Admitting mistakes reduces suits at Michigan hospital At the University of Michigan Health System, doctors and lawyers say admitting mistakes up front and offering compensation before being sued have brought about remarkable savings in money, time and feelings. "What we are doing is common decency," said Richard Boothman, a veteran malpractice defense lawyer and chief risk officer for a health system with 18,000 employees and a $1.5 billion annual budget.
The right of injured patients to sue health care providers and force them to open up their internal records is a crucial part of reducing medical mistakes and improving care, said Matthew Gaier, co-chairman of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association’s medical malpractice committee.
For “saying sorry” to work, doctors need protection from having their own honesty used against them in court, said Jim Copland, director of the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Legal Policy and an advocate of curbs on damage suits. Protection could take the form of a shield law that would exclude an apology from admission as evidence in a malpractice suit. A number of states have or are considering such laws.
“If you go out and say, ‘Oh, we messed up, are you going to lose the lawsuit? You need to give them some protection,” Copland said.
The full text of this article may be found by following the link below:
http://www.nwtntoday.com/news.php?viewStory=29312
Admitting mistakes reduces suits at Michigan hospital At the University of Michigan Health System, doctors and lawyers say admitting mistakes up front and offering compensation before being sued have brought about remarkable savings in money, time and feelings. "What we are doing is common decency," said Richard Boothman, a veteran malpractice defense lawyer and chief risk officer for a health system with 18,000 employees and a $1.5 billion annual budget.
The right of injured patients to sue health care providers and force them to open up their internal records is a crucial part of reducing medical mistakes and improving care, said Matthew Gaier, co-chairman of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association’s medical malpractice committee.
For “saying sorry” to work, doctors need protection from having their own honesty used against them in court, said Jim Copland, director of the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Legal Policy and an advocate of curbs on damage suits. Protection could take the form of a shield law that would exclude an apology from admission as evidence in a malpractice suit. A number of states have or are considering such laws.
“If you go out and say, ‘Oh, we messed up, are you going to lose the lawsuit? You need to give them some protection,” Copland said.
The full text of this article may be found by following the link below:
http://www.nwtntoday.com/news.php?viewStory=29312
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Court reviews summary judgment finding in alcohol-related wrongful death case
EDWARD P. LANDRY, et al., v. SOUTH CUMBERLAND AMOCO, et al. (Tenn. Ct. App. March 11, 2010)
Plaintiffs brought this wrongful death action against defendants for the wrongful death of Brandi Coyle, who died as a result of a motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by an underage intoxicated driver who had purchased intoxicating beverages from South Cumberland Amoco. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs would be unable to prove essential elements of their claim. The Trial Court held that the alleged underage driver had stated initially that he was over the age of 21, but later, in another statement, represented that he was a minor at the time of the accident. The Trial Judge held that his statements cancelled each other and there was no evidence to establish that he was a minor at the time of the accident. The Court also held that plaintiffs could not prove that the South Cumberland Amoco cashier had "knowingly sold intoxicating beverages to a minor". On appeal, we vacate the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/landrye_031110.pdf
Plaintiffs brought this wrongful death action against defendants for the wrongful death of Brandi Coyle, who died as a result of a motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by an underage intoxicated driver who had purchased intoxicating beverages from South Cumberland Amoco. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs would be unable to prove essential elements of their claim. The Trial Court held that the alleged underage driver had stated initially that he was over the age of 21, but later, in another statement, represented that he was a minor at the time of the accident. The Trial Judge held that his statements cancelled each other and there was no evidence to establish that he was a minor at the time of the accident. The Court also held that plaintiffs could not prove that the South Cumberland Amoco cashier had "knowingly sold intoxicating beverages to a minor". On appeal, we vacate the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/landrye_031110.pdf
Court reviews summary judgment ruling in invasion of privacy and defamation case.
TERESA GARD v. DENNIS HARRIS, M.D., ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App March 11, 2010)
Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging false light invasion of privacy and defamation after her physician sent a letter she considered defamatory. After finding that plaintiff consented to the disclosure by signing a consent form, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/gardt_031110.pdf
Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging false light invasion of privacy and defamation after her physician sent a letter she considered defamatory. After finding that plaintiff consented to the disclosure by signing a consent form, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/gardt_031110.pdf
TWCA reviews finding of work-related cause of employee's hearing loss in worker's compensation case
GEORGE CECIL RESH v. BUILDING MATERIALS CORPORATION d/b/a GAF FIBERGLASS CORPORATION (TWCA March 11, 2010)
In this workers' compensation case, the employee, George Cecil Resh, alleged that he sustained hearing loss due to exposure to a harmful level of noise in his workplace. The employer, Building Materials Corporation, denied that the employee's hearing loss was work-related. The trial court found in favor of the employee and awarded 50% permanent partial disability of the hearing of both ears. The employer has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding. Because we find that the expert medical evidence failed to establish that Mr. Resh's hearing loss was work-related, we agree and reverse the judgment.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2010/reshg_031110.pdf
In this workers' compensation case, the employee, George Cecil Resh, alleged that he sustained hearing loss due to exposure to a harmful level of noise in his workplace. The employer, Building Materials Corporation, denied that the employee's hearing loss was work-related. The trial court found in favor of the employee and awarded 50% permanent partial disability of the hearing of both ears. The employer has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding. Because we find that the expert medical evidence failed to establish that Mr. Resh's hearing loss was work-related, we agree and reverse the judgment.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2010/reshg_031110.pdf
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
TCA examines insurer liability for uninsured motorist after automobile crash.
ANDREA S. MARTIN v. PATRICIA L. WILLIAMS, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. July 30, 2009)
The central issue in this case is which of two insurance companies is required to provide uninsured motorist coverage to the Plaintiff, who was injured in an automobile accident. The trial court granted summary judgment to the company through which Plaintiff had automobile insurance, finding that the company insuring the automobile in which Plaintiff was a passenger held the primary policy. We reverse and remand.
The full text of this opinion may be found at the TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/martina_073009.pdf
The central issue in this case is which of two insurance companies is required to provide uninsured motorist coverage to the Plaintiff, who was injured in an automobile accident. The trial court granted summary judgment to the company through which Plaintiff had automobile insurance, finding that the company insuring the automobile in which Plaintiff was a passenger held the primary policy. We reverse and remand.
The full text of this opinion may be found at the TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/martina_073009.pdf
Court reviews whether an expert witness cured a deficiency in order to satisfy the locality rule
SAMANTHA NABORS v. WILLIAM M. ADAMS, M.D., ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. July 23, 2009)
This appeal involves a medical malpractice action. In a motion for summary judgment, defendant physician asserted that plaintiff's expert witness failed to satisfy the requirements of the locality rule. The trial court granted the motion finding that plaintiff's expert failed to demonstrate a familiarity with the standard of care in defendant's community or a similar community. In a motion to alter or amend the judgment, plaintiff attached a supplemental affidavit of the same expert in order to cure the deficiency. The trial court considered the expert's supplemental affidavit and denied the motion because the new affidavit still failed to satisfy the locality rule. Plaintiff appeals. Reviewing the record, we find that the expert's supplemental affidavit cured the initial deficiency by relating facts which showed the similarity of the two communities. Accordingly, we reverse 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/naborss_072309.pdf
This appeal involves a medical malpractice action. In a motion for summary judgment, defendant physician asserted that plaintiff's expert witness failed to satisfy the requirements of the locality rule. The trial court granted the motion finding that plaintiff's expert failed to demonstrate a familiarity with the standard of care in defendant's community or a similar community. In a motion to alter or amend the judgment, plaintiff attached a supplemental affidavit of the same expert in order to cure the deficiency. The trial court considered the expert's supplemental affidavit and denied the motion because the new affidavit still failed to satisfy the locality rule. Plaintiff appeals. Reviewing the record, we find that the expert's supplemental affidavit cured the initial deficiency by relating facts which showed the similarity of the two communities. Accordingly, we reverse 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/naborss_072309.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
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
TCA reverses Trial Court in wrongful death action
KAMARJAH GORDON, DECEASED, BY AND THROUGH HER NEXT OF KIN, TOSHA GORDON AND TOSHA GORDON, INDIVIDUALLY v. JEFFREY D. DRAUGHN, M.D.; TENNESSEE WOMAN'S CARE, P.C.; AND HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF TENNESSEE D/B/A CENTENNIAL MEDICAL CENTER (Tenn. Ct. App. June 9, 2009)
The parents of a deceased child and the mother's trustee in bankruptcy appeal rulings of the trial court in this medical malpractice and wrongful death action which (1) found that the mother was judicially estopped from pursuing the action; (2) denied the father's motion to substitute as plaintiff; and (3) limited the bankruptcy trustee's recoverable damages to the amount of debts listed on the mother's bankruptcy petition. Finding that the mother was not judicially estopped from pursuing her claims and that the trustee in bankruptcy succeeded to her claims, we reverse the trial court's dismissal of her medical malpractice claim and the limitation of recoverable damages on the wrongful death claim. Further, we reverse the trial court's holding that father's action is barred by the statute of limitations, vacate the denial of the father's motion to substitute and remand the case to allow the father to file a motion to intervene and intervening complaint.
The full text of this opinion may be found at the TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/gordonk_061709.pdf
The parents of a deceased child and the mother's trustee in bankruptcy appeal rulings of the trial court in this medical malpractice and wrongful death action which (1) found that the mother was judicially estopped from pursuing the action; (2) denied the father's motion to substitute as plaintiff; and (3) limited the bankruptcy trustee's recoverable damages to the amount of debts listed on the mother's bankruptcy petition. Finding that the mother was not judicially estopped from pursuing her claims and that the trustee in bankruptcy succeeded to her claims, we reverse the trial court's dismissal of her medical malpractice claim and the limitation of recoverable damages on the wrongful death claim. Further, we reverse the trial court's holding that father's action is barred by the statute of limitations, vacate the denial of the father's motion to substitute and remand the case to allow the father to file a motion to intervene and intervening complaint.
The full text of this opinion may be found at the TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/gordonk_061709.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)