Court considers an issue of uninsured motorist coverage in an interlocutory appeal

RANDALL D. KISER v. IAN J. WOLFE & CONSUMERS INSURANCE COMPANY (Tenn. Ct. App. May 28, 2010)

This interlocutory appeal considers an issue of uninsured motorist coverage following an automobile accident in which Plaintiff Randall D. Kiser was permanently injured. The plaintiff was working within the scope of his employment, driving for a towing company, when his truck was struck by Defendant Ian J. Wolfe's vehicle. The defendant driver tendered his liability policy limits to the plaintiff and is not a party to this appeal. The employer towing company was insured by Defendant Consumers Insurance Company. In anticipation of arbitration for determination of damages and liability, the insurance company moved for partial summary judgment.

The trial court denied summary judgment but granted the insurance company permission for an interlocutory appeal to determine two issues, on which we hold:
(1) On a policy of vehicle insurance, the statutory requirement of Tenn. Code Ann. section 56-7-1201(a)(2) for a written rejection of uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits or written selection of uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits lower than liability limits is met when the insured signs an application containing a lower selection but neglects to initial a block provided for that purpose; and
(2) the insurer bears the burden of proof to show that the insured signed an insurance contract application containing a stated limit of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, but once that burden has been met, the insured must raise any issue that the insurer obtained the insured's signature unlawfully under Tenn. Code Ann. section 56-7-1201(a)(2).

We vacate the trial court's denial of the insurance company's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and remand for reconsideration in light of this holding.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/kiserr_052810.pdf

Court reviews whether the exclusive remedy rule barred an employee's negligence suit

JAMES P. GRIFFITH, ET AL. v. JELLICO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC. (Tenn. Ct. App. May 28, 2010)

Employee, whose employer provided services pursuant to a contract with hospital, sustained injuries from a fall while working on hospital’s premises. Employee subsequently filed a negligence action against hospital. The trial court permitted employer to intervene in the suit. Hospital filed a motion for summary judgment, and after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that hospital was the principal contractor pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. section 50-6- 113 and the exclusive remedy rule barred employee's negligence suit. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of hospital, and employee appealed. We affirm.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/griffithj_052810.pdf

Supreme Court reviews whether records made in the ordinary course of a hospital's business are covered by the peer review privilege

KIMBERLY POWELL v. COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. ET AL. (Tenn. May 24, 2010)

This appeal involves the evidentiary privilege in the Tennessee Peer Review Law of 1967 [Tenn. Code Ann. section 63-6-219 (Supp. 2009)]. A former hospital employee filed suit in the Chancery Court for Bradley County against the hospital and an orthopaedic surgeon on the hospital's medical staff. During discovery, the former employee sought to depose the hospital's infection control director regarding the details of an investigation into postoperative nosocomial infections and her knowledge of whether the defendant surgeon had tested positive for infectious diseases. The hospital moved for a protective order on the ground that the requested information was privileged under Tenn. Code Ann. section 63-6-219(e).

The trial court declined to issue a protective order after determining that the information sought by the former employee was not privileged because it had been created in the regular course of the hospital's business and because the infection control director was the "original source" of the information. After granting the hospital an interlocutory appeal, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. Powell v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., No. E2008-00535-COA-R9-CV, 2009 WL 17850 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 2, 2009).

We granted the hospital's Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application for permission to appeal. We have determined that records received or made in the ordinary course of a hospital's business apart from the operation of a peer review committee are not protected by the peer review privilege in Tenn. Code Ann. section 63-6-219. We have also determined that documents prepared by or at the request of a peer review committee exercising its peer review function and documents prepared by third parties as part of the work of a peer review committee performing its peer review function are privileged. Finally, we have determined that the hospital did not waive its right to invoke the privilege in Tenn. Code Ann. section 63-6-219(e) with regard to the work performed by its infection control director in the context of a peer review proceeding.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC/2010/powellk_052410.pdf

WADE concurring
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC/2010/powellk_CON_052410.pdf

TN Supreme Court reviews the Peer Review Law in a case involving services provided by various hospitals

LEE MEDICAL, INC. v. PAULA BEECHER ET AL. (Tenn. May 24, 2010)

This appeal involves the application of the Tennessee Peer Review Law of 1967 [Tenn. Code Ann. section 63-6-219 (Supp. 2009)] to a hospital system's business decision regarding the provision of vascular access services to patients in its member hospitals. The hospital system had customarily outsourced these services at several of its hospitals, but, following an audit, it decided to discontinue outsourcing the services and to begin providing them using nurses employed by its own hospitals.

After several of the system's hospitals cancelled their vascular access services contracts, the vendor that had been providing the services filed two suits in the Circuit Court for Sumner County against the manufacturer of the catheters used to provide the services and one of its employees, a staffing affiliate of the hospital system and two of its employees, and the chief nursing officer at one of the system's hospitals.

These suits, which were eventually transferred to the Circuit Court for Williamson County and consolidated, sought damages under numerous theories based on the vendor's allegations that the defendants, all of whom had played a role in the audit, had disparaged the manner in which it had been providing the vascular access services and had improperly interfered with its contracts. During discovery, the vendor sought copies of various records relating to the audit of its services. The defendants claimed that these records were covered by the privilege in Tenn. Code Ann. section 63-6-219(e). After reviewing the disputed records in chambers, the trial court determined that most of the requested records were covered by the privilege. The trial court also granted the vendor permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals; however, the Court of Appeals declined to accept the appeal.

We granted the vendor's Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application to address the trial court's interpretation and application of Tenn. Code Ann. section 63-6-219(e). We have determined that the trial court interpreted the privilege in Tenn. Code Ann. section 63-6-219(e) too broadly. Therefore, we vacate the portions of the trial court's discovery orders applying the privilege in Tenn. Code Ann. section 63-6-219(e) and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC/2010/leemedical_052410.pdf

WADE dissenting
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC/2010/leemedical_DIS_052410.pdf

TWCA reviews the limitation of permanent partial disability benefits where an employee chooses voluntary layoff

KIMBERLY WHEELER v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION (TWCA February 3, 2010)

In this workers' compensation action, the employee, Kimberly Wheeler, sustained repetitive trauma injuries to both arms. The injuries were accepted by her employer, Whirlpool Corporation, as compensable. After having surgery on both arms, she returned to work, initially in a light-duty status, and later to full duty. The product line on which she worked was then shut down and moved to another location. She was offered the option of accepting a voluntary layoff or moving to another product line. She chose the voluntary layoff. Under the terms of her employment contract, she continued to be an employee although she was not working. Eventually, the entire plant closed and Ms. Wheeler was terminated at that time. The trial court found that she had meaningful return to work and voluntarily left her employment. For that reason, it limited its award of permanent partial disability benefits to one and one-half times the anatomical impairment in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(d)(1)(B). The employee has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by applying the one and one-half times impairment cap. We agree and modify the judgment.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2010/wheelerk_020310.pdf

TWCA reviews whether the trial court properly dismissed claims against an Injury Fund

TIMOTHY TODD v. MTD CONSUMER GROUP ET AL. (TWCA May 13, 2010)

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee fell from a platform at work. The injury was accepted by his employer as compensable. After a period of medical treatment, the authorized physicians released the employee to return to work with no permanent impairment or restrictions. The employee sought medical treatment on his own. Ultimately, he had surgery on his back and neck. He filed suit against his employer. Employee had two previous workers' compensation awards. Several months later, he amended his complaint to add the Second Injury Fund as a defendant.

After a trial on the merits, the trial court found that the employee had sustained a compensable injury which resulted in an 85% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The court apportioned the award according to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-208(b). It then dismissed all claims against the Second Injury Fund, based upon the statute of limitations. It awarded some medical expenses claimed by the employee, but denied others. On appeal, the employee asserts that the trial court erred by dismissing the claim against the Fund, by incorrectly determining the percentage of disability represented by his earlier settlements, and by declining to award all requested medical expenses. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2010/toddt_051310.pdf

Court reviews sufficiency of trial court's award in a case involving a partnership

JOSEPH M. HASKINS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF DREW E. HASKINS, JR., DECEASED v. DREW E. HASKINS, III (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2010)

This case is on appeal for the second time after remand for determination of the defendant's request for attorney's fees, costs, and expenses. The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the trial court's award. After reviewing the record, we reverse in part and affirm in part the trial court's judgment.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/haskinsj_051310.pdf

TWCA reviews whether the trial court erred by failing to require an employee to submit to an independent medical examination

VICKIE J. MYERS v. VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY (TWCA May 11, 2010)

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 50-6-225(e)(3) (2008) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. After developing an allergy to latex, a hospital employee filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits in the Chancery Court for Davidson County. While the case was pending, the trial court declined to require the employee to submit to an independent medical examination in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 50-6-204(d)(1) (Supp. 2009). The trial court conducted a bench trial and determined that the employee's latex allergy was an occupational disease. The trial court also determined that the employee had a fifteen percent impairment to the body as a whole and awarded her permanent partial disability at fifty percent. The employer has appealed. We have determined that the trial court erred by failing to require the employee to submit to an independent medical examination. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2010/myersv_051110.pdf

Court reviews jurisdiction of a wrongful death case against a nursing home

ALLISON J. PERSON ET AL. v. KINDRED HEALTHCARE, INC., d/b/a PRIMACY HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App May 7, 2010)

This is an action for negligence and wrongful death filed against a nursing home by the administrator of decedent patient's estate. The trial court denied Defendant nursing home's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment upon finding decedent patient was not competent to execute the power of attorney pursuant to which decedent's daughter had executed an arbitration agreement with Defendant. Defendant appeals. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/persona_050710.pdf

Rule 60.02(1) relief denied for statute of limitations

WILLIAM JEFFREY WALKER v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. (Tenn. Ct. App. August 18, 2009)

This appeal involves the dismissal of a personal injury case arising from an accident that occurred at Defendant's automobile manufacturing plant. The suit was originally filed and then voluntarily dismissed for improper venue. The case was filed again and later dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Set Aside the Order of Dismissal which was denied by the trial court. Plaintiff appeals. Finding that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The full text of this decision may be found at the TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/walkerw_082409.pdf

Officer deposition of driver condition sufficient to exclude evidence of underage drinking in rear end collision

ELISHEA D. FISHER v. CHRISTINA M. JOHNSON (Tenn. Ct. App. August 18, 2009)

This is a personal injury suit arising out of an automobile accident. Plaintiff appeals the trial court's dismissal of her punitive damages claim, as well as its exclusion of evidence regarding Defendant's underage consumption of alcohol prior to the accident and leaving the scene of the accident. Because Plaintiff has failed to show a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Defendant's intoxication, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of Plaintiff's punitive damages claim. Because liability has been stipulated in this matter, and the punitive damages claim properly dismissed, we find Defendant's underage consumption of alcohol and leaving the scene of the accident irrelevant. Thus, we affirm the exclusion of such evidence.

The full text of this opinion may be found at the TBA website: http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/fishere_082409.pdf

Court reviews summary judgment in wrongful death case regarding scope of employment

MICHAEL CLAWSON, ET AL. v. MICHAEL L. BURROW, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. April 30, 2010)

Rachel M. Clawson ("the Decedent") was an employee of Summers-Taylor, Inc. ("the Employer") when she was killed in a tragic automobile-pedestrian accident. A vehicle driven by Michael Burrow veered off Highway 91 in Carter County and struck her. She had concluded her job duties for the day and was at the rear of her personally-owned truck visiting with co-workers and talking on a cell phone. The Decedent's truck was parked on the side of Highway 91 in an area approved by the Employer for employee parking.

Michael Clawson and Sherry Clawson, the Decedent's parents ("the Parents"), filed this wrongful death action against Burrow and the Employer. The Employer filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that on the undisputed facts the Decedent's death arose out of and occurred in the course and scope of her employment. The trial court agreed and entered an order granting the Employer summary judgment. The Parents appeal. We affirm.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/clawsonm_043010.pdf

Summary judgement remanded on attorney showing of detailed mail records, overcoming addressed-stamped-deposited mail presumption

AUBREY E. GIVENS, ADM. OF THE ESTATE OF JESSICA E. GIVENS, ET AL. v. THE VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. August 18, 2009)

Medical malpractice action was dismissed on summary judgment following plaintiffs' failure to oppose defendant's motion. Plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the judgment of the trial court based on mistake where plaintiffs did not receive service of defendant's summary judgment motion. The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion; plaintiffs appeal. Finding that, under the facts of this case, the judgment should have been set aside, we reverse and remand.

The opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/givensa_081909.pdf

Rear end collision plaintiff awarded zero, discretionary costs remanded for reconsideration

BERNARD HUGHES v. DEMAR HUDGINS (Tenn. Ct. App. August 17, 2009)

The plaintiff claimed that he suffered neck and back injuries after the automobile in which he was riding was rear-ended by the defendant's automobile. The defendant admitted breach of the standard of care, but the jury found that the plaintiff had suffered no damages as the result of the accident, and he was not awarded any recovery. The trial court awarded the defendant $645.95 in discretionary costs to cover the court reporter fees he incurred for depositions. The plaintiff argues on appeal that there was no material evidence to support the jury's verdict. For his part, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in declining to award him all of the discretionary costs he requested. We affirm the jury verdict, but we remand the issue of the award of discretionary costs.

The opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/hughesb_081709.pdf

CLEMENT concurring in part and dissenting in part:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/hughesb_CON_081709.pdf

"The basis for the trial court’s decision to award Mr. Hudgins some, but not all, of his discretionary costs is unclear from the record. Because of the discretion given to the trial court and its authority to apportion costs “as the equities demand,” we must remand this matter to the trial court for consideration of the award of discretionary costs." Id.

Summary Judgement Reversed Upon Disqualification of Medical Experts

DONNA FAYE SHIPLEY, ET AL. v. ROBIN WILLIAMS, M.D. (Tenn. Ct. App. August 14, 2009)

In reliance on plaintiff's experts, the trial court granted defendant doctor's motion for partial summary judgment on the medical malpractice claim pertaining to defendant's failure to admit plaintiff into the hospital. The trial court later granted the defendant doctor summary judgment on the remaining malpractice claims finding that the plaintiff's medical expert proof previously relied upon by defendant failed to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. section 29-26-115. We reverse the grant of partial summary judgment on the failure to admit claim since the defendant doctor relied solely on plaintiff's experts, whose testimony was later found inadmissible. We also reverse the summary judgment of the remaining malpractice claims since the defendant doctor never presented proof to negate an element of those claims. Consequently, the plaintiff had no duty to create issues of fact at the summary judgment phase.

The full text of this opinion is available at the TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/shipleyd_081409.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.

Drug testing evidence allowed in motor vehicle accident to show causation and credibility, no relief for invited error

JOHN C. BLAIR v. ROBERT SULLIVAN, JR., ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. April 22, 2009)

This appeal involves the plaintiff's negligence claim which arose from a motor vehicle accident with the defendant. Plaintiff first asserts that the trial court erred in allowing plaintiff's positive drug test to be admitted as evidence. Plaintiff also asserts that the trial court's jury instructions were improper and that the jury's verdict is not supported by the evidence. Reviewing plaintiff's first assertion, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the drug test as evidence. Likewise, we find that the jury instructions were proper and that there is material evidence supporting the jury's verdict. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The full text of this opinion is available at the TBA website: http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/blairj_081309.pdf

“Here, Plaintiff does not explain how the introduction of the drug test result into evidence would result in unfair prejudice. Plaintiff’s sole complaint is that defendant’s attorney discussed the drug test’s effect on damages during closing argument. As mentioned above, plaintiff failed to object to these statements in the trial court. Because plaintiff does not point to any other prejudice, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the drug test result was not excluded under Tenn. R. Evid. 403.” Id.

“Plaintiff first contends that the trial court erred by failing to explain the context of the statute and by failing to omit certain irrelevant provisions of the statute in its instruction. Parties, however, are not entitled to relief on appeal from invited error. Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a). Plaintiff asked the trial court to read the entire statute as a jury instruction. Consequently, he is not entitled to relief on appeal on this issue.” Id.

GTLA statutory cap on damages upheld in absence of express waiver from City of Memphis

FAYE BLACK v. CITY OF MEMPHIS (Tenn. Ct. App. April 22, 2009)

This is a wrongful death case against a municipality. In 1987, the plaintiff's teenage son was shot and killed by a police officer. The plaintiff sued the officer and the municipality, asserting claims under both federal and state law. Years of proceedings and delay ensued. By 2005, the only remaining claims were state law claims against the municipality. The parties filed crossmotions for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff then filed a motion for entry of judgment in the amount of $130,000, the maximum damage award under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act. The plaintiff filed separate motions for interest and costs. The municipality stipulated that if the court entered a judgment it should be in the amount of $130,000, but argued that the plaintiff was prohibited from recovering interest or costs in addition to the $130,000 judgment because such an award would exceed the statutory damage cap. The plaintiff argued that the municipality's misconduct prolonged the case and drove up costs, and that the court had authority to award costs in order to sanction the municipality for this misconduct.

The trial court entered a judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $130,000, but denied the plaintiff's motions for interest and costs, finding that the Governmental Tort Liability Act precluded an award of discretionary costs in excess of the statutory cap on damages, and did not award sanctions. The plaintiff appeals, arguing that the court has authority to award sanctions in excess of the statutory damage cap. We affirm, finding that the trial court’s order does not indicate a finding that sanctions against the municipality were warranted.

The full text of this opinion is available at the TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/blackf_081309.pdf

“The statute specifically requires an express waiver before a governmental entity can be held liable for damages in excess of the statutory cap. Ms. Black cites no authority to support her argument that a governmental entity can be deemed to have constructively waived its protection under the GTLA damage cap. This argument is without merit.” Id.

Arbitration Agreement within 11 page contract found enforcible due, in large part to signature

CORINE BROADNAX, Individually and as heir and on behalf of the Estate of Mary Alice Johnson v. QUINCE NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. April 22, 2009)

The parties to a nursing home Admission Agreement dispute the enforceability of its arbitration provision. The trial court refused to enforce the arbitration provision. The nursing home appealed. For the following reasons, we reverse the decision of the circuit court and remand for entry of an order compelling arbitration.

The entire text of this opinion can be found at the TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/broadnaxc_081009.pdf

“Although we agree that mutual assent is essential to the formation of a contract, mutual assent is gathered from the language of the contract rather than the unexpressed or undisclosed intentions of the parties. 'The law conclusively presumes that the parties to a contract understood its obligations, and evidence is not admissible to show that their understanding was in fact otherwise.’” Id. (Case Citations Omitted)

“Based on the cases cited above, we find it inappropriate to relieve Ms. Broadnax from the operation of the Arbitration Agreement, due to her failure to read the document before signing it. In so ruling, we note that Ms. Broadnax had the ability to ask questions concerning the documents, was free to seek independent legal advice, and was given ample time to review the documents.” Id.

“Moreover, the Arbitration Agreement expressly stated that by signing such, Ms. Broadnax was 'giving up and waiving [her] constitutional right to have any claim decided in a court of law before a judge and a jury,' that execution was not a precondition to admission or the furnishing of services, and that it could be rescinded within thirty days. We further note that although the Arbitration Agreement was attached to a somewhat lengthy document, the Admission Agreement contained a table of contents, which should have drawn Ms. Broadnax’s attention to the inclusion of the Arbitration Agreement, which was a separate exhibit. Because Ms. Broadnax has failed to prove that Nursing Home either misrepresented the terms of the Arbitration Agreement or acted fraudulently in inducing her to sign such, we find that Ms. Broadnax’s signature evidences her assent to be bound by the Arbitration Agreement’s terms.” Id.

Intentional delay in advancing claim based on defendant health and misunderstanding of state intention to delay not sufficient to overcome statute of limitations.

HARRY SKIPPER, et ux v. STATE OF TENNESSEE (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2009.)

Mr. Skipper filed a claim with the Tennessee Claims Commission, alleging that Tennessee Department of Transportation snow plow operator Dennis Burns crossed the center line, striking him. Mr. Burns became ill with cancer, and his deposition was scheduled three times before it was successfully taken. Following Mr. Burns' deposition, Mr. Skipper failed to advance his claim for a period of one year, and the Claims Commission dismissed his claim pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-402(b). Mr. Skipper sought relief from the dismissal pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 6.02, 59, and 60.02. Mr. Skipper's counsel claimed that he failed to act in order to allow Mr. Burns time to recover, so that he could testify live at trial. He further stated that it was his understanding that the State would contact him once such recovery was made. The Claims Commission denied Mr. Skipper relief from the order of dismissal, and Mr. Skipper appealed to this Court. We affirm.

Full text of this opinion is available at the TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/skipperh_080309.pdf