### IN THE CO URT OF APPEALS OF TE NNE SS EE
AT JACKSON May 24, 2 01 2 S es si on

DERRICK

JO HNSO N, E T A L 

### . v. J ERRY R. FLOYD, M.D.
, E T A L



### .

A p p e a l f r o m t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t f o r S h e l b y C o u n t y
N o

. C T

- 0 0 3 8 7 5

- 1 1 J a m e s F

. R u s s e l l
, J u d g e

N o

. W 2 0 1 2

- 0 0 2 0 7

- C O A

- R 3

- C V

- F i l e d J u n e 2 9
, 2 0 1 2

T h is case co n cern s th e ap p licatio n o f th e m ed ical m alp ractice n o tice req u irem en t to a law su it
th at w as p rev io u sly n o n su ited an d th en re-f iled p u rsu an t to th e sav in g statu te. T h e ch ild ren

o f a w o m an w h o d ied d u e to alleg ed m ed i cal n eg lig en ce f iled su it ag ain st th e d ef

en d an t

m ed ical p ro v id ers. T h e ch ild ren su b seq u en tly n o n su ited th e law su it. With in o n e-y ear o f th e

n o n su it, th e c h i l d r e n sen t n o tice o f a p o ten tial claim to th e m ed ical p ro v id ers. With in o n e

y ear an d 1 2 0 d ay s f

ro m th e n o n su it, th e ch ild ren re-f iled th eir claim

. T h e m ed ical p ro v id ers

m o v ed to d ism iss o n th e g ro u n d th at t h e claim w as n o t f iled w ith in th e o n e-y ear p erio d

p r o v i d e d b y th e sav in g statu te an d

, as su ch

, w as b arred b y th e ap p licab le statu te o f
lim itatio n s. T h e trial co u rt d ism issed th e actio n an d th e ch ild ren ap p ealed

. C o n clu d in g th at th e sav in g statu te, T en n essee C o d e A n n o tated S ectio n 2 8 -1 -1 0 5 (a) is n o t an “ap p licab le

statu te[ ] o f lim itatio n s o r rep o se,” w e h o ld th at th e sav in g statu te i s n o t e x ten d ed b y

co m p lia n ce w ith th e m ed ical m alp ractice n o tice req u irem en t, T en n essee C o d e A n n o tated
S ectio n 2 9 -2 6 -1 2 1 (c). A f f irm ed an d rem an d ed

.

T e n n

. R

. A p p

. P

. 3

. A p p e a l a s o f R i g h t ; J u d g m e n t o f t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t A f f i r m e d a n d

R e m a n d e d

J

. S T E V E N S T A F F O R D
, J

. , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t

, i n w h i c h A LA N E

. H IG H E R S

, P

. J

. , W

. S

. , a n d D A V ID R

. F A R M E R
, J

. , j o i n e d

.

A l H

. T h o m a s a n d A a r o n L

. T h o m a s , M e m p h i s , T e n n e s s e e , f o r t h e a p p e l l a n t s , D e r r i c k

J o h n s o n , M a r c u s J o h n s o n , O z e l l J o h n s o n , O d e l l J o h n s o n , T e r r e n c e J o h n s o n , c h i l d r e n o f

D e b o r a h J o h n s o n , d e c e a s e d

.

J

. K i m b r o u g h J o h n s o n a n d E l i z a b e t h T

. C o l l i n s , f o r t h e a p p e l l e e s , J e r r y R

. F l o y d

, M

. D

. , a n d

M i d

- S o u t h W e l l n e s s C e n t e r , I n c

.

K a t h e r i n e M

. A n d e r s o n , M e m p h i s , T e n n e s s e e , f o r t h e a p p e l l e e , T e w f

i k R i z k

, M

. D

.O P I N I O N

I. B a ckg ro u n d

O n D ecem

b e r 7, 2004, Pl a i nt i ffs /

Appe l l a nt s , De r r i c k J ohns on, Ma

r c us J o h n so n , O d ell

Jo h n so n , O z e l l J o h n s o n , a n d T e r r e n c e J o h n s o n ( c o l l e c t i v e l y , “ A p p e l l a n t s ” ) f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t

o n b e h a l f o f t h e i r M o t h e r , D e b o r a h J o h n s o n , a l l e g i n g t h a t s h e d i e d a s a r e s u l t o f t h e m e d i c a l

n e g l i g e n c e o f D e f

e n d a n t s / A p p e l l e e s J e r r y R

. F l o y d

, M

. D

. , T e w f i k R i z k

, M

. D

. , a n d M i d

S o u t h W e l l n e s s C e n t e r , I n c

. ( “ M i d

- S o u t h W e l l n e s s , ” a n d t o g e t h e r w i t h D r

. F l o y d a n d D r

. R i z k

, “ A p p e l l e e s ” )

. T h e c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e d t h a t t h e A p p e l l e e s n e g l i g e n t l y t r e a t e d t h e
A p p e l l a n t s ’ m o t h e r f

o r h e r r h e u m a t o i d a r t h r i t i s , r e s u l t i n g i n h e r d e a t h

.

O n A p ril 2 7

, 2 0 1 0

, th e A p p ellan ts en tered an o rd er o f v o lu n tary d ism issal. O n A p ril

1 1

, 2 0 1 1

, attem

p tin g to re-f

ile th eir law su it, th e A p p ellan ts p ro v id ed th e A p p ellees w ritten

n o tice o f th eir p o ten tial claim as req u ired b y T en n es s e e C o d e A n n o tated S ectio n 1

2 9 -2 6 -1 2 1

. O n A u g u st 2 4

, 2 0 1 1 (w h ich is w ith in o n e y ear an d 1 2 0 d ay s f ro m th e o rd er o f 2

v o lu n tary d ism issal co n clu d in g th e f irst case), th e A p p ellan ts re-f iled th eir co m

p lain t.

On app eal

, bot h part ie s ag re e that Appel la nts wer e requ ir ed to provide not ic e to the Appel le es of 1

the ir pot ent ia l cla im on r e- fi li ng thei r c om pla int af te r a non sui t. See Me

yer s v . AMISUB (SFH

), Inc. , No.
W2 010-00837- COA- R9CV

, 2011 WL 6647 53 (T enn

. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2011 ) (pe rm. app

. grant ed Aug. 23,
2011 ) (or al ar g. hea rd Apri l 4, 2012 ) (ho ldi ng tha t a par ty m ust comply wit h the not ic e re qui re m ent s of the

Me dic al Ma lpr act ic e Act when a medic al m al pra ct ic e a ct ion is re

- fi le d pu rs uan t t o t he s aving sta tut e)

.

T enn ess ee Code Annot at ed S ect ion 29- 26- 121 pro vides , in per ti nen t p ar t: 2

(a )( 1) Any pe rs on, or tha t per son ' s aut hor ized agent, ass e r t i n g a pot ent ia l
cl ai m for m ed i c al m al pra ct ic e sha ll giv e wri tt en not ic e of the pot ent ia l
cl ai m to eac h hea lt h car e pro vider tha t wil l be a na m ed d ef end ant at le ast

s i xty (60 ) days bef

ore the fi li ng of a complai nt bas ed upon m ed i c a l

m al pra ct ic e i n an y court of th is st at e.

(2) T he n oti ce sha ll in cl ude :

(A) T he ful l name and dat e of bir th of the pat ie nt whos e tr eat m ent is at is sue ; (B) T he name and add re ss of the c l ai m ant aut hor izing the not ic e and the

re la ti ons hip to th e pa ti ent , if th e no ti ce is not se nt by the pat ie nt; (C) T he name and add re ss of the at tor ney sen din g the not ic e, if app li cab le ; (D) A li st of the name and add re ss of al l pro vider s bei ng sen t a not ic e; and (E) A HI PAA complia nt m edi cal aut hor izat ion per mi t t ing the pro vider

re cei ving the not ic e to obt ai n comple t e me d i c al re cor ds fr om eac h oth er

pro vider bei ng sent a n oti ce.

-2-T h e seco n d co m p lain t sp ecif

ically alleg es th at M s. Jo h n so n s uffe r e d fr om r he um ato id
arth ritis, f o r w h ich sh e so u g h t m ed ical treatm en t f ro m D r. F lo y d

. D u rin g th ese v i sits, D r. F lo y d p rescrib ed v ario u s m ed icatio n s in clu d in g M eth o trax ate b egi nni ng i n Se pt e m be r 2000

. H o w ev er, D r. F lo y d ceased p rescrib in g M eth o trax ate to M s. Jo h n so n o n M arch 2 6

, 2 0 0 2

. In 2 0 0 2

, D r. F lo y d ref

erred M s. Jo h n so n to D r. R izk f o r sp ecialist treat me n t o f h er rh eu m ato id arth ritis. D r. R izk ag ain p rescrib ed M eth o trax ate to M s. Jo h n so n , f irst at 2 .5

m illig r a ms p e r w eek ; h o w ev er, D r. R izk g rad u ally in creased th e d o sag e u n til Ju n e 2 0 0 3

,

w h en M s. Jo h n so n w as tak in g 1 5 m illig ram s p er w eek

. T h ro u g h o u t th is tim e, M s. Jo h n so n

su f f ered serio u s p u lm o n ary d if f icu lties. In F eb ru ary 2 0 0 4

, M s. Jo h n so n w as d iag n o sed w ith
in terstitial lu n g d isease. H er p h y sician s d eterm in ed th at M eth o trax ate to x icity w as th e cau se

o f th e d isease. M s. Jo h n so n d ied a s a resu lt o f th e lu n g d isease o n M ay 4

, 2 0 0 4

. T h e

co m p lain t av ers th at M s. Jo h n so n ’s d eath w as leg ally an d p ro x im ately cau sed b y M eth o trax ate to x icity , as a resu lt o f th e n eg lig en ce o f

th e A p p ellees.

A p p e l l e e s f

i l e d s e p a r a t e m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s , b o t h a r g u i n g t h a t t h e A p p e l l a n t s ’ c l a i m

w a s b a r r e d b y t h e o n e

- y e a r s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g m e d i c a l m a l p r a c t i c e a c t i o n s b e c a u s e t h e c o m p l a i n t w a s n o t f i l e d w i t h i n t h e o n e

- y e a r t i m e p e r i o d a l l o w e d b y t h e s a v i n g

s t a t u t e

. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e A p p e l l e e s a r g u e d t h a t t h e n e w c o m p l a i n t c o u l d n o t r e l a t e b a c k t o

t h e o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t

, a n d a s s u c h w a s f i l e d a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e o n e

- y e a r m e d i c a l

m a l p r a c t i c e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s

. A p p e l l a n t s a r g u e d t h a t t h e s a v i n g s t a t u t e w a s e x t e n d e d b y

w r i t t e n n o t i c e o f a p o t e n t i a l c l a i m s a s r e q u i r e d u n d e r T en n essee C o d e A n n o tated S ectio n 2 9

- 2 6

- 1 2 1

.

T h e t r i a l c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g o n t h e m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s o n O c t o b e r 2 8

, 2 0 1 1

. A t t h e h e a r i n g , t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r a l l y r u l e d t h a t t h e e x t e n s i o n g r a n t e d b y c o m p l y i n g w i t h t h e n o t i c e

r e q u i r e m e n t o f T en n essee C o d e A n n o tated S ectio n 2 9

- 2 6

- 1 2 1 ( c ) d i d n o t e x t e n d t h e o n e

- y e a r

s a v i n g s t a t u t e

. A n o r d e r m e m o r i a l i z i n g t h e o r a l r u l i n g a n d d i s m i s s i n g t h e c a s e w a s e n t e r e d

o n D e c e m b e r 2 0

, 2 0 1 1 ( t h e o r d e r w a s m a r k e d a s e n t e r e d o n N o v e m b e r 4

, 2 0 1 1

, b u t w a s

s u b s e q u e n t l y c o r r e c t e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t )

. T h e A p p e l l a n t s t i m e l y a p p e a l e d

.

II. S ta n d a rd o f

R ev iew

I n c o n s i d e r i n g a n a p p e a l f r o m a t r i a l c o u r t ' s g r a n t o f a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , w e t a k e a l l

a l l e g a t i o n s o f f

a c t i n t h e c o m p l a i n t a s t r u e , a n d r e v i e w t h e l o w e r c o u r t s ' l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s d e

n o v o w i t h n o p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s

. T e n n R

. A p p

. P

. 1 3 ( d ) ; M i d

- S o u t h I n d u s t r i e s , I

n c

.

v

. M a r t i n M a c h

. & T

o o l
, I n c

. , 3 4 2 S

. W

. 3 d 1 9

, ( T e n n

. C t

. A p p

. 2 0 1 0 ) ( c i t i n g O w e n s v

. T r u c k s t o p s o f A m e r i c a , 9 1 5 S

. W

. 2 d 4 2 0

, 4 2 4 ( T e n n

. 1 9 9 6 ) )

.

III. A n a ly sis

-3-A p p ellees r aise a n u m b er o f issu es o n ap p eal; h o w ev er, w e co n clu d e th at th e d isp o sitiv e q u estio n o n ap p eal co n cer n s w h eth er th e S av in g S tatu te, T en n essee C o d e A n n o tated S ectio n 2 8 -1 -1 0 5

, is ex ten d ed b y 1 2 0 d ay s w h en th e p lain tif f sen d s w ritten n o tice

o f a p o ten tial claim

in co m p lian ce w ith T en n essee C o d e A n n o tated S ectio n 2 9

- 2 6

- 1 2 1

.

T h e T en n essee S av in g S tatu te p ro v id es, in p ertin en t p art:

If th e actio n is co m m en ced w ith in th e tim e lim ited b y a ru le o r

s t a t u te o f lim itatio n , b u t th e j u d g m en t o r d ecree is ren d ere d

ag ain st th e p lain tif

f u p o n an y g r o u n d n o t co n clu d in g th e

p lain tif f 's rig h t o f actio n , o r w h e r e t h e j u d g m en t o r d ecree is

ren d ered in f

av o r o f th e p lain tif

f

, an d is arrested

, o r rev ersed o n

ap p eal, th e p lain tif

f

, o r th e p lain tif

f 's rep resen tativ es an d

p riv ies, as th e case m ay b e, m ay , f ro m tim e to tim e, co m m en ce

a n ew actio n w ith in o n e (1 ) y ear af ter th e rev ersal o r arrest.

T en n

. C o d e A n n

. § 2 8 -1 -1 0 5 (a). A c c o r d in g ly

, a co m p lain t p ro p erly f

iled w ith in th e

ap p licab le statu te o f lim itatio n s m ay b e v o lu n tarily d ism issed an d re-f iled w ith in o n e y ear. T h e n ew actio n w ill relate b ack to th e p rev io u s f ilin g f o r p u rp o ses o f th e statu te o f
lim itatio n s. S

ee g en era lly C

ro n in v. H

o w e , 9 0 6 S .W.2 d 9 1 0

, 9 1 2

– 1 3 (T en n

. 1 9 9 5 ) (d iscu ssin g th e ap p licatio n o f th e sav in g statu te).

T h e statu te o f

lim itatio n s in a m ed ical m alp ractice case is on e y ear f ro m th e d ate o f
th e d isco v ery o f th e in

j u ry

. T en n

. C o d e A n n

. § 2 9 -2 6 -1 1 6

. H o w ev er, in 2 0 0 8

, th e T en n essee L eg islatu re p as s e d t h e M e d ical M alp ractice A ct, req u irin g th at th e p lain tif f in a m ed ical

m alp ractice actio n sen d w ritten n o tice t o th e d ef en d an ts o f a p o ten tial claim

, at least six ty (6 0 ) d a y s p r i o r to f

ilin g th eir co m

p lain t. S ee 2 0 0 8 P u b

. A cts, c.9 1 9

, § 1

. T en n essee C o d e A n n o tated S ectio n 2 9 -2 6 -1 2 1 (a)(1 ) p ro v id es, in p ertin en t p art:

A n y p erso n , o r th at p erso n 's au th o rized ag en t, assertin g a

p o ten tial claim f

o r m ed ical m alp ractice sh all g iv e w ritten n o tice

o f th e p o ten tial claim to each h ealth care p ro v i d er th at w ill b e

a n am ed d ef

en d an t at least six ty (6 0 ) d ay s b ef o re th e f ilin g o f a

co m p lain t b ased u p o n m ed ical m alp ractice in an y co u rt o f th is

state.

T h e l e g i s l atu re at th at tim e also en acted a m easu re th at ex ten d ed th e ap p licab le statu te o f
lim itatio n s b y n in ety (9 0 ) d ay s w h en th e p lain tif f co m p lied w ith th e n o tice req u irem en t. S ee 2 0 0 8 P u b

. A cts, c.9 1 9

, § 1

. T h is p erio d w as later ex ten d ed to 1 2 0 d ay s. S ee 2 0 0 9 P u b

. A cts,
c. 4 2 5 , § 1 , ef

f . Ju ly 1 , 2 0 0 9 . T h e cu rren t v ersio n o f th e statu te p ro v id es:

-4-Wh en n o tice is g iv en to a p ro v id er as p ro v id ed in th is sectio n , th e ap p licab l e statu tes o f lim itatio n s an d rep o se sh all b e

ex ten d ed f

o r a p erio d o f o n e h u n d red tw en ty ( 1 2 0 ) d ay s f ro m th e d ate o f ex p iratio n o f th e statu te o f lim itatio n s an d statu te o f

rep o se ap p licab le to th at p ro v id er. P erso n al serv ice is ef f ectiv e

o n th e d ate o f th at serv ice. S erv ice b y m ail is e f f e c t iv e o n th e f irst d a y t h a t serv ice b y m ail is m ad e in co m p lian ce w ith

su b d iv isio n (a)(2 )(B ). In n o ev en t sh all th is s e c t io n o p erate to sh o rten o r o th erw ise ex ten d th e statu tes o f lim itatio n s o r rep o se

a p p licab le to an y actio n assertin g a claim f o r m ed i c a l

m alp ractice, n o r sh all m o re th an o n e (1 ) ex ten sio n b e ap p licab le

to an y p ro v id er. O n ce a co m p lain t is f i l e d alleg in g a claim f

o r

m ed ical m alp ractice, t

h e n o tice p ro v isio n s o f

th is sectio n sh all

n o t ap p ly to an y p erso n o r en tity t h a t i s m ad e a p arty to th e actio n th ereaf

ter b y am en d m en t to th e p lead in g s as a resu lt o f a d ef en d an t's allegin g co m

p arativ e f au lt.

T en n

. C o d e A n n

. § 2 9 -2 6 -1 2 1 (c). A cco rd i n g l y , w h en a p lain tif f sen d s th e p ro p er w ritten

n o tice w ith in o n e y ear o f th e d isco v ery o f th e in j u ry , th e ap p licab le statu te o f lim itatio n s o r

rep o se is ex ten d ed f

o r a p erio d o f 1 2 0 d a y s

. T h e d eterm in ativ e issu e in th is case, th en , is

w h eth er th e sav in g statu te is an “ap p licab le statu te[ ] o f lim itatio n s o r rep o se.”

In d eterm in in g th e p ro p er in terp retatio n to b e g iv en to a statu te, w e m u st em p lo y th e

ru les o f s t a t u to ry co n stru ctio n

. T h e T en n essee S u p rem e C o u rt recen tly reiterated th e “f am iliar ru les,” statin g :

O u r ro le is to d eterm in e leg islativ e in ten t an d to ef f ectu ate
l e g i s l a tiv e p u rp o se. [ L ee M ed
., In c. v. B eech er , 3 1 2 S .W.3 d

5 1 5

, 5 2 6 (T en n

. 2 0 1 0 )] ; In re E sta te o f T a n n er , 2 9 5 S

. W .3 d

6 1 0

, 6 1 3 (T en n

. 2 0 0 9 ). T h e tex t o f th e statu t e i s o f p rim ary imp o r t a n ce, an d th e w o rd s m u st b e g iv en th eir n atu ral an d

o rd in ary m ean in g in th e co n tex t in w h ich t h ey ap p ear an d in lig h t o f th e statu te's g en eral p u rp o se. S ee L ee M ed
., In c. , 3 1 2
S .W.3 d at 5 2 6 ; H

a yes v. G ib so n C

n ty.

, 2 8 8 S .W.3 d 3 3 4

, 3 3 7 (T en n

. 2 0 0 9 ); W

a ld sch m id t v. R ea ssu re A m

. L ife In s. C o

. , 2 7 1
S .W.3 d 1 7 3

, 1 7 6 (T en n

. 2 0 0 8 ). Wh en t h e lan g u ag e o f th e
statu te is clear an d u n am b ig u o u s, co u rts lo o k n o f arth er to ascertain its m ean in g

. S

ee L ee M ed
., In c. , 3 1 2 S .W.3 d at 5 2 7 ; G reen v. G reen , 2 9 3 S .W.3 d 4 9 3

, 5 0 7 (T en n

. 2 0 0 9 ). Wh en

-5-n ecessary to reso lv e a statu to ry am b ig u ity o r co n f

lict, co u rts

m ay co n sid er m atters b ey o n d th e statu to ry tex t, in clu d in g p u b lic

p o licy

, h isto rical f

acts relev an t to th e en actm en t o f th e statu te, th e b ac k g r o u n d an d p u rp o se o f th e statu te, an d th e en tire

s t a tu to ry sch em e. L ee M ed
., In c. , 3 1 2 S .W.3 d at 5 2 7

– 2 8

. H o w ev er, th ese n o n -co d if ied ex tern al so u rces “can n o t p ro v id e

a b asis f o r d ep artin g f

ro m clear co d if

ied statu to ry p ro v isio n s.”
Id

. at 5 2 8

.

M ills v. F u lm a rq u e , 3 6 0 S .W.3 d 3 6 2 , 3 6 8 (T en n . 2 0 1 2 ).

A cco rd in g ly

, w e f

irst co n s i d e r t h e l an g u ag e o f th e statu te. T h e p h rase “statu te[ ] o f
lim itatio n s” is n o t d ef

in e d b y th e M ed ical M alp ractice A ct. In ad d itio n , w e can f in d n o 3

T en n essee case ex p ressly d ef in in g th e p h rase f

o r p u rp o ses o f th e M ed ical M alp ractice A ct

n o tice req u irem en t. B o t h p a r t i e s p o i n t t o t h e d i c t i o n a r y d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e p h r a s e “ s t a t u t e [ ] o f

l i m i t a t i o n s

. ” W h e r e a p p r o p r i a t e , c o u r t s m a y u t i l i z e d i c t i o n a r y d e f i n i t i o n s i n i n t e r p r e t i n g

s t a t u t e s

. S t a t e v

. M a

j o r s , 3 1 8 S

. W

. 3 d 8 5 0

, 8 5 9 ( T e n n

. 2 0 1 0 ) ( q u o t i n g S t a t e v

. W i l l i a m s , 6 9 0

S

. W

. 2 d 5 1 7

, 5 2 9 ( T e n n

. 1 9 8 5 ) )

. B l a c k ’ s L a w D i c t i o n a r y d e f i n e s a s t a t u t e o f

l i m i t a t i o n s a s

“ [ a ] s t a t u t e p r e s c r i b i n g l i m i t a t i o n s t o t h e r i g h t o f a c t i o n o n c e r t a i n d e s c r i b e d c a u s e s o f a c t i o n

o r c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s ; t h a t i s , d e c l a r i n g t h a t n o s u i t s h a l l b e m a i n t a i n e d o n s u c h c a u s e s o f

a c t i o n , n o r a n y c r i m i n a l c h a r g e s b e m a d e , u n l e s s b r o u g h t w i t h i n a s p e c i f i e d p e r i o d o f t i m e

a f t e r t h e r i g h t a c c r u e d ” B l a c k ’ s L a w D i c t i o n a r y 8 3 5 ( 5 t h e d

. 1 9 7 9 )

. C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e
A p p e l l e e s a r g u e t h a t o n l y l i m i t a t i o n s o n c l a i m s r e l a t e d t o t h e a c c r u a l o f t h e a c t i o n w h e n t h e i n j u r y o c c u r r e d o r w a s d i s c o v e r e d m a y p r o p e r l y b e r e f e r r e d t o a s s t a t u t e s o f l i m i t a t i o n s

. S e e
B l a c k ’ s L a w D i c t i o n a r y 1 9 ( 5 t h e d

. 1 9 7 9 ) ( s t a t i n g t h a t a c a u s e o f a c t i o n “ ‘ a c c r u e s ’ w h e n a

s u i t m a y b e m a i n t a i n e d t h e r e o n ” o r “ o n t h e d a t e t h a t d a m a g e i s s u s t a i n e d

. ” )

. A d d itio n ally

, A m erican Ju risp ru d en ce p ro v id es th is d ef in itio n :

T h e term "statu te o f l i mitatio n s" is th e co llectiv e term

co m m o n ly ap p l i ed to acts o r p art o f acts th at p rescrib e th e

p erio d s b ey o n d w h ich a p lain tif f m ay n o t b rin g a c a u s e o f
actio n

. A statu te o f lim itatio n s estab lish es th e tim e p erio d

, af ter

a cau se o f actio n arises, w ith in w h ich a claim o r s u it m u st b e f iled

, to en f

o rce th at cau se o f actio n

. A statu te o f lim itatio n s is

a d eclaratio n th at n o su it m ay b e m ain tain ed o n a ca u s e o f

a c t i o n u n less th e su it is b ro u g h t w ith in a sp ecif ied p erio d o f

T he Appel la nts do not ar gue tha t the savin g st at ute m ay be con si der ed a s t at ute of re pos e. 3

Acco rdi ngly, we wil l con si der onl y whet her the savin g st at ute qua li fi es a s a st at ute of li m it at ion s for

pur pos es of the not ic e r equ ir ement of th e M edi cal Ma lpr act ic e Act

.

-6-tim e af ter th e rig h t h as accru ed

, o r in o th er w o rd s, a law th at b ars claim s af

ter a sp ecif

ied p erio d

.

5 1 A m

. Ju r. 2 d L im ita tio n o f A ctio n s § 2 ( f

o o t n o t e s o m i t t e d )

. H o w e v e r , f r o m o u r r e s e a r c h

,

o t h e r d e f i n i t i o n s o f t h e p h r a s e d o n o t r e q u i r e t h a t t h e l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d b e c o n n e c t e d t o t h e

a c c r u a l o f t h e a c t i o n

. F o r e x a m p l e , B r y a n G a r n e r ’ s A D ictio n ary o f M o d ern L e g al U sag e d e f i n e s a s t a t u t e o f

l i m i t a t i o n s s i m p l y a s “a statu te estab lish in g a tim e lim it f o r su in g o r f

o r

p ro secu tin g a crim e.” B ry an A

. G arn er, A D ictio n ary o f M o d ern L eg al U sag e 8 3 1 (2 d ed

. 1 9 9 5 ). T h e resu lt is th at t h e d i c t i o n ary d ef in itio n o f th e p h rase, alo n e, can n o t d ecid e th is
issu e.

A p p ellees n ex t cite to cases f ro m o th er j u risd ictio n s in w h ich co u rts h av e co n clu d ed
th at a sav in g statu te is n o t a statu te o f lim itatio n s. C ases sp ecif ically co n ce r n in g m ed ical

m alp ractice n o tice req u irem en ts in v o lv e f airly n ew leg islatio n ; as su ch

, f ew co u rts h av e

co n sid ered th is issu e. T h e A p p ellees cite o n ly o n e j u risd ictio n in w h ich th is p articu lar issu e h as b een co n sid ered an d th e co u rts h av e ru led in f av o r o f th e A p p ellees’ p o sitio n

. I n W a l t z

v

. W y s e , 6 7 7 N

. W

. 2 d 8 1 3 ( M i c h 2 0 0 4 )

, t h e M i c h i g a n S u p r e m e C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e w r o n g f u l

d e a t h s a v i n g s t a t u t e w a s n o t e x t e n d e d b y c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e m e d i c a l m a l p r a c t i c e n o t i c e

r e q u i r e m e n t

. I

d

. a t 8 1 8

. P u r s u a n t t o M i c h i g a n l a w , “ t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s o r r e p o s e ” i s

e x t e n d e d “ i f t h e p l a i n t i f f p r o v i d e s a v a l i d n o t i c e o f i n t e n t b e f o r e t h e l i m i t a t i o n p e r i o d

e x p i r e s

. ” I

d

. a t 8 1 5 ( c i t i n g M i c h

. C o m p

. L a w s § 6 0 0

. 5 8 5 6 )

. S i m i l a r t o t h e A p p e l l a n t s i n t h i s

c a s e , i n W

a l t z , t h e p l a i n t i f

f a r g u e d t h a t h e r c o m p l a i n t w a s t i m e l y f i l e d u n d e r M i c h i g a n ’ s

w r o n g f u l d e a t h s a v i n g s t a t u t e b e c a u s e t h e s a v i n g s t a t u t e w a s e x t e n d e d b y c o m p l y i n g w i t h t h e

m e d i c a l m a l p r a c t i c e n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t

. T h e d e f e n d a n t s a r g u e d

, h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e w r o n g f u l

d e a t h s a v i n g s t a t u t e w a s n o t a “ s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s o r r e p o s e ” t h a t c o u l d b e e x t e n d e d b y

c o m p l y i n g w i t h t h e m e d i c a l m a l p r a c t i c e n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t

. I d

.

T h e M i c h i g a n S u p r e m e C o u r t a g r e e d :

S ectio n 5 8 5 6 (d ), b y its ex p ress term s, to lls o n ly th e ap p licab le
“statu te o f lim itatio n s o r rep o se.” A s w e recen tly stated in

M iller

, [ ] 6 4 4 N .W.2 d 7 3 0 [ (M ic h 2 0 0 3 )]

, th e w ro n g f u l d eath

p ro v isio n , § 5 8 5 2

, “is a sav in g statu te, n o t a statu te o f
lim itatio n s.” (E m

p h asis su p p lied .) S

ee a lso L in d

sey v. H a rp er H o sp

. , [ 5 6 4 N .W.2 d 8 6 1 (M ich

. 1 9 9 7 ),] in w h ich w e ex p lain ed
th at § 5 8 5 2

, as “th e statu te o f lim itatio n s sav in g p ro v isio n ” an d

an “ex cep tio n to t h e s t atu te o f lim itatio n s,” o p erated “to

su sp en d th e ru n n in g o f th e statu te u n til a pe r so n al rep resen tativ e is ap p o in ted to rep resen t th e in terests o f th e estate.”

-7-T h e p lain lan g u ag e o f [ M ich

. C o m p

. L aw s] § [ 6 0 0 .] 5 8 5 2

w h o lly su p p o rts o u r co n clu sio n th at it is n o t itself a “statu te o f
lim itatio n s.” A g ain , § 5 8 5 2 p ro v id es:

If a p erso n d ies b ef

o re th e p erio d o f lim itatio n s h as ru n o r w i t h in 3 0 d ay s af ter th e p erio d o f
lim itatio n s h as ru n , an actio n w h ich su rv iv e s b y law ma y b e co m m en ced b y th e p erso n al

rep resen tativ e o f th e d eceased p erso n at an y tim e

w ith in 2 y ears af

ter letters o f au th o rity are issu ed
alth o u g h th e p erio d o f lim itatio n s h as ru n

. B u t an actio n sh al l n o t b e b ro u g h t u n d er th is p ro v isio n

u n less th e p erso n al rep res e n tativ e co m m en ces it

w ith in 3 y ears af

t e r t h e p erio d o f lim itatio n s h as

ru n . [ E m p h asis su p p lied .]

B y its o w n term s, § 5 8 5 2 is o p eratio n al o n ly w ith in th e co n tex t

o f th e sep arate “p erio d o f lim itatio n s” th at w o u ld o th erw ise b ar

an actio n . S ectio n 5 8 5 2 clearly p ro v id es th at it is an ex cep tio n
to th e lim itatio n p erio d

, allo w in g th e co m m en cem en t o f a

w ro n g f u l d eath actio n as m an y as th r ee y ears af ter th e

ap p licab le statu te o f

lim itatio n s h as ex p ired

.

W a l t z , 6 7 7 N

. W

. 2 d a t 8 1 7

– 1 8

. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e M i c h i g a n S u p r e m e C o u r t h e l d t h a t

c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e m e d i c a l m a l p r a c t i c e n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t d i d n o t e x t e n d t h e s a v i n g s t a t u t e b e c a u s e a s a v i n g s t a t u t e i s n o t a n “ a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s o r r e p o s e

. ” T u rn in g to o u r

o w n statu to ry sch em e, j u st as in M ich ig an , o u r n o tice r e q u irem en t ex p ressly ex ten d s o n ly
"th e ap p licab le statu te o f lim itatio n s o r rep o se," rath er th an th e sav in g statu te. T en n . C o d e A n n

. § 2 9 -2 6 -1 2 1 (c). A d d itio n ally

, o u r S av in g S tatu te lik ew ise req u ires th e o p er atio n o f

a sep arate statu te o f lim itatio n s, req u irin g th at th e o rig in al co m p lain t b e "co m m en ced w ith in
th e tim e lim ited b y a ru le o r statu te o f lim itatio n ." T en n

. C o d e A n n

. § 2 8 -1 -1 0 5 (a); s e e a l s o
P u g h v

. S t

. P a u l F i r e & M a r i n e I n s

. C o

. , 8 7 7 S

. W

. 2 d 5 7 7 ( A r k

. 1 9 9 4 )

, s u p e r s e d e d b

y

s t a t u t e A c t s o f 1 9 9 5

, A c t 1 2 9 6

, § 6 3 ( 1 9 9 5 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e n o w

- r e p e a l e d n o t i c e

r e q u i r e m e n t d i d n o t e x t e n d t h e t i m e p e r i o d u n d e r t h e s a v i n g s t a t u t e b e c a u s e t h e s a v i n g s t a t u t e

w a s n o t e x p r e s s l y m e n t i o n e d i n t h e n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t s t a t u t e ) ; B o g g s v

. B a u m , N o

. 1 0 A P

– 8 6 4

, 2 0 1 1 W L 2 1 1 2 4 8 2 ( O h i o C t

. A p p

. M a y 2 4

, 2 0 1 1 ) ( p e r m

. a p p

. d e n i e d O c t

. 1 9

, 2 0 1 1 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t a s a v i n g s t a t u t e i s n o t a s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s )

. A p p e l l a n t s c i t e n o j u r i s d i c t i o n s , n o r h a s o u r r e s e a r c h r e v e a l e d a n y j u r i s d i c t i o n s , i n w h i c h c o u r t s h a v e c o n c l u d e d

t h a t a s a v i n g s t a t u t e i s a n a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s f o r p u r p o s e s o f a m e d i c a l

-8-m a l p r a c t i c e n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t

. 4

A c c o r d i n g t o t h e A p p e l l a n t s , h o w e v e r , i t w o u l d b e i l l o g i c a l t o a p p l y c e r t a i n p r o v i s i o n s

o f t h e M e d i c a l M a l p r a c t i c e A c t r e q u i r i n g a p l a i n t i f f t o s e n d n o t i c e o f p o t e n t i a l c l a i m u p o n

r e f i l i n g a c o m p l a i n t a f

t e r n o n s u i t

, w i t h o u t a p p l y i n g t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g e x t e n s i o n o f t h e s t a t u t e

o f l i m i t a t i o n s

. A p p ellan ts arg u e th at th e case law in T e n n e s s ee p ro v id es su p p o rt f o r th eir

arg u m en t th at th e sav in g statu te is ex ten d ed b y co m p lian ce w ith th e n o tice req u irem en t. F o r

su p p o rt, A p p ellan ts cite M e y e r s v

. A M

I S U B ( S F H )
, I n c

. , N o

. W 2 0 1 0

- 0 0 8 3 7

- C O A

- R 9 C V

, 2 0 1 1 W L 6 6 4 7 5 3 ( T e n n

. C t

. A p p

. F e b

. 2 4

, 2 0 1 1 ) ( p e r m

. a p p

. g r a n t e d A u g

. 2 3

, 2 0 1 1 ) ( o r a l

a r g

. h e a r d A p r i l 4

, 2 0 1 2 ) f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a l l p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e M e d i c a l M a l p r a c t i c e
A c t m u s t a p p l y t o a c a s e r e

- f i l e d a f t e r a n o n s u i t

, b e c a u s e t h e c a s e i s a “ n e w a c t i o n

. ” T h e
A p p e l l a n t s c i t e lan g u ag e f ro m M eyers , in d icatin g th at “Wh en [ p lain tif f ] re-f iled h is actio n in S ep tem

b er 2 0 0 9

, h e ‘co m m en ce[ d ] a n ew actio n ’ th at w as g o v ern ed b y th e statu to ry

p ro v isio n s, w h ich b ecam e ef f ectiv e as am en d ed o n Ju ly 1

, 2 0 0 9 .” We d isag ree. T h e M eyers

co u r t co n sid ered o n ly th e issu e o f w h eth er a p lain tif f is req u ired to p ro v id e n o tice to th e d ef en d an ts o f a p o ten tial claim w h en an actio n is reco m m en ced af ter a n o n su it. In M

eyers , th e p lain tif

f h ad n o t sen t p ro p er n o tice o f h is p o ten tial claim ; th u s, th e C o u rt in M yers ,

u n lik e in th is case, w as n o t called u p o n to co n sid er w h eth er co m p ly in g w ith th e m ed ical

m alp ractice n o tice req u irem en t ex ten d ed th e sav in g statu te.

A p p ellan ts also c i te tw o cases in w h ich th ey claim th at T en n essee co u rts h av e ref erred to th e sav in g statu te as a statu te o f lim itatio n s. F i r s t

, i n E v a n s v

. P e r k e y , 6 4 7 S

. W

. 2 d

6 4 6

, 6 4 1 ( T e n n

. C t

. A p p

. 1 9 8 2 )

, t h i s C o u r t r e f e r r e d t o t h e s a v i n g s t a t u t e a s a “ s t a t u t e o f

l i m i t a t i o n s ” i n h o l d i n g t h a t t h e t i m e p e r i o d f o r r e c o m m e n c i n g a n a c t i o n u n d e r t h e s a v i n g

s t a t u t e r u n s f

r o m t h e d a t e o f t h e e n t r y o f t h e o r d e r n o n s u i t i n g t h e c a s e , r a t h e r t h a n f r o m t h e f i l i n g o f t h e n o t i c e o f n o n s u i t

. I d

. a t 6 4 1

. T h i s c o n c l u s o r y s t a t e m e n t

, h o w e v e r , d o e s n o t

a m o u n t t o a h o l d i n g t h a t t h e s a v i n g s t a t u t e i s a s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s f o r p u r p o s e s o f t h e
M e d i c a l M a l p r a c t i c e A c t

, a l a w w h i c h w o u l d n o t b e e n a c t e d f o r n e a r l y t h i r t y y e a r s a f

t e r t h i s d e c i s i o n

. A p p e l l a n t s a l s o c i t e M o r a n v

. W e i n b e r g e r , 2 6 0 S

. W

. 9 6 6

, 9 6 9 ( T e n n

. 1 9 2 4 )

,

a b r o g a t e d o n o t h e r g r o u n d s b y W a r e v

. M e h a r r

y M e d i c a l C o l

l e g e , 8 9 8 S

. W

. 2 d 1 8 1 ( T e n n

. 1 9 9 5 )

, a s s u p p o r t t h a t t h e s a v i n g s t a t u t e i s a s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s

. H o w e v e r , f r o m o u r r e a d i n g

o f M o r a n , t h e T e n n e s s e e S u p r e m e C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t t h e s a v i n g s t a t u t e “ s u s p e n d [ s ] ” o r

“ s t a y [ s ] ” t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s , r a t h e r t h a n t h a t t h e s a v i n g s t a t u t e i s a s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s i n i t s e l f

. I

d

. a t 9 6 9

.

T hough no t c it ed b y the Appel la nts in thi s case , we re cognize the rec ent dec is ion on thi s iss ue in 4

T enn ess ee, Rajv ongs v. Wr igh t

, No. M2 011-01889- COA- R9- CV , 2012 Te nn. App. LEXI S 393 (T enn

. Ct. App. J une 18, 2012 ), hol din g tha t the savin g st at ute is ext end ed by the m edi ca l ma l pra ct ic e not ic e

re qui re m ent . A de ta il ed d is cus si on o f t he Wr igh t opi nio n i s s et fo rt h inf

ra

.

-9-I n d e e d o u r S u p r e m e C o u r t r e c e n t l y n o t e d l a n g u a g e s i m i l a r t o t h a t i n M o r a n r e g a r d i n g

t h e n i n e t y

- d a y w i n d o w i n w h i c h t o f i l e a n a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t a t o r t f e a s o r n a m e d b y

a d e f e n d a n t t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e n i n e t y

- d a y w i n d o w w a s n o t “ a n a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e o f

l i m i t a t i o n s

. ” S e e M i l

l s v

. F u l m a r q u e , 3 6 0 S

. W

. 3 d 2 6 2 ( T e n n

. 2 0 1 2 )

. I n M i l l s v

. F u l m a r q u e , 3 6 0 S

. W

. 3 d 2 6 2 ( T e n n

. 2 0 1 2 )

, t h e p l a i n t i f f t i m e l y f i l e d a f e d e r a l l a w s u i t a g a i n s t a p a c k a g i n g

c o m p a n y a f

t e r h e f e l l f r o m a c h a i r w h i l e d o i n g b u s i n e s s a t t h e p a c k a g i n g c o m p a n y

. T h e

p a c k a g i n g c o m p a n y f

i l e d a n a n s w e r a l l e g i n g t h e c o m p a r a t i v e f a u l t o f t h e c o m p a n y t h a t s o l d

t h e c h a i r

. T h e p l a i n t i f

f f i l e d a n a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t

, n a m i n g t h e s e l l e r a s a p a r t y , w i t h i n

n i n e t y d a y s o f

t h e p a c k a g i n g c o m p a n y ’ s a n s w e r

. T h e s e l l e r f i l e d a n a n s w e r t o t h e a m e n d e d

c o m p l a i n t

, a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f ’ s i n j u r i e s w e r e c a u s e d b y F u l m a r q u e , I n c

. ( “ F u l m a r q u e ” )

, th e m an u f actu rer o f th e ch air. With in n in ety d ay s o f th e seller’s an sw er, th e

p lain tif f f iled a seco n d am en d ed co m p lain t, n am in g F u lm arq u e as a p arty

. T h e ad d itio n o f

F u lm arq u e d estro y ed d iv ersity j u risd ictio n , an d th e case w as d ism issed

.

P u rsu an t to th e sav in g statu te, th e p lain tif f tim ely re-f

iled th e co m

p lain t in state co u rt.
F u lm arq u e m o v ed f

o r su m m ary j u d g m en t o n th e g ro u n d th at th e p lain tif f ’s claim ag ain st it

w as b arred b y th e statu te o f lim itatio n s

. E v en tu ally

, th e trial co u rt g ran ted th e m o tio n f o r

su m m ary j u d g m en t, h o ld in g th at th e p lain tif f ’s claim w as b arred b y th e statu te o f lim itatio n s, rely in g o n T e n n e s s e e C o d e A n n o t a t e d S e c t i o n 2 0

- 1

- 1 1 9

, w h i c h s t a t e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :

( a ) I n c i v i l a c t i o n s w h e r e c o m p a r a t i v e f a u l t i s o r b e c o m e s a n i s s u e , i f a d e f

e n d a n t n a m e d i n a n o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t i n i t i a t i n g a

s u i t f i l e d w i t h i n t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s , o r n a m e d

i n a n a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t f i l e d w i t h i n t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e o f

l i m i t a t i o n s , a l l e g e s i n a n a n s w e r o r a m e n d e d a n s w e r t o t h e

o r i g i n a l o r a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t t h a t a p e r s o n n o t a p a r t y t o t h e

s u i t c a u s e d o r c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e i n j u r y o r d a m a g e f

o r w h i c h t h e

p l a i n t i f f s e e k s r e c o v e r y , a n d i f

t h e p l a i n t i f

f ' s c a u s e o r c a u s e s o f

a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h a t p e r s o n w o u l d b e b a r r e d b y a n y a p p l i c a b l e

s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s b u t f o r t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h i s s e c t i o n , t h e

p l a i n t i f f m a y , w i t h i n n i n e t y ( 9 0 ) d a y s o f t h e f i l i n g o f t h e f

i r s t

a n s w e r o r f

i r s t a m e n d e d a n s w e r a l l e g i n g t h a t p e r s o n ' s f a u l t

,

e i t h e r :

( 1 ) A m e n d t h e c o m p l a i n t t o a d d t h e p e r s o n a s a d e f e n d a n t

p u r s u a n t t o T e n n

. R

. C i v

. P

. 1 5 a n d c a u s e p r o c e s s t o b e i s s u e d

f o r t h a t p e r s o n ; o r ( 2 ) I n s t i t u t e a s e p a r a t e a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h a t p e r s o n b y f i l i n g a

s u m m o n s a n d c o m p l a i n t

. I f t h e p l a i n t i f f e l e c t s t o p r o c e e d u n d e r

t h i s s e c t i o n b y f

i l i n g a s e p a r a t e a c t i o n , t h e c o m p l a i n t s o f i l e d

-10-s h a l l n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d a n o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t i n i t i a t i n g t h e s u i t

o r a n a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t f o r p u r p o s e s o f t h i s s u b s e c t i o n ( a )

.

( b ) A c a u s e o f a c t i o n b r o u g h t w i t h i n n i n e t y ( 9 0 ) d a y s p u r s u a n t

t o s u b s e c t i o n ( a ) s h a l l n o t b e b a r r e d b y a n y s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s

.

T h e trial co u rt f

o u n d th at th e seller w as n o t “a d ef en d an t n am ed in an o rig in al

co m p lain t in itiatin g a s u i t w ith in th e ap p licab le statu te o f lim itatio n s o r n am ed in an

am en d ed co m

p lain t f iled w ith in th e ap p licab le statu te o f lim itatio n s.” M ills

, 3 6 0 S .W.3 d at
3 6 5 (citin g T en n

. C o d e A n n

. § 2 0

- 1

- 1 1 9 ). A cco rd in g ly

, th e trial co u rt co n clu d ed t h at th e

n in ety -d ay w in d o w p ro v id ed b y T e n n e s s e e C o d e A n n o t a t e d S e c t i o n 2 0

- 1

- 1 1 9 w as n o t trig g ered b y th e seller’s an sw er alleg in g co m p arativ e f au lt. With o u t th e n in ety -d ay w in d o w

o n w h ich to rely

, t h e p l a i n tif f ’s claim ag ain st F u lm arq u e w as asserted af ter th e ex p iratio n

o f th e statu te o f

lim itatio n s. M

ills , 3 6 0 S .W.3 d at 3 6 5

.

T h e p lain tif

f ap p ealed an d th e C o u rt o f A p p eals rev ersed

, h o ld in g th at th e n in ety -d ay

w in d o w p ro v id ed b y T e n n e s s e e C o d e A n n o t a t e d S e c t i o n 2 0

- 1

- 1 1 9 wa s a n “ a pplicab le statu te

o f l im itatio n s.” A cco rd in g ly

, th e C o u rt o f A p p eals co n clu d ed th at b y n am in g th e seller

w ith in th e n in ety -d ay w in d o w p ro v id ed b y T e n n e s s e e C o d e A n n o t a t e d S e c t i o n 2 0

- 1

- 1 1 9

, th e seller w as “a d ef

en d an t n am ed in an o rig in al co m p lain t in itiatin g a su it w ith in th e ap p licab le

statu te o f lim itatio n s o r n am ed in an am en d ed co m p lain t f iled w ith in th e ap p licab le statu te

o f lim itatio n s.” Id

. at 3 6 5

– 6 6

.

T h e T en n essee S u p rem e C o u rt rev ersed th e C o u rt o f A p p eals an d af f irm ed th e trial

co u rt’s g ran t o f su m m ary j u d g m en t, h o ld in g th at th e p lain tif f ’s claim ag ain st F u lm arq u e w as b arred b y th e ap p licab le statu te o f l i mi t a t i o n s. T h e S u p rem e C o u rt relied o n th e p lain
lan g u ag e o f

th e statu te to su p p o rt th is h o ld in g :

In o u r v iew

, th e p h rase “ap p licab le statu te o f lim itatio n s” ref ers

ex clu siv ely to th e statu te o f lim itatio n s f o r a p lain tif

f 's cau se o f
actio n

. T h u s , t h e n in ety -d ay p erio d p ro v id ed in sectio n 2 0 -1

- 1 1 9 is av ailab le to a p lain tif f o n ly w h en a d ef

en d an t su ed w ith in
th e statu te o f lim itatio n s ap p licab le to th e p lain tif f 's u n d erly in g

cau se o f actio n “alleg es in an an sw er o r am en d ed an sw er to th e

o r i g in al o r am en d ed co m p lain t th at a p erso n n o t a p arty to t h e

su it cau sed o r co n trib u ted to th e in j u ry o r d am ag e f

o r w h ich th e

p lain tif f seek s reco v ery . . . .” T en n . C o d e A n n . § 2 0 -1 -1 1 9 (a).

In d eed

, co n stru in g th e p h ras e t o in clu d e th e n in ety -d ay

-11-p erio d w o u ld b e clearly in co n sisten t w ith its u sag e in th e seco n d
clau se o f su b sectio n (a)— “if

a d ef en d an t n am ed in an o rig in al

co m p lain t in itiatin g a su it f

iled w ith in th e ap p licab le statu te o f
lim itatio n s

. . . .” T en n

. C o d e A n n

. § 2 0 -1 -1 1 9 (a). S in ce th e

n in ety -d ay p erio d n ev er b eco m es relev an t u n til a resp o n s i v e

p lead in g alleg in g f

au lt ag ain st a n o n p arty is f iled

, th e “ap p licab le statu te o f lim itati o n s” relev an t to “an o rig in al

co m p lain t in itiatin g a su it” w ill n ev er in clu d e th e n in ety -d ay

p erio d

. In th e ab sen ce o f statu to ry lan g u ag e in d icatin g th at th e d ef in itio n o f th e p h rase d if f er s f ro m o n e sen ten ce, o r

su b sectio n , to th e n ex t, w e d eclin e to assig n in co n s i s t e n t d ef in itio n s to th e sam e p h rase.

We f u rth er n o te t h a t

, b y its o w n term s, su b sectio n (a)

p lain ly d istin g u ish es th e n in ety -d ay p erio d f ro m t h e p h rase “ap p licab le statu te o f lim itatio n s.” S ee T en n

. C o d e A n n

. § 2 0 -1

- 1 1 9 (a) (“[ I] f th e p lain tif

f 's cau se o r cau ses o f actio n ag ain st th at

p erso n w o u ld b e b arred b y an y ap p licab le statu te o f lim itatio n s b u t f o r th e o p eratio n o f th is sectio n , th e p lain tif f m ay , w ith in

n in ety (9 0 ) d ay s o f th e f

ilin g o f th e f

irst an sw er o r f

irst am en d ed

an sw er alleg in g th e p erso n 's fau lt . . . .”).

M ills

, 3 6 0 S .W.3 d at 3 6 8

– 6 9 (f o o tn o tes o m itted ). T h u s, th e S u p rem e C o u rt co n clu d ed th at th e p lain lan g u ag e o f T e n n e s s e e C o d e A n n o t a t e d S e c t i o n 2 0

- 1

- 1 1 9 created a d istin ctio n b etw een th e n in ety -d ay

w in d o w an d th e ap p licab le statu te o f lim itatio n

.

In stead o f ch aracterizin g th e n in ety -d ay w in d o w as a statu te o f lim itatio n s, th e S u p rem e C o u rt ch aracterized th e n in ety -d ay w in d o w as m o re ak in to a sav in g statu te:

[ C ] o u rts h av e co n sisten tly ch aracterized “ap p licab le statu te o f
lim itatio n s” t o m ean th e statu te o f lim itatio n s ap p licab le to a

p lain tif f 's claim

. In c o n t rast, co u rts h av e ch aracterized th e

n in ety -d a y p erio d

, n o t as a statu te o f lim itatio n s, b u t as a “w in d o w ,” as a “sav in g [ ] statu te,” as a “to llin g [ ] statu te,” as

an “ex ten sio n ,” as a “su sp en sio n ,” an d as a “g race p erio d .”

M ills

, 3 6 0 S .W.3 d at 3 6 9

– 7 0 (f o o tn o tes o m itted ). B ased o n th is lo g ic, if th e n in ety -d ay

w in d o w is n o t an “ap p licab le statu te o f lim itatio n s” b ecau se it is m o re ap tly d escrib ed as a

sav in g statu te, th en a sav in g statu te is lik ew ise n o t b e co n sid ered an “ap p licab le statu te o f

-12-lim itatio n s.” In d eed

, m u ch lik e th e n in ety -d ay w in d o w , th e sav in g statu te h a s b een

co n sisten tly ref

erred to n o t as a sep arate statu te o f lim itatio n s, b u t m erely as an ex ten sio n o r

su sp en sio n o f t h e ap p licab le statu te o f lim itatio n s. S ee L a n iu s v. N

a sh ville E lec. S ervice

, 1 8 1 S .W.3 d 6 6 1

, 6 6 4 (T en n

. 2 0 0 5 ) (ref errin g to th e sav in g statu te as “ex t e n d [ i n g ] th e lim itatio n s p erio d o f a law su it”); M o r a n v

. W e i n b e r g e r , 2 6 0 S

. W

. 9 6 6

, 9 6 9 ( T e n n

. 1 9 2 4 )

,

a b r o g a t e d o n o t h e r g r o u n d s b y W a r e v

. M e h a r r

y M e d i c a l C o l

l e g e , 8 9 8 S

. W

. 2 d 1 8 1 ( T e n n

. 1 9 9 5 ) ; D o e v. G o o d

w in

, 2 5 4 S .W.3 d 4 2 8

, 4 3 0 (T en n

. C t. A p p

. 2 0 0 7 ) (statin g th at “a sav in g
statu te [ ] w o u ld to ll th e o n e-y ear lim itatio n p erio d ”); W o o d s v. J o n es , 2 0 4 S .W.3 d 7 8 8

, 7 9 3 (T en n . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) (n o tin g th at “a sav in g statu te [ ] ef f ectiv ely ex ten d s th e [ ] statu te o f
lim itatio n s”); C

o u n ts v. B rya n , 1 8 2 S .W.3 d 2 8 8

, 2 9 0 (T en n

. C t. A p p

. 2 0 0 5 ) (statin g th at
“th e statu te o f

lim itatio n s w as to lled b y th e T en n essee S av in g S tatu te”); B o o n e v. M o rris

, N o

. M 2 0 0 2 -0 3 0 6 5 -C O A -R 3 -C V 2 0 0 4 WL 2 2 5 4 0 1 2 , at * 1 2 (T en n . C t. A p p . O ct. 6

, 2 0 0 4 ) (ref errin g to th e sav in g s t a t u te as an “ex ten sio n o f th e statu te o f lim itatio n s”); B ro w n v. S ta te

, N o

. M 2 0 0 2 -0 1 3 6 1 -C O A -R 3 -C V

, 2 0 0 3 WL 2 0 1 0 7 3 4

, at * 2 (T en n . C t. A p p

. M ay 2

, 2 0 0 3 ) (“ref

errin g to th e sav in g st a t u te as “to ll[ in g ] th e statu te o f lim itatio n s”); F a u lk s v. C ro w d er , 9 9 S .W.3 d 1 1 6

, 1 2 7 (T en n

. C t. A p p

. 2 0 0 2 ) (ref errin g to t h e s a v i n g statu te as a “o n e-y ear to llin g p erio d ” o f th e ap p licab le statu te o f lim itatio n s); M i x o n v

. W yrick

, N o

. 1 1 0 7

, 1 9 8 7 WL 1 7 9 7 4

, at * 2 (T en n

. C t. A p p

. O ct. 8

, 1 9 8 7 ) (ref errin g to th e sav in g statu te as a “g race p erio d ”).

In ad d itio n , th e M

ills co u rt sp ecif

ically states th at “th e p h rase ‘ap p licab le statu te o f
lim itatio n s’ ref

ers ex clu siv ely to th e statu te o f lim itatio n s f

o r a p lain tif

f 's cau se o f actio n .”

M ills

, 3 6 0 S .W. 3 d at 3 6 9

. B lack ’s L aw D ictio n ary d ef in es a “cau se o f actio n ” as “[ a]
situ atio n o r state o f f

acts w h ich w o u ld en title p arty to su stain actio n an d g iv e h im rig h t to seek j u d icial rem ed y o n h is b eh alf ” o r “[ f ] acts w h ich g iv e rise to o n e o r m o re relatio n s o f rig h t-d u ty b etw een tw o o r m o re p erso n s.” B lack ’s L aw D ictio n ary 2 0 1 (5 ed

. 1 9 7 9 ). T h e t h

A p p ellan t’s cau se o f actio n is f o r m ed ical m alp ractice. S ee S h errill v. S o u d

er , 3 2 5 S .W.3 d

5 8 4

, 5 9 5

– 6 (T en n

. 2 0 1 0 ) (statin g th at in case alleg in g n eg lig en ce o f p h y sician

, th e p lain tif f ’s

cau se o f actio n w as f

o r m ed ical m alp ractice, an d ap p ly in g th e m ed ical m alp ractice statu te

o f lim itatio n s). A cco rd in g ly

, th e o n ly “statu te o f lim itatio n s ” a p p l i cab le to th e A p p ellan ts

cau se o f actio n th at m ay b e ex ten d ed b y co m p lian ce w i th th e n o tice req u irem en t is

T en n essee C o d e A n n o tated S ectio n 2 9 -2 6 -1 1 6 (a), w h ich p ro v id es a p lain tif f w ith o n e y ear f ro m th e d ate o f

in j u ry o r d isco v ery

o f in j u ry to f ile a co m p lain t f o r m ed ical m alp ractice.

In d eed

, o th er law in T en n essee su p p o rts t hi s c onc l us i on. I n S

h a rp v. R ich a rd

so n , 9 3 7
S .W.2 d 8 4 6 (T en n

. 1 9 9 6 ), th e T en n essee S u p rem e C o u rt co n sid ered th e issu e o f w h eth er th e six -y ear p ro d u ct liab ility statu te o f rep o se p reclu d ed ap p licatio n o f th e sav in g statu te. Id

. at
8 4 9

. T h e S u p rem e C o u rt co n clu d ed th at it d id n o t

, n o tin g th at th e p ro d u ct liab ility statu te

o f rep o se w as en acted su b seq u en t to th e “lo n g h isto ry o f th e sav in g statu te.” Id

. at 8 5 0

. T h e d ef en d an ts arg u ed th at th e later en actm en t o f th e p ro d u ct liab ility statu te o f rep o se acted as

-13-an ex cep tio n to th e sav in g statu te, lim itin g its ap p licatio n

. T h e d ef en d an ts arg u ed th at “th e L eg islatu re is p resu m ed to h av e k n o w led g e o f its p rio r en actm en ts an d to k n o w th e state o f
th e law at th e tim e it p asses leg islatio n .” Id

. (citin g W

ilso n v. J o h n so n C o u n ty

, 8 7 9 S .W.2 d

8 0 7

, 8 0 9 (T en n

. 1 9 9 4 )). T h e S u p rem e C o u rt n o ted

, h o w ev er, th at “rep eals o r alteratio n s o f

ex istin g statu tes b y im

p licatio n is d i sf

av o red .” S

h a rp , 9 3 7 S .W.2 d at 8 5 0 (citin g J en k in s

v. L o u d o n C o u n ty

, 7 3 6 S .W.2 d 6 0 3 (T en n

. 1 9 8 7 )). A cco rd in g ly

, th e S u p rem e C o u rt ru led
th at t h e s u b s e q u en t en actm en t o f th e p ro d u ct liab ility statu te o f rep o se d id n o t alter th e

ex p ress p ro v isio n s o f th e sav in g statu te. H ere th e o p p o site is tru e: A p p ellan ts arg u e th at th e

su b seq u e n t e n actm en t o f th e M ed ical M alp ractice A ct alters th e o p eratio n o f th e sav in g
statu te b y ex ten d in g th e tim e p erio d in w h ich a co m p lain t f o r m ed ical m alp ractice m ay b e f iled

. A lt h o u g h n o t cited b y A p p ellan ts in th eir b rief

, w e reco g n ize th at th e sav in g statu te is to b e “lib erally co n stru ed .” C ro n in v. H

o we , 906 S .W.2 d 9 1 0

, 9 1 3 (T en n .1 9 9 5 ). H o w ev er, “[ i] n th e ab sen ce o f sp ecif ic lan g u ag e [ in th e M ed ical M alp ractice A ct] statin g its in ten tio n
to ” ex ten d th e sav in g statu te b y 1 2 0 d ay s, w e w ill n o t p resu m e th at th e m ed ical m alp ractice

n o tice req u irem en t o p erates to ex ten d th e sav in g statu te. S h a rp , 9 3 7 S .W.2 d at 8 5 0

.

We are co g n izan t o f th e f

act th at th is h o ld in g is d irectly o p p o site to th e d eterm in atio n

o f th e M id d le S ectio n o f th is C o u rt in th e recen t d ecisio n o f R a jvo n g s v. W rig h t

, N o

. M 2 0 1 1 -0 1 8 8 9 -C O A -R 9 -C V

, 2 0 1 2 T en n

. A p p

. L E X IS 3 9 3 (T en n

. C t. A p p

. Ju n e 1 8

, 2 0 1 2 ).

I n W rig h t

, S en io r Ju d g e B en H

. C an trell h eld th at th e 1 2 0 -d ay ex ten sio n o n “statu tes o f
lim itatio n s” p ro v i d ed b y T en n essee C o d e A n n o tated S ectio n 2 9 -2 6 -1 2 1 (c) o p erated to

ex ten d th e sav in g statu te, T en n essee C o d e A n n o tated S ectio n 2 8 -1 -1 0 5 (a). Id

. at * 2 3

– 2 4

. R e s p ectf u lly

, w e m

u st d isag ree. Ju d g e C an trell’s o p in io n relies o n th e h o ld in g o f

C u n n i n g h a m v

. W

i l l i a m s o n C o u n t

y H o s p i t a l

, N o

. M 2 0 1 1

- 0 0 5 5 4

- C O A

- R 3

- C V

, 2 0 1 1 W L

6 0 0 0 3 7 9 ( T e n n

. C t

. A p p

. N o v

. 3 0

, 2 0 1 1 ) (p erm

. ap p eal g ran ted A p r i l 1 1

, 2 0 1 2 ). In
C u n n in g h a m , th e M id d le S ectio n h eld th at th e statu te o f lim ita t i o n s f o r a cau se o f actio n

u n d er th e G o v ern m en tal T o rt L iab ility A ct, T en n e s s e e C o d e A n n o tated S ectio n 2 9 -2 0

- 3 0 5 (b ) w as ex ten d ed b y co m p lian ce w ith th e m ed ical m alp ractice n o tice req u irem en t. Id

. at

* 6

. H o w ev er, u n lik e th e sav in g statu te at issu e in th is case, co u rts, in clu d in g th e T en n essee S u p rem e C o u rt, h av e co n sisten tly d escrib ed th e o n e-y ear l i m itatio n o n actio n s f iled p u rsu an t

to th e G o v ern m en tal T o rt L i a b i l i ty A ct as a “statu te o f lim itatio n s.” S ee e.g
., S a n d ers v. T ra ver , 1 0 9 S .W.3 d 2 8 2

, 2 8 4 (T en n

. 2 0 0 3 ) (f ram in g th e issu e as w h en th e o n e-y ear “statu te

o f lim itatio n s” u n d er th e G o v ern m en t al T o rt L iab ility A ct b eg an to ru n ); W h itm o re v. S h elb y C n ty. G o v’t

, N o

. W2 0 1 0 -0 1 8 9 0 -C O A -R 3 C V

, 2 0 1 1 WL 3 5 5 8 2 8 5 (T en n

. C t. A p p

. A u g

. 1 5

, 2 0 1 1 ); S

h a w v. C levela n d U

tils. W a ter D iv.

, N o

. E 2 0 0 9 -0 0 6 2 7 -C O A -R 3 -C V

, 2 0 0 9 WL 4 2 5 0 1 5 7 (T en n

. C t

. A p p

. N o v

. 3 0

, 2 0 0 9 ); W illis v. S h elb y C n ty.

, N o s. W2 0 0 8 0 1 4 8 7 C O A R 3 C V

, W2 0 0 8 0 1 5 5 8 C O A R 3 C V

, 2 0 0 9 WL 1 5 7 9 2 4 8 (T en n

. C t. A p p

. Ju n e 8

, 2 0 0 9 ); E

sta te o f B u tler v. L a m

p lig h ter A

p a rtm en ts

, 2 7 8 S .W.3 d 3 2 1 (T en n

. C t.
A p p

. 2 0 0 8 ); E

sta te o f B u tler v. L a m

p lig h ter A

p a rtm en ts

, 2 7 8 S .W.3 d 3 2 1 (T en n

. C t. A p p

. 2 0 0 8 ); D o e v. G o o d

w in

, 2 5 4 S .W.3 d 4 2 8 (T en n

. C t. A p p

. 2 0 0 7 ); W o o d s v. J o n e s , 2 0 4

-14-S .W.3 d 7 8 8 (T en n

. C t. A p p

. 2 0 0 6 ). In ad d itio n , th e W rig h t o p in io n f

ails to co n sid er th is
issu e in lig h t o f th e T en n essee S u p rem e C o u rt’s h o ld in g in M i l l s v

. F u l m a r q u e , 3 6 0 S

. W

. 3 d

2 6 2 ( T e n n

. 2 0 1 2 )

, w h ich ex p ressly h o ld s th at th e p h rase “statu te o f l i mi tatio n s” ap p lies

“ex clu siv ely

to th e statu te o f

lim itatio n s f

o r a p lain tif

f 's cause o f

actio n .” Id

. at 3 6 9

.

W h i l e w e ag ree w ith b o th Ju d g e C an trell an d th e A p p ellan ts in th is case th at th is
h o ld in g w ill “im

p o se ad d itio n al b u r d e n s o n p lain tif f s,” W rig h t

, 2 0 1 2 T en n

. A p p

. L E X IS
3 9 3 , at * 2 4 , w e are co n strain ed b y th e ex p ress lan g u ag e o f

th e m ed ical m alp ractice n o tice

r eq u irem en t, as w ell as th e h o ld in g in M ills

, to co n clu d e th at th e sav in g statu te i s n o t a
statu te o f lim itatio n s f

o r p u rp o ses o f th e m ed ical m alp ractice no tice req u irem en t. A s su ch

,

w e resp ectf

u lly d e c l i n e t o f

o llo w th e h o ld in g in W rig h t

. S ee E zell v

. C o ckrell

, N o

. 0 1 A 0 1 -9 3 0 4 -C V -0 0 1 9 2

, 1 9 9 4 WL 8 2 9 5

, at * 8 (T en n

. A p p. J an

. 1 2

, 1 9 9 4 ) (n o tin g th at w h ile

ap p ellate co u rts are b o u n d to f o llo w th e d ecisio n s o f th e S u p rem e C o u rt as b in d in g

p re c ed en t, ap p ellate co u rts m ay d eclin e to f o llo w d ecisio n s b y o th er sectio n s o f th e C o u rt

o f A p p eals, o r w h en th e d ecisio n s are n o t “settled p reced en ts”); see a lso In r e E s t a t e o f

M cF a rla n d

, 1 6 7 S .W.3 d 2 9 9 (T en n

. 2 0 0 5 ) (n o tin g th at “w h en ev er a j u d icial d ecisio n , . . . ‘h as b een su b m itted to a n d fo r so m e tim e, a cted u n d er , an d is n o t m an if

estly rep u g n an t to

so m e ru le o f law o f v ital im p o rtan ce in th e sy stem

, it sh o u ld n o t lig h tly b e d ep arted f ro m ’”) (em p h asis ad d ed ).

B ased o n th e reaso n in g in M ills an d S h a rp , w e h o ld th at th e sav in g statu te, T en n essee C o d e A n n o tated S ectio n 2 8 -1 -1 0 5 (a), is n o t an “ap p licab le statu te[ ] o f lim itatio n s” f o r

p u rp o ses o f th e m ed ical m alp ractice n o tice req u irem en t. A cco rd in g ly

, co m p lian ce w ith th e

m ed ical m alp ractice n o tice req u irem en t d o es n o t o p erate to ex ten d th e sav in g statu te b ey o n d

o n e y ear f ro m th e d ate o f a n o n su it. B ecau se A p p ellan ts d id n o t re-f ile th eir co m

p lain t w ith in

o n e-y ear o f th eir n o n su it, th eir claim is b arred b y th e ex p ress term s o f th e sav in g statu te an d
th e ap p licab le statu te o f lim itatio n s. T h eref o re, w e af f irm th e j u d g m en t o f th e trial co u rt an d

rem an d f o r d ism issal o f th is cau se. C o sts o f th is ap p e a l a re tax ed to A p p ellan ts, D errick

Jo h n so n , M arcu s Jo h n so n , O d ell Jo h n so n , O z e l l J o h n s o n , a n d T e r r e n c e J o h n s o n , a n d t h e i r

s u r e t y

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J

. S T E V E N S T A F F O R D

, J U D G E

-15-