IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

January 6, 2021 Session

CANDES PREWITT V. SAINT THOMAS HEALTH

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County

No. 20C-302 Amanda Jane McClendon, Judge

No. M2020-00858-COA-R3-CV

The plaintiff commenced this action against Saint Thomas Health alleging negligence per 

se and invasion of privacy through the unauthorized access and disclosure of her 

confidential medical records relating to the birth of her child at Saint Thomas Midtown 

Hospital (“Midtown Hospital”) in violation of Tennessee’s Patient’s Privacy Protection 

Act. Saint Thomas Health responded by filing a motion to dismiss under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 

8.01 for failure to plead facts stating a claim with particularity. Specifically, it argued the 

claims should be dismissed because the complaint failed to address how Saint Thomas 

Health could be held liable for unauthorized access and use of the plaintiff’s medical 

information from a separate and distinct entity, Midtown Hospital, when the complaint did 

not allege that an employee or agent of Saint Thomas Medical engaged in such conduct.

Alternatively, relying on Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6), Saint Thomas Health claimed the action 

was barred by the statute of limitations under Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-104. The trial court 

granted the motion on both grounds and dismissed all claims. This appeal followed. In her 

appellate brief, Plaintiff takes issue with the trial court’s application of the statute of 

limitations but ignores the trial court’s dismissal of her claims under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.01. 

Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 provides that the appellant’s brief shall contain 

“[a] statement of facts, setting forth the facts relevant to the issues presented for review 

with appropriate references to the record” as well as “an argument” setting forth the 

contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented. Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)(6) 

and (7). Additionally, Rule 6(a)(4) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals requires the 

appellant provide a written argument in regard to each issue on appeal that includes “[a] 

statement of each determinative fact relied upon with citation to the record where evidence 

of such fact may be found.” A party’s failure to comply with these rules “waives the issues 

for review.” Bean v. Bean, 40 S.W.3d 52, 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). Plaintiff’s brief fails 

to comply with these rules by, inter alia, failing to set forth an argument or facts relevant 

to the trial court’s dismissal of her complaint under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.01, which was an 

independent basis for dismissal. As a consequence, the issue is waived. Accordingly, we 

affirm. 

04/14/2021
- 2 -

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Affirmed

FRANK G. CLEMENT JR., P.J., M.S., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ANDY D.

BENNETT, J., and J. STEVEN STAFFORD, P.J., W.S., joined.

Anthony Daher, Gallatin, Tennessee, for the appellant, Candes Prewitt. 

Paige Idele Bernick and Brian Holmes, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Saint 

Thomas Health. 

OPINION

Candes Prewitt (“Plaintiff”) was a patient of Midtown Hospital from December 22 

to December 25, 2018, for the delivery of her child and their subsequent care. In January 

2019, the father, whom Plaintiff was not in contact with, filed for visitation knowing the 

exact date of the child’s birth. Plaintiff maintains she never told him the date. 

In the pro se complaint Plaintiff filed on February 5, 2020, she alleged, in pertinent 

part:

3. The claim for relief . . . arises from the unauthorized access of Plaintiff 

Prewitt’s medical records for treatment received at Defendant Saint Thomas’ 

hospital. . . . 

4. On several occasions throughout 2018 the plaintiff received medical 

treatment at a hospital owned and operated by Defendant Saint Thomas, 

more specifically Saint Thomas Midtown Hospital.

5. On or around December 22, 2018, the plaintiff was admitted to the 

aforementioned hospital and gave birth via Cesarean section. The plaintiff

was hospitalized from on or around December 22, 2018, through December 

25, 2018.

6. The plaintiff kept the pregnancy, as well as the birth of her child private.

7. In or around late January of 2019, the plaintiff received documents that 

included the date of her Cesarean section that took place at Defendant Saint 

Thomas’ hospital. The information had apparently been disseminated and 

obtained by a violent and abusive man. 

. . .
- 3 -

12. Defendant Saint Thomas intentionally intruded upon the plaintiff’s 

solitude or seclusion of private affairs and this intrusion would be highly 

offensive to a reasonable person, and constitutes the tort of invasion of 

privacy. Additionally, Defendant Saint Thomas publically [sic] disclosed 

private facts, both of which are the direct and proximate result of severe and 

irreversible harm to the plaintiff.

. . .

15. Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-11-1502 & 68-11-1503 mandate that patients 

receiving care at licensed health care facilities have an expectation and right 

to privacy, as well as mandates that patient information be confidential. The 

plaintiff alleges that said statutes were violated.

Saint Thomas Health responded to the complaint by filing a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 

12.02(6) motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted. Saint Thomas Health argued the cause of action was barred by the 

applicable statute of limitations, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-104, or in the alternative, should 

be dismissed for failure to plead facts that state a claim as required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 

8.01. Saint Thomas Health explained dismissal was warranted because Plaintiff failed to 

allege in the complaint how Saint Thomas Health, a separate corporate entity from 

Midtown Hospital, could be liable for the alleged unauthorized access and use of Plaintiff’s 

medical information by Midtown Hospital. Saint Thomas Health asked the trial court to 

take judicial notice of the separate corporate status of Saint Thomas Health and Midtown 

Hospital and included an exhibit with reports from the Tennessee Secretary of State’s 

website confirming the separate corporate status of the two entities.

After a hearing, the trial court granted Saint Thomas Health’s Motion to Dismiss on 

two separate grounds: (1) because the action was barred by the statute of limitations, which 

the court found had lapsed no later than January 31, 2020; and (2) because Plaintiff failed 

to plead with particularity, as required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.01, how she is entitled to relief 

against Saint Thomas Health when Plaintiff did not identify any individual or action 

connected to Saint Thomas Health. The trial court explained: 

In her Complaint, Plaintiff has alleged unauthorized access and disclosure of 

her medical records from [Midtown Hospital]. However, there are no factual 

allegations in the Complaint that address how Saint Thomas can be held 

liable for unauthorized access and use of Plaintiff’s medical information 

from [Midtown Hospital]. The only attempt to identify any individual 

responsible for this conduct is her allegation that the information was 

“disseminated and obtained by a violent and abusive man.” There is no 

statement indicating how the unnamed violent and abusive man is connected 
- 4 -

to Saint Thomas. Plaintiff fails to allege that any Saint Thomas employee 

engaged in this conduct.

There is no allegation that so[me] other unnamed individual who committed 

these acts was an agent or employee of Saint Thomas. Saint Thomas and 

[Midtown Hospital] are separate and distinct corporate entities, and Saint 

Thomas cannot generally be held liable for the conduct of unemployed third 

parties, including [Midtown Hospital] or its employees. Without at least an 

allegation that the tortious actor was indeed an agent or employee of Saint 

Thomas, there is no set of facts that show how Saint Thomas is liable. 

The Complaint fails to allege facts, as required by Rule 8.01, that would show 

that whoever allegedly accessed and disclosed Plaintiff’s private information 

was an employee or agent of Saint Thomas, or how Saint Thomas could 

otherwise be held liable for that conduct. This Court finds that Plaintiff has 

failed to state a claim against Saint Thomas. 

This appeal followed. 

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff raises two issues on appeal:

1. Whether the trial court erred in granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss by not 

construing the pleadings in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.

2. Whether the trial court erred in granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss by 

misapplying the discovery rule.

Plaintiff’s argument in her appellate brief takes issue with the trial court’s 

application of the relevant statute of limitations by arguing that the trial court erred by 

misapplying the discovery rule and failing to construe the pleadings in the light most 

favorable to Plaintiff. Significantly, however, her arguments are limited to the statute of 

limitations issue and ignore the trial court’s dismissal of her claims under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 

8.01. Thus, Plaintiff provided no argument that challenges the trial court’s dismissal of the 

complaint under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.01 for Plaintiff’s failure to plead with particularity how 

she is entitled to relief against Saint Thomas Health when Plaintiff did not identify any 

individual or action connected to Saint Thomas Health.

The Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that the appellant’s brief shall contain 

“[a] statement of facts, setting forth the facts relevant to the issues presented for review 

with appropriate references to the record” as well as “an argument” setting forth the 

contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented. Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)(6) 
- 5 -

and (7). Likewise, Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee requires the 

appellant to provide “[a] statement of each determinative fact relied upon with citation to 

the record where evidence of such fact may be found.” A party’s failure to comply with 

these rules “waives the issues for review.” Bean, 40 S.W.3d at 55. Here, Plaintiff’s brief 

fails to comply with these rules by, inter alia, failing to set forth facts relevant to the trial 

court’s dismissal of her complaint under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.01, which was an independent 

basis for dismissal.

The complaint alleged that Plaintiff’s private medical information had been

disclosed in violation of Tennessee’s Patient’s Privacy Protection Act but failed to allege 

that the disclosure was made by an employee or agent of Saint Thomas Health or to 

otherwise explain how Saint Thomas Health could be liable for the actions of Midtown 

Hospital. The complaint simply stated: “On several occasions throughout 2018 the plaintiff 

received medical treatment at a hospital owned and operated by Defendant Saint Thomas, 

more specifically Saint Thomas Midtown Hospital.” (emphasis added). It appears Plaintiff 

equated Saint Thomas Health’s ownership of Midtown Hospital with liability for Midtown 

Hospital’s alleged conduct. However, the trial court took judicial notice of the fact that 

Saint Thomas Health and Midtown Hospital are separate corporate entities, and Plaintiff 

presented no set of facts at trial or on appeal to dispute this fact. 

Notably, parent and subsidiary corporations are presumed to be separate and distinct 

legal entities. Lowe v. Gulf Coast Dev., Inc., No. 01A01-9010-CH-00374, 1991 WL 

220576, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov.1, 1991); William Meade Fletcher, 13 Fletcher Cyc. 

Corp. § 26 (perm. ed., rev. vol. 2021). The courts are reluctant to disregard 

the separate existence of related corporations and thus have consistently given substantial 

weight to the presumption of corporate separateness. Gordon v. Greenview Hosp., Inc., 300 

S.W.3d 635, 651 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2009). Plaintiff has presented no facts to counter 

the presumption of corporate separateness. The trial court’s Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.01 

particularity ruling is an independent basis for dismissing the complaint; thus, by ignoring 

this independent ground for dismissal, Plaintiff has waived her right to appeal the trial 

court’s ruling based on Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.01. Therefore, we find further analysis of the 

trial court’s statute of limitations ruling to be unnecessary; even if this Court found error 

in that ruling, dismissal of the appellant’s action would still be the result. 

IN CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and this matter is remanded with costs 

of appeal assessed against the appellant, Candes Prewitt.

________________________________

 FRANK G. CLEMENT JR., P.J., M.S.