IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

December 2, 2020 Session

BRITTANY BORNGNE EX REL. MIYONA HYTER v. CHATTANOOGAHAMILTON COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY ET AL.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County

No. 15C814 J.B. Bennett, Judge

No. E2020-00158-COA-R3-CV

KRISTI M. DAVIS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur in the majority opinion on all issues except the compulsion of Dr. Seeber’s 

testimony. I believe the trial court correctly refused to compel this testimony in reliance 

on Lewis ex rel. Lewis v. Brooks, 66 S.W.3d 883 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

 

The essence of Plaintiff’s action is her allegation that Nurse Mercer too slowly 

recognized concerning signs and indicators suggesting dangerous complications in her 

delivery and that she called Dr. Seeber too late. Defendants denied this and put on proof 

to the contrary, including the testimony of Nurse Mercer, Nurse Stephenson, and Dr. 

Seeber. Dr. Seeber was not at the hospital during the critical time that Nurse Mercer was 

providing care to Plaintiff, before she called him. Thus, it is apparent that Dr. Seeber was 

not providing treatment to Plaintiff during this time. It is not apparent that Dr. Seeber has 

any more knowledge or insight than any other medical expert who might be called upon to 

review the documents in Plaintiff’s chart and provide an opinion as to whether Nurse 

Mercer complied with the standard of care.

The underpinning of Lewis and the subsequent case of Burchfield v. Renfree, No. 

E2012-01582-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 5676268 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 18, 2013), is the 

recognition that a practitioner who has not been named as an expert witness cannot be 

forced to provide expert testimony against another practitioner simply because of their 

knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. The Burchfield Court stated:

Applicable to this case is this Court’s opinion in Lewis v. Brooks, 66 S.W.3d 

883, 887 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001), wherein it was explained that doctors who 

were party defendants in the case could not be compelled to answer questions 

in discovery regarding their opinions of the treatment given by other doctors. 

07/01/2021
2

Determining that there were no Tennessee cases specifically on point, this 

Court relied upon a Pennsylvania case styled Pennsylvania Co. v. City of 

Philadelphia, 105 A. 630 (1918).

Id. at *25. Burchfield quoted the Pennsylvania case as follows, in pertinent part:

The process of the courts may always be invoked to require 

witnesses to appear and testify to any facts within their 

knowledge; but no private litigant has a right to ask them to go 

beyond that. . . . [T]he private litigant has no more right to 

compel a citizen to give up the product of his brain, than he has 

to compel the giving up of material things. In each case it is a 

matter of bargain, which, as ever, it takes two to make, and to 

make unconstrained.

Id. The Burchfield Court held that “the trial court was correct in its determination that Dr. 

Calundruccio could not be compelled to provide testimony as an expert against his will. 

Where the expert’s agreement to serve in such capacity has been withdrawn, there is no 

authority for compelling the expert to ‘give up the product of his brain.’” Id.

The majority concludes that the foregoing does not apply when the expert opinion 

is sought from a supervisor against a supervisee. The majority cites no authority for this 

exception. Rather, the majority opines that such testimony is acceptable because it is 

highly pertinent and relevant. Respectfully, if that were the standard, then Lewis and 

Burchfield should be abrogated. One doctor’s opinion about whether another doctor 

complied with the standard of care is inarguably highly pertinent and relevant. The issue 

is not the relationship between the parties or whether the evidence is relevant. The issue is 

whether an expert can be compelled to testify regarding whether another practitioner 

complied with the standard of care, an issue that was properly resolved in Lewis and 

Burchfield.

1

For these reasons, I concur in part and dissent in part.

/s/ Kristi M. Davis

KRISTI M. DAVIS, JUDGE

 

1 Moreover, similarly to the defendant doctors in Lewis, Dr. Seeber was not designated as an expert witness 

under Tennessee Rule Civil Procedure 26.02(4). The trial court held that “he is prohibited from rendering 

opinions about the care provided by others unless and until he is designated as an expert witness pursuant 

to the requirements of TRCP 26.” Despite the trial court’s decision prohibiting Dr. Seeber “from rendering 

opinions about the care provided by others unless and until he is designated an expert witness,” Plaintiff 

did not so designate him.