### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON
MAE ELL EN WI LLI AMS v. BAPTI ST MEMO RIAL H OSPI TAL, ET AL 

### . Circuit Court

for Sh elby County No. CT-007191-01

No. W2003-02872-C OA-R3-C V - F iled Dece m ber 30, 2004

DI SSEN TIN G OP IN ION This is a wrong ful death action g rowing out of alleg ations of medica l malprac tice lodg ed ag ainst Dr. B ecky

C. W rig ht and Metropolitan Ane sthesiologist Alliance . On Dec ember 7, 2000, surg ery was pe rformed on the dec edent to r emove her g allbladder

. Ultimately , the dece dent suffe red irreve rsible enc ephalopathy and ling ere d in a comatose state for ne arly a y ear and a ha lf befor e she died on April 24, 2002.
Th e tr ia l c o u r t ’ s s c h e d u l i n g o r d e r e n t e r e d o n Ja n u ar y 3 1 , 2 0 0 3 , r e q u i r e d t h e P l a i n t i f fs to “identify any expert who will be called to testify at the trial” on or bef

ore A pril 15, 2003. After

new c o- c ou ns e l f

or the Pla int if

fs e nte re d th e c a se , th e tr ia l c ou rt set asi de th e sc he du lin g or de r i n it s entirety on Marc h 24, 2003, and set July 1, 2003, as the date by which Plaintiff’s must identify any e xpe rt w i t n e s s e s
. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e tr i a l c o u r t s e t A u g u s t 2 9 , 2 0 0 3 , a s t h e d a t e f o r a h e ar i n g on a ll pending motions for summary judgme nt, and t h e co u rt ruled that a ll materials re lated to such motions m ust be filed by

Aug ust 22, 2003.
It is c le ar fr om re a din g the or de rs e nte re d by the tr ia l c ou rt that the re we re two s epara te e ve nts c on te mpl ate d inthesc he du li ng or de rs . F ir st, the rewa s th e re qu ir e me nt that a ny e xpe rt s te sti fying fo r the Pla int if

fs at t ria l be identified by

J uly 1, 2003. Second, there was the re quirement th a t mater ia ls r e late d to th e motions for sum mary jud gment be filed by

Aug ust 22, 2003. Acc ording ly , we a

re p re s ented with two differe nt dates desig ned for two separ ate e vents in the lit ig a tio n p ro c e ss, e a c h w iththea im o f a c c omp lis hin g tw o d ist inc tly dif fe re nt o bje c tiv e s.
OnAu g us t 22 , 200 3, the Pla int if fs fi le d the a ff

ida vit of Ron a ld J. G or do n, M. D. , inre sp on se to Dr. Wright’ s motion for summary judgme nt. The trial court excluded the af fidavit of Dr . Gordon as being insufficient a nd for violating the scheduling order , in that the Plaintiffs were fifty -two (52) day s late in reve aling the identity of an e x pert to testify

on the dec edent’ s behalf

. Dec edent lay in a comatose state for a

pproxi mately

eight een months, alleg edly due to the neg lige nce of the defe ndant/anesthe siologist. I t appea rs t o this member of the C ourt that dismiss al of the case f or a delay of appr ox imately

a month and a ha lf is unduly harsh.-2-

Dr. Gor don is a Tenne ssee doctor who is boa rd ce rtified in ane sthesiology . Dr. Gor don noted in his affidavit that the de cede nt “had a documented his t o ry of being difficult to intubate.” He fu rthe r s tate d th at it

wa s “ be low thestand ardof c areto e xtubate a

patie nt in [ dece de nt’ s p os toperative] conditi on and with this known hi story .” Although Dr. Gordon does not name Dr . Wright specific ally

in his affidavit, it is abundantly cle ar that he is speaking about the neg lige nce of the anesthe siologist, and the majority is corre ct in holding that his af fidavit is fully

adequate.
“Te nnessee courts have. . . exhibi ted a liberal attitude toward g rants of f iling extensions.” Lawyer v. Lawyer , 1 9 8 4 T en n
. Ap p
. LE XIS 3 2 1 0 , at* 7 (T en n
. C t

. Ap p
. 1 9 8 4 ) ( ci t i n g Sta te ex re l. S i ms v. Re agan , 1 75 Te nn . 6 07 , 1 36 S.W. 2d52 1 ( 19 39 ); Le e pe r H ar dwa re Co. v . Ki rk , 58 Tenn. Ap p. 54 9, 43 4 S.W.2 d 620 (1 96 8) ). Th e ma jority c or re c tly se ts f orth the fa c tor s a

tria l c ou rt

sh ou ld consider w hen dec iding a

Rule 6.02 motion, Sizemore v . United Physician s I nsurance Risk R etention Group , 56 S.W .3d 557, 567 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001), how ever , this Court has also stated:

Th e c on c e pt o f e xcu sa

ble ne g le c t is br oa d e no ug h to app ly to “simp l e, faultless omis sions to act and, more commonly , [t o] o m i s s ions caused by

car elessness.” Pioneer I nv. Serv s. Co. v. Br un swi c k

As so c s. Ltd

. P ’s hip , 507 U.S. 380, 388, 113 S.C t. 1489, 14 95 , 1 23 L .E . 2 d 74 (1 99 3)

. Ac c or din g ly , the c on c e pt of e xcu sa ble neg lect can [even] be used to e x cuse failure to c omply wi t h a f iling deadline that is attributable to a filer ’s n eglig ence
. Pioneer I nv. Se rv s. Co. v . B ru ns wi ck As so c s. Ltd . P ’s hip , 507 U.S. at 394, 113 S.Ct . at 14 97 ; Ma rx v. L or al Cor p . 87 F.3d 1049, 1054 ( 9th Cir. 1996).

. . . . W e have also held that the party’s r ea son for fail ing to meet the de ad lin e ma

y be the sin gle mo st imp or tan t of the fou r fa c tor

s and that the trial court should ex amine the pr offe red r eason to de termine “ (1) whether the circumstances involved wer e under a pa rty ’s own contr ol . . . and (2) whether the party was pay ing appropriate attention to the matter in lig ht of the surrounding circ u m s t an ce s .” Sta te ex re l. Sizemore v . United Physicians Ins. Risk Retention Group , 56 S.W .3d a t 56 9- 70 . T hu s, g ranti ng re lie f fr om fi lin g de a dli ne s u nd e r T e nn . R. Civ. P . 6.02 has bee n char acte ri z ed as “ repair work whe n lawy ers have good rea sons.” Da

y v
. Nor the rn In d. Pu b. Se rv . Co rp ., 164 F.3d 382, 384 (7th Cir. 1999). Kenyon v . Handal , 122 S.W .3d 743, 756–57 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) ( emphasis adde d).
I n this case, the Plaintiffs c omplied w ith the scheduling order with refe renc e to the motion for summary

judgme nt by

submitt ing their counter -af fidavit on Aug ust 22, 2003. Further , the P l a int if fs ide nti fi e d th e ir

e xpe rt wi tne ss with in si

xte e n da y s af t erre ce i v i n g d i s co v er y

o f i n fo rm ati onN o te tha t D r. G o rd o n re lied sp e c ifi c a lly in h is a ff id a v it o n th e “ d o c u m e n te d h isto ry” o f d e c e d e n t. It w a s this 1 h isto ry th a t p la intiff s d id no t re c e ive un til A u g u st 6 , 2 0 0 3 , an d w h ic h re su lted in the ir v e ry m o d e ra te d e la y.

T hi s i s no t an i nst ance whe re a pl ai nt i f f i n a m ed i cal m al p ract i ce acti o n was ext rem el y dil at o ry i n s ecuri ng 2

a n e x p e rt w itne ss. See Ba i l ey v. Task er , N o. E2003- 00844- CO A- R3- CV , 2004 T en n
. App. LEX I S 169, 146 S. W

. 3d 580, at * 1 0 (T en n. C t

. A p p
. M ar. 1 7 , 2 0 0 4 ) (n o t i ng tha t , w hil e t he p l ainti f f s argu ed t he i r f ail ure t o sec ure an ex p ert wit ne ss was due t o fai l ur e t o obt ai n off i ce not es r el at ed t o t r eat ment , t he del ay was not wel l t ake n by t he t r i al cour t gi ven t hat t he p l ainti f

f s had seve nty

- nine (7 9 ) d ays a fter rec eivin g t h e n o t es w ithin w h ic h to se c u re a n e x p e rt). In a d d iti o n , i t i s w o rth no ting tha t t h e d iff ic u lty fac e d b y the P la intiff s in se c u rin g the n e c e ssa ry re c o rd s in th is c a se w a s d u e in p a rt to the d e fen d a n t/ho sp ital’s d e la y in p ro d u c ing the re c o rd s. C om pa r e Law yer , 1 9 8 4 T enn. A p p
. LE X IS 3 2 1 0 , at * 4 (not i ng the re a so n o ff

e re d b y the a tto rn e y fo r th e d e la y w a s h is he a v y c a se lo a d ). -3- wh ic h th e y

c on sid e re d e sse nti a l to th e op in ion s p ro ff e re d b y the ir e xpe rt

. Pla int if

fs so ug ht t o 1 enlar g e the time within whic h to identify their expert witnesses due to the difficulty they encounte red in discovering information re lating to de cede nt’s medical hist ory
. The trial c ourt, howeve r, denie d 2 this mot ion.
I would hold that the P laintiffs wer e ti mely in opposing the motion for summary judgme nt and that they

showed g o o d ca u s e fo r a fifty -two day delay in identify ing the ir expert. I would set aside the summary

judgme nt in this serious wrong ful death case and allow the Plaintiffs their day in court. Ther efor e, I

respe ctfully

dissent from the holding rea ched by the majority

in this case.

____________________________________ ALAN E. HI GHERS, J UDGE