T h e H on or abl e Ja mes S. G wi n , U n i t ed S t at es D i s t r i ct J u dg e f or t h e N or t h er n D i s t r i ct of O h i o, s i t t i n g by * d esi gnat i o n. NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0856n.06 F iled: Dec em ber 17, 2007 Case No. 05- 5830 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OFAP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT MARISSA MILLER, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER MOTHER AND NEXT F RIEND, MIRANDA M ILLE R, P laintif f-App ellant,
v. JOHN DACUS, M.D., Defendan t-Appellee.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O R

D E R

BEFORE: M ERRITT an d BATCHE LDER, Circuit Judges; GWIN , District Judge. * I. Bac kgr ound Plaintiff Marissa Miller (“ Miller”), through her mother and next fri end, Miranda Miller, brought suit i n fede ral district cour t ag ainst obstetrician John Dacus (“ Dac us”) f or injuri es Miller sustained when he r mother g ave birth to he r in 1993. Miller commence d the suit over ten year s later in 2003, assertingtwo distinct lega l theories bef ore the distr i ct co urt-- one for lac k of informe d consent a nd another

for medic al neg lige nce. T he district cour t gr anted Dac us’ motion for summary jud gme nt, dism is singMil le r’ s la c k- of -i nf or me d c on se nt c la im o n th e ba sis that a do c tor ’s duty

to ob ta in i nf or me d c on se nt u

nd e r T e nn e sse e law i s o we d to themot he r, no t to thefe tu s, and thu s a2

claim for f

ailure to pr ovide informed consent does not be long to the child. The rema ining claim of
m ed i ca l n eglig enceproce eded to tria l where the jury found that Da cus had not bre ache d the applicable standard of

car e. Miller appea led to this court the district court’s grant of summary judgme nt for Da cus on her claim for lack of informed c onsent, moving to c ertify to the Tenne ssee Supre me Court the question of whe ther a

fetus has a

n independe nt cause of ac tion for prenatal injury resulting from a phy sician’s failure to obtain informed consent from the mother. We gr anted that motion. Fur thermore , we sua sp on tec e rt if

ie d a n a dd iti on a l qu e sti on

to t he Te nn e sse e Sup re me Court : if th e answ e r t o th e fi rs t question is ‘yes,’ whe ther the minority provision of Tenne ssee’ s leg al di sability statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-106, to ll s th eme dical malpra ctice statute of repose, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-116( a)( 3),
a s a pp lie d to a

fe tus ’s la c k o f i nf

or me d c on se nt? After acc eptingthe ce rtification, the Te nnessee Supreme Court answe red the first question in the aff irmative, holding that “a minor does have an independe nt a ction ag ainst a medica l provider based on la ck of infor

med consent for prenata l injuries suffe red during labor and delivery .” Miller v. Dac us , 231 S.W .3d 903, 911 (Tenn. 2007) . Additionally , the cour t answer ed the se cond question in the aff irmative, holdingthat Tenne ssee ’s l egal disabili ty statute tolled the three -year statute of repose for Miller’s informed consent claim beca use she filed the c laim prior to Dec ember 9, 2005. Id . at 912. II. Order In light of the ruli ng by

the Tenne ssee Supre me Court, we now VA CA TE the district court’s grant of summar

y judgme nt for Da cus on Miller’s informed c onsent claim and REMAND to the3

district court with the instructions to analy ze the case consistent with theTenne ssee Supre me Court’s h o l d i n g. IT I S SO OR

DE RE D
.