Source: https://www.dayontorts.com/category/cat-medical-negligence/page/2
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 18:21:44+00:00

Document:
Medical Negligence Category Archives — Page 2 of 40 — Day on Torts Published by Day on Torts — Tennessee Personal Injury Attorney — The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.
Where an HCLA plaintiff sent defendants a HIPAA authorization that “failed to include the mother’s authority to sign the document, the expiration date of the document, and the names of all healthcare providers authorized to use or disclose the requested information,” plaintiff was still deemed to have substantially complied with the statutory requirements, and dismissal of the complaint was reversed.
In Martin v. Rolling Hills Hospital, LLC, No. M2016-02241-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 22, 2018), plaintiffs were the parents and children of a patient who was admitted to defendant hospital for suicidal ideation and detoxification, and was found unresponsive two days after her admission, dying later that day.
The death occurred on June 28, 2013, and the first complaint was filed on October 17, 2014, which was outside the one-year limitations period but within the 120-day extension period. That complaint was nonsuited, and a second complaint was filed naming the same defendants within a year of the nonsuit. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that plaintiffs did not comply with the pre-suit notice requirements, which meant they were not entitled to the 120-day extension of the statute of limitations. Accordingly, defendants argued that the first suit was time-barred, making the second suit also time-barred. The trial court granted to motion to dismiss based on plaintiffs’ incomplete HIPAA authorization, but the Court of Appeals reversed.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has reversed a 2005 opinion and held that a cap of $750,000 on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases is constitutional.
The female plaintiff in the case lost her arms and legs as a result of a medical error. A jury determined that her pain, suffering, and disfigurement had a value of $16.5 million. However, Wisconsin’s highest court deferred to legislation limiting such awards to a maximum of $750,000 in all cases, regardless of the severity of the injuries.
An HCLA plaintiff who does not comply with the pre-suit notice requirements in the statute is not entitled to the 120-day extension of the statute of limitations.
In Brookins v. Tabor, No. W2017-00576-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. March 8, 2015), plaintiff husband originally filed an HCLA suit against several defendants, including doctors Tabor, Lamothe, and Fleenor. This first suit was filed on January 29, 2015, and was nonsuited on April 16, 2015, in order to comply with the pre-suit notice requirements found in the HCLA.
On July 6, 2015, plaintiff husband re-filed the suit based on the same negligence against the same defendants. In this second suit, plaintiff wife also asserted a loss of consortium claim. Defendant doctors moved to dismiss the claims, alleging that they were time-barred because plaintiffs had failed to meet the pre-suit notice requirements and were thus unable to rely on the 120-day extension of the one-year statute of limitations. The trial court agreed, dismissing all claims against defendant doctors, and the Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal for various reasons.
In a misdiagnosis Tennessee health care liability (medical malpractice) case, defendants seeking dismissal based on the statute of limitations were required to “establish that decedent was aware of the alleged misdiagnosis,” not just show that the misdiagnosis was made, in order to establish when the one-year limitation period began to run.
If an HCLA plaintiff fails to provide proper pre-suit notice and files her first complaint after the statute of limitations has passed (but within the 120-day grace period), her case will not be saved by voluntarily dismissing and trying to use the savings statute to refile.
In Dortch v. Methodist Healthcare Memphis Hospitals, No. W2017-01121-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2018), plaintiff filed a health care liability suit against defendants based on the death of her son following a surgery on April 3, 2014. On April 6, 2015, plaintiff’s counsel served a purported pre-suit notice of her HCLA claim on defendants, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121. This notice contained HIPAA authorization forms that “only permitted the recipient entity to send the medical records of [the deceased] to plaintiff’s counsel.” The statute, however, requires that the HIPAA forms included with the notice permit “the provider receiving the notice to obtain complete medical records from each other provider being sent a notice.” (Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E)).
Plaintiff filed her initial complaint on July 1, 2015, after which defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on the deficiencies in the pre-suit notice. Plaintiff then filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, and an order of dismissal was entered on September 17, 2015.
On July 6, 2016, plaintiff sent a second pre-suit notice to defendants, then she re-filed her complaint on September 16, 2016. Defendants moved to dismiss this complaint, alleging that plaintiff’s first complaint was untimely and that she was thus not entitled to take advantage of the one-year savings statute. The trial court agreed, granting the motion to dismiss, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
A plaintiff’s claim for assault and battery within a medical facility may not fall under the HCLA, and thus not be subject to its pre-suit notice and certificate of good faith requirements.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that all of plaintiff’s claims were subject to the HCLA and that his failure to provide pre-suit notice and a certificate of good faith were thus fatal to his claim. The trial court agreed, dismissing the mother’s action with prejudice and the minor’s without prejudice (apparently making this distinction solely because he was a minor).
The study “provides insight into the root causes of diagnosis-related claims based on an analysis of 10,618 closed medical professional liability claims at Coverys across a five-year period (2013-2017).
The study found that 33% of all claims and 47% of all indemnity payments in the five years of claims that were studied. A whopping 54% of diagnosis-related claims results in serious injury and 36% result in death.
Allegations related to a patient being injured by a doctor’s handshake may not fall under the HCLA.
In Lacy v. Meharry General Hospital, No. M2016-01477-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2017), plaintiff went to defendant doctor for a check up regarding why she was getting short of breath. Upon entering the room, plaintiff alleged that she offered her hand for a handshake and defendant “squeezed [her] fingers too hard,” which she described as “a beating” or “assault.” Plaintiff alleged, in her pro se complaint, that because of this handshake, “her hand is in constant pain and the fingers no longer have any strength.” Plaintiff also asserted that defendant doctor did not properly add her sonogram results to her medical records.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on plaintiff’s noncompliance with the pre-suit notice and certificate of good faith requirements of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (HCLA). The trial court granted the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed in part.
Where the only notification a hospital provided to a patient that a radiologist was not an agent of the hospital was buried in fine print in admission forms and not highlighted in any way, the trial court’s finding that the hospital was vicariously liable for any fault assigned to the radiologist was affirmed.
In July 2005, plaintiff’s attorney requested a copy of the CT scan, and the hospital responded that it could not be located. Plaintiff attempted to get the CT scan from the surgeon, the radiology group under contract with the hospital, and the hospital at which the patient ultimately died, but was not provided a copy until three years later. The CT scan revealed that Dr. Anderson “failed to note and report evidence of free air in [patient’s] abdomen, indicative of a bowel perforation.” By the time the CT scan was provided, it was too late to add Dr. Anderson, the radiologist, as a defendant.
In Commercial Bank & Trust Co. v. Children’s Anesthesiologists, P.C., No. E2016-01747-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2017), plaintiffs were the legal guardian of a minor who, after a shunt revision, was no longer able to walk. Plaintiffs filed an HLCA suit, and after trial, the jury returned a verdict for defendants. Plaintiffs appealed, raising four issues.
First, plaintiffs asserted that “the Trial Court erred in allowing testimony that implied that [the minor’s] parents came to this country as refugees.” Because plaintiffs did not object to this line of questioning at trial, though, this issue was deemed waived.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 29
 § 29
 v. 
in fine
 v.