Source: http://www.thehamiltonfirm.com/en/news/page/6/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:38:06+00:00

Document:
The expert affidavit law, O.C.G.A. § 9-11-9.1, which was originally enacted in 1987, supposedly to reduce litigation by weeding out frivolous lawsuits, is still spawning litigation nearly 30 years later. What if the plaintiff’s expert is deemed not competent to testify in a medical malpractice case under the stringent requirements of O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702(c)(2) because he had not been in active practice for at least three of the preceding five years, although he was a Board certified neurosurgeon? The Supreme Court faced this question in Gala v. Fisher, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 198 (3/27/15), and held that in a professional malpractice action, when a plaintiff files a complaint accompanied by an affidavit from a person not competent to testify as an expert in the action, O.C.G.A. § 9-11-9.1(e) permits the plaintiff to cure that defect by filing an amended complaint with the affidavit of a second, competent expert, within 30 days of service of the motion alleging that the affidavit is defective.
In Haynes v. Formac Stables, Inc., (Tenn. 2015), the plaintiff brought suit against his employer after he was allegedly terminated as the result of complaining of illegal conduct on the part of the owner/employer. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s retaliatory discharge claims because he failed to report the illegal activity to anyone other than the person who allegedly engaged in the activity; namely, the owner/employer. The Court of appeals affirmed the dismissal. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that an employee must report an employer’s wrongdoing to someone other than the wrongdoer to qualify as a “whistleblower.” In a situation where the wrongdoer is a manager, owner, or highest ranking officer within the company, the employee would need to report the employer’s wrongdoing to an outside entity. As a result, the judgment dismissing the claim was affirmed.
Judge Thomas reviewed the history of trial by jury in England, the British colonies and the United States and concluded that the legislative branch cannot take away the right of citizen juries to determine the amount damages. The opinion was issued after the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a pretrial ruling on the issue.
What is an Arm Worth?
In a shocking comparison of the differences in workers compensation benefits from state to state, NPR and Propublica just released a nationwide study, in conjunction stories on NPR’s Morning Edition radio program this week. To illustrate, they compared the benefits available in Alabama to the benefits available in Georgia for the loss of an arm on the job, and interviewed Josh Potter of Ringgold, Georgia. Josh lost his left hand and most of his forearm in an accident at Unique Fabrications in LaFayette, GA. While he will never be made whole, he has been fitted with a remarkable prosthetic arm, and is doing well, considering the circumstances. The financial adjustments have been very difficult, however, for him and his family as workers compensation benefits do not replace a paycheck. He fortunate that the accident did not happen in Alabama, however, where an amputated arm was only worth $49,000.
Click here for the full story on Josh.
For the full report, “The Demolition of Workers’ Comp”, prepared by Michael Grabell of Propublica and Howard Berkes of NPR, click here.
What is a “collateral source” and why is the Tennessee legislature trying to changes the rules?
What is a “collateral source”? It is a source of payment or benefit that is not relevant to issue of legal liability and damages in a personal injury case. For example, an injured person may be covered under a group medical plan at work, or have an individual medical policy that covers some of the medical expenses caused by the accident. Or, Medicare, Medicaid or some other governmental program may have paid most of the medical bills. Loss of earnings due to an injury may be partially offset by Social Security disability benefits, or other disability benefits, or workers compensation benefits.
The collateral source rule is a rule of evidence that prohibits consideration of such collateral sources of payment or benefit to the plaintiff in a personal injury case. So, where the collateral source rule is in effect, upon the trial of a personal injury case, a defendant cannot offer evidence that the plaintiff had medical insurance coverage that paid all or part of the medical expenses caused by the accident, or that he or she had a long term disability (LTD) policy, or other disability benefits. Currently, certain advocates of “tort reform” in Tennessee (big business, insurance companies and the Chamber of Commerce) want to abolish the collateral source rule in Tennessee and permit defendants to introduce evidence of the injured plaintiff’s own medical and disability insurance coverage at trial.
But this is not a rule of evidence. It is a limitation on damages, and the Tennessee Supreme Court has held that T.C.A. § 29-26-119 is “in derogation of the common law rule that allowed plaintiffs to recover medical expenses, whether paid by insurance or not” so “it must be strictly construed”, Hunter v. Ura, 163 S.W.3d 686 (2005).
How do neighboring states handle collateral source “evidence”? Collateral sources of payment or benefit to the injured plaintiff are not allowed into evidence in Georgia. See Denton v. Con-way Southern Express, 261 Ga. 41 (1991), (overruled on other grounds).
In Alabama, the “collateral source rule has been abrogated, but it is a rule of evidence and not a law of damages. Therefore, the jury has discretion to consider all the evidence and to either reduce the award or not based on the collateral source payments.” AMF Bowling Ctrs. v. Dearman, 683 So. 2d 436, (Ala. Civ. App. 1995).
So, while Georgia does not permit any evidence of collateral sources at trial, Alabama does allow evidence of payment of medical expenses. What should the Tennessee legislature do? If collateral sources are to be considered, should it be a rule of evidence or a rule of damages? Tennessee already limits recovery of medical expenses to those that are reasonable and necessary and places a considerable evidentiary burden on the plaintiff to prove such with expert testimony. And, Tennessee does not allow recovery of most “collateral sources” in medical malpractice cases. In Georgia, by contrast, “the patient or the member of his or her family or other person responsible for the care of the patient shall be a competent witness to identify bills for expenses incurred in the treatment of the patient upon a showing by such a witness that the expenses were incurred in connection with the treatment of the injury, disease, or disability involved in the subject of litigation”, without the necessity of any expert testimony, O.C.G.A. § 24-9-921.
If collateral sources are to be admissible, why not ease the evidentiary burden on the plaintiff, and allow the bills to be considered upon testimony by the patient that he or she incurred the bills?
If the plaintiff’s medical or disability insurance coverage is be considered, what about the defendant’s liability insurance coverage? Tennessee currently follows an archaic rule that even prohibits discovery of the defendant’s liability insurance coverage. Why not put all the cards on the table and let the jury know all the facts?
Note: In one of the early “tort reform” efforts, in 1987, the Georgia legislature passed a law allowing evidence of collateral sources into evidence at trial. The law was challenged and declared unconstitutional in 1991, in Denton v. Con-way Southern Express. Hubert E. Hamilton was counsel for the plaintiff, Carol Denton, and successfully argued the case before the Georgia Supreme Court.
What is a “Reasonable” Medical Bill in Tennessee?
It depends! Under T.C.A. § 24-5-113(a), “medical, hospital or doctor bills” incurred due to an injury that are itemized in the complaint and attached as an exhibit are deemed to be “necessary and reasonable” as long as the total amount of the bills does not exceed $4000.
But what if, after an injury causing accident, a hospital files submits its charges to Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) or some other insurance company, gets paid the reasonable and customary amount provided by their contract, and then tries to collect the difference between the billed amount and the contract amount by perfecting a lien against the cause of action under T.C.A. §§ 29-22-102 (Tennessee Hospital Lien Act)?
In West v. Shelby County Healthcare Corp. 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 1033, (12/19/14), the Tennessee Supreme Court, said, in essence, that hospitals cannot have their cake and eat it too. If they accept the contract amount, that is all they get.
Actually, as we point here, there is a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness, regardless of the amount, if the bills are served on the other parties at least 90 days in advance of trial under T.C.A. § 24-5-113(b).
Trial Court Should Have Been Reversed for Erroneous Jury Instruction in FELA Case.
Plaintiffs usually fare well in FELA cases, which provide compensation for railroad employees injured on the job. Unlike state workers compensation systems, however, which are no-fault systems, under FELA, the plaintiff must prove some negligence on the part of the railroad in causing the injury. In Spencer v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 626 (8/29/14), the plaintiff injured his back when he threw a switch. The trial court told the jury that the plaintiff had to prove the railroad knew or should have known on the day of the incident that the switch was not operating properly. The jury found in favor of the railroad, and the plaintiff appealed. The Tennessee Court of Appeals found the jury instruction was erroneous and reversed, granting the plaintiff a new trial. Surprisingly, however, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the jury verdict in favor of the railroad, finding the erroneous instruction to have been “substantially accurate.” The Supreme Court acknowledged that the instruction could have been given more precisely and suggested that the jury should have been instructed to determine whether the railroad knew or should have known at a time sufficiently before the incident such that it could have taken action to prevent or ameliorate the incident. But that was no help to the injured plaintiff, who will get not a second chance to prove his FELA case, and who will receive no compensation for his back injuries.

References: § 9
 § 24
 v. 
 § 9
 v. 
 § 29
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 24
 v. 
 § 24
 v. 
 § 24
 v.