|
Analysis: The Tennessee Court of Appeals in Suzanne Renee
Williams-Ali v. Mountain States Health Alliance, 2013 WL 357580, No.
E2012-00724-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. January 30, 2013) discussed when
a case is a medical malpractice cause of action (now called a “healthcare liability action” under the new statute) as opposed to simply a
negligence claim. Of course, this is of great
importance because of the hoops that one must jump through in order to comply
with the various pre-suit requirements for a Tennessee medical malpractice case. This lawsuit concerned a plaintiff who was
dropped from a table by the defendant’s employees while she was undergoing
myocardial imaging. She essentially fell
off the table and landed on the floor and sustained injuries as a result of the
fall. Williams-Ali
at 1. The plaintiff filed a
lawsuit against the defendant Mountain States Health Alliance under a theory of
negligence, not as a medical malpractice action.
As a result, the defendant filed a motion
to dismiss asserting the causes of action in this matter were actually medical
malpractice as opposed to ordinary negligence and requested dismissal because
the plaintiff did not comply with the medical malpractice pre-suit requirements. Ultimately, the trial court granted summary
judgment to the defendant and found that the gravamen of the complaint sounded
in medical malpractice as opposed to ordinary negligence. The non-compliance with the pre-suit
requirements was therefore fatal to the case.
This case was appealed and the plaintiff asserted that medical training
and experience were not necessary to place or secure a patient onto the scan
table for the nuclear stress test. As a
result, the argument was that this case should be considered a negligence case,
not medical malpractice.
As the Supreme Court has previously held,
“cases involving health or medical entities do not automatically fall within
the medical malpractice statute.” Williams-Ali at 4
(quoting Draper
v. Westerfield, 181 S.W.3d 283, 290 (Tenn. 2005)). The court further noted that a recent Tennessee
Supreme Court provided a lengthy and well-reasoned opinion discussion of the difference
between a medical malpractice claim and an ordinary negligence claim (See Estate
of French v. Stratford House, 333 S.W.3d 546, 555-60 (Tenn. 2011)). In the Estate
of French case the Supreme Court discussed these issues and stated as
follows:
It is, of course,
the responsibility of the courts to ascertain the nature and substance of a
claim. The designation given those claims by either the plaintiff or the
defendant is not determinative. For example, even though the Administratrix in
this case made reference to neither the [medical malpractice statute] nor the
term “medical malpractice” in the complaint, the requirements of the [medical
malpractice statute] apply if, in fact, the factual basis for the claim sounds
in medical malpractice. Nevertheless, a single complaint may be founded upon
both ordinary negligence principles and the medical malpractice statute. The
[medical malpractice statute] applies only to those alleged acts that bear a
substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment by a medical
professional, or concern medical art or science, training, or expertise. If
there are additional acts or omissions alleged that do not bear a substantial
relationship to medical treatment, require no specialized skills, or could be
assessed by the trier of fact based upon ordinary everyday experiences, then
the claims may be made under an ordinary negligence theory.
Estate
of French at 557.
In the Williams-Ali
case at issue, the Tennessee Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court and
found the cause of action at issue should be considered as a medical
malpractice claim. In fact, the
plaintiff was actually in the process of undergoing a nuclear stress test when the
injury occurred. She had also been
assessed by a nuclear medicine technologist performing the test and based on
that assessment the technologist found she should be placed in a specific position
during the course of the test. Williams-Ali at 6. The defendant also had made a determination
that defendant employees should monitor her during the test and should remain
within 18 inches of the table on either side during the test. Williams-Ali at 6.
It was only after all of these
determinations were made that the plaintiff’s test began and the injury
occurred.
As a result, the court found, “there is no
question that Decedent was receiving professional care at the time and that the
alleged acts bore a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical
treatment by a medical professional, and/or concerned medical art or science,
training, or expertise.” Williams-Ali at 6. The court further found the assessment and
care provided by the defendant went way beyond the type of “basic” or “routine
non-medical” care that the Tennessee Supreme Court referred to in the Estate
of French decision as falling within the category of ordinary
negligence. Williams-Ali
at 6. As a result, this case was
properly dismissed by the trial court because the plaintiff failed to comply
with the pre-suit notice requirements and the certificate of good faith. Williams-Ali at 7.
This case once again shows how important
it is to know the status of Tennessee law on the requirements for any medical
malpractice lawsuit. The change in the
law for medical malpractice causes of action several years ago provides
specific pre-suit notice requirements under T.C.A.
§ 29-26-121 and T.C.A.
§ 29-26-122 and if they are not complied with, the case will almost
certainly be dismissed. Even if a case
does not sound like a “medical malpractice” case, some causes of action such as
this one pertaining to someone who falls during a medical test can still be considered
within the scope of a medical malpractice action in Tennessee
Follow me on Twitter at @jasonalee for updates from the Tennessee Defense Litigation
blog.
|