|
Analysis: On July 15, 2014 the Tennessee Supreme Court provided
an important new opinion that will modify the way many trial courts handle ruling
on motions for summary judgment. The
case of Mary C.
Smith v. UHS of Lakeside, Inc., No. W2011-02405-SC-R11-CV, 2014 WL 3429204 (Tenn.
2014), dealt with a situation where a trial court granted two motion
for summary judgment on behalf of the defendants. The details of this health care liability
cause of action are not important to be able to evaluate the importance of this
opinion. The details of what happened at
the motion for summary judgment rulings are, however, very important.
After the trial court ruled on two motions
for summary judgment the court then directed defense counsel to prepare the orders
explaining the trial court’s ruling. The
Supreme Court discussed the trial court’s statements to counsel as follows:
The trial court
then observed that “the appellate court is going to want a rationale from our
rulings.” Accordingly, the trial court stated, “As far as a basis for the
ruling, I'm going to let you [Lakeside's counsel] make those.... And in the
same way [p]laintiff's counsel can then, you were successful on EMTALA,
outrageous conduct and the negligent infliction of emotional distress, the
motions in which you were successful, you'll prepare the order and the
rationale for the Court's ruling.”
Smith at
5. At the second hearing the trial
court once again ruled on the pending motion for summary judgment and stated:
I'm ruling now. I
think I've heard ample discussion on this. And I'm directing the [d]efendant to
prepare the order and to establish the rationale for the [c]ourt's ruling in
quite specific detail, and let this go forward as quickly as possible to the
[a]ppellate [c]ourt.
So basically at both hearings, the trial
court did not provide detail about the basis or reasoning for its ruling on the
motions for summary judgment. It simply relied
upon counsel to draft an order explaining the rationale for the trial court’s
ruling. The granting of the motions for
summary judgment was therefore appealed and the appeal ultimately came to the
Tennessee Supreme Court. The Tennessee
Supreme Court discussed the fact that over the last 30 years the Court has
allowed findings of fact, conclusions of law, opinions and orders to be
submitted by counsel to the judge. Smith at
10, 11. However, the Tennessee
Supreme Court noted it continues “to adhere to the view that findings of fact,
conclusions of law, opinions, and orders prepared by trial judges themselves
are preferable to those prepared by counsel.”
Smith at
10.
The Court then reviewed the various
concerns about having counsel prepare orders for the court. However, it found Tennessee Rule
of Civil Procedure 56.04 is not “inconsistent with the custom of permitting
trial courts to request and consider proposed orders prepared by the prevailing
party.” Smith at
12. Regardless, the Tennessee
Rules of Civil Procedure “must be interpreted in a way that assures that a
trial court’s decision whether to grant or deny a motion for summary judgment
is its own.” Smith at
12.
As a result, the Tennessee Supreme Court
made a very important holding which will change the way motions for summary
judgments are ruled on in many courts across Tennessee. The Court stated that:
We conclude that Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04 requires the trial court, upon granting or
denying a motion for summary judgment, to state the grounds for its decision
before it invites or requests the prevailing party to draft a proposed order. Not only will this requirement assure that
the decision is the trial court's, it will also (1) assure the parties that the
trial court independently considered their arguments, (2) enable the reviewing
courts to ascertain the basis for the trial court's decision, and (3) promote
independent, logical decision-making.
(emphasis added) Smith at
12. As a result, in the Smith
case at bar, the Court noted that the trial court did not provide insight into
the basis for its rulings granting the motions for summary judgment prior to
the time it asked counsel for an order explaining the court’s ruling. The trial court simply asked the defendant’s
attorney to craft orders supporting the trial court’s ruling. As a result, the Tennessee Supreme Court
found that the motion for summary judgment granted by the trial court in this
case should be reversed due to the failure of the trial court to properly
explain the motion for summary judgment ruling. Smith at
13.
The practical effect of this decision is
that trial judges must either verbally or in writing explain the basis for
their ruling on a motion for summary judgment before it invites or requests counsel to prepare proposed orders. In my opinion this is a very good change
which encourages trial courts to carefully consider the basis for granting or
denying motions for summary judgment. In
this opinion the Tennessee Supreme Court referred to ruling on motions for
summary judgment as a “high judicial function” and such rulings must be the
result of “the exercise of the trial court’s own judgment”. Smith at
8.
From a practical perspective, it is very
important for counsel to know about this new ruling by the Tennessee Supreme
Court. If your motion for summary
judgment is granted but the trial court does not explain the basis for its decision
before asking you to draft the order, you must be prepared to remind the court
of this ruling so that the summary judgment is not later reversed because of
the trial court’s failure to independently explain the ruling. It is still best for the trial court to author
the entire motion for summary judgment order under this new precedent, however
the Tennessee Supreme Court did not completely forbid attorneys input in
proposed orders. Eventually, I believe
we are headed towards a requirement that trial judges author the entire motion
for summary judgment order and I think that is best. I am an advocate for this change which is one
step farther then the Court took in this case.
Moving to this system would force trial judges to put forth maximum
thought and consideration into these very substantive rulings. As the number
of cases filed in Tennessee continue to drop year after year, hopefully
trial judges will have more time to be able to craft detailed orders on
substantive motions. It will increase
the public’s confidence and faith in the judiciary which is of supreme
importance as the reputation of the court system and attorneys continues to
erode across the country.
Follow me on Twitter at @jasonalee
for updates from the Tennessee
Defense Litigation blog.
|