Tennessee Injury Attorney Blog

July 8, 2020

Tennessee Supreme Court Says Common Knowledge Exception Applied in Health Care Liability Suit Against Salon for Masseur’s Alleged Sexual Assault

Pursuing a Knoxville personal injury case involves many steps. In addition to an investigation of the accident or other event giving rise to the potential litigation, certain paperwork must be filed with the court clerk in order to lodge the case with the appropriate trial court.

In most cases, this paperwork includes a summons and complaint, both of which must be filed with the clerk and served upon the defendant. In some kinds of cases, including those involving health care providers, there are other documents that may also need to be filed in order to perfect the filing of the complaint.

An attorney experienced in these types of cases can help a would-be plaintiff understand the filing requirements, assist him or her in preparation of the necessary documents, and represent the plaintiff’s interests during the litigation and trial of the matter. If an argument arises regarding whether all of the filing requirements have been met, the attorney can also prepare appellate briefs and argue the case in front of the appellate tribunal(s).

June 22, 2020

Tennessee Court of Appeals Reverses Lower Court’s Order That Granted Summary Judgment on Issue of Vicarious Liability in Fatal Car Accident Case

by Mark Hartsoe

In cases in which a negligent driver was acting in the course and scope of his or her employment at the time of a serious East Tennessee car accident or fatal crash, the driver’s employer can be held vicariously liable for the harm that befell the accident victim. This is important because the employer is likely to have more financial resources (including a car accident liability insurance policy with considerably higher limits) than the at-fault motorist.

Obviously, the employer has an incentive to deny that the worker was “on the clock,” so to speak. However, simply denying the obvious will not go very far in avoiding a finding of liability for the employer.

In a recent case, both the employer and the employee (a father and son) denied that the employee was still acting on behalf of the employer when he crashed the employer’s car and killed a woman. Instead, they argued that the employee had planned to stop off and pick up a pizza, thereby deviating from his task and interrupting the chain of events that would have resulted in a finding of vicarious liability. Fortunately for the woman’ surviving spouse, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

June 8, 2020

Tennessee Court of Appeals Reverses Summary Judgment in Favor of College in Former Student’s Negligence Lawsuit Involving Alleged Hazing

by Mark Hartsoe

When someone is harmed by the negligent actions (or the negligent failure to act) of a person acting within the course and scope of their employment, the law may impose “vicarious liability” against the employer. Typically, the employer’s liability insurance policy will cover such situations if a judgment is entered against the business or if the parties reach a settlement.

Often, however, the employer will attempt to get such claims dismissed prior to trial. One way to do this is to file what is known as a “motion for summary judgment.” In order to prevail on such a motion, the moving party must convince the court that he, she, or it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no genuine issues of material fact that require the consideration of the jury at trial.

It is not unusual for a negligence case to be dismissed on summary judgment, but such an order is not necessarily the end of the case. The losing party can ask the appellate court to review the matter, and, if the appellate court reverses the trial court’s order, the case is remanded to the trial court and the case continues toward trial. If you or someone you love has been harmed by the negligent actions of others, it is in your best interest to consult with a Knoxville personal injury attorney as soon as possible to discuss damages you may be able to recover.

May 21, 2020

Tennessee Convenience Store Customer’s Claim for Damages After Fall in Parking Lot Should Not Have Been Dismissed on Summary Judgment

by Mark Hartsoe

Proving liability in a Knoxville slip and fall case can be difficult. The landowner or store operate predictably blames the plaintiff for the fall in most cases, denying any liability for their own negligence.

During the pretrial phase of the litigation, the trial court is often called upon to decide whether the plaintiff has enough evidence to take the case to trial in front of a jury. Unless there is a genuine issue of material fact appropriate for the consideration of the jury, the case may be dismissed prior to trial.

In many cases, it is the defendant who creates and maintains custody of such evidence – such as video surveillance, witness statements, photographs, and the like. Because this evidence is so vitally important to the plaintiff in building his or her negligence case, there can be serious consequences for a defendant who “loses” such evidence.

May 7, 2020

Tennessee Supreme Court Says Car Accident Litigants Stated a Claim Against Hospitals Under Consumer Protection Act

by Mark Hartsoe

Those who have never been involved in an East Tennessee car accident probably do not realize all of the possible complications that can arise as a lawsuit progresses from an initial claim filed against the responsible party’s insurance company to the ultimate collection of money damages via a negotiated settlement or a judgment in court. Because the amount of money that the injured party ultimately receives hinges in part on the amount of medical expenses that were necessitated by injuries he or she suffered in the collision, there are sometimes disagreements about medical costs, such as whether a certain medical expense was reasonable, necessary, and/or related to the accident. In some cases, medical providers themselves can become entangled in the litigation.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case ultimately considered by the state’s highest court, the original plaintiff was a man who was injured in an automobile accident that was allegedly caused by the negligence of the original defendant. A collection service acting on behalf of the hospital at which the plaintiff had been treated following the accident filed a hospital lien in the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, seeking to collect the full amount of the hospital bill. Notably, the hospital did not file a claim with the plaintiff’s health insurance company. The second plaintiff was injured in a different accident and was treated at a different hospital; however, the same collection service filed a lien for the full amount of her hospital bill; again, the (second) hospital did not file a claim with the second plaintiff’s health insurance company.

The first plaintiff added the second plaintiff to his suit and added the hospitals and collection service as defendants, asserting a claim that the defendants violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977, Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 47-18-101 et seq (hereinafter “the Act”), by filing hospital liens under the Hospital Lien Act for the full, undiscounted amount of the hospitals’ charges rather than billing plaintiffs’ health insurance companies and accepting the negotiated discounted charges. The Circuit Court for Madison County granted the hospitals’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the first plaintiff’s claim and dismissed the second plaintiff’s claim for lack of venue. The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the first plaintiff’s claim and remanded the second plaintiff’s claim to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim under the Act.

April 21, 2020

Tennessee Court of Appeals Reverses Summary Judgment to Retail Store in Customer’s Slip and Fall Case

by Mark Hartsoe

Those who operate retail establishments such as stores or shoppes, owners of restaurants and bars, and other businesses are responsible for providing a reasonably safe environment to those who come onto their premises for a business purpose. When this duty is breached, a Knoxville premises liability lawsuit may result.

In such a case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant’s breach of the duty of care was the proximate cause of his or her injuries. If this burden is met, the plaintiff may be awarded substantial money damages for his or her pain and suffering, lost wages, and medical expenses.

Premises liability claims must be promptly and thoroughly investigated, preferably by a person with the plaintiff’s best interests in mind. If an investigation is left up to the defendant and its insurance company, it may be difficult for the plaintiff to prove his or her case in court later on. For this reason, it is important to talk to an attorney as soon as possible if you have been hurt on someone else’s property.

April 7, 2020

Tennessee Appeals Court Rules in Plaintiff’s Favor on Pre-Trial Motion in Case Involving Allegedly Dangerous Drug

by Mark Hartsoe

Knoxville medical malpractice cases and product liability lawsuits are typically quite different – different theories of liability, different possible defendants, and different possible damages. It is rare that these two types of cases get “mixed up” or combined into a single lawsuit. However, there are a few exceptions to this general rule. A recent case explores a scenario in which the parties disagreed about the ultimate nature of a lawsuit – and, hence, possible defenses to the plaintiff’s claims – against a doctor, a pharmacy, and some others resulting from an allegedly dangerous prescription medication taken by the plaintiff.

Facts of the Case

The primarily plaintiff in a recent appellate case was a man who was prescribed a certain medication for his diabetes in 2014. The following summer, the Food and Drug Administration issued a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy to warn of the risk of acute pancreatitis for those using the medication. According to the complaint filed by the plaintiff (joined by his wife), he was not warned of this risk by any of the defendants (a doctor, two medical groups, a home delivery pharmacy, and others). The plaintiff was later diagnosed with acute pancreatitis, sepsis, and acute respiratory failure; additional hospitalizations followed, as did a fall that occurred when the plaintiff was in a weakened physical state and which resulted in a severe traumatic brain injury.

The plaintiff’s lawsuit, filed in the Knox County Circuit Court, alleged that he had been damaged as a result of the acute pancreatitis and a subsequent traumatic brain injury caused by his use of the prescription medication and his medical providers’ failure to appropriately “prescribe, counsel, provide, utilize, and/or discontinue this medication.” The plaintiff alleged claims of both strict liability and simple negligence against the manufacturer of the medication; he also asserted health care liability claims against the other defendants. The home delivery pharmacy filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint based upon the “seller shield statute” of the Tennessee Product Liability Act, codified at Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-28-106. The trial court denied the motion.

March 24, 2020

Federal District Court Grants Discovery Sanctions in Tennessee Worker’s Negligence Lawsuit Against Crane Company Following Accident in Man Basket

by Mark Hartsoe

When someone is injured on the job, he or she is typically limited to the benefits available under workers’ compensation. However, there are some circumstances in which a third-party action can be brought, such as an east Tennessee personal injury lawsuit.

For instance, a recent case explored some of the complications that can arise when a worker is injured while performing tasks while standing on equipment owned by another company, on a job supervised by a second entity. Although the case was not fully resolved and may still proceed to trial, a federal district court judge imposed significant sanctions on the defendant due to its actions during the discovery phase of the case. This could potentially aid the parties in resolving their dispute prior to trial.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a case filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, was a man who was injured during an accident involving a crane. According to the plaintiff, both of his legs were shattered when the crane’s “man basket,” in which he was standing, suddenly dropped 15 0r 20 feet due to either a malfunction of the crane or operator error. The plaintiff filed suit against the company that owned the crane and provided the operator for it, asserting claims for common law negligence and negligence per se due to the crane company’s alleged failure to comply with regulations promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The crane company then filed a third-party claim against the bridge utility company that was in charge of the project during which the plaintiff was injured. The plaintiff’s employer’s workers’ compensation insurance company intervened to assert its subrogation rights. Through various motions, the parties sought discovery sanctions and/or other relief.

March 10, 2020

Tennessee Court of Appeals Addresses Constitutionality of Statute Providing for Ex Parte Interviews of Non-Party Health Care Providers in Medical Malpractice Lawsuits

by Mark Hartsoe

Discovery is an important part of a Tennessee personal injury lawsuit. During this phase of litigation, the parties exchange certain information, such as the names of factual witnesses and the opinions of potential experts. When conducted appropriately, discovery can lead to a settlement of a case. As the parties learn more about the strengths and weaknesses of their opponents’ cases, there tends to be a “meeting of the minds” as concerns at least some of the issues. However, not all discovery is conducted in a manner that aids the parties in the settlement process – especially if it happens behind closed doors and outside of the presence of the plaintiff and his or her counsel.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case addressing the constitutionality of a statute, the plaintiff was the daughter of a woman who allegedly died as a result of the defendant medical providers’ negligence. The daughter filed a healthcare liability wrongful death lawsuit, asserting that the defendants’ medical treatment of her mother fell below the applicable standard of care and that this breach of duty was the proximate cause of her mother’s death. As the lawsuit progressed, the defendants filed a motion for a qualified protective order pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-121(f), requesting that they be permitted to conduct interviews of certain healthcare providers who had provided medical treatment to the plaintiff’s mother but had not been named as defendants in the case. These interviews were to take place outside the presence of the attorneys who represented the plaintiff in her lawsuit.

The plaintiff objected to the defendants’ motion for the qualified protective order on the basis that § 29-26-121(f) was unconstitutional. The trial court granted the defendants’ motions for the ex parte interviews, commenting that the legislature had overstepped its bounds in saying that “the court shall do something,” but opining that it was not a trial court judge’s place to declare a statute unconstitutional. The Tennessee Court of Appeals denied the plaintiff’s application for an interlocutory appeal, but the Tennessee Supreme Court granted her permission to seek review of the trial court’s ruling.

February 20, 2020

Tennessee Court of Appeals Reduces Remittitur Issued by Trial Court in Tractor Trailer Accident Case

by Mark Hartsoe

In a Tennessee truck accident case, an injured person may be able to recover money damages for several different types of loss, including loss of earning capacity. In simple terms, this means that the defendant has to pay the plaintiff the money that he or she would have been able to earn but for the accident.

Loss of earning capacity can be temporary (until the plaintiff physically recovers from the accident and returns to work), or it can be permanent (when the plaintiff is unlikely to ever be able to go back to work). The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to provide evidence of his or her lost earnings, both past and future, resulting from the wreck.

Sometimes, a jury may award an amount of damages that, when considered by the trial court judge or the court of appeals, was not in line with the evidence introduced at trial. Rather than start over with a new trial, the court may issue a “remittitur,” which reduces the amount the plaintiff ultimately receives as to one or more elements of damages but does not otherwise disturb the jury’s verdict in his or her favor as to liability or other issues. In other words, the plaintiff still wins; he or she just gets less money than the jury awarded.