Failing to comply with these requirements can result in the dismissal of an otherwise valid claim against an allegedly negligent health care provider.
Filing a lawsuit for medical malpractice or another act of negligence can be fraught with potential procedural pitfalls: missing a statute of limitations, naming the wrong party as a defendant, or – as happened in a recent case – an allegation that the person who accepted service of process on the defendant was unauthorized to do so.
In some instances, a procedural misstep can result in the dismissal of an otherwise valid claim against a defendant purely on technical grounds. However, the plaintiffs in one case were determined to have their day in court, filing a second lawsuit against the allegedly unauthorized person who accepted service of process, causing their malpractice case to be dismissed as to a certain doctor.
Sometimes, it’s hard to understand why insurance companies do the things they do; other times, it’s just plain impossible. For example, why would an insurance company refuse to pay more than $2,000 to a family who lost their home and all of their possessions when they were insured for over $100,000?
The trial court in a recent case asked that same question. Not being satisfied with the insurance company’s answer, the court ordered the insurance company to pay not only the amount due under the policy but also interest and a bad faith penalty.
Since so many defendants are prone to protracting litigation in an attempt to avoid liability, or at least put off the inevitability of a judgment for the plaintiff, there are sometimes provisions in the law that require defendants to pay more than the judgment eventually entered by the court.
Depending upon the case and the applicable law, this can include both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as well as outright penalties and, in a recent black lung case, “additional compensation” of up to 20%.
While Tennessee premises liability law imposes a general duty of care on landowners, including those who own retail stores, restaurants, and the like, proving fault in a particular case can sometimes be a difficult endeavor. This is because slip and fall, trip and fall, and fall-down lawsuits tend to be extremely fact-specific.
Two customers who suffer identical injuries could have very difficult outcomes, depending on the particular hazard that caused their accident, how that hazard came to be, how long it had been in existence, and whether any store employee was aware of – or, in the exercise of due diligence, should have been aware of – the dangerous condition that led to the customer’s injuries.
It is truly appalling the lengths to which some businesses and insurance companies will go in order to limit or prevent recovery by those hurt due to the negligence of truckers and trucking companies.
In the case discussed below, a professional trucker allegedly presented an accident victim with a document releasing the trucker’s employer from all liability – at the scene of the accident! When that didn’t work, the trucking company hired an investigator, who contacted the victim later that day to discuss a settlement.
Even though the investigator was aware that the accident victim was hurt in the wreck and had been to the hospital, he asked the accident victim to sign a “Release of All Claims” document just two days after the accident. Of the $10,000 settlement, just $215 was allocated for the victim’s personal injury claim. Unfortunately, the man signed the document.
Usually, an employee who is hurt on the job is limited to pursuing benefits available under Tennessee’s workers’ compensation laws. These benefits include temporary disability, permanent disability, and medical benefits, but no compensation is provided for the worker’s pain and suffering or other non-economic damages.
There are a few exceptions to this general rule, however, including third-party lawsuits in cases in which the negligence of someone other than the employer may have caused or contributed to the worker’s injuries or death. A “textbook example” of this occurs when a delivery driver is hurt in a car wreck in which another motorist is at fault.
Another situation in which an injured worker has options other than workers’ compensation is when that worker is employed in a particular type of work covered by other laws, such as in a railroad injury case.
When someone perishes in an accident caused by another party’s negligence, the victim’s family may be able to seek compensation for their loved one’s wrongful death in a court of law. Exactly who is entitled to bring the lawsuit is largely a matter of state law, but unique situations can occur that take a particular case outside the normal statutory scheme.
A Tennessee appellate court was recently asked to determine the appropriate family member to bring a wrongful death case in a situation in which the person who normally would have had statutory priority was, himself, a possible defendant in the case.
When a case goes to trial, it is up to the trial court judge to determine the specific evidence that may be introduced by the parties and considered by the jury in deciding the issues.
When one of the parties is aggrieved by an evidentiary ruling at trial, that party may opt to appeal the judge’s decision to a higher court for review.
If you have kids, you may have noticed a disturbing trend among businesses and organizations that cater to young people; birthday party venues, sports team organizers, and even some churches are requiring a signed release before a child is allowed to participate in recreational activities and other “kid-friendly” events.
The reason, of course, is to attempt to avoid liability in the event that a child is hurt (or, even worse, killed) due to the negligence of the entity asking for the release. The practice is so prevalent that one would be led to think that liability insurance has ceased to be available in this country.
The fact is that liability insurance is widely available and, in most cases, quite affordable. (It’s called “a cost of doing business.”) If no insurance company is willing to assume a particular risk, perhaps this is an indication that the activity in question is too dangerous for minor children anyway.