Bobbie Harjo Caudill v. Clarksville Health System, GP
M2016-02532-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Oct 5, 2017Background
- Aug. 27, 2013: Oklahoma court entered an ex parte emergency order appointing temporary guardians for Austin Harjo; a 30-day review hearing was set and an Oct. 2, 2013 hearing occurred, but no formal adjudication order showing incompetency appears in the record.
- Decedent moved to Tennessee and was treated at Gateway Medical Center; discharged Mar. 24, 2014; died May 24, 2014.
- Appellant (daughter) sent pre-suit notice to Gateway on May 15 and May 19, 2015 and filed suit Aug. 7, 2015 alleging health-care liability arising from injuries discovered by Mar. 24, 2014.
- Gateway moved for summary judgment arguing the one-year statute of limitations (with a 120-day extension only if timely pre-suit notice) had expired because accrual was Mar. 24, 2014 and notice was sent beyond one year.
- Appellant argued tolling under Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-106 because Decedent had been "adjudicated incompetent" by the Oklahoma guardianship order, which she contended remained in effect until his death.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Gateway, finding the Oklahoma emergency guardianship order was temporary and not a judicial adjudication of incompetency; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Oklahoma guardianship order constituted an "adjudication of incompetency" that tolled the statute under Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-106 | Caudill: the emergency guardianship and subsequent oral minute entry show Decedent was adjudicated incompetent, so the limitations period was tolled until his death | Gateway: the ex parte emergency order was temporary, lacked a judicial adjudication of incompetency, and did not toll the statute | Court held: emergency/temporary guardianship order did not constitute a judicial adjudication of incompetency; tolling under § 28-1-106 not shown |
| Whether the trial court erred by not considering late-filed Oklahoma minutes (Oct. 2, 2013) submitted with motion to alter or amend | Caudill: the October 2 minutes show the emergency guardianship remained in effect and should be considered | Gateway: minutes were not timely produced; allowing them would be improper and prejudicial | Court held: plaintiff waived challenge to denial of the Rule 59.04 motion and, in any event, failed to justify late submission; minutes not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Foster v. Allbright, 631 S.W.2d 147 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982) (uses "adjudication of incompetency" to refer to an order appointing a conservatorship)
- Jones v. City of Franklin, [citation="677 F. App'x 279"] (6th Cir. 2017) ("adjudicated incompetent" requires judicial declaration of incompetence)
- Stovall v. Clarke, 113 S.W.3d 715 (Tenn. 2003) (standards and review for Rule 59.04 motions to alter or amend)
- Rye v. Women's Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (summary judgment standard and burden-shifting principles)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (party opposing summary judgment must present specific evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact)