471 F. App'x 459
6th Cir.2012Background
- Bock died from post-surgical internal bleeding after liver cancer treatment at UT Bowld Hospital.
- Plaintiff sued UT Medical Group and physicians for negligence, malpractice, and wrongful death in state court; later removed to federal court, asserting a single expert on standard of care.
- District court granted summary judgment, finding Dr. Shull incompetent due to limited liver-cancer experience and no practice of the relevant procedures.
- Shipley v. Williams (2011) changed Tennessee competency standards, relaxing proximity-based firsthand knowledge requirements.
- On appeal, the court remanded to determine Dr. Shull’s competency under the new Shipley framework for three questions about chemotherapy/embolization decisions, performance, and post-procedure care.
- If Dr. Shull is competent under state law, the district court must also evaluate his qualifications under Daubert/Rule 702 on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-115(b) controls competency. | Bock's expert can testify under Shipley. | Shipley may not loosen Eckler's standard; Dr. Shull lacks appropriate experience. | Remanded to assess competency under Shipley framework. |
| Whether Shipley v. Williams supersedes Eckler for locality-based competency. | Shipley allows broader qualification beyond firsthand local knowledge. | Shipley limited to locality rule; still qualified if otherwise appropriate. | Remand necessary to determine applicability to Dr. Shull's situation. |
| Whether Dr. Shull should be evaluated for competency and then qualified under Daubert on remand. | If competent, must proceed to Rule 702 qualification. | Rule 702 screening equally essential regardless of competence. | Remand to evaluate both steps in sequence. |
| Whether the district court on remand can or should revisit the standard of care questions regarding treatment decisions, performance, and post-procedure care. | Shull's knowledge may support some questions about standard of care. | Record insufficient to resolve without Shipley-based remand. | Remand to determine competence for each question. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shipley v. Williams, 350 S.W.3d 527 (Tenn. 2011) (rejected Eckler’s personal knowledge requirement; allows broader adaptation)
- Legg v. Chopra, 286 F.3d 286 (6th Cir. 2002) (separates competency (Rule 601) from qualification (Rule 702))
- Eckler v. Allen, 231 S.W.3d 379 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (locality-based knowledge requirement previously applied)
- Walker v. Garabedian, WL 2011 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (discussed Shipley impact ( WL citation not official reporter ))
- Cavin v. Honda of America, 346 F.3d 713 (6th Cir. 2003) (duples: dichotomy of permissive competency and Daubert gatekeeping)
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1938) (Erie doctrine: state substantive rules control in diversity cases)
- Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (U.S. 1965) (federal rules vs. state substantive law interplay)