594 S.W.3d 297
Tenn.2020Background
- Pamela Rudder died in her jail cell shortly after two medical encounters with a nurse employed by Hickman Community Healthcare; plaintiffs (her children) sued for healthcare liability alleging negligent care and causation by drug withdrawal.
- Plaintiffs relied solely on expert Martin Wagner, M.D. (board‑certified in neurology and psychiatry) to establish causation; defendant challenged Wagner’s competency under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29‑26‑115(b).
- The trial court excluded Wagner as an incompetent expert on causation and granted summary judgment to Hickman Community Healthcare for lack of proof on causation.
- After the judgment, plaintiffs sought to alter or amend, proffering a new expert declaration from pathologist Kris Sperry, M.D., and argued Sperry had been previously unavailable due to injury.
- The trial court denied the motion to alter or amend (applying Stovall factors), the Court of Appeals reversed in a 2–1 decision, and the Tennessee Supreme Court granted review and reinstated the trial court’s rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend to consider Dr. Sperry’s late declaration | Sperry was previously retained and unavailable; plaintiffs promptly submitted his declaration after the court’s ruling | Plaintiffs were on notice of the competency challenge, had prior contact with Sperry, could have sought a continuance or extension, and their delay prejudiced defendant | Denial affirmed — trial court’s decision was within range of acceptable alternatives under abuse‑of‑discretion review |
| Whether Dr. Wagner was competent to testify on causation under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29‑26‑115(b) | Wagner’s neurology/psychiatry credentials made his opinion relevant to withdrawal/causation | Wagner’s specialty did not reasonably make his testimony relevant to pharmacology/toxicology or withdrawal causation | Exclusion affirmed — trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Wagner incompetent on causation |
| Whether the Court of Appeals properly reviewed the trial court’s denial of the motion to alter or amend | COA majority applied Stovall and found justice required admitting Sperry’s affidavit | Hickman argued COA improperly substituted its judgment for the trial court’s discretionary choice | Supreme Court held COA erred; abuse‑of‑discretion review forbids appellate substitution where reasonable minds can differ |
| Whether the late‑submitted expert was truly "newly available" and whether allowing it would prejudice defendant | Plaintiffs said Sperry was unavailable due to medical recovery and thus the evidence was newly available | Defendant said plaintiffs had been in contact with Sperry, delayed seeking relief or extension, and waited to avoid expense, causing unfair prejudice | Court found plaintiffs’ efforts insufficient and that defendant would be prejudiced; did not permit late evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Stovall v. Clarke, 113 S.W.3d 715 (Tenn. 2003) (sets Stovall factors for evaluating newly offered evidence on motions to alter or amend)
- Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 2010) (framework for reviewing discretionary rulings under abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
- Discover Bank v. Morgan, 363 S.W.3d 479 (Tenn. 2012) (discussion of abuse‑of‑discretion as appellate standard)
- State v. McCaleb, 582 S.W.3d 179 (Tenn. 2019) (limits on appellate courts substituting judgment for trial court in discretionary matters)
- Shipley v. Williams, 350 S.W.3d 527 (Tenn. 2011) (expert competency determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Hodge v. Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325 (Tenn. 2012) (issues not raised below are generally deemed waived on appeal)