Brenda Osunde v. Delta Medical Center
2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 94
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Oct. 14, 2011, Brenda Osunde fell stepping off a stool during an x-ray at Delta Medical Center and suffered a fibular fracture; she alleges the stool was unstable and the radiology technician failed to assist properly.
- She sued DMC-Memphis, Inc. asserting medical malpractice and common-law negligence; her husband asserted loss of consortium.
- A Rule 16 scheduling order required disclosure of expert witnesses by April 28, 2014; Osunde disclosed none. DMC moved for summary judgment arguing expert proof was required.
- The trial court dismissed Osunde’s “health care liability action” for failure to produce an expert but allowed her common-law negligence claim to proceed, finding no expert necessary for that theory; DMC pursued interlocutory appeal under Tenn. R. App. P. 9.
- The Court of Appeals held the allegations constitute a “health care liability action” under Tenn. Code Ann. §29-26-101 but found the particular negligence claim (provision of an unstable/wobbly stool) falls within the common-knowledge exception to the THCLA expert requirement and may proceed to trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Osunde’s negligence claim falls outside the THCLA | Osunde: her claim is ordinary negligence (wobbly stool) and not subject to THCLA expert rules | DMC: all claims arising from medical setting are health care liability actions and require compliance with THCLA (including expert proof) | Court: Claim is a health care liability action under §29-26-101 but that does not automatically require expert proof |
| Whether summary judgment was proper for failure to disclose expert witnesses | Osunde: no expert needed because negligence is within common knowledge | DMC: absence of expert is fatal because THCLA requires expert proof in health care liability actions | Court: Expert proof not required here; common-knowledge exception applies to the unstable stool allegation, so summary judgment was improper |
| Whether trial court erred by dismissing the "health care liability action" but allowing ordinary negligence claim | Osunde: order should allow negligence claim to proceed; labeling immaterial | DMC: trial court misapplied THCLA definitions and should have dismissed all claims for failure to comply | Court: Trial court erred in terminology (it should have recognized the claim as a THCLA action) but reached correct practical outcome — case may proceed |
| Whether plaintiff must have filed certificate of good faith under §29-26-122 when no expert is required | Osunde: certificate not required if expert testimony not needed | DMC: certificate requirement applies to health-care-related claims | Court: Certificate of good faith is required only when expert testimony is required; here it was not needed due to common-knowledge exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208 (Tenn. 1993) (summary judgment standards)
- Peete v. Shelby Cnty. Health Care Corp., 938 S.W.2d 693 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (expert proof not required for ordinary negligence)
- Gunter v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 121 S.W.3d 636 (Tenn. 2003) (medical malpractice vs. ordinary negligence framework)
- Estate of French v. Estate of French, 333 S.W.3d 549 (Tenn. 2010) (factors for distinguishing ordinary negligence from medical malpractice)
- Seavers v. Methodist Med. Ctr. of Oak Ridge, 9 S.W.3d 86 (Tenn. 1999) (res ipsa loquitur and common knowledge overlap)
- Kennedy v. Holder, 1 S.W.3d 670 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (common-knowledge exception to expert requirement)
- Baldwin v. Knight, 569 S.W.2d 450 (Tenn. 1978) (expert testimony unnecessary where negligence is within common knowledge)