Curtis Myers v. Amisub (SFH), Inc., d/b/a St. Francis Hospital
382 S.W.3d 300
| Tenn. | 2012Background
- Ms. Myers suffered a 2006 stroke and sued multiple health care providers in 2007.
- After dismissing in 2008, Myers refiled on Sept. 30, 2009 under the saving statute.
- The 2008-2009 amendments to Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-26-121, -122 imposed mandatory pre-suit notice and a good-faith certificate.
- Myers did not provide pre-suit notice or file a certificate with the September 2009 complaint.
- Trial court found substantial compliance based on prior suit and extraordinary cause; Court of Appeals reversed.
- Supreme Court held these statutes are mandatory and the lack of notice and certificate requires dismissal with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notice and good-faith certificate are mandatory | Myers argues substantial compliance suffices. | Defendants contend strict compliance required. | Mandatory requirements; strict compliance required. |
| Whether substantial compliance could excuse noncompliance | Original suit and proceedings show substantial compliance. | Substantial compliance not permitted for mandatory rules. | No substantial compliance permitted; not excused. |
| Whether extraordinary cause could excuse noncompliance | Exceptional circumstances warrant excusing failure. | No extraordinary cause shown by Myers. | No extraordinary cause shown. |
| What is the proper sanction for failing to file the certificate of good faith | Dismissal with prejudice is too harsh given prior suit. | Legislation provides dismissal with prejudice for failure to file. | Dismissal with prejudice affirmed. |
| Effect of the refiled action under the saving statute | Refiled action should be treated as the same case saving the earlier action. | Refiled action is a new action subject to current law. | New action; applicable strict 2009 (post-Act) requirements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Caples, 325 S.W.3d 578 (Tenn. 2010) (de novo review when evaluating questions of law)
- Hill v. Roberts, 217 S.W.2d 826 (Tenn. 1920) (in pari materia and statutory interpretation)
- Gleaves v. Checker Cab Transit Corp., 15 S.W.3d 799 (Tenn. 2000) (court does not rewrite statutes; strict compliance)
- Scheele v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 218 S.W.3d 636 (Tenn. 2007) (directory vs mandatory notice; substantial compliance context)
- Perkins v. Enterprise Truck Lines, Inc., 896 S.W.2d 123 (Tenn. 1995) (distinguishing mandatory vs directory procedural rules)
- Old Hickory Eng’g & Mach. Co. v. Henry, 937 S.W.2d 782 (Tenn. 1996) (savings statute as related to new action commencement)
- Frye v. Blue Ridge Neurosci. Ctr., P.C., 70 S.W.3d 710 (Tenn. 2002) (new action treated with current procedural requirements)
- Bellamy v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 302 S.W.3d 278 (Tenn. 2009) (mandatory vs directory interpretation of 'shall')