Deborah Lacy v. HCA Tristar Hendersonville Hospital, M2015-02217-COA-R3-CV

Background

Deborah Lacy, a pro se plaintiff, sued Hendersonville Hospital and several employees alleging workplace assaults during her employment as a phlebotomist and sought compensatory and punitive damages.
The Hospital obtained summary judgment on July 17, 2015 as to some claims, which Lacy did not timely appeal; remaining defendants proceeded to trial on November 5, 2015.
After the close of Lacy’s proof at trial, defendants moved for involuntary dismissal under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.02(2); the trial court granted the motion, concluding Lacy had failed to present evidence of causation and damages and entered findings of law but no factual findings.
Lacy filed a statement of the evidence on appeal; defendants objected and asked the trial court to exclude it in its entirety, and the trial court sustained the objections and excluded the statement from the record.
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred by failing to resolve competing statements of the evidence and approve a single statement as required by Tenn. R. App. P. 24(c)-(e) and Bellamy, and that the dismissal order lacked required factual findings under Rule 41.02(2).
The Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal and remanded for the trial court to (1) make the necessary factual findings and conclusions of law supporting or reconsidering the dismissal, and (2) resolve conflicts over and certify a supplemented statement/transcript for the appellate record.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by excluding appellant’s statement of the evidence and failing to approve a single statement under Tenn. R. App. P. 24	Lacy argued the trial court should have approved her statement so the appellate record would permit review	Defendants argued the statement was deficient and requested it be excluded from the record	Court: Trial court must resolve objections, approve a single statement or prepare one, and may order competing statements; remand to resolve and certify supplemental record (Bellamy/Tenn. R. App. P. 24)
Whether involuntary dismissal under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.02(2) was supported by findings	Lacy contended her proof entitled her to relief and that dismissal lacked proper factual findings	Defendants argued Lacy failed to present evidence of causation/damages and dismissal was proper	Court: Dismissal order omitted required factual findings; vacated and remanded for the trial court to make specific factual findings and, if appropriate, legal conclusions supporting dismissal
Whether pro se status excuses noncompliance with appellate rules	Lacy relied on pro se status and asked for leniency in appellate briefing and record deficiencies	Defendants asserted Lacy ignored the rules and should be deemed to have waived issues	Court: Gave some leniency to pro se litigant for briefing but found noncompliance relevant to faults in record preparation; nonetheless trial court retains duty to resolve statement conflicts
Whether appellate review should be barred due to plaintiff’s fault in producing statement	Defendants argued exclusion of statement prevents appellate review and supports affirmance	Lacy argued exclusion frustrates her right to review	Court: Because both parties bore some fault and the trial court failed to act, remand required to allow trial court to resolve and furnish supplemental record; new trial not ordered but record must be corrected

Key Cases Cited

Bellamy v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 302 S.W.3d 278 (Tenn. 2009) (trial court must settle differences in competing statements of the evidence and approve a consolidated statement)
Shore v. Maple Lane Farms, LLC, 411 S.W.3d 405 (Tenn. 2013) (standard and appellate review framework for involuntary dismissal under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.02(2))
Whitaker v. Whirlpool Corp., 32 S.W.3d 222 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (pro se litigants are afforded some leeway in pleadings and briefs)
Burton v. Warren Farmers Co-op., 129 S.W.3d 513 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (appellate review requires the transcript or an approved statement of the evidence to review trial proof)
Irvin v. City of Clarksville, 767 S.W.2d 649 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988) (discusses trial court obligations and challenges when litigants proceed pro se)