Deborah Lacy v. MeHarry General Hospital
M2016-01477-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Deborah Lacy, pro se, sued cardiologist Dr. Nagendra Ramanna alleging two distinct claims: (1) he squeezed her hand too hard during a handshake at an appointment, causing injury; (2) he failed to add a sonogram reading to her medical records.
- Lacy filed a complaint with a signed certificate of good faith but did not comply with the Act’s pre-suit written notice requirement and the court found her certificate insufficient.
- Ramanna moved to dismiss under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (HCLA) for failure to provide pre-suit notice and a valid certificate of good faith.
- The trial court dismissed both claims with prejudice for noncompliance with the HCLA.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals reviewed whether each claim ‘‘relate[d] to the provision of, or failure to provide, health care services’’ such that the HCLA’s procedural requirements applied.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the medical-records claim but reversed dismissal of the handshake-assault claim and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint alleges a health-care-liability action under the HCLA | Lacy did not contest noncompliance; argued handshake was not part of health care services | Ramanna argued both allegations arose during provision of care and thus fall under the HCLA | Court: Medical-records claim is HCLA; handshake claim is not clearly HCLA at pleading stage |
| Whether failure to file pre-suit notice/certificate mandates dismissal | Lacy acknowledged procedural noncompliance but contended handshake claim was outside HCLA | Ramanna urged dismissal with prejudice under HCLA statutory sanctions | Court: Dismissal for the records claim affirmed; dismissal of handshake claim reversed because HCLA did not necessarily apply |
| Whether alleged failure to document sonogram is related to provision of health care | Lacy did not defend this point on appeal | Ramanna: failure to document diagnostic results relates to health care services | Court: Such an allegation clearly relates to provision/failure to provide health care services; HCLA applies |
| Whether a handshake during an appointment is a health care service | Lacy: handshake was a greeting/assault unconnected to care | Ramanna: handshakes serve patient-relational or diagnostic purposes and constitute basic patient services | Court: On complaint pleading, reasonable inference exists that handshake was non-clinical; HCLA does not necessarily apply to that claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300 (Tenn. 2012) (motion to dismiss is proper vehicle to challenge HCLA procedural noncompliance)
- Ellithorpe v. Weismark, 479 S.W.3d 818 (Tenn. 2015) (standards for resolving a motion to dismiss; construe complaint liberally)
- Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422 (Tenn. 2011) (complaint must be construed liberally with all reasonable inferences to plaintiff)
- Tigg v. Pirelli Tire Corp., 232 S.W.3d 28 (Tenn. 2007) (same pleading-construction principles cited)
- Foster v. Chiles, 467 S.W.3d 911 (Tenn. 2015) (dismissal without prejudice is proper sanction for pre-suit notice noncompliance)
- Rennick v. O.P.T.I.O.N. Care, Inc., 77 F.3d 309 (9th Cir. 1996) (handshake meanings vary; factual context matters to infer intent)
- Osunde v. Delta Med. Ctr., 505 S.W.3d 875 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016) (broad scope of HCLA; many claims arising in medical settings may be HCLA claims)