Emergency Medical Care Facilities, P.C. v. BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, Inc., 715 S.W.3d 273

Emergency Medical Care Facilities, P.C. (EMCF) filed a class action against BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee (BCBST) over reimbursement caps on non-emergency medical services for TennCare patients.
In the first case (EMCF I), the trial court denied class certification due to predominance of individual issues among putative class members; this decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
EMCF voluntarily dismissed (nonsuited) EMCF I, then separately sued TennCare (EMCF II), where it was later ruled that the reimbursement cap was invalid because proper rulemaking procedures were not followed.
Subsequently, EMCF refiled its claims against BCBST in a new class action (EMCF III), again seeking class certification with similar class definitions and claims.
The trial court in EMCF III held that collateral estoppel barred relitigation of class certification; the Court of Appeals reversed, but the Tennessee Supreme Court reinstated the trial court’s ruling, holding the prior denial of class certification precluded relitigation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does collateral estoppel bar relitigation of class certification denied in a prior case that was nonsuited?	EMCF: Voluntary nonsuit prevents finality necessary for collateral estoppel; prior class denial was not a final judgment on the merits.	BCBST: Affirmed denial of class certification was final and binding, barring relitigation of the same issue in a new case.	Collateral estoppel applies; prior denial of class certification, affirmed on appeal, has preclusive effect even after nonsuit.
Did the decision invalidating the cap (EMCF II) constitute a change in circumstances, making the class certification issue different?	EMCF: Subsequent ruling that cap was invalid changed the legal/factual context, so issues in both suits are not identical.	BCBST: The legal and factual issues underlying class certification remain unchanged post-EMCF II.	No material change; issues remain identical, and collateral estoppel still applies.
Should the rule on collateral estoppel be applied prospectively only because of EMCF's reliance on earlier law?	EMCF: Argues for prospective-only application due to reliance on prior precedent about nonsuits and finality.	BCBST: No hardship or justified reliance exists; retroactive application is appropriate.	No hardship; preclusion applies retroactively to EMCF.

Goeke v. Woods, 777 S.W.2d 347 (Tenn. 1989) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction can have preclusive effect as to jurisdictional issues)
Mullins v. State, 294 S.W.3d 529 (Tenn. 2009) (sets out five-part test for collateral estoppel)
Richardson v. Tenn. Bd. Of Dentistry, 913 S.W.2d 446 (Tenn. 1995) (collateral estoppel requires a judgment that concludes rights on the merits)
Memphis Pub. Co. v. Tenn. Petrol. Underground Storage Tank Bd., 975 S.W.2d 303 (Tenn. 1998) (explains law of the case doctrine and its limited exceptions)
Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W.3d 363 (Tenn. 2009) (rejects relaxing the finality rule for preclusion)
Bowen ex rel. Doe v. Arnold, 502 S.W.3d 102 (Tenn. 2016) (abandoning mutuality requirement for collateral estoppel)