Erica Wade v. Jackson-Madison County General Hospital District
469 S.W.3d 54
Tenn. Ct. App.2015Background
- Erica Wade underwent a hysterectomy and an exploratory procedure in October 2011; an undetected colonic perforation later required additional surgery in December 2011.
- Appellants (Wade and her mother) served pre-suit notice under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121 and filed suit on February 6, 2013 alleging medical negligence against Dr. Walker and Jackson-Madison County General Hospital District (GTLA defendants).
- Defendants moved for summary judgment saying the GTLA’s 12‑month statute of limitations (Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-305(b)) barred the suit; they relied on Cunningham v. Williamson County Hosp. Dist.
- Appellants argued the HCLA’s pre-suit notice statute § 29-26-121(c) (providing a 120‑day extension when notice is given) extended the GTLA limitations period for claims accruing on/after Oct. 1, 2011, because the 2011 amendment defined “health care liability action” to include claims against governmental entities.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, applying Cunningham (which held the extension did not apply to GTLA claims filed before the 2011 amendment took effect for those plaintiffs).
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the 2011 amendment to § 29-26-101(a)(1) manifested clear legislative intent to treat claims against governmental entities as “health care liability actions,” so plaintiffs who complied with § 29-26-121 are entitled to the 120‑day extension and Wade’s complaint was timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether compliance with § 29-26-121(c) extends the GTLA 12‑month limitations period by 120 days for claims against governmental entities accruing on/after Oct. 1, 2011 | The 2011 amendment to § 29-26-101(a)(1) includes claims against the state/political subdivisions in the definition of "health care liability action," showing intent to apply § 29-26-121(c) to GTLA claims; appellants served proper pre‑suit notice, so they get the 120‑day extension | Cunningham controls and § 29-26-121(c) does not expressly say it applies to GTLA claims; parts of statutory changes took effect at different times, so extension shouldn't apply to this case | The Court of Appeals held the 2011 statutory definition shows clear legislative intent to include governmental defendants within the HCLA; plaintiffs who complied with § 29-26-121 get the 120‑day extension and the complaint was timely |
Key Cases Cited
- Cunningham v. Williamson County Hospital District, 405 S.W.3d 41 (Tenn. 2013) (addressed whether § 29-26-121(c)’s 120‑day extension applies to GTLA claims and held pre‑2011 amendment plaintiffs could not rely on that extension)
- Lynn v. City of Jackson, 63 S.W.3d 332 (Tenn. 2001) (statutes of general application do not apply to GTLA claims absent express legislative intent)
- Doyle v. Frost, 49 S.W.3d 853 (Tenn. 2001) (GTLA waiver of immunity requires strict statutory compliance and legislative clarity to alter GTLA limitations)
- Rajvongs v. Wright, 432 S.W.3d 808 (Tenn. 2013) (observed the 120‑day extension offsets pre‑suit notice requirement)
- Daniel v. Hardin County General Hospital, 971 S.W.2d 21 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997) (addressed limits on extending GTLA limitations by other statutes; prompted later legislative amendments clarifying applicability)