Estate of Beulah Blankenship v. Bradley Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center
E2021-00714-COA-R10-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Mar 30, 2022Background
- Decedent died in July 2019 while a resident of Bradley Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center (owned by Bradley County). The Estate sued the nursing home and the county on June 16, 2020 alleging negligent care and understaffing caused wrongful death.
- The complaint attached Exhibit 7: a one‑paragraph letter from Nurse Practitioner Natalie Baker stating she reviewed records, determined violations of standards of care occurred, and believed there was a good‑faith basis to sue; the letter did not state her licensure, practice locale, or that deviations caused the death.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29‑26‑122 for failure to file a compliant certificate of good faith; during briefing the trial court allowed Defendants to depose Ms. Baker and considered her deposition.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, treated Exhibit 7 as satisfying § 29‑26‑122, and granted the Estate a 30‑day extension; the Estate then filed an amended complaint with a new Exhibit 7 (a formal certificate from counsel).
- The Court of Appeals granted interlocutory review limited to whether the trial court erred in denying dismissal. The appellate court held the original Exhibit 7 did not meet § 29‑26‑122 because it failed to (a) show the expert was qualified and (b) opine that the deviations proximately caused the injury; the court also found the trial court abused its discretion in granting the extension. Judgment reversed and case remanded with summary judgment for Defendants and dismissal with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exhibit 7 satisfied the § 29‑26‑122 certificate of good faith requirement | Estate: § 29‑26‑122 does not require the expert to opine on every element of § 29‑26‑115 (e.g., causation) to certify a good‑faith basis | Defs: Exhibit 7 only opined on deviation from standard of care and did not address causation or the expert's qualifications, so it fails § 29‑26‑122 | Held: Exhibit 7 was noncompliant—it did not show the expert’s qualifications nor that the deviation proximately caused the injury; certificate must be consistent with the requirements of § 29‑26‑115 (including causation) |
| Whether the trial court’s consideration of the deposition converted the motion to dismiss into summary judgment and required de novo review | Estate: Trial court treated motion as dismissal | Defs: Court considered outside materials (deposition), so motion was converted to summary judgment | Held: Because the trial court did not exclude the deposition and referenced various responses, the proceeding was treated as summary judgment and appellate review is de novo |
| Whether the trial court properly granted a 30‑day extension to cure the certificate defect (and whether the amended complaint cured it) | Estate: Court granted an extension and amended complaint with new Exhibit 7 cured the defect | Defs: No basis in record to find good cause or late production of records; amended pleading does not substitute for a proper extension under § 29‑26‑122(c) | Held: Trial court abused its discretion in granting the extension—no evidence of good cause or that a provider failed to timely produce records; the post‑hearing amended Exhibit 7 could not cure the statutory filing requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300 (Tenn. 2012) (motion under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) is proper method to challenge certificate of good faith; outside materials may convert motion to summary judgment)
- Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (summary judgment standard and de novo appellate review)
- Martin v. Rolling Hills Hosp., LLC, 600 S.W.3d 322 (Tenn. 2020) (procedural rules on conversion of 12.02 motions when outside evidence is considered)
- Konvalinka v. Chattanooga‑Hamilton Cty. Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346 (Tenn. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for trial court decisions)
- G.F. Plunk Constr. Co., Inc. v. Barrett Props. Inc., 640 S.W.2d 215 (Tenn. 1982) (attorney calendaring mistakes, secretarial errors, and similar oversights do not constitute "good cause")