Estate of Martha S. French v. Stratford House
333 S.W.3d 546
| Tenn. | 2011Background
- Administratrix sues Stratford House and related entities for death of Ms. French from sepsis after pressure ulcers; claims ordinary negligence, negligence per se, and violations of the Tennessee Adult Protection Act (TAPA); TMMA governs medical malpractice and may preempt other claims; trial court granted partial summary judgment dismissing TAPA and negligence per se, and punitive damages; Court of Appeals partially affirmed (punitive damages reinstated) and remanded; decision centers on whether nursing-home claims are ordinary negligence or medical malpractice and whether negligence per se and TAPA claims may proceed; court reviews summary-judgment standards and Tennessee law on statutory interpretation; majority holds that claims can be both ordinary negligence and medical malpractice, and that negligence per se and TAPA can accompany ordinary-negligence claims, with punitive-damages issue remanded for trial; dissent would limit application of negligence per se and TMMA distinctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the estate's claims limited to medical malpractice or do they include ordinary negligence? | French sounds in both theories | Gravamen is medical malpractice under TMMA | Claims include both ordinary negligence and medical malpractice |
| Can negligence per se be used to support ordinary negligence claims in nursing-home cases? | Regulations support per se standard | TMMA locality rule blocks per se in medical context | Negligence per se admissible for ordinary negligence claims |
| Can TAPA claims be pursued alongside ordinary negligence or medical-malpractice claims? | TAPA protects adults from abuse/neglect | TMMA-exclusive when medical malpractice; otherwise barred | TAPA available for ordinary-negligence claims; not limited by TMMA when not exclusively medical malpractice |
| Did the trial court err in dismissing punitive damages? | Evidence supports punitive damages | No evidence of intentional/malicious conduct | Punitive-damages issue properly remanded/left to be resolved at trial by court of appeals |
| How should the TMMA's gravamen test be applied to separate ordinary-negligence from medical-malpractice claims? | Under Gunter/Draper, some CNA acts are ordinary negligence | Many CNA acts are related to medical treatment under TMMA | Court adopts a split approach: certain acts (basic care) ordinary negligence; others (treatment plans) medical malpractice |
Key Cases Cited
- Gunter v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 121 S.W.3d 636 (Tenn. 2003) (extends medical-malpractice statute to acts of non-physicians involved in treatment)
- Draper v. Westerfield, 181 S.W.3d 283 (Tenn. 2005) (distinguishes ordinary negligence vs. medical treatment in nursing contexts)
- Giggers v. Memphis Hous. Auth., 277 S.W.3d 359 (Tenn. 2009) (elements of common-law negligence clarified; TMMA framework discussed)
- Gunter v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 121 S.W.3d 636 (Tenn. 2003) (substantial relationship test for distinguishing malpractice vs. ordinary negligence)
- Whaley v. Perkins, 197 S.W.3d 665 (Tenn. 2006) (gravamen and statutory-task guidance in negligence per se analysis)