542 S.W.3d 502
Tenn. Ct. App.2016Background
- On Jan. 23–24, 2012 Lesha Carter presented to Methodist Hospital; her daughter Jazyhia was delivered by emergency C-section with neonatal complications alleged to stem from negligent care.
- Plaintiffs filed suit May 1, 2015 against multiple providers asserting medical malpractice and attaching pre-suit notice letters plus identical "HIPAA compliant" authorization forms that were largely blank except for Lesha Carter’s signature and date.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the authorizations failed to satisfy Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E), so plaintiffs could not obtain the 120-day extension in § 29-26-121(c); without the extension the claims were time-barred by the statute of repose and limitations.
- The trial court refused to consider plaintiffs’ late written response (with three affidavits), found the authorizations failed to substantially comply with § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E), denied extraordinary-cause relief, and rejected plaintiffs’ constitutional and HIPAA preemption challenges.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: the blank authorizations did not permit disclosure among providers, plaintiffs failed to substantially comply, extraordinary cause was not shown, and the statute is constitutional and not preempted by HIPAA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court refusal to consider late written response | Court abused discretion; response and affidavits were relevant | Response was untimely under local rule and attached inadmissible/material not proper on motion to dismiss | Affirmed; even if error, harmless — oral arguments covered same points and affidavits would not change outcome |
| Substantial compliance with § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) (HIPAA authorization) | The attached authorization forms plus notice letters satisfied HIPAA / could be used together or customized by defendants | Forms were blank and omitted required elements (patient ID, who may disclose, who may receive, description/purpose), so they did not permit provider-to-provider disclosure | Affirmed; forms did not substantially comply and did not permit records transfer, so plaintiffs were not entitled to the 120-day extension |
| Extraordinary cause to excuse noncompliance | Reliance on HHS guidance and common practice; affidavits saying defendants could use letters + forms; counsel’s misunderstanding | No extraordinary circumstances (e.g., illness/death) — mere mistake/ignorance is not extraordinary | Affirmed; plaintiffs did not prove extraordinary cause; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Constitutional & preemption challenges | Statute violates separation of powers, Open Courts, equal protection, and is preempted by HIPAA | Statute is procedural pre-suit notice, courts may excuse noncompliance, statute furthers legitimate legislative goals and is HIPAA-compliant | Affirmed; statute constitutional on its face and as applied here and not preempted by HIPAA |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300 (Tenn. 2012) (standard for review and extraordinary-cause framework)
- Stevens ex rel. Stevens v. Hickman Cmty. Health Care Servs., Inc., 418 S.W.3d 547 (Tenn. 2013) (interpreting § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) — authorization must enable defendants to obtain records; substantial-compliance test)
- Hayes v. Gibson Cnty., 288 S.W.3d 334 (Tenn. 2009) (statutory construction review de novo)
- Waters v. Farr, 291 S.W.3d 873 (Tenn. 2009) (constitutional issues reviewed de novo; presumption of constitutionality)
- State v. Pickett, 211 S.W.3d 696 (Tenn. 2007) (presumption that legislative acts are constitutional)
- Dempsey v. Correct Mfg. Corp., 755 S.W.2d 798 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988) (statutory/regulatory interpretation is a matter of law, not expert affidavit)