James R. Vandergriff v. Parkridge East Hospital
482 S.W.3d 545
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- In 2004 Mother was hospitalized twice at ParkRidge; she delivered prematurely on March 21, 2004 and the child, Catherine, was born with severe brain damage.
- Plaintiffs (parents James and Samantha Vandergriff) allege defendants failed to treat a severe placental/womb infection during Mother’s March 10–17, 2004 hospitalization, and that hospital records were falsified or incomplete.
- Plaintiffs obtained a placenta pathology report in 2012 showing acute chorioamnionitis and villous necrosis and allege fraudulent concealment delayed discovery of the claim.
- Parents filed a pro se complaint in August 2014 asserting individual claims and separate claims on behalf of Catherine; no licensed attorney signed the complaint.
- Defendants moved to dismiss: parents’ claims as barred by the one-year health-care-liability statute of limitations and Catherine’s claims as barred by the three-year statute of repose. Trial court dismissed all claims; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parents’ individual health-care-liability claims are time-barred under Tenn. Code Ann. §29-26-116(a)(1)-(2) | Discovery (and fraudulent concealment) tolled accrual until 2013 when additional records/attorney letter were received | Parents discovered sufficient facts in 2012 (placenta pathology report); one-year limitations began then and suit filed too late | Affirmed: claims time-barred — complaint shows parents had facts in 2012 putting a reasonable person on notice, statute ran before suit was filed |
| Whether fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of repose for Catherine’s claims under Tenn. Code Ann. §29-26-116(a)(3) | Fraudulent concealment prevented discovery until 2013, so repose deadline had not passed | Any fraudulent concealment was uncovered by 2012; repose expired before filing | Trial court’s repose ruling vacated because Catherine’s claims were never properly before the court (see next issue) |
| Whether parents could properly assert Catherine’s separate claims pro se (next-friend/guardian) without an attorney | Parents may sue for their child as next friend; they prepared and filed the complaint | Only licensed attorneys may practice law or prepare/advance another’s claims; parents are not licensed | Parents cannot assert a minor’s claims pro se; complaint as to Catherine was a nullity and judgment on those claims is void — trial court’s merits ruling for Catherine vacated |
| Effect of a void complaint for the minor on the trial-court judgment | N/A | N/A | Because the complaint was void as to Catherine (no attorney signed), Catherine/claims were not before the court; any judgment on her merits is void and vacated; parents’ own claims remain subject to normal limitations analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivins v. Hosp. Corp. of Am., 910 S.W.2d 441 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995) (proceedings by one not entitled to practice law are a nullity)
- Gentry v. Gentry, 924 S.W.2d 678 (Tenn. 1996) (a decree is void as to persons shown by the record not to have been before the court)
- Redwing v. Catholic Bishop for Diocese of Memphis, 363 S.W.3d 436 (Tenn. 2012) (pleading standards on Rule 12 and discovery-rule accrual principles)
- Sherrill v. Souder, 325 S.W.3d 584 (Tenn. 2010) (discovery rule accrual requires notice of injury and identity of tortfeasor)
- Petition of Burson, 909 S.W.2d 768 (Tenn. 1995) (definition and regulation of the practice of law; acts requiring professional judgment constitute practice of law)
- Old Hickory Engineering & Mach. Co. v. Henry, 937 S.W.2d 782 (Tenn. 1996) (preparing and filing a complaint on behalf of another constitutes practice of law)
- Pero's Steak & Spaghetti House v. Lee, 90 S.W.3d 614 (Tenn. 2002) (a plaintiff is deemed to have discovered a cause of action when facts would put a reasonable person on notice)