Jonathan Fitzrandolph Zink v. Rural Metro of Tennessee, L.P.
531 S.W.3d 698
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jonathan Zink sued EMT Randy Osborne and employer Rural/Metro alleging Osborne struck Zink in the face while Zink was strapped to a gurney, causing permanent injuries.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6), arguing the claim is a "health care liability action" under the THCLA and Zink failed to comply with pre-suit notice and certificate-of-good-faith requirements (Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-26-121, -122).
- The trial court found the claim was a THCLA action, concluded restraint to provide treatment was implicated, and dismissed without prejudice for lack of pre-suit notice but with prejudice for failure to file a certificate of good faith.
- Zink appealed, conceding the claim is a THCLA action but arguing the certificate of good faith was not required because the claim falls within the common-knowledge exception to expert-proof requirements.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the complaint de novo, held the trial court improperly drew inferences favoring defendants, and analyzed whether the alleged conduct required expert proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court impermissibly inferred Osborne was restraining Zink to provide medical treatment when the complaint does not allege that purpose | Zink: complaint only alleges he was strapped to a gurney and was struck; court must draw inferences in plaintiff's favor | Defendants: the injury arose in the course of care, implying restraint for treatment | Held: Trial court drew an improper inference favoring defendant; reasonable inferences support that force may have been excessive and not for treatment |
| Whether a certificate of good faith was required under § 29-26-122 (i.e., whether expert proof was necessary) | Zink: the alleged act (an EMT striking a strapped patient in the face) is within common knowledge; expert proof not required; thus no certificate required | Defendants: expert testimony may be needed for causation/damages and to distinguish injuries from underlying conditions | Held: The common-knowledge exception applies to breach here; expert proof not required to assess whether striking a strapped patient was negligent, so dismissal with prejudice for failing to file a certificate of good faith was erroneous; case remanded for dismissal without prejudice for lack of pre-suit notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellithorpe v. Weismark, 479 S.W.3d 818 (Tenn. 2015) (explains THCLA scope and common-knowledge exception to expert proof)
- Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300 (Tenn. 2012) (procedure and standard for Rule 12 challenges to THCLA pre-suit requirements)
- Trau-Med of Am., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 71 S.W.3d 691 (Tenn. 2002) (Rule 12 dismissals — construe complaint liberally and draw inferences for plaintiff)
- Osunde v. Delta Med. Ctr., 505 S.W.3d 875 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016) (applies common-knowledge exception where injury resulted from an obviously faulty stool)
- Wilson v. Monroe Cnty., 411 S.W.3d 431 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (common-knowledge assessment for locking a stretcher in an ambulance)
- Peete v. Shelby Cnty. Health Care Corp., 938 S.W.2d 693 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997) (head struck by dropped equipment; causation may be shown without expert testimony)