Lacy v. Mitchell
541 S.W.3d 55
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In Feb 2015 Deborah Lacy saw chiropractor Kevin Mitchell at the Wellness Institute; she alleges he jumped on her back during treatment and later struck her with her medical folder.
- Lacy filed suit (Feb 2016) alleging battery/assault and other harms against Mitchell and the Wellness Institute.
- Defendants moved to dismiss with prejudice for failure to comply with the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (THCLA) pre-suit notice and certificate-of-good-faith requirements.
- Trial court granted dismissal; Lacy appealed pro se, arguing her claims were intentional torts, not health care liability claims, so THCLA did not apply.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the complaint de novo, construing allegations liberally, and parsed the complaint into two distinct claims: (1) injury from jumping on Lacy’s back during treatment, and (2) being struck with a medical folder as defendant left the room.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint asserts a "health care liability action" under THCLA | Lacy: claims are intentional torts (battery/assault), not medical negligence, so THCLA procedures do not apply | Defendants: THCLA applies because defendants are health-care providers and injuries arose in the course of care | Court: The THCLA applies to claims alleging injury related to provision of health care services regardless of theory of liability; first claim (jumping on back during treatment) is a THCLA health-care liability claim, second claim is not clearly so on the face of the complaint |
| Whether failure to comply with THCLA requires dismissal of the complaint as a whole when it contains both HC and non-HC claims | Lacy: N/A (argued THCLA didn't apply at all) | Defendants: Noncompliant HC claim should cause dismissal of entire complaint | Court: Rejects that broad reading; THCLA applies to each claim separately—non-HC claims are not automatically dismissed because another claim fails THCLA requirements |
| Whether the certificate-of-good-faith or common-knowledge exception apply to the first claim | Lacy: common-knowledge exception makes expert proof unnecessary (implied) | Defendants: expert proof required for THCLA claim | Held: Common-knowledge exception not applicable; expert proof required and certificate was not filed, so first claim dismissed with prejudice |
| Remedy for pre-suit notice noncompliance | Lacy: N/A | Defendants: dismissal appropriate | Held: Failure to file certificate of good faith warrants dismissal with prejudice; failure to provide pre-suit notice typically results in dismissal without prejudice (as guided by precedent) — here first claim dismissed for certificate failure; second claim vacated and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300 (Tenn. 2012) (motion to dismiss is proper method to challenge THCLA pre-suit compliance)
- Foster v. Chiles, 467 S.W.3d 911 (Tenn. 2015) (failure to provide pre-suit notice generally warrants dismissal without prejudice)
- Shipley v. Williams, 350 S.W.3d 527 (Tenn. 2011) (discusses statutory expert-proof requirements and common-knowledge exception)
- Seavers v. Methodist Medical Center of Oak Ridge, 9 S.W.3d 86 (Tenn. 1999) (examples of common-knowledge exception; obvious surgical errors)
- Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422 (Tenn. 2011) (pleading standards on motion to dismiss; construe complaint liberally)
- Ellithorpe v. Weismark, 479 S.W.3d 818 (Tenn. 2015) (discussion of THCLA development and scope)