578 S.W.3d 918
Tenn. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiff (administrator of resident Carol Ann Reynolds’ estate) sued nursing-home defendants for injuries and death allegedly resulting from one or more falls while resident at defendants’ facility.
- Heather Miller, a certified nursing assistant employed by defendants, testified that supervisor Jennifer Solomon pressured her during a QIC meeting to change the time on an incident report so a second fall would appear to occur closer to the first.
- Defendants moved in limine to exclude Miller’s testimony about the coercion, invoking Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-11-272 (the peer‑review/QIC privilege), and the trial court granted the motion, excluding that testimony.
- Plaintiff obtained interlocutory review under Tenn. R. App. P. 9; this Court granted the appeal to decide whether the peer‑review statute shields evidence of threats or coercion to alter statements or documents.
- The trial court found the statements were made during a QIC meeting; the Court of Appeals accepted that factual finding but reviewed statutory construction de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-11-272 bars admission of testimony that an employee was threatened or coerced during a QIC to change statements/records | The QIC privilege does not protect coercion or threats to cause an employee to change a story or alter documents; such conduct is outside the statute’s purpose | The statements were made in a QIC and thus privileged; no bad‑faith exception applies and creating one would undermine QIC purpose | The privilege does not extend to threats/coercion to suborn perjury or commit fraud; trial court’s exclusion reversed and testimony admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Powers, 505 S.W.3d 512 (examining de novo review of statutory construction)
- State v. Smith, 484 S.W.3d 393 (statutory interpretation principles)
- Mills v. Fulmarque, Inc., 360 S.W.3d 362 (plain‑meaning rule and context in statutory construction)
- Frazier v. State, 495 S.W.3d 246 (enforcing clear and unambiguous statutory language)
- Baker v. State, 417 S.W.3d 428 (applying ordinary meaning without forced interpretation)
- Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (courts should not substitute their policy judgment for the legislature)
- Coleman v. Olson, 551 S.W.3d 686 (recent guidance on statutory construction and intent)