785 F. Supp. 2d 692
M.D. Tenn.2011Background
- Plaintiff Mayo sues the United States under the FTCA for injuries from a colonoscopy at the York Facility.
- Plaintiff alleges that a valve issue and improper cleaning caused exposure to bodily fluids from prior patients, leading to hepatitis.
- Second Amended Complaint asserts negligent infliction of emotional distress, ordinary negligence, res ipsa loquitur, lack of informed consent and medical malpractice.
- TMMA requires a certificate of good faith in medical malpractice actions; plaintiff did not file one with the complaint.
- Court must classify the claims as ordinary negligence or medical malpractice and determine TMMA applicability and exceptions, then rule on dismissal.
- Court grants defendant's motion to dismiss, holding TMMA applies and Plaintiff failed to file the certificate of good faith; the emotional distress claim is barred by the discretionary function exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are plaintiff's claims governed by TMMA or ordinary negligence? | Mayo argues not all claims are medical malpractice. | York Facility actions fall within TMMA as they relate to medical treatment. | TMMA applies to the negligence and related claims. |
| Must plaintiff file a certificate of good faith under TMMA? | Certificate not required because no expert proof is needed. | Certificate required; dismissal if absent. | Certificate of good faith required; dismissal for failure to file. |
| Does res ipsa loquitur apply to medical malpractice claims under TMMA? | Res ipsa loquitur could suffice to prove negligence without expert testimony. | Res ipsa has a restricted application in medical malpractice; expert testimony generally required. | Res ipsa insufficient; expert testimony required under TMMA. |
| Does the discretionary function exception bar Mayo's negligent infliction of emotional distress claim? | Letter transmission caused distress should be recoverable. | Letter-warnings involve discretionary policy decisions shielding liability. | Discretionary function exception applies; claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of French v. Stratford House, 333 S.W.3d 546 (Tenn. 2011) (distinguishes medical malpractice vs ordinary negligence by relation to medical treatment)
- Chambliss v. Stohler, 124 S.W.3d 116 (Tenn.Ct.App.2003) (expert testimony typically required to prove medical malpractice)
- Richardson v. Miller, 44 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000) (establishing professional standard of care requires expert testimony)
- Seavers v. Methodist Medical Center of Oak Ridge, 9 S.W.3d 86 (Tenn.1999) (restricted application of res ipsa loquitur in medical malpractice)
- Edwards v. Tenn. Valley Authority, 255 F.3d 318 (6th Cir.2001) (discretionary function exception framework for government conduct)
- Sumner v. United States, 794 F.Supp. 1358 (M.D.Tenn.1992) (policy-based protection for discretionary decisions)
- United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) (two-part test for discretionary function exception)