Myrtle Robinson v. Edward Todd Robbins, MD
W2016-00381-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Oct 19, 2016Background
- In 2007 Plaintiffs (Robinson and Jeffries) pro se filed a health-care-liability suit over care of decedent, naming the defendant as “Edward Todd Robbins, MD, PC” but pleading facts indicating an individual physician.
- Defendant was personally served and answered (as “Dr. E. Todd Robbins, P.C.”) and later Plaintiffs retained counsel and filed amended complaints still captioned with the PC designation.
- Plaintiffs attempted to clarify they intended to sue Robbins individually; the trial court orally denied that motion and Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the 2007 action in 2013.
- Plaintiffs sent pre-suit notice in October 2014 and refiled in February 2015 naming “Edward Todd Robbins, M.D.” and attaching a certificate of good faith.
- Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing (1) the certificate was deficient (later abandoned after controlling authority) and (2) the saving statute did not apply because the first suit named a corporate defendant (no identity of parties), so the second suit was time-barred.
- The trial court agreed with Defendant and dismissed; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the initial pleadings and service identified Robbins individually so the saving statute applies and the refiled suit was timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs waived appellate review of the dismissal | Plaintiffs said the trial court's prior oral ruling did not bar review of the dismissal | Robbins argued Plaintiffs waived review and challenged jurisdiction to revisit the 2013 ruling | Court found issue preserved and had jurisdiction to review dismissal |
| Whether the saving statute applies (identity of parties) | The initial complaint’s allegations and service show Robbins was sued individually despite the “PC” caption; identity of parties determined by complaint substance (Goss) | An individual and a corporate entity are distinct; initial caption naming a PC prevented identity of parties so saving statute does not apply | Court held the complaint’s allegations and personal service identified Robbins individually; saving statute applies and dismissal was erroneous |
| Whether trial court properly granted Rule 12.02(6) dismissal (statute of limitations) | If saving statute applies, the refiled claim is timely | If parties are not identical, the refiled claim is untimely and dismissal proper | Court reversed Rule 12.02(6) dismissal because saving statute applied |
| Whether certificate-of-good-faith defective required dismissal | Plaintiffs argued certificate complied with statute | Defendant initially argued it was deficient for not stating prior violations (later abandoned after precedent) | Defendant abandoned this ground after controlling Tennessee Supreme Court authority; not resolved against Plaintiffs |
Key Cases Cited
- Goss v. Hutchins, 751 S.W.2d 821 (Tenn. 1988) (caption defects do not control party identity; proper party determined from complaint allegations)
- Phillips v. Montgomery Cnty., 442 S.W.3d 233 (Tenn. 2014) (standard of review for Rule 12.02(6) dismissal)
- Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422 (Tenn. 2011) (pleadings must be construed liberally when considering a motion to dismiss)
- Stewart v. Schofield, 368 S.W.3d 457 (Tenn. 2012) (presumption that factual allegations are true on a Rule 12.02(6) motion)