Richard Thurmond v. Mid-Cumberland Infectious Disease Consultants, PLC
433 S.W.3d 512
| Tenn. | 2014Background
- Thurmond sued Dr. Simi Vincent and Mid-Cumberland Infectious Disease Consultants for alleged negligence in treating recurrent UTIs through Oct. 11, 2010.
- Pre-suit notice was served by certified mail at least 60 days before filing (Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a)(1)).
- Plaintiff filed the complaint Jan. 5, 2012, but did not attach an affidavit of the person mailing the notice with the complaint (a requirement under § 29-26-121(a)(3)-(4)).
- Defendants moved to dismiss for noncompliance; trial court granted dismissal; Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal but noted harsh results and lack of prejudice.
- Plaintiff later supplied Exhibit A and an April 5, 2012 affidavit; Court ultimately reversed the dismissal, reinstated the complaint, and remanded for further proceedings.
- The Court frames the issue as whether substantial compliance with the pre-suit notice requirements suffices where timely notice was given and content was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing an affidavit with the complaint is mandatory or substantial compliance suffices | Thurmond argues substantial compliance suffices; strict filing not essential. | Thurmond must file an affidavit with the complaint; noncompliance requires dismissal. | Substantial compliance suffices; dismissal reversed; complaint reinstated. |
| Whether timely pre-suit notice, and its content, can meet statutory goals even if the affidavit is not filed with the complaint | Fundamental notice achieved; content satisfied; affidavit not strictly required. | Strict statutory requirement to file affidavit with complaint must be met. | Yes; substantial compliance with the affidavit requirement OK. |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300 (Tenn. 2012) (notice before suit is essential; strict compliance not required for timing but for content may be strict where prejudicial)
- Stevens v. Hickman Comm. Health Care Serv., 418 S.W.3d 547 (Tenn. 2013) (substantial compliance allowed for non-substantive omissions; HIPAA authorization must enable access to records)
- Cunningham v. Williamson Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 405 S.W.3d 41 (Tenn. 2013) (statutory interpretation guiding pre-suit notice requirements)
- Presley v. Bennett, 860 S.W.2d 857 (Tenn. 1993) (directory vs mandatory timing; general guidelines on notice)
- Fair v. Cochran, 418 S.W.3d 542 (Tenn. 2013) (tolling and process timing considerations for notice-related procedures)