Roy Franks v. Tiffany Sykes, 600 S.W.3d 908

Roy Franks and Cindy Edwards were treated at Tennova hospitals after car accidents; the hospitals (through Professional Account Services) filed hospital liens for the full, undiscounted bills and did not bill the patients' health insurers.
Plaintiffs sued the hospitals under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), alleging the undiscounted lien filings were unfair or deceptive acts (citing §47‑18‑104(b)(12)).
The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings and dismissed for failure to state a TCPA claim; the Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning the underlying medical treatment was a professional (not consumer) transaction.
The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the TCPA applies to the business aspects of a health care provider’s practice (billing/collections/advertising).
The Supreme Court held the TCPA can apply to health care providers when they act in a business/entrepreneurial capacity (but not to claims grounded in professional medical negligence), reversed the lower courts, and remanded for further proceedings; it did not decide whether the specific liens were deceptive or outside the Hospital Lien Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the TCPA apply to business aspects of health care providers?	TCPA covers unfair/deceptive business practices by hospitals (billing/collections).	Medical treatment is professional, not a "consumer transaction," so TCPA does not apply.	TCPA applies to entrepreneurial/business aspects of medical practice; claims based on professional malpractice remain governed by health‑care liability law.
Do undiscounted hospital liens (without billing insurer) state a TCPA deceptive‑practice claim?	Filing full undiscounted liens misrepresents rights/obligations and is deceptive under §47‑18‑104(b)(12).	Filing liens is a collection activity tied to medical care and not covered by TCPA.	Court found plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a TCPA claim and remanded; it did not decide whether the specific liens were deceptive.
Does Pursell exempt collection/banking activities from the TCPA?	Pursell is fact‑specific and does not broadly exempt collection activities.	Reliance on Pursell to argue TCPA inapplicable to these collection activities.	Pursell is limited to its facts; collection activities may be covered by the TCPA — resolution is fact‑dependent.

Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (recognizing professionals may be subject to general business/antitrust and consumer laws when acting in a business role)
Proctor v. Chattanooga Orthopaedic Group, P.C., 270 S.W.3d 56 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (healthcare providers not exempt from TCPA for business practices)
West v. Shelby Cnty. Healthcare Corp., 459 S.W.3d 33 (Tenn.) (discussing limits of TCPA in healthcare context)
Pursell v. First American Nat'l Bank, 937 S.W.2d 838 (Tenn.) (limited, fact‑specific holding on banking activities and TCPA)
Discover Bank v. Morgan, 363 S.W.3d 479 (Tenn.) (applying TCPA to certain debt‑collection conduct)
Constant v. Wyeth, 352 F. Supp. 2d 847 (M.D. Tenn.) (distinguishing medical malpractice from business‑practice TCPA claims)
Roberson v. Medtronic, Inc., 494 F. Supp. 2d 864 (W.D. Tenn.) (TCPA may apply where physician’s conduct is entrepreneurial/commercial)
Karlin v. IVF Am., Inc., 712 N.E.2d 662 (N.Y.) (no blanket exemption for medical providers from consumer protection laws)