383 S.W.3d 497
Tenn. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiff Sandi D. Jackson filed a pro se medical malpractice complaint in August 2009 against numerous defendants arising from alleged care at Centennial Medical Center in August 2008 and subsequent infection-related care.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12.02(6) based on failure to file a certificate of good faith as required by amended Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-122(a) (2009) and failure to comply with pre-suit notice under § 29-26-121.
- Jackson voluntarily dismissed the first action and re-filed on December 1, 2010, but again did not file a certificate of good faith with the complaint.
- The trial court granted separate dismissals for each defendant and upheld the constitutionality of § 29-26-122(a).
- Plaintiff challenged the statute as unconstitutional under separation of powers, due process, and equal protection, and as conflicting with Rule 3 and the open courts provision; the State intervened to defend constitutionality.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding § 29-26-122(a) constitutional and not in conflict with Rule 3.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is § 29-26-122(a) unconstitutional under separation of powers? | Jackson contends the statute gives the General Assembly improper primacy over the courts. | Defendants contend the statute has a reasonable basis and does not violate separation of powers. | No; statute has a reasonable basis and constitutional validity. |
| Does § 29-26-122(a) violate open courts, due process, or equal protection? | Jackson argues it discriminates against medical-malpractice plaintiffs and restricts access to courts. | Defendants argue there is no constitutional infirmity and classifications are rationally related to public health objectives. | No constitutional infirmities; statute upheld. |
| Is there a conflict between § 29-26-122(a) and Rule 3 (commencement of actions)? | Jackson claims it improperly requires pre-suit steps before filing. | Defendants assert no conflict; pre-filing due diligence is consistent with rules and 11.02. | Not in conflict; consistent with Rule 3 and Rule 11.02. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrison v. Schrader, 569 S.W.2d 822 (Tenn. 1978) (official rationale for separate treatment of medical malpractice claims)
- Waters v. Farr, 291 S.W.3d 873 (Tenn. 2009) (facial challenge standards and caution in invalidating statutes)
- Newton v. Cox, 878 S.W.2d 105 (Tenn. 1994) (medical malpractice not a suspect class; equal protection applied via rational basis)
- City of Chattanooga v. Harris, 442 S.W.2d 602 (Tenn. 1969) (reasonable-basis review and classification analysis)
- Phillips v. State, 304 S.W.2d 614 (Tenn. 1957) (historical basis for rational classifications)
- Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Vogue Inc., 624 S.W.2d 164 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1965) (equal protection framework and reasonableness standard)