Sherrill v. Souder
2010 Tenn. LEXIS 988
| Tenn. | 2010Background
- Sherrill filed a medical malpractice suit against Dr. Souder and TransSouth within Tennessee’s one-year limit framework.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The Supreme Court reversed, noting a genuine factual issue about whether Sherrill was unsound-minded on accrual date, tolling the period.
- Accrual date was argued to be December 18, 2002 (initial neurology visit) or possibly later, with a filing date of January 8, 2004.
- Ms. Pigg sought substitution as plaintiff after Sherrill’s death in 2007; the case was remanded to determine eligibility and tolling.
- The key issue was whether the statute of limitations was tolled by unsound mind, requiring a trial-level fact-finder to resolve.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the medical malpractice action accrue? | Sherrill's accrual could be later due to discovery. | Accrual occurred on December 18, 2002 when causation and injury were linked to Reglan use. | Dispute on accrual date; summary judgment reversed for further fact-finding. |
| Does the unsound mind toll apply to toll the one-year period? | Sherrill may have been unsound-minded on accrual date, tolling the period. | No tolling if Sherrill was able to manage affairs on accrual date. | There is a genuine issue of material fact regarding unsound mind; tolling could apply. |
| Was there inquiry notice sufficient to trigger accrual under the discovery rule? | Information on December 18, 2002 placed on notice of potential malpractice. | Defendants informed Sherrill of likely Reglan-caused dyskinesia. | Inquiry notice supported accrual date; however, unresolved facts remain for tolling. |
| Can substitution and timing affect propriety of summary judgment? | Substitution as plaintiff is appropriate and affects proceeding. | Limitations defense remains; substitution does not negate it. | Remand for amendment/substitution and factual determination on unsound mind. |
| Did the trial court properly apply discovery and tolling standards as a matter of law? | Discretion should consider tolling if unsound mind existed. | Summary judgment proper if accrual and discovery rules satisfied. | Overall, summary judgment was improper due to material factual disputes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Porter v. Porter, 22 Tenn. (3 Hum.) 586 (1842) (unsound mind concept tied to disability and capacity to manage affairs)
- Foster v. Harris, 633 S.W.2d 304 (Tenn. 1982) (discovery rule for medical malpractice accrual based on discovering injury and cause)
- Teeters v. Currey, 518 S.W.2d 512 (Tenn. 1974) (established discovery rule in malpractice actions)
- Roe v. Jefferson, 875 S.W.2d 653 (Tenn. 1994) (inquiry notice and accrual when patient learns of potential wrongdoing)
- Stanbury v. Bacardi, 953 S.W.2d 671 (Tenn. 1997) (accrual begins when plaintiff knows or should know injury and responsible party)
- Shadrick v. Coker, 963 S.W.2d 726 (Tenn. 1998) (disputed facts may preclude summary judgment on discovery/particular wrongs)
- Terry v. Niblack, 979 S.W.2d 583 (Tenn. 1998) (accrual tied to results of a test and discovery of error)
- Doe v. Coffee Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 852 S.W.2d 899 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) (unsound mind tolling referenced in broader context)
- Mills v. Wong, 155 S.W.3d 916 (Tenn. 2005) (limits tolling applicability with respect to repose provisions)