Stacey J. Cordell v. Cleveland Tennessee Hospital, LLC
544 S.W.3d 331
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Stacey J. Cordell filed suit alleging she was sexually assaulted (raped) by hospital security guard Tyler Parsons while a patient at SkyRidge Medical Center; she sued Parsons and Cleveland Tennessee Hospital, LLC (SkyRidge) for assault/battery, gross negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Complaint alleges the assault occurred while plaintiff was unconscious or medicated; SkyRidge liability pleaded on respondeat superior (acts by Parsons and/or other employees "in the scope of their employment").
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were health care liability actions governed by the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (THCLA) and plaintiff failed to comply with pre-suit notice (Tenn. Code Ann. §29-26-121) and certificate-of-good-faith requirements (Tenn. Code Ann. §29-26-122).
- Before the dismissal hearing, plaintiff filed an amended complaint that added an explicit THCLA negligence count and attached a certificate of good faith; the trial court refused to consider the amendment, treating the defendants’ Rule 12.02 motion as a responsive pleading and dismissed the original complaint with prejudice for THCLA noncompliance.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo, concluded the trial court erred: (1) a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading so the amendment was permitted, and (2) the original complaint, as pled, did not assert a "health care liability action" under the THCLA because the alleged rape was not an injury "related to the provision of, or failure to provide, health care services." The dismissal was reversed and the case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in refusing to consider the amended complaint | Cordell: amendment was filed before a responsive pleading and thus allowed under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.01 | Defendants: motion to dismiss functionally operated as a responsive pleading; amendment was improper | Held for Cordell: a Rule 12.02 motion is not a responsive pleading, so the amendment was properly filed and must be considered |
| Whether the original complaint was governed by the THCLA (requiring certificate of good faith and pre-suit notice) | Cordell: original complaint did not invoke THCLA and therefore did not require certificate or pre-suit compliance | Defendants: the claims arose in a medical setting and were THCLA claims; noncompliance warranted dismissal | Held for Cordell: original complaint did not allege an injury "related to the provision of, or failure to provide, health care services," so THCLA did not apply to the original complaint |
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed the original complaint for lack of certificate of good faith | Cordell: no certificate required because original complaint was not a THCLA action | Defendants: absence of contemporaneous certificate required dismissal or cure was not permitted by amendment | Held for Cordell: dismissal was erroneous because there was nothing to cure—the original pleading was not a THCLA claim |
| Whether an intentional tort (rape) by hospital staff is necessarily ‘‘related to’’ health care services under THCLA | Cordell: the intentional rape is separate from provision/failure of health care services | Defendants: wrongful acts by hospital staff within medical facility fall under THCLA | Held for Cordell: intentional rape, as pled, was not logically connected to providing or failing to provide health care services and thus not covered by THCLA absent additional allegations tying the injury to healthcare provision or supervision failures |
Key Cases Cited
- Cullum v. McCool, 432 S.W.3d 829 (Tenn. 2013) (standard for Rule 12.02 motion to dismiss)
- Doe v. Sundquist, 2 S.W.3d 919 (Tenn. 1999) (motion to dismiss tests legal sufficiency and requires construing complaint in plaintiff's favor)
- Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300 (Tenn. 2012) (procedure for challenging THCLA pre-suit and certificate requirements)
- Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 2010) (statutory construction principles)
- Cartwright v. DMC-Memphis, Inc., 468 S.W.3d 517 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014) (de novo review of dismissal)
- Moore v. State, 436 S.W.3d 775 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014) (conversion of motion to dismiss to summary judgment when extra-pleading materials considered)
- Mosley v. State, 475 S.W.3d 767 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading)