Tiffine Wendalyn Gail Runions v. Jackson-Madison County General Hospital District
W2016-00901-COA-R9-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Feb 7, 2017Background
- Infant Laileeana Scott died after delivery at Jackson-Madison County General Hospital; mother Tiffinne Runions sued for health‑care liability.
- Pre‑suit notice letters (Oct. 18, 2013) were sent by certified mail to Bolivar General Hospital, Inc. (d/b/a Jackson‑Madison County General Hospital), West Tennessee Healthcare, Inc., and West Tennessee Healthcare Network at the same address and to Currie Higgs (registered agent).
- Laura Zamata, Director of Risk Management for the Jackson‑Madison County General Hospital District (the District), acknowledged receipt of the notice and identified herself as the designated contact for the claim.
- Plaintiff sued BGH, WTH, and WTHN (not the District); those defendants moved to dismiss/for summary judgment, asserting none provided care and claiming the District was the proper defendant.
- Plaintiff moved to amend to substitute the District for BGH, asserting BGH was named by mistake and that the District had received pre‑suit notice.
- Trial court denied the defendants’ dismissal motion, granted the amendment (relating it back), and this interlocutory appeal followed; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff strictly complied with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29‑26‑121(a)(1) (pre‑suit notice) as to the District | Runions argued that, although she named BGH, the District received actual pre‑suit notice (as shown by Zamata’s acknowledgment) | District/WTH/WTHN argued notice was not directed to the District; Shockley requires notice to the actual defendant and strict compliance | Held for plaintiff: actual receipt/acknowledgment by the District satisfied § 29‑26‑121(a)(1) here; Shockley distinguishable because the District expressly acknowledged the notice |
| Whether amendment to substitute the District is permissible under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15 (and whether amendment would relate back) | Amendment is proper because substitution is not futile—the District had pre‑suit notice, so adding it complies with the statute | Amendment is futile because the plaintiff failed to give statutorily required pre‑suit notice to the District | Held for plaintiff: amendment allowed and not futile; the trial court did not abuse discretion in permitting substitution and relation back |
| Whether Shockley v. Mental Health Cooperative controls this case | Runions argued Shockley is distinguishable because the intended defendant here acknowledged the notice | Defendants argued Shockley compels dismissal when notice is sent to a different legal entity even if related | Held: Shockley remains good law, but is distinguishable—here there was actual acknowledgment by the intended defendant, so Shockley did not mandate dismissal |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying WTH and WTHN’s dismissal motion (limited to the notice issue on appeal) | Runions asserted notice compliance as to the District; discovery on roles of WTH/WTHN was warranted | WTH/WTHN sought dismissal arguing they provided no care and thus no proper notice was given for claims against them | Held: On interlocutory review limited to notice under § 29‑26‑121, the court affirmed denial of dismissal as to WTH/WTHN because they did not dispute receipt of notice; court did not decide other grounds for dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300 (Tenn. 2012) (pre‑suit notice requirement is mandatory; strict compliance required)
- Shockley v. Mental Health Cooperative, Inc., 429 S.W.3d 582 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (sending notice to a non‑provider/incorrect legal entity does not satisfy § 29‑26‑121)
- Cumulus Broadcasting, Inc. v. Shim, 226 S.W.3d 366 (Tenn. 2007) (factors courts consider when deciding motions to amend pleadings)
- Conley v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., 236 S.W.3d 713 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (motions to amend: lack of notice, bad faith, delay, prejudice, and futility are relevant)
- Arden v. Kozawa, 466 S.W.3d 758 (Tenn. 2015) (reiterating that pre‑suit notice is mandatory and demands strict compliance)