549 S.W.3d 77
Tenn.2018Background
- In Oct 2013 Runions sent statutorily required pre-suit notice letters alleging a health-care-liability claim to several entities she believed were defendants, mailed to the registered agent at the hospital address; the District (owner/operator of the hospital) did not receive notice directly.
- The District’s Risk Manager (Zamata) acknowledged receipt and identified herself as the claims contact in a letter on West Tennessee Healthcare letterhead.
- Runions filed a complaint after the one-year limitations period expired but within the 120-day extension provided by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(c); she sued Bolivar General Hosp., West Tennessee Healthcare, and West Tennessee Healthcare Network.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing they provided no care and that Runions failed to satisfy the mandatory pre-suit notice requirement as to the proper defendant, the Jackson-Madison County General Hospital District.
- Runions moved to amend her complaint post-limitations to substitute the District for Bolivar General Hosp., arguing the District had actual/acknowledged notice; defendants relied on precedent holding strict, direct pre-suit notice is required.
- The trial court and Court of Appeals allowed the substitution; the Tennessee Supreme Court granted review and reversed, holding substitution would be futile because Runions failed to give the District the statutorily required written pre-suit notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-suit notice requirement satisfied when defendant learned of claim via notice sent to a different entity | Runions: District had actual notice (acknowledgement letter), so §29-26-121(a)(1) satisfied | Defendants: statute requires written notice directed to each health-care provider who will be named; actual/constructive notice to a different entity is insufficient | Held: Not satisfied. Statute requires written pre-suit notice to the provider who will be named; indirect notice is insufficient |
| Whether the 120-day filing extension under §29-26-121(c) applies | Runions: extension applies because District knew of claim within limitations period | Defendants: extension only applies if written notice was given to that provider | Held: Extension does not apply because Runions did not give written pre-suit notice to the District |
| Whether amended complaint substituting the District may relate back under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.03 | Runions: relation back saves the substitution because District had notice and would not be prejudiced | Defendants: relation back cannot cure the lack of statutorily required pre-suit notice or revive a time-barred claim | Held: Futile. Even if relation back applies, original filing was after limitations and without proper pre-suit notice, so substitution is time-barred |
| Whether Shockley is distinguishable because of the District’s written acknowledgement | Runions: acknowledgment distinguishes Shockley; actual written acknowledgement shows compliance | Defendants: Shockley controls; acknowledgement of receipt of a notice sent to another entity does not satisfy statutory requirement | Held: Shockley is consistent; acknowledgement does not convert indirect notice into the statutorily required direct written notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Doyle v. Frost, 49 S.W.3d 853 (Tenn. 2001) (explaining relation-back under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.03 for substituted parties)
- Shockley v. Mental Health Coop., Inc., 429 S.W.3d 582 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (actual or constructive notice to a defendant who did not receive the plaintiff’s pre-suit notice does not satisfy §29-26-121)
- Arden v. Kozawa, 466 S.W.3d 758 (Tenn. 2015) (pre-suit notice under §29-26-121(a)(1) is mandatory and requires strict compliance)
- Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300 (Tenn. 2012) (substantial compliance with pre-suit notice statute is insufficient)