Timothy Sumner v. Campbell Clinic, PC
498 S.W.3d 20
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On July 19, 2011 Timothy Sumner underwent surgery during which an iliac-crest incision to harvest a bone graft allegedly was made contrary to his explicit instructions, resulting in peritoneal and small-bowel lacerations and severe, lasting injuries.
- Sumner’s counsel sent a written pre-suit notice to several physicians (including Dr. Jeffrey Kutsikovich) on July 5, 2012 under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121 and later sent a notice to the Division of Claims Administration on August 3, 2012 asserting a claim under the Tennessee Claims Commission Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-301 et seq.).
- Sumner filed suit in Shelby County Circuit Court on October 16, 2012 against multiple defendants including Dr. Kutsikovich alleging health-care liability, intentional medical battery, and punitive damages.
- After confirming some physicians were State employees, Sumner’s counsel repeatedly informed the Division of Claims Administration (January 2013 letters) that he intended to pursue claims against the State; the Division automatically transferred the claim to the Claims Commission.
- Sumner later filed an amendment in the Claims Commission disclaiming negligence allegations against Dr. Kutsikovich and asserting only intentional misconduct, and the Claims Commission dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction; no appeal of that dismissal was taken.
- The trial court dismissed Sumner’s claims against Dr. Kutsikovich as limited to intentional medical battery and barred by the one-year statute of limitations; the Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal but on the independent ground that Sumner waived his individual claims by having filed a claim against the State via the Division of Claims Administration, divesting the circuit court of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Sumner’s Argument | Kutsikovich’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing notice with Division of Claims Administration triggered statutory waiver under Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(b) (i.e., waived separate suits against state employees based on same acts) | Sumner: waiver not triggered because no formal complaint was ever filed in the Claims Commission; he later disclaimed State negligence and reserved intentional claims against the doctor | Kutsikovich: waiver was triggered by the notice filed in the Division; pursuing Claims Commission relief is an election of remedies that bars separate suits against State employees for the same acts | Held: Filing the notice in the Division (per § 9-8-402) triggers § 9-8-307(b) waiver; Sumner waived individual claims against Kutsikovich, depriving circuit court of jurisdiction |
| Whether the trial court correctly characterized the amended complaint as alleging only intentional tort/medical battery and rejected a ‘‘willful deviation from standard of care’’ health-care-liability theory | Sumner: his amended complaint still states a cognizable health-care liability claim (alleging willful/intentional departure from standard) | Kutsikovich: such ‘‘willful deviation’’ claim is not cognizable; claims are intentional battery and subject to short statute of limitations | Held: Court did not reach merits; disposition on waiver pretermits substantive analysis of whether health-care-liability theory is viable |
| Whether sovereign immunity bars Sumner’s claims against Kutsikovich | Sumner: not directly pressed once waiver issue raised; he sought to preserve intentional claims | Kutsikovich: sovereign immunity and statutory immunities apply to state employees and were asserted below | Held: Court resolved case on waiver/subject-matter-jurisdiction grounds and did not need to decide sovereign-immunity defense |
| Whether Sumner’s medical battery claim is time-barred (one-year statute) | Sumner: argued tolling/equitable arguments and that waiver point was dispositive of different issue | Kutsikovich: battery claim barred by one-year limitations period | Held: Court did not decide limitations issue because claims were dismissed for statutory waiver and lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 827 S.W.2d 312 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991) (appellate affirmation is proper if court reaches correct result for any valid reason)
- Meighan v. U.S. Sprint Commc’ns. Co., 924 S.W.2d 632 (Tenn. 1996) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived)
- Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 2010) (statutory construction principles and intent govern interpretation)
- Mullins v. State, 320 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2010) (overview of Claims Commission Act waiver framework)
- Haley v. Univ. of Tenn.-Knoxville, 188 S.W.3d 518 (Tenn. 2006) (Claims Commission Act imposes strict election-of-remedies requirement)