544 S.W.3d 704
Tenn. Ct. App.2017Background
- Plaintiffs Tommy and Katrina Lawson sued Knoxville Dermatology Group (KDG) and PA Katie Hageman after Mr. Lawson allegedly was injured when an exam table flipped during a visit for MRSA treatment on April 29, 2015; Katrina Lawson asserted loss of consortium.
- Pre-suit notice was sent but the medical authorization attached left blank the field identifying the person(s) or class authorized to make disclosure (a HIPAA “core element”).
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121 for failure to substantially comply with the statute’s HIPAA-authorized medical-authorization requirement; they also argued the suit was untimely because plaintiffs could not invoke the 120-day statute-of-limitations extension without compliant pre-suit notice.
- The trial court dismissed the health-care-liability claims without prejudice for inadequate HIPAA authorization; plaintiffs appealed as to KDG only.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the missing identification element was material because it prevented KDG from obtaining or using plaintiff’s medical records under HIPAA and thus prejudiced defendants; dismissal without prejudice affirmed (but future refiling likely time-barred).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pre-suit HIPAA medical authorization substantially complied with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) | The blank field was minor: (1) KDG already had the relevant record; (2) only one core element was missing; (3) a separate “List of Health Care Providers” supplemented the form; (4) KDG’s record did not reference the incident so the record was of no use | The omission of the required identification of person(s)/class authorized to disclose was a material defect that prevented KDG from legally obtaining/using plaintiff’s records under HIPAA and prejudiced its defense | The authorization did not substantially comply; omission was material and prejudiced KDG, so dismissal without prejudice affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300 (Tenn. 2012) (standard for reviewing motions to dismiss under THCLA pre-suit notice statutes)
- Stevens ex rel. Stevens v. Hickman Cmty. Health Care Servs., Inc., 418 S.W.3d 547 (Tenn. 2013) (HIPAA-form requirement may be satisfied by substantial compliance but must enable defendants to obtain records)
- Thurmond v. Mid-Cumberland Infectious Disease Consultants, PLC, 433 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2014) (notice content requirements are directory and may be satisfied by substantial compliance unless prejudice results)
- Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 889 (Tenn. 2011) (pleading standards and accepting factual allegations for review)
- Hamilton v. Abercrombie Radiological Consultants, Inc., 487 S.W.3d 114 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014) (omission of an expiration date held a minor defect where no prejudice to defendant was shown)