Tyrone Spates v. Tracy Howell and Robert Preston
2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 332
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Spates, an inmate at Whiteville Correctional Facility, sues medical staff for alleged negligent care after March–April 2011 symptoms.
- Plaintiff alleges Nurse Howell misdiagnosed indigestion, provided antacids, and failed to perform tests; later tests revealed cardiac arrhythmia.
- Spates was held in a medical holding cell for three days without proper treatment, with administrative approval by Preston.
- He filed suit August 9, 2012, and attached indigency affidavits and trust fund forms under 41-21-805/807.
- Trial court dismissed as untimely, finding no tolling or 29-26-121 notice compliance; indigence status also questioned.
- Court ultimately affirming, remanding for fee collection and other proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statute of limitations was tolled | Spates argues tolling under 29-26-121 and discovery on April 8, 2011 | Appellees contend no tolling and timely filing beyond 120-day extension | No tolling; filing untimely under one-year limit |
| Whether Spates was indigent and entitled to pauper status | Argues eligibility for pauper status should affect timing | Trial court found not indigent; fee obligations apply | Indigent status moot; fee obligation remains; no reversal on indigency |
Key Cases Cited
- Redwing v. Catholic Bishop for Diocese of Memphis, 363 S.W.3d 436 (Tenn. 2012) (three-component statute-of-limitations analysis; tolling)
- Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422 (Tenn. 2011) (liberal pleading standard at motion-to-dismiss stage)
- Sherrill v. Souder, 325 S.W.3d 584 (Tenn. 2010) (inquiry notice doctrine; discovery rule)
- Columbian Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Martin, 136 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1940) (accrual under discovery rule; knowledge triggers running)
- Hackworth v. Ralston Purina Co., 214 Tenn. 506, 381 S.W.2d 292 (Tenn. 1964) (general accrual principles for limitations)
- Parrish v. Marquis, 172 S.W.3d 526 (Tenn. 2005) (limitations and tolling considerations)
- Hardcastle v. Harris, 170 S.W.3d 67 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (amendment of pleadings; Rule 15.01 discretion)
- Freeman v. Tennessee Dept. of Probation and Parole, No. M2002-00958-COA-R3CV (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (inmate filing fees and indigent procedures)