586 S.W.3d 921
Tenn. Ct. App.2019Background
- Billy Joe Newman (67) was admitted to Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute (MTMHI) with depression and dementia; another patient, Kevin Beazley (22), a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic with prior violent behavior, attacked him on August 4, 2013; Newman died nine days later.
- Mrs. Unitta Sue Newman (surviving spouse) sued the State in the Claims Commission alleging MTMHI staff negligence in supervision, failure to provide a wheelchair, failure to enforce one-on-one monitoring orders, and failure to restrain or assist during the attack.
- The State moved to dismiss under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) for failure to comply with the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (THCLA) pre-suit notice (Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121) and certificate of good faith (Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-122) requirements.
- The Claims Commissioner denied the motion, treating the claim as negligent "care, custody and control" under Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 rather than a health care liability action, and entered judgment for Mrs. Newman for $230,690.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals held the claim falls within the statutory definition of a "health care liability action" (which expressly includes custodial/basic care and staffing) and requires compliance with the THCLA; Mrs. Newman did not file pre-suit notice or the certificate of good faith.
- Because expert proof was required (negligence involving supervision/restraint of psychiatric patients is not within common lay knowledge), failure to comply mandated dismissal under THCLA; the judgment was reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claim is a THCLA health care liability action | Newman: claim concerns ordinary negligence re: custody/control, not health care liability, so THCLA notice/certificate not required | State: alleged failures (supervision, restraint, staffing) fall squarely within THCLA definitions (includes custodial/basic care and staffing) | Held: Claim is a health care liability action under THCLA; trial court erred in treating it as ordinary negligence |
| Whether dismissal was required for failure to comply with THCLA pre-suit notice and certificate requirements | Newman: did not dispute noncompliance but relied on ordinary negligence classification to avoid THCLA | State: proper Rule 12.02(6) dismissal for failure to comply with §§29-26-121 and -122; certificate of good faith required because expert testimony necessary | Held: Dismissal required. Pre-suit notice and, because expert proof was needed, certificate of good faith were not provided; judgment reversed (pre-suit notice failure leads to dismissal without prejudice; failure of certificate requires dismissal with prejudice) |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300 (Tenn. 2012) (motion to dismiss is proper challenge to THCLA notice compliance)
- Ellithorpe v. Weismark, 479 S.W.3d 818 (Tenn. 2015) (2011 amendments broadened "health care liability action" to include claims related to provision or failure to provide health care services)
- Estate of French v. Stratford House, 333 S.W.3d 546 (Tenn. 2011) (pre-amendment test separating medical malpractice from ordinary negligence based on substantial relation to medical treatment)
- Foster v. Chiles, 467 S.W.3d 911 (Tenn. 2015) (de novo review of Rule 12.02(6) dismissal determinations)
- Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422 (Tenn. 2011) (pleading standards on Rule 12.02(6): construe complaint liberally)
- Tucker v. Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, 686 S.W.2d 87 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984) (supervision/restraint decisions for psychiatric patients involve specialized medical judgment)
- Turner v. Jordan, 957 S.W.2d 815 (Tenn. 1997) (liability involving dangerous mental patients requires proof of accepted professional standards)
- Ayers v. Rutherford Hosp., Inc., 689 S.W.2d 155 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984) (common-knowledge exception applies only to the most obvious medical negligence)