Vicki J. Redick v. Saint Thomas Midtown Hospital
515 S.W.3d 853
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Vicki J. Redick was admitted to Saint Thomas Midtown Hospital for diffuse weakness and recent falls and was placed on fall precautions.
- While hospitalized, a hospital employee (Jane Doe) assisted Redick to a portable commode that was allegedly placed out of reach; Redick fell while transferring back to bed and suffered injuries.
- Redick sued the Hospital and Jane Doe one year later but did not provide the pre‑suit 60‑day notice or file a certificate of good faith under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29‑26‑122.
- The Hospital moved to dismiss for failure to comply with the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (THCLA) pre‑suit requirements.
- The trial court found the breach‑of‑duty allegation fell within the common‑knowledge exception (so expert proof not required for breach) but held causation/damages required expert proof; because Redick did not file a certificate of good faith, the suit was dismissed with prejudice.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding breach was within lay common knowledge but proximate causation of the injuries required expert testimony, triggering § 29‑26‑122’s certificate requirement; dismissal upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a certificate of good faith is required when the claim falls within the THCLA common‑knowledge exception | Redick: If breach is within common knowledge, expert proof is not required and § 29‑26‑122 certificate is unnecessary | Hospital: Even if breach is obvious, expert proof (and certificate) may still be required for causation/damages | Held: Common‑knowledge exception removes need for expert proof on breach, but not for proximate causation/damages; certificate required when expert proof is needed for causation, so dismissal proper for failure to file certificate |
| Whether the complaint’s allegations fall within the common‑knowledge exception such that breach can be proven without expert testimony | Redick: Allegations (commode out of reach; attendant failed to assist) are ordinary negligence within lay understanding | Hospital: The circumstances are professional/medical and not obvious; require expert proof | Held: Breach allegations are within lay common knowledge (exception applies to breach), but causation of injuries is not within common knowledge and needs expert proof |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellithorpe v. Weismark, 479 S.W.3d 818 (Tenn. 2015) (discusses common‑knowledge exception to expert‑proof requirement in medical malpractice)
- Seavers v. Methodist Med. Cntr. of Oak Ridge, 9 S.W.3d 86 (Tenn. 1999) (explains common‑knowledge exception and exclusive control principle)
- Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 889 (Tenn. 2011) (standard for motion to dismiss reviewing complaint de novo)
- SNPCO, Inc. v. City of Jefferson City, 363 S.W.3d 467 (Tenn. 2012) (procedural standards for pleading and dismissal)
- Baldwin v. Knight, 569 S.W.2d 450 (Tenn. 1978) (authority recognizing when expert testimony is unnecessary)
- Bowman v. Henard, 547 S.W.2d 527 (Tenn. 1977) (similar recognition of common‑sense negligence inference)
- Tucker v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 686 S.W.2d 87 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984) (cases supporting layperson determination of negligence)