Williams v. United States
2010 WL 4736907
W.D. Tenn.2010Background
- Williams filed FTCA medical malpractice suit against United States for VA Memphis treatment and valve replacement issues.
- Initial surgery June 5, 2007 with perivalvular leaks and aortic insufficiency; post-op complaints followed.
- Williams and wife seek damages for medical malpractice and loss of consortium; total requested damages $1.6 million.
- Government moved for judgment on the pleadings; court previously denied a similar motion and later granted a second motion.
- Pre-amendment Tennessee Act § 29-26-122 requires a good faith certificate within 90 days of filing if expert testimony is required.
- Plaintiffs did not file a certificate of good faith; government argues dismissal with prejudice follows under the Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tennessee Act 29-26-122 applies to FTCA claims | Act does not apply to FTCA claims generally | Act applies to FTCA claims filed after Oct 1, 2008 | Act applies to FTCA claims filed after Oct 1, 2008 |
| Whether the Act is substantive or procedural for Erie purposes | Act is procedural and non-dispositive | Act is substantive, outcome-determinative | Act is substantive and applies in FTCA actions |
| Whether the Act can be applied given timing of filing | Filed before Oct 1, 2008; Act should not apply | Action filed after Oct 1, 2008; Act applies | Act applies to actions filed after Oct 1, 2008 |
| Whether plaintiffs complied with the Act's good-faith certificate requirement | Plaintiffs complied in practice via FTCA procedures | Failure to file certificate within 90 days warrants dismissal | Plaintiffs failed to file certificate; dismissal with prejudice required |
| Impact on loss-of-consortium claim if medical-malpractice claim is dismissed | Derivative loss of consortium survives | No viable primary claim, so consortium claim fails | Loss-of-consortium claim dismissed as derivative of dismissed malpractice claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Monroe Retail, Inc. v. RBS Citizens, N.A., 589 F.3d 274 (6th Cir.2009) (standard for motion to dismiss vs. motion for judgment on the pleadings)
- Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., 446 U.S. 740 (1980) (Erie choice factors and federal-state conflict analysis)
- Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965) (twin aims of Erie; outcome-determinative test guidance)
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988) (broad federal statute control vs. state-law gap analysis)
- Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Co-op., Inc., 356 U.S. 525 (1958) (cautions against strict outcome-determinative application of Erie test)
- Guar. Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99 (1945) (outcome-determinative considerations in Erie choice)