TIFFINNE WENDALYN GAIL RUNIONS ET AL. v. JACKSON-MADISON COUNTY GENERAL HOSPITAL DISTRICT ET AL.
No. W2016-00901-SC-R11-CV
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON
June 6, 2018
Nоvember 30, 2017 Session; Appeal by Permission from the Court of Appeals; Circuit Court for Madison County; No. C-14-46 Donald H. Allen, Judge
The Tennessee Health Care Liability Act,
SHARON G. LEE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which JEFFREY S. BIVINS, C.J., and CORNELIA A. CLARK, HOLLY KIRBY, and ROGER A. PAGE, JJ., joined.
Patrick W. Rogers, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellants, Jackson-Madison County General Hospital District; West Tennessee Healthcare, Inc.; and West Tennessee Healthcare Network.
Mark N. Geller, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Tiffinne Wendalyn Gail Runions.
OPINION
I.
On November 9, 2012, Tiffinne Wendalyn Gail Runions gave birth to a baby at
On October 18, 2013, counsel for Ms. Runions sent pre-suit notice letters, asserting a health care liability claim, to seven entities, including Bolivar General Hospital, Inc. d/b/a Jackson-Madison County General Hospital, Inc.; West Tennessee Healthcare, Inc. d/b/a Jackson-Madison County General Hospital, Inc.; and West Tennessee Healthcare Network d/b/a Jackson-Madison County General Hospital, Inc.2 Ms. Runions sent the notice letters to these entities by certified mail in care of Currie Higgs, their registered agent, whose address was also 620 Skyline Drive, Jackson, Tennessee. Ms. Higgs also served as general counsel for Jackson-Madison County General Hospital District (“the District“). The letters advised that, under
On October 25, 2013, Laura Zamata, Director of Risk Management for the District, responded to Ms. Runions’ notice of claim by letter stating:
The District is a governmental entity and has elected to be self-insured, therefore, there is no insurance carrier.
Please be advised that as the Director of Risk Management, I am your designated contact for the above referenced claim and all correspondence and telephone inquiries should be directed to me unless you are notified otherwise.
Ms. Zamata advised that her mailing address was “JMCGH, 620 Skyline Drive, Jackson, TN 38301.” Ms. Zamata‘s letter was on West Tennessee Healthcare letterhead, which listed at the bottom of the рage thirty-five health care-related entities, including Bolivar General Hospital, Jackson-Madison County General Hospital, West Tennessee Healthcare Foundation, West Tennessee OB/GYN Services, and West Tennessee Women‘s Center.
On March 6, 2014, after the expiration of the statute of limitations and within the 120-day filing extension under
The defendants answered, asserting, in part, that they were not proper parties because they provided no medical care to Ms. Runions or her baby at Jackson-Madison County General Hospital. Instead, the defendants contended that the District, which was not sued, owned and operated the Jackson-Madison County General Hospital. The defendants also asserted a statute of limitations defense.
The defendants moved for summary judgment,5 arguing that they had provided no medical care to Ms. Runions or her baby. Relying on the affidavit of Ms. Higgs, the defendants further explained the status and relationship of the District and the defendants. According to the defendants, the District, a governmental entity, owns and operates Jackson-Madison County General Hospital. West Tennessee Healthcare Network, a governmental entity, is a managed care network that does not do business as Jackson-Madison County General Hospital, Inc.; provided no medical services to Ms. Runions or her baby; and is a subsidiary of the District with the District being its sole member. West Tennessee Healthcare, Inc. is a non-profit organization with no employees or licenses to operate health care facilities. Instead, West Tennessee Healthcare, Inc. is a real estate holding company for the District that provided no medical services to Ms. Runions or her baby and limits its activities to the ownership and leasing of property. Jackson-Madison County General Hospital, Inc. is not an active legal entity and provided no medical treatment to Ms. Runions or her baby. It was organized in 1992 as a non-profit corporation with the District as its sole member. In 1995, Jackson-Madison County General Hospital, Inc. amended its Charter to change its name to Bolivar General Hospital, Inc. and currently operates the Bolivar General Hospital in Hardeman County.
Ms. Runions responded to the motion, conceding that she had mistakenly sued Bolivar Generаl Hospital, Inc. because it may not have provided health care services to her and her baby. She argued, however, that it was clear from the face of the complaint that she had intended to sue Jackson-Madison County General Hospital at 620 Skyline Drive, Jackson, Tennessee—whatever its name may be. Ms. Runions explained that a search for Jackson-Madison County General Hospital through the Tennessee Secretary of State‘s information service showed a listing for Bolivar General Hospital, Inc. with the mailing address of 620 Skyline Drive, Jackson, Tennessee, and that Ms. Higgs was Bolivar General Hospital, Inc.‘s registered agent at the same Skyline Drive address. The Secretary of State‘s information service also listed Jackson-Madison County General Hospital, Inc. as the “old” name of the facility now known as Bolivar General Hospital, Inc.
Ms. Runions asserted that on October 21, 2013, the District received actual notice
Ms. Runions moved to amend her complaint to substitute the District for Bolivar General Hospital, Inc. d/b/a Jackson-Madison County General Hospital, Inc. with the amendment to relate back to the filing of the original complaint under
The defendants responded that Ms. Runions gave pre-suit notice to Bolivar General Hospital, Inc.; West Tennessee Healthcare, Inc.; and West Tennessee Healthcare Network, but not to the District. Relying on Shockley v. Mental Health Coop., Inc., 429 S.W.3d 582 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013), the defendants argued that Ms. Runions could not cure her failure to comply with the pre-suit notice requirement under
Ms. Runions argued that she had complied with
The trial court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on its finding that Ms. Runions sent pre-suit notice to the defendants as evidenced by the pre-suit notices and the letter of acknowledgement from Ms. Zamata on behalf of the District.6 The trial court allowed Ms. Runions to amend her complaint to substitute the District for Bolivar General Hospital, Inc.
The trial court and the Court of Appeals granted the motion of the District, West Tennessee Healthcare Network, and West Tennessee Healthcare, Inc. for an interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals considered two issues: whether the trial court erred by denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on Ms. Runions’ non-compliance with
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, holding that Ms. Runions had complied with the pre-suit notice requirement of
The Court of Appeals concluded that Shockley was distinguishable. Id. In Shockley, the plaintiff mistakenly gave notice to the wrong entity and later filed a health care liability case against that entity. 429 S.W.3d at 587. Upon realizing the error, the plaintiff moved to amend to substitute as a defendant the proper entity, which shared a business address and agent for service of process with the entity she had sued. Id. at 587-88. The trial court granted the plaintiff‘s motion to amend her complaint to substitute the correct health care provider. Id. at 588. Later, the trial court dismissed the case based on the plaintiff‘s failure to give pre-suit notice to the health care provider as required by
Here, the Court of Appeals noted that in Shockley, although the health care provider substituted as a defendant may have received pre-suit notification, there was no letter of acknowledgement as there was from Ms. Zamata on behalf of the District which provided “clear and unambiguous proof” that the District knew of the potential health care liability claim. Runions, 2017 WL 514583, at *7. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court‘s decision to grant Ms. Runions’ motion to amend her complaint based on its finding that the amendment would not be futile becаuse the District had received and acknowledged receipt of pre-suit notice. 2017 WL 514583, at *8. Judge Gibson dissented from the majority‘s decision regarding pre-suit notice. 2017 WL 514583, at *8 (Gibson, J., dissenting). Judge Gibson did not agree that the acknowledgement letter from Ms. Zamata on behalf of the District distinguished the case from Shockley and constituted pre-suit notice to the District as required by
We granted the District‘s application for permission to appeal to address whether the trial court erred by granting Ms. Runions’ motion to amend her complaint, after the expiration of the statute of limitations, to substitute the District as a defendant in place of Bolivar General Hospital, Inc.
II.
Whenever the claim . . . asserted in amended pleadings arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth . . . in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading. An amendment changing the party . . . against whom a claim is asserted relates back if the foregoing provision is satisfied and if, within the period provided by law for commencing an action or within 120 days after commencement of the action, the party to be brought in by amendment (1) has received such notice of the institution of the action that the party will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits, and (2) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against the party.
The purpose of
Trial courts have broad discretion to grant or deny motions to amend pleadings. Pratcher v. Methodist Healthcare Memphis Hosps., 407 S.W.3d 727, 741 (Tenn. 2013). We review a trial court‘s decision to grant or deny a motion to amend under an abuse of discretion standard. Id. (citing Hawkins v. Hart, 86 S.W.3d 522, 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)); Cumulus Broad., Inc. v. Shim, 226 S.W.3d 366, 374 (Tenn. 2007) (quoting Welch v. Thuan, 882 S.W.2d 792, 793 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994)). “A court abuses its discretion when it applies an inсorrect legal standard or its decision is illogical or unreasonable, is based on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or utilizes reasoning that results in an injustice to the complaining party.” Wilson v. State, 367 S.W.3d 229, 235 (Tenn. 2012) (citing Wright ex rel. Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 166, 176 (Tenn. 2011)); accord State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90, 116 (Tenn. 2008).
In deciding whether to grant a motion to amend, one factor a trial court should consider is the futility of amendment.7 Trial courts are not required to
Resolving this issue requires us to determine whether Ms. Runions’ motion to amend would be futile. Ms. Runions filed her original complaint after the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations applicable to health care actions, relying on the 120-day filing extension afforded by
So, we must determine whether Ms. Runions gave pre-suit notice to the District to entitle her to the 120-day extension of the filing date under
The trial court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ruling that Ms. Runions gavе pre-suit notice to the District. Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
The interpretation of
Any person . . . asserting a potential claim for health care liability shall give written notice of the potential claim to each health care provider that will be a named defendant at least sixty (60) days before the filing of a complaint based upon health care liability in any court of this state.
Pre-suit notice under
Ms. Runions knew that she and her baby received medical treatment at Jackson-Madison County General Hospital, but she did not correctly identify the District as the owner and operator of Jackson-Madison County General Hospital. Instead, she identified and gave pre-suit notice to Bolivar General Hospital, Inc.; West Tennessee Healthcare, Inc.; and West Tennessee Healthcare Network through their registered agent, Ms. Higgs, who also served as general counsel for the District. The District‘s Risk Manager acknowledged receipt of the notice and advised that she was the “designated contact for the above referenced claim.” Therefore, the District knew of Ms. Runions’ claim
To determine whether a plaintiff complies with the mandatory pre-suit notice provision of
We hold that a plaintiff does not comply with the mandatory pre-suit notice provision of
The issues here and in Shockley v. Mental Health Cooperative, Inc., involve pre-suit notice but in different contexts. In Shockley, the issue was whether the suit should be dismissed based on the plaintiff‘s asserted failure to provide pre-suit notice. Here, the issue is whether it would be futile to allow a plaintiff to substitute a health care provider as a defendant after the expiration of the statute of limitations resulting from the plaintiff‘s asserted failure to provide pre-suit notice.
In Shockley, the claimant filed a health care liability suit arising from the suicide of her brother while he was receiving care in a medical facility operated by the Mental Health Cooperative, Inc. (“the Cooperative“). Shockley, 429 S.W.3d at 584-85. Ms. Shockley mistakenly sent pre-suit notice letters to the Mental Health Cooperative Foundation, Inc. (“the Foundation“) and Peggy Hoffman, the Foundation‘s agent for service of process. Id. at 587. Ms. Shockley sued the Foundation within the one-year statute of limitations period. Id. at 585. The Foundation and the Cooperative were separate and distinct entities; the Foundation was the Cooperative‘s fundraising entity and did not provide medical care. Id. at 585, 587. Ms. Hoffman, however, was the rеgistered agent for both entities, and the pre-suit notice letters were sent to and received at the same address. Id. at 587. The trial court allowed Ms. Shockley to amend her complaint to substitute the Cooperative as a defendant in the place of the Foundation. Id. at 588. The trial court later dismissed the case based on Ms. Shockley‘s failure to comply with
Here, the Court of Appeals reasoned that Shockley was distinguishable because the District acknowledged in writing that it had received notice; the plaintiff, therefore, had complied with
Here, as in Shockley, the plaintiff cannot proceed because she failed to give pre-suit notice, but for different reasons. Ms. Shockley filed her original suit within the statute of limitations, and so, the amendment to add the Cooperative was not futile because it related back to the filing date of the original complaint under
Ms. Runions argues that pre-suit notice to the business address of the facility where she received treatment satisfied the pre-suit notice requirement of
In Brown and Hinkle, the plaintiffs sent pre-suit notice to the intended health care providers, but the disputed issue was the manner of service. In Brown, the plaintiff asserted a health care liability claim against the University of Tennessee Medical Center and the University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine in Knoxville. 2014 WL 1713773, at *1. In April 2011, the plaintiff sent pre-suit notice to these potential defendants and later filed a claim against them with the Division of
In Hinkle, the plaintiff sent pre-suit notice of a claim against Kindred Hospital to its Chief Administrator at the Hospital‘s address. 2012 WL 3799215, at *2. The plaintiff did not send notice to Kindred Hospital‘s agent for service of process. The Court of Appeals held that notice was sufficient because there was no objection to the alleged failure of service on the agent for service of process, no confusion about which entity was to be named a defendant, and Kindred Hospital received actual notice. 2012 WL 3799215, at *7. Unlike this case, the plaintiff in Hinkle directed notice to the defendant, not to another potential defendant. The disputed issue was the plaintiff‘s method of giving notice, nоt whether the plaintiff gave pre-suit notice. See id.
III.
We hold that the trial court erred by granting Ms. Runions’ motion to amend to substitute the District as a defendant because this amendment would be futile. Ms. Runions did not comply with
SHARON G. LEE, JUSTICE
Notes
When notice is given to a provider as provided in this section, the applicable statutes of limitations and repose shall be extended for a period of one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of expiration of the statute of limitations and statute of repose applicable to that provider. In no event shall this section operate to shorten or otherwise extend the statutes of limitations or repose applicable to any action asserting a claim for health care liability, nor shall more than one (1) extension be appliсable to any provider.
In the event a person, entity, or health сare provider receives notice of a potential claim for health care liability pursuant to this subsection (a), the person, entity, or health care provider shall, within thirty (30) days of receiving the notice, based upon any reasonable knowledge and information available, provide written notice to the potential claimant of any other person, entity, or health care provider who may be a properly named defendant.