 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mills v. Wong9/15/2000
This appeal presents a dispute over proper venue arising out of a medical malpractice suit against multiple defendants. The Shelby County Circuit Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss for improper venue. The case is before this court on an interlocutory appeal.
Tenn. R. App. P. 9; Interlocutory Appeal; Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed and Dismissed
Alan E. Highers, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Crawford, P.J., W.s., and Farmer, J., joined.
OPINION
Luis D. Wong appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss for improper venue. For the reasons stated herein, we reverse the trial court decision.
Facts and Procedural History
Frank Fetzer Mills, Jr. and Rebecca Smith Mills ("Appellees") are husband and wife and reside in Lauderdale County, Tennessee. Luis D. Wong ("Appellant") is a physician who also resides in Lauderdale County.
The Appellees filed a medical malpractice complaint against the Appellant arising out of two separate visits by Mr. Mills to the Appellant's office in Lauderdale County. As part of the same suit, the Appellees sued four other individuals and three facilities, alleging that each Defendant was guilty of separate acts of medical malpractice. The complaint alleges that all Defendants other than Wong reside or have their principal places of business in Shelby County, Tennessee. The Appellees also allege that all causes of action, except that against Wong, arose in Shelby County.
The Appellees filed their complaint against the Appellant and the other Defendants in Shelby County Circuit Court. The Appellant filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue, arguing that Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-4-101(b) required that the action against him be brought in Lauderdale County. The trial court denied the Appellant's motion to dismiss by order dated June 23, 1999. The Appellant then filed a motion and memorandum for permission for interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The trial court granted the motion for interlocutory appeal, and this court granted a similar motion on November 12, 1999.
Law and Analysis
As an initial matter, we note that if the complaint had named only the Appellant as a Defendant, the proper venue would be in Lauderdale County as it is clearly a "localized" action. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-4-101(b). However, this case presents a scenario in which multiple defendants residing in or having their principal places of business in multiple counties are sued for separate acts of medical malpractice as part of a single action. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the plaintiffs and one defendant reside in the same county, and the claim against that defendant arose in that county, namely Lauderdale County. The Appellant argues that the claim against him can only be brought in Lauderdale County, while the Appellees argue that the Appellant can be sued in Shelby County because he was properly joined under Rule 20 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The critical issue is whether, by virtue of the fact there are multiple defendants from multiple counties, proper joinder of a party under Rule 20 changes the venue analysis.
Under the facts of the present case, we do not believe that joinder under Rule 20 can change the fact that the proper venue for the claim against the Appellant is Lauderdale County. In relevant part, Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-4-101(b) provides: "If, however, the plaintiff and defendant both reside in the same county in this state, then such action shall be brought either in the county where the cause of action arose or in the
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|