 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Limbaugh v. Coffee Medical Center5/31/2000
Due to the Cox incident, two of Ray's supervisors, Betty Adams and Mary Arwood, were asked to submit written evaluations of Ray's work. Although these evaluations included some positive observations of Ray's work, Betty Adams reported that Ray was "short with residents," that she did not "use enough patience," and that her tone of voice was too "harsh" at times. Mary Arwood similarly noted that at times Ray's tone of voice indicated a "lack of patience with residents."
Instead of terminating Ray for the Cox incident, the Medical Center disciplined Ray by placing her on probation for one year. Less than three weeks later, Ray was involved in the incident in which Limbaugh was injured. Limbaugh died in April 1998 from causes that were unrelated to the January 19, 1997, incident.
Both the Plaintiff and the Medical Center filed notices that they were appealing the trial court's judgment. In its brief, the Medical Center has raised the following issues for this court's review:
1. Should the trial court have dismissed the plaintiff's claims against Coffee Medical Center upon motion to dismiss at the end of the plaintiff's proof or at the end of all proof based upon the plaintiff's failure to show by competent evidence that Coffee Medical Center failed to meet the relevant standard of professional practice in regard to the alleged negligent hiring or retention of Louise Ray and/or based upon the plaintiff's failure to prove that Ms. Louise Ray, had a history of tortious conduct toward patients with whom she had previously worked.
2. Was the trial court in error in holding that the defendant, Coffee Medical Center, has "a fiduciary duty to protect the lives and safety of its residents" as opposed to applying the standard set out in the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act at [Tennessee Code Annotated section] 29-26-115 and a duty of ordinary care to follow that standard.
3. Were the damages awarded in this case excessive for the injuries sustained and was fault appropriately allocated between the defendants.
4. Was the trial court in error in questioning witnesses concerning the adequacy of staffing at Coffee Medical Center thereby introducing this issue into the trial when the issue had not been raised in the plaintiff's pleadings.
We conclude that the third issue is dispositive of the Medical Center's appeal. In arguing that the trial court improperly allocated fault in this case, the Medical Center argues, inter alia, that none of the fault for Limbaugh's injuries should have been allocated to the Medical Center because, under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), the Medical Center cannot be held liable for the intentional tort of one of its employees.
Based on the decision of our supreme court in Potter v. City of Chattanooga, 556 S.W.2d 543 (Tenn. 1977), we find this argument persuasive. In Potter, the court considered whether the GTLA removed the defense of governmental immunity for injuries arising out of intentional torts committed by governmental employees. There, the plaintiff's complaint alleged that a police officer employed by the City of Chattanooga arrested the plaintiff for public drunkenness without probable cause. See Potter, 556 S.W.2d at 544. Another officer, while forcing the plaintiff into a cell, battered the plaintiff about the face, causing her to suffer lacerations and broken bones and breaking her dentures. See id.
The supreme court observed that the GTLA removed "the immunity of governmental entities from suit for damages where an injury proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of any employee within the scope of his employment." Id. By its own provisions, ho
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|