 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Doe v. Pedigo6/30/2003
On the evening of June 13, 1994, the Plaintiff met with Dr. Pedigo for the purpose of accompanying and observing him in the event he received any calls to investigate crime scenes that would require his attention as Chief Medical Examiner for Knox County. The Plaintiff, who was a minor at the time, had met Dr. Pedigo through Plaintiff's father, an acquaintance of Dr. Pedigo. Plaintiff had an interest in a medical career at the time and hoped to gain some experience and insight into the medical profession by accompanying Dr. Pedigo. Plaintiff also planned to follow and observe Dr. Pedigo the following day as he performed surgeries at the University of Tennessee Medical Center.
In the early evening, Dr. Pedigo and Plaintiff drove around in Dr. Pedigo's vehicle, making various stops and performing errands. Although Dr. Pedigo was "on call" that evening, he did not receive a call to investigate a crime scene, and at a certain point in the evening, Dr. Pedigo suggested that they go to his condominium, which they did.
Dr. Pedigo had told Plaintiff that for his safety, because he might be exposed to blood while accompanying Dr. Pedigo, he would have to administer a hepatitis B vaccine injection to Plaintiff. When it was fairly late in the evening, Dr. Pedigo told Plaintiff it was time for his injection and had him undress and change into a hospital gown. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Dr. Pedigo had mixed the vaccine with a dose of Versed, an incapacitating drug which caused Plaintiff to become unconscious. After Plaintiff became unconscious, Dr. Pedigo removed Plaintiff's clothing and took photographs of him.
Plaintiff filed this action on June 2, 1995, against Dr. Pedigo, in both his individual capacity and official capacity as Chief Medical Examiner; Timothy Hutchison, in both his individual capacity and official capacity as Sheriff of Knox County; and Knox County. As noted above, Plaintiff asserted theories of liability under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and T.C.A. sections 8-8-302, 8-19-301 and 29-20-205. The Defendants answered and filed motions for summary judgment.
On May 17, 2002, the Trial Court granted summary judgment on all claims in favor of Knox County and Sheriff Hutchison individually and officially. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Pedigo on all claims except those for medical malpractice and false imprisonment. On appeal, Plaintiff questions whether the Trial Court erred in granting summary judgment to the Defendants.
In Staples v. CBL & Associates, Inc., 15 S.W.3d 83, 89 (Tenn. 2000) the Tennessee Supreme Court stated the following as to the standard of review specifically applicable to summary judgments:
The standards governing the assessment of evidence in the summary judgment context are also well established. Courts must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and must also draw all reasonable inferences in the nonmoving party's favor. See Robinson v. Omer, 952 S.W.2d at 426; Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d at 210-11. Courts should grant a summary judgment only when both the facts and the inferences to be drawn from the facts permit a reasonable person to reach only one conclusion. See McCall v. Wilder, 913 S.W.2d 150, 153 (Tenn. 1995); Carvell v. Bottoms, 900 S.W.2d 23, 26 (Tenn. 1995).
We first address Plaintiff's claims under T.C.A. 29-20-205, a section of the Governmental Tort Liability Act ("GTLA"), which provides in relevant part as follows:
Immunity from suit of all governmental entities is removed for injury proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of any employee within the scope of his employment except if the injury arises out
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|