 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cavnar v. State2/26/2003
I.
Quentin Cavnar is a fifty-year-old man who lives in Madison. On November 4, 2000, he went for what he called "an enjoyable ride." When he returned home, his wife called the police to report that Mr. Cavnar was shooting at streetlights and otherwise acting strangely. After the local authorities arrived with their mobile crisis unit, Mr. Cavnar sought to justify his actions by explaining that "the people who control the money, the power people, put cameras on the [street] lights, and . . . it was not right for people to be spying on other people." He also explained that he had unplugged his home telephone "because the phone was not safe" and because "people were able to listen to his conversation." Mr. Cavnar attributed his conduct to Valium withdrawal and self-imposed fasting.
Mr. Cavnar was thereafter admitted to Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute ("MTMHI") in Nashville. He was diagnosed with Bipolar I disorder with manic and psychotic features. MTMHI kept him under observation for ten days and then released him with a prescription to control his behavior. After his release, Mr. Cavnar began to complain about his treatment while a patient at MTMHI. He insisted that he had been both misdiagnosed and ill-used at the hands of various MTMHI personnel. In July 2001 he wrote MTMHI a letter threatening to sue the State and demanding that his official diagnosis be changed to "physician-prescribed Valium addiction."
In October 2001, after MTMHI failed to accede to his demands, Mr. Cavnar filed a pro se claim with the Tennessee Claims Commission. The claim embodied essentially three grievances. First, Mr. Cavnar alleged that MTMHI employees exhibited willful and malicious conduct toward him during his hospitalization and that these employees should be disciplined or dismissed. Second, he alleged that MTMHI committed medical malpractice by misdiagnosing him as "paranoid schizophrenic" which, he says, has rendered him unemployable. Third, he alleged that MTMHI's actions inflicted emotional distress upon his wife and his children.
On December 17, 2001, the State filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Cavnar's complaint on two grounds - lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Mr. Cavnar did not file a timely response to the motion. However, on January 23, 2002, he filed a four paragraph response stating that he was unable to obtain legal representation and that he was under the impression that "the proper venue" for his action was the Commission. He stated that if the Commission lacked jurisdiction he "would sincerely appreciate direction as to what venue would be appropriate," and he concluded by disavowing that he was suing for negligent infliction of emotional distress on behalf of his wife. The Commission dismissed Mr. Cavnar's lawsuit, and he has appealed.
II. Mr. Cavnar's Failure to Timely Respond to the Motion to Dismiss
Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 9-8-403(a)(1) (Supp. 2002) provides that matters such as Mr. Cavnar's suit shall be conducted under the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure where applicable, and otherwise they shall be conducted in accordance with the Commission's rules and regulations. Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0310-1-1-.01(5)(c) (2001) requires parties opposing a motion before the Commission, other than a summary judgment motion, to file and serve a response to the motion no later than fifteen days from service of the motion. Under the Commission's rule, " ailure to file a response shall indicate that there is no opposition to the motion." Where an opponent to a motion fails to respond, the Commission may permissibly grant the motion on its merits, if to do so appears otherwise appropriate. This court review
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|