 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Taylor v. Shelby County Health Care Corp.11/10/2005
lee has presented the following additional issue for review:
2. Whether the circuit court erred when it denied Appellant's motion to alter or amend its ruling granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees.
For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the court.
III. Standard of Review
Summary judgment is appropriate when a moving party establishes "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a judgment may be rendered as a matter of law." Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04 (2005). "When a motion for summary judgment is used defensively, the plaintiff must present evidence sufficient to establish the essential elements of his claim on which he will bear the burden of proof at trial." White v. Methodist Hosp. S., 844 S.W.2d 642, 645 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) (citing Blair v. Allied Maintenance Corp., 756 S.W.2d 267, 269-70 (Tenn.Ct. App. 1988)). In such case, if the plaintiff does not produce evidence that "establish the essential elements of his claim, then summary judgment is appropriate." Click v. Mangione, No. M1999-00129-COA-R3-CV, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 441, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 7, 2000) (citing Blair v. Allied Maintenance Corp., 756 S.W.2d 267, 269-70 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988)). We review grants of summary judgment de novo on the record, id. (citing Warren v. Estate of Kirk, 954 S.W.2d 722, 723 (Tenn. 1997)), and "examine the evidence and all reasonable inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the non- moving party and . . . discard all countervailing evidence," Kelley v. Middle Tenn. Emergency Physicians, P.C., 133 S.W.3d 587, 591 (Tenn. 2004) (citing Mooney v. Sneed, 30 S.W.3d 304, 305-06 (Tenn. 2000); Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tenn. 1993)).
IV. Discussion
On appeal, Patient claims that the trial court erred when it granted Doctor's motion for summary judgment because there was a genuine issue of material fact and that Doctor was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
When a plaintiff brings an action for injuries resulting from negligent medical treatment, "the action is one for medical malpractice." Patterson v. Arif, No. W2004-01837-COA-R3-CV, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 92, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2005) (citing Gunter v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 121 S.W.3d 636, 640 (Tenn. 2003)). Our legislature has codified within section 29-26-115 of the Tennessee Code what elements a plaintiff must prove in an action for medical malpractice, which states in pertinent part:
(a) In a malpractice action, the claimant shall have the burden of proving by evidence as provided by subsection (b):
(1) The recognized standard of acceptable professional practice in the profession and the specialty thereof, if any, that the defendant practices in the profession and the specialty thereof, if any, that the defendant practices in the community in which the claimant practices or in a similar community at the time the alleged injury or wrongful action occurred;
(2) That the defendant acted with less than or failed to act with ordinary and reasonable care in accordance with such standard; and
(3) As a proximate result of the defendant's negligent act or omission, the plaintiff suffered injuries which would not otherwise have occurred.
(b) No person in a health care profession requiring licensure under the laws of this state shall be competent to testify in any court of law to establish the facts required to be established by subsection (a) unless the person was licensed to practice in the state or a contiguous bordering state a profession or specialty which would make the person's expert testimony relevant to the issues in the cas
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.
|
|