 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fluri v. Fort Sanders Regional Medical Center11/14/2005
linda Blue, M.D. . . . and Vista Radiology", and "the facts, when viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, clearly show that plaintiffs filed suit against Dr. Blue and Vista within one year of reasonably discovering Mrs. Fluri's injury and the wrongful act of the defendants." And further, "defendants did not file a separate statement of undisputed material facts as required by Rule 56.03 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure." After a hearing on the Motion, on January 16, the Trial Court entered an Order granting the Motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims against Dr. Blue and Vista Radiology.
Subsequently, Orders dismissing the other parties to the lawsuit were filed, and on February 16, 2005, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal from the Order granting summary judgment to Melinda H. Blue, M.D., and Vista Radiology.
Plaintiffs' issues on appeal are whether the Trial Court erred in granting summary judgment on the grounds of the statute of limitations, and whether the Court erred in granting summary judgment when the moving party did not include a statement of undisputed facts in support of their motion.
"The standard of review of a summary judgment determination is de novo without any presumption of correctness accorded the trial court's judgment." Guy v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 79 S.W.3d 528, 534 (Tenn. 2002). This Court's "only task in deciding a motion for summary judgment is to determine whether `the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'" (quoting Tenn. R. Civ. 56.04). "If there is doubt as to whether or not such genuine issue remains for trial, the summary judgment must be overruled." Buddy Lee Attractions, Inc. v. William Morris Agency, Inc., 13 S.W.3d 343, 347 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
On appeal, plaintiffs argue there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the Plaintiffs filed suit against these defendants within one year of reasonably discovering the tortuous conduct of the Defendants. Defendants respond that " he Trial Court was correct in granting summary judgment because Plaintiff had at the very least constructive notice of all potential claims." The Defendants in their brief, reasoned that "the extremely close temporal proximity of the fracture to the knee replacement surgery placed Plaintiff on notice that a problem may have existed from the time of surgery on December 19, 2000, creating a duty to investigate what happened immediately before, during, and immediately after her surgery."
Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 29-26-116(a)(1)(2) is the codification of the discovery rule adopted by the Tennessee Supreme Court in Teeters v. Currey, 518 S.W.2d 512 (Tenn. 1974). The Supreme Court has interpreted the statute as follows:
he statute of limitations in a medical malpractice case is tolled until the plaintiff "discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, (1) the occasion, the manner, and the means by which a breach of duty occurred that produced his injuries; and (2) the identity of the defendant who breached the duty.
Stanbury v. Bacardi, 953 S.W.2d 671, 677 (Tenn. 1997) (quoting Foster v. Harris, 633 S.W.2d 304, 305 (Tenn. 1982)). In other words, the statute of limitations commences "when the plaintiff is `aware of the facts sufficient to put a reasonable person on notice that he has suffered an injury as a result of wrongful conduct,' and the plaintiff knows the identity of the person who engaged in the conduct." McIntosh v. Blanton, 164 S.W.3d 584, 586 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (quoting Roe v. J
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.
|
|