 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fluri v. Fort Sanders Regional Medical Center11/14/2005
to replace her left knee. They also argue that "plaintiff's medical records from the December 19 surgery and all subsequent treatments were available for inspection".
Thus, the heart of the dispute is determining when a reasonable person in plaintiff's circumstances would have investigated the possibility of Dr. Blue's and Vista's alleged wrongful conduct. This is a question of fact not appropriate for resolution through summary judgment. As stated above, the plaintiffs argue a reasonable person would not have had reason to investigate this possibility until December 12, 2002, and would not have had a factual basis for the claim until June 18, 2003. While defendants argue that a reasonable person would have reason to investigate this possibility on December 29, 2000.
"As our Supreme Court has recognized, a summary judgment is not the appropriate vehicle for resolving conflicting inferences reasonably drawn from the facts-rather, its purpose is to resolve controlling issues of law." Matz v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Labs., Inc., No. E2003-00167-COA-R3-CV, 2003 WL 22409452, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Bellamy v. Federal Express Corp., 749 S.W.2d 31 (Tenn. 1988)). Whether Plaintiffs had constructive knowledge of Defendants' allegedly wrongful conduct under these circumstances is an issue of fact, and summary judgment was inappropriately granted because the facts and their reasonable inferences support more than one reasonable conclusion. Seavers v. Methodist Med. Ctr. of Oak Ridge, 9 S.W.3d 86, 91 (Tenn. 1999) (stating that summary judgment is only appropriate when the facts lead to only one reasonable conclusion); Buddy Lee Attractions, Inc. v. William Morris Agency, Inc., 13 S.W.3d 343, 347 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (stating that summary judgment must be overruled "if there is doubt as to whether or not . . . genuine issue remains for trial").
The issue of whether the Trial Court erred in granting the Motion for Summary Judgment without the Motion including a statement of undisputed facts in support is rendered moot by our vacating the Summary Judgment.
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the Summary Judgment and remand to the Trial Court for further proceedings. The cost of the appeal is assessed to Melinda Blue, M.D., and Vista Radiology, P.C.
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.
|
|