§11.12 Bifurcated Fault Allocations
1. Juanita Mullins, individually and as executor of the Estate of Daniel V. Mullins, deceased vs. State of Tennessee, E2007-01113-COA-R9-CV, (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan 24, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"Juanita Mullins (“Plaintiff”) and her husband, Daniel Mullins, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit in federal court against several doctors, including Dr. Jose Mejia. Dr. Mejia was a fourth-year resident at East Tennessee State University at the relevant time. The lawsuit was brought after Plaintiff’s husband had serious complications and injuries following surgery. Plaintiff’s husband eventually died. Plaintiff and her husband were residents of Virginia and filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee based upon diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Dr. Mejia and then filed this lawsuit based upon the alleged medical malpractice of Dr. Mejia against the State of Tennessee (the “State”) in the Division of Claims. A jury trial was held in the federal court case, and the jury ruled in favor of all remaining defendants. Although neither Dr. Mejia nor the State were parties to the federal court action, the jury was asked if Dr. Mejia was at fault for comparative fault purposes, and the jury responded “no.” After the present case was transferred to the Claims Commission, the State filed a motion to dismiss claiming Plaintiff was collaterally estopped from pursuing the present claim due to the federal court jury’s determination that Dr. Mejia was not at fault. The Claims Commissioner denied the motion, and the State appealed. We affirm." Read the opinion.
The Court's Summary:
"Juanita Mullins (“Plaintiff”) and her husband, Daniel Mullins, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit in federal court against several doctors, including Dr. Jose Mejia. Dr. Mejia was a fourth-year resident at East Tennessee State University at the relevant time. The lawsuit was brought after Plaintiff’s husband had serious complications and injuries following surgery. Plaintiff’s husband eventually died. Plaintiff and her husband were residents of Virginia and filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee based upon diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Dr. Mejia and then filed this lawsuit based upon the alleged medical malpractice of Dr. Mejia against the State of Tennessee (the “State”) in the Division of Claims. A jury trial was held in the federal court case, and the jury ruled in favor of all remaining defendants. Although neither Dr. Mejia nor the State were parties to the federal court action, the jury was asked if Dr. Mejia was at fault for comparative fault purposes, and the jury responded “no.” After the present case was transferred to the Claims Commission, the State filed a motion to dismiss claiming Plaintiff was collaterally estopped from pursuing the present claim due to the federal court jury’s determination that Dr. Mejia was not at fault. The Claims Commissioner denied the motion, and the State appealed. We affirm." Read the opinion.