§34.2 Discovery Rule
1. McMahan v. Sevier County, 2007 WL 1946650 (Tenn. Ct. App., July 3, 2007).
The Court's Summary:
"The plaintiff’s complaint was filed April 20, 2004. In its present posture, this medical malpractice case involves the claim of the plaintiff, Jeffrey R. McMahan, that his left leg had to be amputated as a result of the malpractice of John D. Watson, M.D.; Southeastern Emergency Physicians, Inc. (“SEP”); Fort Sanders Regional Medical Center (“Ft. Sanders Knoxville”); and Fort Sanders Sevier Medical Center (“Ft. Sanders Sevier”). Each of these defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The two sides filed material in support of their respective positions, after which the trial court heard oral argument. Later, the court entered an order dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint. The sole issue is whether the defendants are entitled to summary judgment based upon their claim that the plaintiff’s complaint was filed outside the period of the applicable statute of limitations. We hold that the material relied upon by the defendants fails to establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff “discover[ed], or in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence for his own health and welfare, should have discovered the resulting injury,” see Teeters v. Currey, 518 S.W.2d 512, 517 (Tenn. 1974), more than one year before the date of filing of the original complaint. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings." View opinion.
Note: this opinion is perhaps the most expansive application of the discovery rule in Tennessee jurisprudence.
2. Luna v. St. Thomas Hospital, M2006-01728-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2007).
The Court's Summary:
" In this medical malpractice action, the trial court awarded summary judgment to defendant hospital on the basis of the statute of limitations. It later denied plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. Finding that the plaintiff established the existence of a disputed material fact regarding when she should have discovered her cause of action against the hospital, we reverse and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." View opinion.
3. Doyle H. Brandt and Martha J. Brandt v. David H. McCord, M.D., et al.
M2007-00312-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"The issue on appeal in this medical malpractice action is whether the plaintiffs’ lawsuit was timely filed. The plaintiffs, husband and wife, filed this medical malpractice action on December 5, 2003, against three healthcare providers for a surgical procedure performed on husband on December 8, 2000. All defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment based on the statute of limitations. The trial court summarily dismissed the complaint finding the plaintiffs had knowledge of enough facts more than one year before filing the lawsuit to put a reasonable person on notice that an injury had been suffered as a result of wrongful conduct by the defendants. The trial court also found that the doctrine of fraudulent concealment did not apply to toll the statute of limitations. The plaintiffs appealed. Finding no error, we affirm. View opinion.
4. William Hunter Liggett, et al. v. Brentwood Builders, LLC, M2007-00444-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2008)
The Court's Summary:
"Home buyers brought suit against home builder alleging fraud, breach of contract, consumer protection violations, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence. The trial court granted the builder’s motion for summary judgment based upon the statute of limitations and statute of repose. We affirm." View opinion.
5. Thurston Hensley v. CSX Transportation, Inc. - E2007-00323-COA-R3-CV
(Tenn. Ct. Ap.. April 3, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"Appellant CSX Transportation, Inc. (“Railroad”) has filed a petition for rehearing pursuant to the provisions of Tenn. R. App. P. 39. Railroad argues that this court misstated facts related to our holding that the trial court properly directed a verdict in favor of Thurston Hensley (“Employee”) on the statute of limitations issue. We stated in our opinion that “no evidence was presented” linking Employee’s headaches to his claimed toxic encephalopathy. Railroad points us to several pieces of evidence that it says we overlooked. Having reviewed Railroad’s memorandum and the accompanying evidence, we conclude that Railroad is correct that we misstated certain facts and conclusions. However, our holding remains unchanged, as will be explained herein. We adhere to our ruling that the directed verdict was properly granted. The petition for rehearing is denied with costs associated with the petition taxed to the appellant, CSX Transportation, Inc." View opinion.
6. Bill G. Grindstaff, et al vs. John P. Bowman, et al, E2007-00135-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 29, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"This litigation arises out of a collision between a vehicle operated by the plaintiff Bill F. Grindstaff and one driven by the defendant John P. Bowman. Mr. Grindstaff and his wife, the plaintiff Connie Grindstaff, timely filed suit against the defendant Bowman. Some 28 months after the accident, the plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint to add Hardee’s Food Systems, Inc. – the employer of the defendant Bowman – as an additional party defendant. After an order was entered allowing the amendment, Hardee’s filed a motion for summary judgment predicated upon the bar of the one-year statute of limitations. The trial court granted the motion. The plaintiffs appeal, contending that (1) the discovery rule saves their cause of action against Hardee’s and, in any event, (2) the claim was timely filed pursuant to the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119(a) (Supp. 2007). We affirm. View opinion.
The Court's Summary:
"The plaintiff’s complaint was filed April 20, 2004. In its present posture, this medical malpractice case involves the claim of the plaintiff, Jeffrey R. McMahan, that his left leg had to be amputated as a result of the malpractice of John D. Watson, M.D.; Southeastern Emergency Physicians, Inc. (“SEP”); Fort Sanders Regional Medical Center (“Ft. Sanders Knoxville”); and Fort Sanders Sevier Medical Center (“Ft. Sanders Sevier”). Each of these defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The two sides filed material in support of their respective positions, after which the trial court heard oral argument. Later, the court entered an order dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint. The sole issue is whether the defendants are entitled to summary judgment based upon their claim that the plaintiff’s complaint was filed outside the period of the applicable statute of limitations. We hold that the material relied upon by the defendants fails to establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff “discover[ed], or in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence for his own health and welfare, should have discovered the resulting injury,” see Teeters v. Currey, 518 S.W.2d 512, 517 (Tenn. 1974), more than one year before the date of filing of the original complaint. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings." View opinion.
Note: this opinion is perhaps the most expansive application of the discovery rule in Tennessee jurisprudence.
2. Luna v. St. Thomas Hospital, M2006-01728-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2007).
The Court's Summary:
" In this medical malpractice action, the trial court awarded summary judgment to defendant hospital on the basis of the statute of limitations. It later denied plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. Finding that the plaintiff established the existence of a disputed material fact regarding when she should have discovered her cause of action against the hospital, we reverse and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." View opinion.
3. Doyle H. Brandt and Martha J. Brandt v. David H. McCord, M.D., et al.
M2007-00312-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"The issue on appeal in this medical malpractice action is whether the plaintiffs’ lawsuit was timely filed. The plaintiffs, husband and wife, filed this medical malpractice action on December 5, 2003, against three healthcare providers for a surgical procedure performed on husband on December 8, 2000. All defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment based on the statute of limitations. The trial court summarily dismissed the complaint finding the plaintiffs had knowledge of enough facts more than one year before filing the lawsuit to put a reasonable person on notice that an injury had been suffered as a result of wrongful conduct by the defendants. The trial court also found that the doctrine of fraudulent concealment did not apply to toll the statute of limitations. The plaintiffs appealed. Finding no error, we affirm. View opinion.
4. William Hunter Liggett, et al. v. Brentwood Builders, LLC, M2007-00444-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2008)
The Court's Summary:
"Home buyers brought suit against home builder alleging fraud, breach of contract, consumer protection violations, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence. The trial court granted the builder’s motion for summary judgment based upon the statute of limitations and statute of repose. We affirm." View opinion.
5. Thurston Hensley v. CSX Transportation, Inc. - E2007-00323-COA-R3-CV
(Tenn. Ct. Ap.. April 3, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"Appellant CSX Transportation, Inc. (“Railroad”) has filed a petition for rehearing pursuant to the provisions of Tenn. R. App. P. 39. Railroad argues that this court misstated facts related to our holding that the trial court properly directed a verdict in favor of Thurston Hensley (“Employee”) on the statute of limitations issue. We stated in our opinion that “no evidence was presented” linking Employee’s headaches to his claimed toxic encephalopathy. Railroad points us to several pieces of evidence that it says we overlooked. Having reviewed Railroad’s memorandum and the accompanying evidence, we conclude that Railroad is correct that we misstated certain facts and conclusions. However, our holding remains unchanged, as will be explained herein. We adhere to our ruling that the directed verdict was properly granted. The petition for rehearing is denied with costs associated with the petition taxed to the appellant, CSX Transportation, Inc." View opinion.
6. Bill G. Grindstaff, et al vs. John P. Bowman, et al, E2007-00135-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 29, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"This litigation arises out of a collision between a vehicle operated by the plaintiff Bill F. Grindstaff and one driven by the defendant John P. Bowman. Mr. Grindstaff and his wife, the plaintiff Connie Grindstaff, timely filed suit against the defendant Bowman. Some 28 months after the accident, the plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint to add Hardee’s Food Systems, Inc. – the employer of the defendant Bowman – as an additional party defendant. After an order was entered allowing the amendment, Hardee’s filed a motion for summary judgment predicated upon the bar of the one-year statute of limitations. The trial court granted the motion. The plaintiffs appeal, contending that (1) the discovery rule saves their cause of action against Hardee’s and, in any event, (2) the claim was timely filed pursuant to the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119(a) (Supp. 2007). We affirm. View opinion.