§39.6 Duty, Non-Delegable
1. Wicks v. The Vanderbilt University, 2007 WL 858780 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2007).
The Court's Summary:
"This appeal comes from a medical malpractice case. The plaintiff underwent a bone marrow harvest procedure at a university hospital in April of 2003, after which the plaintiff began experiencing pain and numbness in his legs, back, and abdomen. The plaintiff and his wife filed a complaint against the university hospital alleging that the doctor and nurse performing the procedure had done so negligently and without the plaintiff’s informed consent, and that the hospital was thus liable through respondeat superior. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant had been directly negligent in its failure to properly supervise the attending doctor and nurse, but this claim was dismissed prior to trial. During discovery, the parties disputed the admissibility and nature of certain expert testimony and documents, and the trial court dealt with this evidence through its granting of specific motions in limine filed by the university hospital prior to trial. A jury trial was held, and the jury found for the defendant as to lack of informed consent and medical malpractice. The trial court granted the plaintiff a new trial on the informed consent claim, and it entered a final judgment in favor of the defendant on the medical negligence and negligent supervision claims. A timely appeal was filed to this Court. We reverse and remand for a new trial on both the medical malpractice and negligent supervision claims." View opinion.
"
The Court's Summary:
"This appeal comes from a medical malpractice case. The plaintiff underwent a bone marrow harvest procedure at a university hospital in April of 2003, after which the plaintiff began experiencing pain and numbness in his legs, back, and abdomen. The plaintiff and his wife filed a complaint against the university hospital alleging that the doctor and nurse performing the procedure had done so negligently and without the plaintiff’s informed consent, and that the hospital was thus liable through respondeat superior. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant had been directly negligent in its failure to properly supervise the attending doctor and nurse, but this claim was dismissed prior to trial. During discovery, the parties disputed the admissibility and nature of certain expert testimony and documents, and the trial court dealt with this evidence through its granting of specific motions in limine filed by the university hospital prior to trial. A jury trial was held, and the jury found for the defendant as to lack of informed consent and medical malpractice. The trial court granted the plaintiff a new trial on the informed consent claim, and it entered a final judgment in favor of the defendant on the medical negligence and negligent supervision claims. A timely appeal was filed to this Court. We reverse and remand for a new trial on both the medical malpractice and negligent supervision claims." View opinion.
"