Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mullin v. Rolling Hills Hospital

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

July 11, 2017

JAMES MULLIN, Plaintiffs
v.
ROLLING HILLS HOSPITAL, Defendant

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          ALETA A. TRAUGER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Pending before the court are a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 57), Objections filed by Plaintiffs (Docket Nos. 62 and 66), and a Response to the Objections filed by Defendant (Docket No. 63). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) and Local Rule 72.03(b)(3), the court has reviewed de novo the parts of the Report and Recommendation that have been properly objected to. The Objections of the Plaintiffs will be overruled.

         INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiffs brought this action against Rolling Hills Hospital for alleged actions and inactions surrounding Plaintiff Amanda Mullin's self-admitted stay at Rolling Hills in August of 2015. Plaintiffs assert that, soon after she arrived at Rolling Hills, Amanda requested to be taken home. Thereafter, Plaintiffs claim, Amanda was involuntarily detained for two days at Rolling Hills. In their Amended Complaint (Docket No. 37), Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action: abuse of process, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, conversion, assault, and violation of a duty of care. Defendant moved to dismiss this action, arguing, among other things, [1] that Plaintiffs failed to provide the required, pre-suit, written notice for this “health care liability action” under Tennessee law.

         The Magistrate Judge, in a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 57), recommended that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be granted, finding that Plaintiffs' causes of action fall within the definition of “health care liability action” and that Plaintiffs failed to provide the required, pre-suit, written notice before filing this action. Plaintiffs have filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation, arguing that Defendant's commitment of Amanda was fraudulent and that their claims do not constitute a health care liability action.

         HEALTH CARE LIABILITY ACTIONS

         Tennessee law defines “health care liability action” as:

any civil action, including claims against the state or a political subdivision thereof, alleging that a health care provider or providers have caused an injury related to the provision of, or failure to provide, health care services to a person, regardless of the theory of liability on which the action is based.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-101(a)(1).

“Health care services” are defined to include care by health care providers, which includes care by physicians, nurses, licensed practical nurses, pharmacists, pharmacy interns or pharmacy technicians under the supervision of a pharmacist, orderlies, certified nursing assistants, advance practice nurses, physician assistants, nursing technicians and other agents, employees and representatives of the provider, and also includes staffing, custodial or basic care, positioning, hydration and similar patient services.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-101(b). The statute states that any health care liability action is subject to this part regardless of any other claims, causes of action, or theories of liability alleged in the complaint. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-101(c).

         Tennessee law also provides that any person asserting a potential claim for health care liability shall give written notice of the potential claim to each health care provider that will be a named defendant at least sixty days before the filing of a complaint based upon health care liability in any court of this state. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a)(1). The court has discretion to excuse compliance with this section only for extraordinary cause shown. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(b). Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiffs did not provide the required written pre-suit notice to Defendant before filing this action.

         A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is the proper method for challenging whether a plaintiff has complied with the Health Care Liability Act pre-suit notice requirement. Ellithorpe v. Weismark, 479 S.W.3d 818, 823 (Tenn. 2015). The Tennessee Supreme Court has interpreted this notice requirement as mandatory, not directory. Runions v. Jackson-Madison County General Hospital Dist., 2017 WL 514583 at * 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2017) (citing Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc.,382 S.W.3d 300 (Tenn. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.