Fred Johns, Administrator of The Estate of Sue Eva Johns v. Takoma Adventist Hospital
This text of Fred Johns, Administrator of The Estate of Sue Eva Johns v. Takoma Adventist Hospital (Fred Johns, Administrator of The Estate of Sue Eva Johns v. Takoma Adventist Hospital) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN SECTI ON FILED October 1, 1996
Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk
FRED J OHNS, ADM NI STRATOR OF I ) C/ A NO. 03A01- 9604- CV- 00130 THE ESTATE OF SUE EVA J OHNS, ) ) GREENE LAW Pl a i nt i f f , ) ) HON. J OHN K. W LSON, I v. ) J UDGE ) TAKOM ADVENTI ST HOSPI TAL, A ) AFFI RMED ) AND De f e nda nt . ) REMANDED
DAVI D W BLANKENSHI P, Ki ngs por t , f or Pl a i nt i f f / Appe l l a nt . .
ROY F. SATTERW TE, I I I , a nd J AM HI ES H. LONDON, LONDON, AM BURN & THOMFORDE, P. C. , Knoxvi l l e , f or De f e nda nt / Appe l l e e .
O P I N I O N
Fr a nks . J .
I n t hi s a c t i on f or da ma ge s f or pe r s ona l i nj ur i e s t o
t h e de c e a s e d , t he c ompl a i nt a l l e ge d t he de c e a s e d ?wa s pl a c e d
i n a r oom whi l e i n de f e n da nt hos pi t a l , a nd on Apr i l 18, 1991 ,
s h e wa s f ound l yi ng on t he f l oor wi t h i nj ur i e s a bout he r he a d a nd f a c e . ? I t wa s f ur t h e r a l l e ge d t ha t ?i t wa s not l e a r ne d
u n t i l we l l a f t e r h e r d e a t h, i n c onve r s a t i on wi t h t he
p h y s i c i a ns of t he pl a i nt i f f de c e de nt , t ha t t he de c e de nt mor e
l i k e l y woul d ha ve s ur vi v e d f or ma ny ye a r s ha d s he not f a l l e n
. . .?
The c ompl a i nt wa s f i l e d on Apr i l 23, 1992, a nd t h e
Tr i a l Cour t , r e s pondi ng t o de f e nda nt ’ s mot i on f or s umma r y
j ud g me nt , h e l d t ha t t he s t a t ut e of l i mi t a t i ons ha d e xpi r e d
p r i or t o t he f i l i ng o f t hi s a c t i on. Pl a i nt i f f ha s a ppe a l e d .
The r e c or d r e l i e d upon by t he Tr i a l J udge i nc l ude d
t h e d i s c ove r y de pos i t i on of pl a i nt i f f , t he hus ba nd of t he
d e c e d e nt . He r e c ount e d wha t he obs e r ve d on t he ni ght of Ap r i l
1 8 , 1 991. He t e s t i f i e d t ha t a s he wa s pr oc e e di ng down t he
h a l l t owa r d d e c e de nt ’ s r oom he he a r d a s c r e a m, a nd r e c ogni z e d
i t t o be hi s wi f e ’ s voi c e . He r a n t o t he r oom a nd f ound he r
l y i n g on t he f l oor wi t h f ood a l l ove r t he f l oor , bl ood on t h e
f l o o r , a nd t he de c e a s e d i n a s t a t e of pa ni c . He r e l a t e d t h a t
s h e wa s s t r e t c he d out a nd movi ng he r a r ms a nd s c r e a mi ng, a nd
h e o b s e r ve d he r nos e bl e e di ng f r om a c ut on he r nos e a nd t h e
?b a c k of he r he a d wa s bl e e di ng a t t he s t i t c he s . ? The de c e a s e d
h a d h a d he a d s ur ge r y t o r e move a t umor , a nd ha d be e n
d i s c h a r ge d f r om a not he r hos pi t a l on Apr i l 13, f ol l owi ng t he
s u r g e r y, but wa s br ought t o de f e nda nt hos pi t a l a nd a dmi t t e d
t h r o u g h t he e me r ge nc y r oom, due t o c ompl i c a t i ons f r om he r
di a be t e s . Pl a i nt i f f t e s t i f i e d t ha t a f e w hour s l a t e r he
r e mo v e d hi s wi f e f r om t he hos pi t a l be c a us e t he doc t or ha d n o t
a r r i v e d t o a dmi ni s t e r t o he r , a nd he t ook he r t o a hos pi t a l i n
Kn o x v i l l e f or t r e a t me nt a nd obs e r va t i on.
I t i s pl a i nt i f f ’ s pos i t i on t ha t he di d not know
2 u n t i l he t a l ke d t o t he t r e a t i ng phys i c i a n i n Knoxvi l l e who
r e p a i r e d t he s hunt a t t he s i t us of he r br a i n s ur ge r y, on or
a b o u t Apr i l 24, 1992, t ha t t he f a l l ha d pr e c i pi t a t e d a
d i s l o d ge me nt of t he s hun t , a nd c r e a t e d a ddi t i ona l pr obl e ms f o r
de c e a s e d .
Pl a i nt i f f i ns i s t s t ha t s umma r y j udgme nt wa s
i n a p p r opr i a t e be c a us e ?t he s t a t ut e of l i mi t a t i ons t ha t s hou l d
h a v e a ppl i e d wa s not §29- 26- 116( a ) ( 1) , but r a t he r ,
§ 2 9 - 2 6- 116( a ) ( 2) , whi c h s i mpl y s t a t e s ‘ . . . i n t he e ve nt t h e
a l l e g e d i nj ur y i s not di s c ove r e d wi t hi n t he s a i d one ye a r
p e r i o d , t he pe r i od of l i mi t a t i on s ha l l be one ye a r f r om t he
d a t e o f s uc h di s c ove r y. ’ ? W c a nnot a gr e e t ha t t he di s c ove r y e
s t a t ut e i s a ppl i c a bl e t o t he undi s put e d f a c t s of t hi s c a s e .
Bot h pa r t i e s c i t e a nd r e l y on Roe v . J e f f e r s on, 8 7 5
S. W 2 d 653 ( Te nn. 1994) f or di f f e r e nt r e a s ons . . Howe ve r , we
a gr e e t ha t Roe c ont r ol s t he c a s e be f or e us . The Roe Cour t
s a i d t ha t i n a me di c a l ma l pr a c t i c e a c t i on t he s t a t ut e of
l i mi t a t i ons i s t ol l e d u nt i l t he pl a i nt i f f di s c ove r e d or
r e a s o n a bl y s houl d ha ve di s c ove r e d t ha t a br e a c h of dut y by
d e f e n d a nt oc c ur r e d whi c h pr oduc e d i nj ur i e s , c i t i ng Fos t e r v .
Ha r r i s , 633 S. W 2d 304 ( Te nn. 1980) . . The Cour t a l s o c i t e d
Ho f f man v . Hos pi t al Af f i l i at e s , 652 S. W 2d 341 ( Te nn. 1983) , .
wh i c h he l d t ha t t he di s c ove r y s t a t ut e onl y a ppl i e s i n c a s e s
wh e r e t he pl a i nt i f f doe s not di s c ove r a nd r e a s ona bl y c oul d n o t
b e e xpe c t e d t o d i s c ove r t ha t s he ha s a c a us e of a c t i on. I d.
a t 6 5 6 - 7. The Cour t e l a bor a t e d:
I t i s n ot r e qui r e d t ha t t he pl a i nt i f f a c t ua l l y kn o w t ha t t he i nj u r y c ons t i t ut e a br e a c h of t he a ppr opr i a t e l e ga l s t a nda r d i n or de r t o di s c ove r t h a t he ha s a ?r i ght of a c t i on?; t he pl a i nt i f f i s de e me d t o ha ve di s c ove r e d t he r i ght of a c t i on i f he i s
3 a wa r e of f a c t s s uf f i c i e nt t o put a r e a s ona bl e pe r s o n on not i c e t ha t he ha s s uf f e r e d a n i nj ur y a s a r e s u l t of wr ongf ul c onduc t .
I d. a t 657.
I n t hi s c a s e , pl a i nt i f f obs e r ve d t he de c e a s e d ha d
f a l l e n f r om t he be d, wa s bl e e di ng f r om he r nos e a nd t he
s u r g i c a l s i t e , a nd wa s i n a hi ghl y a gi t a t e d s t a t e . Hi s
c o n c e r n wa s s uc h t ha t he r e move d he r t o a not he r hos pi t a l f o r
t r e a t me nt t he ne xt mor ni ng. The s e undi s put e d f a c t s a r e
s u f f i c i e nt t o put a r e a s ona bl e pe r s on on not i c e t ha t t he
d e c e a s e d ha d s uf f e r e d a n i nj ur y f r om a l l e ge d wr ongf ul c onduc t
o f d e f e nda nt . Ac c or di ngl y, t h e s t a t ut e of l i mi t a t i ons r a n
f r o m t he da t e of i nj ur y, a nd t he Tr i a l Cour t r e a c he d t he
c o r r e c t r e s ul t . W a f f i r m t he s umma r y j udgme nt gr a nt e d t o e
d e f e n d a nt .
The c a us e i s r e ma nde d wi t h t he c os t of t he a ppe a l
a s s e s s e d t o Appe l l a nt .
________________________ He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .
CONCUR:
_ _ _ _ _ ______________________ Ho u s t o n M Godda r d, P. J . .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _____________________ Do n T. M M r a y, J . c ur
4 5
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Fred Johns, Administrator of The Estate of Sue Eva Johns v. Takoma Adventist Hospital, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fred-johns-administrator-of-the-estate-of-sue-eva--tennctapp-1996.