Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1996

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
Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Decided October 1, 1996 · Judge Herschel Pickens Franks

Fred Johns, Administrator of The Estate of Sue Eva Johns v. Takoma Adventist Hospital

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 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 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 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.