Nashville, Tenn. - On May 6, 2026, the Tennessee Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for its May docket in Knoxville, Tennessee. Oral arguments will be heard at the Tennessee Supreme Court building in Knoxville and livestreamed to the TNCourts YouTube page (https://www.youtube.com/@TNCourts).
Beginning at 9:00 am EDT, the Court will hear the following two cases:
• Timothy Allen Curtis and Tammy Curtis Webb, as next of kin of Virginia Curtis ex rel. Bruce Allen Curtis v. Tiffany L. Sharp et al. – In this case, the Tennessee Supreme Court will determine whether a widow’s pre-suit notice to her late husband’s healthcare providers complied with state law. Bruce Allen Curtis passed away unexpectedly in 2019 during a medical procedure. In 2020, his surviving spouse, Virginia Curtis, filed a lawsuit against American Anesthesiology of Tennessee (“AAT”), its registered nurse anesthetist Tiffany Sharp, and another medical provider. Ms. Curtis filed her complaint outside the one-year statute of limitations for healthcare liability claims, but she had filed pre-suit notice to extend the limitations period under the Health Care Liability Act (“the Act”). AAT and Ms. Sharp filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that Ms. Curtis’s pre-suit notice was defective and, therefore, the lawsuit was untimely. The Knox County Circuit Court granted the motion, finding that Ms. Curtis’s notice lacked an effective HIPAA-compliant authorization permitting the providers to obtain Mr. Curtis’s medical records. The trial court found the authorization provided by Ms. Curtis defective because it included language purporting to prohibit communication among the providers about Mr. Curtis’s protected health information without obtaining a qualified protective order. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, concluding that the limiting language in Ms. Curtis’s notice frustrated the purpose of the pre-suit notice requirement. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Ms. Curtis’s application for permission to appeal to consider whether her notice complied with the Act’s requirement that pre-suit notice must include a HIPAA-compliant medical authorization permitting each provider to obtain complete medical records from all providers being sent notice.
• James W. Grubb et al. v. Joe D. Grubb et al. – The Tennessee Supreme Court will consider the appeal of James (“Jim”) Grubb in a business dispute with his brother, Joe Grubb. The brothers owned and operated successful rent-to-own and cash-advance businesses beginning in East Tennessee in the early 1990s, but their relationship later deteriorated. In 2017, Jim filed a lawsuit against Joe, in which Jim alleged, among other claims, wrongful interference with business relationships and breach of fiduciary duty. After an eleven-day bench trial in 2022, the McMinn County Chancery Court ruled in Jim’s favor. The trial court awarded a monetary judgment, ordered an exchange of ownership interests in other businesses, and awarded attorney’s fees to Jim. Upon Joe’s appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Jim’s application for permission to appeal to consider the definition and interpretation of wrongful interference with business relationships, whether a member of a member-managed LLC owes a fiduciary duty to another member, whether the trial court had the authority to order an exchange of business ownership interests, and whether the trial court correctly awarded attorney’s fees.
Beginning at 1:30 pm EDT, the Court will hear the following two cases:
• Emily Elizabeth Buckner v. Complete Wellness Chiropractic Center et al. – In 2023, Emily Elizabeth Buckner filed a healthcare liability lawsuit against multiple medical providers, alleging that they failed to diagnose and treat an injury to her back properly. As required by the Health Care Liability Act (“the Act”), her complaint indicated that she sent pre-suit notice to the providers. Attached to the complaint were copies of HIPAA-compliant authorizations permitting the providers to obtain her medical records that allegedly had been sent with her pre-suit notice. These copies, however, were unsigned. The medical providers moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the unsigned authorizations failed to demonstrate compliance with the pre-suit notice requirement. At a hearing on the motion, the Bradley County Circuit Court asked counsel for one of the providers if the authorization his client received before suit was signed. Counsel responded that he believed it was, but the trial court did not make a similar inquiry of counsel for the other providers. After the hearing, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss the lawsuit, finding that the unsigned authorizations did not demonstrate compliance with the Act. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the providers’ application for permission to appeal to consider the appropriate procedure and standards for determining compliance with the pre-suit notice requirement.
• In re Nathaniel D. – Nathaniel D. was born in 2019 to Haleigh D. (“Mother”), who at the time was married to Zachary D. (“Stepfather”). Shortly after the child’s birth, Richard L. (“Father”) sought to establish parentage of Nathaniel D. DNA testing established Father’s parentage, and an agreed order of paternity was entered in 2021. However, issues related to custody, visitation, and child support were reserved for later determination. In 2022, with those issues still unresolved, Mother and Stepfather filed a petition for stepparent adoption and termination of Father’s parental rights. In 2024, the Knox County Chancery Court entered an order terminating Father’s parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by failure to support the child. The trial court resolved the failure-to-support issue through summary judgment and determined after a hearing that termination was in the best interests of the child. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that Father had established that his failure to pay child support was not willful. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Mother and Stepfather’s application for permission to appeal to consider whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the question of Father’s failure to support the child and whether the trial court correctly determined that termination was in the child’s best interests.
Media members planning to attend oral arguments should review Supreme Court Rule 30 and reach out to Communications Director Samantha Fisher by email at: samantha.fisher@tncourts.gov.
###