Today, the Tennessee Supreme Court has dismissed a health care liability lawsuit against six Knoxville medical providers because they were not provided with at least 60 days’ pre-suit notice of the action, as required under Tennessee law.
In 2011, Samuel and Mary Foster filed a health care liability lawsuit against Mr. Foster’s former medical providers. Before filing that action, the Fosters provided the health care defendants with the statutorily required pre-suit notice. However, the Fosters eventually dismissed this lawsuit, and in May 2012, without giving notice that they intended to recommence the lawsuit, sued Mr. Foster’s medical providers again.
Tennessee law provides that, before filing a health care liability lawsuit, plaintiffs must provide defendants with at least 60 days’ notice that the lawsuit is forthcoming. Relying upon this rule, the Knox County Circuit Court dismissed the Fosters’ second lawsuit and determined that the Fosters were banned from filing the action again. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision of the trial court, holding that the original notice the Fosters provided before filing their first lawsuit served as sufficient notice for both lawsuits filed by the Fosters, as both involved the same defendants and asserted the same claims. The Court of Appeals further determined that any non-compliance with the pre-suit notice statute on the part of the Fosters did not warrant dismissal of their lawsuit.
The Tennessee Supreme Court disagreed. In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Sharon G. Lee, the Court held that the pre-suit notice statute requires plaintiffs to give notice of a forthcoming health care liability lawsuit each time a complaint is to be filed. The purpose of this statute, the Court noted, is to give health care defendants a chance to investigate the merits of a claim and possibly pursue settlement negotiations before the suit is filed. Because the Fosters did not notify the medical providers of their intent to re-file their lawsuit, the health care defendants were not provided this opportunity, disregarding the purpose of the law. Accordingly, the Court found that the Fosters failed to comply with the pre-suit notice statute before filing their second action and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice.
Justice Gary R. Wade filed a dissenting opinion, finding that the Fosters had complied with the pre-suit notice statute by notifying the defendants of their potential claims at least 60 days before filing either of their lawsuits. Because the Fosters had provided notice as required by statute, Justice Wade concluded that their claims should be decided on the merits instead of dismissed on procedural grounds.
Read the majority opinion in Samuel E. Foster, et al v. Walter William Chiles, III, M.D., et al., authored by Chief Justice Lee, and the separate dissenting opinion of Justice Wade.