This case, brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, involved a plaintiff who underwent a colonoscopy at a Veterans Administration medical facility and later received a warning letter about possible exposure to bodily fluids from another patient due to use of an incorrect valve on the equipment, allegedly resulting in hepatitis. The plaintiff asserted claims including negligent infliction of emotional distress, ordinary negligence, res ipsa loquitur, lack of informed consent, and medical malpractice. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. It reasoned that the claims sounded in medical malpractice under Tennessee law and were therefore barred by the three-year statute of repose and the plaintiff's failure to file the required certificate of good faith, with no exception applicable. Additionally, the decision to send the warning letter was protected by the discretionary function exception to the FTCA.
This case is a declaratory judgment action in which National Union Fire Insurance sought to rescind or reform four dental professional liability policies issued to Small Smiles Holding Co. (SSHC), alleging that SSHC failed to disclose material facts about ongoing state and federal investigations, qui tam actions, Medicaid fraud claims, and prior insurance claims history before the policies were issued in 2008 and 2009. SSHC filed a counterclaim alleging violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) in Count I and bad faith refusal to honor insurance contracts under Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-105 in Count II. The court granted National Union's motion to dismiss Count II but denied it as to Count I. The court reasoned that Count II failed because SSHC did not allege a formal demand coupled with an explicit threat of bad faith litigation or that National Union had denied the claims, while Count I contained sufficient factual allegations to state a claim under the TCPA when viewed in the light most favorable to SSHC.
This case involved four Smith County public school teachers and their education association challenging the constitutionality of the school board's random drug testing policy under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. and Tennessee Constitutions. The plaintiffs sought a declaration and injunction against the random testing component after each had been subjected to it. Following a bench trial, the court found that the specific 2007 policy at issue violated the teachers' Fourth Amendment rights because it lacked proper notice to employees and was unreasonably implemented, such as through inadequate testing procedures and insufficient information provided during training. However, the court concluded that random drug testing of teachers is not unconstitutional per se, noting the importance of teachers remaining unimpaired to respond to emergencies but emphasizing deficiencies in this particular policy's rollout and execution.
This case is part of a products liability multidistrict litigation involving the drugs Aredia and Zometa and claims that they caused osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) in patients. The court addressed the defendant's Daubert motion to exclude causation opinions from several treating physicians who were not retained as experts. The court granted the motion, ruling that the physicians could testify about diagnosis, treatment, and observations from patient care but not about causation. The reasoning was that under Daubert and Rule 702, any expert causation opinion must rest on a reliable scientific methodology within the witness's expertise, which the treating doctors had not shown; their diagnostic skills did not equate to reliable causation analysis, and any relevant knowledge often arose after the treatment period or lacked a proper foundation.
This case involved a products liability claim brought by Robert Foster as representative of Betty Foster, deceased, against the manufacturer of the drugs Aredia and Zometa. The plaintiff alleged that the drugs caused Mrs. Foster to develop osteonecrosis of the jaw and asserted state-law claims for strict liability and negligence under Tennessee law. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims as untimely. The core reasoning was that Tennessee's one-year statute of limitations for personal-injury actions began to run in July or August 2004 when the Fosters learned of the possible causal link, the suit was filed more than a year later, and Tennessee does not recognize cross-jurisdictional tolling based on an earlier, uncertified federal class action.
The case involves a former employee suing Prudential Insurance for wrongfully denying long-term disability benefits under ERISA. The plaintiff sought to amend her complaint after the deadline to add claims under the ADA for disability discrimination and related conspiracy claims, and to name an additional defendant. The court denied the motions to amend and extend the deadline, finding no good cause for the late filing and that the proposed ADA claims would be futile because the ADA does not provide a cause of action for the denial of benefits in this context. The court did grant an extension for the dispositive motion deadline.