Todd J. Campbell

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.

healthcarefederal powertorts & liabilityprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

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.

civil rightslabor & employment

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.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

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.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

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.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

In Givens v. Tennessee Football, Inc., a former NFL player sued the Tennessee Titans for allegedly withholding results from a pre-contract physical exam that identified a knee defect, claiming this led to torts of outrageous conduct, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional and physical injury, and bad-faith performance of his player contract after he suffered a career-ending injury in 2006. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the diversity action. The core reasoning was that the state-law claims were preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act because they were not independent of the collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and players' union; resolving them would require interpreting the CBA and the player's contract, so they had to proceed through the agreement's grievance and arbitration procedures instead.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a high school student suspended after his car accidentally touched another student's foot in a school parking lot, with claims that the investigation and disciplinary hearing were flawed, biased, and racially motivated in violation of procedural and substantive due process as well as equal protection rights. The court ruled on motions to dismiss from individual defendants, the Metropolitan Board of Public Education, and the Metropolitan Government, along with a motion to stay discovery. It granted dismissal of the Board entirely, dismissed claims against individuals in their official capacities, all substantive due process claims, negligence claims, and failure-to-train claims against the government, but denied dismissal in part as to certain constitutional claims against the Metropolitan Government and some individual defendants in their personal capacities. The core reasoning centered on pleading deficiencies, immunity doctrines, and the viability of municipal liability under federal civil rights statutes.

civil rights

This case involves a title insurance company, First American Title, seeking reimbursement from a bank, a title agency, an abstractor, and guarantors after paying over $286,000 on a policy claim to clear an undisclosed prior deed of trust that encumbered property purchased by its insureds. The disputes center on which parties were at fault for failing to discover or release the lien during the transaction and closing, with claims including breach of contract, negligence, contribution, and fraud. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court dismissed the intentional fraud claims against the bank due to lack of evidence but denied most other motions, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding negligence, reliance on payoff letters, and contractual obligations that require trial resolution.

propertyproceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case centers on Patricia Holmes's claims against TeleCheck International and TeleCheck Services under the Fair Credit Reporting Act after six checks she wrote between 2003 and 2005 were declined or required additional contact at the point of sale based on TeleCheck's risk recommendations to merchants. Holmes alleged multiple FCRA violations, including failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy in consumer files, inadequate responses to file disclosure requests, failure to investigate disputes, improper data requests, unauthorized disclosures, and missing notices of rights; she sought damages, declaratory relief, and an injunction. TeleCheck filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on all claims regarding both liability and damages, and both parties submitted evidence-related motions that the court addressed alongside the summary judgment filings. The court reviewed the business operations of TeleCheck as a check verification service using risk models and noted factual disputes over issues like license number handling and consumer file accuracy.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned TWHBEA's claims that NWHA infringed its copyright in a closed pedigree registry for Tennessee Walking Horses, along with related trademark, dilution, unfair competition, and tort claims arising from NWHA's launch of a competing registry that incorporated some of the same ancestral data. The court had already granted summary judgment to TWHBEA on copyright infringement and, after a bench trial, awarded $30,000 in statutory damages, treating the registry as a single compilation under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c). On the remaining claims the court ruled for NWHA, finding no likelihood of consumer confusion or actual dilution of TWHBEA's marks, no violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and no intentional interference with business relations, because NWHA used distinct marks, most overlapping registrations were by owners already in both registries, and evidence of harm was speculative.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a proposed class action by a policyholder against American General Life & Accident Insurance Company, alleging that the insurer improperly classified and priced life insurance policies on juvenile insureds using smoker rates despite the children's non-smoking status and the policyholder's disclosure of no tobacco use on the application. The plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, and unjust enrichment, claiming the policies should have received non-smoker risk classifications for their duration. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, dismissing the fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, and unjust enrichment claims while allowing the breach of contract claim to proceed. The court reasoned that an arms-length insurance transaction did not create a fiduciary relationship, that no confidential relationship supported a constructive fraud claim, and that a valid written contract barred recovery under an unjust enrichment theory.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of Direct General Corporation stock between August 2003 and January 2005, alleging that the company, its officers, underwriters, auditor, and related parties made false or misleading statements about the negative effects of the 2003 Florida Insurance Affordability Act on the company's loss reserves, claims expenses, and Florida business, thereby inflating stock prices ahead of a public offering and insider sales. Plaintiffs asserted violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the federal securities laws. The court granted in part and denied in part the multiple motions to dismiss, dismissing all claims against the William C. Adair, Jr. Trust, the Section 12 claims tied to the August 2003 offering, and the Section 10(b) claims against Ernst & Young, while permitting other claims to continue, on grounds that certain allegations failed to meet pleading requirements while others sufficiently stated actionable claims.

business & regulatory

This case involved a declaratory judgment action by Caremark, a pharmacy benefit manager, against Tennessee officials administering the TennCare Medicaid program. Caremark sought a ruling that certain limitations in its customers' health benefit plans would prevent or restrict TennCare from obtaining reimbursement for Medicaid payments made on behalf of 'dual eligible' beneficiaries who also had coverage under those plans. The court granted summary judgment to the State defendants and the United States, while denying Caremark's cross-motion. It reasoned that federal Medicaid law requires the program to be the payer of last resort, that assignments of benefits arise at the time services are provided, and that ERISA does not preempt the state's reimbursement rights under these circumstances.

healthcarefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case concerned a challenge by the ACLU of Tennessee and others to a Tennessee statute authorizing a specialty license plate bearing the message 'Choose Life.' The plaintiffs argued that the law violated the First Amendment by engaging in viewpoint discrimination, as the state had rejected a similar plate with a 'Pro-Choice' message. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding the statute unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement. The core reasoning was that the 'Choose Life' plate involved mixed government and private speech in a forum created by the state, and the government cannot discriminate based on viewpoint in such speech under the First Amendment.

free speechcivil rights

This case involved a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by a student's mother against the Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (TSSAA) and its executive director, alleging that rulings declaring the student ineligible to compete in high school athletics and fining Gallatin High School violated constitutional due process rights. The Sumner County Board of Education intervened on behalf of the school, which had sought injunctive relief after the TSSAA's eligibility and disciplinary decisions. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss and the motion to strike, holding that the school possessed a protected property interest in the $500 fine and potential postseason tournament revenues. The core reasoning was that these interests entitled the school to procedural due process, including adequate notice of all charges and evidence as well as an impartial decision-maker, and that the plaintiff had shown a likelihood that the hearing fell short on both elements because the executive director participated in deliberations and not all evidence was disclosed in advance.

civil rightsprocedure

Brentwood Academy sued the Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (TSSAA) claiming that its Recruiting Rule, as applied, violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. After a bench trial, the court ruled that the rule as applied to Brentwood Academy was unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it was not narrowly tailored to the TSSAA's substantial governmental interests in maintaining the priority of academics, protecting athletes from exploitation, and ensuring competitive equity. The court also found a violation of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment due to inconsistent application and lack of fair notice. Consequently, the penalties imposed by the TSSAA were declared void and enjoined.

free speechcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs Bridgeport Music suing Agarita Music for copyright infringement, alleging that a composition licensed by Agarita sampled their work "Atomic Dog" in the song "Fuck A 40 Oz." Agarita, a California corporation, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in Tennessee. The court granted the dismissal, finding that Agarita's nationwide licensing and royalty collection activities did not constitute sufficient minimum contacts with Tennessee to satisfy due process requirements for jurisdiction. The motion to transfer was denied as moot.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Black v. Bell, the petitioner, convicted in Tennessee state court of three counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary in the 1988 killings of his girlfriend and her two young daughters, received a death sentence and consecutive life terms; after his convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal and post-conviction relief was denied, he sought federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on multiple grounds. The district court addressed the respondent's motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the petition. The court granted the motion, determining that numerous claims were procedurally defaulted and that the remaining claims failed under the applicable standards for federal habeas review, including deference to state court findings and the absence of demonstrated constitutional error in the trial proceedings or sentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case centered on claims by music publishing and recording companies against various defendants for copyright infringement through unauthorized sampling of musical works, as well as additional claims under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) alleging misrepresentation of infringing works as original and common-law negligence for failing to investigate originality, credit owners, or account for uses. Defendants moved to dismiss the TCPA and negligence counts for lack of standing and preemption by federal law. The court denied dismissal of the TCPA claim, ruling that corporations have standing under the statute's broad definition of "person" as interpreted by the Tennessee Supreme Court. It granted dismissal of the negligence claim, concluding it was preempted by the Copyright Act because it merely restated copyright infringement without adding a legally distinct element beyond the exclusive rights protected by federal law.

procedurepropertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory