Parents sued obstetrician Dr. Charles Brent Boles for health care liability after their infant daughter died four days after birth, alleging that his negligent attempts at manual rotation during delivery caused fatal skull fractures and brain injuries. A jury returned a verdict for the defendant after finding he did not deviate from the standard of care, without reaching causation. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that claimed errors in limiting expert testimony and exhibits, excluding evidence of the doctor’s later license suspension, denying a special informed-consent instruction, and allowing defense closing argument did not constitute reversible error because they either did not affect the outcome or were not preserved.
In this case, an inmate serving a life sentence for first-degree murder petitioned the chancery court for a writ of mandamus against the Tennessee Department of Correction commissioner, alleging that TDOC had failed to calculate and issue a sentence expiration date and release eligibility date under the statutes applicable at the time of his offense and seeking an order compelling those calculations or his immediate release. The chancery court dismissed the petition on its own motion for failure to state a claim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court explained that a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when a petitioner shows a clearly established legal right and no other adequate means of relief; the governing statute assigns TDOC responsibility for the calculations but leaves the manner of performing them to the department’s discretion; the petition contained no facts showing arbitrary or abusive exercise of that discretion; and the inmate had an alternative remedy by challenging the calculations under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act.
A.M., the mother in a parental rights termination and stepparent adoption case, sought accelerated appellate review of the trial court's denial of her fifteenth motion to recuse the presiding judge. The trial court had summarily denied the motion as repetitive, finding that the claimed grounds—including extra-judicial conduct in related Texas proceedings, anonymous letters, and other alleged bias—were either previously raised in her earlier motions or lacked factual support. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the motion failed to state substantially different factual or legal grounds from the prior fourteen recusal motions as required by Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B. The court held that the trial judge properly denied the motion without further proceedings.
Angela Clark sued Dr. Roseann Maikis and her medical practice, alleging that the doctor performed an unauthorized endometrial biopsy during an office visit on July 25, 2023, without obtaining consent or discussing risks, which Clark claimed caused her pain and other harms. The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, ruling that the claim fell under Tennessee’s Health Care Liability Act, that Clark had failed to give the required pre-suit notice, and that the action was time-barred. The Court of Appeals affirmed that the Act applied because the allegations concerned injuries related to the provision of health care services, making pre-suit notice mandatory and requiring dismissal for noncompliance. However, it modified the dismissal to without prejudice, finding that the complaint did not clearly establish on its face that Clark had discovered the wrongful nature of the conduct more than one year before filing, so the statute of limitations issue could not be resolved at the pleading stage.
This case involved unwed parents James Whitfield Livingston and Lauren Elizabeth Logue disputing a permanent parenting plan and child support for their young child, L.G., who was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. After an extended trial, the Juvenile Court for Davidson County adopted a parenting plan allocating time between the parents and set the father's monthly child support based on an estimated income range. Mother appealed, challenging both the plan and the support calculation. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the evidence on the child's needs, parental fitness, and the father's unreliable income proof, which supported an annual figure between $80,000 and $120,000. The court also declined to award attorney's fees under the applicable statutes.
Cynthia Torres sued the YMCA of Middle Tennessee for negligence after a shower seat detached from the wall at its fitness center, causing her serious injury. The YMCA moved for summary judgment based on a liability waiver Torres had signed as part of her membership application, which released the YMCA from responsibility for injuries resulting from use of its facilities, equipment, or programs, even if caused by negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding the waiver applied to the shower area and was enforceable. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the term “facilities” plainly included the showers, the waiver was not overly broad or contrary to public policy because the YMCA’s services were voluntary rather than essential, and Torres had not properly alleged gross negligence in her complaint. The court declined to revisit established Tennessee precedent permitting such exculpatory clauses in this context.