Skip to main content

Gunter v. Laboratory Corp. of America

Tenn.December 19, 2003Cited 94 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Birch, Drowota, Anderson, Holder, Barker
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the trial court's dismissal and affirmed the Court of Appeals' reversal, holding that the plaintiff's negligence claim against the laboratory is governed by a three-year statute of limitations rather than the one-year medical malpractice statute, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** A worker sued Laboratory Corporation of America for negligence and breach of contract. The key legal issue wasn't about the merits of the case itself, but rather how much time the worker had to file the lawsuit. The laboratory argued that since they performed medical testing, the lawsuit should be treated like a medical malpractice case, which in Tennessee must be filed within one year. The worker argued it should be treated as a regular negligence case, which allows three years to file. **What the Court Decided** The Tennessee Supreme Court sided with the worker. The court ruled that even though the laboratory performs medical testing, the worker's negligence claim should follow the longer three-year time limit for regular negligence cases, not the shorter one-year deadline for medical malpractice. The court sent the case back to the lower court to continue with the actual lawsuit. **Why This Matters for Workers** This decision gives workers more time to file negligence lawsuits against laboratory companies and similar employers. Having three years instead of one year provides workers with more opportunity to discover workplace injuries, gather evidence, and find legal representation before their right to sue expires.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.