Skip to main content

Chayce Collier v. Periclis Roussis, M.D.

Tenn. Ct. App.August 7, 2017No. E2016-01591-COA-R3-CV

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge D. Michael Swiney, C.J.
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

Chayce Collier, a minor, by and through his natural parent and next friend, Kendall Collier ("Plaintiff") sued Periclis Roussis, M.D. and Fort Sanders Perinatal Center and Fort Sanders Regional Medical Center ("the Hospital") for injuries allegedly suffered by Plaintiff when his mother had an allergic reaction during labor. After trial before a jury, the Circuit Court for Knox County ("the Trial Court") entered judgment on the jury's verdict that Dr. Roussis was not negligent and that the nurses employed by the Hospital were not negligent and dismissed the suit. Plaintiff appeals to this Court raising several issues including whether the Trial Court erred in allowing the admission of previously undisclosed testimony from the nurses and a defense expert witness, among other things. We find and hold that the Trial Court erred in allowing the previously undisclosed testimony of the nurses and the defense expert witness. We, therefore, vacate the Trial Court's judgment and remand this case for a new trial.

What This Ruling Means

**Collier v. Roussis: Medical Malpractice Case** This case involved a lawsuit filed on behalf of Chayce Collier, a minor, against Dr. Periclis Roussis and Fort Sanders hospitals. The family claimed that Chayce was injured when his mother had an allergic reaction during labor and delivery. They argued that the doctor and hospital staff were negligent in their care, which led to harm to the baby. The case went to trial with a jury. After hearing all the evidence, the jury found that Dr. Roussis was not negligent in his treatment. The jury also determined that the nurses were not at fault for what happened during the delivery. However, the appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings, suggesting there may have been issues with how the trial was conducted or the jury's decision. **What This Means for Workers:** While this appears to be primarily a medical malpractice case rather than an employment law dispute, it demonstrates how healthcare workers can face legal challenges when patients believe they received inadequate care. The case shows that juries don't automatically side against medical professionals, and that proper documentation and following standard procedures can help protect healthcare workers from liability claims.

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

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. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.