Skip to main content

Amy Angell Tucker v. Sandra Jackson Iveson

Tenn. Ct. App.March 11, 2020No. M2018-01501-COA-R3-CV

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge W. Neal McBrayer
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

A plaintiff who developed tendonitis after taking medication prescribed by a nurse practitioner filed a malpractice action against the nurse practitioner and the pharmacy that filled the prescription. Two years later, the plaintiff amended her complaint to add thenurse practitioner's employer and supervising physician as defendants. The new defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims against them were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations and repose and that the plaintiff failed to provide themwith pre-suit notice of a potential medical malpractice claim. The plaintiff responded that fraudulent concealment tolled the statutes and constituted extraordinary cause to waive pre-suit notice. The trial court agreed and denied the motions. The defendants then moved for summary judgment on other grounds, which the court granted. It is undisputed that the plaintiff's claims against these defendants were filed beyond the time allowed by the statute of repose for medical malpractice actions. Because we conclude that the plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of the fraudulent concealment exception, the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the statute of repose. So we affirm the dismissal of the claims against these defendants on summary judgment but on different grounds.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** Amy Tucker developed tendonitis after taking medication prescribed by a nurse practitioner who worked for Sandra Jackson Iveson. Tucker first sued the nurse practitioner and the pharmacy that filled her prescription for medical malpractice. Two years later, she tried to add the nurse practitioner's employer (Iveson) and supervising doctor to the lawsuit as additional defendants. **What the Court Decided** The court sided with the employer and supervising doctor, dismissing them from the case. The new defendants successfully argued that Tucker had waited too long to include them in the lawsuit. Tennessee law sets strict time limits for filing malpractice claims, and the court found that these deadlines had passed before Tucker tried to add the employer and supervisor to her case. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling highlights the importance of understanding time limits when filing workplace injury claims. If you're injured due to medical treatment received through work or from workplace healthcare providers, you need to identify all potentially responsible parties quickly. Waiting too long to name employers or supervisors in your lawsuit could mean losing your right to seek compensation from them, even if they may have been partially responsible for your injury.

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.