Skip to main content

Pamela Lott v. Veronica Mallett, M.D.

Tenn. Ct. App.March 25, 2022No. W2020-01233-COA-R3-CV
DismissedVeronica Mallett, M.D

Case Details

Judge(s)
Presiding Judge J. Steven Stafford
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

Appellant initially filed suit against a doctor and the hospital where she had surgery. Nearly a year later, Appellant amended her complaint to add the doctor's employer as an additional defendant. The first suit was voluntarily dismissed, and the plaintiff refiled against the doctor and her employer, relying on the savings statute. The trial court dismissed the claims against the doctor on the basis that Appellant failed to substantially comply with the Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121 in the second action and therefore was not entitled to an extension on the savings statute. The trial court granted the employer summary judgment on the basis that the first complaint naming it was not filed within the applicable statute of limitations. Discerning no error, we affirm.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** Pamela Lott filed a lawsuit against Dr. Veronica Mallett and the hospital where she had surgery. Nearly a year later, she tried to add the doctor's employer to the case. She then withdrew the original lawsuit and refiled it against both the doctor and the employer, using Tennessee's "savings statute" - a law that allows people to refile cases under certain circumstances. **What the Court Decided** The Tennessee Court of Appeals dismissed Lott's claims against Dr. Mallett. The court ruled that Lott failed to follow the proper legal requirements under Tennessee law (specifically section 29-26-12) when she refiled her case. The court found she didn't substantially comply with the statute's requirements. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case shows how important it is to follow proper legal procedures when filing employment-related lawsuits. Workers need to be aware that even when laws exist to help them refile cases (like savings statutes), there are specific rules that must be followed exactly. Missing these technical requirements can result in losing the right to pursue a case entirely, even if the underlying complaint has merit.

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

Similar Rulings

MATTHEW HAWN v. SULLIVAN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
Tenn. Ct. App.May 2026
Mixed Result
SIGNAL PUMP, LLC D/B/A SIGNAL POWER v. ARROW ELECTRONICS, INC.
Tenn. Ct. App.Apr 2026
Defendant Win
Cedar Nordbye v. University of Memphis
Tenn. Ct. App.Mar 2026
Defendant Win
HAMILTON COUNTY v. TAX YEAR 2010 DELINQUENT TAXPAYERS
Tenn. Ct. App.Mar 2026
Defendant Win
MONA WORD v. KNOX COUNTY
Tenn. Ct. App.Feb 2026

Plaintiff brought claims against Knox County and the County Clerk based on allegedly discriminatory employment practices. The trial court determined that Plaintiff committed serious discovery violations and imposed as a sanction the exclusion of certain evidence. With this evidence excluded, the trial court granted summary judgment to the Defendants. Plaintiff appeals, challenging the discovery sanction, the trial court's conclusion under the Tennessee Human Rights Act that the continuing violation doctrine did not apply, the trial court's conclusion that the Clerk was not individually liable, and the award of attorney's fees against the Plaintiff and her attorney. We affirm.

Mixed Result
Read Full OpinionMore Veronica Mallett, M.D RulingsAll Rulings

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.

Check Your RightsLearn the Basics

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.