Court Rulings

Political subdivision tort liability—Defense and indemnification of employees—R.C. 2744.07(A)(1), construed—R.C. 2744.07(A)(1) requires that a political subdivision provide legal defense for an employee whenever the underlying complaint alleges or reasonably implies either that the employee was not acting manifestly outside the scope of his or her employment or official responsibilities.

Civil rights—Unlawful discriminatory practices—Establishing violation of R.C. 4112.02(A)—Requirements to establish claim of hostile-environment sexual harassment—R.C. 4112.02(A) protects men as well as women from all forms of sex discrimination in the workplace—Harassing conduct that is simply abusive, with no sexual element, can support a claim for hostile-environment sexual harassment, when—Determining whether harassing conduct was "severe or pervasive" enough to affect conditions of plaintiff's employment.

Workers' compensation—Violation of specific safety requirements—Ohio Adm.Code 4121-3-20(F)(1)—Industrial commission has discretion to disapprove a proposed settlement award for an employer's violation of a specific safety requirement if the commission determines that the settlement is not fair or equitable—Court of appeals' judgment denying writ of mandamus affirmed.

Plaintiffs, an elderly man and his wife, sued their bank and affiliated entities and others, alleging various theories of liability. The elderly man, upon making two separate withdrawals of a large amount of cash from the bank, was robbed on two separate occasions following the withdrawals. Plaintiffs alleged that the robberies occurred because a bank employee informed her husband of the elderly couple's address and of the large cash withdrawals. The bank filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the trial court granted the motion. We affirm the dismissal of several claims because the Appellants' brief does not comply with the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. We affirm the dismissal of the remaining claims because Appellants have not stated a claim for which relief may be granted.

We granted this appeal to address whether our holding in West v. Shelby County Healthcare Corp., 459 S.W.3d 33 (Tenn. 2014), applies in personal injury cases. We hold that it does not. West held that "reasonable charges" for medical services under Tennessee's Hospital Lien Act, Tennessee Code Annotated sections 29-22-101 to –107 (2012), are the discounted amounts a hospital accepts as full payment from patients' private insurers, not the full, undiscounted amounts billed to patients. West, 459 S.W.3d at 46. West defined "reasonable charges" in the context of interpreting the Hospital Lien Act, and its holding is limited to that Act. As an alternative argument, we are asked in this appeal to consider applying the principles in West to the determination of reasonable medical expenses in personal injury cases. Doing so involves the collateral source rule, which excludes evidence of benefits to the plaintiff from sources collateral to the tortfeasor and precludes the reduction of the plaintiff's damage award by such collateral payments. The rule is based on the principles that tortfeasors should be responsible for all of the harm they cause and that payments from collateral sources intended to benefit an injured party should not be used to reduce the liability of the party who inflicted the injury. After a thorough review of court decisions in Tennessee and across the country on the collateral source rule, we decline to alter existing law in Tennessee. We hold that the collateral source rule applies in this personal injury case, in which the collateral benefit at issue is private insurance. Consequently, the plaintiffs may submit evidence of the injured party's full, undiscounted medical bills as proof of reasonable medical expenses. Furthermore, the defendants are precluded from submitting evidence of discounted rates accepted by medical providers from the insurer to rebut the plaintiffs' proof that the full, undiscounted charges are reasonable. The defendants remain f