Court Rulings

This is a case arising out of the Teacher Tenure Act. A tenured middle school teacher sought review of a decision of the board of education upholding his termination for inefficiency, incompetence, and neglect of duty. The chancery court affirmed the board's decision, sustaining the teacher's termination. Teacher appealed to this Court. We reverse the chancery court's findings with respect to neglect of duty. However, we affirm the chancery court's findings with respect to inefficiency and incompetence, and thereby affirm the teacher's termination.

This appeal arises from a re-filed health care liability action brought by the wife of a hospital patient, individually and on behalf of her now-deceased husband, against the hospital. In the first action, the plaintiffs attempted to rely on the 120-day extension to the statute of limitations provided by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121, which also required the plaintiffs to provide a HIPAA-compliant medical authorization to potential defendants. The complaint asserted that one of the hospital's doctors and four of its nurses were negligent in treating the husband in the hospital's emergency department on July 26, 2009, and that the hospital was vicariously liable. The doctor and nurses, but not Saint Francis, successfully moved for summary judgment based on the plaintiffs' failure to comply with § 121. On interlocutory appeal, the plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of § 121's pre-suit notice requirement. This court affirmed the trial court's determinations that § 121 was constitutional, was not preempted by HIPAA, and did not violate the equal protection and due process provisions of state and federal law. Accordingly, this court affirmed the dismissal of the claims against the doctor and nurses. Because the claims against the hospital remained, we remanded the case for further proceedings. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the first complaint against the hospital in April 2016. Eight months later, the plaintiffs sent the hospital a new pre-suit notice and medical authorization. Sixty-four days after that, the plaintiffs filed their second complaint against the hospital. The hospital moved to dismiss, asserting the second complaint was timebarred because the plaintiffs failed to provide a HIPAA-compliant medical authorization in the first action and, thus, the 120-day extension was not available and the original complaint was time-barred. The plaintiffs responded by asserting that a HIPAAcompliant medical authorization is unnecessary to obtain the 120-day ex

The plaintiff, a health club member, seeks damages from the health club based on its alleged failure to protect him from sexual assaults in the locker room by another club member. The complaint alleges that the health club "knew who the assailant was, and was aware that [the assailant] had engaged in such actions many times prior to" assaulting the plaintiff. The health club denied liability insisting it had no prior knowledge of sexual assaults by the assailant or anyone else. It also contended the claims were barred by the exculpatory provision in its membership agreement, which released the club from liability for injuries "resulting from" the plaintiff's "use of [the] facilities." The trial court found the exculpatory provision was unambiguous and summarily dismissed the claims. Thereafter, and while this matter was on appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court revised the standards by which the enforceability of an exculpatory agreement should be determined. See Copeland v. Healthsouth/Methodist Rehabilitation Hospital, LP, 565 S.W.3d 260 (Tenn. 2018). We have determined that the plaintiff failed to present competent evidence that the health club knew or should have known of prior assaults by the assailant or anyone else. Because there is no genuine dispute of fact, the health club is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and the issue regarding the enforceability of the exculpatory clause is moot. Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment, albeit on other grounds than found by the trial court, and remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint.

defamation, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, whistleblower, R.C. 4113.52, statutory immunity, R.C. 2744.03, motion for summary judgment, genuine issue of material fact

The Defendant, Christopher Swift, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony and employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-12-101, -13-202, -17-1324. The trial court later imposed a total effective sentence of life plus twenty-six years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the Defendant's conviction for first degree premeditated murder (2) the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Defendant's motion to disqualify one of the prosecutors (3) African-Americans were improperly excluded from the jury venire (4) the State "intentionally mislead [the] jury" during the examination of one of its witnesses (5) the trial court erred by allowing the admission of hearsay (6) the trial court erred by allowing the jury to review transcripts of recorded jail phone calls as those recordings were played (7) the State improperly displayed photographic exhibits during its closing argument (8) the State withheld evidence and (9) a new trial is warranted due to cumulative error. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Lequita Nix Hilliard ("Plaintiff") sued Dolgencorp, LLC ("Defendant") alleging discrimination in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-50-103, of the Tennessee Disability Act, and Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-311, of the Tennessee Human Rights Act and retaliatory discharge for filing a worker's compensation claim. The Chancery Court for Polk County ("the Trial Court") granted summary judgment to Defendant. Plaintiff appeals. We find and hold that there is no genuine disputed issue of material fact with regard to the fact that due to her medical restrictions Plaintiff is unable to perform the essential job functions of a store manager. Given this, Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on both of Plaintiff's claims. We, therefore, affirm.