Source: 2007 WL 2093693 (July 17, 2007 Tenn.Ct.App.)
Patient brought a medical malpractice action against medical center and nurse. The Law Court, Sullivan County, Richard E. Ladd, J., granted summary judgment in favor of medical center and nurse, and patient appealed. The Court of Appeals, Charles D. Susano, Jr., J., held that statute of limitations began to run on patient's claim no later than the date she called hospital advocate. Affirmed.
Notes:
The discovery rule serves as a shield to a limitations defense only when the medical malpractice plaintiff does not discover or could not have reasonably discovered that he or she had a cause of action. West's T.C.A. § 29-26- 116(a)(2).
A medical malpractice plaintiff need not actually know the specific type of legal claim he or she has in order for the statute of limitations to commence, so long as the plaintiff is aware of facts sufficient to put a reasonable person on notice that he has suffered an injury as a result of wrongful conduct. West's T.C.A. § 29-26-116(a)(2).
It is not required that a medical malpractice plaintiff actually know that the injury constitutes a breach of the appropriate legal standard in order to discover that he has a "right of action"; the plaintiff is deemed to have discovered the right of action if he is aware of facts sufficient to put a reasonable person on notice that he has suffered an injury as a result of wrongful conduct. West's T.C.A. § 29-26-116(a)(2).
It was improper for medical malpractice plaintiff, a lay person, to express an opinion during her deposition on the effect the medications she was taking at the time of the deposition had on her "perception and understanding and [her] mental abilities"; this was a medical opinion.
