health care liability claim in Tennessee

2021Pre-suit notice enables “a potential defendant of a health care liability claim . . . [to] investigate the merits of the claim and pursue settlement negotiations before the start of the litigation.” Id. (citing Foster v. Chiles, 467 S.W.3d 911, 915 (Tenn. 2015)). -4- Pre-suit notice promotes the “early resolution of claims, which also serves the interest of judicial economy.” Id.

2021Pre-suit notice enables “a potential defendant of a health care liability claim . . . [to] investigate the merits of the claim and pursue settlement negotiations before the start of the litigation.” Id. (citing Foster v. Chiles, 467 S.W.3d 911, 915 (Tenn. 2015)). -4- Pre-suit notice promotes the “early resolution of claims, which also serves the interest of judicial economy.” Id.

2022We reiterated that “the statutory requirement that any person asserting a health care liability claim ‘shall’ give defendant 60-day pre-suit notice of the claim was mandatory, not directory, and therefore, strict, rather than substantial compliance with the notice statute, was required in order to maintain a medical malpractice action.” Id. (citing Myers, 382 S.W.3d at 309 ).

2022We stated that “[t]he language is clear and unambiguous and requires pre- - 12 - suit notice be sent to the provider that will be named a defendant,” and “[i]t is axiomatic that the proper party be given pre-suit notice under 29-26-121(a)(1).” Id.

2021Pre-suit notice enables “a potential defendant of a health care liability claim . . . [to] investigate the merits of the claim and pursue settlement negotiations before the start of the litigation.” Id. (citing Foster v. Chiles, 467 S.W.3d 911, 915 (Tenn. 2015)). -4- Pre-suit notice promotes the “early resolution of claims, which also serves the interest of judicial economy.” Id.

2020This Court has explained the distinct but interdependent purposes Section 121 serves, stating that it “ensures that a plaintiff give[s] timely notice to a potential defendant of a health care liability claim so it can investigate the merits of the claim and pursue settlement negotiations before the start of the litigation.” Runions, 549 S.W.3d at 86 (citing Foster v. Chiles, 467 S.W.3d 911, 915 (Tenn. 2015)).

2021Corp. of America, 121 S.W.3d 636, 639 (Tenn. 2003) (citations omitted).

2019Therefore, to establish a health care liability claim against a physician assistant, “the plaintiff must adduce testimony by an expert who is qualified to testify about (1) the standard of care applicable to physician assistants and (2) whether the physician assistant in question exercised ‘the reasonable degree of learning, skill, and experience that is ordinarily possessed by others of his profession.’” Id. at 259 (quoting Godbee v. Dimick, 213 S.W.3d 865, 896 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006)).

2019In Webb I, we found that § 121 did not violate a patient’s statutory right of privacy under HIPAA because the patient was consenting to the disclosure of medical records by pursuing a health care liability claim. 2013 WL 9 Before McNiel, the Tennessee Supreme Court declined to find a constitutional right of informational privacy under the Tennessee Constitution “[a]bsent a fundamental right or other compelling reason.” Doe v. Sundquist, 2 S.W.3d 919, 921, 926 (Tenn. 1999). -9- 1645713, at *14.

2015See Robinson, 83 S.W.3d at 725 (referring to Section 29-26-115 as the “required elements of a [health care liability action]”).

2015See Estate of French, 333 S.W.3d at 555 (“Because medical malpractice is a category of negligence, the distinction between medical malpractice and negligence claims is subtle; there is no rigid analytical line separating the two causes of action.”).