Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Curtis Myers v. Amisub (SFH), Inc., d/b/a St. Francis Hospitalgreen2 sentences2025Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300, 309 (Tenn. 2012). 2014However, as this Court recognized in Myers, the essence and fundamental purpose of the statute is providing notice of a potential health care liability claim before a lawsuit is filed. 382 S.W.3d at 309 . | 2 | 3 |
Tina Marie Hodge v. Chadwick Craiggreen1 sentence2020See Hodge v. Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325, 334-35 (Tenn. 2012). 5 Upon considering the issue, we note that notice of a potential health care liability claim must be given to a named defendant at least 60 days prior to filing the complaint, and that notice must include, among other things, a HIPAA-compliant medical- authorization form so that each defendant can obtain complete medical records from other providers. | 1 | 1 |
Foster v. Chilesgreen1 sentence2017See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121 (a)(1) (requiring any person with a potential health care liability claim to provide pre-suit notice of the claim to all health care providers who could be named as defendants); id. § 29-26-122(a) (requiring the plaintiff to file a certificate of good faith with the complaint when expert testimony is required); see also id. § 29-26-122(c) (“The failure of a plaintiff to file a certificate of good faith . . . shall, upon motion, make the action subject to dismissal with prejudice.”); Foster v. Chiles, 467 S.W.3d 911, 916 (Tenn. 2015) (holding that “dismissal with | 1 | 1 |
Stutts v. Ford Motor Co.green1 sentence2016Stutts v. Ford Motor Co., 574 F.Supp. 100, 103 (M.D.Tenn.1983) (citing Barnes, 202 Tenn. 529 , 306 S.W.2d 1 ). **** In the instant case, Plaintiffs take issue with section 29–26–121‘s requirement that written pre-suit notice of the potential health care liability claim be given within the original statute of limitations, without provision for extension. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Barnes v. Kyle
green
2 sentences2016Stutts v. Ford Motor Co., 574 F.Supp. 100, 103 (M.D.Tenn.1983) (citing Barnes, 202 Tenn. 529 , 306 S.W.2d 1 ). **** In the instant case, Plaintiffs take issue with section 29–26–121‘s requirement that written pre-suit notice of the potential health care liability claim be given within the original statute of limitations, without provision for extension. 2016Stutts v. Ford Motor Co., 574 F.Supp. 100, 103 (M.D.Tenn.1983) (citing Barnes, 202 Tenn. 529 , 306 S.W.2d 1 ). **** In the instant case, Plaintiffs take issue with section 29–26–121‘s requirement that written pre-suit notice of the potential health care liability claim be given within the original statute of limitations, without provision for extension. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.