Tenn. Code Ann. » Tenn. Code / Title 29 / Chapter 26 / Part 1
Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-117 (2026)

Plaintiff's demand for specific sum inadmissible during trial

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In a health care liability action the pleading filed by the plaintiff may state a demand for a specific sum, but such demand shall not be disclosed to the jury during a trial of the case notwithstanding § 20-9-302 to the contrary.

Acts 1975, ch. 299, § 16; 1976, ch. 759, § 17; T.C.A., § 23-3416; Acts 2012 , ch. 798, § 9.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1986–2014 · leading case: Amanda Elliott v. R. Michael Cobb, 320 S.W.3d 246 (Tenn. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Amanda Elliott v. R. Michael Cobb, 320 S.W.3d 246 (Tenn. 2010). · cites it 55× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-117 (originally codified as § 23-3416).”
Romine v. Fernandez, 124 S.W.3d 599 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 26× “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-26-117. I respectfully dissent from the holding that the claims against Dr.”
Guess v. Maury, 726 S.W.2d 906 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “T.C.A. § 29-26-117 states that “[i]n a medical malpractice action the pleading filed by the plaintiff may state a demand for a specific sum, but such demand shall not be disclosed to the jury during a trial of the case_” In arguing his “fraud” theory to the jury, plaintiffs’…”
Lafayette Romine Sr./Debra Romine v. Julia Fernandez & Johnathan Isom (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 8× “In response, the Romines argue that the trial court’s award of damages should be affirmed because the express language of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-117 gives the plaintiff in a medical malpractice case the choice to pray for relief.”
Terri Demilt v. Methodist Hosp. (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 8× “Whether plaintiff’s attorney improperly argued the plaintiff’s demand to the jury in contradiction of the prohibition set out in T.C.A. § 29-26-117 (1980); VII. Whether the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial based upon plaintiff’s counsel’s argument…”
Lafayette Romine Sr./Debra Romine v. Julia Fernandez & Johnathan Isom (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-117 . I respectfully dissent from the holding that the claims against Dr.”
Rheatta F. Wilson v. Americare Sys., Inc. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “at 605-06 (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-117 ). Americare was found at fault because of understaffing, that is, failure to provide sufficient personnel.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.