Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-119 (2026)
Damages in healthcare liability actions
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) As used in this section, "actual economic losses" means the financial costs incurred by the claimant by reason of the personal injury, including the cost of reasonable and necessary medical care, rehabilitation services, and custodial care.
- (b) In all health care liability actions, the common law collateral source rule is abrogated as specified in this section.
- (c) In a health care liability action, the damages awarded may include, in addition to other elements of damages authorized by law, past and future actual economic losses suffered by the claimant.
- (d) Past actual economic losses are limited to:
- (1) The amounts that have been paid or will be paid by the assets of the claimant or on the claimant's behalf; and
- (2) The amounts the claimant's providers have accepted or will accept as full payment for reasonable and necessary medical care, rehabilitation services, or custodial care, whether pursuant to:
- (A) An agreement with an insurance company or third-party payor;
- (B) The authorized reimbursement rates for a government health insurance program in which the claimant and the provider participate; or
- (C) Any charity, discount program, write-off, gift, or other reason by the provider.
- (e) Actual economic losses will only be limited to the extent that documentation of the reduction is submitted.
Amended by 2024 Tenn. Acts, ch. 852,s 1, eff. 5/1/2024.
Acts 1975, ch. 299, § 18; T.C.A., § 23-3418; Acts 2012 , ch. 798, § 11.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1981–2023 · leading case: Hunter v. Ura, 163 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. 2005).
Hunter v. Ura, 163 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. 2005). “(citing Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-26-119). In sum, the court concluded that the plain language of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-119 "permits a plaintiff to introduce medical expenses when the plaintiff has paid part of the insurance premium.”
Nance Ex Rel. Nance v. Westside Hosp., 750 S.W.2d 740 (Tenn. 1988). “One of the defenses asserted by defendants was that T.C.A. § 29-26-119, a section of the Medical Malpractice Review Board and Claims Act of 1975, eliminated as damages that may be awarded against health care providers, sums paid or payable to victims of medical malpractice from…”
Richardson v. Miller, 44 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “Miller's motion, the trial court dismissed Principal Mutual's complaint on the ground that Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-26-119 (1980) prevented an injured plaintiff from seeking medical care expenses as damages when the plaintiff's insurance had paid those expenses.”
Steele v. Ft. Sanders Anesthesia Grp., P.C., 897 S.W.2d 270 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-26-119 (1980). The plain language of the act clearly permits a plaintiff to introduce medical expenses when the plaintiff has paid part of the insurance premium.”
Cassandra HUGHLETT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHELBY Cnty. HEALTH CARE CORP., Defendant-Appellant, 940 S.W.2d 571 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). “The issue in this case requires an interpretation of T.C.A. § 29-26-119 (1980), which provides: 29-26-119.”
Baker v. Vanderbilt Univ., 616 F. Supp. 330 (M.D. Tenn. 1985). “Baker, have moved this Court for an order declaring the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-119 , abrogating the collateral source rule in medical malpractice cases, to be unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Tennessee Constitution.”
Diane West v. Shelby Cnty. Healthcare Corp. d/b/a Reginal Med. Ctr. at Memphis, 459 S.W.3d 33 (Tenn. 2014). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-119 (2012). In these contexts, and in the context of the HLA, “necessary” limits the charges to the cost of the medical care that was or will be required to treat the injury.”
Ward v. Glover, 206 S.W.3d 17 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “§ 29-26-119 (2000) precludes recovery of the portion of the expenses that were discounted.”
Russell v. Crutchfield, 988 S.W.2d 168 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). “Defendant relies upon T.C.A. § 29-26-119 which states that losses may be recovered: only to the extent that such costs are not paid or payable and such losses are not replaced, or indemnified, in whole or in part, by insurance provided by an employer either governmental or…”
Allied Waste North Am., Inc. v. Lewis, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., 93 F. Supp. 3d 835 (M.D. Tenn. 2015). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-26-119. Allied/BFI highlights this exception specifically because (1) the statute “ ‘is in derogation of the common law and is therefore to be strictly construed’ ” Steele *851 v.”
Robert Crotty v. Mark Flora, M.D. (Tenn. 2023). “It reasoned: Because Plaintiff’s claimed medical expenses were paid in whole or in part by insurance purchased in whole or in part privately and individually, the Court finds that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-119 permits Plaintiff to claim the “cost of reasonable and necessary…”
Electro-Mech. Corp. v. Ogan, 820 F. Supp. 346 (E.D. Tenn. 1992). “PREEMPTION ISSUE The defendants contend that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover benefits paid to them by third parties pursuant to the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act, because the provisions of Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-26-119 prevent such a recovery.”
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.