Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-504 (2026)

Nonliability of state for benefits

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

Acts 1947, ch. 29, § 18; C. Supp. 1950, § 6901.18 (Williams, § 6901.42); Acts 1977, ch. 330, § 29; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 50-1356.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2009–2010 · leading case: Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 358 S.W.3d 213 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).
Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 358 S.W.3d 213 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “On appeal in Konvalinka I, the Hospital argue[d] that the Trial Court was correct when it found that Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-504 (a)(2)(A) protected the records from disclosure.”
John P. Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “Did the Trial Court err by not requiring production of redacted compliance reports and records? The Hospital argues that the Trial Court was correct when it found that Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-504 (a)(2)(A) protected the records from disclosure.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-504(a)(2)(A): 1 case
Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 358 S.W.3d 213 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “On appeal in Konvalinka I, the Hospital argue[d] that the Trial Court was correct when it found that Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-504 (a)(2)(A) protected the records from disclosure.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-504(a)(5)(A): 1 case
Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 358 S.W.3d 213 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “On appeal in Konvalinka I, the Hospital argue[d] that the Trial Court was correct when it found that Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-504 (a)(2)(A) protected the records from disclosure.”
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.