Tenn. Code Ann. » Tenn. Code / Title 63 / Chapter 1 / Part 1
Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-1-122 (2024)

Standard of care

✓ Justia copy: laws through about 2024 (2025 and 2026 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

For purposes of any action before any board, committee, council, or other agency created pursuant to this title or title 68, in which the standard of care is at issue, members of such a board, committee, council, or agency are entitled to rely upon their own expertise in making determinations concerning the standard of care and are not subject to voir dire concerning such expertise. The standard of care for such actions is a statewide standard of minimal competency and practice; provided, however, that to sustain actions based upon a violation of this standard of care, the board, committee, council, or other agency must, absent admissions or other testimony to the effect that the standard of care was violated, articulate the standard of care in its deliberations. The provisions of title 29, chapter 26, and specifically § 29-26-115(a), concerning the locality rule, do not apply to actions taken pursuant to this title or title 68.

Added by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 240,s 4, eff. 5/2/2017.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1998–2007 · leading case: McNiel v. Cooper, 241 S.W.3d 886 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McNiel v. Cooper, 241 S.W.3d 886 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 63-1-122 (2004). 5 . Tenn.”
Frank H. McNiel v. Susan R. Cooper, No. M2005-01206-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2007). · cites it 4× “McNiel with copies of written releases signed by four of his patients whose records were being sought.”
Susan Todd/State v. Weakley Co., No. 02A01-9708-CV-00197 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 16, 1998). · cites it 3× “§ 63-1-116 (1997) (authorizing the boards of the respective branches of the healing arts to regulate advertising by “practitioners of such healing arts who are under the jurisdiction of such boards”), T.”
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.