On November 7, 2019, Plaintiff Laura S. Christie was admitted to Defendant Baptist Memorial Hospital d/b/a Baptist Memorial Hospital for Women (“Baptist”) for the birth of her daughter, Elizabeth Ann Christie (“Elizabeth”). Because Elizabeth was in the breech position, Baptist engaged Defendant Dr. Esmond L. Arrindell, Jr. (“Dr. Arrindell, Jr.”), a neonatologist, to be present during the delivery along with Mrs. Christie’s obstetrician.
Elizabeth was born on November 7, 2019, at 10:22 a.m. Although Elizabeth had some response problems, Mrs. Christie and Elizabeth’s father, Plaintiff Kevin P. Christie, were assured Elizabeth was normal. Unbeknownst to the Plaintiffs, however, after Elizabeth was admitted to the nursery, she was moved to the neonatal intensive care unit (“NICU”) to receive treatment by a respiratory therapist for low oxygen saturation.
Mrs. Christie eventually found Elizabeth in the NICU after she went looking for her. Elizabeth appeared at that time to be in distress, but no physician was present. When Mrs. Christie insisted that a physician be called, Defendant Dr. Esmond L. Arrindell arrived and stayed with Elizabeth until she died at 9:07 p.m. the day of her birth due to respiratory failure.
On August 7, 2020, the Plaintiffs sent separate pre-suit notice letters to Baptist, Dr. Arrindell, Jr., and Dr. Arrindell, Sr. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) medical authorizations attached to each pre-suit notice letter provided only that the Plaintiffs’ counsel was the designated party given authority to access the applicable medical records. The Plaintiffs thereafter filed suit against the Defendants on February 5, 2021, in the Shelby County Circuit Court. Therein, they asserted that their daughter’s life would have been saved if the Defendants had transferred Elizabeth to LeBonheur Children’s Hospital, where she could have been placed on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (“ECMO”) treatment. According to the Plaintiffs, the recognized standard of care required the transfer of a child in respiratory distress, like Elizabeth, to a facility that could administer ECMO treatment.
On February 26, 2021, Baptist filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the HIPAA authorization was defective, that the pre-suit notice did not extend the applicable statute of limitations, and that the claim was time-barred as a result. The Defendant Doctors filed a similar motion to dismiss on March 4, 2021.
On August 11, 2022, the trial court entered an order ruling that the Plaintiffs’ medical authorizations were defective and that the Defendants were prejudiced because “they were not able to obtain the medical records of [Elizabeth] from all of the providers who were sent notice pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121 and were, therefore, unable to
investigate the potential claim, assess its merit, and determine their positions regarding presuit settlement.” The trial court therefore ruled that the Plaintiffs failed to substantially comply with section 29-26-121 and did not receive the 120-day extension of the statute of limitations. Without the benefit of that extension, the Plaintiffs’ claim was filed outside the applicable statute of limitations. Consequently, the trial court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim, and the Plaintiffs subsequently appealed.
The Court of Appeals of Tennessee (“Tennessee Appellate Court”) stated in its Opinion filed on November 15, 2023: “Appellants have met their burden to demonstrate, at the summary judgment stage, that Baptist was the only medical provider to hold records. As such, under the health care operations exception, Baptist was “authorized to use the records in its possession to evaluate the merits of [Appellants’] claim without a HIPAA authorization.” Id. at *8. And because no other records existed, Baptist could not be prejudiced by its inability to obtain any other records … In sum, Appellants have demonstrated, for purposes of summary judgment, that Baptist was able to obtain and use the only relevant medical records to this case during the pre-suit investigative phase of litigation. Because Baptist was not prejudiced by Appellants’ admittedly noncompliant medical authorization, we conclude that Appellants substantially complied with section 29-26-121(a)(2)(E), that they were entitled to the 120-day extension to the statute of limitations, and that their claim against Baptist was not time-barred. We reverse the trial court’s dismissal of Appellants’ claim against Baptist.”
“The same cannot be said, however, of Appellants’ claim against the Defendant Doctors. Here, Appellants focus on the undisputed fact that the Defendant Doctors had access to Elizabeth’s medical records. But the question is not simply whether the Defendant doctors had access to the relevant medical records, but whether they were authorized to use
those records to consult with legal counsel in order to evaluate the merits of a potential claim … In the absence of substantial compliance with section 29-26-121(a)(2)(E), Appellants did not receive the 120-day extension on the applicable statute of limitations with regard to the claim against the Defendant Doctors … As such, Appellants’ claim against the Defendant Doctors was filed outside the applicable one-year statute of limitations and was properly dismissed as untimely.”
Source Christie v. Baptist Memorial Hospital, No. W2022-01296-COA-R3-CV.
If you or a loved one may have been injured as a result of medical malpractice in Tennessee or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Tennessee medical malpractice lawyer, or a medical malpractice lawyer in your state, who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice attorneys in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.