Carol L. Brandon filed a medical malpractice complaint against Williamson Medical Center and associated defendants after experiencing severe abdominal pain and subsequent surgical complications on May 11, 2008. Despite timely filing her complaint, she failed to include a required certificate of good faith within the mandated ninety days. The defendants moved to dismiss the case, which the trial court granted, ruling that Brandon did not demonstrate 'good cause' or 'excusable neglect' for her omission. Brandon's attempts to find legal representation were unsuccessful, and she claimed ignorance of the certificate requirement. Her affidavit indicated she sought help from various attorneys but was advised that her case needed a medical professional's review before they could proceed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal, concluding that Brandon's reasons did not meet the necessary criteria for relief from the procedural requirement.
In late October 2009, Plaintiff's counsel informed her of a Virginia doctor willing to provide an opinion. On November 13, 2009, Dr. Burgess filed a motion to dismiss, adopted by Williamson Medical Center, citing Plaintiff's failure to file a Certificate of Good Faith. On November 24, attorneys Green and Thomas entered their appearance. Plaintiff filed a motion to extend the deadline for the Certificate of Good Faith on November 30, claiming ignorance of the requirement. In her motion, she asserted that her self-representation hindered her ability to comply and emphasized that the Clerk’s office did not notify her of the requirement. The trial court dismissed the motions on January 15, 2010, for lack of a timely filed Certificate of Good Faith, with further dismissal of Dr. Arnett on January 20, 2010. Plaintiff filed her Affidavit on February 4, 2010, and a Notice of Appeal on February 5, 2010. The key issue for review was whether the trial court erred in denying her Rule 6.02 Motion to Enlarge Time. The trial court found Plaintiff did not submit an affidavit to establish good cause for the delay, and even accepting her claims as true, they did not constitute good cause. The court allowed Plaintiff thirty days to submit an affidavit for appellate purposes, restricted to the facts in her motion. The court ultimately affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint, referencing Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-122, which mandates a Certificate of Good Faith in medical malpractice actions filed post-October 1, 2008, requiring expert consultation and a signed statement confirming a good faith basis for the claim.
Competency under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-115 requires that experts express informed opinions regarding the plaintiff's care and treatment. Such experts must conclude that crucial facts for the case cannot be discerned from existing medical records or available information, yet maintain a good faith basis for pursuing claims against each defendant. If defendants do not timely release medical records, the requirement for expert review prior to certification is waived. Non-compliance with the Certificate of Good Faith filing can lead to dismissal with prejudice, although courts may grant extensions for filing if medical records are not produced in a timely manner or for other valid reasons.
In this case, the trial court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims, determining she did not show 'good cause' for her failure to timely file the required certificate. The Plaintiff contended that the trial court should have applied the 'excusable neglect' standard from Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 6.02 instead of the Medical Malpractice Act's 'good cause' standard. The reviewing court found it unnecessary to clarify the standards since the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate either 'good cause' or 'excusable neglect.' The term 'good cause' is not defined within the Medical Malpractice Act, though it has been examined in other contexts. Previous cases illustrated that good faith belief or oversight does not satisfy the good cause requirement, emphasizing the importance of adhering to mandatory timelines in legal proceedings.
Good cause has not been established in this case, as the Plaintiff's claims regarding her late filing of a certificate of good faith are deemed insufficient. The Plaintiff argued that her pro se status and lack of knowledge about the filing requirement contributed to her failure to comply. However, the court finds her pro se status irrelevant and her claims of ignorance questionable. While pro se litigants deserve fair treatment, they are still required to adhere to the same procedural rules as represented parties. The Plaintiff had previously given the required pre-suit notice and filed a sophisticated complaint just before the statute of limitations expired, indicating familiarity with procedural requirements.
Despite consulting attorneys and obtaining expert testimony within the requisite 90-day period, the Plaintiff failed to file her motion for an extension and the certificate of good faith until after the deadline had passed, without providing a valid explanation for the delay.
The court references the Tennessee Supreme Court's interpretation of 'excusable neglect,' which distinguishes between factors beyond a party's control and those within it. While negligence may qualify as excusable neglect, it must meet specific criteria, including the potential prejudice to the opposing party, the duration and impact of the delay, the reasons for the late filing, and the filer's intent. In this case, the evidence does not support a finding of good cause or sufficient evidence of excusable neglect.
A request for an enlargement of time after the original deadline requires the requesting party to show excusable neglect and that the opposing party has not been prejudiced by the delay. Courts focus on the reasons for the delay, particularly whether the circumstances were within the party's control and whether they were attentive to the matter. In this case, the Plaintiff attributed her late filing of a certificate of good faith to her inability to retain an attorney and her ignorance of the filing requirement. On appeal, she introduced a new reason concerning her inability to secure expert testimony, but this was not considered as it was not presented at the trial level, and even if it had been, it wouldn’t change the outcome regarding excusable neglect. The Plaintiff had consulted attorneys and had an expert lined up by late October 2009 but failed to file her motion until November 30, after the 90-day period expired and a motion to dismiss was filed by the Defendants. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendants did not claim prejudice and that her actions were in good faith. However, the court noted that prejudice could arise from lost opportunities and additional burdens on the non-requesting party, which the Defendants claimed would occur due to extra expenses and delayed proceedings caused by the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with filing requirements. The court found that the Plaintiff did not show excusable neglect, particularly due to the unexplained delay between late October and November 30, and affirmed the trial court's dismissal of her complaint. Costs of the appeal were assigned to the Plaintiff.
