Constance Cherry and Marcus Cherry, as the next of kin of Steven Cherry, deceased, appealed a ruling from the Tennessee Claims Commission regarding a wrongful death case. Steven Cherry, a patient at a state mental health institution, died due to inadequate treatment for urinary issues. Constance Cherry initially sought damages for loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, and loss of consortium, later adding her son Marcus as a plaintiff for loss of consortium only. The Claims Commission denied Constance damages for wrongful death, determining that the son had a closer kinship to the decedent, but awarded her funeral expenses and $25,000 to Marcus for his loss of consortium. The court affirmed this decision, emphasizing the son’s greater kinship status. The case included expert testimony estimating the pecuniary value of Steven Cherry’s life at $337,623 based on projected earning capacity, assuming he would have re-entered the workforce after a year. The appeal process followed Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3.
Dr. Mark Cohen, the State’s expert witness, argued that Steven Cherry's life had no determinable pecuniary value due to the lack of evidence supporting his potential return to the workforce. He critiqued Dr. Cashdollar’s assessment of lost earnings as speculative and based on unfounded assumptions. Dr. Cohen found no medical documentation suggesting that Cherry had plans for future employment or a reasonable prognosis for recovery. He also refuted the notion that Cherry would have secured a job similar to his prior employment, noting Cherry's previous incarceration and poor job performance.
The Claims Commission evaluated Marcus's loss of parental consortium, revealing that while Steven Cherry occasionally visited Marcus, they did not cohabitate and their relationship was limited. The Commission awarded Constance $8,522 for funeral expenses, which was undisputed, and Marcus $25,000 for his loss of consortium. It denied Constance wrongful death damages based on the finding that her kinship to the decedent was inferior to Marcus's, leading to the dismissal of her claims.
The Commission justified Marcus's $25,000 award by acknowledging his limited relationship with Cherry while recognizing the emotional impact of the loss. A supplemental order on December 19, 2000, found no medical evidence of pain suffered by Cherry before his death. Constance and Marcus appealed the Commission's orders, contending that the Commission erroneously ruled on the pecuniary value of Cherry’s life and failed to award damages for his pain and suffering. They also challenged the legal determination regarding Constance's eligibility for damages based on kinship. The appeal is reviewed de novo, with a presumption of correctness for the Commission’s factual findings but not for its legal conclusions.
Constance's claim for wrongful death damages was dismissed by the Commission based on her inferior kinship to the decedent compared to Marcus, the decedent’s son. The Commission referenced the case Swanson ex rel Hatcher v. Peterson, which established that when multiple parties with unequal kinship file wrongful death claims, only the party with the superior kinship can maintain a valid action. In that case, the widow’s claim was deemed superior to that of the daughter, resulting in the dismissal of the daughter’s suit. This precedent was applied to Constance’s situation, where, upon Marcus being added as a plaintiff, her claim became invalid due to his superior kinship status as a child. Tennessee Code Annotated § 20-5-107 supports this hierarchy, stating that children have a higher claim than parents in wrongful death actions.
Constance argued against this application of the Swanson rule, citing Jordan v. Baptist Three Rivers Hosp., which addressed loss of consortium damages but did not alter the fundamental hierarchy of kinship in wrongful death claims. The Tennessee Supreme Court reaffirmed this hierarchy in Kline v. Eyrich, confirming that only the party with superior kinship can recover damages, including for loss of consortium. As a result, since Constance's amended complaint only sought loss of consortium damages for Marcus, and he was awarded $25,000 for those damages, only he was entitled to seek wrongful death damages. Consequently, the Commission correctly dismissed Constance’s wrongful death claims.
The Commission did not err in denying damages for the decedent's pain and suffering, affirming the Claims Commission's decision and precluding further issues on appeal. Costs are to be borne by appellants Constance Cherry and Marcus Cherry, with execution allowed if necessary. Per Tenn. Code Ann. 20-5-113 and the Tennessee Supreme Court's interpretation in *Jordan v. Baptist Three Rivers Hosp.*, two categories of damages are recognized: (1) damages for the decedent's injuries from the time of injury until death, including medical expenses, pain and suffering, funeral costs, and lost earning capacity; and (2) incidental damages suffered by the claimant due to the decedent's death, encompassing the pecuniary value of the decedent’s life, which factors in life expectancy, health, earning capacity, and personal habits. The *Jordan* decision also recognized that pecuniary value includes consortium damages, which are intangible benefits such as companionship and affection.
