Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Frank Mills v. Luis Wong
Citations: 39 S.W.3d 188; 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 626Docket: W1999-00665-COA-R9-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; September 15, 2000; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Court of Appeals of Tennessee addressed a venue dispute in a medical malpractice suit involving Frank Fetzer Mills, Jr. and Rebecca Smith Mills against Luis L. Wong, M.D., along with other defendants. The Shelby County Circuit Court had denied Wong's motion to dismiss based on improper venue. Wong, who resides in Lauderdale County, argued that the case should be heard there, as per Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-4-101(b), since both parties reside in Lauderdale County and the claim arose there. The Appellees contended that Wong could be sued in Shelby County due to proper joinder under Rule 20 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows for multiple defendants from different counties. However, the Court concluded that the presence of multiple defendants does not alter the venue requirements for Wong. Ultimately, the Court reversed the trial court’s decision and determined that Lauderdale County is the only proper venue for the action against Wong, as both he and the Appellees reside there and the cause of action arose in the same county. The relationship between the parties occurred entirely in Lauderdale County, with all claims centering on improper diagnosis. The cases cited by the Appellee do not share a similar factual scenario, as they do not involve a plaintiff, defendant, and cause of action confined to one county, thus T.C.A. 20-4-101(b) was not applicable in those instances. The Appellees' reliance on those cases is deemed misplaced. Citing Tims v. Carter, it is established that when both a plaintiff and a material defendant reside in the same county where the cause of action accrued, that county should be the venue for the action. Despite factual differences from Tims, the principle of proper venue converging in one county remains applicable. Tenn. Code Ann. 20-4-101(b) is mandatory, and it has been determined that if venue is proper for one material defendant, it is proper for all properly joined defendants, except where a defendant shares the county of residence with the plaintiff. The addition of defendants from Shelby County does not alter the proper venue in Lauderdale County. Consequently, the trial court erred in denying the Appellant's motion to dismiss for improper venue. The court's decision is reversed, and the complaint against Appellant Luis Wong is dismissed for improper venue, with costs taxed to the Appellees, Frank and Rebecca Mills.