Narrative Opinion Summary
An inmate filed a medical malpractice claim against the Tennessee Department of Correction, alleging negligence in the treatment for ear wax impaction. Initially, his claim was dismissed, and summary judgment was granted to the State. Upon appeal, the court found the complaint suggested a viable negligence claim and remanded the case. The State renewed its summary judgment motion, supported by an expert affidavit from Dr. Harold Butler, which concluded that the treatment did not deviate from the standard of care. The administrative law judge granted the summary judgment due to the inmate's lack of medical evidence to dispute the expert's affidavit. The court affirmed this decision on appeal, noting that under Tenn. Code Ann. 29-26-115, the plaintiff must demonstrate a deviation from the standard of care causing the injury. Since the inmate failed to establish such a deviation, the judgment was affirmed, and the case was remanded to the Claims Commission, with costs taxed to the appellant.
Legal Issues Addressed
Medical Malpractice and Standard of Care under Tenn. Code Ann. 29-26-115subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff must provide competent medical testimony that the defendant deviated from the accepted standard of care, causing the injury.
Reasoning: In medical malpractice actions, merely proving an injury is insufficient; the plaintiff must provide competent medical testimony demonstrating that the defendant deviated from the accepted standard of care, which caused the injury, per Tenn. Code Ann. 29-26-115.
Role of Expert Affidavit in Establishing Standard of Caresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: An expert affidavit can support a motion for summary judgment by affirming adherence to the standard of care, which shifts the burden to the plaintiff to provide contrary evidence.
Reasoning: Dr. Butler affirmed that the standard of care was appropriately met, stating that administering Cerumenex is acceptable for cerumen impaction. His affidavit supported the summary judgment, and Mr. Howse did not present evidence to dispute it.
Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Summary judgment is appropriate when the plaintiff fails to present evidence to dispute the defendant's evidence showing adherence to the standard of care.
Reasoning: The administrative law judge granted the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment based on Dr. Butler's affidavit and the claimant's lack of medical evidence to counter it.