Certificate of Good Faith – Extension of Time to File

Estate of Vickers v. Diversicare Leasing Corp., No. M2021-00894-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 13, 2022).

The Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (“THCLA”), Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 29-26-101 to -122, “imposes certain procedural requirements on a party advancing a health care liability claim in Tennessee.” Lacy v. Mitchell, 541 S.W.3d 55, 59 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016) (footnote omitted). “A motion to dismiss under Rule 12.02(6) is the appropriate way to challenge compliance with the Act’s procedural requirements.” Cooper v. Mandy, 639 S.W.3d 29, 33 (Tenn. 2022). We review the trial court’s decision on a motion to dismiss de novo with no presumption of correctness. See id.

A trial court’s decision to enlarge the time for filing a certificate of good faith under § 29-26-122(c) is discretionary, Brandon v. Williamson Med. Ctr., 343 S.W.3d 784, 789 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (citations omitted), and we review discretionary decisions under the “abuse of discretion” standard, see Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010). The abuse of discretion standard does not permit reviewing courts to substitute their discretion for that of the trial court. Id. Nevertheless, the abuse of discretion standard of review does not immunize a lower court’s decision from meaningful appellate scrutiny:

Discretionary decisions must take the applicable law and the relevant facts into account. An abuse of discretion occurs when a court strays beyond the applicable legal standards or when it fails to properly consider the factors customarily used to guide the particular discretionary decision. A court abuses its discretion when it causes an injustice to the party challenging the decision by (1) applying an incorrect legal standard, (2) reaching an illogical or unreasonable decision, or (3) basing its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.

Id.

When “[a]pplying this framework, we look first at whether the factual basis for the trial court’s decision is supported by evidence in the record.” Harmon v. Hickman Cmty. Healthcare Servs., Inc., 594 S.W.3d 297, 306 (Tenn. 2020). We then examine whether the trial court identified and applied the correct legal principles relevant to its decision. See id. Finally, we look at “whether the [trial] court’s decision was in the range of acceptable alternative dispositions.” Id.

Thus, we will review the trial court’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to determine, where applicable, whether there is a factual basis for the decision in the record, whether the court correctly identified and applied the correct legal principles, and whether the decision is within the range of acceptable alternative dispositions. See Lee Med., Inc., 312 S.W.3d at 524.