Certificate of Good Faith Generally

Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion. 

Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court

Cooper v. Mandy, 639 S.W.3d 29 (Tenn. 2022).

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12.02(6) is the appropriate way to challenge compliance with the [Health Care Liability] Act’s procedural requirements. Ellithorpe, 479 S.W.3d at 823 (citing Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300, 307 (Tenn. 2012)).6 A Rule 12.02(6) motion challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint. In ruling on the motion, courts “must construe the complaint liberally,” presume all alleged facts are true, and “giv[e] the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” Id. at 824 (quoting Phillips v. Montgomery Cnty., 442 S.W.3d 233, 237 (Tenn. 2014)). Our review of the trial court’s decision involves a question of law and is de novo. We do not presume the correctness of the trial court’s decision. Effler v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., 614 S.W.3d 681, 688 (Tenn. 2020) (citing State v. Strode, 232 S.W.3d 1, 9 (Tenn. 2007)).

Bidwell ex rel. Bidwell v. Strait, 618 S.W.3d 309, 318-19 (Tenn. 2021).

The question of whether a plaintiff has demonstrated extraordinary cause that would excuse compliance with the pre-suit notice requirements is a mixed question of law and fact, and our review of that determination is de novo with a presumption of correctness applying only to the trial court’s findings of fact and not to the legal effect of those findings. *319 Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300, 307-08 (Tenn. 2012).

Opinions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals

Gilbert v. State of Tennessee, No. E2021-00881-COA-R9-CV, p. 4-5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2022).

As noted in Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300 (Tenn. 2012), “[t]he proper way for a defendant to challenge a complaint’s compliance with … Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-122 is to file a Tennessee Rule of Procedure 12.02 motion to dismiss.” Id. at 307. “In the motion, the defendant should state how the plaintiff has failed to comply with the statutory requirements by referencing specific omissions in the complaint and/or by submitting affidavits or other proof.” Id. “Once the defendant makes a properly supported motion under this rule, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show either that it complied with the statutes or that it had extraordinary cause for failing to do so.” Id. “Based on the complaint and any other relevant evidence submitted by the parties, the trial court must determine whether the plaintiff has complied with the statutes.” Id. “If the trial court determines that the plaintiff has not complied with the statutes, then the trial court may consider whether the plaintiff has demonstrated extraordinary cause for its noncompliance.” Id. The “requirements [of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-122] are mandatory, [so] they are not subject to satisfaction by substantial compliance.” Id. at 310. “Because the trial court’s denial of the Defendants’ motion involves a question of law … review is de novo with no presumption of correctness.” Id. at 307. “The question of whether [Claimants have] demonstrated extraordinary cause that would excuse compliance with the statutes is a mixed question of law and fact, and … review of that determination is de novo with a presumption of correctness applying only to the trial court’s findings of fact and not to the legal effect of those findings.” Id. Review of the trial court’s decision to excuse compliance is under an abuse of discretion standard. Id. at 308. “A court abuses its discretion when it applies an incorrect legal standard or its decision is illogical or unreasonable, is based on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or utilizes reasoning that results in an injustice to the complaining party.” Id.