Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
February 8, 2016
Vol. 19, No. 6
TAM Webinars
Update on Living Wills, Advance Directives, and Powers of Attorney
for Health Care in Tennessee, 60-minute webinar presented by Terry
Cox, with Cox & Wortman in Collierville, on Wednesday, March 9, at 2
p.m. (Central), 3 p.m. (Eastern).
*Earn 1 hour of GENERAL credit
Proving Defamation from Social Media Abuse: Strategies for Helping
Clients Respond, 60-minute webinar presented by Marcus Chatterton,
with Balch & Bingham in Birmingham, on Wednesday, March 16, at 10
a.m. (Central), 11 a.m. (Eastern).
*Earn 1 hour of GENERAL credit
Handling Social Media, Email, and Other ESI in Tennessee, 60minute webinar presented by Russell Taber, with Riley Warnock &
Jacobson in Nashville, on Wednesday, March 16, at 2 p.m. (Central), 3
p.m. (Eastern).
*Earn 1 hour of GENERAL credit
On-Site Events
SUPREME COURT
PROFESSION OF LAW: In case in which attorney, who had been
practicing law over 10 years, was suspended from practice of law for one
year, with all but 30 days of suspension to be served on probation, as result
of two complaints of misconduct attorney disclosed client confidential
information to third party without clients informed consent, and attorney
engaged in sexual relationship with another client he had been appointed to
represent in criminal matter attorneys misconduct necessitates greater
punishment than that imposed by hearing panel; in light of fact that attorney
made sexual advances toward client, engaged in sexual relationship with
her, pled with her on one occasion to engage in sexual relationship after she
expressed her reluctance to do so, and continued to serve as her attorney,
attorney failed to safeguard trust of vulnerable client and exploited his
fiduciary role, and appropriate punishment is one-year suspension with no
probation. In re Vogel, 2/4/16, Nashville, Bivins, 4-0, 30 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/vogelrobert.opn_.pdf
COURT OF APPEALS
TORTS: Trial court acted within its authority under TRCP 37.02 and 37.03
in ruling that plaintiffs in healthcare liability action would have no life care
planning expert at trial trial court excluded first expert and her life care
plan because her disclosure as expert was not timely and plaintiffs had not
sought leave of court to add her as expert, and trial court excluded
substituted expert because plaintiffs failed to submit full and complete
supplemental disclosure and were therefore in violation of courts order;
trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendant nurse
practitioner based upon lack of competence of plaintiffs expert,
neurosurgeon, to provide expert testimony regarding standard of care
applicable to nurse practitioners when expert did not practice with nurse
practitioners, was not familiar with their educational backgrounds, and was
not familiar with standard of care applicable to nurse practitioners; trial
court did not err in excluding plaintiffs only standard of care expert
because of plaintiffs failure to produce certain documents requested by
defendants in their deposition notice. Mikheil v. Nashville General
Hospital at Meharry 1/29/16, MS, Bennett, 16 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/mikheilm.opn_.pdf
check dressing for wound on her ankle, trial court properly dismissed TPPA
claim because leaving a bandage in a sock, where a patients wound is in
fact otherwise sufficiently bandaged, is not illegal activity as defined by the
statute, and leaving bandage in sock is not abuse and neglect as defined
by statute; trial court properly dismissed plaintiffs common law
whistleblower claim because plaintiff did not show that defendants engaged
in illegal conduct or in any way posed a threat to an important public
policy of the State when all that was done was to leave an old bandage in a
patients sock. Richmond v. Vanguard Healthcare Services LLC,
1/29/16, MS, Clement, dissent by Stafford, 21 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/richmonddaniel.opn_.dis_.pdf
liable for either judgment in her individual capacity; there was no implied
partnership when wifes role during building of home was to choose certain
cosmetic features of home, such as color of brick and of roof, her choices
were only implemented if contractor approved them, she had no authority to
select subcontractors, materials, or workers who built house, and there was
no evidence that any profit was shared in such manner as to support
determination that implied partnership existed; evidence, taken as whole,
did not establish degree of control or other attributes necessary to hold that
implied joint venture existed between contractors wife and other
defendants. Webster v. Estate of Dorris, 2/4/16, MS, Dinkins, 17 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/webster.charles.opn_.pdf
FAMILY LAW: In case in which trial court awarded wife $350 per month
in rehabilitative alimony for 30 months, trial court erred by then granting
mother additional form of rehabilitative alimony under which husband was
required to pay for mothers left over educational expenses when linking
fathers responsibility to left over amounts diminishes fathers obligation
under order, and absence of amount limitation with respect to this provision
means that fathers duty to support could potentially be incommensurate with
his financial ability to pay; trial courts award to mother of $350 per month in
rehabilitative alimony for 30 months is more than sufficient to provide for
mothers rehabilitative efforts as mother seeks to obtain surgical technician
assistant degree. Tidwell v. Tidwell, 2/2/16, MS, Goldin, 15 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/tidwell.christopher.opn_.pdf
FAMILY LAW: Trial court did not abuse discretion by adjusting tax
deductions before calculating mothers gross income for child support due
or by allowing her credit for support in kind and purchases of necessities.
Kernan v. Nabors, 2/1/16, ES, McClarty, 15 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/kernan2opn.pdf
GOVERNMENT: When Claims Commission awarded inmate $439 for artsand-crafts supplies that inmate was required either to mail out of prison or
donate pursuant to policy of Turney Center, because inmates claims were for
intentional acts, and proof showed only intentional acts, not negligent ones,
Claims Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear inmates claim, rendering
judgment void. Patterson v. State, 2/3/16, ES at Nashville, Swiney, 6 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/pattersonb.opn_.pdf
what happened to her and why she was troubled these statements lean more
toward improper bolstering to rebut cross-examination on victims motive to
fabricate allegations, which would violate general rule against using prior
consistent statements to rebut impeachment any error in introduction of
those statements was harmless and did not rise to level of plain error. State v.
Pilate, 1/29/16, Jackson, Easter, 20 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/pilatedaetrusopn_0.pdf
If you would like a copy of the full text of any of these opinions, simply
click on the link provided or, if no link is provided, you may respond to
this e-mail or call us at (615) 661-0248 in order to request a copy. You
may also view and download the full text of any state appellate court
decision by accessing the states web site by clicking here:
http://www.tncourts.gov