As the previous blog mentioned, fitness trackers can track your every move and give valuable details in the context of litigation. And now, so can your pacemaker!
Activity Tracker Information Requests in Discovery: Is my watch a smoking gun?
As I check my watch while writing this post, I look to see how many (how few) steps I have taken today, and the paucity of activity dots that mark the minutes of this hour tell me that I have been sitting, inactive, at my desk for far too long. My lack of exercise today notwithstanding, the watch on my wrist (and the corresponding app on my phone) contains a treasure trove of information that can be extremely useful – not only in the context of attempting to keep me active and healthy, but also in terms of litigation.
SUE EVERYONE OR CORRECT A MISNOMER:
Navigating Tenn. Code Ann. §29-26-121(a)(5) and interpreting its requirements
Bill Rieder, Spears, Moore, Rebman & Williams, P.C.
In 2015, the General Assembly enacted Tenn. Code Ann. §29-26-102, and amended Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121 to add subsection 121(a)(5). Subsection 121(a)(5) states:
In the event a person, entity, or health care provider receives notice of a potential claim for health care liability pursuant to this subsection (a), the person, entity, or health care provider shall, within thirty (30) days of receiving the notice, based upon any reasonable knowledge and information available, provide written notice to the potential claimant of any other person, entity, or health care provider who may be a properly named defendant.[i]
Subsection 121(a)(5)’s meaning is ambiguous because . . .
In the last issue of The Journal, I discussed whether T.C.A. §29-26-121(a)(5) required a potential defendant to correct a misnomer contained in the required notice, or to allege comparative fault. Staying on the theme of T.C.A. §29-26-121, this article will discuss three issues related to that statute facing Tennessee’s Appellate Courts that will impact the Practitioner’s handling of HCLA claims. This is not an exhaustive list, nor is it intended to be. The discussion below will not speculate on how the various courts will rule on these issues. The purpose of the article is to apprise the Practitioner of these issues, which likely will impact his or her defense of future HCLA claims.