Tangradi v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp. of Union City

• Decision Date: 06 July 2012
• Docket Number: No. 1:10-cv-01115-JDB-egb,1:10-cv-01115-JDB-egb
• Parties: BONNIE TANGRADI and RICHARD TANGRADI, Plaintiffs, v. BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OF UNION CITY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee

BONNIE TANGRADI and RICHARD TANGRADI, Plaintiffs,

v.BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OF UNION CITY, Defendant.

No. 1:10-cv-01115-JDB-egb

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE EASTERN DIVISION

Dated: July 6, 2012

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS OF BONNIE TANGRADI

AND

GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIM OF RICHARD TANGRADI

Before the Court are the motions of Defendant, Baptist Memorial Hospital-Union City ("Baptist"), to dismiss the claims of Plaintiffs, Bonnie Tangradi and Richard Tangradi, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, alternatively, for summary judgment under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 56. (Docket Entry ("D.E.") Nos. 42-43, 45.) The Plaintiffs have responded in opposition to both motions, to which Defendant filed replies. (D.E. Nos. 56-59.) The Court will consider them jointly below. For the reasons discussed herein, the Defendant's motion as to Bonnie Tangradi is DENIED, and its motion as to Richard Tangradi is GRANTED.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Alleged Injury. This lawsuit arises following Baptist's medical treatment of Bonnie Tangradi from March 18 to 21, 2008. On March 18 at 11:07 p.m., Mrs. Tangradi was admitted toBaptist's emergency room with complaints of fever, back pain, labored breathing, and nausea. (B. Tangradi's Stmt. of Additional Facts ¶ 12, D.E. No. 56-1; R. Tangradi's Stmt. of Additional Facts ¶ 10, D.E. No. 57-1.) Following treatment for pneumonia and related symptoms, she was discharged on March 21, 2008. (B. Tangradi's Stmt. of Additional Facts ¶ 13; R. Tangradi's Stmt. of Additional Facts ¶ 11.) After she returned home, Richard Tangradi examined his wife's lower back and "discovered that the area at the top of her buttocks, around the coccyx bone, was extremely irritated, red and dry. The center of the wound was purple and black and was beginning to crack and/or open." (R. Tangradi's Stmt. of Additional Facts ¶ 12.) That condition is the basis for this lawsuit.

Plaintiffs' Pre-suit Notice Under the TMMA. The Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act ("TMMA"), Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-26-101 to -122, requires that a plaintiff follow certain procedures prior to filing a lawsuit for medical malpractice, including providing pre-suit notice to the medical provider. See § 29-26-121. On November 13, 2008, counsel for Bonnie Tangradi sent a letter by certified mail to Baptist's registered agent stating that she intended to file a lawsuit "for injuries sustained at Baptist Memorial Hospital-Union City, Tennessee location on or about March 17, 2008." (D.E. Nos. 43-1, 56-3.) Plaintiff's counsel sent a second letter dated January 15, 2009, to Baptist Memorial Hospital and Baptist Memorial Health Care Corporation again expressing Mrs. Tangradi's intent to bring claims for injuries suffered by her "on or about March 17, 2008." (D.E. No. 43-2.) Similarly, counsel sent a letter to Baptist dated February 10, 2009, which stated that Richard Tangradi would be "fil[ing] a lawsuit . . . for injuries sustained by his wife at Baptist Memorial Hospital - Union City, Tennessee, location on or about March 17, 2008." (D.E. No. 45-7.) According to Defendant, each correspondence referenced the wrong date of Mrs. Tangradi's injury, as she was not admitted to Baptist until March 18, 2008.

Bonnie Tangradi's State Court Case. Mrs. Tangradi filed suit against Baptist on January 21, 2009, in the Circuit Court for Obion County, Tennessee, alleging negligence under the TMMA. (D.E. No. 43-3.) Service of process was executed on January 30, 2009, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 3.¹ (D.E. No. 56-4.) Baptist answered the complaint on March 13, 2009, wherein it denied that Mrs. Tangradi had complied with the TMMA's notice requirements under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a), (b). (D.E. No. 43-4.)

On June 22, 2009, Tangradi filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.01. (D.E. No. 56-5.) A certificate of service attached to the notice stated that a copy was served by U.S. Mail on James Kirby, counsel for the Defendant, on that same date. (Id.) The state court entered an order of voluntary dismissal without prejudice on July 6, 2009. (D.E. Nos. 43-6, 56-6.) The order also contained a certificate of service reflecting that a copy had been served on Kirby by mail on June 28, 2009. (Id.)

Richard Tangradi's State Court Case. The same day that his wife dismissed her state court case, Richard Tangradi filed his own lawsuit against Baptist in the Circuit Court of Obion County, Tennessee for loss of consortium. (D.E. No. 45-3.) In its answer submitted on October 19, 2009, Baptist denied that Mr. Tangradi had complied with the TMMA's pre-suit notice requirements. (D.E. No. 45-4.) It also asserted that his claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-116. (Id.)

The Federal Complaint. Following the nonsuit of Bonnie Tangradi's state court suit, her counsel sent a letter dated September 3, 2009, by certified mail to Baptist and its registered agent stating: "Please consider this letter formal notice that our firm intends to re-file a lawsuit onbehalf of Mrs. Tangradi, for injuries sustained while a patient at Baptist Memorial Hospital - Union City on or about March 17, 2008." (D.E. Nos. 43-7, 56-7.) On May 12, 2010, Bonnie and Richard Tangradi consolidated their claims and filed this federal lawsuit. (D.E. No. 1.) The complaint included claims for (1) negligence under the TMMA, (2) gross negligence, willful, wanton, reckless, malicious and/or intentional conduct, and (3) loss of consortium.² (Id. at ¶¶ 16-29.) Two days later, Richard Tangradi's Obion County lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.01. (D.E. No. 45-6.) Baptist answered the complaint on June 9, 2010, asserting as affirmative defenses that Richard Tangradi did not meet the pre-suit notice requirement of the TMMA and that his claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (D.E. No. 5.)

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Baptist seeks dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or, alternatively, Rule 56. Because both Defendant and Plaintiffs have relied upon extrinsic materials related to these motions, the Court will analyze them under the summary judgment standard. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d) ("If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) . . . , matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56."); Ball v. Union Carbide Corp., 385 F.3d 713, 719 (6th Cir. 2004), reh'g en banc denied (Dec. 29, 2004).

Rule 56(a) provides that

[a] party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense—or the part of each claim or defense—on which summary judgment is sought. The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matterof law. The court should state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). When the motion is supported by documentary proof such as depositions and affidavits, the nonmoving party may not rest on his pleadings but, rather, must present some "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S. Ct. at 2553. It is not sufficient "simply [to] show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986). "A genuine issue of material fact exists if a reasonable juror could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Pucci v. Nineteenth Dist. Court, 628 F.3d 752, 759 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986)). "Entry of summary judgment is appropriate 'against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.'" Poss v. Morris (In re Morris), 260 F.3d 654, 665 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S. Ct. at 2552). In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the evidence and all reasonable inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S. Ct. at 1356.

III. ANALYSIS

According to Baptist, Bonnie and Richard Tangradi's claims are time-barred by the TMMA's one-year statute of limitations. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-116(a)(1). Because the Defendant argues that the Tangradis' limitations period expired for different reasons, the Court will analyze their claims separately.

A. Bonnie Tangradi's Medical Malpractice Claims

The timeliness of Bonnie Tangradi's claims hinges on whether the statute of limitations was tolled following her voluntary nonsuit. Under Rule 41.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff may obtain a voluntary dismissal as follows:

[E]xcept when a motion for summary judgment made by an adverse party is pending, the plaintiff shall have the right to take a voluntary nonsuit to dismiss an action without prejudice by filing a written notice of dismissal at any time before the trial of a cause and serving a copy of the notice upon all parties, and if a party has not already been served with a summons and complaint, the plaintiff shall also serve a copy of the complaint on that party . . . .

Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.01(1). Rule 41.01 works in conjunction with the Tennessee savings statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105, which provides in pertinent part that

[i]f the action is commenced within the time limited by a rule or statute

...