Waller v. Varangon Corp., W2019-02211-COA-R3-CV
| Decision Date | 29 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. W2019-02211-COA-R3-CV,W2019-02211-COA-R3-CV |
| Parties | ANTAVEON WALLER v. VARANGON CORPORATION D/B/A VARANGON ACADEMY, ET AL |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Tennessee |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County
This case stems from injuries suffered by a minor while he was a resident at a juvenile treatment facility. The plaintiff initially filed suit against the former owner and operator of the facility. Nearly a year later, the plaintiff amended his complaint to include the party that owned and operated the facility during the relevant time period. Both of the defendants moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the original defendant, in part, because it found that the original defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff at the time the alleged injuries occurred. The court granted summary judgment for the second defendant because the plaintiff failed to include the party in the suit within the applicable statute of limitations. After the trial court denied the plaintiff's post-judgment motion to set aside its ruling, the plaintiff appealed. We affirm the trial court's ruling and remand.
Terrell L. Tooten, Cordova, Tennessee, for the appellant, Antaveon Waller.
Lewis W. Lyons, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Varangon Corporation d/b/a Varangon Academy.
Jeffrey M. Beemer and Talor I. Bearman, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Omni Visions, Inc.
OPINIONFrom 2010 through 2013, Varangon Corporation ("Varangon") owned and operated a juvenile treatment facility in Bartlett, Tennessee ("the Facility"). The Facility—known as "Varangon Academy"—was located at 3030 Brunswick Road, Bartlett, TN. The Facility specialized in social, behavioral, and correctional services for troubled youth. As part of these services, Varangon developed a treatment model known as the Directive Therapy System program model ("DTS model"). The DTS model was designed and implemented to help provide behavioral services for adolescents who are acting out.
In January 2014, Varangon and Omni Visions, Inc. ("OVI") entered into an asset purchase agreement. Under the purchase agreement, Varangon sold the Facility and the business operated therein to OVI. As part of the purchase agreement, Varangon retained the trade name "Varangon Academy." Also in January 2014, Varangon and OVI entered into a management services agreement. Under the management services agreement, OVI agreed to continue to provide residential treatment and other services to juveniles at the Facility. In doing so, Varangon agreed to license the use of the DTS model to OVI for its use at the Facility. The management services agreement stated that after the sale of the Facility, Varangon's assistance in operating the Facility was focused on the administration of the DTS model that was being used by OVI.
As part of its assistance in coordinating the use of the DTS model, Varangon also provided recommendations on personnel issues such as hiring, training, and operating procedures. While Varangon helped make recommendations, according to Dr. Robert Wood, the President of Varangon, OVI retained final decision-making authority over personnel issues. After the sale of the Facility and the business to OVI, substantially all of the Varangon employees became OVI employees and continued to work at the Facility. Administrative staff members, such as the Program Director and CEO of Varangon, were retained by Varangon. Pursuant to the management services agreement, OVI retained "ultimate legal responsibility, authority and responsibility over the rendition of all residential treatment services at the Facilit[y]."
In April and May 2016, Antaveon Waller ("Plaintiff"),1 who was seventeen years old at the time, was a resident of the Facility.2 While he was a resident at the Facility, Plaintiff began experiencing abdominal pain and nausea. Plaintiff reported his discomfort to medical personnel at the Facility. The nurses who provided care for Plaintiff stated that they gave Plaintiff over-the-counter treatments to alleviate his pain, but his conditionworsened. After several days, Plaintiff's condition worsened to the point where he was transported to a local emergency room for an evaluation. At the hospital, Plaintiff was diagnosed with a bowel obstruction and underwent surgery that required the removal of a portion of his small intestine.
As a result of his injuries and subsequent surgery, on August 29, 2017, Plaintiff filed suit against "Varangon Corporation or Varangon Academy" under the Tennessee Healthcare Liability Statute. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-101 et seq. Prior to filing suit, in June 2016, Plaintiff sent pre-suit notice under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a) to the registered agent for Varangon, labeling the recipient as "Varangon Academy."
Varangon answered Plaintiff's complaint on February 14, 2018. In its answer, Varangon affirmatively stated that it was not the owner or operator of the Facility at the time Plaintiff suffered his alleged injuries. Instead, it claimed that OVI owned and operated the Facility at the time Plaintiff allegedly sustained his injuries. In its answer, Varangon included comparative fault as an affirmative defense. In its response to Plaintiff's interrogatories, Varangon also stated that any medical staff or other personnel who treated Plaintiff for his illnesses were not employed by Varangon.
On June 19, 2018, Varangon filed a motion for summary judgment. In its motion, Varangon asserted that it did not own the Facility or provide care for Plaintiff at the time he sustained his injuries. As a result, Varangon argued that the undisputed facts showed that Plaintiff would be unable to establish the essential elements of duty and causation. Varangon's motion for summary judgment was supported by a Rule 56.03 statement of undisputed facts; a copy of the Varangon-OVI management services agreement; an affidavit from Dr. Wood; and a memorandum of law.
Plaintiff filed a response to Varangon's motion for summary judgment and a response to Varangon's statement of undisputed facts. Plaintiff claimed that even after the sale of the Facility to OVI, Varangon provided management and operational services. Accordingly, he argued that Varangon was still liable for Plaintiff's injures despite no longer owning the Facility.
On July 17, 2018, (more than five months after Varangon filed its answer to Plaintiff's complaint) Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint in order to add OVI as a defendant. Before filing this motion, on June 11, 2018, Plaintiff sent pre-suit notice of his intent to file suit to the former CEO of OVI.3 On July 30, 2018, Plaintiff amended his complaint, adding OVI as a defendant. On September 14, 2018, OVI filed its answerto the amended complaint. In its answer, OVI claimed that Plaintiff's amended complaint was untimely because it was filed outside of the applicable statute of limitations.
On November 2, 2018, OVI filed a motion for summary judgment. In its motion and supporting materials, OVI claimed that Plaintiff's amended complaint was not timely filed.
The trial court heard both motions for summary judgment on January 25, 2019. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted both defendants' motions for summary judgment. On August 21, 2019, the court entered two written orders on its grants of summary judgment to Varangon and OVI.
In the order granting Varangon's motion for summary judgment, the trial court found that Varangon did not own or operate the Facility at the time of the alleged negligent conduct. It also found that Varangon did not employ any of the nurses who provided medical care to Plaintiff and that Varangon did not train OVI employees who were employed to perform medical services. Instead, the court found that the nurses who provided care for Plaintiff were employed solely by OVI. Additionally, the court found that any operational staff retained by Varangon after OVI purchased the Facility did not include nurses and other medical support staff. Because Varangon did not own the Facility and did not control its workers, the trial court found that Varangon did not owe a duty to diagnose or treat Plaintiff's medical issues. Based on these findings, the court concluded that Plaintiff failed to establish the essential element of duty against Varangon. Due to a lack of competent testimony on the applicable standard of care, the court also concluded that Plaintiff failed to establish causation against Varangon. Accordingly, the court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against Varangon with prejudice and entered summary judgment in favor of Varangon.
In a separate order granting OVI's motion for summary judgment, the trial court found that the statute of limitations on Plaintiff's claim against OVI ran on March 30, 2018, one year after his eighteenth birthday. It also found that Plaintiff did not file his amended complaint until July 30, 2018, more than 90 days after Varangon indicated in its answer that OVI owned and operated the Facility. Although Plaintiff sent pre-suit notice of his claim to Varangon on June 10, 2016,4 the court found that he failed to provide proper notice to OVI at least 60 days before it was added to the suit by Plaintiff's amended complaint. Because Plaintiff failed to give proper pre-suit notice to OVI, the court concluded that the statute of limitations was not extended 120 days pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a). Therefore, the court found that Plaintiff's amended complaint, as itrelated to OVI, was untimely. Because Plaintiff included OVI in the suit more than one year after the statute of...
To continue reading
Request your trial