Yebuah v. Ctr. for Urological Treatment, PLC

• Decision Date: 02 June 2021
• Docket Number: No. M2018-01652-SC-R11-CV,M2018-01652-SC-R11-CV
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
• Parties: Cynthia E. YEBUAH, et al. v. CENTER FOR UROLOGICAL TREATMENT, PLC

624 S.W.3d 481

Cynthia E. YEBUAH, et al.

v.CENTER FOR UROLOGICAL TREATMENT, PLC

No. M2018-01652-SC-R11-CV

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

January 6, 2021 Session¹

FILED June 2, 2021

Marty R. Phillips, Dale Conder, Jr., and Craig P. Sanders, Jackson, Tennessee, and Wendy L. Longmire and T. William A. Caldwell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Center for Urological Treatment, PLC.

Randall L. Kinnard, Mary Ellen Morris, Donald Capparella, Tyler Chance Yarbro, and Kimberly Macdonald, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellees, Cynthia E. Yebuah and Eric N. Yebuah.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter, Andrée Sophia Blumstein, Solicitor General, and Joseph P. Ahillen, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellant/intervenor, State of Tennessee.

W. Bryan Smith, Memphis, Tennessee, and Brian G. Brooks, Greenbrier, Arkansas, for amicus curiae, Tennessee Trial Lawyers Association.

Roger A. Page, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Jeffrey S. Bivins, C.J., and Holly Kirby, J., joined. Sharon G. Lee, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Cornelia A. Clark, J., joined.

Roger A. Page, J.

This is a healthcare liability action involving the application of the statutory cap on noneconomic damages to loss of consortium claims. The issue before the Court is whether the statutory cap on noneconomic damages applies separately to a spouse's loss of consortium claim pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-39-102, thus allowing each plaintiff to receive an award of up to $750,000 in noneconomic damages. Here, the surgery patient filed suit for noneconomic damages resulting from the defendant physicians’ negligence, namely that a portion of a Gelport device was unintentionally left in her body after surgery. In the same suit, the patient's spouse claimed damages for loss of consortium. The jury awarded the patient $4,000,000 in damages for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. The jury also awarded her husband $500,000 in damages for loss of consortium. The trial court initially applied the statutory cap on noneconomic damages by entering a judgment in favor of both plaintiffs collectively for a total judgment of $750,000. However, the trial court subsequently granted the plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend and applied the statutory cap to each plaintiff separately, thereby entering a judgment of $750,000 for the patient and $500,000 for her husband. The Court of Appeals affirmed. We hold that the language of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-39-102 allows both plaintiffs to recover only $750,000 in the aggregate for noneconomic damages. We therefore reverse the holding of the Court of Appeals and the trial court.

I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This appeal concerns a jury award of noneconomic damages after part of a Gelport device was left inside a surgery patient. The underlying facts of the case are largely undisputed. In March 2005, Dr. Frank Lohrasbi performed surgery on Cynthia Yebuah to remove her left kidney after a CT scan

revealed the kidney contained a potentially malignant mass. It was a laparoscopic procedure, which was performed with the assistance of a Gelport device. Mrs. Yebuah recovered from surgery routinely.

Over the next couple of years, Mrs. Yebuah underwent several CT scans

to detect whether the cancer had returned. In July 2005, Dr. Edward Priest, a radiologist, interpreted Mrs. Yebuah's CT scan as showing no sign of cancer. Dr. Lohrasbi reviewed Dr. Priest's report and passed the information along to Mrs. Yebuah. In February 2006 and in February 2007, Mrs. Yebuah's radiology reports again found no sign of cancer, but both reports noted there was a "tubular structure" in her abdominal cavity—a structure that was not mentioned in the July 2005 report. Dr. Lohrasbi informed Mrs. Yebuah that the CT scans showed no sign of cancer but did not mention the tubular structure.

In 2012, Mrs. Yebuah notified her doctor that she was experiencing abdominal pain and was referred to Dr. Leonardo Espinel for possible gallbladder disease. In July 2013, Dr. Espinel performed a laparoscopic procedure

to remove Mrs. Yebuah's gallbladder. During this surgery, Dr. Espinel discovered a foreign cylindrical object inside her abdominal cavity.

Dr. Espinel did not attempt to remove the object at that time but informed Mrs. Yebuah that her small bowel was looped around a fourteen-centimeter ring. It was later determined that during the March 2005 laparoscopic surgery

to remove her kidney, a portion of a Gelport device was unintentionally left inside Mrs. Yebuah's abdomen. Thus, the foreign object remained inside Mrs. Yebuah's body for eight years before it was discovered during an unrelated surgery to remove her gallbladder.

On November 4, 2013, Mrs. Yebuah underwent surgery to remove the fourteen-centimeter ring from her abdominal cavity. She returned to work shortly thereafter.

In November 2014, the Yebuahs filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Davidson County, Tennessee, seeking damages against Dr. Lohrasbi, Dr. Priest, and their employers, chiefly the Center for Urological Treatment, PLC (the "Center") and Radiology Alliance, P.C. The Yebuahs alleged that Dr. Lohrasbi negligently left a portion of the Gelport device in Mrs. Yebuah's abdominal cavity, negligently failed to inform Mrs. Yebuah of the ring's presence, and negligently failed to remove the ring once it was discovered. The Yebuahs further alleged that Dr. Priest negligently failed to identify the foreign object after Mrs. Yebuah's initial CT scan

. Mrs. Yebuah did not claim any permanent injury related to the Gelport device but instead sought recovery for noneconomic damages. Her husband, Eric Yebuah, likewise sought recovery for noneconomic damages in the form of loss of consortium. The individual doctors were later voluntarily dismissed, and the Yebuahs only pursued vicarious liability claims against the employers.

The case against the Center and Radiology Alliance went to trial in February of 2018. Because the remaining defendants admitted fault, the case was presented to the jury solely on the issues of causation and damages. The trial court entered a directed verdict in favor of Radiology Alliance at the conclusion of the proof. Thus, only the case against the Center went to the jury, which returned a verdict against the Center and awarded Mrs. Yebuah $2,000,000 for pain and suffering plus $2,000,000 for loss of enjoyment of life. In addition, the jury awarded Mr. Yebuah $500,000 for loss of consortium.

After trial, the Center and the Yebuahs submitted competing proposed judgments to the trial court. The Yebuahs’ proposed order included a judgment for the total jury award of $4,500,000. In contrast, the Center submitted a competing order that applied the statutory noneconomic damages cap, which is codified at Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-39-102. More specifically, the Center's proposed judgment reduced the total damage award for both Mr. and Mrs. Yebuah to $750,000.

The trial court ultimately adopted the Center's proposed judgment. The Yebuahs filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, arguing that the statutory cap was unconstitutional and, alternatively, that the trial court had incorrectly applied the statutory cap. According to the Yebuahs, the trial court should have interpreted the statute to apply the damages cap separately to each plaintiff's award. Meanwhile, the Center filed a motion for a new trial or a remittitur.

The trial court denied the Center's motion but granted, in part, the Yebuahs’ motion to amend the judgment. It determined that the Yebuahs waived their constitutional challenge to Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-39-102 by failing to raise the issue before or during trial. However, the trial court agreed with the Yebuahs’ interpretation of the statutory language in section 29-39-102 and determined that the statutory $750,000 cap on noneconomic damages should apply separately to each plaintiff's damages award. Therefore, the trial court entered an order amending its original judgment to a judgment of $750,000 in favor of Mrs. Yebuah and a judgment of $500,000 in favor of Mr. Yebuah—for a total of $1,250,000.

In considering the issues on appeal, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court erred in determining that the Yebuahs had waived their challenge to the constitutionality of the statutory cap. Yebuah v. Ctr. for Urological Treatment, PLC , No. M2018-01652-COA-R3-CV, 2020 WL 2781586, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 28, 2020), perm. app. granted , (Tenn. Oct. 8, 2020). However, the Court of Appeals explained that this Court's recent decision in McClay v. Airport Management Services, LLC , 596 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. 2020), resolved the majority of the Yebuahs’ constitutional claims. Yebuah , 2020 WL 2781586, at *4. The intermediate appellate court further determined the trial court properly interpreted and applied Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-39-102. See id. at *5-7. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. Id. at *10.

We granted the ensuing application for permission to appeal to address whether the statutory cap on noneconomic damages applies separately to a spouse's loss of consortium claim.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The issue presented for review concerns statutory construction. Statutory construction presents a question of law, and we review such questions de novo with no presumption of correctness. State v. Dycus , 456 S.W.3d 918, 924 (Tenn. 2015) (citing State v. Springer , 406 S.W.3d 526, 532-33 (Tenn. 2013) ; State v. Marshall , 319 S.W.3d 558, 561 (Tenn. 2010) ; State v. Wilson , 132 S.W.3d 340, 341 (Tenn. 2004) ); Carter v. Bell , 279 S.W.3d 560, 564 (Tenn. 2009).

When engaging in statutory interpretation, "well-defined precepts" apply. State v. Frazier , 558 S.W.3d 145, 152 (Tenn. 2018) (quoting Tenn. Dep't of Corr. v. Pressley , 528 S.W.3d 506, 512 (Tenn. 2017) ); State v. Howard , 504 S.W.3d 260, 269 (Tenn. 2016) (quoting State v. McNack , 356...