September 20–October 3, 2025

  • Medical malpractice Plaintiff sues Doctor (directly) and Doctor’s Medical Practice (vicariously).  Doctor doesn’t maintain a valid mailing address on the Tennessee Department of Health’s website, though, so plaintiff mails pre-notice of her claim to the place where Plaintiff’s surgery took place.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: And that was a mistake; pre-suit notice should have been mailed to Doctor’s business address instead.  Further, because Tennessee’s Health Care Liability Act is replete with procedural landmines like this, the error is fatal, and Plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed.  Also, based on something called the “operation-of-law” exception (which holds that vicarious liability is unavailable “when the plaintiff’s claim against the agent is procedurally barred by operation of law before the plaintiff asserts a vicarious liability claim against the principal”), Plaintiff’s error means her claim against Doctor’s Medical Practice must be dismissed, too.
  • LLC seeks to expel minority member for potpourri of misconduct.  A complicated dispute then ensues over whether the LLC’s claims are subject to mandatory arbitration.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: They are, though the trial court had authority to issue a TRO for case-specific reasons.
  • In 2024, the Tennessee legislature amended a statute that governs tenant appeals in landlord-tenant disputes.  It did so by changing the law to say that “an appeal must not be allowed unless the defendant has executed bond.”  Does this requirement apply when a tenant does not seek to remain in a property pending appeal or stay execution of a writ of possession?  Tennessee Court of Appeals: No.  But “[t]o perfect an appeal from the general sessions court to the circuit court, an appellant must file a cost bond or ‘take the oath for poor persons[,]’” and the tenant’s failure to sign a pauper’s oath below requires us to dismiss this particular appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.  [Editorial note: People really need to start arguing that such verification requirements are claims-processing rules, not jurisdictional prerequisites.]
  • In land dispute that is packed with procedural idiosyncrasies (including a judge presiding illegally after the expiration of his term, followed by the recusal of his successor, followed by the Tennessee Supreme Court specially appointing the original judge again, thereby curing any error associated with the illegal presiding), judge dismisses Plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to prosecute.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: But that dismissal followed lengthy proceedings in which the Plaintiffs participated (including a near settlement), and the delays were neither the Plaintiffs’ fault nor inappropriate.  Thus, “[d]ismissal at this stage of the proceeding for failure to prosecute was against logic and reasoning and caused an injustice to Plaintiffs[,]” the dismissal order is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
  • Man purchases a two-story condo without fully examining it.  A rather significant problem then becomes apparent: He can’t access his second floor without using his neighbor’s staircase, which he does not own.  Man then sues, claiming an easement implied by prior use, an easement by necessity, or a prescriptive easement.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: But his thin proof failed to establish his right to any such easement.  Thus, he loses, and his only option is to pay to build his own staircase.
  • Pro se litigant files an accelerated interlocutory appeal of a trial court’s order denying his motion to recuse.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: And if you guessed—just by reading the preceding sentence—that pro se litigant’s appeal was dismissed summarily for failure to comply with the mandatory rules that govern such appeals, you guessed correctly.
  • Tennessee Court of Appeals: If you are interested in a good story, here’s a memorandum opinion about a friend from hell who is named (literally) “Mr. Friend.”
  • Pro se litigant ends up on the receiving end of a default judgment after failing to answer despite multiple opportunities.  The trial court refuses to set aside the default, and pro se litigant appeals.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: Pro se litigant’s failure to answer was willful, which ends our inquiry.  So the judgment is affirmed, and the Appellee gets frivolous appeal damages, too.
  • Plaintiffs in a dog bite case see their case dismissed on summary judgment for lack of proof that the dog owner knew or should have known of the dog’s dangerous propensities.  The trial court makes that decision on the papers without a live hearing, though (and Plaintiffs are hopping mad about it because Rule 56.04 mentions a “hearing”).  Plaintiffs also want the Court of Appeals to “establish precedent that makes it easier for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment based on circumstantial evidence[.]”  Tennessee Court of Appeals: Whether it was error to decide the motion on the papers or not [editorial note: it was not; a hearing need not be live to qualify as a hearing], the error was harmless, so we move on.  And we find no issues with our dog bite precedent, which respects Tennessee’s statutory law.   Instead, the issue here is that the Plaintiffs lacked evidence to support their claims.

Firm Updates

Congratulations to Horwitz Law, PLLC client Sarah Powell!  Thanks to the Tennessee Public Participation Act, her abusive soon-to-be-ex-husband’s “not . . . in good faith” and “frivolous” tort claims not only have been dismissed; he’s been sanctioned, too.

And congratulations to Horwitz Law, PLLC clients Tanisha Hansen and Shilo Turner!  When Ms. Hansen’s daughter suffered a buckle fracture at a particularly bad daycare and DCS substantiated a finding of abuse, Ms. Hansen spoke out about it on social media, and Ms. Turner chimed in with her own horror story about the place.  Unhappy about the criticism, the daycare sued.  But thanks to the Tennessee Public Participation Act, that suit is DOA, and the daycare gets to pay their attorney’s fees (and may get sanctioned, too).