January 19–25, 2026
Intermediate Scrutiny—a Tennessee Court of Appeals blog—is a snappy weekly newsletter from Tennessee appellate attorney Daniel A. Horwitz summarizing the week’s decisions from the Tennessee Court of Appeals. To subscribe, click here. Past newsletters can be found here.
- Divorced parents have a parenting plan, which Father seeks to modify several years later due to changed circumstances. The trial court denies Father’s petition and also finds him in civil contempt for (among other things) failing to maintain insurance coverage. Father appeals. Tennessee Court of Appeals: Reversed, mostly. “Six years have passed since entry of the prior plan,” and “material changes in circumstances can arise solely by the passage of time because children’s needs change as they grow older.” Here, “the proven facts convincingly established a material change of circumstance under the lower threshold applicable to a petition to modify the residential parenting schedule,” so we reverse and remand that portion of the trial court’s order. We also reverse the insurance contempt finding because, “[a]pparently, no one thought to ask Father” if he had complied with it before he was found in contempt for violating it. The rest of what the trial court ruled is fine, though.
- Can a party in a wrongful death action rely on a prior beneficiary’s pre-suit Tennessee Health Care Liability Act notice after succeeding to that beneficiary’s interest in wrongful death litigation? Tennessee Court of Appeals: Yeah. “[W]hen the incorrect party under the statute files a wrongful death action, the correct party can be substituted even if the statute of limitations has expired in the intervening time,” and proper “substitution is what has occurred in this case.”
- The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners finds that Doctor’s “treatment of patients was below the standard of care for prescribing controlled substances” and establishes “several violations of the Medical Practice Act and its enabling regulations[.]” As a result, it imposes discipline on Doctor. The Doctor also gets hit with a steep bill ($97,738.05) for the costs of the disciplinary proceeding, which he complains were unreasonable. He loses that claim when he petitions for judicial review and appeals. Tennessee Court of Appeals: “[O]ur inquiry here is whether the Board’s decision is supported by substantial and material evidence.” Here, “[t]he Department submitted extensive proof to document the costs, including the labor and time spent by paralegals and lawyers.” So we affirm.
Firm Updates
New case. A short time after Rutherford County allowed an arrestee to make multiple suicide attempts before killing himself, Rutherford County’s jail officials dangerously pile on an arrestee while needlessly extracting him from his cell. And that’s wrongful death, so we are suing. Read the complaint here: https://horwitz.law/wp-content/uploads/Romero-Complaint-Stampfiled.pdf
