affirming the trial court’s exclusion of statements in a hospital record regarding patient’s combative behavior where the source of that information was not known because it was unreliable hearsay and more prejudicial than probative under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 403
How later courts described this case
- affirming the trial court’s exclusion of statements in a hospital record regarding patient’s combative behavior where the source of that information was not known because it was unreliable hearsay and more prejudicial than probative under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 403
- holding that allegation nursing home improperly admitted and retained resident who assaulted decedent, a co-resident, sounded in medical malpractice
- physician must personally approve written recommendation that individual be admitted to nursing home and remain under care of physician while at nursing home
- excluding superseded pleadings because they “did not constitute factual statements or admissions of fact”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, J.,
concurring opinion.
Although I concur in the result and reasoning of reached by the majority opinion, I think it important to emphasize one point. I agree with the trial court that none of the allegations regarding Ms. Stin-son’s stay at the nursing home prior to January 1, 2000, state any cause of action warranting relief. They were properly dismissed because there was no causal connection between those alleged incidents or omissions and the injuries suffered by Ms. Stinson due to the assault by Mr. Johnson. That determination eliminates most of the allegations supporting the TAPA claims that Plaintiff wanted to add.
The viable claims are (1) negligent supervision of Mr. Johnson and/or Ms. Stin-son at the time of the assault; (2) negligent admission of Mr. Johnson and letting him remain; and (3) negligent psychological care while he remained in the nursing home. I agree with the majority opinion that none of the allegations regarding these claims states a cause of action under Tenn.Code Aim. § 71-6-120(b) for abuse or neglect as defined in Tenn.Code Ann. § 71-6-102(1). Consequently, the TAPA claims were properly excluded. Because Plaintiff failed to state a factual claim under TAPA, we need not resolve the issue of whether the claims are medical malpractice claims or not for purposes of applying the exclusionary language in TAPA. 1