# Seavers v. Methodist Medical Center of Oak Ridge

> Tennessee Supreme Court · December 27, 1999 · 9 S.W.3d 86

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9756436

## Case

- **Full name:** Berdella Vaughn SEAVERS & Eddie Thomas Seavers, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. METHODIST MEDICAL CENTER OF OAK RIDGE, Defendant/Appellee
- **Court:** Tennessee Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 27, 1999
- **Citations:** 9 S.W.3d 86; 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 695
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Barker
- **Judges:** William M. Barker
- **Cited by:** 134 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9756436

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the appellant raised a genuine issue of material fact that nurses negligently restrained or positioned patient’s arm while she was under their care, resulting in the damage to her right ulnar nerve
- observing that “[i]n a majority of states which have addressed this issue, medical malpractice claimants are allowed to come forward with expert testimony to support a res ipsa inference” and adopting the majority rule
- stating that summary judgment is only appropriate when the facts lead to only one reasonable conclusion

## Opinion text

ORDER DENYING PETITION TO REHEAR
BARKER, Justice.
The appellee, Methodist Medical Center of Oak Ridge, has petitioned this Court for rehearing in this case following release of our opinion on November 29, 1999. Having given the arguments raised in the ap-pellee’s petition due consideration, we conclude that the petition is without merit and should be denied.
The appellee argues in its petition to rehear that our opinion is in conflict with Kennedy v. Holder, 1 S.W.3d 670 (Tenn.Ct.App.1999), pemu to appeal denied, Sept. 13, 1999. To the contrary, we agree with the essential holding of Kennedy that where expert testimony is required in medical ’ malpractice cases, a defendant who refutes the plaintiffs allegations with expert testimony is entitled to summary judgment when the plaintiff produces no rebuttal proof by expert testimony.
We disagree with Kennedy , however, to the extent that it denies plaintiffs an opportunity to use res ipsa loquitur to survive summary judgment in cases requiring expert testimony. With our opinion in this case, res ipsa loquitur is no longer confined in Tennessee to the realm of cases within the “common knowledge” of the jurors. Instead, res ipsa loquitur may be used in combination with expert testimony to raise an inference of negligence, even in those eases where expert testimony is required. Nevertheless, because the Kennedy plaintiff failed to introduce required expert testimony to establish a prima facie case of negligence even under res ipsa loquitur, the Court of Appeals was correct in affirming the grant of summary judgment to the defendants.
Justices Holder and Drowota adhere to the views expressed in their original dissenting opinion previously filed in this case.
It is therefore ORDERED that the ap-pellee’s petition to rehear be, and is hereby denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9756436. Public record. Not legal advice.