Teeters v. Currey
518 S.W.2d 512 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In medical malpractice cases involving surgical procedures, the statute of limitations commences to run when the patient discovers the injury, or in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, should have discovered the resulting injury.
Facts:
- On June 5, 1970, Norma Teeters gave birth to a child, attended by Dr. Currey.
- Following delivery, Dr. Currey recommended and, on June 6, 1970, performed a bilateral tubal ligation on Teeters for the purpose of sterilization.
- On December 6, 1972, Teeters was hospitalized and another physician discovered she was pregnant.
- On March 9, 1973, Teeters gave birth to a premature child with severe complications.
- On March 11, 1973, a second tubal ligation was performed, during which it was allegedly discovered that Dr. Currey had negligently performed the first surgery by failing to properly sever one or both fallopian tubes.
Procedural Posture:
- Norma Teeters (plaintiff) filed a malpractice action against Dr. Currey (defendant) in a Tennessee trial court on November 15, 1973.
- Dr. Currey's answer raised the defense that the one-year statute of limitations had run.
- Dr. Currey filed a motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations defense.
- The trial court judge sustained the defendant's motion and entered judgment in favor of Dr. Currey.
- Norma Teeters (appellant) appealed the trial court's decision to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the statute of limitations in a medical malpractice action begin to run from the date of the negligent act, or from the date the patient discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Henry, Justice
No. The statute of limitations in a medical malpractice action begins to run when the patient discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the injury. The prior rule, which held that the cause of action accrues at the time of the negligent act regardless of the plaintiff's knowledge, is harsh, oppressive, and can lead to absurd and unjust results. Requiring a plaintiff to file suit to vindicate a non-existent wrong, at a time when the injury is unknown and unknowable, is contrary to elemental justice. By adopting the 'discovery doctrine,' Tennessee joins the majority of American jurisdictions in holding that the statute of limitations is tolled until the injury manifests itself and becomes physically ascertainable to the patient exercising reasonable diligence.
Concurring - Harbison, Justice
No. I concur in adopting the 'discovery rule,' which is a measured change consistent with principles already applied in other areas of Tennessee law, such as workmen's compensation cases. This rule applies only where the plaintiff does not discover, and reasonably could not be expected to discover, the existence of a right of action; it does not permit a plaintiff to wait until all injurious consequences are known. The rule is tolled only during the period when the plaintiff, as a reasonable person, has no knowledge a wrong has occurred and is not put on inquiry. Adopting this rule will also reduce the practice of plaintiffs adding baseless 'fraudulent concealment' allegations merely to circumvent the statute of limitations.
Analysis:
This decision fundamentally changed Tennessee medical malpractice law by explicitly overruling prior precedent and adopting the 'discovery rule.' It shifts the balance of interests from protecting defendants from stale claims toward protecting blamelessly ignorant plaintiffs who could not have known of their injury. This aligns Tennessee with the modern majority rule and significantly expands the timeframe within which certain malpractice claims can be filed, particularly in cases where the injury is latent and not immediately apparent, such as those involving foreign objects left in the body or failed sterilization procedures. The case establishes that the focus for accrual of a cause of action is the discovery of the injury, not the occurrence of the underlying negligent act.
