Super Lawyers has named Meridian Law attorney, Robert D. Martin, as a 2018 Rising Star in Civil Litigation!
Rob has been an Associate Attorney at Meridian Law since 2016. He has represented individual and corporate clients from across Tennessee and throughout the United States in employment litigation, including wage and hour defense, discrimination, retaliation, and non-compete matters. His practice areas also include insurance defense, breach of contract, and probate law. Rob is a member of the Young Leaders Council Class 71, an organization that trains young professionals in Middle Tennessee to give back to their community through non-profit service. He is a graduate of Belmont University College of Law, where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Law Review.
Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. Rising Stars is an exclusive list of top-rated attorneys in specific practice areas who were chosen after thorough evaluation of numerous criteria. For the Mid-South Rising Star listing, no more than 2.5 percent of lawyers in the region are chosen by the research team annually.
On October 29, 2018, Tom Shumate, from Meridian Law, and David Johnson, from Butler Snow, gave a Halloween themed presentation sponsored by the Nashville Bar Association called, “Non-Compete Agreements: Tricks or Treats?” The presentation covered the “nuts and bolts” of the law surrounding non-compete agreements in Tennessee, the Tennessee healthcare non-compete statute, the injunctive relief process, drafting tips from the employer and employee perspective, tortious interference and inducement of breach of contract, and more.
Meridian Law attorney and self-proclaimed puppy lawyer Robert Martin recently published an article in the Nashville Bar Journal, titled “Puppy Warranties and Lemon Laws: Tightening the Leash on Breeders and Retail Pet Stores.” In the article, Robert addresses the legal issues that often accompany purchasing a high end puppy from breeders or boutique pet stores. You can read the article here.
Tom Shumate was honored to speak at the Tennessee Bar Association's "I am SOLO" event. He provided insight to solo and small firm attorneys on how and when to grow your law practice. He drew on his experience growing Meridian Law from one attorney to four attorneys, one paralegal, and one administrator in just over three years and discussed the business methods he used to expand the firm.
Team Meridian, a/k/a "We will win, because we are so smart", didn't win the Nashville Bar Association's Trivia Night. So I guess we're not as smart as we thought. (Or just not as knowledgeable about 2017 pop culture and all things Ed Sheeran.) But if eating Southwestern egg rolls and drinking beer were an Olympic event, we would have filled the podium. We look forward to competing again next year. Until then, we will have to be satisfied with making the cover of the NBA's tweet about the event.
The Tennessee Supreme Court recently decided that, in theory, a home inspector could be liable to third-party house guests for defects not discovered during a home inspection.
Mr. Charles Grogan was a social guest of a recent home buyer when he learned the hard way that the second-story deck rail had been built with finishing nails rather than galvanized nails. When the rail gave way and Mr. Grogan fell off the deck, he sustained damages and sued the new home owner, the previous home owner, the contractor who worked on the deck, the home builder, and the home inspector.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the home inspector, which found that Mr. Grogan could not establish crucial elements of his claim for negligence against the home inspector. The Court of Appeals agreed, so Mr. Grogan appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the appeal to discuss the potential liability of a home inspector to a guest of the home buyer. Although the Court noted that one who assumes a contractual duty to inspect the property of another may be liable for physical injuries suffered by a third-party, the facts of this case precluded such a finding.
The Tennessee Supreme Court first noted that it is a “well-worn” principle under Tennessee law that one who assumes to act, even though gratuitously, may thereby become subject to the duty of acting carefully. The Court noted that this principal was the “underpinning” of the Restatement of Torts (Second) Section 324A, which provides that “One who undertakes . . . to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of a third person, or his things, is subject to liability to the third person for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to protect his undertakings.”
The Court noted that several other jurisdictions have applied this section to home inspectors who negligently conduct their inspections.
With regard to Mr. Grogan’s claims, however, the Court held that the agreement between the home inspector and the new home purchaser expressly limited the scope of services rendered to exclude any opinion on compliance with building codes. Therefore, the fact that the railing used finishing nails rather than galvanized nails fell outside the scope of the inspection. Further, and more compelling, was the express limitation in the agreement that it was “only for the benefit of the Client and may not be relied upon by any other person.” Going one step further, the Court noted that the applicable statutes and regulations governing home inspectors make clear that the duty of care is owed to the home purchaser—not to any third parties.
Therefore, the Court held that based on the terms of the agreement and the applicable statutes and regulations, the home inspector did not owe a duty to Mr. Grogan. As such, summary judgment was proper, and the home inspector could not be held liable for Mr. Grogan’s damages.
The important lesson here is that under Tennessee law, a person performing services can under certain circumstances be liable for damages sustained by third parties. Therefore, it is crucial to define the scope of the services, the intended beneficiaries, and limitations on third-party liability in the services contract.
If you need assistance drafting or reviewing a service contract, please call Meridian Law at (615) 229-7499.
By Miles T. Martindale
Meridian Law recently successfully defended a will contest and challenge to a payable-on-death bank account designation. Meridian represented the daughter and primary caregiver of the decedent (who suffered from numerous chronic health conditions) and was named as the sole payable-on-death (“POD”) beneficiary on multiple bank accounts and who received more favorable treatment under the decedent’s second will. Her brother objected and argued that the decedent lacked capacity at the time of execution of the second will and the POD forms. The Probate Court appointed an administrator ad litem to investigate whether the POD account funds paid to the daughter should be recovered by the Estate. The dispute regarding the POD account and the validity of the second will revolved around whether the decedent had the capacity to name his POD beneficiary and update his will several months prior to his death. Ultimately, the administrator ad litem filed a Petition to Recover Assets of the Estate in an attempt to recover the funds from the POD accounts for the benefit of the Estate.
When the administrator ad litem and the sibling’s attorney took the depositions of two of the decedent’s medical providers, it became apparent that although decedent was chronically ill and getting worse over time, they could not say he did not know who his heirs were or ever lost his orientation to self. One of decedent’s providers stated that he had no indication that the decedent did not know the extent of his property or how it should be disposed of. Based on their testimony, Meridian moved for summary judgment on behalf of its client and argued there was no evidence that the decedent lacked capacity at the moment he changed the POD form or executed his second will. Meridian emphasized that his providers were allowing the decedent to make his own medical decisions until shortly before his death. Ultimately, the trial court agreed and held: “It was apparent that the decedent was seriously and chronically ill and suffering from confusion and memory loss in his old age; however, there was no indication that as of December 2014 the decedent did not know: the extent of his property; disposition of his property; his heirs; or his self. Therefore, the court is of the opinion that reasonable minds could not justifiably reach a different conclusion on whether the decedent possessed the required mental capacity required to execute a contract based on the evidence at hand.” (emphasis added)
This decision was a significant victory for Meridian’s client, allowing her to retain the funds she received from the POD accounts and the property she received under his second will.
Meridian cannot guarantee that the same results could be obtained for other clients in similar matters. Results may vary based on the specific factual and legal circumstances of each client's case.
If you need assistance with a probate matter or will contest, please contact Meridian Law, PLLC at (615) 229-7499.
By Robert D. Martin
The Tennessee Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Dedmon v. Steelman, a case that could have had a potentially sweeping impact on personal injury actions statewide. The primary issue to be decided was whether the monetary value of “reasonable medical expenses” recoverable by a plaintiff are the dollar-amount billed by a health care provider, or the discounted amount ultimately accepted by that provider as payment in full. The Tennessee Supreme Court, upholding the status quo, held that the undiscounted, billed amounts were reasonable, and that the discounted amounts accepted by the providers were inadmissible altogether.
To understand the implications of the Dedmon decision, it is important to understand the backdrop under which it was decided. First, in personal injury actions in Tennessee, injured plaintiffs typically may recover their past medical expenses as part of their damages, so long as those medical expenses are both “necessary and reasonable.” Traditionally, the focus has been on the “reasonable value” of necessary services rendered to the plaintiff.
Tennessee, along with most other states, follows the “collateral source rule”, which prohibits the admission of evidence that a third-party (the “collateral source”) paid an injured party’s medical expenses. Most often, the collateral source rule is invoked to prohibit the admission of evidence relating to a plaintiff’s insurance. The justification for the rule has been that the existence of insurance, or any other third-party payment, should not benefit the “tortfeasor” or defendant. To allow this evidence would essentially deprive the plaintiff of the advantage of having insurance. The collateral source rule helps ensure that “[t]he tortfeasor is held responsible for the harm he caused, regardless of the ‘net loss’ of the injured party,” according to the Court. Additionally, the rule seeks to prevent juries from discounting the harm done to the plaintiff, simply because he had insurance. Under Tennessee law, the “reasonable medical expenses” incurred by plaintiffs in most personal injury actions has been essentially limited to the full, undiscounted amounts billed.
Hospitals, by statute, are entitled to a lien on their patients’ tort recoveries in the amount of “all reasonable and necessary charges” if their treatment arose from the negligence of another. In other words, if a hospital is not paid for its treatment of an injured plaintiff, it will have a lien on any recovery by that plaintiff by way of judgment or settlement, to recover the fees it is owed. In 2015, the Tennessee Supreme Court issued a monumental decision in West v. Shelby County Healthcare Corporation, holding that the “reasonable and necessary charges” are the discounted amounts paid by the patient’s private insurance. The practical effect of the decision was that hospitals are now prohibited from accepting a reduced payment from a patient’s insurance company, and then seeking recovery of any “written off” amount from the plaintiff’s judgement or settlement. “The [hospital’s] lien can exist only as long as the patient owes a debt to the hospital.”
Following the West decision, defense lawyers argued that the Court’s definition of “reasonable and necessary charges” in hospital lien cases should also apply in personal injury actions. After all, over the last several decades, health care in the United States has become increasingly complex, with billing structures becoming even more convoluted. Health insurance companies negotiate with hospitals to determine the value of various services, and the government sets such rates without negotiation for Medicare and Medicaid payments. With the overwhelming majority of Americans carrying at least some health insurance, “virtually no public or private insurer actually pays full charges.” As most insurers, scholars, and laypeople understand, the full, unadjusted rates of most health care charges are dramatically inflated well beyond the market rate for those services. Why should an injured plaintiff be entitled to a windfall recovery based on inflated hospital rates that have little or no actual relation to the market value of the services received by the plaintiff?
In 2011, the California Supreme Court implemented a West-type limitation to medical-expense damages in personal injury actions in that state, declaring “although the collateral source rule precludes certain deductions against otherwise recoverable damages, it does not expand the scope of economic damages to include expenses the plaintiff never incurred.” The Federal Courts in the Western and Middle Districts of Tennessee, and several state circuit courts, including courts in Davidson and Hamilton County, applied the West decision to personal injury actions, capping the amount of a plaintiff’s medical expenses at the amount paid by their insurance provider. This was precisely the issue that led the Dedmon case to the Supreme Court.
Dedmon arose from a motor vehicle accident, in which the plaintiff incurred total medical expenses of $52,482, and her health insurer paid $18,255.42, or roughly only one third of the total charges billed. Prior to trial, the defendants filed a pre-trial motion, seeking to exclude evidence of “unreasonable medical charges.” The defendants relied on West, arguing that evidence of the plaintiff’s full, undiscounted medical charges must be excluded because the amounts of those bills were, as a matter of law, unreasonable. The defendants insisted that granting the motion would not violate the collateral source rule, because no evidence of insurance payment would be submitted to the jury; rather, the jury would simply be given a number of the plaintiff’s medical bills, which would be the discounted amount actually paid.
The trial court granted the defendants’ motion and excluded all evidence of the plaintiff’s full, undiscounted medical bills. The plaintiff appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision. According to the Court of Appeals, the West decision was limited to cases arising under the Hospital Lien Act, and was not expanded to all personal injury actions. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, who agreed to hear the case and consider two issues: whether the West court intended to apply the definition of “reasonable medical charges” to personal injury actions, and if not, whether that definition should be adopted in personal injury actions anyway.
In a unanimous decision by Justice Holly Kirby, the Tennessee Supreme Court first held that “West was not intended to apply in personal injury cases.” The Court distinguished West from other personal injury, medical malpractice, or workers’ compensation cases, explaining:
West was intended only to construe the phrase “reasonable charges” in the context of determining the maximum amount of a hospital’s HLA lien. Certainly there is some overlap in that the word “reasonable” is used in connection with the valuation of medical expenses in many types of cases, such as those based on work-related injuries, medical malpractice injuries, and generic personal injuries . . . However, those types of claims involve different public policies than the policies underlying the HLA, and they are governed by different statutory schemes and common law rules. . . . West interpreted the HLA in a manner consistent with the Legislature’s intent and purpose for that statute. . . . Application of the West holding to personal injury cases would transform what would be a factual finding on damages into a legal holding by the court.
The Court also declined to extend the West definition of “reasonable medical charges” to personal injury actions, primarily relying on the collateral source rule. “The rule has served important public policies, namely, that a tortfeasor’s responsibility is to compensate for all the harm he causes, not limited to the net loss that the injured party receives, and that a benefit directed to the injured party should not become a windfall for the tortfeasor.”
The “amount actually paid” standard creates a “disparity that results in cases where the victim is insured as opposed to those where the victim is uninsured” according to the Court. In other words, the defendant’s liability is reduced where “the victim is prudent and buys insurance, but is increased when the victim has no insurance,” overlooking the fundamental purpose of the collateral source rule, which is “to prevent a tortfeasor from deriving any benefit from compensation or indemnity that an injured party has received from a collateral source.”
The Court acknowledged that in some instances, the “full-bill” approach could lead to overcompensation for the plaintiff, but it determined this possibility did not matter: “The law contains no rigid rule against overcompensation.” The Court also reasoned that “the negotiated rate differential is ‘as much of a benefit for which [the plaintiff] paid consideration as are the actual cash payments made by his health insurance carrier to the health care providers.’”
In addition to simply upholding the collateral source rule, the Tennessee Supreme Court went a step further, holding that “reasonable medical expenses” are not definitionally analogous to “fair market value.” Not only did it reject the comparison, it said such an analogy was “simplistic at best and misleading at worst.” This criticism (and accusation) of the defendant’s position is somewhat surprising, considering that the Court held literally the exact opposite two years ago.
The Court of Appeals, seeking to find a middle ground, had held that while plaintiffs could offer their full, undiscounted medical bills as proof of their damages, defendants could also offer discounted amounts accepted as payments by the providers. Under this approach, a jury would decide whether the full amounts or the discounted amounts were the reasonable measure of damages.
The Supreme Court rejected this middle-ground approach, holding that such an approach would “most surely allow a jury to infer the existence of a plaintiff’s insurance. . . and ultimately lead to the demise of the collateral source rule itself.”
The Dedmon decision, while not entirely unexpected, is still disappointing. Under the current system now explicitly endorsed by the Tennessee Supreme Court, plaintiffs may recover the full amount billed by a hospital for services rendered, despite the widely recognized fact that these amounts are often two or three times greater than the actual value of those bills, and defendants are left without any real possibility to rebut the reasonableness of those bills. Theoretically, defendants could enlist the services of an expert witness to testify as to what the reasonable value of the services rendered would be, but any discussion of that value would almost certainly require a discussion of insurance adjustments, which would be prohibited by the Court’s decision.
And on top of medical expenses and other “economic damages,” plaintiffs can also recover “non-economic damages,” such as “pain and suffering.” Since these damages are difficult or impossible to actually measure, plaintiffs typically use a multiple of the economic damages to value their noneconomic damages. The Tennessee Supreme Court acknowledged this early in Dedmon, but it failed to consider it in its analysis.
The Dedmon decision not only enables the possibility of a windfall for plaintiffs in the calculation of their economic damages, but it allows them to multiply that windfall through their non-economic damages. Thankfully, Tennessee has caps on non-economic damages.
In short, the unanimous Dedmon decision maintained the status quo in such a way that it seems unlikely the Tennessee Supreme court will reconsider in the near future, absent legislative action. The silver lining of the decision is that it imposes no new burdens on defendants in personal injury actions. However, in a time with skyrocketing health care costs, Dedmon could lead to higher verdicts bearing less resemblance to the injury actually sustained by plaintiffs.
 The collateral source rule does not apply in medical malpractice or workers compensation actions.