Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Fye v. Kennedy

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

Decided June 26, 1998No. 03A01-9707-CV-00287Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHouston M. Goddard, P.J.

I concur in all of the issues addressed in the majority opinion except the one questioning the Trial Court’s permitting -the Plaintiff to prove the entire bill from Er-langer Medical Center.

I recognize that Judge Susano has set out considerable authority to support the position reached by the majority. However, it appears this is a question of first impression in Tennessee and I cannot concur that the law should enable an injured plaintiff to be able to prove and, presumably, recover monetary damages for medical expenses which he has in fact not incurred, much less paid or became obligated to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Eaton v. McLainTennessee Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Turner v. JordanTennessee Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Ridings v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1994
  4. Speight v. GibbsCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1972

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API