Legal Opinion

Blanchard v. Kellum

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided July 13, 1998No. 02S01-9709-CV-00083PublishedCited by 128 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HOLDER, Justice.

The issues with which we are confronted are: (1) whether expert testimony is required in a medical battery case when a doctor performs an unauthorized procedure; and (2) whether the defendant’s affidavit in the case now before us triggered the non-movant’s burden pursuant to McCarley v. West Quality Food Serv., 960 S.W.2d 585 (Tenn.1998), and Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208 (Tenn.1993). We hold that expert testimony is not required in a medical battery case, that the plaintiffs cause of action was properly premised on a medical battery theory, and that the defendant’s…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Byrd v. HallTennessee Supreme Court · 1993
  2. McCarley v. West Quality Food ServiceTennessee Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Shadrick v. CokerTennessee Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Cardwell v. BechtolTennessee Supreme Court · 1987
  5. German v. NichopoulosCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1978

3Cited by128 opinions

  1. Hannan v. Alltel Publishing Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Huss v. GaydenCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2009
  3. Cheryl Brown Giggers v. Memphis Housing AuthorityTennessee Supreme Court · 2009
  4. Church v. PeralesCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2000
  5. Harris v. ChernTennessee Supreme Court · 2000

123 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API