§47.36 Special Damages Issues

The Case : Nance by Nance v. Westside Hosp., 750 S.W.2d 740 (Tenn. 1988).

The Basic Facts: Plaintiff filed medical malpractice action and issue arose concerning the recoverability of certain damages.

The Bottom Line:

  • "One of the defenses asserted by defendants was that T.C.A. § 29-26-119, a section of the Medical Malpractice Review Board and Claims Act of 1975, eliminated as damages that may be awarded against health care providers, sums paid or payable to victims of medical malpractice from sources identified therein.FN1 Defendants insisted that the statute applied to benefits paid or payable under the worker's compensation act and imposed a ban upon any recovery of such benefits by Nance or Stauffer.
    FN1 T.C.A. § 29-26-119. Damages.-In a malpractice action in which liability is admitted or established, the damages awarded may include (in addition to other elements of damages authorized by law) actual economic losses suffered by the claimant by reason of the personal injury, including, but not limited to cost of reasonable and necessary medical care, loss of services and loss of earned income, but only to the extent that such costs are not paid or payable and such losses are not replaced, or indemnified in whole or in part, by insurance provided by an employer either governmental or private, by social security benefits, service benefit programs, unemployment benefits, or any other source except the assets of claimants or the members of claimant's immediate family and insurance purchased in whole or in part, privately or individually."
    750 S.W.2d at 741.
  • "The statute we are to construe presents a classic example for the application of that rule. We have the general words 'or any other source' following the special words, 'insurance provided by an employer either governmental or private, by social security benefits, service benefit programs, unemployment benefits.' The issue before us is whether the general words include worker's compensation benefits. The answer depends upon whether worker's compensation benefits are within the same classification of benefits as those specifically named in the statutes." Id. at 743.
  • "We think it is clear that the classification into which the specifically listed benefit in [Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-119] falls is that of 'collateral source benefits.' It is also clear that when an employee is injured by a third party tort feasor while in the scope of his employment, the worker's compensation benefits he receives fall within the scope of the collateral source rule. The fact that the employer has subrogation rights in the event of recovery from a third party tort feasor does not remove worker's compensation benefits from inclusion within the scope of the phrase 'any other source' under a proper application of the doctrine of ejusdem generis." Id.
  • "However, we think the Legislature intended to exclude worker's compensation benefits from the scope of [Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-119] by the inclusion of the modifying phrase 'and such losses are not replaced, or indemnified.' In order to mitigate the damages, the statute requires that the benefit be paid or payable and also indemnify or replace the tort victim's losses. That phrase avoids a double recovery by tort victims and also removes from the statute any collateral source that has subrogation rights. Where benefits carry a right of subrogation and a legal obligation on the part of the tort victim to repay the collateral source, the tort victim's losses have not been replaced or indemnified." Id.
  • "It follows that worker's compensation benefits are not included within the scope of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-119, Nance's recovery against defendants cannot be reduced by the sums received, or to be received from Stauffer, and Stauffer may proceed to enforce its subrogation lien in the event of plaintiff's recovery." Id. at 744.

Other Sources of Note: Richardson v. Miller , 44 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (Nance applied in case involving private insurer with subrogation/reimbursement rights); Hughlett v. Shelby County Health Care Corp., 940 S.W.2d 571 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (Nance followed in case involving benefits paid by Medicaid).

After an accident, many injury victims and their families want more information on the accident and their legal rights. Consequently, many of them have found their way to these pages. While we are happy you are here, please understand Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law was written to be a quick, invaluable reference for Tennessee tort lawyers. While the book provides the leading case for more than 300 tort law subjects and thousands of related case citations, it is not a substitute for personalized legal advice from a qualified lawyer.

Rather than researching these legal issues alone, we urge you to contact one of our award-winning lawyers who can sit down with you, review your case, answer your questions and clearly explain your rights and your options in a no-cost, no-obligation consultation. Our experienced attorneys handle all personal injury and wrongful death cases on a contingency basis, so we only get paid if we win. If for any reason you are unable to come to our office, we will gladly come to you.

To schedule an appointment, contact us online or call us at 615-742-4880 or toll-free at 866-812-8787.



The foregoing is an excerpt from Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law, published by John A. Day, Civil Trial Specialist, Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers, recipient of Best Lawyers in America recognition, Martindale-Hubbell AV® Preeminent™ rated attorney, and Top 100 Tennessee Mid-South Super Lawyers designee. Read John’s full bio here.

To order a copy of the book, visit www.dayontortsbook.com. John also blogs regularly on key issues for tort lawyers. To subscribe to the Day on Torts blog, visit www.dayontorts.com.

Client Reviews
Everything was great. You guys are a great representative. I was satisfied with everything. Truly appreciate John Day and his hard-working staff.
★★★★★
We thought that you did an excellent job in representing us in our lawsuit. We would recommend you to anyone.
★★★★★
The Law Offices of John Day is, without a doubt, the best in Nashville! They treated me with the utmost respect and tended to my every need. No question went unanswered. I was always kept informed of every step in the process. I received phenomenal results; I couldn't ask for more. I would definitely hire the Law Offices of John Day again.
★★★★★
I would definitely recommend to anyone to hire John Day's law firm because everyone was helpful, made everything clear and got the job done. I am satisfied with how my case was handled.
★★★★★
It's been a long battle but this firm has been very efficient and has done a remarkable job for me! I highly recommend them to anyone needing legal assistance. Everyone has always been very kind and kept me informed of all actions promptly.
★★★★★
I had a great experience with the Law Offices of John Day. The staff was very accommodating, and my phone calls/emails were always responded to in a timely manner. They made the entire process very easy and stress-free for me, and I had confidence that my case was in good hands. I am very happy with the results, and I highly recommend!
★★★★★