Summary Judgment Reversed Because Plaintiff Not Allowed Sufficient Time to Respond After Defendant's Deposition
The Court of Appeals for the Middle Section of Tennessee reversed a summary judgment for a defendant doctor on Monday, saying the trial court erred in refusing to allow the plaintiff more time to marshal proof in opposition to the motion and in failing to consider additional evidence presented by the plaintiff on a motion to alter or amend.
In Grisham v. McLaughlin, the defendant orthopedic surgeon filed a motion for summary judgment supported by his own affidavit. The short version of a long procedural history is that the hearing was postponed until after the doctor could be deposed, but was then set for a hearing 15 days after the deposition. The Court of Appeals noted that left the plaintiff with fifteen days to (1) obtain a transcribed copy of the doctor's deposition from the court reporter, (2) obtain the doctor's signature on the deposition, (3) provide the plaintiff's standard of care expert with a copy of the dcotor's deposition, and (4) obtain and file her expert’s affidavit opposing the motion for summary judgment. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion for an extension to respond to the summary judgment motion, and also erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment after providing the court with a standard of care expert's affidavit. Note the text in footnote 4:
We find nothing unreasonable or extraordinary in the notion that a patient in a medical malpractice case might desire to depose a defendant before responding to a summary judgment motion. It is quite conceivable that careful experts will withhold rendering an opinion based on medical records or supporting affidavits alone.