From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Armour v. State

Court of Appeals of Tennessee. Western Section, at Jackson
Mar 25, 1996
C.A. No. 02A01-9508-BC-00189 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 1996)

Opinion

C.A. No. 02A01-9508-BC-00189.

March 25, 1996.

Tennessee Claims Commission, Western Division No. 201-140, Hon. Martha Brasfield, Commissioner

LAURENCE ARMOUR, Pro Se, Memphis.

BEAUCHAMP E. BROGAN, General Counsel, The University of Tennessee, Memphis, and ODELL HORTON, JR., Associate General Counsel, Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee.


AFFIRMED


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Rule 10 (Court of Appeals). Memorandum Opinion.—(b) The Court, with the concur rence of all judges partici pating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by memor andum opinio n when a formal opinio n would have no preced ential value. When a case is decide d by memor andum opinio n it shall be design ated "MEMORANDUM OPINION," shall not be publish ed, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in a subseq uent unrelat ed case.

Laurence E. Armour ("claimant") filed suit pro se against the State of Tennessee ("defendant") before the Tennessee Claims Commission seeking damages for injuries to his left thumb due to the alleged malpractice of two medical resident physicians at the University of Tennessee Center for Health Care Sciences in Memphis. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Commissioner granted. For reasons we will refer to in a moment, this court presumes the issue presented on appeal is whether the Claims Commission erred in granting summary judgment. We find no error and affirm.

Claimant's brief in this court consists of the following document, except for a few copies of his medical records attached in the nature of exhibits:

The Appellant, Mr. Laurence E. Armour, wishes to advise the court that he wants this case placed on the accelerated civil appeal docket.

Mr. Armour has no new information or evidence that court records in your file already contain. Therefore, in order to expedite justice, Mr. Armour will rely upon the record. Mr. Armour is still handicapped and suffers pain daily from the surgical act that caused injury to his hand and was deliberately omitted from all medical reports on the day of surgery, March 13, 1992. Also, the record show that continued his willful omission under oath during deposition, thus committing perjury.

Dr. Eikerman also committed the act of willful omission. Both doctors conspired in order to graduate from medical school without a blemished record. The omission was deliberate, willful, and for personal gain.

Upon deposition, Dr. Eikerman told the truth. Defining the willfully omitted surgical erroneous act. The record speaks for itself.

This court is thoroughly familiar with the responsibilities a pro se litigant assumes when the litigant attempts to represent himself. We are aware of the liberality of construction with regard to pleadings to which pro se litigants are entitled. We are also aware that pro se litigants must follow the same procedural and substantive law as the represented party. See Irvin v. City of Clarksville, 767 S.W.2d 649, 652-53 (Tenn.App. 1988).

Notwithstanding the nature and substance of claimant's brief, we have reviewed this record and determined that not only has claimant failed to follow the applicable procedural law, but also the substantive law in this case, particularly as it relates to his claim for medical malpractice and summary judgment. Claimant failed to offer any evidence other than damages to establish a claim for medical malpractice under T.C.A. § 29-26-115(a) (1980). Moreover, claimant failed to introduce any evidence to refute defendant's evidence submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment that the injury to claimant's thumb could result in the absence of negligence, and that the treating physician followed the applicable standard of care in treating claimant. Accordingly, the judgment of the Claims Commission is affirmed. Costs in this cause on appeal are taxed to claimant, for which execution may issue if necessary.

_____________________________________ TOMLIN, Sr. J.

_____________________________________ FARMER, J. (CONCURS)

_____________________________________ LILLARD, J. (CONCURS)


Summaries of

Armour v. State

Court of Appeals of Tennessee. Western Section, at Jackson
Mar 25, 1996
C.A. No. 02A01-9508-BC-00189 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 1996)
Case details for

Armour v. State

Case Details

Full title:LAURENCE ARMOUR, Claimant/Appellant, v. STATE OF TENNESSEE…

Court:Court of Appeals of Tennessee. Western Section, at Jackson

Date published: Mar 25, 1996

Citations

C.A. No. 02A01-9508-BC-00189 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 1996)