Thus, "[t]he key consideration" is whether, pursuant to section 29-26-121(a)(1), the Fishers gave written pre-suit notice to WTMG—not whether WTMG "knew about the claim or whether it acknowledged that it had learned about the claim based on pre-suit notice given to another potential defendant." Breithaupt v. Vanderbilt Univ. Med. Ctr., No. M2021-00314-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 1633552, at *10 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2022) (quoting Runions, 549 S.W.3d at 89). As a consequence of their failure to provide pre-suit notice to WTMG, the Fishers could not rely on the 120-day extension of section 29-26-121(c).

At the same time, however, we note that this Court has repeatedly found no extraordinary cause to excuse compliance even in situations involving pro se plaintiffs. See, e.g.,Breithauptv. Vanderbilt Univ. Med. Or., No. M2021-00314-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 1633552, at *9-10 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2022) (declining to find extraordinary cause where the pro se plaintiff relied on a sample notice form provided by a Tennessee attorney who advised her to send it to certain addresses); Mathes v. Lane, No. E2013-01457-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 346676, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2014) (finding no extraordinary cause to excuse an incarcerated pro se plaintiff from compliance with the pre-suit notice requirement); see also Cude v. Herren, No. W2010-01425-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 4436128, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 26, 2011) (finding no extraordinary cause where the plaintiff hired her attorney only seven days prior to the running of the savings statute).