Buman v. Alycia D. Gibson, P.A.

4 Citing cases

  1. Ultsch v. HTI Mem'l Hosp. Corp.

    No. M2020-00341-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Moreover, "[w]hen the Legislature 'has acted to occupy an area of the law formerly governed by the common law, the statute must prevail over the common law in the case of conflict.'" Buman v. Gibson, No. W2013-01867-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 3893293, at *9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2014) (quoting Hodge v. Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325, 338 (Tenn. 2012)). The provisions of the HCLA at issue here, namely the definitions in Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-101 and the pre-suit notice provisions in Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121, were substantially amended in 2008, 2009, and 2011.

  2. Gardner v. Saint Thomas Midtown Hosp.

    No. M2019-02237-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Moreover, "[w]hen the Legislature 'has acted to occupy an area of the law formerly governed by the common law, the statute must prevail over the common law in the case of conflict.'" Buman v. Gibson, No. W2013-01867-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 3893293, at *9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2014) (quoting Hodge v. Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325, 338 (Tenn. 2012)). The provisions of the HCLA at issue here, namely the definitions in Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-101 and the pre-suit notice provisions in Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121, were substantially amended in 2008, 2009, and 2011.

  3. Buman v. Alycia D. Gibson, P.A.

    No. W2015-00511-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2016)

    Accordingly, Appellant appealed those rulings to this Court. This Court affirmed the trial court's rulings in their entirety in Buman v. Gibson, No. W2013-01867-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 3893293, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2014), perm. app. denied, not for citation (Tenn. Mar. 12, 2015). The parties entered a Rule 16 Agreed Scheduling Order on April 9, 2013. Despite the fact that this order was entered in April, there is no dispute that the parties agreed that Appellant was required to disclose expert witnesses by March 6, 2013. Trial was set for August 5, 2013.

  4. Shaw v. FSGBank, N.A.

    No. E2014-01365-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2015)

    The decision to grant or deny a motion to amend is "within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only for an abuse of discretion." Buman v. Gibson, No. W2013-01867-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 3893293, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. W.S., Aug. 11, 2014) (citing Merriman v. Smith, 599 S.W.2d 548, 559 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979)). A trial court abuses its discretion "when it applies an incorrect legal standard, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employs reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party."