Daffron v. Mem'l Health Care Sys., Inc., 605 S.W.3d 11, 20 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019).

Rather, the cause of action accrues and the limitations period begins "not only when a plaintiff acquires actual knowledge of a claim but also upon a plaintiff's constructive or inquiry notice of a claim." Daffon v. Mem'l Health Care Sys., Inc., 605 S.W.3d 11, 20 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019). Thus, while a plaintiff's constructive knowledge is typically a question of fact, "dismissal is appropriate where the undisputed facts demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could conclude that a plaintiff should not have known through the exercise of reasonable care and diligence that []he was injured as a result of a defendant's wrongful conduct."

Thus, the cause of action accrues "when a plaintiff acquires actual knowledge of a claim" or "upon a plaintiff's constructive or inquiry notice of a claim." Daffron v. Mem'l Health Care Sys., Inc., 605 S.W.3d 11, 20 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019). As this Court has stated, "The relevant inquiry is when Plaintiffs became aware of facts sufficient to put a reasonable person on notice that he or she has suffered an injury as a result of the [defendants'] wrongful conduct."

Whether the plaintiff has constructive knowledge is typically a question of fact, but "dismissal is appropriate where the undisputed facts demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could conclude that a plaintiff should not have known through the exercise of reasonable care and diligence that she was injured as a result of a defendant's wrongful conduct." Daffron v. Mem'l Health Care Sys., Inc., 605 S.W.3d 11, 20 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019) (citing Young ex rel. Young v. Kennedy, 429 S.W.3d 536, 557-58 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013)). "Neither actual knowledge that the relevant legal standard of care was breached nor diagnosis of the injury by another medical professional is a prerequisite to the accrual of a healthcare liability action."

, "judgment on the pleadings or dismissal is appropriate where the undisputed facts demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could conclude that a plaintiff should not have known through the exercise of reasonable care and diligence that she [or he] was injured as a result of a defendant's wrongful conduct." Daffron v. Mem'l Health Care Sys., Inc., 605 S.W.3d 11, 20 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019) (citing Young ex rel. Young v. Kennedy, 429 S.W.3d 536, 557-58 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013)). However, "where the resolution of the issue depends upon the question of whether due diligence was exercised under the circumstances, and where differing inferences might reasonably be drawn from the uncontroverted facts, the issue is not appropriate for summary judgment."

Redwing, 363 S.W.3d at 459 (citations omitted). Rather, the cause of action accrues and the limitations period begins "not only when a plaintiff acquires actual knowledge of a claim but also upon a plaintiff's constructive or inquiry notice of a claim." Daffon v. Mem'l Health Care Sys., Inc., 605 S.W.3d 11, 20 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019). Thus, while a plaintiff's constructive knowledge is typically a question of fact, "dismissal is appropriate where the undisputed facts demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could conclude that a plaintiff should not have known through the exercise of reasonable care and diligence that she was injured as a result of a defendant's wrongful conduct."

The standard is an objective one, though, and the plaintiff's subjective reaction is not controlling because that would grant plaintiffs the ability to unilaterally determine when the statute of limitations begins to run. Daffron v. Mem'l Health Care Sys., Inc., 605 S.W.3d 11, 23 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019).