Everett cites White v. Washington County, 85 F.Supp.3d 955 (E.D. Tenn. 2015), for the proposition that “[f]ederal district courts in Tennessee have recognized that a complaint pleaded on the basis of deliberate indifference can also encompass a claim for health care liability because the claims concern the provision of or failure to provide health care services, just as [Chibbaro] has pleaded in the present case.”
Everett cites White v. Washington County, 85 F. Supp. 3d 955 (E.D. Tenn. 2015), for the proposition that "[f]ederal district courts in Tennessee have recognized that a complaint pleaded on the basis of deliberate indifference can also encompass a claim for health care liability because the claims concern the provision of or failure to provide health care services, just as [Chibbaro] has pleaded in the present case." (Doc. No. 18, PageID# 140.
administration of medications, and negligent care for a head injury to be claims under the HCLA when plaintiff did not file a response to defendant's motion to dismiss); Stedam v. Cumberland Cty., Tennessee, No. 2:19-CV-00032, 2019 WL 2501560, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. June 17, 2019) (finding allegations of failure to provide adequate medical care to be covered by the HCLA); Estate of French, 333 S.W.3d at 560 (finding assessing a patient's condition and developing a plan of care to be covered by the HCLA). Health care liability has regularly been found to encompass claims related to care of mental health issues, including issues related to suicide. E.g., Spires, 2018 WL 4006790, at *6-7 (finding claims to be HCLA claim when plaintiff alleged negligent medical monitoring on suicide watch); Cannon v. McKendree Vill., Inc., 295 S.W.3d 278, 279, 283 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (finding claims to be HCLA claim when deciding whether or not to restrain a patient with dementia and Alzheimer's disease); White v. Washington Cty., Tenn., 85 F. Supp. 3d 955, 956, 959-60 (E.D. Tenn. 2015) (finding claims to be HCLA claim where patient committed suicide while in jail). However, routine negligence claims that do not invoke medical decision making do not fall under the HCLA.
See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985) ("[A]n official-capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the [governmental] entity."); Scott v. Tipton Cty., 2011 WL 2515976, at *3 (W.D.Tenn. 2011) (observing that courts within the Sixth Circuit typically dismiss official-capacity claims as redundant where the relevant local-governmental entity is also a party) (collecting cases); see also Jackson v. Shelby Cty. Gov't, No. 07-6356, 2008 WL 4915434, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 10, 2008) ("[T]he district court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants on the claims against the sheriff in his official capacity because those claims mirror the claims against the County, and are therefore redundant."); White v. Washington Cty., Tenn., 85 F. Supp. 3d 955, 959 (E.D. Tenn. 2015); Newby v. Sharp, No. 3:11-cv-534, 2012 WL 1230764, at *4 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 12, 2012). ii. Individual-Capacity Claims
In light of the above cited considerations, the court finds the more compelling rationale dictates retaining jurisdiction at this time over the TGTLA claim against Hayes (and the other Individual Defendants). This is particularly so, given the early stage of this case and the fact that the federal and state claims so closely arise from the same events and will likely have such overlapping discovery. See, e.g., White v. Washington Cnty., Tenn., No. 2:14-CV-172, 2015 WL 140518, at *3-4 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 12, 2015) (deciding to retain jurisdiction over TGTLA claim against individual officer, "particularly given the early stage of the case"); Okolo, 892 F.Supp.2d at 948 (finding "no compelling reason" to give up jurisdiction over TGTLA claim against individual Metro officer where state claim and federal civil rights claim arose from same alleged unlawful seizure). The court retains the right, of course, to decline supplemental jurisdiction at any subsequent stage of the case.
accompanying text (3d ed.); see also St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 890 F.3d 1265, 1268 (11th Cir. 2018) ("district courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction to consolidate closely related claims into a single proceeding in order to preserve judicial resources and avoid inconsistent judgments"); Phillips v. City of Albuquerque, 1998 WL 36030893, at *2 (D.N.M.) (supplemental jurisdiction exercised to avoid duplicate proceedings and enhance judicial efficiency); Rodriguez v. Sokut Constr., Inc., 2022 WL 17547526, at *8 (E.D. Cal.) (to avoid needless expenditure of judicial resources and the potential for inconsistent judgments due to parallel proceedings); Salustio v. 106 Columbia Deli Corp., 264 F.Supp.3d. 540, 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (fundamentally unfair to require the parties to undergo the expense of a duplicative trial); White v. Washington Cnty., Tenn., 85 F.Supp.3d 955, 958 (E.D. Tenn. 2015) (supplemental jurisdiction exercised to avoid duplication and waste judicial and the parties' resources).
oids wasteful duplicative litigation." 13 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3523, n. 11 and accompanying text (3d ed.); see alsoSt. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh , 890 F.3d 1265, 1268 (11th Cir. 2018) ("district courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction to consolidate closely related claims into a single proceeding in order to preserve judicial resources and avoid inconsistent judgments"); Phillips v. City of Albuquerque , 1998 WL 36030893, at *2 (D.N.M.) (supplemental jurisdiction exercised to avoid duplicate proceedings and enhance judicial efficiency); Rodriguez v. Sukut Constr., Inc. , 2022 WL 17547526, at *8 (E.D. Cal.) (to avoid needless expenditure of judicial resources and the potential for inconsistent judgments due to parallel proceedings); Salustio v. 106 Columbia Deli Corp. , 264 F. Supp. 3d. 540, 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (fundamentally unfair to require the parties to undergo the expense of a duplicative trial); White v. Washington Cnty., Tenn. , 85 F. Supp. 3d 955, 958 (E.D. Tenn. 2015) (supplemental jurisdiction exercised to avoid duplication and waste judicial and the parties’ resources). The laudable goals of supplemental jurisdiction would be hamstrung by the interpretation Plaintiffs advocate.