IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TENNESSEE

AMY STAPLES and JAMES STAPLES, )

)
Plaintiffs, )
) NO. ----
v. )
) JURY DEMAND
TENNOVA HEALTHCARE - )
CLARKSVILLE, CLARKSVILLE )
HEALTH SYSTEM, GP, and )
KNOXVILLE HMA HOLDINGS, LLC, )
)
Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiffs respectfully state to the Court and Jury the following:

PARTIES, VENUE, AND JURISDICTION

1. The Plaintiffs, Amy Staples and James Staples, are adult citizens of the State of

Tennessee.

2. The Defendant, Tennova Healthcare-Clarksville ("the Hospital"), is a hospital in

Clarksville, Montgomery County, Tennessee.

3. The Hospital's Registered Agent for Service of Process is Justin Pitt, Community

Health Systems, 4000 Meridian Blvd., Franklin, TN, 37067-6325.

4. The Hospital is owned and/or operated by Clarksville Health System, GP

("Clarksville Health").

5. Clarksville Health's Registered Agent for Service of Process is Justin Pitt,

Community Health Systems, 4000 Meridian Blvd., Franklin, TN, 37067-6325.

6. The Hospital is owned and/or operated by Knoxville HMA Holdings, LLC

("Knoxville Holdings").
 7. Knoxville Holdings' Registered Agent for Service of Process is Justin Pitt,

Community Health Systems, 4000 Meridian Blvd., Franklin, TN, 37067-6325.

8. This cause of action arose in Montgomery County, Tennessee. Venue and a jury

demand are proper pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. 20-4-101(a). This Court has jurisdiction

pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. 16-10-101.

LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS
9. At the time of the matters contained in this Complaint, the employees of the

Defendants, and the Hospital itself, owed Amy Staples duties as part of a health care provider-

patient relationship.

10. At the time of the matters contained in this Complaint, the Hospital had a health

care provider-patient relationship with Amy Staples. At the time of the matters contained in this

Complaint, the employees of at least one of the Defendants referenced herein had a health care

provider-patient relationship with Amy Staples.

11. At the time of the matters contained in this Complaint, Clarksville Health owned

and/or operated the Hospital.

12. At the time of the matters contained in this Complaint, Knoxville Holdings owned

and/or operated the Hospital.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

13. On September 12, 2016, Amy Staples presented to the Hospital for a variety of

types of medical imaging to be performed.

14. When Amy Staples presented to the Hospital on September 12, 2016, she did so in

compliance with instructions to go to the Hospital that day to have medical imaging performed.

2
 15. The medical imaging that Amy Staples was to have performed upon her at the

Hospital on September 12, 2016 included (1) a mammogram, (2) a chest x-ray, and (3) x-rays of

her thigh.

16. On September 12, 2016, the Hospital was required to use equipment and items in

association with patient care that was safe to use in the manner instructed or directed by Hospital

employees. The Defendants and their employees had a duty to only provide Amy Staples with

equipment and items, including a place to sit, that was reasonably safe for its intended purpose and

for its expected use.

17. On September 12, 2016, the first type of medical imaging performed on Amy

Staples was a mammogram. After that mammogram was performed, Amy Staples walked to the

bathroom outside the imaging department to change. After Amy Staples changed in that bathroom,

she walked back to the imaging department.

18. Amy Staples complied with all instructions given to her during the performance of

the mammogram at the Hospital on September 12, 2016.

19. When Amy Staples returned to the imaging department at the Hospital on

September 12, 2016 after changing clothes after the mammogram was performed, an employee of

the Defendants gave Amy Staples an injection. Amy Staples complied with any instructions she

was given by the employee of at least one of the Defendants who gave her the injection.

20. After Amy Staples was given the injection after the mammogram, Amy Staples

went to where the x-rays would be performed.

21. When Amy Staples was in the location within the Hospital where the x-rays would

be performed, she was told to remove her bra if it had metal in it. Therefore, Amy Staples went to

the bathroom again to remove her bra. When Amy Staples removed her bra prior to the

3
performance of the x-rays on September 12, 2016, she was complying with an instruction given to

her by an employee of the Hospital.

22. After Amy Staples returned to the location within the Hospital where the x-rays

would be performed, multiple chest x-ray images were taken. Amy Staples stood for the

performance of these chest x-ray images. However, Amy Staples asked an employee if she could

sit in a chair between the performance of the different chest x-rays. When Amy Staples asked if

she could sit in a chair between the performance of the different chest x-rays, she specifically

communicated to an employee of at least one of the Defendants that she felt tired, that she was

anemic, that she had a bad back, and that she had been walking a lot and did not have much energy

at that time. By this point in time on September 12, 2016, no employee had done a fall risk

assessment regarding Amy Staples' status that day. By this point in time on September 12, 2016,

no employee at the Hospital had documented any type of fall risk assessment or fall evaluation

regarding Amy Staples' status that day.

23. In response to Amy Staples' request to have a chair to sit on, an employee provided

her with a chair that was a bar stool-type chair. This chair had a back to it, and it did not have any

wheels. Amy Staples got on and off of this stool without any problems. When Amy Staples used

this stool, she did so in compliance with instructions or directives given to her by an employee of

at least one of the Defendants.

24. After Amy Staples had been using the first chair she was provided without

difficulty, an employee directed Amy Staples to use a different chair ("rolling stool") to sit in. This

rolling stool had no back to it. This rolling stool had wheels. This rolling stool had a wheel on each

of its legs.

4
 25. The employee who directed Amy Staples to sit on the rolling stool told Amy Staples

that the rolling stool was "something better" than the previously-used chair.

26. Amy Staples sat on the rolling stool with no back during the time that x-rays were

being taken in the Hospital.

27. When Amy Staples was sitting on the rolling chair with no back during the time x-

rays were taken in the Hospital, she did so in compliance with instructions or directives given to

her by an employee of at least one of the Defendants.

28. At one point while Amy Staples was sitting on the rolling stool with no back during

the time x-rays were taken in the Hospital, an employee standing behind Amy Staples told Amy

Staples to "turn" in a specific direction while remaining in the rolling stool. The employee also

said something like "I need you to turn this way." When Amy Staples put a foot down on the floor

to attempt to "turn" as directed by the employee, the rolling stool shot out from under Amy Staples

and she fell to the floor ("the fall"). Up through the moment of Amy Staples' fall, she had complied

with every instruction or direction given to her by the employee(s) involved with the performance

of the x-rays on September 12, 2016.

29. As a result of the fall, Amy Staples suffered injuries and conscious pain and

suffering, and she incurred medical expenses related to the care she received for those injuries.

30. As a result of the fall, Amy Staples suffered fractures. Those fractures included a

right humerus fracture and right rib fractures.

31. After the fall, an employee promptly provided Amy Staples with a stable chair that

did not have wheels on it. This employee was able to provide Amy Staples at that time with a chair

that did not have wheels on it because such a chair was easily available nearby where Amy Staples

fell.

5
 HEALTH CARE LIABILITY CLAIMS

32. The Plaintiffs incorporate the factual averments and allegations set forth above as

if fully described herein.

33. The relationship of health care provider-patient existed between the Defendants

and Amy Staples during the time in question. The Defendants, through their employees and agents,

owed Amy Staples a duty to provide appropriate care and treatment, including during the time in

question. The ways in which the Defendants, directly or through its employees or agents, failed to

comply with the applicable recognized standard of acceptable professional practice ("standard of

care") includes, but is not limited to:

a. Negligently instructing Amy Staples to use and sit on an unreasonably

unsafe rolling stool during the performance of x-rays at the Hospital.

b. Negligently failing to provide Amy Staples with a safe place to sit

during the performance of the x-rays at the Hospital.

c. Negligently failing to use equipment, including a stable chair, that was

safe for use during the performance of Amy Staples' x-rays at the
Hospital.

d. Negligently failing to perform a Fall Risk Assessment or other fall risk

evaluation at the Hospital at any point prior to Amy Staples' fall.

e. Negligently failing to have internal policies and procedures, and

practices, and negligently failing to enforce any such thing to ensure that
the type of negligence described herein would not occur in our context.

34. The Defendants are liable for the negligence of their employees and agents,

including the persons referenced herein, with regard to their failure to provide appropriate care and

treatment to Amy Staples on September 12, 2016.

6
 35. Pursuant to the legal doctrines ofrespondeat superior and/or vicarious liability, one

or more of the Defendants are liable for the negligence described herein by virtue of owning and/or

operating the Hospital.

CAUSATION AND DAMAGES

36. The Plaintiffs incorporate the factual averments and allegations set forth above as if

fully described herein.

37. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and omissions of the Defendants,

including as described herein, the Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages. These injuries and

damages include, for Amy Staples, conscious physical pain and suffering (past and future),

emotional pain and suffering (past and future), medical expenses, permanent physical injury, and

loss of enjoyment of life, and for James Staples, medical expenses (re Amy Staples) and loss of

consortium.

COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY NOTICE AND GOOD FAITH REQUIREMENTS

38. The Plaintiffs, through counsel, have complied with the provisions of Tenn. Code

Ann. 29-26-121 requiring individuals asserting a potential health care liability claim to give

written notice of such potential claim to each health care provider that will be a named Defendant

at least 60 days prior to filing a complaint ("Pre-Suit Notice" or "Notice"). On or by March 10,

2017, Notice was given to the Defendants in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. 29-26-121. The

Affidavit of Brian Manookian and supporting documentation demonstrating compliance are

attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 1. The Complaint was filed more than 60 days after Notice

was provided to the Defendants.

39. The Complaint was filed more than 60 days after the Defendants were sent written

Pre-Suit Notice.

7
 40. The Defendants had the opportunity to review the facts of this matter between the

time of their receipt of Pre-Suit Notice by and the filing of this Complaint. Neither the Defendants,

nor any agent acting on any Defendants' behalf, ever communicated to counsel for the Plaintiffs

any inability or problem with obtaining or reviewing the pertinent medical records from the

Hospital, which counsel for the Plaintiffs provided directly or provided access to via an

appropriate, HIPAA-compliant release for the Defendants to use to obtain such records. 1

41. In accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. 29-26-122, the Plaintiffs' counsel has

consulted with one or more experts who provided a signed written statement confirming that upon

information and belief they are competent under Tenn. Code Ann. 29-26-115 to express opinions

in this case and believe, based on the information available from medical records concerning the

care and treatment of the Plaintiff, Amy Staples, that there is a good faith basis to maintain this

action consistent with the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. 29-26-115. The Certificate of Good

Faith demonstrating the same is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 2.

THE COMPLAINT WAS TIMELY FILED

42. This lawsuit arises from the professional negligence committed by the Defendants,

including through its employees and agents, that caused the Plaintiffs fall on September 12, 2016.

43. The Plaintiffs provided written Pre-Suit Notice to the Defendants within 12 months

of the September 12, 2016 fall.

44. The Plaintiffs provided written Pre-Suit Notice to the Defendants within the time

period required by Tennessee law.

45. The Plaintiffs provided proper Pre-Suit Notice of this lawsuit to the Defendants.

1
It is also noted that the Defendants were already authorized to review its own medical records per 45 C .F.R. 164.506
(allowing use for "'health care operations") and 45 C.F.R. 164.501 (defining "'health care operations" to include
"conducting or arranging for medical review, legal services ...").

8
 46. At least 60 days passed between when the Plaintiffs sent Pre-Suit Notice to the

Defendants and when this lawsuit was filed.

47. This suit is timely filed before the applicable statute of limitations expired (as

extended by Tenn. Code Ann. 29-26-121).

48. This lawsuit was filed within one year and four months the Plaintiffs fall on

September 12, 2016.

ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS

49. The Plaintiffs incorporate the factual averments and allegations set forth above as

if fully described herein.

50. In addition to, and in the alternative to, the assertion of the above facts and claims

as averments that may require expert proof pursuant to Tennessee's Health Care Liability Act, the

Plaintiffs aver that these same claims involving an employee of at least one of the Defendants

having Amy Staples use a rolling stool as described herein is "ordinary negligence" that does not

require the same expert proof that a health care liability claim requires. See Osunde v. Delta

Medical Center, 2016 WL 537015 (Tenn.App. 2016).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:

1. That proper process issue and be served upon the Defendants, and that the

Defendants be required to appear and answer this Complaint within the time

required by law;

2. That the Plaintiffs be awarded fair and reasonable damages, including

compensatory damages up to $950,000.00;

3. That the Plaintiffs be awarded the costs of trying this action;

4. That this action be heard by a jury;

9
5. That costs of this action be taxed to the Defendants;

6. That prejudgment interest be awarded to the Plaintiffs;

7. That the Plaintiffs be awarded all and any such other and further relief as

the Court deems proper; and,

8. That the Plaintiffs' right to amend this Complaint to conform to the

evidence be reserved.

Respectfully submitted,

Brian Cummings,54
Brian P. Manookian, #26455
Afsoon Hagh, #28393
Cummings Manookian PLC
45 Music Square West
Nashville, Tennessee 37203
(615) 266-3333 (phone)
(615) 266-0250 (fax)
bcummings@cummingsmanookian.com
bmanookian@cummingsmanookian.com
afsoon@cummingsmanookian.com

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

10