## Facts

- On June 5, 1970, Norma L. Teeters delivered a child; Dr. Doyle E. Currey was the attending physician.
- Due to medical complications, Currey recommended sterilization and performed a bilateral tubal ligation on June 6, 1970; Teeters’s recovery was uneventful.
- On December 6, 1972, Teeters was hospitalized and learned she was pregnant.
- On March 9, 1973, Teeters delivered a premature child and suffered severe complications.
- A second bilateral tubal ligation was performed on March 11, 1973; Teeters alleged it revealed the first ligation had been negligently performed.
- Teeters alleged Currey failed to properly sever the left fallopian tube and failed to identify, cut, sever, or ligate the right fallopian tube.
- Currey denied negligence, asserted sterilization was not guaranteed, and argued Teeters assumed the risk of pregnancy by engaging in sexual intercourse.
- Teeters sued for medical malpractice on November 15, 1973, more than three years after the 1970 surgery but within about one year of discovering the pregnancy and alleged negligence.

## Issues

1. In a surgical medical malpractice claim, does the statute of limitations begin running at the time of the alleged negligent act/injury or when the patient discovers, or reasonably should discover, the resulting injury?

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment for Currey and remanded.
- The court held that, for malpractice asserted to have occurred through negligent surgical performance, the cause of action accrues when the patient discovers, or through reasonable care and diligence should discover, the resulting injury.
- Because Teeters filed suit within one year of discovering the pregnancy and the alleged negligent cause, the action was not barred as a matter of law on limitations grounds.

## Legal Principles

- For medical malpractice alleged to arise from negligent surgical procedures, the statute of limitations begins when the patient discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence should discover, the resulting injury.
- A limitations rule that runs from the negligent act regardless of the patient’s knowledge may be rejected where it would bar claims before the plaintiff could reasonably know of an actionable injury.
- Limitations policy concerns about stale claims do not justify foreclosing suits where the injury was not reasonably discoverable within the limitations period.

## Conclusion

The court adopted a discovery-rule accrual standard for surgical medical malpractice actions in Tennessee, holding that limitations run from when the injury is, or reasonably should be, discovered, and it reinstated Teeters’s claim by reversing summary judgment and remanding for further proceedings.


Teeters v. Currey, 518 S.W.2d 512 (Tenn. 1974)