Auchard et al v. Tennessee Valley Authority (TV1)

Filing 354

ORDER that TVA's request to WITHDRAW the summary judgment request as to plaintiffs Merry C. Kartch, Brenda Ladd, Sara Luecke, Mary A. Prince, Bonnie Robertson, and Joan H. Sheldon is GRANTED. The remainder of TVA's motion #250 is GRANTED, in part, and the remainder of the motion is DENIED as moot. Summary Judgment in favor of TVA is GRANTED as to the medical claims and associated damages and relief, if any, alleged by the 110 plaintiffs listed in Exhibit 1 to TVA's reply brief #303 . Summary Judgment in favor of TVA is DENIED as moot in regard to plaintiffs James A. Agee, II, Mitchel L. Coffey, Sherry Coffey, Shirley M. Daniel, William Gough, Gary Rolen, Alfred D. Steimel and Sylvia Steimel, as the claims of these plaintiffs have previously been dismissed by stipulation. Signed by District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 4/14/11. (ABF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
ANITA AUCHARD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.:

3:09-CV-54
(VARLAN/GUYTON)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This civil action is before the Court on defendant Tennessee Valley Authority’s
(“TVA”) Motion for Summary Judgment with Respect to the Medical Claims Alleged on
Behalf of One Hundred Twenty-Four Plaintiffs [Doc. 250]. Plaintiffs have responded [Doc.
295], and TVA has filed a reply to plaintiffs’ response [Doc. 303]. The matter is ripe for
determination.
The Court has carefully reviewed the pending motion and related briefings all in light
of the relevant law. For the reasons set forth herein, TVA will be permitted to withdraw, in
part, its request for summary judgment. The Court will grant, in part, TVA’s motion for
summary judgment and deny the remainder of the motion as moot.
I.

Standard of Review
A court may grant summary judgment only when there is no genuine issue of material

fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
The moving party bears the burden of establishing that no genuine issues of material fact

exist. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 n.2 (1986); Moore v. Phillip Morris Cos.,
Inc., 8 F.3d 335, 339 (6th Cir. 1993). The Court views the facts and all inferences to be
drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Kiefer, 310
F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002).
II.

TVA’s Motion for Summary Judgment with Respect to the Medical Claims of
124 Plaintiffs
TVA requests summary judgment with respect to the medical claims and the

associated damages and relief alleged on behalf of 124 plaintiffs [see Doc. 250-1 (listing 124
plaintiffs). TVA asserts that these 124 plaintiffs have affirmatively represented that they do
not intend to pursue, or to provide discovery about, any medical claims alleged against TVA.
TVA asserts that this affirmative representation came about by counsel for TVA requesting
that counsel for plaintiffs provide a final list identifying the plaintiffs in this case who
continue to assert medical claims and those who do not [see Doc. 251-4 (TVA’s January 17,
2011 letter to plaintiffs’ counsel)]. Counsel for plaintiffs responded by providing TVA with
an Excel file entitled “Claims Spreadsheet – FINAL” (the “Claims Spreadsheet”) [see Docs.
251-5, 251-6], identifying 124 plaintiffs who do not assert any type of medical claim against
TVA and who would not be responding to TVA’s requests for discovery regarding any
medical claims, including providing TVA with medical releases and lists of health care
providers [see Doc. 251-5]. After receiving this communication from plaintiffs’ counsel,
TVA moved for summary judgement as to the medical claims of these plaintiffs.

2

Plaintiffs have responded, raising two arguments. Plaintiffs assert that TVA’s motion
seeks dismissal of non-existent claims because TVA has not established that these 124
plaintiffs ever asserted medical claims against TVA. Plaintiffs also assert that the Claims
Spreadsheet is an informal case management aid and is not an appropriate basis on which to
grant summary judgment. After raising these two points, however, plaintiffs state that except
in respect to 6 of the identified 124 plaintiffs, “the [Claims Spreadsheet] largely is accurate
in identifying whether an individual plaintiff or represented minor is asserting claims relating
to property damage only, or is asserting some type of medical claim.” [Doc. 295, p. 4].
In TVA’s reply brief, TVA states that 8 of the 124 plaintiffs for which TVA initially
sought summary judgment for their medical claims have stipulated to the dismissal of their
claims against TVA. Accordingly, TVA states that the summary judgment request is moot
as to those 8 plaintiffs [see Doc. 303 n.2 (identifying the 8 plaintiffs); Docs. 264, 275, 276].
Of the remaining 116 plaintiffs, TVA states that, as pointed out in plaintiffs’ response brief,
6 of these plaintiffs have indicated their intent to pursue medical claims against TVA [see
Doc. 303 n.3 (identifying the 6 plaintiffs); Doc. 295, pp. 6-10]. Accordingly, TVA states that
it will withdraw the summary judgment request as to these 6 plaintiffs. TVA asserts that the
request for summary judgment remains at issue with respect to the remaining110 plaintiffs,
listed in an attachment submitted with TVA’s reply brief [Doc. 303-1 (listing the final 110
plaintiffs for which TVA requests summary judgment)].
Rule 56(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] party asserting
that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by: (A) citing to
3

particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically
stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes
of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials[.]” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(c)(1). Given this statement of the rule, and in light of plaintiffs’ admission that the
Claims Spreadsheet is accurate in regard to the 110 plaintiffs, the Court considers the Claims
Spreadsheet an appropriate basis for summary judgment and a factual admission by plaintiffs,
filed by their counsel, that they are not asserting medical claims against TVA. In addition,
while the parties dispute whether these 110 plaintiffs alleged medical claims against TVA
in the second amended complaint, the operative pleading, the Court does not find that a
determination is required, for purposes of this motion, as to whether these 110 plaintiffs did
in fact assert such medical claims if the parties now agree that the 110 identified plaintiffs
do not allege and are not pursuing such claims.
III.

Conclusion
In sum, and for the reasons stated above, TVA’s request to WITHDRAW the

summary judgment request as to plaintiffs Merry C. Kartch, Brenda Ladd, Sara Luecke,
Mary A. Prince, Bonnie Robertson, and Joan H. Sheldon is hereby GRANTED. The
remainder of TVA’s motion [Doc. 250] is hereby GRANTED, in part, and the remainder
of the motion is DENIED as moot. Summary judgment in favor of TVA is GRANTED as
to the medical claims and associated damages and relief, if any, alleged by the 110 plaintiffs
listed in Exhibit 1 to TVA’s reply brief [Doc. 303-1]. Summary judgment in favor of TVA
is DENIED as moot in regard to plaintiffs James A. Agee II, Mitchel L. Coffey, Sherry
4

Coffey, Shirley M. Daniel, William Gough, Gary Rolen, Alfred D. Steimel, and Sylvia
Steimel, as the claims of these plaintiffs have previously been dismissed by stipulation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Thomas A. Varlan
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5