Volunteer Doctors who Provide Free Services Under the Volunteer Healthcare Services Act are Not Liable for Medical Malpractice Negligence in Tennessee

The Volunteer Healthcare Services Act found in T.C.A. § 63-6-701 through 709 provides a certain level of immunity for volunteer physicians who provide healthcare in compliance with this statute.  Specifically, healthcare providers including physicians, surgeons, dentists, nurses, optometrists or “other practitioners of the healthcare discipline” who perform work for a “sponsoring organization” on a volunteer basis can be protected by the immunity provisions in this statute.

2014 Tennessee Statute Modification – Free Clinics Now Included:

In the 2014 Tennessee legislative session, this Act was amended in Public Chapter 575 in order to expand the amount of healthcare providers who receive protection under the act.  The bill summary provides a good explanation of this expansion as follows:

Under present law, no individual who is licensed, certified, or authorized by any board of the healing arts, who engages in the voluntary provision of health care services to any patient of a sponsoring organization is liable for any civil damages for any act or omission resulting from services rendered, unless the act or omission is a result of the individual's gross negligence or willful misconduct.

 
This bill extends the above immunity to services delivered at a free clinic.

This bill defines a "free clinic" as a not for profit, out-patient, non-hospital facility in which a health care provider engages in the voluntary provision of health care services to patients without charge to the recipient or a third party. "Voluntary provisions of health care services" is defined as providing health care services either without charge to the recipient or to a third party, or the recipient is charged on a sliding scale according to income.

Now, this protection extends to “free clinics” under the Act.  Prior to this legislative change, “free clinics” were not included in the protections afforded under these statutes.  “Free clinics” under the amended statute are defined in T.C.A. § 63-6-703 as:

(6) “Free clinic” means a not for profit, out-patient, non-hospital facility in which a health care provider engages in the voluntary provision of health care services to patients without charge to the recipient of the services or to a third party;

Provider Immunity Provision in Statute:

The statute prevents any medical care practitioner that falls within this statute at reduced cost or free clinics from being held liable for any negligence in the provision of voluntary healthcare services.  The key immunity provision found in T.C.A. § 63-6-708(1) now provides:

(a)(1) No person who is licensed, certified or authorized by the board of any of the professions of the healing arts, as enumerated in this title, shall be liable for any civil damages for any act or omission resulting from the rendering of such services, unless the act or omission was the result of such person's gross negligence or willful misconduct if the person:

(A) Is engaging in the voluntary provision of health care services within the limits of the person's license, certification or authorization; and

(B) The services are delivered to any patient of:

(i) A sponsoring organization; or

(ii) A free clinic.

Impact of Statute in Tennessee:

Under this statute, a healthcare professional can still be found liable for “gross negligence” or “willful misconduct” however that is a much higher standard to establish when trying to hold a medical care practitioner responsible.  Obviously, this is an important law designed to encourage medical care providers to volunteer to help meet important community medical needs without the fear of being sued for their actions.  The ultimate impact of this statute, however, is that you may not have access to a medical malpractice cause of action (now called a “health care liability action”) if you receive care at certain reduced fee or free medical clinics in Tennessee.  Attorneys from the plaintiff and defense bars need to be aware of this statute because it can certainly be a significant hurdle to a medical malpractice case and can also be a significant defense for the health care practitioner.