About Wesley & Colleen Crawford

Wesley and Colleen Crawford are pro se litigants in a Tennessee Health Care Liability Act and a federal EMTALA lawsuit against a private equity firm and one of its hospitals. See Crawford v. Community Health Systems, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-00382 (E.D. Tenn. filed Sept. 9, 2024).

Wesley, the patient, and Colleen, his wife and surrogate decision-maker were at the North Knoxville Medical Center, in Powell, Tennessee on November 27, 2022. Colleen took her husband to the emergency department suspecting food poisoning.

The events of the emergency department on that day, and the subsequent actions, after the Chief Executive Officer was contacted, is what drove them to file the lawsuit. See Complaint (Doc. 1) for details of allegations.

The purpose of our site is to tell our story

We created this site to keep track of the multiple court documents (e.g. two District Court cases, State Court, Appellate Court), and to blog about our journey as pro selitigants.

This site gives people behind-the-scenes events of what it’s like for us to navigate a complex case and how we learn as we go.

The reason we don’t have a lawyer is because we can’t afford one. Attorneys warned us Tennessee Health Care Liability Act cases are expensive to litigate, but also, the damage cap is not enough for the lawyers to be interested. Lawyers demanded thousands of dollars to cover expenses up front. Therefore, we faced a choice: give up on holding the hospital accountable, or go pro se.

We chose pro se, and we will continue fighting pro se. This site documents the docket files, how we create our files, and how we gain knowledge for each argument. See Case Management.

Here is how you can help

If you would like to support our journey through these cases, we need help building this community so we aren’t silenced about private equity firms owning hospitals without regulation of the securitization program.

The securitization program allows private equity firms to divert hospital revenue upstream to service corporate interests, including debt, while leaving its hospitals short-staffed and under-capitalized. Even Medicare and Medicaid payments are diverted upstream.

While Wesley was being deprived of emergency care, the hospital was in the negative (2022 Joint Hospital Report), and yet, corporate executives were being compensated with millions of dollars. This raises a question we believe needs an answer. Medicare and Medicaid are funded by taxpayers. Why is this type of revenue allowed to be diverted to service corporate debt instead of remaining with the hospital?

Thank you for being here!

Share our Kudzu Jungle site with others
Become a member of this site: https://kudzujungle.com/memberships
Follow us on X [x.com/kudzujungle and x.com/kudzucanopy]
Support us through CashApp using $kudzujungle
Strategize with us to get Congress to regulate private equity firms owning hospitals

Tennessee Health Care Liability Act Pre-suit Requirement

The Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (THCLA) pre-suit requirement is codified in in Tennessee Code § 29-26-121. This provides that defendants have to be notified of a lawsuit at least 60 days before the suit can be filed.

We complied with the law, and as a result, two lawyers from two law firms contacted us. One of the lawyers demanded that all records requests had to go through her and she requested a list of records we were seeking. I sent her the list, expecting her to turn over the records; however, she wrote back to say they were not interested in pre-suit discovery. No records were provided. See Doc. 1, at § 20.

As of May 6, 2026, the hospital has not turned over Wesley’s medical records since December 5, 2022.

Wesley was deprived of emergency care

Tennessee licensing standards require hospitals to be adequately staffed, yet, the North Knoxville Medical Center lacked staff that could start an IV and test Wesley for food poisoning. They did not transfer him to another facility.

Wesley was strapped to a gurney and left for several hours without emergency care. He did not receive fluids until at shift change, the incoming nurse noticed his condition, removed the restraints, and started fluids.

As a result of inadequate care, after discharge, Wesley did not improve so I (Colleen) contacted the Chief Operating Officer to complain. The hospital denied me the opportunity to return Wesley for testing, forcing me to take him to another facility.

Wesley had Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC)—food poisoning. I sent this report to the COO and to the corporate agent that was in contact with me. Multiple requests for Wesley’s medical records were refused.

Defendants’ concealment of records is an ongoing battle. We hired a mediator but the hospital did not cooperate with them. On April 7, 2026, we filed an information blocking complaint with HHS OIG. See Doc. 40 Notice and Exhibit 1, the complaint.

The District Court maintains an interest in our case

In addition to creating this site to tell our story, we also created it to set the record straight. We want to discuss the concealment of records and the District Court’s apparent interest in the outcome of our cases.

The following actions raise genuine issues of material facts and reasonable questions of impartiality:

The Court inevented its own tolling date

The Court invented its own tolling date despite document it used was not reviewed by the Court . It did not even have access to the document it relied on. The “STEC Lab Report” is the third-party lab test that proved Wesley had food poisoning.

The STEC Lab report did not meet the Tennessee discovery rule requirements.

Consequently, the Court’s invented tolling date fast-tracked the dismissal of our state claims. The Court also ignored our assertions of concealment and misrepresentation, thereby preventing fraud from tolling the limitations.

The Court did not issue summons

The Court did not issue a summons for the entire original case that was filed on September 9, 2024.

The only defendants that appeared in the case were those represented by three law firms, who waived summons. Their appearance was during the initial review of our complaint. Other defendants could not be served because the Clerk did not issue summons.

The Court ignored our critical motions (e.g., remand, reinstatement of state claims, tolling arguments, concealment, misrepresentation) until after it forced us to reveal our discovery plan with the hospital. It then blocked discovery, creating a path for defendants to continue concealing Wesley’s medical records. See Docs 90, 91 and 92.

The Court used Cleland v. Bronson to dispose of EMTALA claim

After the Court disposed of our state law claims using its made up tolling date, it used Cleland v. Bronson to dismiss our EMTALA failure to screen claim.

It then disposed of the other two EMTALA claims (e.g., failure to stabilize, failure to transfer) by reclassifying these two claims under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act. Consequently, this enabled the Court to use its made up tolling date to clear its docket of our cases. See Doc. 91.

We filed state claims in the state court

Since we reserved the state claims for state court (see Doc. 60, p. 1), we filed in Knox County; however, the corporate defendants removed the case to the District Court even though the state claims were dismissed with prejudice from that court.

The removed case was assigned to the same judge

The same judge was assigned the removed case, which became the second federal case. See Crawford v. Community Health Systems, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-00516 (E.D. Tenn. filed October 21, 2025) See Doc. 1 – Removal Notice, and Exhibit A – a copy of our State Complaint.

While the second case was being advanced without a summons issued, the Court delayed our motion to proceed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as in forma pauperis, for the first case, which forced us to file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

In the meantime, while access to the Appeals Court was being delayed, the Court began its same pattern in the second case, removed from the state court. As of docket number 54, our Notice of Pending Ministerial Failure, the Court has not issue a summons.

The Court continues to appear to aid the defendants in the second case, and this is why we started this site. The true record is not on the face of the dockets for the most part. It’s in the evidence the Court continues to block our access to.

Congress and Tennessee ignore the issues

Meanwhile, Tennessee’s governor, General Assembly members, and members of Congress have our original complaint, our EMTALA complaint and the state claims complaint; however, the officials have not responded, despite the unsafe condition of at least two of the hospitals owned by the private equity firm.

The Governor, Assembly members and members of Congress receive PAC money from the private equity firm.

Our Goals

Get some land

We have to set up a long-term camping spot because these cases can take years to complete. It’s already been two years. We need land before winter gets here.

Complete the cases

The first case was filed on September 9, 2024. We have been in three courts and have no intentions of quitting. I we quit, we’ll never know what’s on the other side.

Work on getting regulations established

We are hoping our cases will result in Congressional or state regulations holding private equity firms responsible for the conditions of their hospitals.

Cleland v Bronson Challenge

Under the Cleland case’s improper motive requirement, all a hospital has to do is assert it didn’t do anything wrong, and the court can use Cleland to dismiss an EMTALA screening violation. Hospitals escape liability and Cleland prevents discovery. We are challenging this.