ÿWPC …# VU:a %› 0(¡w@É4  b , n­8 å 0lå 0DQ 0J• 0Tß 0^3 0h‘ 0rù 0|k 0†ç 0m 1uý U,r 0džU,U*.B)XDC AMÄ qv~vÓ  D3Þ B 0@. AOnƽ 0Dƒ D/Ç Bö˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ ÃEÄÅDÆDÇDÈUÉDÊËÓ€ÕGav x3|xÕ- ù -«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌMay€3,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó gÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€"ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóRule€3€was€amended€on€July€1,€1995,€to€allow€the€plaintiff€one€year€from€the€issuance€ofÏprevious€process€to€issue€new€process€in€order€to€toll€the€statute€of€limitations.€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò++++'ÿÿdxd d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€›XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑJAMES€DALE€BARNES,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9512„CV„00549ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CircuitÌÙ€€ÙßL€%&$;+'h|o` ç `€€Lßà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€93C„1331ÌMILLER€MEDICAL€GROUP,€P.C.à à)ÌEDGEFIELD€HOSPITAL,€INC.,à àà à)ÌDR.€DOUGLAS€DORSEY,€ANDà àà à)ÌDR.€J.€SHEPHERD,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€WALTER€C.€KURTZ,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌSAM€E.€WALLACE,€JR.Ì227€Second€Avenue,€NorthÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201Ìà àAttorney€for€Plaintiff/AppellantÌÌDIXIE€W.€COOPERÌEDWARD€A.€HADLEYÌSuite€1900,€NationsBank€PlazaÌ414€Union€StreetÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219„1782Ìà àAttorney€for€Defendants/AppelleesÌà àMiller€Medical€Group,€P.C.€and€John€Shepherd,€M.D.ÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌTODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌLEWIS,€J.ÇÓ  ÓÓÓà@ àò òòòÔ€"„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€"XÔÌÌà àà àThe€husband€of€a€woman€who€suffered€a€fatal€heart€attack€shortlyÏafter€being€discharged€from€a€hospital€emergency€room€filed€a€medicalÏmalpractice€suit€against€the€treating€doctor€and€the€medical€group€for€which€heÏworked.€The€trial€court€dismissed€the€claim€against€the€defendant€doctor€becauseÏthe€plaintiff€failed€to€obtain€service€on€him.€€A€summary€judgment€wasÏsubsequently€granted€to€the€defendant€medical€group€on€the€ground€of€theÏplaintiffððs€failure€to€produce€a€qualified€affidavit€on€the€proper€standard€of€care€andÏon€causation,€as€is€required€by€the€Medical€Malpractice€Act,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ29„26„115.€€We€affirm€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àà àMrs.€Nina€Barnes€went€to€the€emergency€room€of€Edgefield€HospitalÏon€May€10,€1992,€with€complaints€of€upper€gastric€burning€and€chest€pain.€€SheÏunderwent€an€electrocardiogram€and€other€tests,€and€was€examined€by€Dr.€JohnÏShepherd,€an€employee€of€Miller€Medical€Group,€P.C.,€which€provided€staffing€forÏthe€emergency€room.€€Dr.€Shepherd€diagnosed€esophagitis,€gave€the€patient€aÏprescription€for€antacids,€and€sent€her€home.€€Shortly€afterward€(the€exact€intervalÍthat€elapsed€appears€not€to€be€in€the€record),€Mrs.€Barnes€suffered€a€heart€attackÏand€died.ÌÌà àà àOn€May€6,€1993,€James€Dale€Barnes€filed€a€lawsuit,€alleging€that€theÏcause€of€his€wifeððs€death€was€the€defendantsðð€failure€to€correctly€diagnose€herÏunderlying€cardiovascular€condition.€€Those€named€in€the€suit€included€Dr.ÏShepherd,€€€another€doctor€who€read€the€electrocardiogram,€Miller€MedicalÏGroup,€and€Edgefield€Hospital.€€The€claims€against€the€hospital€and€the€otherÏdoctor€were€eventually€dismissed€by€the€trial€court€and€are€no€longer€at€issue.€ÌÌà àà àService€of€process€was€obtained€against€all€the€named€defendantsÏexcept€Dr.€Shepherd,€who€had€moved€in€the€interim,€apparently€first€to€FortÏCampbell,€and€then€to€San€Antonio,€Texas€to€pursue€a€residency€in€the€field€ofÏAnesthesiology.€The€initial€summons€to€serve€Dr.€Shepherd€in€Davidson€CountyÏwas€returned,€ð ðNot€to€be€found€in€my€county.ððÌÌà àà àOn€July€27,€1993,€process€was€again€issued.€€The€U.S.€MarshallÏmade€an€unsuccessful€attempt€to€serve€Dr.€Shepherd€at€the€Fort€CampbellÏMilitary€Hospital,€with€the€summons€returned€ð ðnot€to€be€found.ðð€€SubsequentÏprocess€issued€on€December€30,€1993,€listed€a€Clarksville€address€for€Dr.ÏShepherd.€€The€process€was€returned€with€the€notation€ð ðNot€to€be€found€Moved€toÏTexasððÌÌà àà àOn€September€14,€1994,€more€than€eight€months€after€issuance€ofÏthe€previous€process,€a€summons€was€again€issued€with€a€request€that€Dr.ÏShepherd€be€served€by€the€Texas€Secretary€of€State.€€It€is€not€clear€if€thisÏsummons€was€ever€served.€€On€October€28,€1994,€Dr.€Shepherd€filed€an€AnswerÏto€the€Complaint€and€a€Motion€to€Dismiss.€€Affirmative€defenses€asserted€in€theÏanswer€included€failure€to€obtain€service,€expiration€of€the€statute€of€limitations,Ïand€comparative€negligence.€The€Motion€to€Dismiss€was€granted€on€December€7,Ï1994.€ÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà àà àRule€3,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€provides€the€means€whereby€a€plaintiff€mayÏkeep€alive€a€timely€filed€claim€after€the€statute€of€limitations€has€expired,€despiteÏfailure€to€serve€the€defendant€within€the€time€provided€by€the€statute.€€At€all€timesÏrelevant€to€the€present€case,€the€pertinent€portion€of€that€rule€read€as€follows:× ƒ' ××  ×ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ.€.€.€If€process€remains€unissued€for€30€days€or€if€process€isÏnot€served€or€is€not€returned€within€30€days€from€issuance,Ïregardless€of€the€reason,€the€plaintiff€cannot€rely€upon€theÏoriginal€commencement€to€toll€the€running€of€a€statute€ofÏlimitations€unless€the€plaintiff€either:ÌÌà à(1)€continues€the€action€by€obtaining€issuance€ofÏnew€process€within€6€months€from€issuance€of€theÏprevious€process€or,€if€no€process€issued,€within€6€monthsÏfrom€the€filing€of€the€complaint€and€summons,€orÌÌà à(2)€recommences€the€action€within€1€year€fromÏissuance€of€the€original€process€or,€if€no€process€issued,Ïwithin€1€year€from€the€filing€of€the€original€complaint€andÏsummons.ÌÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÌÓÓÌà àà àSince€Mr.€Barnes€allowed€more€than€eight€months€to€elapseÏbetween€the€third€issuance€of€process€and€the€issuance€of€the€final€summonsÏcontained€in€this€record,€Dr.€Shepherd€contended€that€the€operation€of€the€statuteÏof€limitations€deprived€Mr.€Barnes€of€any€right€of€action€he€may€have€had€againstÏthe€treating€doctor.€Ì€€Ìà à€€à àMr.€Barnes€argues€that€Dr.€Shepherdððs€absence€from€the€stateÏshould€have€tolled€the€statute€of€limitations€by€virtue€of€the€provisions€of€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€28„1„111.€€The€€statute€the€plaintiff€relies€on€is€the€current€version€ofÏan€1865€act€which€was€passed€in€the€aftermath€of€the€Civil€War,€and€wasÏdesigned€ð ðto€meet€the€facts€resulting€from€the€disturbed€state€of€society€of€thatÏperiod€in€our€history.ðð€òò€Taylor€v.€McGillóó,€74€Tenn.€294,€300€(1880).Ìà àÌà àà àUnder€the€provisions€of€the€act,€the€period€of€the€defendantððsÏabsence€from€the€state€could€not€be€counted€as€part€of€the€time€limited€by€theÍstatute€of€limitations,€thus€theoretically€permitting€the€plaintiff€to€preserve€hisÏcause€of€action€indefinitely,€as€long€as€the€defendant€was€out€of€state.€€As€early€asÏthe€òòMcGillóó€case,€supra,€however,€our€Supreme€Court€limited€the€application€of€theÏstatute€to€those€situations€where€the€non„residence€of€the€defendant€deprived€theÏplaintiff€of€his€legal€remedy€because€of€inability€to€obtain€personal€service€againstÏhim.€€74€Tenn.€at€301.€€€Ìà àà àSubsequent€passage€of€long„arm€statutes,€now€collected€underÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20„2„101€et€seq.,€and€advances€in€transportation€andÏcommunications€have€increased€the€feasibility€and€ease€with€which€personalÏservice€can€be€obtained€on€non„resident€defendants,€far€beyond€anythingÏpossible€in€1880.€€Our€Supreme€Court€has€had€several€subsequent€opportunitiesÏto€interpret€the€statute€in€question,€and€has€confirmed€that€it€does€not€operate€toÏtoll€the€statute€of€limitations€unless€the€defendantððs€absence€from€the€state€is€suchÏas€to€prevent€service€of€process.€€See€òòTurcott€v.€Yazoo€&€M.V.€Railroad€Company.,óóÏ101€Tenn.€102,€45€S.W.€1067€(1898);€òòArrowood€v.€McMinn€County,óó€173€Tenn.Ï562,€121€S.W.2d€566€(1938).ÌÌà àà àThere€are€no€indications€in€the€record€that€Dr.€Shepherd€was€notÏamenable€to€being€served,€or€that€his€absence€from€the€state€would€haveÏprevented€service€on€him,€if€only€the€plaintiff€had€used€due€diligence€to€reach€him.€ÏWe€therefore€find€that€the€statute€of€limitations€was€not€tolled€during€Dr.ÍShepherdððs€absence,€and€that€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€dismissing€the€claimÏagainst€him.€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌÌà àà àThe€claim€against€Miller€Medical€Group€was€based€solely€on€theÏemployment€relationship€between€the€medical€group€and€the€allegedly€negligentÏtortfeasor,€rather€than€upon€any€negligence€by€the€group€itself.€€On€December€2,Ï1994,€Miller€Medical€filed€a€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment.€€The€defendantððsÏmotion€was€supported€by€Dr.€Shepherdððs€affidavit,€which€summarized€theÏtreatment€received€by€Mrs.€Barnes,€and€expressed€the€opinion€that€such€treatmentÏwas€consistent€with€the€standard€of€care€for€patients€who€present€the€signs€andÏsymptoms€that€she€did.ÌÌà àà àTo€avoid€summary€judgment€in€the€face€of€Dr.€Shepherdððs€affidavit,Ïand€€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115€of€the€Medical€MalpracticeÏAct,€Mr.€Barnes€would€have€to€demonstrate€the€existence€of€disputed€materialÏfacts,€by€producing€qualified€expert€testimony,€both€that€Dr.€Shepherdððs€conductÏdid€not€comply€with€the€standard€of€care,€and€that€such€conduct€was€the€cause€ofÏMrs.€Barnesðð€injury.€See€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208€(Tenn.€1993);€òòGerman€v.ÏNichopoulosóó,€577€S.W.2d€197€(Tenn.€App.€1978).€€The€trial€court€continued€theÍhearing€on€the€defendantððs€motion€to€give€the€plaintiff€time€to€obtain€aÏcontroverting€affidavit.ÌÌà àà àOn€February€13,€1995,€the€plaintiff€submitted€the€affidavit€of€Dr.€JerryÏSlay,€who€had€formerly€been€a€practitioner€of€emergency€medicine.€€Dr.€SlayÏstated€that€it€was€his€opinion€that€the€care€given€by€Dr.€Shepherd€was€negligent,Ïand€not€in€keeping€with€the€recognized€standard€of€care.€€The€affidavit€discussedÏsome€areas€of€concern,€and€concluded,€ð ð[i]n€light€of€the€above€observations,€it€isÏmy€medical€opinion€that€the€negative€outcome€in€the€case€of€Nina€Barnes€couldÏpossibly€have€been€avoided€had€these€issues€been€addressed.ðð€ÌÌà àà àThe€Court€granted€summary€judgment€to€Miller€Medical€on€FebruaryÏ17,€1995,€on€the€basis€that€the€language€in€Dr.€Slayððs€affidavit€stating€that€ð ðtheÏnegative€outcome€.€.€.€could€possibly€have€been€avoidedðð€did€not€meet€the€legalÏrequirement€of€probability€required€to€create€a€material€question€of€fact€on€theÏissue€of€causation.€However,€the€court€granted€Mr.€Barnes€an€additional€45€daysÏbefore€making€the€order€final,€to€give€him€the€opportunity€to€ask€Dr.€Slay€if€heÏwished€to€amend€the€affidavit.Ì€€€€€Ìà àà àOn€April€3,€1995,€exactly€45€days€after€February€17,€Mr.€Barnes€filedÏa€motion€for€a€seven€day€extension€to€file€the€supplemental€affidavit.€€On€April€10,Ïthe€amended€affidavit€was€filed.€€In€it,€Dr.€Slay€stated€that€his€use€of€the€wordÍð ðpossibilityðð€in€the€earlier€affidavit€meant€ð ð.€.€.€the€possibility€was€very€substantialÏand,€in€fact,€was€a€probability€that€death€would€not€have€resulted€if€properÏstandard€of€conduct€(sic)€had€been€applied.ððà àÌÌà àà àHowever€on€April€11,€1995€the€trial€court€issued€its€ð ðFinal€Order€ofÏDismissalðð€which€stated€that€the€45€days€had€elapsed€without€correction€of€theÏdefective€affidavit.€€On€appeal€Mr.€Barnes€argues€that€it€was€an€error€for€the€trialÏcourt€to€reject€Dr.€Slayððs€initial€affidavit€on€the€basis€of€a€failure€to€use€words€ofÏprobability€or€certainty,€because€medicine€is€not€an€exact€science,€and€questionsÏof€causation€especially€do€not€usually€lend€themselves€to€categorical€conclusions.€€€ÌÌà àà àWhile€the€court€may€overlook€defects€in€the€form€of€the€affidavit€if€theÏfacts€alleged€in€it€indicate€the€existence€of€a€question€of€material€fact,€we€believeÏthat€something€more€than€a€statement€of€the€possibility€of€causation€is€necessaryÏto€defeat€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€in€a€medical€malpractice€case.€€The€trialÏcourt€gave€the€plaintiff€a€generous€allowance€of€additional€time€to€correct€theÏdefect€in€Dr.€Slayððs€affidavit,€but€the€plaintiff€did€not€make€the€correction€until€afterÏthe€alloted€time€had€elapsed.€€We€do€not€believe€the€trial€court€abused€itsÏdiscretion€in€allowing€its€judgment€to€become€final€without€consideration€of€theÏlate„filed€amendment.€€€ÌÌà@ àò òIV.ó óÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Remand€this€cause€to€theÏCircuit€Court€of€Davidson€County€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€thisÏopinion.€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellant.€€€€€ÌÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÇÑ  Ñ