ÿWPCZ 8#  UN+ %y 0GU:Æw@4@T 0‹c 0Dî2 0J:L„ÐU:Ø B 0T/ 0^ƒ 0há 0rI 0|» 0†7 0½ 1uM AQ Æ 0DÙ 0@ 0D] 0d¡ D/ B4 D3Q U>„ U * B)ì DC AMX¥­ª²Wv~ vÓ‡˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX('\$¡¡Ô€XåÙXXMXÔ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular f g Dh Di j k Dl m Dn Ó€z  ƒ‰#3|xz (;(3­k$¤¤Ý ƒ'\!ÝÔ€X]ÖXXXÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  ÔC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPTg"Arial RegularüÿP Pd2" 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) !"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ'÷ÿ dxd d'''''ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd "1Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ûÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌò òJanuary€2,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€/ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó £Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€/ôÔWe€note€that€Dr.€Shin,€in€his€deposition,€agreed€that€surgery€was€clearly€indicated€based€on€theÏpre„operative€assessment€and€findings€of€pressure€symptoms€and€a€scan€showing€a€cold€noduleÔ€/XÔ.Ô€/ôÔÌ ¨Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€/ôÔWe€also€note€that€Plaintiffs€offered€the€affidavits€and€deposition€testimonies€of€the€residentÏphysicians,€none€of€which€established€any€deviation€from€the€standard€of€care€by€Dr.€Kudsk€as€a€generalÏsurgeon€or€as€an€attending€physician.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€.ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€Ì¿XXdðXXdð7Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌÙ€ ÙœßR€231A1-j|ZÕ` Å `€€@ÿRß›ÌJOSEPHINE€BROWN,€WHITFIELD€à à)ÌBROWN,€and€EARLINE€CULP,à àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiffs/Appellants,à àò ò)€€€Shelby€Law€No.€56341€T.D.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9611„CV„00291Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌDR.€KENNETH€KUDSK€andà àà à)ÌUT€MEDICAL€GROUP,€INC.,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendants/Appellees.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€ROBERT€L.€CHILDERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òCURTIS€D.€JOHNSON,€JR.ó óÌò òJOHNSON€&€SETTLEó óÌMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantÌÌÌò òJ.€KIMBROUGH€JOHNSONó óÌò òTHOMASON,€HENDRIX,€HARVEY,ó óÌò òJOHNSON€&€MITCHELLÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ó óà àœÌÓÓà àThis›€is€an€appeal€from€a€summary€judgment€in€a€medical€malpractice€case.€€TheÏtrial€Ñ7€%0XXdðXXdð7Ñcourt€entered€an€order€of€summary€judgment€on€behalf€of€Defendant,€Dr.€KennethÏKudsk€(ð ðDr.€Kudskðð).€€Plaintiffs,€Josephine€Brown€(€ð ðBrownðð),€Whitfield€Brown,€andÏEarline€Culp,€€appeal€the€judgment€citing,€òòinter€aliaóó,€errors€in€the€trial€courtððs€granting€ofÏsummary€judgment€when€the€Plaintiffsðð€expert€affidavits€and€deposition€testimony€wereÏproper€responsive€proof€to€the€Defendantððs€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€ForÏreasons€stated€herein,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.ÌÌÓ  Óò òFACTS€AND€PROCEDURAL€HISTORYó óÌÓ  Óà àOn€September€14,€1992,€Brown€was€admitted€to€the€Regional€Medical€CenterÏfor€subtotal€thyroidectomy€operation.€€Based€on€hospital€procedure,€Brown€wasÏadmitted€to€the€service€of€a€staff€physician.€€In€this€case,€Brown€was€admitted€andÏassigned€to€the€service€of€Dr.€Kudsk,€a€faculty€member€of€the€University€of€TennesseeÏin€the€Department€of€Surgery.€€Brown€was€not€Dr.€Kudskððs€private€patient.€€ÌÌà àDr.€Kudsk€was€the€attending€physician€whereby€he€trained€physicians€in€theirÏresidency€programs.€€Dr.€Kudsk€was€a€staff€surgeon€for€the€surgery€rotation€andÏresident€physicians€Drs.€Allen€Butts,€Mark€McQuaid€and€Timothy€McKneib€were€inÏrotation€in€his€surgery€service.€€ÌÌà àOn€that€same€day,€Dr.€Butts,€the€chief€resident€who€was€in€his€fifth€and€final€yearÏof€surgical€residency,€performed€a€subtotal€thyroidectomy€on€Brown.€€Dr.€Kudsk€wasÏpresent€for€the€procedure,€observed€it,€and€assisted€to€a€certain€limited€extent.€€ThereÏwere€no€problems€or€complications€noted€during€the€surgery.€€Thereafter,€Brown€wasÏtaken€to€the€recovery€room€whereby€her€progress€was€to€be€followed€by€the€hospitalÏpersonnel€and€the€resident€physicians.€Ìòòò òÌó óóóà àWhen€Dr.€Kudsk€left€the€hospital€on€the€afternoon€of€September€14,€1992,€heÏwas€advised€that€Brown€was€in€satisfactory€condition.€€His€next€contact€with€BrownððsÏcondition€was€when€he€received€a€call€from€Dr.€Butts€at€approximately€10:10€p.m.,€atÏwhich€time€Dr.€Butts€advised€Dr.€Kudsk€of€the€airway€obstruction€which€had€beenÏexperienced€by€Brown.€€A€short€time€later,€Dr.€Butts€called€Dr.€Kudsk€back€to€inform€himÏthat€Brown€was€being€taken€to€surgery€for€the€evacuation€of€a€hematoma.€€The€proofÏpresented€in€this€case€by€the€Plaintiffsðð€experts€indicated€that€the€Plaintiff€experiencedÏa€slow€bleed€from€the€blood€vessels€which€had€been€cut€and€ligated€during€BrownððsÏsurgery.€€This€bleeding€resulted€in€the€formation€of€a€hematoma.€€This€hematomaÏimpaired€Brownððs€ability€to€breathe€thereby€cutting€off€the€supply€of€oxygen€to€herÏbrain.€€An€anoxic€brain€injury€resulted€which€rendered€Brown€into€a€present€vegetativeÍcondition.€ÌÌà àPlaintiffs€originally€filed€suit€against€four€resident€physicians,€Dr.€Kudsk,€UTÏMedical€Group,€Shelby€County€Health€Care€corporation,€d/b/a€the€Regional€MedicalÏCenter€at€Memphis,€and€two€nurses,€Bertha€Banks€and€Rob€Halt,€and€alleged€medicalÏmalpractice€in€regard€to€the€health€care€Brown€received€from€all€of€the€Defendants.€Ì€€Ìà àA€consent€order€was€entered€in€this€cause,€allowing€the€resident€physicians€toÏbe€dismissed€from€this€lawsuit,€and€their€claims€heard€before€the€Tennessee€ClaimsÏCommission.€ÌÌà àDefendant€Shelby€County€Health€Care€has€been€dismissed€as€these€partiesÏhave€resolved€all€claims€between€them.€ÌÌà àDr.€Kudsk€and€UT€Medical€Group€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€andÏasked€that€they€be€dismissed€from€this€action.€€In€opposition€to€this€motion,€PlaintiffsÏpresented€the€affidavit€and€deposition€of€Dr.€Choon€Shin€(ð ðDr.€Shinðð),€general€surgeryÏexpert,€and€the€affidavit€and€partial€deposition€of€Dr.€€Bonnie€Sorensen€(ð ðDr.ÏSorensenðð),€endocrinologist.€€€Ìà àA€hearing€was€held€before€the€trial€court,€who€granted€the€Defendantsðð€motionÏfor€summary€judgment.€€Ìà àThe€Plaintiffs€appeal€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and,€essentially,€present€oneÏissue€for€review:€Whether,€according€to€the€summary€judgment€standard€enumeratedÍin€the€decision€of€òòBowman€v.€Henardóó,€547€S.W.2d€527€(Tenn.€1977),€theÏcountervailing€affidavits€and€deposition€testimony€of€the€resident€physicians€andÏplaintiffsðð€experts€are€proper€responsive€proof€in€opposition€to€the€motion€and€affidavitÏof€Dr.€Kudsk€for€summary€judgment,€and€a€basis€upon€which€to€deny€that€motion€forÏsummary€judgment.€€ÌÌÓ  Óò òLAW€AND€DISCUSSIONó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€sole€issue€on€this€appeal€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€theÏDefendantsðð€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.03€contains€twoÏrequirements€for€granting€a€summary€judgment.€€First,€there€must€be€no€genuineÏissues€with€regard€to€the€material€facts€relevant€to€the€claims€or€defenses€embodied€inÏthe€motion.€òòPacific€E.€Corp.€v.€Gulf€Life€Holding€Co.óó,€902€S.W.2d€946,€952€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1995).€€Second,€the€moving€party€must€be€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw€based€on€the€undisputed€facts.€€òòId.óó€€ÌÌà àIn€determining€whether€or€not€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists€forÏpurposes€of€summary€judgment,€courts€in€this€state€have€indicated€that€the€questionÏshould€be€considered€in€the€same€manner€as€a€motion€for€directed€verdict€made€at€theÏclose€of€the€plaintiffððs€proof,€i.e.,€the€trial€court€must€take€the€strongest€legitimate€view€ofÏthe€evidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€in€favorÏof€that€party,€and€discard€all€countervailing€evidence.€€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,Ï210€(Tenn.€1993).€€Then€if€there€is€a€dispute€as€to€any€material€fact,€or€any€doubt€as€toÏthe€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€that€fact,€the€motion€must€be€denied.€€òòId.óó€€The€court€isÍnot€to€ð ðweighðð€the€evidence€when€evaluating€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€òòId.óó€€ThisÏCourt€must€use€the€same€standard€in€reviewing€a€trial€courtððs€judgment€grantingÏsummary€judgment.ÌÌà àIn€òòBowman€v.€Henardóó,€547€S.W.2d€527,€531€(Tenn.€1977),€the€Supreme€CourtÏof€Tennessee€set€forth€the€principles€to€be€followed€in€considering€summary€judgmentÏmotions€in€malpractice€cases:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIn€summary€we€hold€that,€in€those€malpractice€actionsÏwherein€expert€medical€testimony€is€required€to€establishÏnegligence€and€proximate€cause,€affidavits€by€medicalÏdoctors€which€clearly€and€completely€refute€plaintiffððsÏcontention€afford€a€proper€basis€for€dismissal€of€the€actionÏon€summary€judgment,€in€the€absence€of€proper€responsiveÏproof€by€affidavit€or€otherwise.€€In€those€cases€wherein€theÏacts€are€complained€of€are€within€the€ken€of€commonÏlayman,€the€affidavit€of€medical€experts€may€be€consideredÏalong€with€all€the€other€proof,€but€are€not€conclusive.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€the€final€analysis,€the€rule€requires€that€plaintiffs€in€malpractice€actions€comeÏforward€within€thirty€days€after€the€summary€judgment€motion€is€served,€or€within€suchÏa€reasonable€period€as€the€trial€court€in€the€exercise€of€sound€discretion€will€allow,€withÏexpert€opinion€on€the€issues€of€negligence€and€proximate€cause€to€make€out€aÏgenuine€issue€of€material€fact,€or€face€the€likelihood€of€summary€judgment€in€favor€ofÏdefendants.€€The€exception€to€the€general€rule€arises€in€those€cases€where€the€acts€ofÏalleged€negligence€are€within€the€knowledge€of€the€ordinary€laymen.€€òòBowman€v.ÏHenard,€supra;€€Baldwin€v.€Knightóó,€569€S.W.2d€450€(Tenn.€1978).€€ÌÌà àThe€operation€of€the€rule€in€malpractice€cases€may€at€first€appear€to€be€harsh,Ïbut€upon€examination€it€clearly€falls€within€the€overall€purpose€of€summary€judgments.€ÏIn€òòEvco€Corporation€v.€Rossóó,€528€S.W.2d€20€(Tenn.€1975),€Justice€Harbison€stated€inÏpart:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€summary€judgment€procedure€was€designed€to€provideÏa€quick,€inexpensive€means€of€concluding€cases,€in€wholeÏor€in€part,€upon€issues€as€to€which€there€is€no€disputeÏregarding€the€material€facts.€€Where€there€does€existÏdispute€as€to€facts€which€are€deemed€material€by€the€trialÏcourt,€however,€or€where€there€is€uncertainty€as€to€whetherÏthere€may€be€such€a€dispute,€the€duty€of€the€trial€court€isÏclear.€€He€is€to€overrule€any€motion€for€summary€judgmentÏin€such€cases,€because€summary€judgment€proceedingsÏare€not€in€any€sense€to€be€viewed€as€a€substitute€for€a€trialÏof€disputed€factual€issues.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àSummary€judgments€are€not€ordinarily€appropriate€in€negligence€actions,€butÏwhere€the€question€to€be€determined€is€one€which€requires€expert€proof,€and€noÏcountervailing€affidavits€are€filed€to€challenge€the€expert€evidence€offered€by€theÏmoving€party,€summary€judgment€may€be€proper.€€In€short,€if€the€issue€is€one€uponÏwhich€expert€proof€is€necessary,€and€the€non„moving€party€cannot€produce€an€expertÏaffidavit€to€create€a€factual€dispute,€summary€judgment€may€be€appropriate€to€precludeÏthe€time,€expense,€and€delay€involved€in€the€protracted€litigation.Ìà àT.C.A€ðð€29„26„115€(1980)€provides€in€part:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò ò29„26„115.€€Claimantððs€burden€in€malpracticeÏaction„„Expert€testimony„„Presumption€ofÏnegligence„„Jury€instructions.„„ó ó(a)€In€a€malpracticeÏaction€the€claimant€shall€have€the€burden€of€proving€byÏevidence€as€provided€by€subsection€(b):Ìà8 àà8 à(1)€The€recognized€standard€of€acceptable€professionalÍpractice€in€the€profession€and€specialty€thereof,€if€any,€thatÏthe€defendant€practices€in€the€community€in€which€heÏpractices€or€in€a€similar€community€at€the€time€the€allegedÏinjury€or€wrongful€action€occurred;Ìà8 àà8 à(2)€That€the€defendant€acted€with€less€than€or€failed€to€actÏwith€ordinary€and€reasonable€care€in€accordance€with€suchÏstandard;€andÌà8 àà8 à(3)€As€a€proximate€result€of€the€defendantððs€negligent€act€orÏomission,€the€plaintiff€suffered€injuries€which€would€notÏotherwise€have€occurred.ÌÓÓÌà àPlaintiffs€assert€that€they€have€carried€the€burden€of€proof€placed€upon€them€byÏthe€statute€and€that€the€depositions€and€affidavits€of€Drs.€Shin€and€Sorensen€establishÏa€genuine€issue€of€material€fact.€€€We€disagree.€€ÌÌà à€In€the€instant€case,€it€is€undisputed€that€the€surgery€on€Brown€was€performedÏwithout€deviating€from€the€surgical€standard€of€care.€€It€is€also€undisputed€that€BrownÏwas€in€satisfactory€condition€when€Dr.€Kudsk€left€the€hospital€on€the€afternoon€ofÏSeptember€14,€1992.€€Dr€Shin€testified€in€his€deposition€that€he€takes€full€responsibilityÏfor€everything€the€residents€do€on€his€patient€care.€€Dr.€Shin€also€testified€that€theÏcomplication€which€arose€could€have€been€prevented€if€there€had€been€no€delay€inÏrecognizing€post„operative€bleeding€and€airway€compression€and€in€taking€correctiveÏaction.€Dr.€Shin,€however,€did€not€testify€that€Dr.€Kudsk€had€deviated€from€the€standardÏof€care€either€as€a€surgeon€or€as€an€attending€physician.€€In€fact,€when€Dr.€Shin€wasÏasked:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àQuestion€(Defendantsðð€counsel):€Okay.€€And€as€far€as€theÏattending€physician€is€concerned,€you€are€not€saying€thatÏhe€deviated€from€the€standard€of€care;€are€you?ÌÌà8 ààHàà8 àAnswer€(Dr.€Shin):€No,€not€sayingÍthat.€ÌÌÓÓAs€a€result,€Plaintiffs€failed€in€carrying€their€burden€of€proving€that€Dr.€Kudsk€acted€withÏless€than€or€failed€to€act€with€ordinary€and€reasonable€care€in€accordance€with€theÏstandard€of€care€for€surgeons€and€attending€physicians€in€teaching€hospitals.ÌÌà àPlaintiffs€also€tendered€the€deposition€and€affidavit€of€Dr.€Sorensen€in€order€toÏovercome€Defendantsðð€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€Dr.€Sorensen€is€not€a€surgeon;Ïshe€is€an€endocrinologist.€€Although€there€is€no€requirement€under€the€statute€that€anÏexpert€witness€practice€the€same€specialty€as€the€defendant,€the€expert€witness€mustÏbe€sufficiently€familiar€with€the€standard€of€care€of€the€specialist€and€be€able€to€giveÏrelevant€testimony€on€that€subject.€€òòSee€Cardwell€v.€Bechtolóó,€724€S.W.2d€739,€754Ï(Tenn.€1987).€€At€oral€argument€on€this€cause,€Plaintiffs€pointed€this€court€to€the€case€ofÏòòLedford€v.€Moskowitzóó,€742€S.W.2d€645€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987),€citing€the€propositionÏthat€there€is€no€requirement€within€T.C.A.€ðð€29„26„115€(1980)€that€an€expert€witnessÏpractice€the€same€specialty€as€the€defendant.€€We€have€no€quarrel€with€the€holdings€inÏthis€case€relied€upon€by€Plaintiffs,€but€believe€that€Plaintiffsðð€reliance€on€this€case€isÏmisplaced.ÌÌà àœòòLedfordó󀛀was€a€malpractice€action€brought€against€a€psychiatrist€whoseÏprescription€allegedly€caused€an€adverse€reaction€in€the€plaintiff.€€òòLedfordóó,€742€S.W.2dÏat€646.€€This€Court,€in€reversing€summary€judgment€granted€by€the€trial€court,€held€thatÏthe€testimony€of€the€neurologist€who€subsequently€treated€plaintiff€was€sufficient€toÏcreate€an€issue€of€material€fact€as€to€the€standard€of€care€required€in€the€psychiatricÍpractice€in€the€community€where€the€alleged€malpractice€occurred.€€òòId.óó€at€649.€€TheÏneurologist€testified€that€he€was€Board€certified€in€neurology€and€psychiatry€and€thatÏpart€of€his€training€in€neurology€was€in€psychiatry.€€òòId.€óóat€647„48.€€€He€also€testified€thatÏhe€kept€up€with€the€literature€and€that€he€was€familiar€with€the€standard€of€care€in€smallÏtowns€all€over€the€state€of€Georgia€and,€thus,€was€familiar€with€the€standard€of€care€inÏœDucktown›€and€Cleveland,€Tennessee,€ð ðin€a€broad€sense.ðð€€òòId.€óóat€648.€€He€testified€as€toÏthe€familiarity€with€misprescribed€medicine,€with€the€restrictions€on€their€use€and€theÏnecessity€for€close€supervision.€€òòId.óó€€The€court€held€that€these€facts€ð ðmake€his€testimonyÏððrelevant€to€this€issue€in€this€case.ðððð€òòId.óó€at€649.ÌÌà àIn€the€above€case,€although€the€courts€accepted€the€testimony€of€a€medicalÏexpert€in€another€field€as€competent€proof€on€the€standard€of€care,€the€expert€testifiedÏas€to€his€familiarity€with€the€defendantððs€field€of€practice€and€the€standard€of€careÏrequired€in€dealing€with€the€specific€acts€involved€on€the€part€of€the€defendantÏphysician.€€In€the€case€at€bar,€Dr.€Sorensenððs€testimony€did€not€rise€to€this€level.€€Dr.ÏSorensen€stated€that€she€was€not€holding€herself€out€as€an€expert€on€the€standard€ofÏcare€in€surgery€or€as€to€the€standard€of€care€as€it€pertains€to€a€surgeon€in€his€or€herÏcapacity€as€an€attending€physician€in€a€teaching€hospital.€€Dr.€Sorensenððs€testimonyÏcomes€from€the€view€of€an€endocrinologist.€€As€an€endocrinologist,€€Dr.€SorensenÏstated€in€her€affidavit:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àAlthough€I€am€not€a€surgeon,€a€patient€who€is€less€than€12Ïhours€post„thyroid€surgery€and€complaining€of€choking€andÏinability€to€breathe€warrants€clinical€and€laboratoryÏevaluation€to€rule€out€post„operative€complications€such€asÏcompression,€laryngeal€spasm,€hypocalcemia,€aspira,Ípulmonary€embolus,€and€cardiac€complication.€€TheÏstandard€of€care€was€definitely€inadequate€since€there€is€noÏdocumentation€of€physician€examination€or€clinicalÏassessment.€€Dr.€Kneib€and€Dr.€Butts€appeared€to€both€beÏdirectly€responsible€for€the€inadequate€care€with€theÏattending€physician,€Dr.€Kudsk,€indirectly,€but€ultimatelyÏresponsible.€Ìà àÌÓÓDr.€Sorensen€further€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àOf€additional€note,€the€original€thyroidectomy€may€not€haveÏbeen€indicated.€€Not€only€was€a€fine€needle€biopsy€notÏperformed€preoperatively€to€rule€out€cancer,€but€the€TSHÏlevel€was€elevated€so€that€suppression€therapy€withÏSynthroid€may€have€alleviated€her€dysphagic€symptoms€toÏavoid€surgical€intervention.× ƒ4 ××  ×€ÌÌÓÓAlthough€Dr.€Sorensen€made€these€statements€concerning€the€deviation€from€theÏstandard€of€care€for€medical€practice€in€general,€we€find€that€her€testimony€fails€toÏestablish€a€basis€for€expertise€in€the€field€of€surgery€so€as€to€overcome€Dr.€KudskððsÏmotion€for€summary€judgment.€€€In€Dr.€Sorensenððs€deposition,€she€was€asked:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àQ.€€Well,€youððre€not€qualified€to€tell€us€what€the€surgical€€€€€€€€€€Ïstandard€of€care€is,€are€you?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€Right.ÌÌÌÓÓà àAfter€a€careful€examination€of€the€record,€we€find€that€at€all€times€Dr.€Kudsk€wasÏacting€in€his€capacity€as€Brownððs€surgical€attending€physician€only€and€not€as€herÏprimary€physician.€€His€involvement€in€Brownððs€evaluations€and€treatment€wereÏminimal€and€tangential€to€that€of€the€resident€physicians.€ÌÌà àIn€the€case€at€bar,€Plaintiffs€simply€failed€to€controvert€Dr.€Kudskððs€affidavitÏtestimony€that€the€entirety€of€his€actions€in€this€matter€complied€with€the€recognizedÏstandard€of€care€for€general€surgeons€practicing€in€Memphis,€Tennessee,€under€like€orÏsimilar€circumstances.€€Plaintiffsðð€complaint€is€subject€to€summary€dismissal€if€Plaintiffs,Ïafter€being€given€a€reasonable€opportunity,€have€failed€to€establish€an€essentialÏelement€of€the€case€in€which€Plaintiffs€will€bear€the€burden€of€proof€at€trial.€€In€this€case,ÏPlaintiffs€have€failed€to€establish€that€Dr.€Kudsk€deviated€from€the€standard€of€care€for€aÏgeneral€surgeon€and€an€attending€physician€in€a€teaching€hospital€in€Memphis,ÏTennessee.× ƒ5 ××  ×ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€order€of€the€trial€court€granting€summary€judgment€to€theÏdefendant€€is€affirmed€and€this€case€remanded€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€beÏnecessary.€Costs€of€appeal€are€taxed€to€œappellants,›€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÏnecessary.€€à àÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€œJ.›€œ›