ÿWPCf 7# UN %k 0GqU:¸w@ò42FU 0¶] 0DW_ 0J_ 0c©U@ eLÆM 0T 0^g AQÅ 0D 0hZ 0r 0|4 0†° 06 1uÆ 0d; 0@Ÿ D3ß B D// B^ U>{ U *¹ B)ã DC  AMOÝœœyv~vÓ“˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX('\$¡¡Ô€XåÙXXMXÔ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular TîUVgWDX”eYDZ[Ó€\]äzz!3|x](f(2ï"$¤¤Ý ƒ'\!ÝÔ€X •XXXÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ôrôXX •Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(;3…Æ$¢¢Ý ƒ'\!ÝÔ€X •XXXÔÝ  Ý É¸·`(ZapfCalligr BTTTƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô$(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó26 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò'''''ÿÿdxd d**'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd$1Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÓÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€/ÔÓ  ÓÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔó óÌò òÔ€/¼ÔÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ ÔÔ!  Ôó óÔ€/XÔÌÌò òCecil€Crowson,€Jr.Ô€Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€ÂÔÔ€/ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellate€Court€Clerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€ÔÔ€XÔ ’Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  ÓÔ€/ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€only€evidence€on€this€issue€suggests€that€removal€of€the€Plaintiffððs€kidney€would€have€beenÏrequired€even€if€the€Defendantððs€initial€diagnosis€of€the€Plaintiffððs€condition€had€been€correct.€ÌPtPtHHøHÿöÿòV,(ühhØ hd'0ÿÎÿºF ® Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€.ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ •XXdædÈ7ќـÙßR€231A1-j|hâ `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌÌJOSEPH€CHIDESTER€and€wife,à àà à)ÌKATHLEEN€CHIDESTER,à àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiffs/Appellants,à àò ò)€€Tipton€Circuit€No.€4193Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9602„CV„00029Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌL.€D.€ELLISTON,€O.D.,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendant/Appellee.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€TIPTON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€COVINGTON,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€JOSEPH€H.€WALKER,€III,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òSTEPHEN€R.€LEFFLERÌLINDA€D.€FUTRELLÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€AppellantsÌÌÌò òWILLIAM€W.€DUNLAP,€JR.Ìó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÓÓó óà àIn€this€medical€malpractice€action,€the€Plaintiffs,€Joseph€and€KathleenÏChidester,€Ñ7€ •XXdæXXdæ7Ñfiled€suit€against€the€Defendant,€Dr.€L.€D.€Elliston,€for€failing€to€diagnose€theÏPlaintiffððs€malignant€tumor.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€Defendantððs€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment€holding€that€the€Plaintiffsðð€cause€of€action€is€barred€by€the€one€year€statute€ofÏlimitations.€€The€Plaintiffsðð€have€appealed€the€trial€courtððs€order€arguing€that€the€statuteÏof€limitations€does€not€bar€this€action€because€the€Plaintiffsðð€cause€of€action€did€notÏaccrue€until€the€Plaintiffððs€malignancy€recurred.€€For€the€reasons€stated€hereafter,€weÏreverse€the€judgment€of€the€court€below€and€remand.ÌÌà@ àò òFACTSó óÌÌà àIn€February€of€1992€while€on€vacation€in€Arizona,€the€Plaintiff€developed€a€sinusÏinfection€and€noticed€the€presence€of€blood€in€his€urine.€€The€Plaintiff€visited€Dr.ÏCharles€Ballanger€at€the€Paradise€Valley€Emergency€Center€in€Phoenix,€Arizona.€€Dr.ÏBallanger€prescribed€certain€medications€for€the€Plaintiffððs€sinus€infection€and€told€theÍPlaintiff€to€visit€a€doctor€when€he€returned€home€concerning€the€presence€of€blood€inÏhis€urine.€€Ìà àÌà àOn€March€10,€1992,€the€Plaintiff€visited€the€Defendant€and€complained€of€aÏsinus€infection€and€the€presence€of€blood€in€his€urine.€€The€Defendant€conducted€aÏurinalysis€which€revealed€both€red€and€white€blood€cells€in€the€Plaintiffððs€urine.€TheÏDefendant€diagnosed€the€Plaintiff€as€having€a€kidney€infection€and€prescribed€severalÏmedications.€€On€March€17,€1992,€the€Plaintiff€again€visited€the€Defendant€andÏcomplained€of€blood€in€his€urine.€The€Defendant€advised€the€Plaintiff€to€remain€on€theÏmedication€that€he€had€previously€prescribed.€€In€July€of€1992,€blood€reappeared€inÏthe€Plaintiffððs€urine,€and€the€Plaintiff€visited€the€Defendant€and€again€complained€of€theÏpresence€of€blood€in€his€urine.€The€Defendant€then€prescribed€a€different€medicationÏfor€the€Plaintiff.€€ÌÌà àOn€December€22,€1992,€the€Plaintiff€sought€the€advice€of€another€generalÏpractice€physician,€Dr.€Jeffrey€May.€€Dr.€May€scheduled€the€Plaintiff€for€an€intravenousÏpyelogram€which€revealed€the€presence€of€a€malignant€tumor€on€the€Plaintiffððs€rightÏkidney.€€Dr.€May€referred€the€Plaintiff€to€a€urologist,€Dr.€Richard€Pearson,€who€removedÏthe€Plaintiffððs€right€kidney€along€with€the€malignant€tumor€attached€to€it€on€January€18,Ï1993.€€ÌÌà àAfter€the€removal€of€the€Plaintiffððs€right€kidney,€Dr.€Pearson€told€the€Plaintiff€thatÏhe€should€have€no€further€problems€with€the€malignancy€since€the€tumor€was€confinedÍto€the€right€kidney€which€was€removed.€€Dr.€Pearson€examined€the€Plaintiff€periodicallyÏin€1993€after€the€Plaintiffððs€surgery€in€order€to€monitor€the€Plaintiffððs€progress.€€ÌÌà àIn€December€of€1993,€Dr.€Pearson€performed€a€CAT€scan€on€the€Plaintiff€whichÏrevealed€the€recurrence€of€a€malignant€tumor€in€the€area€where€the€Plaintiffððs€rightÏkidney€with€the€malignancy€once€had€been.€€Dr.€Pearson€referred€the€Plaintiff€to€anÏoncologist,€Dr.€Schwartzberg.€ÌÌà àIn€order€to€treat€the€second€malignant€tumor,€the€Plaintiff€underwent€a€course€ofÏchemotherapy€from€February€through€March€of€1994€and€a€second€surgery€in€May€ofÏ1994.€On€November€10,€1994,€the€Plaintiffs€filed€their€complaint.ÌÌà@ àò òLAWó óÌÌà àThe€issue€before€this€Court€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€theÏDefendantððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€based€upon€the€one€year€statute€ofÏlimitations€contained€in€T.C.A.€ðð€29„26„116€(1980).€€ÌÌà àThis€Court€reviews€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€òòde€novoóó€upon€theÏentire€record€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòCowden€v.€Sovran€Bank/CentralÏSouthóó,€816€S.W.2d€741,€744€(Tenn.€1991);€òòFoley€v.€St.€Thomas€Hosp.óó,€906€S.W.2dÏ448,€452€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995);€òòBrenner€v.€Textron€Aerostructures,€A€Division€ofÏTextron,€Inc.óó,€874€S.W.2d€579,€582€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€No€presumption€ofÍcorrectness€attaches€to€decisions€granting€summary€judgment€because€they€evokeÏonly€questions€of€law.€€òòFoleyóó,€906€S.W.2d€at€452.€€Thus,€we€must€make€a€freshÏdetermination€on€appeal€as€to€whether€or€not€the€requirements€of€Rule€56€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€have€been€met.€€òòIdóó.;€òòHill€v.€City€of€Chattanoogaóó,Ï533€S.W.2d€311,€312€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1975).€€ÌÌà àWhile€the€summary€judgment€procedure€is€not€a€substitute€for€trial,€it€goes€to€theÏmerits€of€the€complaint€and€should€not€be€taken€lightly.€€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,Ï210€(Tenn.€1993);€òòJones€v.€Home€Indem.€Ins.€Co.óó,€651€S.W.2d€213,€214€(Tenn.€1983);ÏòòFowler€v.€Happy€Goodman€Familyóó,€575€S.W.2d€496,€498€(Tenn.€1978);€òòFoleyóó,€906ÏS.W.2d€at€452.€€It€has€been€repeatedly€stated€by€the€appellate€courts€of€this€state€thatÏthe€purpose€of€a€summary€judgment€proceeding€is€not€the€finding€of€facts,€theÏresolution€of€disputed€factual€issues€or€the€determination€of€conflicting€inferencesÏreasonably€to€be€drawn€from€the€facts.€€òòBellamy€v.€Federal€Express€Corp.óó,€749€S.W.2dÏ31,€33€(Tenn.€1988).€€€Rather,€the€purpose€of€summary€judgment€is€to€resolveÏcontrolling€issues€of€law.€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àIn€evaluating€the€propriety€of€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€we€must€firstÏdetermine€whether€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.€€InÏdoing€so,€we€must€consider€the€pleadings€and€the€evidentiary€materials€in€the€lightÏmost€favorable€to€the€movantððs€opponent€and€draw€all€reasonable€inferences€in€theÏopponentððs€favor.€€òòByrdóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210.€€ÌÌà àIn€a€malpractice€action,€the€plaintiff€has€the€burden€of€proving:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€The€recognized€standard€of€acceptable€professionalÏpractice€in€the€profession€and€the€specialty€thereof,€if€any,Ïthat€the€defendant€practices€in€the€community€in€which€heÏpractices€or€in€a€similar€community€at€the€time€the€allegedÏinjury€or€wrongful€action€occurred;Ìà8 àà0 àà àà8 à(2)€That€the€defendant€acted€with€less€than€or€failed€to€act€withÏordinary€and€reasonable€care€in€accordance€with€such€standard;ÏandÌà8 àà8 à(3)€As€a€proximate€result€of€the€defendantððs€negligent€act€orÏomission,€the€plaintiff€suffered€injuries€which€would€notÏotherwise€have€occurred.à8 àÌÌT.C.A.€ðð€29„26„115€(1980).ÌÌÓÓà àPursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð29„26„116(a)(1),€the€statute€of€limitations€for€malpracticeÏactions€is€one€year.€€€However,€in€the€event€that€the€alleged€injury€is€not€discoveredÏwithin€the€one€year€period,€the€limitations€period€is€one€year€from€the€date€from€whichÏthe€plaintiff€discovers€his€or€her€injury.€€T.C.A.€ðð29„26„116(a)(1)€(1980).€€Thus,€underÏTennessee€law,€a€statute€of€limitations€begins€to€run€when€the€plaintiff€discovers€or,€inÏthe€exercise€of€reasonable€care€and€diligence€for€his€own€health€and€welfare,€shouldÏhave€discovered€the€resulting€injury.€€òòTeeters€v.€Curreyóó,€518€S.W.2d€512,€517€(Tenn.Ï1974);€òòMcCroskey€v.€Bryant€Air€Conditioning€Co.óó,€524€S.W.2d€487,€491€(Tenn.€1975);ÏòòRoe€v.€Jeffersonóó,€875€S.W.2d€653,€656€(Tenn.€1994);€òòWyatt€v.€A„Best€Products€Co.,ÏInc.óó,€924€S.W.2d€98,€103€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€held€that€the€Plaintiffsðð€cause€of€action€forÏmedical€malpractice€accrued€in€January€of€1993€when€the€Plaintiff€was€told€that€aÏmalignant€tumor€measuring€two€inches€in€diameter€was€present€on€the€Plaintiffððs€rightÏkidney.€€The€Plaintiffs,€however,€argue€that€their€cause€of€action€did€not€accrue€untilÍDecember€of€1993€when€the€Plaintiffððs€cancer€recurred.€€The€Plaintiffs€contend€thatÏtheir€cause€of€action€for€medical€malpractice€did€not€accrue€in€January€of€1993Ïbecause€the€Plaintiffs€suffered€no€damages€in€January€of€1993€as€a€result€of€theÏDefendantððs€misdiagnosis.€The€Plaintiffððs€malignant€tumor€on€his€right€kidney€existedÏregardless€of€the€Defendantððs€misdiagnosis€of€the€Plaintiffððs€condition.€€Thus,€theÏPlaintiffsðð€cause€of€action€is€not€based€upon€the€Plaintiffððs€cancer.€€Rather,€the€PlaintiffsððÏcomplaint€is€based€upon€the€metastasis€of€the€Plaintiffððs€cancer.€€€The€Plaintiffs€argueÏthat€the€Plaintiffððs€cancer€would€not€have€reappeared€in€December€of€1993€had€theÏDefendant€properly€diagnosed€the€Plaintiffððs€condition€in€March€of€1992.€€In€support€ofÏtheir€argument,€the€Plaintiffs€present€the€affidavits€of€two€physicians€who€both€testifiedÏthat€the€chemotherapy€treatments€in€February€and€March€of€1994€and€the€secondÏsurgery€in€May€of€1994€may€not€have€been€necessary€if€the€Plaintiffððs€malignant€tumorÏhad€been€detected€and€treated€in€March€of€1992€by€the€Defendant.ÌÌà àTherefore,€the€Plaintiffs€argue€that€they€did€not€know€or€have€reason€to€know€ofÏtheir€malpractice€cause€of€action€until€December€of€1993.€€The€Plaintiffs€contend€thatÏthey€were€not€put€on€notice€of€any€injury€resulting€from€the€Defendantððs€misdiagnosisÏuntil€December€of€1993€when€Dr.€Pearson€performed€a€CAT€scan€on€the€Plaintiff€whichÏrevealed€the€recurrence€of€a€malignant€tumor€in€the€area€where€the€Plaintiffððs€rightÏkidney€with€the€malignancy€once€had€been.€€€Because€the€element€of€damages€isÏessential€in€bringing€an€action€for€medical€malpractice,€the€Plaintiffsðð€assert€that€theirÏcause€of€action€did€not€accrue€until€December€of€1993€when€the€Plaintiffs€were€first€putÏon€notice€of€the€injury€resulting€from€the€Defendantððs€misdiagnosis€of€the€PlaintiffððsÍcondition.€€€€€€ÌÌà àWe€have€not€yet€had€the€opportunity€to€address€the€issue€of€when€a€medicalÏmalpractice€cause€of€action€accrues€where€there€is€no€actionable€injury€as€a€result€of€aÏdefendantððs€misdiagnosis€of€cancer€other€than€the€metastasis€or€the€recurrence€of€theÏcancer.€€In€considering€this€issue,€we€have€looked€to€case€precedent€from€otherÏjurisdictions€which€have€addressed€the€same€issue.Ìà àÌà àIn€òòJohnson€v.€Mulleeóó,€385€So.2d€1038€(Fla.€Dist.€Ct.€App.€1980),€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€for€the€State€of€Florida€confronted€the€same€issue.€€In€òòJohnsonóó,€the€defendantÏphysician€performed€a€breast€examination€on€the€plaintiff€on€September€22,€1972.€ÏòòJohnsonóó,€385€So.2d€at€1039.€€The€defendant€found€ð ðdiffusely€cystic€areasðð€in€theÏplaintiffððs€left€breast€but€did€not€investigate€the€nature€of€those€lumps.€€On€March€7,Ï1973,€the€plaintiff€consulted€her€father,€a€surgeon,€who€examined€her€breast.€€A€biopsyÏwas€performed€which€revealed€the€existence€of€a€malignant€tumor€in€the€plaintiffððsÏbreast.€€The€plaintiff€underwent€a€radical€mastectomy€on€March€12,€1973.€€PathologyÏreports€on€the€removed€tissues€revealed€cancer€of€the€plaintiffððs€left€breast€withÏmetastasis€to€three€auxiliary€lymph€nodes.€€In€February€of€1975,€a€bone€scan€wasÏperformed€upon€the€plaintiff€which€showed€that€the€cancer€had€spread€to€the€plaintiffððsÏribs€and€skull.€€The€plaintiff€filed€her€medical€malpractice€cause€of€action€on€NovemberÏ29,€1976.€€The€court€held€that€the€plaintiffððs€cause€of€action€did€not€accrue€untilÏFebruary€of€1975.€€The€òòJohnsonóó€court€reasoned€as€follows:ÌÓÓà0 àà àà8 àà8 àIt€was€in€February€1975€that€she€[the€plaintiff]€first€learned€that€theÍcancer€had€metastasized€beyond€the€surgically€removed€portions.€ÏFrom€the€evidence€presented,€there€is€no€basis€on€which€toÏconclude€that€her€cause€of€action€should€have€been€discoveredÏwith€due€diligence€prior€to€that€time.€€Although€she€had€a€basis€forÏbelief€that€appellee€doctor€[the€defendant]€was€negligent€in€notÏdiscovering€her€cancer,€the€evidence€is€to€the€effect€that,€had€heÏdiscovered€the€cancer€at€that€time,€she€would€have€been€requiredÏto€undergo€the€same€radical€mastectomy,€which€she€later€had.€€AtÏthe€time€the€radical€mastectomy€was€performed,€she€had€no€causeÏof€action€against€appellee€doctor€because€there€was€no€evidenceÏthat€his€alleged€negligence€had€resulted€in€any€harm€to€her.€€It€wasÏonly€in€February€1975,€when€the€cancer€appeared€in€other€parts€ofÏher€body,€that€she€discovered€her€cause€of€action.€€It€was€only€thenÏthat€she€could€have€known€she€had€been€harmed€by€the€allegedÏnegligent€diagnosis.ÌÌòòÓÓJohnsonóó,€385€So.2d€at€1040.€€Thus,€the€court€in€òòJohnsonóó€concluded€that€even€thoughÏthe€plaintiff€knew€that€the€defendant€had€misdiagnosed€her€condition€in€March€of€1973,Ïthe€plaintiffððs€cause€of€action€did€not€accrue€until€February€of€1975€because€it€was€notÏuntil€February€of€1975€that€the€plaintiff€knew€that€she€had€been€damaged€as€a€result€ofÏthe€defendantððs€misdiagnosis.ÌÌà àThe€Illinois€Appellate€Court€addressed€the€same€issue€in€òòJanetis€v.€Christensenóó,Ï558€N.E.2d€304€(Ill.€App.€Ct.€1990).€€On€April€7,€1982,€the€plaintiff€visited€the€defendantÏand€complained€of€rectal€bleeding.€€òòJanetisóó,€558€N.E.2d€at€305.€€The€defendantÏinformed€the€plaintiff€that€the€bleeding€was€due€to€hemorrhoids€and€recommended€noÏtreatment.€€òòIdóó.€at€305„6.€€The€plaintiff€visited€the€defendant€again€on€July€29,€1982Ïbecause€of€his€continual€bleeding,€but€the€defendant€diagnosed€the€problem€asÏhemorrhoids€and€stated€that€ð ðthere€is€nothing€to€worry€about.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€306.€€In€October€ofÏ1982,€another€physician,€Dr.€Moore,€examined€the€plaintiff.€€The€plaintiff€underwent€aÏproctoscopy€and€a€biopsy€at€Dr.€Mooreððs€request.€€In€November€of€1982,€Dr.€Moore€toldÍthe€plaintiff€that€he€did€have€cancer€but€surgery€would€rectify€the€problem.€€The€plaintiffÏwas€admitted€to€the€hospital€the€next€day,€and€Dr.€Parenti€surgically€removed€part€ofÏthe€plaintiffððs€colon.€€Following€the€surgery,€Dr.€Parenti€told€the€plaintiff€that€ð ðeverythingÏwas€all€rightðð€and€that€he€was€very€pleased€with€the€outcome.€€In€three€subsequentÏvisits€to€Dr.€Parenti,€ð ðeverything€was€going€well,ðð€and€there€were€no€problems.€€In€MayÏof€1983,€the€plaintiff€returned€to€Dr.€Moore€because€he€again€experienced€rectalÏbleeding.€€€Dr.€Moore€informed€the€plaintiff€that€the€bleeding€was€due€to€hemorrhoidsÏand€that€there€was€no€problem.€€The€plaintiff€returned€to€Dr.€Moore€in€the€fall€of€1983,Ïand€a€proctoscopy€examination€revealed€that€the€cancer€had€recurred.€€The€court€inÏòòJanetisóó€stated€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àBecause€[the€plaintiff]€was€told€that€all€the€cancer€wasÏremoved€in€November€1982,€it€cannot€be€said€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw€that€he€should€have€had€knowledge€of€his€injury€orÏeven€that€defendantsðð€misdiagnosis€caused€him€any€harm.€ÏNot€until€the€fall€of€1983,€within€two€years€of€the€date€[theÏplaintiff]€filed€his€action,€when€the€proctoscopy€examinationÏrevealed€the€cancer€had€recurred€and€when€[the€plaintiff]Ïwas€informed€of€the€cancerððs€progression,€could€it€be€foundÏas€a€matter€of€law€that€[the€plaintiff]€should€have€been€awareÏof€his€injury€and€the€possibility€that€the€defendantsððÏmisdiagnosis€was€the€cause.ÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€at€308.€€Although€the€plaintiff€knew€that€the€defendant€misdiagnosed€his€condition€inÏNovember€of€1982,€the€òòJanetisóó€court€reversed€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summaryÏjudgment€in€favor€of€the€defendant€based€upon€the€statute€of€limitations€and€held€thatÏthe€question€of€whether€the€plaintiff€knew€or€should€have€known€of€his€injury€and€itsÏcause€before€the€fall€of€1983€should€have€been€a€question€determined€by€the€jury.€ÌÌà àIn€òòWolf€v.€Bueseróó,€664€N.E.2d€197,€201„2€(Ill.€App.€Ct.€1996),€the€court€cited€theÍcases€of€òòJohnson€v.€Mulleeóó€and€òòJanetis€v.€Christensonóó€and€agreed€with€their€rationale.€ÏThe€court€in€òòWolfóó€reversed€the€trial€courtððs€order€which€dismissed€certain€negligenceÏcounts€against€a€defendant€physician€because€the€plaintiff€could€possibly€prove€thatÏher€cause€of€action€for€metastasis€of€undiagnosed€breast€cancer€did€not€accrue€untilÏthe€cancer€recurred.€€The€òòWolfóó€court€agreed€with€a€line€of€authority€holding€that€whereÏthere€is€no€actionable€injury€resulting€from€a€misdiagnosis€of€cancer€other€than€theÏmetastasis€or€recurrence€of€the€cancer,€a€plaintiffððs€cause€of€action€accrues€on€theÏdiscovery€of€the€metastasis€or€recurrence.€€The€court€in€òòWolfóó€stated€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àA€cause€of€action€accrues€only€when€all€the€elements€of€theÏcause€of€action€are€present:€duty,€breach,€and€resultingÏinjury€or€damage.€€Without€accrual€there€can€be€no€cause€ofÏaction,€and€there€is€no€cause€of€action€until€injury€orÏdamage€has€occurred.€€(internal€citations€omitted)ÌÌòòIdóó.€at€204.€€ÌÌÓÓÌà àBecause€a€cause€of€action€for€medical€malpractice€does€not€accrue€until€theÏplaintiff€can€prove€that€he€has€been€damaged€as€a€result€of€a€defendantððs€negligent€actÏor€omission,€we€disagree€with€the€trial€courtððs€order€holding€that€the€Plaintiffððs€cause€ofÏaction€accrued€in€January€of€1993€when€the€plaintiffððs€right€kidney€was€removed.€€TheÏPlaintiff€was€put€on€notice€of€the€defendantððs€misdiagnosis€of€his€condition€in€JanuaryÏof€1993;€however,€it€cannot€be€said€as€a€matter€of€law€that€the€Plaintiff€knew€or€shouldÏhave€known€that€he€had€been€damaged€as€a€result€of€the€Defendantððs€misdiagnosis.€€ItÏis€likely€that€the€Plaintiffððs€right€kidney€would€have€had€to€have€been€removedÍregardless€of€the€Defendantððs€misdiagnosis€of€the€Plaintiffððs€condition.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€Based€uponÏthe€record€before€us,€we€conclude€that€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists€as€toÏwhen€the€Plaintiffððs€injury€occurred€and,€hence,€when€the€Plaintiff€knew€or€should€haveÏknown€of€his€cause€of€action€against€the€Defendant.€€We,€therefore,€reverse€the€trialÏcourtððs€order€granting€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€Defendant€based€upon€theÏstatute€of€limitations.€ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€hereby€reversed€and€œthe€cause€is€remanded.›€ÏCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€Appellee,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌLILLARD,€J.ÌÌà à€