ÿWPCù 5# öU: %; 0ûA4<P 0?_ 0Dž âèw@ð 0J0 z 0T€ 0^Ô 0h2 0rš 0| 0†ˆ 0 1už 0d 0@w D3· Bê U*B)1DCZ AQÆî 0D´ 0Dø D/< Bk AMˆ¾Õ„“‘v~¨vÓ&˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(ÓH=$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XÎ_XXXÔÑ7€¾úXXdðXXdð7Ñäzz!#3|x0 (ï(3Ýž$¤¤Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XŸØXXXÔÑ7€ŸØXXdædæ7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóH   D D D P D Ê! Ó€- 0 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  ÔH2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd* (Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ´Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òJuneÏ27,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó zÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝHe€was€performing€an€orthopedic€procedure€on€the€plaintiffððs€knees.Ì ‡Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€condition€in€which€the€volume€or€quantity€of€blood€in€the€body€is€belowÏnormal.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ Òò òÑ  ÑÔ% € ÔÓ  Ó›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌ„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„ÌÓ  ÓÌÌEMMA€LOU€CROWE,à àó óà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àMadison€CircuitÌà àœPlaintiff/Appellant›à àœà à›à à)à àCase€No.€C„95„347Ô% € ÔÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌò òœÙ€*ÙßR€/0(A1-j|Ìû` à. `€€@ÿRß›JAMES€CRAIG,€M.D.,€THE€JACKSONó óà à)à àAppeal€No.€02A01„9612„CV„00297Ìò òCLINIC,€and€CONNIE€GALBRAITH,ó óà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appelleesà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€MADISON€COUNTYÌAT€JACKSON,€TENNESSEEÌTHE€HONORABLE€WHIT€LAFON,€JUDGEÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌò òDUNCAN€E.€RAGSDALEà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€H.€RAINEYó óÌ100€N.€Main€St.,€Ste.€2340à àà àà àò òANGELA€C.€œYOUNGBERGó ó›ÌMemphis,€TN€€38103à àà àà àà àò òRainey,€Kizer,€Butler,€ReviereÏ&ó óÌAttorney€for€œAppellant›à àà àà àà àà àò òBell,€P.L.C.ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à105€S.€Highland€Ave.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJackson,€TN€€38301Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAttorneys€for€AppelleesÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌò òAFFIRMEDà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€H.€INMAN,€SENIOR€JUDGEó óÌÌÌÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€PRESIDING€JUDGE€(W.S.)ÌÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGE€Ìó óÌÌÓÓà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌóóó óà àœThis›€action€for€damages€for€medical€malpractice€was€dismissed€on€motionÏfor€summary€judgment.€€We€affirm.Ìà àThe€suit€was€filed€on€October€19,€1995.€€The€plaintiff€alleged€that€on€OctoberÏ20,€1994,€Dr.€Craig€prescribed€narcotic€pain€medication€when€he€knew€or€shouldÏhave€known€that€the€plaintiff€was€allergic€to€narcotics.€€The€reaction€allegedlyÏcaused€the€plaintiff€to€suffer€a€stroke.Ìà àThe€answer€averred€that€the€plaintiff€had€a€history€of€nausea€induced€byÏœnarcotics,›€which€is€not€a€true€drug€œreaction,›€and€which€does€not€preclude€the€use€ofÏnarcotic€medication€when€necessary€for€pain.€€It€was€further€alleged€that€theÏplaintiffððs€pain€was€controlled€by€a€morphine€pump,€prescribed€by€Dr.€RonaldÏHomra,€an€anesthesiologist.Ìà àA€motion€for€summary€judgment€was€filed€by€the€defendants,€supported€byÏthe€affidavits€of€Dr.€Craig,€Dr.€Michael€Brueggeman€and€Connie€Galbraith,€R.N.Ìà àDr.€Craig€deposed€that€he€was€an€orthopedic€surgeon,× ƒ1 ××  ×€practicing€inÏMadison€County€and€was€familiar€with€the€recognized€standard€of€care.€€HeÏtestified€that€the€plaintiff€was€not€allergic€to€narcotics,€that€no€medication€caused€theÏplaintiffððs€stroke,€and€that€his€treatment€of€her€did€not€fall€below€the€acceptableÏstandard€of€care.Ìà àMs.€Galbraith€testified€she€did€not€administer€pain€medication€to€the€plaintiff,Ïdid€not€assist€Dr.€Craig€in€the€bilateral€knee€replacement€arthroplasties,€and€thatÏher€conduct€comported€in€all€respects€to€an€acceptable€standard€of€care.Ìà àThese€affidavits€were€filed€February€9,€1996,€and€will€be€more€fullyÏaddressed€hereafter.Ìà àOn€August€12,€1996,€the€plaintiff€filed€the€affidavit€of€Dr.€Michael€E.€Hayek,€aÏpracticing€surgeon€in€St.€Louis,€Missouri.€€He€testified€that€he€had€reviewed€theÏmedical€records€of€the€Jackson„Madison€County€General€Hospital€œand,›€from€theseÏrecords€and€ð ðreports€from€family€members,ðð€he€opined€that€Dr.€Craig€fell€below€theÏstandard€of€care€by€failing€to€order€certain€chemistry€tests€pre„operatively,€by€failingÏto€order€post„operative€chemistry€tests€to€check€for€hypovolemia,× ƒ2 ××  ×€by€failing€to€treatÍfor€hypovolemia,€by€ordering€morphine,€and€by€failing€to€anticoagulate€earlier€thanÏœ20›€hours€post„operatively.Ìà àThe€motion€for€summary€judgment€was€scheduled€for€argument€on€July€19,Ïœ1996.›€€Counsel€for€the€plaintiff€desired€a€œcontinuance,›€which€was€œreadily›€agreed€toÏby€counsel€for€the€œdefendant,›€and,€thereafter,€the€hearing€was€rescheduled€forÏAugust€12,€1996,€at€which€time€the€plaintiff€filed€the€affidavit€of€Dr.€Hayek.Ìà àThis€affidavit€did€not€satisfy€the€statutory€requisite€that€the€affiant€be€familiarÏwith€the€standard€of€care€in€Madison€County,€Tennessee,€T.C.A.€ðð€19„26„115(a)(1),Ïbut€notwithstanding,€the€plaintiff€neither€sought€a€continuance€nor€asked€for€anÏopportunity€to€amend€the€affidavit€of€Dr.€Hayek.€€Rather,€the€plaintiff€took€theÏsomewhat€hard„line€position€that€the€affidavit€was€sufficient€as€filed€to€defeatÏsummary€œjudgment,›€which,€if€granted,€would€be€reversible€error.Ìà àWhen€oral€arguments€were€completed,€the€trial€judge€granted€the€motionÏand€dismissed€the€case.€€Whereupon,€the€plaintiff€then€filed€a€œmotion›€for€aÏcontinuance€of€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€and€anotherÏmotion€to€amend€the€affidavit€of€Dr.€Hayek.Ìà àœThese›€two€motions€were€the€subject€of€a€motion€to€strike€because€they€wereÏirrelevant€since€summary€judgment€had€already€been€granted.Ìà àThe€record€does€not€reveal€that€the€motion€to€strike€was€considered€by€theÏtrial€judge€or€that€the€plaintiff€obtained€leave€of€the€court€to€file€an€amendedÏaffidavit.€€In€any€event,€an€amended€affidavit€by€Dr.€Hayek€was€filed.€€The€trial€judgeÏruled€thusly:ÌÓÓÌà0 àà àThe€Court€will€not€consider€the€amended€affidavit€of€Dr.€Hayek€for€theÏfollowing€reasons:ÌÌà0 àA€trial€court€has€broad€discretion€in€dealing€with€the€qualifications€andÏadmissions€of€testimony€of€expert€witnesses.€€A€trial€court€may,€in€itsÏdiscretion,€accept€a€late€affidavit.€€The€court€does€not€reject€the€AmendedÏAffidavit€of€Dr.€Michael€Edward€Hayek€just€because€it€is€late€in€being€filed.€ÏThe€court€feels€that€the€affidavit€reveals€that€the€qualifications€and€testimonyÏare€insufficient€to€create€a€material€issue€of€fact€and€the€court€does€not€view€itÏas€new€evidence€or€newly€discovered€evidence.€€For€all€of€the€foregoingÏreasons€the€court€declines€to€consider€the€œAmended›€Affidavit€of€Dr.€MichaelÏEdward€Hayek.ÌÌà0 àThe€Affidavit€of€Tudy€Jackson€and€the€Affidavit€of€Kathy€Jackson€areÏinsufficient€to€create€a€material€issue€of€fact.€€Although€plaintiffððs€Motion€toÏAlter€or€Amend€is€requested€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€ProcedureÏ52.01€and€52.02,€the€court€will€look€to€the€substance€of€the€request€and€willÏtreat€it€as€a€Rule€59€Motion€to€Alter€or€Amend€the€Judgment.€€Findings€of€factÏby€the€court€pursuant€to€Rule€52.01€are€unnecessary€on€decisions€underÏRule€56,€but€as€stated,€the€motion€will€be€treated€as€one€under€Rule€59.€€œAsÏheretofore€stated,€the€court€declines€to€consider€the€Amended€Affidavit€of€Dr.€›ÏMichael€Edward€Hayek€and€the€Affidavits€of€Tudy€Jackson€and€KathyÏJackson,€which€are€insufficient€to€withstand€the€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment.ÌÌà0 àIT€IS,€THEREFORE,€ORDERED,€ADJUDGED€AND€DECREED€that€theÏPlaintiffððs€motion€to€Alter€or€Amend€the€Summary€Judgment€heretoforeÏgranted€in€favor€of€Dr.€James€Craig,€The€Jackson€Clinic€ProfessionalÏAssociation,€and€Connie€Galbraith,€R.N.€be€and€the€same€is€herebyÏoverruled€and€the€relief€requested€is€denied.ÌÓÓÌà àThe€appellant€raises€these€issues€for€review:ÌÓÓÌà0 àà à1)€à àWhether€the€Trial€Court€committed€error€and€exceeded€hisÏdiscretion€on€August€2,€1996€by€ordering€Notice€of€Deposition€of€Dr.€Craig€Ïquashed,€and€by€prohibiting€the€taking€of€Dr.€Craigððs€deposition€or€any€otherÏdiscovery€until€a€hearing€on€Dr.€Craigððs€Summary€Judgment€Motion.Ìà0 àà à2)à àWhether€the€Trial€Court€committed€error€and€exceeded€hisÏdiscretion€by€denying€Plaintiffsðð€Motion€to€continue€the€Summary€JudgmentÏMotion.Ìà0 àà à3)à àWhether€the€Trial€court€committed€error€and€exceeded€hisÏdiscretion€by€denying€Plaintiffsðð€Motion€to€Amend€pursuant€to€T.R.C.P.€15.Ìà0 àà à4)à àWhether€the€Trial€Court€committed€error€and€exceeded€hisÏdiscretion€by€denying€Plaintiffsðð€Motion€to€Alter€or€Amend€pursuant€toÏT.R.C.P.€52.Ìà0 àà à5)à àWhether€there€were€material€issues€of€fact€for€the€œtryer[sic›]€ofÏfact€and€whether€the€Trial€Court€committed€error€by€finding€there€were€noÏissues€of€fact.ÌÓÓÌà àWith€respect€to€the€first€four€issues,€our€standard€of€review€is€whether€anÏabuse€of€discretion€has€been€shown.€€òòBenton€v.€Snyderóó,€825€S.W.2d€400,€416Ï(Tenn.€1992);€òòTipton€v.€Smithóó,€593€S.W.2d€298,€301€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1979).€€TheÏstandard€of€review€applicable€to€the€issue€of€whether€summary€judgment€wasÏproperly€granted€is€to€determine€if€the€requirements€of€òòTenn.€R.€Civ.€Póó.€œ56›€haveÏbeen€satisfied.€€òòCarvell€v.€Bottomsóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995);€òòCowden€v.ÏSovran€Bank/Central€Southóó,€816€S.W.2d€741,€744€(Tenn.€1991);€òòFoley€v.€St.ÏThomas€Hosp.óó,€906€S.W.2d€448,€452€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995);€òòBrenner€v.€TextronÏAerostructuresóó,€874€S.W.2d€579,€582€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€òòTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.óó€56.03Ïprovides€that€summary€judgment€is€appropriate€only€where€(1)€there€is€no€genuineÏissue€of€material€fact€relevant€to€the€claim€or€defense€contained€in€the€motion,€andÏ(2)€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€on€the€undisputedÏfacts.€€òòCarvellóó,€900€S.W.2d€at€26;€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993);ÏòòAnderson€v.€Standard€Register€Co.óó,€857€S.W.2d€555,€559€(Tenn.€1993).€€TheÍmoving€party€has€the€burden€of€proving€that€the€motion€satisfies€theseÏrequirements.€€òòDownen€v.€Allstate€Ins.€Co.óó,€811€S.W.2d€523,€524€(Tenn.€1991).Ìà àWhile€the€summary€judgment€procedure€is€not€a€substitute€for€trial,€it€goes€toÏthe€merits€of€the€complaint€and€should€not€be€taken€lightly.€€òòByrdóó,€847€S.W.2d€atÏ210;€òòJones€v.€Home€Indem.€Ins.€Co.óó,€651€S.W.2d€213,€214€(Tenn.€1983);€òòFowler€v.ÏHappy€Goodman€Familyóó,€575€S.W.2d€496,€498€(Tenn.€1978);€òòFoleyóó,€906€S.W.2d€atÏ452.€€It€has€been€repeatedly€stated€by€the€appellate€courts€of€this€state€that€theÏpurpose€of€a€summary€judgment€proceeding€is€not€the€finding€of€facts€or€theÏresolution€of€disputed€factual€issues€or€the€determination€of€conflicting€inferencesÏreasonably€to€be€drawn€from€the€facts.€€òòBellamy€v.€Federal€Express€Corp.óó,€749ÏS.W.2d€31,€33€(Tenn.€1988).€€Rather,€the€purpose€of€summary€judgment€is€toÏresolve€controlling€issues€of€fact.€€òòId.óóÌà àIn€evaluating€the€propriety€of€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€we€view€theÏevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€party€and€draw€allÏreasonable€inferences€in€the€nonmoving€partyððs€favor.€€òòByrdóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210„11.€ÏA€motion€for€summary€judgment€should€only€be€granted€when€both€the€facts€andÏthe€conclusions€drawn€from€the€facts€permit€a€reasonable€person€to€reach€only€oneÏconclusion.€€òòIdóó.Ìà àòòIssue€No.€1óó.€€The€record€reveals€that€counsel€for€the€plaintiff€consented€to€theÏentry€of€orders€pertaining€to€the€deposition€of€Dr.€Craig€and€that€he€elected€toÏforego€argument€or€hearing€on€his€motions.€€The€record€reveals€that€counsel€hadÏample€time€and€opportunity€to€discover€Dr.€Craig,€or€whomever,€and€upon€theÍhearing€on€the€motion€for€summary€judgment,€he€sought€no€continuance€andÏoffered€no€objections€to€proceeding€as€scheduled.€€The€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àòòIssue€No.€2óó.€€We€are€somewhat€baffled€by€this€argument€that€the€trial€judgeÏabused€his€discretion€by€denying€the€plaintiffððs€motion€to€continue€the€hearing€onÏthe€summary€judgment€motion€since€the€motion€came€òòafteróó€the€trial€judge€hadÏalready€ruled.€€No€abuse€of€discretion€is€shown,€and€the€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àòòIssue€No.€3óó.€€Rule€15,€òòTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.óó€requires€liberality€in€ruling€onÏamendments,€but€there€are€limits,€as€there€must€be;€again,€it€was€not€until€òòafteróó€theÏmotion€had€been€granted€that€the€plaintiff€sought€to€amend,€and€we€haveÏheretofore€referenced€the€comments€of€the€trial€judge€with€respect€to€the€amendedÏaffidavit.€€The€plaintiff€hard„lined€the€original€affidavit,€in€effect,€challenged€the€court,Ïnotwithstanding€comments€about€its€shortcomings,€and€we€cannot€find€an€abuse€ofÏdiscretion€by€the€trial€judge.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àòòIssue€No.€4óó.€€This€involves€a€Rule€52€motion€to€alter€or€amend€the€judgment.€ÏThe€trial€judge€made€these€findings€in€denying€the€motion:ÌÓÓÌà0 à1.à àIt€contains€testimony€that€is€not€admissible.ÌÌà0 à2.à àIt€fails€to€show€facts€establishing€that€he€is€familiar€with€the€standard€ofÏacceptable€professional€practices€required€of€the€defendants€in€Jackson,ÏTennessee;€it€fails€to€show€that€he€is€familiar€with€the€standard€of€acceptableÏprofessional€practice€in€St.€Louis,€Missouri,€and€there€is€no€fact€or€statementÏto€establish€that€they€are€similar€communities.ÌÌà0 à3.à àThere€are€no€facts€to€show€that€he€is€an€expert€in€determining€theÏcause€of€a€stroke€nor€to€show€that€he€specially€makes€his€testimony€relevant.ÌÌà0 à4.à àHis€affidavit€is€not€based€upon€personal€knowledge.ÌÌà0 à5.à àHis€affidavit€does€not€attach€all€of€the€documents€that€he€refers€to€orÏrelies€upon€in€his€affidavit.ÌÌà0 à6.à àHe€does€not€describe€the€standard€of€acceptable€professionalÏpractice€required€of€the€defendants€in€Jackson,€Tennessee€or€a€similarÏcommunity.ÌÌà0 à7.à àThe€affidavit€does€not€show€that€the€stroke€would€not€have€occurredÏbut€for€the€conduct€of€Dr.€Craig€and€Ms.€Galbraith.ÌÌà0 à8.à àThe€opinions€are€not€stated€to€be€œto€a›€reasonable€degree€of€medicalÏcertainty.ÌÌà0 à9.à àThe€affidavit€does€not€contain€any€newly€discovered€evidence€and€it€isÏquite€apparent€that€the€amended€affidavit€of€Dr.€Michael€Hayek€is€simply€anÏattempt€by€plaintiffððs€counsel€to€ð ðdress€upðð€Dr.€Hayekððs€first€affidavit€that€wasÏfiled€on€the€morning€of€the€argument€of€the€motion€for€summary€judgment.ÌÌà0 à10.à àThe€œjurat[sic›]€of€the€amended€affidavit€of€Dr.€Michael€Edward€Hayek€isÏthe€same€as€his€first€affidavit€and€is€insufficient€because€it€is€ð ðto€the€best€ofÏhis€knowledge,€information€and€belief.ððÌÓÓÌà àThe€record€supports€these€exegeses,€and€we€append€the€observation€thatÏthe€amended€affidavit€of€Dr.€Hayek€contained€no€information€which€was€theretoforeÏunavailable.€€We€see€no€abuse€of€discretion€here,€and€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àòòIssue€No.€5.óó€€In€òòByrd,€supraóó,€the€Supreme€Court€addressed€the€proper€use€ofÏsummary€judgment,€which€is€appropriate,€as€heretofore€stated:ÌÓÓÌà0 à[œo]nce›€it€is€shown€by€the€€moving€party€that€there€is€no€genuine€issue€ofÏmaterial€fact,€the€non„moving€party€must€œthen›€demonstrate,€by€affidavits€orÏdiscovery€materials,€that€there€is€a€genuine,€material€fact€dispute€to€warrant€aÏtrial.ÌÓÓÌòòByrdóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€211.Ìà àIn€medical€malpractice€cases€where€expert€medical€testimony€is€necessaryÏto€establish€proximate€cause€and€negligence,€affidavits€executed€by€physicians€thatÏclearly€and€competently€refute€a€plaintiffððs€contentions€afford€a€proper€bases€for€theÏentry€of€summary€judgment€in€the€absence€of€responsive€proof€by€the€plaintiff€byÏaffidavit€or€otherwise.€€òòBowman€v.€Henardóó,€547€S.W.2d€527€(Tenn.€1977).Ìà àTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€56.05€prescribes€the€requisite€form€ofÏaffidavits€employed€in€support€of€motions€for€summary€judgment:ÌÓÓÌà0 àSupporting€and€opposing€affidavits€shall€be€made€on€personal€knowledge,Ïshall€set€forth€such€facts€as€would€be€admissible€in€evidence,€and€shall€showÏaffirmatively€that€the€affiant€is€competent€to€testify€to€the€matters€statedÏtherein.€€Sworn€or€certified€copies€of€all€papers€or€parts€thereof€referred€to€inÏan€affidavit€shall€be€attached€thereto€or€served€therewith.€€The€court€mayÏpermit€affidavits€to€be€supplemented€or€opposed€by€depositions,€answers€toÏinterrogatories,€or€further€affidavits.€€When€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€isÏmade€and€supported€as€provided€in€this€rule,€an€adverse€party€may€not€restÏupon€the€mere€allegations€or€denials€of€[his]€pleading,€but€his€.€.€.€response,Ïby€affidavits€or€as€otherwise€provided€in€this€rule,€must€set€forth€specific€factsÏshowing€that€there€is€a€genuine€issue€for€trial.€€If€[he]€does€not€so€respond,Ïsummary€judgment,€if€appropriate,€shall€be€entered€against€[him].ÌÓÓÌà àIn€the€case€at€hand,€the€defendantsðð€affidavits€were€made€on€personalÏknowledge€and€set€forth€facts€that€would€be€admissible€in€evidence€and€that€wouldÏshow€affirmatively€that€the€œaffiants›€were€competent€to€testify€as€to€matters€statedÏtherein.Ìà àAs€a€general€rule,€negligence€and€causation€in€medical€malpractice€actionsÏmust€be€proven€by€competent€expert€medical€testimony.€€òòStokes€v.€Leungóó,€651ÍS.W.2d€704€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1982).€€In€order€to€testify€as€an€expert€witness€in€aÏmedical€malpractice€action€in€Tennessee,€the€expert€must€be€licensed€to€practice€inÏTennessee€or€in€a€contiguous€bordering€state€a€profession€or€specialty€that€wouldÏmake€his€expert€testimony€relevant€to€the€issues€in€the€case.€€The€expert€must€haveÏpracticed€this€profession€or€specialty€in€Tennessee€or€a€contiguous€state€during€theÏyear€preceding€the€date€that€the€alleged€injury€or€wrongful€act€occurred.€€T.C.A.€ððÏ29„26„115(b).Ìà àIt€is€well„established€that€a€defendant€physician€may€rely€upon€his€ownÏaffidavit€in€support€of€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€òòSmith€v.€Gravesóó,€672ÏS.W.2d€787€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984).€€Where€a€defendant€files€an€affidavit€of€an€expertÏstating€that€all€of€his€care€and€treatment€of€the€plaintiff€met€the€recognized€standardÏof€acceptable€professional€practice€required€of€him,€summary€judgment€isÏappropriate€if€the€plaintiff€presents€no€competent€expert€testimony€to€challenge€theÏdefendantððs€affidavit.€€òòBowmanóó,€547€S.W.2d€at€531.€€Accordingly,€the€court€inÏòòBowmanóó€succinctly€stated€the€applicable€rule€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà0 à[We]€hold€that,€in€those€malpractice€actions€wherein€expert€medicalÏtestimony€is€required€to€establish€negligence€and€proximate€cause,€affidavitsÏby€medical€doctors€which€clearly€and€completely€refute€plaintiffððs€contentionÏafford€a€proper€basis€for€dismissal€of€the€action€on€œsummary€judgment,›€in€theÏabsence€of€proper€responsive€proof€by€affidavit€or€otherwise.ÌÓÓÌòòIdóó.Ìà àAs€we€have€previously€stated,€the€defendants€filed€the€affidavits€of€Dr.€Craig,ÏMs.€Connie€Galbraith,€R.N.,€and€Dr.€Michael€Brueggeman,€in€support€of€theirÏmotion.Ìà àDr.€Craig€deposed€that€he€met€with€the€recognized€standard€of€acceptableÏprofessional€practice€required€of€him;€that€the€plaintiff€had€no€history€of€any€trueÏdrug€allergy;€that€he€ordered€post„operative€Demerol€as€needed€for€pain,€whichÏwas€never€administered€to€plaintiff,€and€that€none€of€the€medications€given€toÏplaintiff€during€her€admission€of€October€20,€1994,€caused€or€contributed€to€herÏstroke€or€cerebrovascular€accident.Ìà àMs.€Connie€Galbraith€deposed€that€she€met€the€recognized€standard€ofÏacceptable€professional€practice€required€of€her€as€a€registered€nurse;€that€sheÏnever€gave€the€plaintiff€any€medication,€and€that€she€never€gave€any€narcotic€to€theÏplaintiff€as€alleged€in€the€complaint.€€She€explained€that€she€crossed€out€the€pre„opÏmedication€order€on€the€chart€entry€which€she€had€made.€€Ms.€Galbraith€attached€aÏcopy€of€the€only€chart€entry€that€bore€her€signature,€which€had€been€made€at€theÏJackson€Clinic,€rather€than€at€the€hospital.€€Finally,€Ms.€Galbraith€stated€that€she€didÏnot€assist€Dr.€Craig€in€surgery€because€she€was€on€vacation€the€entire€time€thatÏplaintiff€was€in€the€hospital.Ìà àDr.€Brueggeman€deposed€that€he€is€a€board„certified€neurologist€and€aÏconsulting€treating€physician€in€this€case,€that€he€reviewed€the€complaint,€theÏmedication€records,€and€the€morphine€narcotic€administration€record,€that€heÏspecializes€in€the€diagnosis€and€treatment€of€strokes,€and€opined€that€he€wasÍuncertain€as€to€whether€plaintiffððs€stroke€was€related€to€the€surgery€or€not,€and€thatÏpossible€causes€of€the€stroke€were€a€defect€in€a€vessel€wall,€the€narrowing€of€aÏvessel€wall€with€collapse€or€a€restriction,€or€an€embolus.€€He€testified€that€evenÏthough€he€did€not€know€the€precise€reason€for€the€plaintiffððs€stroke,€he€knew€that€itÏdid€not€occur€because€of€any€medications€listed€on€the€medication€sheet€or€fromÏthe€use€of€the€morphine€pump.€€He€stated€that€he€was€unaware€of€any€studies€thatÏindicated€that€Demerol,€morphine,€or€any€of€the€medications€shown€on€theÏmedication€sheet€caused€or€contributed€to€a€stroke,€and€expressed€the€opinion€thatÏall€of€the€allegations€that€the€plaintiff€suffered€a€reaction€to€narcotics€that€caused€orÏcontributed€to€a€stroke€or€cerebrovascular€accident€were€false.Ìà àConversely,€the€plaintiff€has€not€adduced€any€competent€expert€testimonyÏsufficient€to€sustain€her€burden€of€proof€in€accordance€with€the€mandates€of€T.C.A.Ïðð€29„26„115.€€The€original€and,€for€that€matter,€the€amended€affidavits€of€Dr.€HayekÏwere€deficient€for€several€reasons,€including€the€following:€€(1)€They€failed€toÏestablish€that€Dr.€Hayek€was€familiar€with€the€recognized€standard€of€acceptableÏprofessional€practice€in€Jackson,€Tennessee;€(2)€He€failed€to€base€his€affidavits€onÏpersonal€knowledge;€œ(3)›€He€failed€to€state€his€opinions€to€a€reasonable€degree€ofÏmedical€certainty.Ìà àThe€judgment€is,€therefore,€affirmed€at€the€appellantððs€costs.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌW.€Frank€Crawford,€Presiding€Judge€(W.S.)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌAlan€E.€Highers,€JudgeÌ