ÿWPC¡ µì²ÐÜ—ºíUt‹ïïCZ¦»›ª.Ìtñf÷Ga@é“ñŒ…`öA{(á²#‚¤Zxêw0=%ê?¢FØ#îúÅàS踹¸®Œ©|[g%U7Ò@TÀ LÂ4d™µÊK‰‰§­@^0Y@OZ:È1·V}Õ"¥F§”ÀTòÏö{Ôæ.ŒE¼ß¨…~…|;*ѱÆXÕ:pœ©šá½%>è–L¬¼€ñåeól*(Ê+="Ÿv6ï*|ÉÞÎQÚÝÁÀµŒsõ‹ŽNµj“®@¬â΄0B–>þucŒ©˜â 0-\£¶z.»H®äõwE½zgšÒ48Á× ¡êÊà¬|»fç:2¡jsË‚‹(1Èç=ž“¼YÓ=nd Ä™œºšŠ=, ‚-ψ£…/‚Q÷)%Oµ‚À|²ì‰ëÌíq¡?ÅAüe‡b¸¬j"¬} õdÙÓÄ@«Z óŸH–§,›¨5÷º5Ä>îšTÃÿÏc3?¿eŠ‚œ›bµ ýÑþ y8I© =Æ5Æ!{ÆÛ%óšé}·,s+JiO%rF_v;U–’œ3YoO¤ãY7ˆûf´¿è…ª%ûÕš¸èŠÀ•†»†ÂãÛåwê‘Æô£“*# LUNW %¥ 0(«U<Ó 0Dw@S4“§U N¶UNR 0lj 0DÖ  j" Œ U: UNÊ U N AQfÆ· B} 0Dš 0DÞÞ D/"" BQ D3n˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý ðVñVòVóVôVõVöV÷DøÓ€©yË&3|x(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ` àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€47„50„109€provides:Ð ° ÐÌÓ  Óà8  àIt€is€unlawful€for€any€person,€by€inducement,€persuasion,€misrepresentation,€or€otherÏmeans,€to€induce€or€procure€the€breach€or€violation,€refusal€or€failure€to€perform€anyÏlawful€contract€by€any€party€thereto;€and,€in€every€case€where€a€breach€or€violationÏof€such€contract€is€so€procured,€the€person€so€procuring€or€inducing€the€same€shallÏbe€liable€in€treble€the€amount€of€damages€resulting€from€or€incident€to€the€breach€ofÏthe€contract.€The€party€injured€by€such€breach€may€bring€suit€for€the€breach€and€forÏsuch€damages.€€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ–ÓÌTenn.€€Code€Ann.€€ðð€47„50„109€(1995).((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó `Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€€€€€The€TMA€created€the€Tennessee€Medical€Foundation,€which€assumed€administrationÐ ° Ðof€the€Impaired€Physicians€Program€in€April,€1992.€€Prior€to€that€time,€and€at€the€time€of€theÏevents€in€this€case,€the€Impaired€Physicians€Program€was€administered€by€the€TMA.€€€€ úÝ ƒ¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€Xõ?XXXÔÔ€š4XXõ?ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€Xõ?Xš4ÔÐ  ÐÌAugust€17,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular!#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 d(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd""""'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑò òÔ‡ XŽUXXXÔÑ7€ü¡XXdðXXdð7Ññññøñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eȱ` 8ttxP°ð  rßñøñññññññà@ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óˆÐ ° Ðò òññßt€ )>.*jxêÿ/` `€€@E²Ë` 8ttxPêœð / tßññà@úú$ìàAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ œì Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌóóÌJOHN€D.€CRABTREE,€M.D.à h àà À à)Ð L œ Ðó óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ 8 ˆ Ðà  àPlaintiff/Appellant,à  àà h à€€€€ò ò€€à À à)ó óà  àPutnam€Chancery€No.€94„50Ð $ t Ðò òà  àó óà ` àà ¸ àò ò€€à  àà h àà À à)ó óà  àà p àÐ  d Ðò òv.à  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à€Ð  P  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àó óAppeal€No.€01A01„9807„CH„00370ò òÐ ì <  ÐDAVID€T.€DODD,€M.D.,à  àà h àà À à)€Ð Ü,  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà  àó óDefendant/Appellee.à  àò òà h àà À à)ó óÐ ´  Ðà  àò òÌÌÌà@ªªìàó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€PUTNAM€COUNTYˆÐ h¸ Ðà@yyìàAT€COOKEVILLE,€TENNESSEEˆÌÌÌà@ ìàTHE€HONORABLE€JOHN€ROLLINS,€CHANCELLORˆÌòòÌÌFor€the€Plaintiff/AppellantÔ#†Xü¡XX XŽUr#ÔÔ‡ XŽUXXXü¡Ôóó:à  àà h àà À àòòFor€the€Defendant/Appelleeóó:òòÐ Ü, ÐÌóóSteven€C.€Douse€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à h à€€€€€€€€€€€€Noel€F.€Stahl€€€€€€€€€Ð ´ ÐNashville,€Tennessee€€€à  àà h àà À àJoseph€R.€Wheeler€Ð  ð Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌÌò òÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAFFIRMEDÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ð %P # Ðà  àÌÌÌCONCURS:ÌòòÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.Ð ˆ*Ø%) ÐÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.€€€€Ô#†Xü¡XX XŽU¼#ÔÐ  `,°'+ ÐØØÓÓÑ7€ü¡XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÌà@55'ìàò òOPINIONòòˆà p àó óóóÐ à ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThis€case€involves€an€impaired€physician.€€The€plaintiff€physician›€sued€the€medical€directorÏof€the€Tennessee€Medical€Associationððs€Impaired€Physician€Program€for€allegedly€revealingÏconfidential€information€to€the€plaintiffððs€medical€malpractice€insurance€carrier€about€the€plaintiffððsÏœalleged€alcohol›€dependency,€causing€the€non„renewal€of€his€insurance€policy.€€The€trial€court€grantedÏsummary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€defendant.€€We€affirm.€òòò òÐ Ð  Ðà  àóóó óThe€Tennessee€Medical€Association€œ(ð ðTMAðð)›€offers€assistance€to€physicians€with€substanceÐ ° Ðabuse€problems€through€its€Impaired€Physicians€Program€œ(ð ðImpaired€Physicians€Programðð)›€and€itsÏImpaired€Physicians€Peer€Review€Committee€œ(ð ðPeer€Review€Committeeðð).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€€The€œPeer€ReviewÐ pÀ ÐCommittee›€makes€the€policies€of€the€œImpaired€Physicians€Program›€and€is€responsible€for€monitoringÏthe€rehabilitation€process€for€physicians€with€chemical€dependency€or€mental€illness.€€The€œPeerÏReview€Committee€is›€comprised€of€several€physicians€who€conduct€the€medical€peer€reviews.€€WhenÏa€physician€is€referred€to€the€œImpaired€Physicians€Program›€and€agrees€to€participate€in€the€treatmentÏprogram,€the€œPeer€Review€Committee›€will€advocate€for€the€physician€before€local€peer€reviewÏcommittees,€hospital€committees,€insurance€carriers,€and€licensing€œauthorities.›€€Ìà  àDefendant/Appellee,€David€œDodd,€M.D.›€œ(ð ðDr.€Doddðð),›€is€a€physician€licensed€by€the€StateÏof€Tennessee€and€the€medical€director€of€the€œImpaired€Physicians€Program.›€€œDr.€Dodd›€is€not€aÏmember€of€œthe€Peer€Review€Committee,›€but€reports€directly€to€the€œCommittee›€in€his€role€œas›€medicalÏdirector€of€the€œImpaired€Physicians€Program.›€€To€assess€and€interview€physicians€referred€to€theÏœImpaired€Physicians€Program,›€œDr.€Dodd›€may€meet€with€the€individual€physicians.€€The€meetings€areÏto€determine€the€physicianððs€need€for€professional€evaluation€by€substance€abuse€or€mental€illnessÏfacilities.€€It€is€œundisputed€on€appeal›€that€a€physician„patient€relationship€is€not€formed€during€theseÏinitial€assessments.€€€€€€Ìà  àPhysicians€who€are€candidates€for€independent€professional€evaluation€are€offered€optionsÏand€recommendations€on€health€care€facilities€for€treatment.€€Neither€œDr.€Dodd›€nor€the€œPeer€Review€Ð  p5À04 ÐñëñCommittee›€provide€diagnosis€or€treatment.€€The€physician€must€continue€treatment€and€participationÏin€the€œImpaired€Physicians€Program€in›€order€for€the€œPeer€Review€Committee›€to€advocate€for€theÏœphysician.€€This€is€sometimes€referred€to€as€ð ðadvocacy€status.ðð›Ì€à  àPlaintiff/Appellant,€John€œCrabtree,€M.D.›€(ð ðDr.€Crabtreeðð),€is€a€physician€licensed€by€the€StateÐ P   Ðof€Tennessee.€€During€the€events€at€issue€in€this€case,€œDr.€Crabtree›€was€a€general€surgeon€in€PutnamÏCounty€and€had€physician€privileges€at€Cookeville€General€Hospital.€€œDr.€Crabtree›€had€medicalÏmalpractice€insurance€through€œState›€Volunteer€Mutual€Insurance€Company€œ(ð ðState€Volunteerðð),›€aÏmedical€malpractice€insurance€company.€€œState€Volunteer€was€founded€by€physicians€in€TennesseeÏto€provide€medical€malpractice€coverage.€€Dr.€Crabtree›€was€an€original€shareholder,€and€had€beenÏinsured€by€œState€Volunteer€from€the€date€of€its€formation€in€1976.›€€Ìà  àFrom€1976€to€1988,€œDr.€Crabtree›€was€not€required€to€re„apply€or€update€information€in€hisÏfile€in€order€to€renew€his€insurance€œwith€State€Volunteer.€€In€1988,€State€Volunteer€began€seeking›Ïperiodic€updates€of€its€insured€physicians.€€Ìà  àIn€1989€and€early€1990,€œDr.€Crabtree›€was€arrested€twice€within€a€six„month€period,€once€forÏpublic€drunkenness€and€once€for€driving€under€the€influence.€€On€February€7,€1990,€CookevilleÏœGeneral€Hospital›€requested€that€œthe€Impaired€Physicians€Program›€evaluate€œDr.€Crabtree›€for€alcoholÏimpairment.€€Ìà  àPursuant€to€œthe›€request€by€Cookeville€General€Hospital,€Dr.€œDodd›€contacted€Dr.€Crabtree€inÏFebruary,€1990€about€evaluation€for€possible€treatment€as€an€impaired€physician.€€Dr.€CrabtreeÏrejected€participation€in€œthe€Impaired€Physicians›€œProgram€because€he€believed€that€he€was€alreadyÏreceiving€adequate€professional€assistance.›€€Dr.€Crabtree€alleges€that€this€angered€Dr.€Dodd,€and€thatÏDr.€Dodd€threatened€Dr.€Crabtree€with€the€loss€of€his€malpractice€insurance€and€his€medical€licenseÏif€he€refused€to€participate.Ìà  àIn€œJuly€1990,›€œDr.€Crabtree›€was€again€arrested€for€driving€under€the€influence.€€After€thisÏœarrest,›€Cookeville€General€Hospital€notified€œDr.€Crabtree›€that€it€would€take€formal€action€againstÏhim.€€œState€Volunteer€notified€Dr.€Crabtree€that€it€was€reviewing€his€insurability.€€Ìà  àIn€August€1990,€Dr.€Crabtree›€took€a€leave€of€absence€for€treatment€œfor€alcohol›€dependencyÏand€entered€a€treatment€program€in€Georgia.€€œDr.€Crabtree›€was€dissatisfied€with€this€program,€œñìñÐ  P7 26 Ðñìñcriticizing›€it€as€ð ðsuperficial.ðð€€He€left€the€Georgia€facility€after€four€days,€contrary€to€the€physiciansððÏrecommendation€of€further€treatment.€€Ìà  àOnce€again,€Cookeville€General€Hospital€threatened€to€suspend€œDr.€Crabtreeððs›€hospitalÏprivileges.€€On€August€22,€1990,€œDr.€Crabtree›€entered€the€Cumberland€Heights€Drug€and€AlcoholÏTreatment€Center€in€Nashville.€€Dr.€Crabtree€completed€the€inpatient€program€at€CumberlandÏHeights€and€was€discharged€on€September€19,€1990.€€Cookeville€General€Hospital€wrote€œDr.€Dodd›Ïin€œSeptember›€1990,€informing€him€that€œPeer€Review€Committee›€advocacy€was€a€condition€of€hisÏresuming€his€practice€at€the€Hospital.€€The€Hospital€requested€that€Dr.€Dodd€monitor€Dr.€CrabtreeððsÏtreatment.€€Ìà  àIn€œSeptemberñåñ,ñåñ›€1990,€œDr.€Dodd›€met€with€Dr.€Crabtree,€as€well€œas›€Dr.€Crabtreeððs€attorney,€LarryÏHart,€and€Dr.€Crabtreeððs€counselor,€George€Allen.€€At€the€meeting,€œDr.€Crabtree›€agreed€to€continueÏtherapy€at€Cumberland€Heights€for€thirty€days€in€return€œfor€the›€œImpaired€Physicians€Programððs›Ïadvocacy.€€œDr.€Crabtree›€also€signed€a€Therapy€Agreement€providing€that€the€œPeer€ReviewÏCommittee›€would€advocate€for€œDr.€Crabtree›€in€matters€before€the€Board€of€€Medical€Examiners,€forÏhis€hospital€privileges€at€Cookeville€General€Hospital,€and€for€œDr.€Crabtreeððs›€continued€medicalÏmalpractice€insurance€coverage.€€The€Agreement€stated€that,€in€return€for€Dr.€Crabtreeððs€continuedÏtreatment,€the€Program€would:ÌÓÓà8  àœ.€.€.€advocate›€for€Dr.€Crabtree€in€the€following,€but€not€limited€to,€areas:Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àœ1.€Shall€contact›€œ[State€Volunteer]›€regarding€Dr.€CrabtreeððsÏmalpractice€insurance€and€have€a€hold€placed€on€action€to€cancel€theÏinsurance€as€well€as€ensuring€that€the€company€provides€tail€coverageÏwhile€he€is€not€practicing.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à2.€€Advocate€for€Dr.€Crabtree€on€any€matter€that€may€come€before€theÏBoard€of€Medical€Examiners.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à3.€€Advocate€on€Dr.€Crabtreeððs€behalf€should€any€adverse€action€beÏinitiated€against€his€privileges€at€Cookeville€General€Hospital.Ð ` x` x ÐÌœò òÓÓà  àó óDespite€the€language€of€the€Agreement,€Dr.€Crabtree›€stated€in€his€affidavit€before€the€trialÐ À0,/ Ðcourt€that€ð ð[t]here€was€no€discussion€of€advocacy€before€either€œ[State€Volunteer]›€or€the€State€BoardÏof€Medical€Examiners,€and€I€did€not€understand€these€to€be€part€of€the€agreement.ðð€€In€addition,€œDr.ÏCrabtree›€stated,€ð ðI€did€not€read€[the€Agreement]€carefully€and€did€not€realize€that€it€authorized€Dr.ÏDodd€to€contact€œ[State€Volunteer]›€and€advocate€for€my€continued€coverage,€thereby€representing€toÏœ[State€Volunteer]›€that€I€was€indeed€an€impaired€physician€and€a€high€risk.ðð€Ð  :p59 Ðà  àIn€November,€1990,€after€œDr.€Crabtree›€successfully€completed€two€months€of€therapy,€œDr.ÏDodd›€wrote€Cookeville€General€Hospital,€outlining€the€conditions€of€advocacy€and€recommendingÏthat€œDr.€Crabtreeððs›€hospital€privileges€be€reinstated€so€long€as€he€complied€with€the€conditions.€€TheÏAgreement€required€œDr.€Crabtree›€to€participate€in€an€aftercare€program€and€monthly€monitoringÏmeetings€with€œDr.€Dodd.›€€These€terms€were€incorporated€in€a€letter€from€Cookeville€GeneralÏHospital€to€œDr.€Crabtree,›€signed€by€œDr.€Crabtree›€in€œDecember€1990,›€providing€that€his€hospitalÏprivileges€would€be€reinstated€if€he€complied€with€the€terms€of€the€letter.€€On€December€11,€1990,ÏœDr.€Crabtreeððs›€hospital€privileges€at€Cookeville€General€Hospital€were€restored.Ìà  àDr.€Crabtree€asserts€that€Dr.€Dodd€met€with€Hospital€representatives€in€œNovember›€1990Ïwithout€notifying€Dr.€Crabtree€in€advance€of€the€meeting.€€Dr.€Crabtree€states€that€when€Dr.€DoddÏcame€to€his€office€to€tell€him€that€the€Hospital€had€agreed€to€restore€his€privileges,€Dr.€Dodd€told€Dr.ÏCrabtreeððs€staff€that€he€needed€to€see€Dr.€Crabtree€immediately€and€that€he€was€a€powerful€man€andÏshould€not€be€kept€waiting.€€Dr.€Crabtree€states€that€when€Dr.€Dodd€told€him€of€the€meeting€with€the€ÏHospital€representatives,€Dr.€œCrabtree›€asked€why€he€had€not€been€notified€of€the€meeting.€€Dr.ÏCrabtree€contends€that€Dr.€Dodd€then€became€angry€and€shouted€at€Dr.€Crabtree.Ìà  àœDr.€Dodd›€and€œDr.€Crabtree›€met€several€times€in€the€spring€of€1991.€€Dr.€Crabtree€maintainsÏthat€he€was€ð ðtroubledðð€by€the€meetings€because€(1)€Dr.€Dodd€spoke€to€him€about€other€impairedÏphysicians,€identifying€them€by€name,€and€(2)€Dr.€Dodd€became€angry€because€Dr.€Crabtree€wouldÏnot€ð ðbe€his€friendðð€and€ð ðshare€intimate€thoughts€and€feelings.ðð€€Dr.€Crabtree€asserts€that€Dr.€DoddÏtold€him€that€his€œunwillingness›€to€do€so€made€Dr.€Dodd€ð ðwant€to€say€to€hell€with€me,€and€at€thatÏpoint€I€had€lost€a€friend€and€become€a€ððpotential€œenemy.ðð€ðð›€After€meeting€with€Dr.€Dodd€on€May€10,Ï1991,€Dr.€Crabtree€no€longer€met€with€Dr.€Dodd.€€œÌà  àNevertheless,›€the€œPeer€Review€Committee›€continued€advocating€for€œDr.€Crabtree.›€€In€œOctober›Ï1991,€the€Board€of€Medical€Examiners€sent€Dr.€Crabtree€a€letter€regarding€its€investigation,€whichÏwas€triggered€by€Dr.€Crabtreeððs€DUI€conviction€and€subsequent€treatment€for€alcoholism.€€TheÏBoard€proposed€a€settlement€that€required€Dr.€Crabtree€to€sign€a€contract,€to€be€furnished€withinÏthirty€days,€with€the€TMAððs€Impaired€œPhysicians›€Program.€€The€letter€indicated€that,€if€Dr.€CrabtreeÏrejected€the€settlement€proposal,€the€case€would€be€processed€as€a€disciplinary€matter.€€œÌñíñÐ  09€48 ÐñíññïñÌñïñà  àIn›€œNovember›€1991,€the€TMA€sent€Dr.€Crabtree€a€proposed€Impaired€œPhysicians›€Peer€ReviewÏCommittee€Aftercare€Contract,€outlining€the€conditions€for€the€Peer€Review€Committee€to€act€as€Dr.ÏCrabtreeððs€advocate.€€The€proposal€included€an€assessment€by€an€independent€psychiatrist,€with€Dr.ÏCrabtree€maintaining€contact€with€the€psychiatrist€instead€of€Dr.€Dodd.€€€The€psychiatrist€would€thenÏœñèññçñÐ  P7 26 Ðñçññèñreport›€to€Dr.€Dodd€generally€on€whether€Dr.€Crabtree€was€in€compliance€with€the€psychiatristððsÏrecommendations.Ìà  àAfter€conferring€with€his€attorney,€Dr.€Crabtree€decided€not€to€sign€the€proposed€aftercareÏcontract.€€He€stated€in€his€deposition€that€he€chose€not€to€sign€the€agreement€because€he€ð ðdid€notÏthink€œthat€that›€was€indicated€and€the€right€thing€to€do,ðð€and€that€it€was€not€necessary€for€œhim.€€Dr.›ÏœCrabtree€acknowledged€that€he›€understood€at€the€time€that€his€refusal€to€sign€the€agreement€couldÏadversely€affect€the€Peer€Review€Committeeððs€advocacy€on€œhis›€behalf€before€the€Board€of€MedicalÏExaminers,€the€œHospital›€and€œhis›€malpractice€insurance€carrier.€Ìà  àOn€March€2,€1992,€the€œPeer€Review€Committee›€sent€œDr.€Crabtree›€a€letter€informing€him€thatÏð ðfurther€advocacy€is€no€longer€œappropriate€given€the€events€that€have€occurred€over€the€last€severalÏmonths.ðð€€The€letter€informed€Dr.€Crabtree€that€the€Peer€Review€Committee€would›€notify€CookevilleÏGeneral€Hospital€of€its€decision.€€In€addition,€the€œPeer€Review€Committee›€indicated€that€œif€StateÏVolunteer€€asked›€the€œPeer€Review€Committee›€about€œDr.€Crabtreeððs›€advocacy€status,€the€œPeer€ReviewÏCommittee›€would€inform€œState€Volunteer€that›€œDr.€Crabtreeððs›€advocacy€status€had€been€terminated.€Ìà  àOn€June€3,€1992,€œState€Volunteer›€sent€œDr.€Crabtree›€a€letter€informing€him€that€it€was€notÏrenewing€œhis›€medical€malpractice€insurance€œpolicy.€€State€Volunteer€told€Dr.€Crabtree€that€it€hadÏrecently€reviewed€his€insurability:ÌÓÓà8  àIn€the€Committeeððs€assessment€of€your€insurability,€it€received€a€report€from€aÏrepresentative€of€the€Tennessee€Medical€Associationððs€Impaired€PhysicianÏCommittee€and€was€advised€that€you€no€longer€have€the€advocacy€of€this€program.€ÏThereafter,€a€decision€was€made€not€to€renew€your€policy€when€it€expires€August€5,Ï1992.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓThe€letter€also€informed€Dr.€Crabtree›€of€his€right€to€a€review€of€the€decision€to€not€renew€his€policy.€Ïà  àApparently€œDr.€Crabtree›€requested€a€reconsideration€of€œState€Volunteerððs›€decision.€€A€secondÏletter€from€œState€Volunteer€to€Dr.€Crabtree›€dated€July€24,€1992,€explains€that€the€decision€not€to€œñîñÐ  P7 26 Ðñîñrenew›€was€upheld€upon€œreconsideration.€€State€Volunteer€discussed€Dr.€Crabtreeððs›€loss€of€advocacy:ÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓIn€the€course€of€its€substantial€experience€in€insuring€physicians€who€have€„€or€haveÏhad€„€a€chemical€dependency€problem€or€other€impairment,€œ[State€Volunteer]€has›€hadÏgood€underwriting€experience€where€these€physicians€have€been€participants€in€anÏimpaired€physician€program€of€the€sort€operated€by€the€state€medical€societies€inÏTennessee€and€in€its€adjoining€states€in€which€œ[State€Volunteer]›€offers€coverage.€€InÏfact,€were€it€not€for€the€existence€of€these€specific€programs,€œ[State€Volunteer]›Ïprobably€could€not€offer€coverage€to€such€physicians€due€to€the€underwriting€risksÏinvolved,€and€under€œ[State€Volunteerððs]›€underwriting€guidelines,€the€loss€of€„€orÏfailure€to€achieve€„€the€advocacy€of€such€a€program€in€the€state€where€the€physicianÏpractices€are€grounds€for€denial€of€coverage.€€ÌÌÒ°]AÒÒ°OAÒÓÓœState€Volunteerððs€letter€explained€that,€since€July€30,€1990,€it€had€continued€to€issue€short€termÏinsurance€policies€to€Dr.€Crabtree›€ð ðbecause€œ[State€Volunteer]›€was€advised€that€you€continued€toÏenjoy€some€form€of€advocacy€by€the€TMA€œ[Impaired€Physicians€Program]›€as€our€underwritingÏguidelines€require.ðð€€œDr.€Crabtreeððs›€final€insurance€policy€expired€August€5,€1992€by€its€own€terms.Ì€€€à  àOn€January€31,€1994,€œDr.€Crabtree›€filed€a€lawsuit€in€Chancery€Court€against€œDr.€Dodd,›Ð `° Ðasserting€a€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€47„50„109,€which€makes€it€unlawful€for€anyÏperson€to€induce€the€breach€of€a€contract.€€œDr.€Crabtree›€also€alleged€common€law€causes€of€actionÏfor€breach€of€contract,€intentional€interference€with€contractual€relations,€and€interference€withÏprospective€business€advantage.€€œDr.€Crabtree›€œcontended›€that€he€and€œDr.€Dodd›€had€a€physician„¼patient€relationship€and€that€œDr.€Doddððs›€divulgence€of€confidential€matters€known€as€a€result€of€thisÏrelationship€was€unlawful,€intentional,€and€malicious.€€œDr.€Crabtree›€asserted€œthat€as€a€result€of€›€œDr.ÏDoddððs€malfeasance,›€œState€Volunteer€terminated€and€refused€to€renew€Dr.€Crabtreeððs›€medicalÏinsurance.€€œDr.€Crabtree›€asserted€that€his€insurance€œhad€been›€renewed€yearly€before€œDr.€Doddððs›Ïcontact€with€œState€Volunteer.›€€œDr.€Crabtree›€sought€damages€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏðð€47„50„109,€which€provides€for€treble€damages€against€any€person€who€induces€the€breach€of€aÏvalid€contract.œ×ƒ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€€œDr.€Crabtree›€also€sought€common€law€punitive€damages,€attorneyððs€fees,€costs,€andÐ -P(+ Ðan€injunction€ð ðrequiring€œ[Dr.€Dodd]›€to€take€all€steps€necessary€to€rectify€the€harm€his€malfeasanceÏhas€inflicted€upon€œ[Dr.€Crabtree].ðð›€Ìà  àIn€his€Answer,€œDr.€Dodd›€denied€the€existence€of€œa›€physician„patient€relationship€or€anyÏbreach€of€confidentiality.€€He€denied€œcausing›€a€breach€of€any€alleged€contract€between€œDr.€Crabtree›Ïand€œState€Volunteer.›€€œDr.€Dodd›€admitted€that,€as€the€medical€director€of€the€œImpaired€PhysiciansÏProgram,›€he€arranged€meetings€between€œDr.€Crabtree›€and€other€physicians€and€agreed€to€advocateÏfor€Dr.€Crabtree€so€long€as€he€satisfactorily€complied€with€the€terms€of€the€treatment€program,€butÏdenied€that€he€and€œDr.€Crabtree›€had€a€contractual€agreement€with€an€implied€promise€ofÏconfidentiality.€€œDr.€Dodd›€admitted€there€was€a€contractual€agreement€between€œhimself›€and€theÏTennessee€Medical€Association.€€œDr.€Dodd›€raised€the€affirmative€defenses€of€failure€to€state€a€claimÏupon€which€relief€may€be€granted€and€statute€of€limitations.€€In€addition,€œDr.€Dodd›€asserted€that€atÏall€times€relevant€to€the€case,€he€was€acting€in€his€official€capacity€as€the€medical€director€of€theÏœImpaired€Physicians€Program›€and€his€actions€constituted€statutorily€authorized€and€privilegedÏmedical€peer€review,€and€thus€he€is€afforded€statutory€immunity€pursuant€œto€the€Tennessee€PeerÏReview€Law,›€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€œ69„6„219,€and›€the€œFederal›€Health€Care€QualityÏImprovement€œAct,€42€U.S.C.€ðððð€11101„11152.›€€œDr.€Dodd›€sought€attorneyððs€fees€for€his€defenseÏagainst€œDr.€Crabtreeððs›€claims.€€à h àœÐ °"  Ðà  àDiscovery›€was€lengthy€and€disputed.€€Several€discovery€motions€were€filed,€including€twoÏmotions€to€compel€filed€by€œDr.€Dodd.›€€Both€the€TMA€and€œState€Volunteer€filed€motions€to€quashÏDr.€Crabtreeððs›€discovery€requests€as€œoverbroad.›€€These€motions€were€granted.€€After€œDr.€Crabtree›Ïserved€a€second€set€of€subpoenas€on€the€TMA€and€œState€Volunteer,›€they€filed€motions€to€œquash,›€asÏwell€as€motions€seeking€a€protective€order.€€œDr.€Dodd›€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€withÏsupporting€affidavits€on€November€œ26,›€1997.€€The€trial€court€delayed€the€hearing€on€the€second€setÏof€motions€to€quash€filed€by€the€TMA€and€œState€Volunteer€until€after€the€hearing€on€the€summary›Ïœjudgment€motion.›€€Because€of€the€disposition€of€the€case€on€œthe€motion›€for€summary€judgment,€theÏtrial€court€never€resolved€œthe€discovery›€motions.€€Depositions€of€both€œDr.€Dodd›€and€œDr.€Crabtree›Ïobtained€during€discovery€were€made€a€part€of€the€œrecord.Ì›€€à  àœDr.€Doddððs›€motion€for€summary€judgment€asserted€that€œDr.€Crabtree›€could€not€establish€theÐ P7 26 Ðelements€necessary€for€interference€with€contractual€relations€and€that€the€tort€of€interference€withÐ 09€48 Ðprospective€business€advantage€is€not€recognized€in€Tennessee.€€œDr.€Dodd›€again€asserted€statutoryÏimmunity€pursuant€œto€the›€Tennessee€Peer€Review€Law,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€63„6„219,€andÏthe€Federal€Health€Care€Quality€Improvement€Act,€42€U.S.C.€œððð𛀜11101„11152.€€Dr.€Dodd›€attachedÏseveral€documents€to€his€motion€for€summary€judgment,€including€the€depositions€of€both€Dr.€DoddÏand€Dr.€Crabtree,€Dr.€Doddððs€affidavit,€the€insurance€policy€between€œDr.€Crabtree›€and€œStateÏVolunteer,›€articles€from€the€local€newspaper€on€œDr.€Crabtree,€medical›€records€from€a€drug€andÏalcohol€center€œDr.€Crabtree›€attended,€the€therapy€agreement€signed€by€œDr.€Crabtree›€setting€forth€œDr.ÏCrabtreeððs›€and€the€œImpaired€Physicians€Programððs›€responsibilities,€letters€explaining€that€theÏœImpaired€Physicians€Programððs›€advocacy€was€dependent€on€œDr.€Crabtreeððs›€completion€of€the€therapyÏprogram,€and€letters€from€œState€Volunteer›€to€œDr.€Crabtree›€explaining€that€his€loss€of€advocacy€statusÏwas€a€factor€in€its€decision€not€to€renew€the€insurance€policy.€€œDr.€Dodd›€also€attached€the€affidavitÏof€James€E.€Smith,€Vice„President€of€Underwriting€for€œState€Volunteer,›€which€explained€that€œStateÏVolunteer€had€the€contractual€right€to€not€renew€its€policy€with€Dr.€Crabtree›€according€to€theÏpolicyððs€terms.€€In€his€affidavit,€Smith€denied€that€œState€Volunteer€breached€the€policy.€€€€€€¼à  àDr.€Dodd›€filed€a€memorandum€of€law€in€support€of€his€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€HisÏmemorandum€asserted€that€œDr.€Crabtree›€could€not€establish€the€essential€element€of€breach€ofÏcontract€for€his€claim€of€interference€with€contractual€relations€œbecause€the€State€Volunteer€insuranceÏpolicy€expired€by€its€own€terms€on€August€5,€1992.€€Dr.€Dodd›€also€argued€that€œDr.€Crabtree›€had€notÏshown€that€œDr.€Dodd›€had€œmalicious›€intent€to€cause€a€breach,€another€essential€element€of€interferenceÏwith€contractual€relations.€€œDr.€Dodd›€contended€that€the€tort€of€interference€with€prospective€businessÏadvantage€is€not€recognized€in€Tennessee.€€Finally,€œDr.€Dodd›€asserted€that€his€actions€are€protectedÏby€statutory€immunity€under€both€42€U.S.C.€œððð𛀜11101„11152›€and€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€63„6„¼219€for€persons€engaged€in€good€faith€peer€review€activity.Ìà  àIn€œDr.€Doddððs›€affidavit,€œhe›€denied€making€the€final€decision€to€drop€œDr.€Crabtreeððs›€advocacyÏstatus,€asserting€that€the€œPeer€Review€Committee›€made€the€final€decision.€€€He€also€denied€actingÏwith€ill€will€or€malice€or€inducing€œState€Volunteer›€to€not€renew€œDr.€Crabtreeððs›€insurance€policy.€€ToÏhis€knowledge,€Dr.€Dodd€asserted€that€none€of€the€information€that€he€provided€to€the€œPeer€ReviewÏCommittee,›€TMA,€or€œState€Volunteer›€was€œfalse.ÌñðñÐ  09€48 Ðñðñà  àIn›€œDr.€Crabtreeððs›€deposition,€œDr.€Crabtree›€admitted€that€he€had€understood€that€the€œPeerÏReview€Committee›€was€advocating€for€the€continuance€of€his€malpractice€insurance€and€that€he€didÏnot€object€when€the€œPeer€Review€Committee›€advocated€before€œState€Volunteer.›€€For€example,€afterÏthe€expiration€of€the€Therapy€Agreement€that€œDr.€Crabtree›€signed,€œDr.€Crabtree›€knew€that€œDr.€Dodd›Ïhad€advocated€on€œDr.€Crabtreeððs›€behalf€before€œState€Volunteer€and€Dr.€Crabtree›€did€not€object:ÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓQ:à ` àYou€were€aware€in€fact€after€30€days€from€the€date€of€this€agreement€that€Dr.Ð `  ÐDodd€had€in€fact€advocated€for€you€and€on€your€behalf€before€œ[State€Volunteer]›€asÏfar€as€your€medical€malpractice€insurance€is€concerned?€€You€knew€that,€didnððt€you?ÌA:à ` àAt€some€point€in€time,€yes.Ð à0  ÐQ:à ` àAnd€you€never€asked€him€not€to€do€that?Ð Ð  ÐA:à ` àNo.€€Ð À ÐÌÒ°ËcÒÒ°½cÒÓ™'ÓœDr.€Crabtree›€acknowledged€that,€by€December€1990,€he€knew€that€œState€Volunteer€required€PeerÏReview€Committee›€advocacy€for€continued€insurance€œcoverage.€€As›€a€result,€in€œDecember›€1990€Dr.ÏCrabtree€never€communicated€to€œDr.€Dodd›€any€desire€that€œDr.€Dodd›€œrefrain€from€advocating›€on€Dr.ÏCrabtreeððs€behalf€before€œState€Volunteer.€€Dr.€Crabtree›€testified€that€œDr.€Dodd›€was€still€advocatingÏbefore€œState€Volunteer€in€March€1991.€€In€fact,€Dr.€Crabtree›€testified€that€he€sought€œPeer€ReviewÏCommittee›€advocacy€œuntil›€œhis›€advocacy€status€was€terminated€in€the€spring€of€1992.€Ìà  àIn€œDr.€Crabtreeððs›€response€to€Dr.€Doddððs€summary€judgment€motion,€he€argued€that€theÏbreach€of€œcontract€element€of›€the€tort€of€interference€with€contractual€relations€could€be€establishedÏby€showing€that€œState€Volunteer€breached€an€implied€contract€to€renew€the€policy€or€by€showing€thatÏDr.€Dodd›€maliciously€procured€a€termination€of€the€contract.€€œDr.€Crabtree›€indicated€that€he€neededÏfurther€discovery.€€œDr.€Crabtree›€asserted€that€œDr.€Dodd›€was€not€entitled€to€immunity€under€theÏfederal€or€state€immunity€statutes€because€his€communication€with€œState€Volunteer€was€not€inÏfurtherance€of€his€advocacy€for€impaired€physicians.€€à p àÐ  +p&) Ðà  àDr.€Crabtree›€attached€his€own€affidavit€to€his€response€to€Dr.€Doddððs€summary€judgmentÏmotion.€€In€his€affidavit,€Dr.€Crabtree€recounted€the€incidents€that€made€him€uncomfortable€with€theÏœImpaired€Physicians€Program›€treatment€plan.€€He€described€the€occasion€on€which€œDr.€Dodd›€cameÏto€œDr.€Crabtreeððs›€office€to€tell€him€of€the€reinstatement€of€his€hospital€privileges,€and€became€angryÏand€shouted€at€Dr.€Crabtree€for€asking€why€he€had€not€been€notified€of€the€meeting.€€Dr.€CrabtreeÏsaid€that€he€felt€uncomfortable€about€œDr.€Doddððs›€discussion€of€other€physicians€who€wereÏparticipating€in€the€œImpaired€Physicians€Program.›€€œDr.€Crabtree›€asserted€that€œDr.€Dodd›€wouldÏbecome€angry€when€œDr.€Crabtree›€ð ðwasnððt€willing€to€open€up€and€be€his€friend.ðð€€He€claimed€that€œDr.Ð  :p59 ÐDodd›€told€him€that€his€unwillingness€to€share€intimate€thoughts€and€feelings€made€œDr.€Dodd›€ð ðwantÏto€say€to€hell€with€me,€and€at€that€point€I€had€lost€a€friend€and€become€a€ððpotential€enemy.ðð€ðð€€Ìà  àœDr.€Crabtree›€attached€to€his€affidavit€a€copy€of€the€TMAððs€Peer€Review€Procedures€Booklet,Ïdated€October€13,€1991.€€The€TMA€Booklet€outlines€procedures,€such€as€notice€and€a€hearing,€to€beÏfollowed€in€grievance€or€disciplinary€actions€against€physicians€brought€by€grievance€or€disciplinaryÏcommittees.€€œDr.€Crabtree›€argued€that€TMA€was€required€by€its€own€procedures€to€grant€him€aÏhearing,€and€that€malice€should€be€inferred€from€the€TMAððs€refusal€to€do€so.€€œDr.€Crabtree›€assertedÏthat€he€requested€a€hearing€after€œDr.€Dodd›€informed€him€of€his€loss€of€advocacy€status,€but€that€hisÏrequest€was€denied.Ì€€€€à  àœDr.€Crabtree›€admitted€that€he€had€no€proof€that€œDr.€Dodd›€was€present€at€any€meeting€withÐ à МState€Volunteer€at€which€it€decided€not€to€renew€his€insurance.€€However,€he€asserted€that€a€StateÏVolunteer€employee€told€him€that€Dr.€Dodd›€provided€œState€Volunteer€with€the€information€that€Dr.ÏCrabtreeððs€advocacy€status€had€been€terminated.€€Dr.€Crabtree€asserted€that€he€could€not€confirm€Dr.ÏDoddððs›€involvement€because€his€discovery€requests€were€quashed.€€œDr.€Crabtree›€maintained€that€heÏunderstood€his€renewal€with€œState€Volunteer›€to€be€automatic.€€For€purposes€of€the€summaryÏjudgment€motion,€œDr.€Crabtree›€admitted€that€there€was€no€physician„patient€relationship€between€ÏœDr.€Dodd›€and€himself€and€that€they€had€no€written€agreement€concerning€confidentiality.€€€€œÌ›à  àAt€the€hearing€on€Dr.€Doddððs€motion€for€summary€judgment,€Dr.€Crabtree€conceded€that€theÏtort€of€ð ðinterference€with€prospective€economic€advantage,ðð€originally€pled€in€his€complaint,€is€notÏrecognized€as€a€cause€of€action€in€Tennessee.€€Dr.€Crabtree€then€sought€to€amend€his€complaint€toÏallege€a€new€cause€of€action€for€ð ðinterference€with€business€relations.ðð€Ìà  àOn€June€5,€1998,€the€trial€court€filed€a€written€opinion€granting€œDr.€Doddððs›€motion€forÏsummary€judgment.€€The€trial€court€found€that,€under€the€terms€of€œState€Volunteerððs›€policy,€œStateÏVolunteer€had€the€absolute€right€to€terminate€the›€policy€when€it€was€up€for€renewal.€€Noting€theÏpolicy€language€that€œthe€policy›€was€non„renewable€and€cancelable€at€will€by€either€party,€the€trialÏcourt€rejected€œDr.€Crabtreeððs›€argument€that€there€was€an€implied€contract€for€renewal€of€the€policy.€ÏThe€trial€court€concluded€that€the€policy€expired€by€its€own€terms€on€August€5,€1992€and€that€œStateÏVolunteer€did€not€breach€the€contract€by€declining€to€renew€it.€€The€trial€court€also€ruled€that€Dr.€ñññÐ  P7 26 ÐñññCrabtree›€was€judicially€estopped€from€amending€his€complaint€to€allege€ð ðinterference€with€businessÏrelationsðð€because€it€would€be€inconsistent€with€his€previous€pleadings.€€€Ìà  àIn€view€of€its€finding€that€œState€Volunteer€did€not€breach€the€insurance€policy,€the€trial€courtÏdeclined€to€rule€on€the€immunity€issues€raised€in€Dr.€Doddððs›€summary€judgment€motion.€€The€trialÏcourt€concluded,€however,€that€ð ðhad€[immunity]€been€a€viable€issue€it€is€the€opinion€of€theÏundersigned€that€the€defendant,€Dr.€Dodd,€would€have€been€entitled€to€statutory€immunity€as€aÏmatter€of€law.ðð€€The€trial€court€reasoned€that€even€though€there€may€have€been€a€personality€conflictÏbetween€œDr.€Crabtree›€and€œDr.€Dodd,›€ð ðthe€record€is€barren€of€any€proof€of€such€bad€actsðð€by€œDr.€Dodd›Ïthat€would€constitute€bad€faith€or€malice€and€thus€bar€immunity.€€€€Ì€à  àOn€appeal,€œDr.€Crabtree›€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€Dr.€Dodd€would€beÐ à Ðimmune€under€the€Tennessee€peer€review€statute€and€the€œFederal›€Health€Care€Quality€œImprovementÏAct›€(ð ðHCQIAðð),€42€U.S.C.€œððð𛀜11101„11152.€€Dr.€Crabtree›€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏfinding€that€there€was€no€breach€of€contract€and€that€œDr.€Crabtree›€was€estopped€from€pleadingÏinterference€with€business€relations.€€œDr.€Crabtree›€argues€that€he€should€have€been€allowed€toÏconduct€further€discovery€before€the€trial€court€ruled€on€Dr.€Doddððs€summary€judgment€motion.ò òòòÐ ð@ ÐÓÛeÓÓÓóóó óÔ‡ XNXXX¬÷Ôà  àA€motion€for€summary€judgment€should€be€granted€when€the€movant€demonstrates€that€thereÐ Ð  Ðare€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matterÏof€œlaw.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó›€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.04.€€The€party€moving€for€summary€judgment€bears€the€burden€ofÐ €$Ð" Ðdemonstrating€that€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists.€€œò òòòSee€Bain›€v.€Wellsó óóó,€936€S.W.2d€618,€622Ð X&¨!$ Ð(Tenn.€1997).€€On€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€court€must€take€the€strongest€legitimate€viewÏof€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€thatÏparty,€and€discard€all€countervailing€evidence.€€œòòò òSee€id.ó óó󛀀In€ò òòòByrd€v.€Halló óóó,€847€S.W.2d€208€(Tenn.Ð à+0'* Ð1993),€our€Supreme€Court€stated:ÌÓ4Óà8  àà8` Ð Ð àOnce€it€is€shown€by€the€moving€party€that€there€is€no€genuine€issueÏof€material€fact,€the€nonmoving€party€must€then€demonstrate,€byÏaffidavits€or€discovery€materials,€that€there€is€a€genuine,€material€factÏdispute€to€warrant€a€trial.€€In€this€regard,€Rule€56.05€[now€Rule€56.06]Ïprovides€that€the€nonmoving€party€cannot€simply€rely€upon€hisÏpleadings€but€must€set€forth€òòspecific€factsóó€showing€that€there€is€aÐ ,4|/3 Ðgenuine€issue€of€material€fact€for€trial.à8p` x` xàÐ5h04p p  Ðò òòòÌÓÓId.ó óóó€at€211€(citations€œomitted).›Ð ì6<26 МñòñÐ  Ä848 Ðñòñ›à  àSummary€judgment€is€only€appropriate€when€the€facts€and€the€legal€conclusions€drawn€fromÏthe€facts€reasonably€permit€only€one€conclusion.€€œò òòòSee€Carvell›€v.€Bottomsó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.Ð ˆØ Ð1995).€€Since€only€questions€of€law€are€involved,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€regardingÏa€trial€court's€grant€of€summary€judgment.€€œò òòòSee€Bainó óóó,›€936€S.W.2d€at€622.€€Therefore,€our€review€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€trial€courtððs€grantÔ#†X¬÷XX XNL#ÔÔ‡X´fXXX¬÷Ô€Ô#†X¬÷XXX´f’‡#ÔÔ‡ XNXXX¬÷Ôof€summary€judgment€is€òòde€novoóó€on€the€record€before€this€Court.€€œò òòòSee€Warren›Ð  ` Ðv.€Estate€of€Kirkó óóó,€954€S.W.2d€722,€723€(Tenn.€1997).Ð `  Ðà  àOn€appeal,€Dr.€Crabtree€argues€that€œDr.€Dodd›€is€not€entitled€to€peer€review€immunity.€€Ô#†X¬÷XX XNÕ‡#ÔœDr.Ð è8  ÐCrabtree›€contends€that€œDr.€Dodd›€is€not€immune€from€suit€under€the€Tennessee€peer€review€statuteÏbecause€he€was€not€acting€within€the€scope€and€function€of€a€peer€review€committee,€in€good€faithÏand€without€malice,€as€required€by€the€statute.€€œDr.€Dodd›€asserts€that€at€all€times€he€was€performingÏauthorized€medical€peer€review€and€that€there€was€no€proof€of€malicious€conduct.€€Moreover,€œDr.ÏDodd›€points€œout›€that€œDr.€Crabtreeððs›€agreement€with€the€TMA€specifically€requested€advocacy€on€hisÏbehalf€with€œState€Volunteer.›€€Ô‡ XNXXX¬÷ÔAs€noted€above,€the€trial€court€found€it€unnecessary€to€Ô#†X¬÷XX XNj‹#Ôrule€on€theÐ H˜ Ðimmunity€issues,€but€concluded€€that,€ð ðhad€[immunity]€been€a€viable€issue€it€is€the€opinion€of€theÏundersigned€that€the€defendant,€Dr.€Dodd,€would€have€been€entitled€to€statutory€immunity€as€aÏmatter€of€lawðð€because€the€record€contained€no€proof€that€œDr.€Dodd›€acted€in€bad€faith€or€with€malice.€Ï€€Ô‡ XNXXX¬÷Ôà  àThe€Tennessee€Peer€Review€Law€of€1967,€codified€at€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€63„6„219,Ð è"8  Ðprovides€immunity€for€persons€or€committees€engaged€in€professional€peer€review€activityÏð ðundertaken€or€performed€within€the€scope€or€function€of€the€duties€of€such€committees,€if€made€orÏtaken€in€good€faith€and€without€malice€and€on€the€basis€of€facts€reasonably€known€or€reasonablyÏbelieved€to€exist.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€63„6„219(d)(1)€(1997).€€The€Peer€Review€Law€providesÏimmunity€for€persons€on€committees€performing€peer€review€activities€as€well€as€for€any€personÏð ðacting€as€a€staff€member€of€a€medical€review€committee,€any€person€under€contract€or€other€formalÏagreement€with€a€medical€review€committee,€[or]€any€person€who€participates€with€or€assists€aÏmedical€review€committee€with€respect€to€its€functions.ðð€€œÔ#†X¬÷XX XN6#ÔÔ‡ XNXXX¬÷Ôò òòòId.€€ó óóóÔ#†X¬÷XX XNÔ#ÔÔ‡ XNXXX¬÷ÔThe›€legislative€policy€in€enacting€theÐ Ð1 -0 ÐPeer€Review€Law€was€to€ð ðencourage€committees€made€up€of€Tennesseeððs€licensed€physicians€toÏcandidly,€conscientiously,€and€objectively€evaluate€and€review€their€peersðð€professional€conduct,Ïcompetence,€and€ability€to€practice€medicine.ðð€€œÔ#†X¬÷XX XN'‘#ÔÔ‡ XNXXX¬÷Ôò òòòId.ó óóó€ðð€63„6„219(b)(1).€€The›€statute€states:€Ô#†X¬÷XX XNŸ’#ÔÔ‡ XNXXX¬÷Ô€Ô#†X¬÷XX XN“#ÔÔ‡X´fXXX¬÷Ôòòò òÐ X7¨26 ÐÔ#†X¬÷XXX´f_“#ÔÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÔ‡X¬÷XXX¬÷Ôó óóóÓÓà ` àAs€incentive€for€the€medical€profession€to€undertake€professional€review,€.Ð 09€48 Ð.€.€peer€review€committees€must€be€protected€from€liability€for€their€good-faithÐ  :p59 Ðefforts.€€To€this€end,€peer€review€committees€should€be€granted€certain€immunitiesÏrelating€to€their€actions€undertaken€as€part€of€their€responsibility€to€review,Ïdiscipline,€and€educate€the€profession.€.€.€.Ì€ÌÒ°¼“ÒÒ°Ê“ÒÔ#†X¬÷XXX¬÷Ø“#ÔÓý“Ӝԇ XNXXX¬÷Ôò òòòId.€óóó óð𛀜63„6„219(b)(2).›€€A€ð ðpeer€review€committeeðð€or€ð ðmedical€review€committeeðð€is€defined€as:Ð pÀ ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓany€committee€of€a€state€or€local€professional€association€or€society,€òòincludingÐ H ˜ Ðimpaired€physician€peer€review€committeesóó,€programs,€malpractice€support€groupsÐ 4 „ Ðand€their€staff€personnel,€.€.€.€or€similar€entity,€the€function€of€which,€or€one€(1)€of€theÏfunctions€of€which,€is€to€evaluate€and€improve€the€quality€of€health€care€rendered€byÏproviders€of€health€care€service€to€provide€intervention,€support,€or€rehabilitativeÏreferrals€or€services€.€.€œ.€.›ÌÌÒ°ΖÒÒ°À–ÒÓÜ–Óœò òòòId.óóó ó€(emphasis›€added).€€The€statute€provides€that€records€and€proceedings€of€peer€review€œcommittees›Ð ¼  Ðshall€be€used€ð ðonly€in€the€exercise€of€the€proper€functions€of€the€œcommittee.ð𛀀œÔ#†X¬÷XX XN–#ÔÔ‡ XNXXX¬÷Ôò òòòId.óóó ó›€ðð€œ63„6„219(e).€Ð ”ä  Ðð ðOne›€(1)€proper€function€of€such€committees€shall€include€advocacy€for€physicians€before€otherÏmedical€peer€review€committees,€peer€review€organizations,€health€care€entities,€òòprivate€andÐ D” Ðgovernmental€insurance€carriersóó,€national€or€local€accreditation€bodies,€and€the€state€board€ofÐ l Ðmedical€examiners€of€this€or€any€other€œstate.ðð€€ò òòòId.€óóó ó(emphasis›€added).€€Ô#†X¬÷XX XN#š#ÔÔ‡ XNXXX¬÷Ô€Ô#†X¬÷XX XNDœ#ÔÔ‡X´fXXX¬÷Ôòòò òà  àœÔ#†X¬÷XXX´f‡œ#ÔÔ€X¬÷XXX¬÷Ôó óóóÐ ôD Ðà  àThe›€œPeer€Review€Committee›€clearly€falls€within€the€definition€of€a€ð ðpeer€review€committeeððÏas€defined€by€the€statute.€€Impaired€physician€peer€review€committees€are€specifically€listed€œas›€anÏexample€of€a€ð ðpeer€review€œcommittee.ðð€€ò òòòSee€id.óóó ó€ðð€63„6„219(c).€€In›€addition,€the€functions€of€the€œPeerÐ ŒÜ ÐReview€Committee,›€of€Ô‡X¬÷XXX¬÷Ôproviding€ð ðintervention,€œsupport,›€or€rehabilitative€referralsðð€and€of€advocatingÐ l!¼ Ðbefore€ð ðprivate€and€governmental€insurance€carriers,ðð€œÔ#†X¬÷XXX¬÷”ž#Ôfit›€within€the€proper€functions€of€a€ð ðpeerÐ L#œ! Ðreview€committee.ðð€€Ìà  àLikewise,€Dr.€Doddððs€position€falls€within€the€provisions€of€the€statute.€€As€medical€directorÏof€the€œImpaired€Physicians€Program,›€Dr.€Dodd€reports€to€the€œPeer€Review€Committee›€and€assists€theÏcommittee€in€its€functions.€€Therefore,€if€œDr.€Doddððs›€actions€in€this€case€constitute€peer€reviewÏactivities€and€were€taken€in€good€faith€and€without€malice€based€on€facts€he€reasonably€believed€toÏexist,€he€would€be€deemed€immune€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Ô‡ XNXXX¬÷Ôðð€63„6„219.€€The€burden€is€onÐ Œ.Ü)- МDr.€Crabtree,›€the€party€seeking€to€defeat€the€protections€of€the€immunity€statute,€to€prove€malice€andÏbad€faith.€€œòòò òSee€id.óóó ó€ð𛀜63„6„219(d)(3)›€(providing€that€a€member€of€a€peer€review€committee€ð ðisÐ d2´-1 Ðpresumed€to€have€acted€in€good€faith€and€without€maliceðð);€ò òòòsee€also€Eyring€œv.€Fort›€SandersÐ <4Œ/3 ÐParkwest€œMed.›€Ctr.ó óóó,€No.€03„S„01„9711„CV„00134,€1999€œTenn.›€LEXIS€247,€at€*18€œ(April›€19,€1999).€Ð 6d15 Ðð ð[T]he€burden€of€proving€malice,€on€motion€for€summary€judgment,€requires€such€evidence,€œñöñÐ  ì7<37 Ðñöñaccepted›€as€true,€to€show€that€more€probably€then€[sic]€not,€the€committee€acted€maliciously.€.€.€.€ÏThe€inquiry€must€necessarily€be€made€on€a€case€by€case€basis.ðð€€òòò òEyring€œv.€Fort›€Sanders€ParkwestÐ ˆØ ÐMed.€Ctr.óóó ó,€No.€€03A01„9607„CV„00240,€1997€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€390€(June€4,€1997),€òòaffððd€byóó€No.Ð `° Ð03„S„01„9711„CV„00134,€1999€œTenn.€LEXIS›€œ247›€œ(April›€19,€1999).€€Ô#†X¬÷XX XNº¡#ÔÔ‡X¬÷XXX¬÷ÔMalice€is€not€defined€under€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐPeer€Review€Law€or€elsewhere€in€Title€63€of€the€Tennessee€Code€Annotated.€Ìà  àThe€issue€of€malice€was€addressed€in€òòò òAlexander€v.€Memphis€Individual€Practice€Assððnóóó ó,€870Ð h  ÐS.W.2d€278,€279€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€ò òòòAlexanderóóó ó,€the€Memphis€Individual€Practice€Association€deniedÐ øH  Ðan€obstetricianððs€application€to€join€the€œAssociation,›€claiming€it€had€no€need€for€another€obstetrician.€ÏThe€œphysicianððs›€application€was€eventually€approved€after€several€yearsðð€wait.€€òòò òSee€id.€€ó óóóTheÐ ¸ Ðphysician€filed€suit€and€contended€that€the€Memphis€Individual€Practice€Association€ð ðdelayedÏapproval€of€his€application€as€punishment€for€testifying€as€a€plaintiffððs€expert€in€medical€malpracticeÏlawsuits.ðð€€òòò òId.€ó óóó€He€argued€that€the€acceptance€of€employment€applications€from€other€obstetriciansÐ X¨ Ðsubmitted€after€his€application€was€denied€indicated€malice€and€bad€faith€on€the€part€of€theÏmembership€committee.€€òòò òSee€œid.€óóó óat›€280.€€The€physician€based€his€claim€on€a€statement€by€anÐ h Ðapplication€committee€member€that€one€reason€he€opposed€the€physician€was€because€of€theÏphysicianððs€testimony€for€plaintiffs€in€medical€malpractice€suits.€€òòò òSee€œid.›€óóó óat€279.€€The€TennesseeÐ Ø ( ÐSupreme€Court€found€that€this€allegation€was€not€sufficient€to€prove€malice,€and€thus€the€AssociationÏwas€immune€under€the€Tennessee€Peer€Review€LawÔ#†X¬÷XXX¬÷?¦#ÔÔ‡X¬÷XXX¬÷Ô.€€òòò òSee€œid.óóó ó›€at€280.€€€€€€Ð ˜$è" Ðà  àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€again€addressed€malice€under€the€Peer€Review€Law€in€òòò òEyringÐ x&È!$ Мv.›€Fort€Sanders€Parkwest€Medical€Center,€Inc.óóó ó,€No.€€03„S„01„9711„CV„00134,€1999€Tenn.€€LEXISÐ X(¨#& Ð247€(April€19,€1999).€€In€òòò òEyringóóó ó,€a€physician€who€lost€his€hospital€privileges€sued€the€hospitalÐ 8*ˆ%( Ðalleging€various€intentional€interference€torts.€€The€hospital€asserted€the€defense€of€peer€reviewÏimmunity€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€63„6„219.€€As€proof€of€malice€under€the€statute,€theÏphysician€presented€affidavits€listing€the€hospitalððs€deviations€from€its€bylaws€and€affidavitsÏdisputing€the€standard€of€care€asserted€by€the€hospital€for€physicians€such€as€himself.€€The€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€concluded€that€the€affidavits€merely€questioned€the€medical€judgment€on€which€theÏhospital€based€its€decision,€and€therefore€were€insufficient€evidence€from€which€to€inferÔ#†X¬÷XXX¬÷œ¬#ÔÔ‡X¬÷XXX¬÷Ô€malice.€€TheÐ x5È04 ÐCourt€found€no€direct€evidence€of€malice;€rather,€it€found€that€the€affidavits€provided€onlyÏconclusory€allegations.€€à  àœñ÷ñÐ 89ˆ48 Лñ÷ññóñÐ  89ˆ48 Ðñóñ›à  àOther€jurisdictions€have€interpreted€malice€in€peer€review€settings.€€œThe›€California€Court€ofÏAppeals€has€defined€malice€as€ð ða€showing€that€the€publication€was€motivated€by€hatred€or€ill€willÏtowards€the€plaintiff€or€by€a€showing€that€the€defendant€lacked€reasonable€grounds€for€belief€in€theÏtruth€of€the€publication€and€therefore€acted€in€reckless€disregard€of€the€plaintiffððs€rights.ðð€€òòò òDorn€œv.›Ð P   ÐMendelzonóóó ó,€196€œCal.€App.€3d›€933,€945,€242€œCal.€Rptr.›€259,€265€(1987).€€Maine€breaks€malice€intoÐ 0 € Ðtwo€types:€(1)€actual€malice,€which€means€ill€will,€or€(2)€implied€malice,€which€means€a€recklessÏdisregard€for€the€truth€or€falsity€of€the€slanderous€element€of€a€statement.€€òòò òSee€Onat€œv.›€œPenobscotÐ ð@  ÐBay›€Med.€Ctr.óóó ó,€574€A.2d€872,€874€œ(Me.€1990).›€Ð Ð  Ðà  àIn€òòò òScappatura€œv.€Baptist›€Hospital€of€Phoenixóóó ó,€584€P.2d€1195,€1201€œ(Ariz.›€œApp.€1978),›€aÐ ° Ðphysician€sued€œa›€hospital€and€hospital€personnel€after€he€lost€his€hospital€privileges.€€The€ArizonaÏcourt€examined€whether€the€actions€of€the€œplaintiffððs›€fellow€physicians€were€immune€from€liabilityÏunder€Arizonaððs€peer€review€statutes.€€The€court€noted€that:ÌÓÓà8  àThe€purpose€and€effect€of€this€statute,€within€which€malice€and€bad€faith€must€beÏinterpreted,€are€the€encouragement€of€hospital€peer€review.€€The€goal€is€theÏpromotion€of€better€patient€care,€and€this€statute€is€directed€toward€doing€so€by€theÏexercise€of€peer€review.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àReview€by€oneððs€peers€within€a€hospital€is€not€only€time„consuming,€unpaidÏwork,€it€is€also€likely€to€generate€bad€feelings€and€result€in€œunpopularity.€€If›€lawsuitsÏby€the€unhappy€reviewees€can€easily€follow€any€decision,€.€.€.€then€the€peer€reviewÏdemanded€by€[the€Arizona€peer€review€statute]€will€become€an€empty€formality,€ifÏundertaken€at€all.€€Banning€such€lawsuits€except€where€there€is€real€evidence€ofÏactual€malice€is€an€integral€portion€of€our€legislatureððs€intent.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓò òòòId.ó óóó€at€1201.€€The€ò òòòScappaturaó óóó€court€noted€that€the€Arizona€peer€review€statute,€like€the€TennesseeÐ p&À!$ Ðstatute,€does€not€define€malice€or€bad€faith.€€The€court€concluded€that€ð ðmalice€and€bad€faithðð€in€theÏcontext€of€peer€review€should€ð ðmean€a€òòprimary€purposeóó€other€than€the€safeguarding€of€patients.ðð€Ð 0*€%( Ðò òòòId.ó óóó€€The€court€found€that:Ð ,`'* ÐÓÓà8  àœ[M]ere›€allegations€of€malice€or€bad€faith,€even€with€specifications€of€personalÏanimosity€and€possible€prior€overreaching€of€authority,€will€not€suffice€to€allow€anÏaction€against€hospital€personnel€engaging€in€peer€review.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àA€hospital€is€a€place€fraught€with€constant€pressure€and€emergency.€€In€suchÏan€atmosphere,€personal€animosity,€jealousy,€anger€and€irritation€can€be€expected,Ïespecially€when€the€process€of€peer€review€is€involved.€€There€must€be€a€great€dealÏmore€evidence€than€was€presented€here€to€overcome€the€clear€intent€of€the€statute€toÏencourage€good€faith€peer€review€without€fear€of€reprisal€by€lawsuit.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓòòò òId.ó óóó€€Thus,€despite€allegations€of€personal€animosity€and€procedural€irregularities,€the€appellate€court€Ð P7 26 МñôñÐ  09€48 Ðñôñaffirmed›€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment,€finding€the€defendantsðð€actions€protected€byÏthe€immunity€statute.€€ò òòòId.ó óóóÐ à Ðà  àIn€this€case,€the€statement€at€issue€is€Dr.€Doddððs€alleged€communication€to€œState€VolunteerÏthat€Dr.€Crabtreeððs€advocacy€status€had€been€terminated.€€In€this€lawsuit,€Dr.€Crabtree€does€notÏcontest€the€loss€of€his€advocacy€status;€rather,›€he€alleges€that€Dr.€Doddððs€statement€to€œStateÏVolunteer›€was€made€with€malice€and€caused€him€to€lose€his€insurance€coverage€with€œStateÏVolunteer.›Ìà  àIt€is€undisputed€that€Dr.€Doddððs€alleged€statement€to€œState€Volunteer€was€true.€€There€is€noÏallegation€that€Dr.€Dodd€made€a€false€statement€that€was€injurious€to€Dr.€Crabtree.€€Although€Dr.›ÏCrabtree€attempts€to€argue€that€he€did€not€know€that€the€Therapy€Agreement€he€signed€authorizedÏDr.€Dodd€to€advocate€on€his€behalf€to€œState€Volunteer,›€Dr.€Crabtree€acknowledges€that€once€heÏlearned€of€Dr.€Doddððs€advocacy€on€his€behalf€to€the€malpractice€insurance€carrier,€he€did€not€ask€himÏto€cease.€€Dr.€Crabtree€appears€to€argue€that€it€was€proper€for€Dr.€Dodd€to€advocate€òòforóó€him€to€œStateÐ 0€ ÐVolunteer,›€but€improper€for€Dr.€Dodd€to€let€œState€Volunteer€know€that€Dr.€Crabtreeððs€advocacyÏstatus€had€been€terminated.€€However,€if€advocacy€is€a€proper€peer€review€function,€then€theÏcommunication€of€the€loss€of€advocacy€status€is€merely€its€ð ðflip€side,ðð€a€necessary€part€of€the€overallÏprocess.€€If€State€Volunteer€assumes€the€risk€of€insuring€an€impaired€physician€based€on€the€ImpairedÏPhysicians€Programððs€representation€that€the€impaired€physician€is€undergoing€appropriate€treatment,Ïthere€must€be€a€concomitant€understanding€that€State€Volunteer€will€be€informed€when€the€ImpairedÏPhysicians€Program€can€no€longer€represent€that€the€insured€impaired€physician€is€undergoing€suchÏtreatment.€€Dr.€Crabtree€argues€that€Dr.€Dodd€ð ðinitiatedðð€contact€with€State€Volunteer€to€inform€itÏof€Dr.€Crabtreeððs€loss€of€advocacy€status,€apparently€contending€that€Dr.€Dodd€should€have€remainedÏsilent€and€allowed€State€Volunteer€to€continue€to€believe€that€Dr.€Crabtree€was€undergoing€treatmentÏsanctioned€by€the€Impaired€Physicians€Program.€€However,€to€do€so€would€adversely€affect€theÏcredibility€of€the€Impaired€Physicians€Program€and€undermine€the€working€relationship€among€theÏentities€involved.€Ìà  àThus,€Dr.€Crabtree€alleges€that€Dr.€Dodd€made€a€statement€that€is€unquestionably€true,€in€theÏcourse€of€a€legitimate€peer€review€function.€€Dr.€Crabtree€alleges€that€Dr.€Dodd€undertook€theseÏactions€with€ill€motive,€as€evidenced€by€the€personal€conflicts€between€Dr.€Crabtree€and€Dr.€Dodd.€Ð 09€48 ÐHowever,€even€assuming€personal€animosity€between€Dr.€Crabtree€and€Dr.€Dodd,€this€ð ðwill€notÏsuffice€to€allow€an€action€againstðð€one€who€makes€a€true€statement€in€the€course€of€a€legitimate€peerÏreview€function.€€ò òòòScappaturaó óóó,€584€P.2d›€at€1201.Ô#†X¬÷XXX¬÷ذ#ÔÔ‡X¬÷XXX¬÷Ô€€Ô#†X¬÷XXX¬÷yË#ÔÔ‡X¬÷XXX¬÷ÔÐ pÀ Ðà  àÔ#†X¬÷XXX¬÷½Ë#ÔÔ‡X¬÷XXX¬÷ÔœDr.€Crabtree›€argues€that€the€TMAððs€refusal€to€grant€œhim›€a€œhearing,›€as€provided€by€the€TMAððsÐ P   ÐPeer€Review€Procedures€œBooklet,›€is€evidence€that€Dr.€Doddððs€actions€were€done€with€malice.€€œDr.ÏCrabtreeððs›€lawsuit,€however,€does€not€seek€judicial€review€of€the€œPeer€Review€Committeeððs›€decisionÏto€terminate€advocacy.€€Rather,€œDr.€Crabtreeððs›€complaint€focuses€on€whether€Dr.€Crabtree€can€obtainÏmonetary€damages€for€the€harm€allegedly€caused€by€Dr.€Doddððs€revelation€of€the€loss€of€advocacyÏœstatus€to›€œState€Volunteer.›€€While€the€denial€of€a€hearing€would€be€relevant€in€a€lawsuit€contestingÏDr.€Crabtreeððs€loss€of€advocacy€status,€it€is€at€best€marginally€relevant€to€the€issue€of€whether€Dr.ÏDoddððs€truthful€statement€to€œState€Volunteer€was€done€with€malice€and€bad€faith:€ÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓIf€plaintiff€sought€to€challenge€either€the€discipline€which€was€imposed€or€the€processÏby€which€it€was€accomplished€he€had€other€remedies€available€to€him.€€UpholdingÏthe€legislatively€sanctioned€privileges€for€confidential€reporting€of€peer€evaluationsÏand€disciplinary€actions€does€not€infringe€upon€a€wrongly€disciplined€physicianððsÏright€to€appropriate€redress€through€the€courts.€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÒ°ŽÏÒÒ°€ÏÒÓœÏÓòòò òDorn€v.€Mendelzonóóó ó,›€196€Cal.€App.€3d€933,€947,€242€Cal.€Rptr.€259,€œ266„67›€(1987).€€The€TMAððsÐ ð@ Ðdenial€of€a€hearing€is€not€adequate€to€show€malice.Ì€€Ô#†X¬÷XXX¬÷ Ì#ÔÔ‡X¬÷XXX¬÷Ôà  àWhen€Dr.€Crabtree€refused€in€November€1991€to€sign€the€TMA€aftercare€contract€submittedÐ °"  Ðto€him,€he€understood€that€this€action€would€have€adverse€consequences€in€proceedings€before€theÏBoard€of€Medical€Examiners,€Cookeville€General€Hospital,€and€œState€Volunteer.›€€He€understood€thatÏhis€continued€insurance€coverage€was€conditioned€on€maintaining€advocacy€status€with€the€PeerÏReview€Committee.€€In€refusing€to€sign€the€aftercare€contract,€Dr.€Crabtree€did€not€merely€lose€hisÏadvocacy€status,€he€threw€it€away.€€The€loss€of€œhis›€malpractice€insurance€coverage€was€the€inevitableÏconsequence€of€his€own€action.Ìà  àOverall,€the€evidence€presented€is€insufficient€to€support€a€reasonable€inference€of€malice€orÏbad€faith€in€the€context€of€the€Tennessee€Peer€Review€Law.€€ð ðThere€must€be€a€great€deal€moreÏevidence€than€was€presented€here€to€overcome€the€clear€intent€of€the€statute€to€encourage€good€faithÏpeer€œreview›€without€fear€of€reprisal€by€lawsuit.ðð€€ò òòòScappaturaó óóó,€584€P.2d€at€1201.Ð p5À04 МñõñÐ  P7 26 Ðñõñ›à  àTherefore,€Dr.€Dodd€is€protected€by€statutory€peer€review€immunity€under€Tennessee€Code€ÏAnnotated€ðð€63„6„219.€€The€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€Dr.€Dodd€is€affirmedÏon€this€basis.€€This€holding€pretermits€the€remaining€issues€raised€on€œappeal.Ô#†X¬÷XXX¬÷VÒ#ԛРpÀ Ðà  àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€Appellant,€for€which€executionÏmay€issue€if€necessary.€ÌÌÓÓÔ‡ XNXXX¬÷Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ð@  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ð Ü,  Ðó óà  àò òÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð xÈ ÐóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.€J.,€W.S.Ð d´ ÐÌó óÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð (x Ðóóò òDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ó óÔ#†X¬÷XX XN±Ø#Ô€€Ð d Ð