WPC # VUNa % 0(w@4 1 0l@ 0D 0J 0T: 0^ 0h 0rT 0| 0B 0 1uX U, 0d U,]U>B)DC AM3U*v~3v D3 B 0@ AOc 0D) D/m BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ 89:U;<=>?@AӀU!3|xL((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd-!C << G<  9p`(Arial !  ##   YYY FILED#X September4,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.#AppellateCourtClerk  } !   $       In Byrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2d208,215(Tenn.1993),theSupremeCourtexplainedtheburdenplacedonthenonmovingpartyinasummaryjudgmentproceeding:  8 8 Whenthepartyseekingsummaryjudgmentmakesaproperlysupportedmotion,theburdenthenshiftstothenonmovingpartytosetforthspecificfacts,notlegalconclusions,byusingaffidavitsorthediscoverymaterialslistedinRule56.03[T.R.C.P.],establishingthatthereareindeeddisputed,materialfactscreatingagenuineissuethatneedstoberesolvedbythetrieroffactandthatatrialisthereforenecessary.ThenonmovingpartymaynotrelyupontheallegationsordenialsofhispleadingsincarryingoutthisburdenasmandatedbyRule56.05.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco ++++'dxd d("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &Xd&#Xd#  \RA'\` ` pX\RA'\@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE,WESTERNSECTION@ ATKNOXVILLE@ _______________________________________________________  ) JEANNIEFARROW,  ) KnoxCountyCircuitCourt ) No.349495̀Plaintiff/Appellant. ) )VS. ) C.A.NO.03A019603CV00089L"$!;+'h|`  `L ) WARRENG.REED,  ) )̀Defendant/Appellee. ) )______________________________________________________________________________FromtheCircuitCourtofKnoxCountyatKnoxville. HonorableWheelerA.Rosenbalm,Judge CarlR.Ogle,Jr. ,JeffersonCity,TennesseeAttorneyforPlaintiff/Appellant. DebbyA.Thompson , J.TuckerMontgomery ,MONTGOMERY&THOMPSON,Knoxville,TennesseeAttorneysforDefendant/Appellee.OPINIONFILED: AFFIRMED FARMER,J.CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S. :(Concurs) LEWIS,J. :(Concurs)` ` X Inthismedicalmalpracticeaction,PlaintiffAppellant,JeannieFarrow( Farrowor Plaintiff),appealsthetrialcourtsjudgmentgrantingtheMotionforSummaryJudgmentfiledbyDefendantAppellee,WarrenG.Reed( Dr.Reedor Defendant). OnDecember31,1991,Dr.ReedperformedoutpatientsurgeryonFarrowtocorrectadislocatedseconddigitofherrightfoot.Duringthesurgery,Dr.Reedplaceda26gaugemonofilamentwireinFarrowstoetoholdthebonesinplacewhiletheyhealed. OnJuly26,1994,Farrowconsultedanotherdoctor,whoexaminedFarrowsrightfoot.TheamendedcomplaintallegesthatthedoctorinformedFarrowthata foreignobjecthadbeenplacedintheseconddigitofFarrowsrightfootand,further,thatadifferenttoealsohadbeenbrokenand/ordislocated. OnJuly25,1995,FarrowsuedDr.Reedfornegligence.Inheramendedcomplaint,FarrowallegedthatDr.ReednegligentlyplacedaforeignobjectintheseconddigitofFarrowsrightfootandnegligentlyallowedtheforeignobjecttoremainthere.FarrowalsoallegedthatDr.ReedsactionsconstitutedfraudulentconcealmentinthatDr.Reed neverinformed[Farrow]oftheforeignobjectorofthe[additional]brokenand/ordislocatedtoebutinsteadconstantlyinformedandadvised[Farrow]thatherfootwashealingproperly. Dr.ReedsubsequentlyfiledaMotionforSummaryJudgmentonthegroundsthatFarrowsmalpracticeactionwasbarredbythethreeyearstatuteofreposecontainedinT.C.A.2926116(1980).ThetrialcourtagreedandgrantedDr.Reedsmotion. Onappeal,Farrowpresentsthefollowingissueforreview:8  Whetherthecircuitjudgeerredinfindingthattheplaintiffscomplaintwasbarredonthestatuteoflimitationsandreposegroundsandfurtherfindingthattheforeignobjectandthefraudulentconcealmentexceptiondidnotapply.  Aspertinent,section2926116providesthat:8  (3)Innoeventshallany[malpractice]actionbebroughtmorethanthree(3)yearsafterthedateonwhichthenegligentactoromissionoccurredexceptwherethereisfraudulentconcealmentonthepartofthedefendantinwhichcasetheactionshallbecommencedwithinone(1)yearafterdiscoverythatthecauseofactionexists.8  (4)Thetimelimitationhereinsetforthshallnotapplyincaseswhereaforeignobjecthasbeennegligentlyleftinapatientsbodyinwhichcasetheactionshallbecommencedwithinone(1)yearaftertheallegedinjuryorwrongfulactisdiscoveredorshouldhavebeendiscovered.T.C.A.2926116(1980). WefirstrejectFarrowscontentionthatthe foreignobjectexceptionsavesthisactionfrombeingtimebarredbythethreeyearstatuteofrepose.TheSupremeCourthasheldthatthe foreignobjectexceptionfoundinsection2926116(4)appliesonly tocaseswheresomethingneverintendedtobeinsertedatallorsomethingonlytemporarilyutilizedwasnegligentlypermittedtoremaininapatientsbody,suchasaclamporspongefollowingsurgery. Hallv.Ervin ,642S.W.2d724,727(Tenn.1982).Theexceptiondoesnotapply toanobjectwhich[has]beendeliberatelyimplanted...,suchasanintrauterinecontraceptivedevice,apacemaker,dentalworkorotherdevicesknowinglyandintentionallyinsertedandintendedtoremainforanindefiniteperiodoftime. Id.  Here,Dr.ReedsuncontradictedaffidavitfiledinsupportofhisMotionforSummaryJudgmentstatedthatheintendedtoplacethewireinFarrowstoeduringsurgeryandthatheintendedforthewiretoremaininthetoepermanently.Accordingly,the foreignobjectexceptiondoesnotapplyinthiscase. WelikewiserejectFarrowscontentionthatthefraudulentconcealmentexceptionpreventsheractionfrombeingtimebarred.Inordertoestablishfraudulentconcealmentinamalpracticecase,theplaintiffmustshowthat thephysicianhadknowledgeofthewrongdoneandconcealedsuchinformationfromthepatient. Houshv.Morris ,818S.W.2d39,43(Tenn.App.1991). Knowledgeonthepartofthephysicianofthefactsgivingrisetoacauseofactionisanessentialelementoffraudulentconcealment. Bentonv.Snyder ,825S.W.2d409,414(Tenn.1992). Inthiscase,Dr.ReedsaffidavitstatedthathediagnosedFarrowsdislocatedtoebyviewingxraystakenfourmonthsafterFarrowsinjury.Atthattime, [n]oassociatedfractureswereseen.AlthoughFarrowscomplaintassertedthataseconddoctordiagnosedanadditionalbrokenand/ordislocatedtoeinJuly1994,therecordcontainsnoevidencethatDr.ReedknewoftheadditionalinjuryorthattheinjuryexistedinDecember1991whenDr.ReedviewedFarrowsxraysandmadehisdiagnosis.Accordingly,noevidencehasbeenpresentedtosupportFarrowsfraudulentconcealmenttheory. %    Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.CostsareassessedagainstFarrow,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.` ` X ___________________________________ FARMER,J.______________________________CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S.(Concurs)______________________________LEWIS,J.(Concurs)