ÿWPCö! …# V %a 0(gUFw@Õ4 ) 8 0l@ 0D¬ 0Jð U:: 0Tt 0^È 0h& 0rŽ 0| 0†| 0 1u’ 0dB)kDC” AM×U*$.N}|ù~ý B{ D3˜õËv~À 0@>vÓ~ AOQ Æ  0Df! D/ª! BÙ!˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ò($¡¡<Ú5 9Z ‹.Courier New Regular + [, Õ- . / D0 e1 r‚2 r‚3 -4 Ó€©U!3|x? ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô<þ6X9`("Courier NewTT2" 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% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial $Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òOctober€3,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó sÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓ  ÓCourt€of€Appeals€Rule€10(b):Ìà8 àThe€Court,€with€the€concurrence€of€all€judges€participating€in€theÏcase,€may€affirm,€reverse€or€modify€the€actions€of€the€trial€courtÏby€memorandum€opinion€when€a€formal€opinion€would€have€noÏprecedential€value.€€When€a€case€is€decided€by€memorandum€opinionÏit€shall€be€designated€"MEMORANDUM€OPINION,"€shall€not€beÏpublished,€and€shall€not€be€cited€or€relied€on€for€any€reason€in€aÏsubsequent€unrelated€case.€Ì úÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Appellants€later€established€the€actual€date€of€the€procedure€was€13ÏAugust€1994.Ì tÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€òòò òId.óóó ó€€At€the€intermediate€level,€the€Middle€Section€of€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€held€that€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€29„26„116(a)(2),€theÏð ðsavings€statute,ðð€did€not€apply€because€the€plaintiff€discovered€the€injuryÏwithin€one€year€of€the€negligent€act.€€Thus,€the€court€concluded€that€theÏplaintiff€had€one€year€from€the€negligent€act€in€which€to€file€his€or€herÏcomplaint.€€òòò òHoffman€v.€Hospital€Affiliates,€Inc.óóó ó,€slip€op.€at€3„4€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1€Feb.€1982),€òòò òrev'dóóó ó,€652€S.W.2d€341€(Tenn.€1982).€€The€facts€of€òòò òHoffmanóóó óÏare€similar€to€the€present€case.€€In€this€case,€plaintiff€claimed€that€sheÏdiscovered€her€injuries€twelve€to€thirteen€days€after€the€negligent€act.Ì d))))'ÿÿdxd ëÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€There€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€as€to€what€the€x„rays€revealed.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{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  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€XÔ›Ñ7€€ßòòd°dÈ7ÑÑ  ÑJEANNIE€FARROW,à àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àPLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,à àà à)à à03A01„9603„CV„00084Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌCHARLES€F.€BARNETT€AND€FORTà àà à)à àKnox€Circuit€Court€No.ÌSANDERS€PARKWEST€MEDICAL€CENTER,à à)à à2„546„95ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€#%";+'h| ` Å `€€Lß›à àDEFENDANTS/APPELLEES.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€ ÔCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌWESTERN€SECTION€AT€KNOXVILLEÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€KNOX€CIRCUIT€COURTÌÌAT€KNOXVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€HAROLD€WIMBERLY,€JUDGEÔ€¼ÔÌÓ  ÓÔ€XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌCARL€R.€OGLE,€JR.ÌP.O.€Box€129ÌJefferson€City,€TN€37760Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÌÌÌROBERT€H.€WATSON,€JR.ÌJOHN€C.€DUFFYÌWatson,€Hollow€and€Reeves,€P.L.C.Ì1700€First€Tennessee€Plaza€TowerÌ800€South€Gay€StreetÌPost€Office€Box€131ÌKnoxville,€Tennessee€37901„0131Ìà àATTORNEYS€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÌà àCHARLES€F.€BARNETT,€M.D.ÌÌÌF.€MICHAEL€FITZPATRICKÌArnett,€Draper€&€HagoodÌ2300€First€Tennessee€PlazaÌKnoxville,€Tennessee€37929„2300Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÌà àFORT€SANDERS€PARKWEST€MEDICAL€CENTERÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€¼ÔAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÔ€XÔÌÌÓ  ÓòòòòÔ€„ÔMEMORANDUM€OPINIONóó× ƒ& ××  ×òòÔ€ ÔóóÌÓ  ÓÔ€XÔÌÓÓà àóóThis€is€an€appeal€by€plaintiff/appellant,€Jeannie€Farrow,Ïfrom€two€orders€of€the€trial€court€which€granted€the€motion€toÏdismiss€filed€by€defendant/appellee,€Charles€F.€Barnett,€M.D.Ï(ð ðDr.€Barnettðð),€and€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€filed€byÏdefendant/appellee,€Fort€Sanders€Parkwest€Medical€Center€(ð ðtheÏMedical€Centerðð).€€In€its€orders,€the€trial€court€concluded€thatÏplaintiff€failed€to€file€her€action€within€the€applicable€statuteÏof€limitations.€€The€facts€out€of€which€this€controversy€arose€areÏas€follows.ÌÌà àOn€17€August€1995,€plaintiff€filed€a€complaint€for€medicalÏmalpractice€and€alleged€the€following.€€Plaintiff€visited€Dr.ÍBarnett's€office€on€10€August€1994.€€He€ordered€plaintiff€to€haveÏan€œMRI€performed€at€the€Medical€Center.€€Dr.€Barnett€gaveÏplaintiff€a€prescription€for€Xanax€and€told€her€to€take€the€XanaxÏthirty€minutes€prior€to€having€the€MRI€performed.€€Plaintiff€wentÏto€the€Medical€Center€on€18€August€1994€to€have€the€MRI€performed.× ƒ' ××  ×€ÏAs€ordered€by€Dr.€Barnett,€plaintiff€ingested€the€prescribedÏdosage€of€Xanax€and€the€Medical€Center€performed€the€MRI.€ÏEmployees€of€the€Medical€Center€placed€plaintiff€in€a€chairÏfollowing€the€MRI€procedure€and€left€her€unattended.€€PlaintiffÏpassed€out€because€of€the€effects€of€the€Xanax€and€fell€from€theÏchair.€€She€was€injured€when€her€shoulder€and€other€parts€of€herÏbody€struck€the€floor.ÌÌà àOn€18€September€1995,€Dr.€Barnett€filed€a€motion€to€dismissÏand€an€alternative€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€He€claimed€thatÏplaintiff€filed€her€claim€outside€the€statute€of€limitations€andÏthat€he€was€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€He€alsoÏalleged€that€he€did€not€deviate€from€the€recognized€standard€ofÏacceptable€professional€practice.€€In€support€of€his€motion,€heÏfiled€his€own€affidavit€and€a€memorandum.ÌÌà àOn€21€September€1995,€the€Medical€Center€filed€a€motion€forÏsummary€judgment.€€The€Medical€Center€provided€affidavit€testimonyÏand€numerous€exhibits€proving€that€it€actually€performed€the€MRIÍon€13€August€1994,€not€18€August€as€alleged€in€plaintiff'sÏcomplaint.€€Because€plaintiff€filed€her€complaint€on€17€AugustÏ1995,€the€Medical€Center€contended€she€filed€it€outside€theÏapplicable€statute€of€limitations.ÌÌà àOn€3€January€1996,€the€trial€court€entered€an€orderÏdismissing€plaintiff's€claims€against€the€Medical€Center.€€TheÏtrial€court€stated:€ð ðThe€Court€considered€the€.€.€.€record€as€aÏwhole,€and€found€that€the€motion€was€well€taken€and€should€beÏsustained€on€the€basis€that€the€statute€of€limitations€had€expiredÏprior€to€the€filing€of€the€plaintiff's€lawsuit.ðð€€On€the€same€day,Ïthe€court€entered€a€second€order€that€addressed€Dr.€Barnett'sÏmotion€to€dismiss.€€The€court€stated:€€ð ðAfter€hearing€arguments€ofÏcounsel,€and€considering€the€record€as€a€whole,€the€Court€foundÏthe€Motion€to€be€well€taken€and€ruled€that€Plaintiff€had€failed€toÏfile€her€action€within€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations.ðð€ÏThereafter,€the€court€dismissed€plaintiff's€claims€against€bothÏdefendants.ÌÌà àPlaintiff€filed€her€notice€of€appeal€on€30€January€1996.€ÏPlaintiff€notified€the€court€that€she€was€appealing€both€theÏcourt's€orders€entered€on€3€January€1996.€€On€appeal,€plaintiffÏraised€the€following€issue:€ð ðWhether€the€circuit€judge€erred€inÏfinding€that€the€Plaintiff's€complaint€was€barred€on€the€statuteÏof€limitation€grounds.ððÌÌò òI.à àSTANDARD€OF€REVIEWó óÌÌà àPursuant€to€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€andÏTennessee€case€law,€we€must€review€the€court's€orders€as€if€bothÏhad€granted€defendants€summary€judgment.€€To€explain,€Rule€12€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àIf,€on€a€motion€asserting€the€defense€numbered€(6)€toÏdismiss€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€reliefÏcan€be€granted,€matters€outside€the€pleading€areÏpresented€to€and€not€excluded€by€the€court,€the€motionÏshall€be€treated€as€one€for€summary€judgment€andÏdisposed€of€as€provided€in€Rule€56,€and€all€partiesÏshall€be€given€reasonable€opportunity€to€present€allÏmaterial€made€pertinent€to€such€a€motion€by€Rule€56.ÌÌÓÓòòTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€óó12.02€(West€1996).€€Moreover,€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt€has€held€that€a€trial€court€converts€a€Rule€12.02(6)€motionÏinto€a€Rule€56€motion€when€it€considers€matters€outside€theÏpleadings.€€òòò òKnierim€v.€Leatherwoodóóó ó,€542€S.W.2d€806,€808€(Tenn.Ï1976).€€A€trial€court,€however,€can€ð ðprevent€a€conversion€fromÏtaking€place€by€declining€to€consider€extraneous€matters.ðð€Ïòòò òPacific€E.€Corp.€v.€Gulf€Life€Holding€Co.óóó ó,€902€S.W.2d€946,Ï952€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€A€matter€outside€the€pleadings€is€ð ð'anyÏwritten€or€oral€evidence€in€support€of€or€in€opposition€to€aÏpleading€that€provides€some€substantiation€for€and€does€not€merelyÏreiterate€what€is€said€in€the€pleadings.'ðð€òòò òKosloff€v.€StateÏAuto.€Mut.€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€Ch.€App.€No.€89„152„II,€1989€WL€144006,€atÏ*2€(Tenn.€App.€1€Dec.€1989)(quoting€5€òòCharles€A.€Wright€&€Arthur€R.ÏMiller,€Federal€Practice€and€Procedureóó€ðð€1366€(1969)).ÌÌà àIt€is€clear€that€the€trial€court€considered€matters€outsideÏthe€pleadings€when€ruling€on€both€the€motion€for€summary€judgmentÏand€the€motion€to€dismiss.€€Thus,€the€court€converted€the€motionÏto€dismiss€into€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€In€both€orders,Ïthe€trial€court€stated€that€it€had€considered€the€entire€record.€ÏThe€record€in€this€case€contained€numerous€matters€which€did€moreÏthan€reiterate€what€was€in€the€pleadings.€€For€example,€theÏMedical€Center€attached€the€affidavit€of€Lisa€Little,€theÏradiology€technologist€who€performed€the€MRI,€and€three€otherÏexhibits€to€its€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€The€affidavit€andÏthe€exhibits€provided€information€that€was€not€in€plaintiff'sÏcomplaint€and€corrected€information,€the€date€of€the€MRIÏprocedure,€which€was€stated€incorrectly€in€plaintiff's€complaint.€ÏThis€evidence€became€part€of€the€record.€€Because€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€entire€record,€we€must€review€this€case€and€addressÏappellant's€issue€pursuant€to€summary€judgment€standards.ÌÌà àA€trial€court€must€grant€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€whenÏthere€are€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€the€law€entitlesÏthe€moving€party€to€a€judgment.€€ò òòòByrd€v.€Hallóóó ó,€847€S.W.2d€208,Ï214€(Tenn.€1993).€€ð ðIn€making€its€determination,€the€court€is€toÏview€the€evidence€in€a€light€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€party€andÏallow€all€reasonable€inferences€in€his€favor.ðð€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€215.€€TheseÏsame€principles€apply€to€this€court's€review€of€a€trial€court'sÏdecision€to€grant€summary€judgment.€€òòò òSee€Gonzales€v.€AlmanÏConstr.€Co.óóó ó,€857€S.W.2d€42,€44€(Tenn.€App.€1993).ÌÌò òII.€€STATUTE€OF€LIMITATIONSó óÌÌà àThe€applicable€statute€of€limitations€provides€that€medicalÏmalpractice€cases€ð ðshall€be€commenced€within€one€(1)€year€afterÏthe€cause€of€action€accrued€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€28„3„104Ï(a)(1)€(Supp.€1996).€€In€addition,€the€statutes€also€provide:ÌÓÓà8 à€€(a)(1)€The€statute€of€limitations€in€malpracticeÏactions€shall€be€one€(1)€year€as€set€forth€in€ðð€28„3Ï„104.ÌÌà8 à€€(2)€In€the€event€the€alleged€injury€is€not€discoveredÏwithin€the€said€one€(1)€year€period,€the€period€ofÏlimitation€shall€be€one€(1)€year€from€the€date€of€suchÏdiscovery.ÌÌÓÓòòò òId.óóó ó€ðð€29„26„116(a)(1)&(2)€(1980).€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€hasÏhad€numerous€occasions€to€interpret€and€apply€the€language€of€thisÏstatute.€€ÌÌà àPrior€to€the€codification€of€the€discovery€rule,€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€recognized€its€importance€in€medicalÏmalpractice€cases.€€òòò òTeeters€v.€Curreyóóó ó,€518€S.W.2d€512€(Tenn.Ï1974).€€The€òòò òTeetersóóó ó€court€defined€when€the€cause€of€actionÏaccrues€as€ð ðwhen€the€patient€discovers,€or€in€the€exercise€ofÏreasonable€care€and€diligence€for€his€own€health€and€welfare,Ïshould€have€discovered€the€resulting€injury.ðð€€òòò òId.óóó ó€at€517.ÌÌà àSince€the€codification€of€the€discovery€rule,€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€has€defined€when€the€statute€of€limitations€beginsÍto€run€in€cases€similar€to€the€one€currently€before€this€court.€ÏAs€recognized€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€29„26„116(a)€does€not€ð ðspecifically€address€whatÏthe€appropriate€period€of€limitations€would€be€if€the€allegedÏnegligent€act€is€discovered€within€the€one€year€period€but€afterÏthe€date€of€injury.ðð€€òòò òHoffman€v.€Hospital€Affiliates,€Inc.óóó ó,Ï652€S.W.2d€341,€344€(Tenn.€1983).€€In€òòò òHoffmanóóó ó,€the€Court€used€theÏcommon€law€to€ð ðfill€in€the€crack€left€by€the€legislature'sÏsilence.ðð× ƒ( ××  ×€€The€òòò òHoffman€óóó ócourt€relied€on€òòò òTeetersóóó ó€and€concludedÏthat€the€interpretation€of€when€a€cause€of€action€accrues€found€inÏòòò òTeetersóóó ó€ð ðfits€squarely€with€both€the€wording€of€the€statute€andÏprior€case€law.ðð€€òòò òId.óóó ó€€The€court€then€held€that€the€discovery€ruleÏapplies€only€when€the€ð ðplaintiff€does€not€discover€and€reasonablyÏcould€not€be€expected€to€discover€that€he€has€a€right€of€action.ðð€Ïòòò òId.ó óóó€€In€addition,€the€court€held€that€the€statute€is€tolled€onlyÏwhen€ð ðthe€plaintiff€has€no€knowledge€at€all€that€a€wrong€hasÏoccurred,€and,€as€a€reasonable€person€is€not€put€on€inquiry.ðð€€òòò òId.óóó óÌÌà àIn€another€case,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€defined€the€dateÏof€discovery.€€òòò òFoster€v.€Harrisó óóó,€633€S.W.2d€304,€305€(TennÍ1982);€òòò òseeóóó ó€òòò òHoffmanóóó ó,€652€S.W.2d€at€343.€€Specifically,€discoveryÏoccurs€when€the€plaintiff€discovers€or€reasonably€should€haveÏdiscovered:€ð ð(1)€the€occasion,€the€manner€and€means€by€which€aÏbreach€of€duty€occurred€that€produced€his€injury;€and€(2)€theÏidentity€of€the€defendant€who€breached€the€duty.ðð€€òòò òFosteróóó ó,€633ÏS.W.2d€at€305.€€In€a€more€recent€opinion,€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt€held€that€a€plaintiff€does€not€have€to€have€actual€knowledgeÏð ðthat€the€injury€constitutes€a€breach€of€the€appropriate€legalÏstandard.ðð€€òòò òRoe€v.€Jeffersonó óóó,€875€S.W.2d€653,€657€(Tenn.€1994).€ÏInstead,€the€Court€held€that€the€plaintiff€only€needs€to€be€ð ðawareÏof€facts€sufficient€to€put€a€reasonable€person€on€notice€that€heÏhas€suffered€an€injury€as€a€result€of€wrongful€conduct.ðð€€òòò òId.ó óóóÌÌà àTo€summarize,€Tennessee's€discovery€rule€prevents€the€statuteÏof€limitations€in€medical€malpractice€case€from€beginning€to€runÏuntil€the€plaintiff€discovers€or€in€the€exercise€of€reasonableÏcare€and€diligence€should€have€discovered:€1)€facts€sufficient€toÏput€a€reasonable€person€on€notice€that€he€has€suffered€an€injuryÏas€a€result€of€wrongful€conduct€and€2)€the€existence€or€identityÏof€a€wrongdoer.€€òòò òId.ó óóó;€òòò òHoffmanó óóó,€652€S.W.2d€at€343;€òòò òFosteró óóó,€633ÏS.W.2d€at€305.€€Moreover,€this€rule€applies€even€if€the€plaintiffÏdiscovers€the€injury€within€one€year€of€the€negligent€act.€Ïòòò òHoffmanó óóó,€652€S.W.2d€at€344.€€Finally,€the€rule€will€not€apply€ifÏthe€plaintiff€could€have€reasonably€been€expected€to€discover€thatÏhe€or€she€had€a€cause€of€action.€€òòò òId.ó óóóÌÌà àThe€dates€relevant€to€a€determination€of€the€issue€in€thisÏcase€are€as€follows.€€The€first€date,€10€August€1994,€is€the€dateÏthat€Dr.€Barnett€prescribed€what€plaintiff€claims€was€an€excessiveÏdosage€of€Xanax.€€Next,€plaintiff€claims€the€Medical€Center€wasÏnegligent€on€13€August€1994,€the€date€it€performed€the€MRI.€ÏPlaintiff€contended€that€her€shoulder€and€back€were€sore€and€thatÏshe€called€the€hospital€on€25€August€1994.€€The€hospital€calledÏplaintiff€back€on€26€August€1994€and€requested€she€come€in€for€x„rays.× ƒ+ ××  ×€€Plaintiff€filed€her€complaint€on€17€August€1995.ÌÌà àIt€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€the€trial€courtÏcorrectly€determined€that€the€statute€of€limitations€barsÏplaintiff's€claims.€€As€previously€stated,€the€discovery€ruleÏtolls€the€statute€until€a€person€discovers€or€in€the€exercise€ofÏreasonable€care€should€have€discovered€certain€facts.€€AssumingÏthat€plaintiff€had€no€knowledge€of€the€fall,€it€is€reasonable€toÏexpect€that€plaintiff€would€discover€the€injury,€at€least€theÏsoreness,€within€a€few€days€after€the€fall.€€Had€plaintiffÏexercised€reasonable€care€and€diligence€for€her€own€health€andÏwelfare,€she€would€have€discovered€facts€sufficient€to€place€herÏon€notice€prior€to€17€August€1994.€€Note,€the€record€does€notÏcontain€any€evidence€that€plaintiff€was€unconscious€other€thanÏwhen€she€passed€out€on€13€August€1994.€€Plaintiff€was€admitted€asÏan€out„patient,€and€as€such,€she€did€not€remain€in€the€hospitalÍovernight.€€The€record€also€reveals€that€plaintiff€claims€toÏremember€nothing€about€the€MRI€or€the€period€she€claims€MedicalÏCenter€employee's€left€her€unattended,€yet€she€never€inquired€intoÏthe€reasons€for€her€blackout.€€There€is€no€evidence€that€plaintiffÏexpected€the€Xanax€to€have€such€an€affect.€€Thus,€the€simple€factÏthat€plaintiff€did€not€remember€the€MRI€or€the€period€thereafterÏshould€have,€at€the€very€least,€put€her€on€notice€that€somethingÏwas€wrong€and€caused€her€to€inquire€further.€€ò òòòSee€Housh€v.ÏMorrisóóó ó,€818€S.W.2d€39,€42„43€(Tenn.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àFor€these€reasons,€the€trial€court€correctly€determined€thatÏplaintiff's€claims€were€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€TheÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€and€remanded€for€anyÏfurther€necessary€proceedings.€€The€costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€toÏplaintiff/appellant,€Jeannie€Farrow.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€JUDGE›ÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌœDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGE›