ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0lH 0D´ 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` U,Õ 0dU,eU>‘B)ÏDCø AM;U*ˆ²ä²s– D3  B<v~Y 0@×vÓ AOêÆ9 0Dÿ D/C Br˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ | U} ~  € £‚ƒ„Ó€yJÚ ` ÿÿð3|x((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial öÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òAugust€19,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ÚÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€trial€court€directed€the€entry€of€a€final€judgment€pursuant€to€Rule€54.02€T.R.C.P.Ì iÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIt€is€not€clear€whether€Mrs.€Gaskinsðð€friend€had€Silastic€TMJ€implants€or€some€other€typeÏof€TMJ€implant.€€In€her€deposition,€Mrs.€Gaskins€states€that€she€did€not€know€whether€she€and€herÏfriend€had€the€same€brand€of€implants.Ì++++'ÿÿdxd dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`("ÿÿ$££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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€WESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌó óà à)ò òÌMARY€GASKINS€and€Husband,ó óà à)à àShelby€County€Circuit€CourtÌò òKEN€GASKINSó ó,à à)à àNo.€54697€T.D.Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Plaintiffs/Appellants.à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)à àC.€A.€NO.€02A01„9412„CV„00281̜ـ€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€%'$;+'h|â` ¤ `€€Lß›à à)Ìò òGILBERT€G.€STEIN,€D.D.S.,ó óà à)Ìò òGILBERT€G.€STEIN,€D.D.S.,€P.C.,ó óà à)Ìò òDOW€CORNING€CORPORATIONó óà à)Ìò òand€ST.€FRANCIS€HOSPITAL,€INC.ó óà à)Ìò òFOUNDATIONó ó,à à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendants/Appellees.à à)Ìà à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Circuit€Court€of€Shelby€County€at€Memphis.Ìò òHonorable€Robert€A.€Lanier,€Judge€ó óÌÌÌÌò òAlan€R.€Wolfeó ó,ÌWILLIAMS,€McDANIEL€&€WOLFE,€P.C.,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Plaintiffs/Appellants.ÌÌÌÌò òDarrell€E.€Baker,€Jr.ó ó,ÌSHUTTLEWORTH,€SMITH,€McNABB€&€WILLIAMS,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌò òJerry€O.€Potteró ó,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€Defendants/Appellees,€Gilbert€G.€Stein,€D.D.S.€and€Gilbert€G.€Stein,€œD.D.S.,›€P.C.ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,W.S.€ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òLILLARD,€J.€ó ó:€œ(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ›ÓÓÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓœà àIn€this€dental€malpractice€action,€Plaintiffs„Appellants,€Mary€K.€Gaskins€and€KenÏGaskins€(the€ð ðGaskinsðð€or€ð ðPlaintiffsðð)€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€inÏfavor€of€Defendants„Appellants,€Gilbert€G.€Stein,€D.D.S.,€and€Gilbert€G.€Stein,€D.D.S.,€P.C.€(ð ðDr.ÏSteinðð€or€ð ðDefendantðð)€based€upon€the€three„year€medical€malpractice€statute€of€repose.€€€€ÌÌà àThe€record€reveals€the€following€uncontroverted€facts:€€In€October€1983,€MaryÏGaskins€was€diagnosed€as€suffering€from€internal€derangement€of€her€right€temporomandibularÏjoint€(TMJ).€€Dr.€Stein€performed€surgery€on€Mrs.€Gaskins€and€implanted€a€prosthetic€device€inÏher€right€TMJ€known€as€a€ð ðSilasticðð€TMJ€implant.€€This€implant€was€manufactured€by€Co„Defendant,€Dow€Corning€Corporation.× ƒ( ××  ×€€Mrs.€Gaskins€condition€did€not€improve€after€surgery.€€InÏ1986,€Mrs.€Gaskins€returned€to€Dr.€Stein€and€was€diagnosed€as€suffering€from€internalÏderangement€in€her€left€TMJ.€€On€May€3,€1986,€Dr.€Stein€implanted€a€Silastic€TMJ€implant€inÏMrs.€Gaskinsðð€left€TMJ.€€Dr.€Stein€told€Mrs.€Gaskins€that€these€implants€were€permanent.€€ÌÌà àAfter€completion€of€the€two€surgeries,€Mrs.€Gaskins€continued€to€experienceÏincreasing€levels€of€pain€in€her€TMJs.€€In€October€1987,€Dr.€James€McAfee,€Mrs.€GaskinsððÏprimary€physician,€ordered€a€CT€scan€because€she€was€not€improving.€€The€CT€scan€showed€tearsÏor€perforations€in€the€right€TMJ€and€opaque€fragments€of€bone€or€implant€in€the€left€TMJ.€€The€CTÍscan€results€were€read€to€Mrs.€Gaskins€soon€after€the€tests€were€completed.€€In€a€deposition,€Mrs.ÏGaskins€stated€that€she€felt€ð ðhorror€and€disappointmentðð€when€she€heard€the€results,€and€sheÏfurther€stated€that€she€ð ðknew€something€was€wrong.ðð€€ÌÌà àIn€1991,€a€friend,€who€had€undergone€TMJ€implant€surgery€with€Dr.€Stein,Ïinformed€Mrs.€Gaskins€that€she€had€received€a€letter€from€Dr.€Steinððs€office€informing€her€that€herÏTMJ€implants€had€been€recalled.× ƒ) ××  ×€€After€receiving€the€letter,€Mrs.€Gaskins€twice€contacted€Dr.ÏSteinððs€office€about€the€status€of€her€own€implants,€and€was€assured€by€one€of€Dr.€SteinððsÏemployees€that€her€particular€implants€were€permanent€and€had€not€been€recalled.ÌÌà àIn€July€of€1992,€Mrs.€Gaskins€obtained€her€operative€records€from€Dr.€SteinððsÏoffice€in€an€effort€to€determine€the€type€of€implant€used€in€her€surgery.€€From€these€records,€sheÏdetermined€that€she€had€Silastic€TMJ€implants.€€After€she€received€product€information€from€theÏmanufacturer,€she€discovered€that€Silastic€TMJ€implants€were€recommended€only€for€temporaryÏuse€and€were€to€be€removed€after€one€to€two€months.€ÌÌà àOn€June€23,€1993,€the€Gaskins€brought€suit€against€Dr.€Stein,€St.€Francis€Hospital,ÏInc.€Foundation€(ð ðSt.€Francisðð)€and€Dow€Corning€Corporation€seeking€damages€for€Mrs.ÏGaskinsðð€personal€injuries€and€Mr.€Gaskinsðð€loss€of€consortium.€€In€their€Complaint,€they€allegedÏthat€Dr.€Stein€had€willfully,€negligently€or€carelessly€(1)€failed€to€advise€Mrs.€Gaskin€of€theÏtemporary€nature€of€the€implants;€(2)€failed€to€remove€them€at€prescribed€times;€and€(3)€failed€toÏdisclose€this€information€when€it€was€sought€by€Mrs.€Gaskins.ÌÌà àDr.€Stein€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€alleging€òòò òinter€aliaó óóó€that€PlaintiffsððÏclaims€were€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitation€and€the€statute€of€repose€of€the€Medical€MalpracticeÏAct.€€The€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€Dr.€Stein,€finding€that€PlaintiffsððÏcomplaint€was€barred€by€the€statute€of€repose,€T.C.A.€ðð€29„26„116(3),€and€that€the€statuteððsÏexception€for€fraudulent€concealment€was€not€applicable.ÌÌà àPlaintiffs€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€ruling,€presenting€the€following€issue€for€ourÏreview:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà àDid€the€trial€court€err€in€granting€summary€judgment€to€[Dr.ÏStein]€by€ruling€that€the€Plaintiffsðð€complaint€was€barred€by€theÏstatute€of€repose?€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àDefendants,€on€the€other€hand€present€the€following€issue:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àIs€the€[Plaintiffsðð]€claim€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitation?€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àSummary€judgment€should€be€granted€only€if€the€movant€demonstrates€that€thereÏare€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matterÏof€law.€€Rule€56.03€T.R.C.P.;€òòò òByrd€v.€Halló óóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993);€òòò òDunn€v.€Hackettó óóó,Ï833€S.W.2d€78,€80€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€When€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€is€made,€the€courtÏmust€consider€the€motion€in€the€same€manner€as€a€motion€for€directed€verdict€made€at€the€close€ofÏthe€plaintiff€'s€proof;€that€is,€"the€court€must€take€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€inÏfavor€of€the€nonmoving€party,€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€that€party,€and€discard€allÏcountervailing€evidence."€ò òòòByrdóóó ó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210„11.€€In€òòò òByrdó óóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÏstated:ÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓà0 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.€[citations€omitted].€€In€this€regard,€RuleÏ56.05€provides€that€the€nonmoving€party€cannot€simply€rely€uponÏhis€pleadings€but€must€set€forthò ò€òòspecific€factsó óóó€showing€that€there€is€aÏgenuine€issue€of€material€fact€for€trial.ÌÌÌÌò òòòÓÓId.óóó ó€at€211.€€ÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÌà àThe€summary€judgment€process€should€only€be€used€as€a€means€of€concluding€aÏcase€when€there€are€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact,€and€the€case€can€be€resolved€on€the€legalÏissues€alone.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€210€(citingòòò ò€Bellamy€v.€Federal€Express€Corp.ó óóó,€749€S.W.2d€31,€33€(Tenn.Ï1988)).ÌÌà àT.C.A.€ðð€29„26„116€contains€both€a€one„year€statute€of€limitations€and€a€three„yearÏstatute€of€repose€for€medical€malpractice€actions.€€T.C.A.€ðð€29„26„116(a)€provides:€€€ÌÌÓÓà8 à(a)(1)€The€statute€of€limitations€in€malpractice€actions€shall€be€oneÏ(1)€year€as€set€forth€in€ðð€28„3„104.Ìà8 àà à(2)€In€the€event€the€alleged€injury€is€not€discovered€withinÏthe€said€one€(1)€year€period,€the€period€of€limitation€shall€be€one€(1)Ïyear€from€the€date€of€such€discovery.Ìà8 àà à(3)€In€no€event€shall€any€such€action€be€brought€more€thanÏthree€(3)€years€after€the€date€on€which€the€negligent€act€or€omissionÏoccurred€except€where€there€is€fraudulent€concealment€on€the€part€ofÏthe€defendant€in€which€case€the€action€shall€be€commenced€withinÏone€(1)€year€after€discovery€that€the€cause€of€action€exists.Ìà8 àà à(4)€The€time€limitation€herein€set€forth€shall€not€apply€inÏcases€where€a€foreign€object€has€been€negligently€left€in€a€patient'sÏbody€in€which€case€the€action€shall€be€commenced€within€one€(1)Ïyear€after€the€alleged€injury€or€wrongful€act€is€discovered€or€shouldÏhave€been€discovered.ÌÌÌÌÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€29„26„116(a)€(1980).€€€ÌÌà àThe€three„year€statute€of€repose€does€not€begin€to€run€upon€discovery€of€the€injury,Ïbut€rather€on€the€date€of€the€allegedly€negligent€act.€€òòò òBenton€v.€Snyderó óóó,€825€S.W.2d€409,€413Ï(Tenn.€1992);€òòò òBraden€v.€Yoderó óóó,€592€S.W.2d€896,€897€(Tenn.€App.€1979).€€Where€a€statute€ofÏrepose€defense€has€been€asserted€and€established,€the€burden€of€proof€shifts€to€the€plaintiff€toÏestablish€the€exception€to€the€statute€being€claimed.€€òòò òBentonó óóó,€825€S.W.2d€at€413;€òòò òSmith€v.ÏSoutheastern€Properties,€Ltd.ó óóó,€776€S.W.2d€106,€109€(Tenn.€App.€1989);€òòò òStockburger€v.€Rayó óóó,Ï488€S.W.2d€378,€382€(Tenn.€App.€1972).€€ÌÌà àIn€òòò òBentonó óóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€addressing€the€proof€necessary€toÏestablish€fraudulent€concealment€as€an€exception€to€the€statute€of€repose,€stated:€ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àIn€order€to€meet€the€burden,€a€plaintiff€who€seeks€to€toll€aÏstatute€of€limitations€on€the€ground€of€fraudulent€concealment€mustÏprove€that€the€cause€of€action€was€known€to€and€fraudulentlyÏconcealed€by€the€defendant.€€òòò òRay€v.€Scheibertó óóó,€224€Tenn.€(2€Pack)Ï99,€104,€450€S.W.2d€578,€580€(1969).€€Knowledge€on€the€part€ofÏthe€physician€of€the€facts€giving€rise€to€a€cause€of€action€is€anÏessential€element€of€fraudulent€concealment.€€òòò òRay€v.€Scheibertó óóó,€484ÏS.W.2d€63,€72€(Tenn.€App.€1972).€€Concealment€is€also€an€essentialÏelement€and€it€may€consist€of€withholding€information€or€makingÏuse€of€some€device€to€mislead,€thus€involving€act€and€intention.€Ïòòò òPatten€v.€Standard€Oil€Co.€of€Louisianaó óóó,€165€Tenn.€(1€Beeler)Ï438,€443,€55€S.W.2d€759,€761€(1933).ÌÌà8 àà àGenerally,€a€plaintiff€seeking€to€establish€fraudulentÏconcealment€must€prove€that€the€defendant€took€affirmative€action€toÏconceal€the€cause€of€action€and€that€the€plaintiff€could€not€haveÏdiscovered€the€cause€of€action€despite€exercising€reasonableÏdiligence.€€òòò òVance€v.€Schulderó óóó,€547€S.W.2d€927,€930€(Tenn.€1977).€ÏGenerally,€the€affirmative€action€on€the€part€of€a€defendant€must€beÏsomething€more€than€mere€silence€or€a€mere€failure€to€discloseÏknown€facts.€€There€must€be€some€trick€or€contrivance€intended€toÏexclude€suspicion€and€prevent€inquiry,€or€else€there€must€be€a€dutyÏresting€on€the€party€knowing€such€facts€to€disclose€them.€€òòò òPatten€v.ÏStandard€Oil€Co.€of€Louisianaó óóó,€165€Tenn.€(1€Beeler)€438,€443,€55ÏS.W.2d€759,€761€(1933).€€For€example,€such€a€duty€arises€where€aÍconfidential€relationship€exists,€as€between€physician€and€patient.€€InÏsuch€cases,€there€is€a€duty€to€disclose,€and€that€duty€may€renderÏsilence€or€failure€to€disclose€known€facts€fraudulent.€€òòò òHall€v.€DeÏSaussureó óóó,€41€Tenn.€App.€572,€580„84,€297€S.W.2d€81,€86„87Ï(1956),€òòaff'dóó€201€Tenn.€(5€McCanless)€164,€297€S.W.2d€90€(1956).€ÏThis€is€the€rule€in€Tennessee€and€in€other€jurisdictions.€€ò òòòSee,€e.g.ó ó,óóÏòòò òLasoya€v.€Sunayó óóó,€193€Ga.€App.€814,€389€S.E.2d€339€(1989);€Ïòòò òBorderlon€v.€Peckó óóó,€661€S.W.2d€907€(Tex.€1983).ÌÌòòò òÌÌÓÓBentonó óóó,€825€S.W.2d€at€414.€€€ÌÌà àIn€granting€summary€judgment€in€the€instant€case,€the€trial€court€determined€that€theÏGaskins€had€failed€to€present€any€evidence€that€would€create€a€reasonable€inference€that€Dr.€SteinÏactually€knew€the€implants€were€temporary€in€nature€or€that€Dr.€Stein€knew€any€other€facts€whichÏwould€lead€to€an€inference€of€fraudulent€concealment.€€Consequently,€the€trial€court€determined€thatÏPlaintiffs€had€failed€to€carry€their€burden€of€proof€as€to€fraudulent€concealment€and€found€thatÏPlaintiffsðð€claim€was€barred€by€the€statute€of€repose.€€For€the€reasons€hereinafter€set€out€we€affirmÏthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court,€but€on€different€grounds.ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€Gaskins€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€determining€that€the€recordÏwas€void€of€any€evidence€that€would€support€an€inference€of€actual€knowledge€on€the€part€of€Dr.ÏStein.€€To€support€their€argument,€the€Gaskins€point€to€the€affidavit€of€their€expert,€Dr.€HenryÏWall,€D.D.S.,€who€averred€ð ðthat€the€standard€of€care€with€regard€to€the€implantation,€treatment€andÏremoval€of€said€Silastic€TMJ€implant€was€for€its€use€to€be€in€accordance€with€the€manufacturerððsÏinstructions,€which€were€for€the€implantation€to€be€on€a€temporary€basis,€rather€than€a€permanentÏbasis.ðð€€They€further€point€to€the€affidavit€of€Dr.€Stein€wherein€he€states€that€he€is€ð ðfamiliar€withÏthe€standard€of€care€applicable€to€dentists€and€oral€surgeons€practicing€in€this€community.ðð€€TheyÏargue€that€Dr.€Steinððs€statement€that€he€was€ð ðfamiliar€with€the€standard€of€careðð€coupled€with€Dr.ÍWallððs€statement€defining€the€applicable€standard€of€care€are€enough€to€give€rise€to€a€question€ofÏfact€as€to€whether€Dr.€Stein€knew€that€the€implants€were€only€to€be€used€temporarily.€ÌÌà àAssuming€òòò òarguendoó óóó€that€Dr.€Wall€and€Dr.€Steinððs€affidavits€are€minimallyÏsufficient€to€give€rise€to€a€jury€question€of€whether€Dr.€Stein€knew€about€the€temporary€nature€ofÏthe€implants€when€he€and€his€employee€told€Mrs.€Gaskins€that€they€were€for€permanent€use,€weÏdo€not€believe€that€such€a€finding€is€wholly€determinative€in€the€instant€case.€€In€order€toÏsuccessfully€allege€fraudulent€concealment€as€an€exception€to€the€statute€of€repose,€it€is€necessaryÏto€show€that€the€plaintiff€did€not€or€could€not€have€discovered€the€cause€of€action€while€exercisingÏreasonable€diligence.€€òòò òBentonó óóó,€825€S.W.2d€at€414;òòò ò€Vance€v.€Schulderó óóó,€547€S.W.2d€at€930.€€As€theÏcourt€stated€in€òòò òRay€v.€Scheibertó óóó:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[I]nòòò ò€ó óóóorder€for€the€statute€of€limitations€to€be€tolled€by€a€fraudulentÏconcealment€there€must€be€an€allegation€that€the€cause€of€action€wasÏknown€to€the€defendant€and€fraudulently€concealed€by€him€and€thatÏthe€running€of€the€statute€would€not€be€prevented€by€mere€ignoranceÏof€the€plaintiff€and€his€failure€to€discover€the€existence€of€the€causeÏof€action€within€the€statutory€limitation€would€not€prevent€itsÏrunning€and€that€if€the€plaintiff€either€knew€or€neglectfully€failed€toÏdiscover€the€cause€of€action€the€statute€would€not€be€tolled.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òRay,€ó óóó450€S.W.2d€at€580„81€(citing€òòò òHudson€v.€Shouldersó óóó,€164€Tenn.€70,€45€S.W.2d€1072Ï(1931)).Ì€Ìà àIn€the€instant€case,€it€is€undisputed€that€Dr.€Stein€represented€to€Mrs.€Gaskins€thatÏthe€replacement€of€her€TMJ€would€assist€in€alleviating€her€discomfort.€€It€is€further€undisputed€thatÏprior€to€the€surgery€Dr.€Stein€told€her€that€the€only€possible€complication€would€be€a€deadening€ofÏnerve€cells€around€the€implant€areas.€€Notwithstanding€Dr.€Steinððs€representations,€the€pain€in€Mrs.ÍGaskinsðð€head,€neck€and€shoulders€persisted€and€sporadically€worsened€after€completion€of€theÏtwo€implant€operations.€ÌÌà àWhen€her€condition€did€not€improve,€Mrs.€Gaskins€sought€the€advice€of€Dr.ÏMcAfee,€who€ordered€that€a€CT€scan€be€conducted.€€The€October€1987€CT€scan€showed€tears€orÏperforations€in€the€right€TMJ€and€opaque€fragments€of€bone€or€implant€in€the€left€TMJ.€€The€CTÏscan€results€were€read€to€Mrs.€Gaskins€soon€after€the€tests€were€completed.€€Mrs.€GaskinsððÏdeposition€testimony€reveals€that€she€understood€what€the€test€meant,€that€she€felt€ð ðhorror€andÏdisappointmentðð€when€she€heard€the€results,€and€that€she€ð ðknew€something€was€wrong.ðð€€ÌÌà àThe€results€of€the€CT€scan€coupled€with€the€persistent€pain€would€have€put€anyÏreasonable€person€on€notice€of€inquiry€as€to€the€cause€of€their€injuries.€€Notwithstanding€the€1987ÏCT€scan,€and€the€persistent€pain,€€Mrs.€Gaskins€waited€until€1991€to€begin€researching€the€origin€ofÏher€injury.€€This€was€four€years€after€the€October€1987€CT€scan€revealed€that€the€implants€wereÏmalfunctioning.€€We€do€not€think€that€such€an€extended€period€of€time€was€reasonable€based€uponÏthe€facts€before€us.€ÌÌà àBecause€there€is€simply€no€indication€in€the€record€that€Mrs.€Gaskins€could€notÏhave€discovered€her€cause€of€action€prior€to€1991€had€she€attempted€to€do€so,€her€claim€ofÏfraudulent€concealment€must€fail.€€Mrs.€Gaskins€did€not€file€this€suit€until€June€23,€1993.€ÏTherefore,€her€claim€is€barred€by€the€three„year€medical€malpractice€statute€of€repose.€ÌÌà àGiven€our€ruling€in€respect€to€the€issue€presented€by€Plaintiffs,€we€deem€itÏunnecessary€to€address€Defendantsðð€issue.€€€€€à àÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€theÏappellants,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓÓ` Ü` È“XÓà à_______________________________Ìà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌLILLARD,€J.€(Concurs)›