ÿWPCu …# VU:a %› 0¸¡bY 4a u 0ü„ 0D€ Ä Ì D3Ì 0Jÿ 0TI w 0^­ 0h  0rs 0|å 0†a 0ç 1uwU,ì 0dU,|U*¨B)ÒDCû AM>—‹v~"vÓ  Bs 0@ AOÐÆ 0Då D/) BX˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0†, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX( 7$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ` ` ÑÓÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑ- ù-v‡d 3|x[(¬(3T6$¤¤Ý ƒ 7!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ` °ÑÓÓÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó****'ÿÿdxd2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔMÓ€Y2, 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`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òMarchÏ5,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÑ p ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€O‰XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßL€&'%;+'h|` à. `€€LßIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌEASTERN€SECTION€AT€KNOXVILLEÌó ó„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„ÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌTINA€HARVEY€et€ux,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHAMILTON€CIRCUITÌà àPlaintiffs/Appellantsà àà à)€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€Ï03A01„9512„CV„00452Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌGENETH€WOLFER,€D.O.,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌà àDefendant/Appelleeà àà à)ÌÌò òòòÌóóó óÌÌSelma€Cash€Paty,€Chattanooga,€For€the€Appellant€ÌÌDavid€E.€Harrison€and€Tonya€Kennedy€McIntosh,ÏChattanooga,€For€the€Appellee€ÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌÓ  Óó óóóINMAN,€Senior€JudgeÌòòò òÌÌóóÌÓ  ÓÓÓIó óÌÓ  Óà àInitially,€this€action€was€one€for€damages€for€theÏalleged€medical€malpractice€of€the€defendant€inÍdropping€the€plaintiff€Tina€Harvey€or€preventing€her€from€falling€and€fracturing€herÏankle€after€an€injection€which€may€have€caused€numbness€in€her€legs.Ìà àThe€defendant€filed€her€answer€insisting€that€she€exercised€a€degree€of€careÏcommensurate€with€that€exercised€by€other€osteopathic€physicians€in€ChattanoogaÏand€thus€was€entitled€to€the€defenses€provided€by€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€29„26„101€òòetÏseq.óó,€the€Medical€Malpractice€Review€Board€and€Claims€Act.Ìà àWhereupon,€the€plaintiffs€were€allowed€to€amend€their€complaint€to€allegeÏthat€the€defendant€was€negligent€in€the€manner€in€which€Tina€Harvey€was€movedÏfrom€the€examination€table€which€resulted€in€her€being€dropped.Ìà àThe€defendant€moved€for€summary€judgment,€supported€by€her€affidavit€thatÏ"all€actions€taken€by€me€to€Mrs.€Harvey€were€appropriate€and€proper€and€in€fullÏconformity€with€the€applicable€standard€of€care€for€my€profession."€€The€plaintiffsÏfiled€no€countervailing€affidavit€by€an€expert€medical€witness,€relying€instead€on€theÏtestimony€of€the€defendant€that,€following€an€injection,€Mrs.€Harvey€becameÏnauseous€and€experienced€numbness€in€her€legs€while€sitting€on€an€examinationÏtable.€€A€wheelchair€was€provided€for€Mrs.€Harvey€because€a€gurney€was€too€largeÏfor€the€room.€€But€Mrs.€Harvey€never€made€it€to€the€wheelchair.€€She€began€to€fallÏforward€and€the€defendant,€with€an€assistant,€"sat€her€on€the€floor."€€During€this€timeÏinterval,€Mrs.€Harvey's€legs€were€numb,€and€the€defendant€testified€"when€she€did€aÏtwisting€motion€her€foot€got€twisted€under€her,"€resulting€in€a€fractured€ankle.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€Tina€Harvey€testified€that€"they€either€let€go€or€dropped€me."Ìà àBecause€the€plaintiff€filed€no€affidavit€which€countervailed€that€of€theÏdefendant,€the€trial€judge€was€of€the€opinion€that€the€motion€of€the€defendant€forÏsummary€judgment€was€well€taken.€€The€complaint€was€thereupon€dismissed,€theÏpropriety€of€which€is€presented€for€review.ÌÓ  Óò òIIó óÌÓ  Óà àIf€this€case€was€simply€one€for€damages€for€medical€malpractice,€we€wouldÏreadily€agree€with€the€trial€judge€and€affirm€the€judgment€at€this€juncture.€€But€in€ourÏopinion,€the€facts€sound€more€in€common€law€negligence€than€medicalÏmalpractice,€and€the€case€of€òòGraniger€v.€Methodist€Hospital€Healthcare€System,ÏInc.óó,€No.€02A01„9309„CV„00201€(filed€at€Jackson,€September€9,€1994),€relied€uponÏby€the€defendant,€is€inapposite.€€Mrs.€Graniger€made€no€complaint€of€weakness€inÏher€legs,€which€were€swollen.€€She€was€left€unattended€in€the€examination€roomÏand,€when€she€attempted€to€alight€from€the€table,€she€fell€and€suffered€fractures.€ÏShe€charged€the€defendants€with€malpractice€and€common€law€negligence,€butÏsubmitted€no€countervailing€affidavit€on€the€issue€of€malpractice.€€Her€insistenceÏupon€appeal€centered€upon€the€issue€of€common„law€negligence.€€The€òòGranigeróóÏcourt€held€that€the€distinction€between€ordinary€negligence€and€malpractice€turnsÏon€whether€the€acts€or€omissions€complained€of€involve€a€matter€of€medicalÏscience€or€require€specialized€skills€not€ordinarily€possessed€by€lay€persons€orÏwhether€the€conduct€complained€of€can€instead€be€assessed€on€the€basis€of€theÏcommon€everyday€experience€of€the€trier€of€fact.€€The€Court€continued€that€expertÍmedical€testimony€was€necessary€as€to€whether€the€plaintiff's€conditionÏnecessitated€assistance.Ìà àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€defendant€admits€that€Mrs.€Harvey€needed€assistanceÏand€was€actively€assisting€her€when€the€fracture€occurred.€€From€the€perspective€ofÏthe€defendant,€Mrs.€Harvey's€fractured€ankle€occurred€when€her€numb€leg€"gotÏtwisted€under€her"€notwithstanding€that€she€was€under€the€complete€control€of€theÏdefendant€at€the€time.€€From€the€perspective€of€the€plaintiff,€her€ankle€was€fracturedÏwhen€the€plaintiff€and€his€assistant€"dropped€her."€€The€plaintiff€is€of€short€statureÏand€normal€weight;€the€defendant€is€a€large€person.€€Her€assistant's€dimensionsÏare€not€in€the€record.ÌÓ  Óò òIIIó óÌÓ  Óà àA€Rule€56€motion€requires€a€court€to€determine€whether€there€exists€anyÏgenuine€issue€of€a€disputed€material€fact.€€To€do€this,€we€look€to€all€the€evidence,Ïtake€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€it€favorably€to€the€opponent€of€the€motion,Ïdiscard€all€countervailing€evidence€and€recognize€that€summary€proceedings€areÏnot€substitutes€for€trials.€€òòRobinson€v.€Tenn.€Farmers€Mut.€Ins.€Co.óó,€857€S.W.2d€559,Ï566€(Tenn.€App.€1993).€€We€cannot€weigh€the€evidence€and€must€proceed€in€theÏlight€most€favorable€to€the€non„moving€party.€€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210„11€Ï(Tenn.€1993).€€If€there€is€a€genuine€doubt€as€to€the€conclusions€to€be€drawn€fromÏthe€facts,€the€case€should€be€tried€on€its€merits.Ìà àAgainst€these€settled€principles,€there€can€be€no€doubt€that€summaryÍjudgment€was€inappropriate.€€The€plaintiff€testified€that€the€defendant€dropped€her,Ïan€act€not€implicative€of€medical€science€and,€one€that€may€be€assessed€on€theÏbasis€of€common€experience.Ìà àWhether€Mrs.€Harvey's€injury€was€sustained€as€a€result€of€the€ordinaryÏnegligence€of€the€defendant€is€a€disputed€issue€of€fact,€òòsee€Brooks€v.€Memphis€andÏShelby€County€Hospital€Authorityóó,€717€S.W.2d€292€(Tenn.€1986),€for€resolution€by€aÏtrier€of€fact€pursuant€to€òòMcIntyreóó€principles.Ìà àThe€judgment€is€reversed€and€the€case€is€remanded€for€trial,€with€costsÏassessed€to€the€appellee.Ìà àÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌConcur:ÌÌÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€JudgeÌÌÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€JudgeÌ