WPCxb  0~V 0x 0kL 0k 0" 0~ 0: 0 0 0 0  0 01 0C 0V( 0~ 0M 0 0 0X 0 0 0 0KUB %0 0z6 0 1 0 r 0= 0F 0P 1V 0 0O$#Es# 0}u# 0x# 0j$ 0j$ 0ea% 0W% 0W& 0t& 0j& 0b' 0( 0( 0w) 0X* 0L+ 0S, 0-m- 0@. 0/ 00 0#1 01 0^2 03 03 0l4 04 15?6nO6 0 46 B074M7 0a7*7 0J(= 1mr= 0@= 0J> 0Ti> 0^> 0d? 0h? 0r? D3Y@ 0|@ 0A 0A 1uBU,B 0dBU,#CU6OCB)CDCC AMCU*>DJhD5E,GJLN<Qv~4TvU 0[ 0\ 0\ 0>] 0] 0^ 0_ AO`` 0Pa 0Da D/,b B[bV& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S !"($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper % z &(  &XXXXX6G''*d66G''*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+('2$ FT!   p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|x<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   dU_A $(G.2$ FT!   4XX     0  JERROLDBECKERLUCINDAALBISTONDarleneDHSNellieCurreyMcCroskeyBryantPottsCelotexEducSarnoA.L.R.5thJocelynRigazioKy.AppSanchezTex.AppVeseckySuppN.D.IllFagerHundtN.E.2dIndByrdClaryFooteWilmaCronanDonaldsonAultJaskoFarrisComptonTichenorCirHoultF.SuppFryeHooleyPetersenBruenLemmermanFealkErnstesWarnerSetoWillitsShippenParrottR.D.LovelaceKeohaneBailySchmidtTysonHackworthRalstonPurinaErnsdorffLoftusOlsen($   0  Stuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)("$    2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  (<1$26.  0  3  0  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  GGGG'dxd2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  PQRTUXYZ ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 dffff7Border 1ddNgC << G<  9p`(Arial @ F!  #d#\e  "  ii   YYY FILEDiX February13,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.iAppellateCourtClerk  + F!#d#\e  I$e         Ms.Hunterspecificallystated:  8 5. ThatIdenyanymemoryofeverhavingtoldanyoneaboutmyabortionin1982whileunderDr.Foote'scarein1990oratHarrimanHospitalin1990.  8 6. ThatIdonotknowthesourceoftheinformationinDr.ClaryFoote'smedicalrecords. " F!#d#\e  I$e         InhismemorandumopiniontheTrialJudgeheld:  8 Theonlyconclusiontobedrawnfromthesefactsisthatsinceinformationwasgiventomedicalprovidersthatrelatedtotheevents,theplaintiffdidnothavearepressedmemoryofthefactsonwhichshebasesherclaimandthereisnogenuineissuefortrial.  F!#d#\e  I$e         SeeGregoryGSarno,Annotation,EmotionalorPsychological"Blocking"orRepressionasTollingRunningofStatuteofLimitations,11A.L.R.5th588(1993);RussellG.Donaldson,RunningofLimitationsAgainstActionForCivilDamagesforSexualAbuseofChild,9A.L.R.5th321(1993).  F!#d#\e  I$e        ݀ SeeAultv.Jasko,637N.E.2d870(Ohio1994);Farrisv.Compton,652A.2d49(D.C.App.1994);Tichenorv.RomanCatholicChurchofNewOrleans,32F.3d953(5thCir.1994)(applyingLouisianalaw);Veseckyv.Vesecky,880S.W.2d804(Tex.App.1994);Houltv.Hoult,792F.Supp.143(D.C.Mass.1992)(applyingMassachusettslaw);MaryD.v.JohnD.,264Cal.Rptr.633(Cal.App.1989);Johnsonv.Johnson,701F.Supp.1363(N.D.Ill.1988)(applyingIllinoislaw).  F!#d#\e  I$e         ` X)0*X  SeeLemmermanv.Fealk,534N.W.2d695(Mich.1995);Ernstesv.Warner,860F.Supp.1338(S.D.Ind.1994);Sanchezv.ArchdioceseofSanAntonio,873S.W.2d87(Tex.App.1994);Setov.Willits,638A.2d258(Pa.Super.1994);Shippenv.Parrott,506N.W.2d82(S.D.1993);Doev.R.D.,417S.E.2d541(S.C.1992);Lovelacev.Keohane,831P.2d624(Okl.1992);Bailyv.Lewis,763F.Supp.802(E.D.Pa.1991);Schmidtv.Bishop,779F.Supp.321(S.D.N.Y.1991);Tysonv.Tyson,727P.2d226(Wash.1986). 2 F!#d#\e  I$e         Foralistingoflegalandpsychologicalworksdebatingthisissue,seeLemmermanv.Fealk,534N.W.2dat705(concurringopinion).SeealsoGaryM.Ernsdorff&ElizabethF.Loftus, LetSleepingMemoriesLie?WordsofCautionAboutTollingtheStatuteofLimitationsInCasesofMemoryRepression ,84J.Crim.L.&Criminology129(1993).PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA: T Monaco  BA: T Monaco (gfi$0  2(6.  0  .  0  3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2A   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xr$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2A(  0  )3  0 (# (#(U$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2A(  a  )3  0h(#(#(@$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2A(   )3  0h(#h(#(t$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2A  0  )3  0(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2A  a  )3  0p(#(#NC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5((3$ FT!   ($$   1  ' dxdP Pd F! . \&ddXd&#ddXd#e    7XXdd7\RA'\ `    , 5  f u` Lhjg;+'h|`  `L@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE       @ EASTERNSECTIONREGINADARLENEHUNTER@ ) ROANECOUNTY@ ) 03A019504CV00127 PlaintiffAppellant@ )̀@ )        @ ) v. @ ) HON.RUSSELLE.SIMMONS,JR.,@ ) JUDGE@ ) EDBROWN,JR. @ ) @ ) DefendantAppellee@ ) AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED@ @ JERROLDL.BECKERandLUCINDAM.ALBISTONOFKNOXVILLEFORAPPELLANTPATRICKC.COOLEYOFKINGSTONFORAPPELLEE     OPINION         Goddard,P.J.  DarleneHunterfiledthisactionagainstEdBrown,Jr.,onJuly15,1993,allegingthathesexuallyabusedherduring1981and1982.Inhisanswer,Mr.BrowndeniedtheallegationsofthecomplaintandaverredthattheactionwasbarredbyT.C.A.283104(a),theoneyearstatuteoflimitationsapplicabletopersonalinjuryactions.OnJanuary31,1995,theTrialCourtgrantedsummaryjudgmenttoMr.Brown,rulingthatthestatuteoflimitationsbarredMs.Hunter'sclaim.Ms.HunterappealstheTrialCourt'sruling,insistingthathersuppressedmemoryoftheeventtolledtherunningofthestatuteoflimitations.  Therecord,whenviewedinalightmostfavorabletoMs.HunterinaccordancewiththedictatesofByrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208(Tenn.1993),disclosesthefollowingfacts.DarleneHunterwasbornonOctober13,1967.In1975,shewasplacedinthecustodyoftheRoaneCountyofficeoftheDepartmentofHumanServices(DHS).Shespentthebalanceofherchildhoodinvariousfosterhomes.InJuneof1981,attheageof12,DHSplacedDarleneinthehomeofEdBrown,Jr.,andhiswifeNellieBrown.ThefollowingmonthMr.BrownbegansexuallymolestingDarlene.Themolestation,includingrape,continuedforseveralmonths.Duringthespringof1982,attheageof13,Darlenebecamepregnant.  Afraidtotellanyoneofhercondition,Darleneenduredtheearlysymptomsofpregnancyinsilence.Finally,afternoticingchangesinDarlene'shealth,Mrs.BrowntookhertoadoctorinKingston.ThedoctorconfirmedthepregnancyandmadeDarlenetellMrs.BrownthatMr.Brownhadrapedher.Mrs.Brown,whodidnotbelieveDarlene,becameangry,andrefusedtoallowDarlenetoreturnhome.Instead,Mrs.BrowntookDarlenetoherDHScaseworker,PatMartin.DarlenestayedwithMs.MartinforseveraldaysduringwhichtimeshetoldMs.MartinhowMr.Brownhadtreatedher.Ms.MartindroveDarlenetoKnoxvilleandarrangedforhertoundergoanabortionattheKnoxvilleCenterforReproductiveHealth.ShealsoarrangedforDarlenetotellherstorytotheRoaneCountyDistrictAttorney.Apparently,noinvestigationensued.  DarlenespentthenextseveralmonthsinatemporaryfosterhomeinRoaneCountyafterwhichDHStransferredhertoagrouphomeinNashville.Shespoketonooneregardingtheabuseorherabortionforthenext10years.Sometimeduringthisperiodsherepressedhermemoryoftheseevents.  InAugustof1990,Ms.Hunter,nowanadultlivinginRoaneCounty,gavebirthtoadaughterattheHarrimanCityHospital.In1992,Ms.Hunterbecamepregnantagainanddecidedtoabortthepregnancy.Ms.HunterreturnedtotheKnoxvilleCenterforReproductiveHealthandunderwentanabortioninJuneof1992.Assheawokefromtheanesthesia,Ms.Hunterbegantorememberbeingintheclinicandundergoinganabortionyearsbefore. k   ׀Intheweeksthatfollowed,bitsofhermemorybeganreturningandMs.Huntersoughtemotionalcounsellingandlegalassistance.Overthenextfewmonths,Ms.Hunter,withtheaidofalicensedclinicalsocialworker,wasabletorecallthedetailsofMr.Brown'sabuse,herchildhoodpregnancy,andtheabortion.  Ms.Hunterfiledthisactionwithinoneyearofbeginningtorecoverhermemory.PriortograntingsummaryjudgmentinfavorofMr.Brown,theTrialCourtdeterminedthatifshecouldproverepressedmemory,thediscoveryrulewouldtollthestatuteoflimitations,savingMs.Hunter'sclaim.Mr.BrownprofferedcertainmedicalrecordsfromtheHarrimandoctorswhoattendedMs.Hunterduringher1990pregnancy.Thoserecordscontainentriesregardingarapeandabortionatanearlyage.Mr.Brownmovedforajudgmentonthepleadings(whichtheCourttreatedasasummaryjudgment)arguingtherewasnodisputedissueofmaterialfactregardingtheallegedrepressedmemorysincethemedicalrecordsreflectthatsomeonetoldthedoctorsabouttherapeandabortion.Inresponse,Ms.Hunterfiledanaffidavitinwhichshedeniedanymemoryoftellingherdoctorsabouttheoccurrence.Afterreviewingthisevidence,theTrialCourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentinfavorofMr.BrownfindingthatalthoughMs.Huntersworeshedidnotremembertellingthedoctorsabouttherapeandabortion,shedidnotdenytellingthem.Thus,therewasnogenuinedisputeoverwhethersherememberedtheabusein1990. l     AlthoughtheissuesraisedbyMs.HunterquestiontheTrialCourt'sdeterminationinlightofthefactsdeveloped,webelieveamoresignificantissue,whichisoneoffirstimpressioninthisState,isdeterminativeofthisappeal.Thatissueiswhetherarepressedmemorytollsthestatuteoflimitationsuntildiscovery.  TheTennesseeSupremeCourtadoptedthediscoveryruleinthe1974medicalmalpracticecaseofTeetersv.Currey,518S.W.2d512,517(Tenn.1974).TheCourtwrote:    [I]nthoseclassesofcaseswheremedicalmalpracticeisassertedtohaveoccurredthroughthenegligentperformanceofsurgicalprocedures,thecauseofactionaccruesandthestatuteoflimitationscommencestorunwhenthepatientdiscovers,orintheexerciseofreasonablecareanddiligenceforhisownhealthandwelfare,shouldhavediscoveredtheresultinginjury.    Fivemonthslater,inaproductsliabilitycase,theCourtexpandedtheapplicationofthediscoveryruleto"tortactions,includingbutnotrestrictedtoproductsliabilityactions...predicatedonnegligence,strictliabilityormisrepresentation."McCroskeyv.BryantAirConditioningCo.,524S.W.2d487(Tenn.1975).Atfirstblush,thelanguageofMcCroskeyindicatesthattheCourtintendedforthediscoveryruletobeappliedinalltortcases.However,theSupremeCourt'sopinioninQualityAutoPartsv.BluffCityBuick,876S.W.2d818(Tenn.1994),holdsotherwise.Indecliningtoapplythediscoveryruletodefamationcases,thatCourtwrote:"Whendeterminingwhethertoapplythediscoveryrule,thiscourtconsidersthespecificstatutorylanguageatissue,andbalancesthepoliciesfurtheredbyapplicationofthediscoveryruleagainstthelegitimatepoliciesuponwhichstatutesoflimitationsarebased."Wedeemitappropriatetofollowthissameprocedureindeterminingwhethertoapplythediscoveryruletocasesinvolvingrepressedmemoriesofchildabuse.  Thebasicpurposesunderlyingstatutesoflimitationaretopreventunduedelayinbringingactionsonclaimsandtogivedefendantsnoticetopreservetheevidencenecessaryforthedefenseoftheclaim.Pottsv.CelotexCorp.,796S.W.2d678(Tenn.1990).Courtsdevelopedthediscoveryruletoavoidthe"harshandoppressiverule"thatthestatuteoflimitationsbeginstorunagainstaplaintiff'sclaimimmediatelyupontheinflictionoftheinjuryregardlessofwhethertheplaintiffisawareofthetortiousconductorresultinginjury.Teetersv.Currey,supra.  AlthoughTennesseehasnotaddressedthequestion,areviewofcaselawinotherjurisdictionsdisclosesthreeseparateresolutionsofthequestion. m   ׀̀   Somecasesholdanallegationofrepressedmemoryissufficienttobringthediscoveryruleintoplay. n   ׀InFarrisv.Compton,652A.2d49(D.C.App.1994),theDistrictofColumbiaCourtofAppealsallowedthediscoveryruletotollthestatuteoflimitationswhererepressedmemorywasalleged.TheCourtreasonedthatadefendantwhopurportedlycausedtherepressedmemoryshouldnotbeallowedtousetherepressiontoprofitfromhisownwrongfulconductandinvokethestatuteoflimitationsasadefense.However,theFarrisCourtnotedthattherewasanuncertaintyamongattorneys,psychologistsandpsychoanalystsastothevalidityofrepressedmemorytheory.  Likewise,inAultv.Jasko,637N.E.2d870(Ohio1994),theOhioSupremeCourtappliedthediscoveryruletoallowanallegationofrepressedmemorytotollthestatuteoflimitationsinachildhoodabusecase.However,JusticeWrightdissentedvigorously.Hisdissentwasbaseduponthefactthattherewaslittleagreementamongpsychologistsastowhethermemoriescanberecalledatallaftertheyarerepressedand,ifso,whethertheycanberecalledaccurately.Healsocitedpsychologicalauthorityforthepropositionthatthemethodsusedbypsychologistsandpsychoanalyststoretrieverepressedmemorieswere"unreliableandarenotsufficientlyestablished".Heparalleledthecredibilityofrepressedmemorywiththatofpolygraphtests.Polygraphtestshavegenerallynotbeenacceptedbythecourtsbecausetheirreliabilitydidnotreachthestandardthatitbe"sufficientlyestablishedtohavegainedgeneralacceptanceintheparticularfieldtowhichitbelongs,"citingFryev.UnitedStates,293F.1013(D.C.1923).Thus,giventhedisputedreliabilityofrepressedmemoryandthemethodsusedtoretrievethem,JusticeWrightwouldhavefoundtheappropriateforumforthedeterminationofthisissuetobetheStateLegislature.  Thereisalineofcasesthatapplythediscoveryruletotollthestatuteoflimitationsinrepressedmemorycasesifthereisindependentcorroborationoftheabuse.SeeOlsenv.Hooley,865P.2d1345(Utah1993);Petersenv.Bruen,792P.2d18(Nev.1990).InOlsen,theUtahSupremeCourtappliedthediscoveryruletotollthestatuteoflimitationswhenaplaintiffallegedmemoryrepression.But,theCourtstated"thiskindofcasepresentspracticaldifficultieswithrespecttoascertainingthedegreetowhichmemoriesallegedlyrepressedandthenrevivedaccuratelyreflecttherealityofthepast."Also,theCourtexpressedconcernthatthemethodsusedtorevivethememories"mayinducememoriesofeventsthatneverhappened."Thus,inlightofthequestionablevalidityoftherepressedmemorytheory,theCourtfounditnecessarytorequirecorroboratingevidencetosupporttheallegationsofabuseinorderforthediscoveryruletoapply.  Othercourtsrefusetoapplythediscoveryruleinrepressedmemorycasestotollthestatuteoflimitations. o   Inarecentopinion,theMichiganSupremeCourtdeclinedtoapplythediscoveryruleintherepressedmemorycontextinLemmermanv.Fealk,534N.W.2d695(Mich.1995).TheCourtreasonedthattoallowsuchanapplicationofthediscoveryruleinabsenceofobjectiveandverifiableevidencewouldobviatethepolicyofstatuteoflimitationswhichistoencourageplaintiffstopromptlyperuseclaimsandtoprotectdefendantsfromhavingtodefendagainststaleandfraudulentclaims.AccordQualityAutoPartsCo.v.BluffCityBuick,876S.W.2d818(Tenn.1994);Hackworthv.RalstonPurinaCo.,381S.W.2d292(Tenn.1964).TheCourtdistinguishedproductsliabilityandmedicalmalpracticecasesbythefactthatinthosecasesthereisalwaysobjectiveandverifiableevidencesuchasaninjuryoranillness.However,inrepressedmemorycasesthiscomponentisabsent.Therefore,adoptionofthediscoveryruleinthiscontext"wouldleaveadeterminationoftheonsetofalimitationsperiodanopenquestionwithinthesubjectivecontroloftheplaintiff."Lemmermanv.Fealk,supra.Thereafter,theCourtstatedthattheLegislaturewastheappropriateforumfordebateontheissueoftheapplicationofthediscoveryruletorepressedmemorycases.  BecausewehavethesamereservationsastheMichiganSupremeCourtinLemmermanandJusticeWrightinAult,wedeclinetoapplythediscoveryruletotollthestatuteoflimitationsinrepressedmemorycases.Rather,wedeferthedeterminationofthisissuetotheLegislature.  AsdidJusticeWright,wefindthatthereissimplytoomuchindecisioninthescientificcommunityastothecredibilityofrepressedmemory.Ingeneral,psychologistshavenotcometoanagreementastowhetherrepressedmemoriesmaybeaccuratelyrecalledorwhethertheymayberecalledatall. p   ׀Therefore,itgoeswithoutsayingthatthejudiciarydoesnothavetheresourcesneededtomakeanaccuraterulingonthevalidityofapsychologicaltheoryaboutwhichprofessionalsinthefielddisagree.Also,thereisconsiderabledoubtaboutthereliabilityofmemoriesthatarerecalledwiththeassistanceofatherapistorpsychoanalyst.ACaliforniatrialcourtrecentlyupheldajuryawardof$500,000toanaccusedsexualoffenderwhohadbroughtsuitagainsthisdaughter'stherapistwhoheallegedhadplantedfalsememoriesofchildhoodsexualabuseinherpatient'smind.SeeMarkHansen,MoreFalseMemorySuitsLikely,Aug.1994ABAJournal36.    InherentlackofverifiableandobjectiveevidenceinthesecasesdistinguishesthemfromcasesinwhichTennesseecourtshaveappliedthediscoveryrule.SeeTeetersv.Currey,supra(applyingthediscoveryruletomedicalmalpracticeclaimsinjuryevidencedbypregnancy);McCroskeyv.BryantAirConditioningCo.,supra(defectivefurnacecausinginjurywasverifiableevidenceofaproductdefect)andPottsv.CelotexCorp.,supra(mesotheliomaasevidenceofdiscoveryofproductdefect).Inthosecases,therewasaninjurythatmanifestitselfinaverifiableform.Intherepressedmemorycontext,aplaintiff'sallegationsareevidencedbyhisorherownrecollection.Giventheuncertaintyastothereliabilityofthisrecollection,wedeclinetoadoptthediscoveryruleinsuchcases.LiketheLemmermanCourtweareunwillingtoputthedeterminationwhenthestatuteoflimitationsaccruessolelyinthehandsofaplaintiff.Thelikelihoodofabuseissimplytoohigh.Further,wefeelthatanadoptionofthepositionsetforthinOlsenandBruen,thatthediscoveryrulewillapplyifthereiscorroboratingevidencetosupporttheallegation,isnotsufficienttoreplacethepolicybehindstatutesoflimitations.  TheTennesseeGeneralAssemblyhasyettoenactlegislationonthesubjectofrepressedmemoryinchildhoodsexualabusecases.Giventhedebateamongpsychologistsandpsychoanalystsastothevalidityofthistheory,we,asalreadynoted,holdthattheLegislaturewhichmayhavethebenefitofthetestimonyofvariousexpertsinthefieldistheappropriateforumforaddressingthequestionpresented.  FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmedandthecauseremandedforcollectionofcostsbelow.CostsofappealareadjudgedagainstMs.Hunterandhersurety.Ӏ      _______________________________      HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.CONCUR:_(SeparateConcurringOpinion)_HerschelP.Franks,J.________________________________DonT.McMurray,J.