WPCA xt'9TXu_lI`Ls#8%u.t \'DAAJ]UCykq|KժCSLhh2%#sD^]UÑKJFxY.{& 9WY؉#kЕYȏEz _KWNj)G 4c{4hKST;P-EMr/hI_NX"R@T袘vzyaG e =Re04J>G7.WT`VXZ,/qh>!_4f$դ= j+tHIYK*m*CsعA V tbQ Dl &E ;;RoFfݜ+|[xM0Fċa4@+ҳL~ ODE\a 0~N 0x 0kD 0k 0 0~ 02 0 0 0 0  0 01 0C 0V  0v 0E 0 0 0P 0  0 0 0CUB %( 0z. 0 1 0 j 0={ 0F 0P 1N 0 0O#Ek# 0}m# 0x# 0b$ 0j$ 0eY% 0W% 0W& 0l& 0j& 0Z' 0( 0( 0o) 0P* 0D+ 0K, 0-e- 0@. 0/ 00 01 01 0V2 02 03 0d4 04 1576nG6 046 B(74E7 0Y7^7 0JT8@8# 9N:: m:;;b<U>,=w@j=UB= AQ==> 0D? 0DG? 0D? D/? B?@ D3AU:OAV& 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)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|x<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   ds~&$(G.29$ FT!   XX     0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS($   0   VANNLASLEYPINCHAKMcDONALDLUFKINFRIERSONShelbyvilleGlenna KiddHawthornes S.W.ClarksvilleNETHERTONBraswellCarothersHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLhU I9$  XX     1     ` Themotiontoreconsiderwassupportedbyadditionalaffidavits. GLENNA KIDDShelbyvilleMcMURRAYGlenna KiddHawthornes IY$  VXX     1     ` Themotiontoreconsiderwassupportedbyadditionalaffidavits.<( 9Z &Courier Regular IDeӀ<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXYZ[\C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ F!  (3$ F!  ($$   1  ]]' dxdP Pd Y"  `X7rXXX`("X`X7r   Ad FILED`X7rX`("  June9,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh GGGG'dxd,cAZ"Arial Regular FT!   _  7ZQXXdd7TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'T`   XќTXZQXXXrW^_<,(j 8` `@Ef ` 8ttxP`  rREGINAHARRIS,Individually@*@@*)0  C/ANo.01A019806CV00299` (#(# andasParentandNextFriend@*)  DAVIDSONCOUNTY (  ofRONNIEDALENETHERTON,JR.,@*)0  CircuitNo.96C3667 (#(# tW^_>.*jx'` `@E ` 8ttxP'  tߛaMinor@*)    X    `  @*)   p    ЀPlaintiffsAppellants  @*)   H  Ѐ@*)  @*  Ѐv.@*)   x Ѐ@*)   @ DR.ANDREWL.CHERNand  @*)   h  BAPTISTHOSPITAL,INC.@*)   0  @*)  DefendantsAppellees@*)   `  @| |  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSATNASHVILLE  H  APPEALEDFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTOFDAVIDSONCOUNTYATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEETHEHONORABLETHOMASW.BROTHERS,JUDGE@*   H TriciaDennis6400LeeHighway,Suite102Chattanooga,TN37421  AttorneyforPlaintiffsAppellantsGayleMalone,Jr.KathrynJ.LaddTrabue,Sturdivant&DeWitt2500NashvilleCityCenter511UnionStreetNashville,TN37219  AttorneysforDefendantAppelleèBaptistHospital,Inc.@<< VACATEDANDREMANDED   `    HoustonM.Goddard,PresidingJudge  @.$/ CONCUR:FRANKS,J.@$OPINION p5,8    ` ThisisamedicalmalpracticecasewhereinRonnieDaleNetherton,Jr.,sustainedseverebraininjuryincidenttohis :1?9 birthatBaptistHospital,Inc.TheTrialJudgegrantedapartialjudgmentinfavorofBaptistastoanynegligenceallegedagainstitinconnectionwiththepostnatalcareofPlaintiffRonnieNetherton,Jr.AlthoughtheTrialJudgeoverruledthemotionforsummaryjudgmentallegingnegligencebyBaptistprecedingRonniesbirth,theTrialJudge,whenrulingonthePlaintiffssmotionwhichwassupportedbyadditionalaffidavitstoreconsiderQS K   1      thisorderofpartialsummary `  judgment,overruledthemotionandmadethepartialsummaryjudgmentfinalpursuanttoRule54oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure,resultinginthisappeal.   ` ThesolequestionpresentediswhethertheTrialJudgecommittedprejudicialerrorbyoverrulingthePlaintiffsmotiontoreconsiderhisawardofpartialsummaryjudgment.   ` Beforeaddressingthemeritsofthisappeal,werecognizethatthestandardofreviewastotheissuepresentedisassetoutinRosev.H.C.A.HealthServicesofTennessee, #" Inc.,947S.W.2d144(Tenn.App.1996),whichholdsthataltering % $ oramendingamotiontoreconsiderasummaryjudgmentrestsinthesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt.   ` TheTrialCourtdeniedthemotiontoreconsiderbecausetheaffidavitssupportingthemotiondidnotmeettherequirementsof newlydiscoveredevidence.   ` Itdoesappear,contrarytotheTrialCourtsfindings,thatthePlaintiffscouldnothaveknownofcertainfactswhichwerenotapartofthehospitalrecordsuntilthedepositionofobstetricalnurseChristyWilliswastaken.ThisismorefullyexplainedintheaffidavitofcounselforthePlaintiffs: @8.< Ї ` 7. Itwasnotuntilthedepositionofthe `  obstetricalnurse,ChristyWillis,wastakenonDecember2,1997thatPlaintiffsattorneyslearnedthatChristyWillishadreceivedthisinformationthroughhercomputerfromthelaboratory,thatatemporarywrittenstatementofthecordbloodgasseshadbeenprintedbutthenremovedfromthefilewhentheofficiallabresultswerereportedat11:03pm.onAugust3,1994.PlaintiffscounselalsolearnedinthedepositionthatWillishadbeenawareofthebabyssevereacidosisbuthadnotcommunicatedthisinformationtoanyofthenurserypersonnelordoctorsresponsibleforthecareoftheinfant.   ` WearenotinclinedtofindthatthePlaintiffsmusttakethedepositionsofallpossiblewitnessesinresistingamotionforsummaryjudgmentbut,underthefactsofthiscase,wereentitledtorelyuponallpertinentfactsrelativetothedeliveryandthephysicalconditionofRonniebeingplacedinthehospitalrecords.  `6-0    ` Inthisregard,itwouldseemananomalytousthatBaptistcouldremovepertinentinformationwhichitshouldhaveretained,andthenfaultthePlaintiffsfornotdiscoveringit.    ` Severalreportedcaseshaveaddressedtheproprietyofamotionforreconsiderationofanordergrantingsummaryjudgment.InSchaeferv.Larsen,688S.W.2d430(Tenn.App.1984), @  thisCourt,speakingthroughJudgeNearn,saidthattheproprietyofsuchamotionshouldnotbetestedbythenewlydiscoveredevidenceruleand,indoingso,employedthefollowinglanguage:[W]earenotatallsatisfiedthatthestrictrequirementofrulesregardingnewlydiscoveredevidenceshouldbeappliedtothematterofsummaryjudgments.Inmattersofnewlydiscoveredevidence,thepartieshavealreadyhadatrial.Thepartiesare !` entitledtoonetrial.Thebasicpurposeofcourtsandjudgesistoaffordthecitizenryapublicforumtoairdisputes.Therefore,innewlydiscoveredevidencecircumstances,thepartieshavealreadyreceivedthatwhichtheyarebasicallyentitledtoreceiveandoneortheother,afterafulltrial,isseekinganewtrialordecisionontheissues.Inshort,apartyisseekingasecondtrial.Courtsshouldbecautiousingrantinganewtrialonthegroundsofallegedlynewlydiscoveredevidence.However,inthematterofthereconsiderationofthegrantingofasummaryjudgmentmotion,thepartyisonlyseekingthatwhichheisbasicallyentitledto--afirsttrial.Weareoftheopinionthatwhenasummaryjudgmenthasbeengrantedbecausethecaseatthatpointpresentsnofactsuponwhichaplaintiffcanrecover,butpriortothatjudgmentbecomingfinal,theplaintiffisabletoproducebymotionfactswhicharematerialandareindispute,themotiontoalteroramendthejudgmentshouldbelookeduponwithfavor,asthepurposeofthesummaryjudgmentprocedureisnottoabatethetrialdocketoftheTrialCourt,butonlytoweedoutcasesfortrialinwhichthereisnogenuineissueoffact.SeeBrookinsv.TheRoundTable,Inc.,(1981 @8.2 Tenn.)624S.W.2d547,550.  :04 Ї   ` Latercases,however,castsomedoubtonthecontinuedviabilityofSchaefer.InBraswellv.Carothers,863S.W.2d722 0  (Tenn.App.1993),theplaintiffsfiledamotiontorehearandreconsideranordergrantingsummaryjudgment,whichwasdeniedbythetrialcourt.InaddressingthequestionandtheholdinginSchaefer,theCourtendorsedthenewlydiscoveredevidence P  analysis,andfoundthattheevidencepresentedbyanaffidavitwiththemotion was,orshouldhavebeen,availabletocounselpriortothehearingonthemotionandcannottrulybeconsiderednewlydiscoveredevidence.   ` AnothercasedealingwithamotiontoalteroramendasummaryjudgmentpreviouslygrantedisMarrv.Montgomery  p ElevatorCo.,922S.W.2d526(Tenn.App.1995).ThisCourtcited "P Schaefer,toaffirmthetrialcourtsdenialofthemotionto $0 alter,andusedthefollowinglanguage(atpage527): ` Insuchmotions,themovingpartyisrequiredtoshowthattheevidencehasbeendiscoveredsincethetrialanditcouldnothavebeendiscoveredpriortotrialthroughtheexerciseofduediligence.Schaefer -#& bySchaeferv.Larsen,688S.W.2d430(Tenn.App.1984). -$'    ` WebelievethatMarrmisstatestheholdinginSchaefer. 1P(+ Furthermore,weareinclinedtobelievethattheresultreachedinSchaeferisthebetterreasonedone.Wealsoconcludethat p5,/ evenifweacceptthedictatesofBraswellandMarr,theTrial P7-1 Courtwasinerrorinnotgrantingthemotiontoreconsider.We 09/3 saythisbecause,asabovenoted,theevidencewhichledtotheaffidavitsquestioningBaptistspostdeliverycarewasnotavailabletothePlaintiffs,nordowebelieve,inlightofthefactthatareasonableinferencecouldbedrawn,thattheinformationwhichledtotheconclusionsintheaffidavitsfiledwiththemotiontoreconsidershouldhavebeenretainedinthefilebyemployeesofBaptistand,consequently,wasnotavailableuntilthedepositionofNurseWilliswastakenalmostninemonthsafterthemotionforsummaryjudgmentwasgranted.   ` Moreover,andperhapsmostimportantly,theTrialCourt,whileaddressinghisactionsastothepartialsummaryjudgmentsgrantedBaptistandtheotherDefendant,Dr.AndrewL.Chern,statedthefollowing: TheorderneedstoreflectthatneitherDefendantisprecludedfromrenewingthemotionforsummaryjudgmentafterfurtherdiscovery...   ` Althoughtheensuingorderdidnotspecificallysoprovide,itisclearfromtheTrialJudgespronouncementthathewouldentertainasecondmotionforsummaryjudgmentbytheDefendantsseekingtooverturnthatportionoftheirsummaryjudgmentmotionsthatwasdenied.InviewoftheleavegrantedtotheDefendantstoagainraisetheissuewiththeCourtafterdiscoverydepositions,itwouldseemtheapplicationofevenhandedjusticewoulddictatethatthePlaintiffsbegrantedthesamepostdepositionprivilege,whichwouldbeasecond  :04 opportunitytoconvincetheTrialJudgethathewasinerroringrantingapartialjudgmenttoeitherDefendant.   ` ForthisreasonweconcludetheTrialCourtshouldhavegrantedthemotiontoreconsiderandconsideredtheaffidavitsinsupportthereof.   ` Baptist,initsbrief,insistthateveniftheaffidavitswereconsidered,theTrialCourtsgrantofpartialsummaryjudgmentwasappropriate.Wedonotethatduringoralarguments,longafterthebriefswerefiled,counselforBaptistcandidlyconcededthathadtheseaffidavitsbeenconsideredtheTrialCourtshouldhaveoverruledBaptistsmotion.   ` Indefenseofcounsel,itmayhavebeenthatshemisspokewhenquestionedbytheCourt,but,evenifshedid,weagreewiththeanswershegavebecausethereisadisputeofmaterialfactbetweentheaffidavitsfiledwiththemotiontoreconsiderandthosefiledbyBaptist.   ` FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtastothegrantingofapartialsummaryjudgmentinfavorofBaptistHospitalisvacatedandthecauseremandedforproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.CostsofappealareadjudgedagainstBaptistHospital.  @8.2 XXXTX   `     h   _______________________________ @     `     h   HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.CONCUR:________________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.򀀀(NotParticipating)񀀀 p DonT.McMurray,J.#TXXXX3#Ԁ ` Ѐ