WPC= OI3+v".ɷ/ջ_P|̘o8N]ZVN`ފwsnnxy:'vJm_9X f|XQ]"yGA|.$c{f l) VOeb1A`n{07䞐˺IW$F3賫GZ$vߕ@1$bi}ڃ/j C`"bA NPt_X̦:m]>++ 0y b1%-S/T]灜kJ+6Cl |ܓchY)M5h.MȔi"11UWNSs7M& Mi# % ^ 0 U&N wg 4k z    m J =  0 DUNnE9;"[V 0 0 0 0o 0J 02 0 0 0 0 0 0u! 0Q" 0*# 0$ 0$ 0% 0p&b:' 0B' 0#( 0) 0) 0* 0+ 0[, 0*- 0- 0C. 0/U6///U> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0U@G0G0G0G0G0G0G0G0G0G0G0G0G0 0 0000 Br1r1 01 D332 D-f2 0K22 AS213 03 0D4 A4444455qy6HP LaserJet 4Si,,,,,,0z(L (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular9?( k1, C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU @ R$      1     _Mr.Hawkswife,JaniceHawk,isalsoaplaintiff.Sheispursuingalossofconsortiumclaim.Foreaseof  reference,wewillrefertoMr.Hawkas theplaintiff.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   R$      5     __T.C.A._Ԁ2926116(a)(1)and(2)(1980). R$      6     __T.C.A._Ԁ2926116(a)(3)(1980). R$      8     _Thiswasthesamedaythattheorderwasenteredallowingtheplaintifftoamendthecomplaint. R$      2     _ Thecupisnototherwiseidentified. v R$      3     _Thedelayinmovingthiscasethroughthecourtsystemisnottotallyexplained;butthereisasuggestionin  therecordthatthedefendantssoughttopreventthediscoverythatultimatelyledtotheamendmentstothecomplaint. Q R$      4     _TheRulesofCivilProcedurerequirethefilingofa motioninwriting.SeeTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02.Thelack  ofawritingisnotraisedasanissueonthisappeal.2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5   R$      7     _Themotionin_limine_wasfiledJune29,1999.2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  - -2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  ($    (2$ !.8dd8       0  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman(v# Z(Times New Roman (|G2$ !.8dd8         0    d(|3$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK R$      10     _ _Hypesthetic_denotesadecreasedsensitivitytotouchandpain. g R$      9     _&  Wearemindfulofthelanguagein _Rainey_ԀBros.Constr.Co.v.Memphis&ShelbyCountyBd.ofAdjustment ,  821S.W.2d938,942(Tenn.Ct.App.1991),statingthat therealquestioniswhethertheamendmentsraiseanewcause x ofaction.  Wenote,however,thatwealsostatedinthatcasethat Tennesseecourtshavegenerallyfollowedthe @ statutorystandardthattheamendmentmustarisefromthesameconduct,transactionoroccurrenceassetforthinthe X originalpleadings. E  Id # E #.Additionally,wenotethat,in _E  Rainey_ԀBros# E #: . # :#,wecited Floyd ,675S.W.2dat168,forthe   propositionthat [_n]otice_Ԁtothedefendantisnotexpresslyrequiredbythestatutorystandardforrelationbackbutthe  TennesseeSupremeCourthasdeterminedthatnoticeisthecriticalelementinvolvedindeterminingwhether `  amendmentstopleadingsrelateback. _Rainey_ԀBros. ,821S.W.2dat942.Aswestatedearlier,however, Floyd involved ( x anamendmentseekingtoaddanewparty,andwedonotbelieveitcanbereadtorequireanythinginadditiontothe  @ statutorystandardwheretheamendmentdoesnotseektochangeapartyornameanewparty.'~ !.8dd8     _  8XXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE# #Ԉ ,   May,2000Session X XX #XX#WILLARDHAWK,JR.,etal.v.CHATTANOOGAORTHOPAEDIC  ` GROUP,P.C.,etal.XX  ( x @@ InterlocutoryAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforHamiltonCounty 0  @@No.95CV0350SamuelH.Payne,Judge  p FILEDJULY24,_2000_ P  @@*AV) ` dE<` A @  @@TTNo.E199900687_COA_ԄR9CV ?  AV) ` dE<` A     Thisisamedicalmalpracticecase.WegrantedtheplaintiffsTenn.R.App.P.9applicationforan  interlocutoryappealinordertoreviewanorderofthetrialcourtdismissingtheamendmentstothe  plaintiffsoriginalcomplaintandgrantingthedefendantsmotionin_limine_pertainingtoevidence  ofadisablinghandconditionofthedefendantsurgeon,Dr.DavidM._ONeal_.Wereverse.   Tenn.R.App.P.9AppealbyPermission;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtReversed;Case ~ Remanded  n   #X#XX.CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM._Goddard_, N _P.J._,andHerschelP.Franks,J.,joined. > AnitaB._Hardeman_ԀandHarryF._Burnette_,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellants,Willard n Hawk,Jr.andJaniceHawk. ^ JohnB.BennettandDanielM._Stefaniuk_,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheAppellees,Chattanooga  > OrthopaedicGroup,P.C.,andDavidM._ONeal_,M.D. !.   OPINION #XX#XX #" #XXB #XX   % $ @)I.    OnFebruary16,1994,thedefendant,Dr.DavidM._ONeal_,anorthopaedicsurgeon,operated  ontheplaintiffWillardHawk,Jr.,performingatotalhipreplacementontherightside.  #  1      ׀Being  dissatisfiedwiththeresultsofthesurgery,theplaintifffiledamedicalmalpracticeactionagainstDr. p _ONeal_ԀonFebruary13,1995.Otherdefendants,includingChattanoogaOrthopaedicGroup,P.C., `  aprofessionalcorporationofwhichDr._ONeal_Ԁwasanemployee,werealsonamedinthesuit. P    Inthecomplaint,theplaintiffstatedthatheinjuredhisrighthipinamotorcycleaccidentin 0  September,1972.Despitethisinjury,he#XX #XX wasstillabletoworkandfullyenjoylife.InFebruary,  p  1992,theplaintiff sawDr._ONeal_.Thehipreplacementsurgerywasperformedtwoyearslater. `  ThecomplaintchargesthatDr._ONeal_Ԁ negligentlyperformedthehipreplacement.Specifically, P  theplaintiffallegedthatDr._ONeal_Ԁ(1) negligentlyallowedorcaused[theplaintiffs]sciaticnerve @  tobecomeimpingedinthenewhip;(2) didnotdoproperteststodetermineproperleglength; 0  (3) negligentlycausedthenewhiptobetoolong,withtheresultthataftersurgery[theplaintiffs]   rightlegwaslongerthanhisleftleg;and(4) negligentlyplacedthecup  #  2      ׀inthewrongposition.  Asaresultofthisallegednegligence,theplaintiffsuffered excruciatingpain,hisabilitytowalk  wasimpaired,andhehaddecreasedfunctionofhisrightlegandfoot.Thecomplaintgoesonto  allegethatDr._ONeal_Ԁandothersfromtheprofessionalcorporationwereguiltyofpostoperative  negligenceby _fail[ing_]toproperlyrelievethepainortorectifythenegligenceofDr._ONeal_.It  alsochargesDr._ONeal_Ԁandothersinthegroupwithadditionalactsofpostoperativenegligence. p   InNovember,1994,theplaintiffunderwentsurgerybyanunnamed specialist...torepairthe P damagedonetothesciaticnerveandtoreleaseitfromitsentrapmentintheartificialhipandto @ repairotherproblemscausedbythenegligentinstallationofthehipbyDr._ONeal_.Theplaintiff 0 allegedthatheispermanentlydisabledasaresultofDr._ONeal_snegligence.Thecomplaintseeks  p compensatoryandpunitivedamagesof$2,000,000.Dr._ONeal_Ԁandtheotherdefendantsfiled ` answersdenyingnegligenceandotherwiseplacingtheallegationsoftheoriginalcomplaintatissue. P   Followingdiscovery,andonJuly1,1999, #  3      ׀theplaintifffiledamotiontoamendthe 0 complaint.Themotioncontainsthefollowingfactualpredicate:     8 ` ComePlaintiffspursuanttoRule15oftheTennesseeRulesofCivil "  ProcedureandprayleaveofthisCourttoamendtheiroriginal #! ComplaintfiledFebruary13,1995.Asgrounds,Plaintiffswould $" showthatmaterialfactsregardingadisability(specifically_Raynaud_s  Syndrome)sufferedbyDr._ONeal_ԀduringPlaintiffssurgerywere  uncoveredduringdiscoveryaftertheCourtorderedproductionof  relevantdocuments.` x` x   8 ` ProofofDr._ONeal_sdisabilityandthathisafflictionwas `  symptomaticduringPlaintiffsoperationprovidesadditionalbases P  forPlaintiffsallegationsofDr._ONeal_snegligenceandmedical @  malpractice,whichallegationsPlaintiffnowseeksleaveofthisCourt 0  tospecificallybring,alreadyhave[sic]allegedsuchnegligence  p  generally.` ` x` x OvertheobjectionofDr._ONeal_Ԁandtheotherdefendants,thetrialcourtallowedtheproposed @  amendmentsbyorderenteredSeptember24,1999.Theorderaddsthefollowingallegationsto 0  paragraphfiveofthecomplaint,theparagraphsettingforththeplaintiffsnegligenceclaims:      `    8 ` 5e.ThatDr._ONeal_sdecisiontooperateonthehipofPlaintiff  WilliamHawkwasnegligentandfellbelowtheapplicablestandard  ofcareduetoDr._ONeal_sknowledgeofhisdebilitatinghand  disabilityatthetimeofthesurgeryandthatsuchdecisioncontributed  toDr._ONeal_scausinginjurytotheperonealaspectofPlaintiffs p sciaticnervebyimpropersuture;`` x` x   8 ` f.ThatDr.ONealandtheotherDefendantsbreachedtheirdutyto @ PlaintiffsbyfailingtowarnPlaintiffsofDr.ONealsownmedical 0 problemsandresultinginabilitytoperformthesurgeryproperly; p` x` x   8 ` g.ThatDr.ONealsdisabilityanditssymptomsrelativetoDr. P ONealsinabilitytoperformasurgerylongerthanoneandonehalf @ hourswithoutpain,decreasedsensationandlossofrangeofmotion 0 causedhimtobenegligentinhisjudgmentandaffectedhisstateof   mindduringtheperformanceofPlaintiffssurgeryandthroughout ! Plaintiffspostoperativecare,allofwhichfellbelowtheapplicable "  standardofcareandconstitutenegligence;and#!` x` x   8 ` h.ThatDr._ONeal_Ԁwasnegligent,andhistreatmentofPlaintifffell % # belowthestandardofcare,notonlyduringtheoperationbutalsoin p&!$ thecourseofDr._ONeal_spostoperativedecisionmaking(or,more `'"% properly,thecompletelackthereof)inlightofPlaintiffsabnormal P(#& postoperativepain.Saidnegligence,bothoperativelyandpost @)$' operatively,wasdue,inwholeorinpart,toDr._ONeal_sown 0*%( disability,aboutwhichhefailedtowarnPlaintiffs.Thisspecifically  +p&) contributedtoDr._ONeal_snegligenceasgenerallyallegedin ,`'* plaintiffspreviousComplaintandwasthedirectandproximatecause  ofallinjuriesanddamagessufferedbyPlaintiffs.` x` x   Thedefendantsorally #  4      ׀movedtodismisstheallegationsoftheamendments.Atthehearing  onthemotion,thedefendantstookthepositionthattheallegationsoftheamendmentswerebarred p bytheoneyearstatuteoflimitations  #  5      ׀and,inanyevent,thethreeyearstatuteofrepose. #  6      ׀Theyalso `  pursuedapreviouslyfiledmotionin_limine_@ #  7      seekingtoblocktheintroductionintoevidenceofall P  testimonyandothermaterialpertainingtoDr._ONeal_salleged debilitatinghanddisability. @    Byseparateorder,alsoenteredonSeptember24,1999, #  8      ׀thetrialcourtdismissedthe  p  amendmentsandgrantedthedefendantsmotionin_limine_.Amongotherthings,theorderprovides `  asfollows: P    8 ` Uponhearingargumentofcounselandareviewofallpertinentparts 0  oftheCourtfile,theCourtisoftheopinionthattheamendmentstates   acauseofactionnotheretoforepleaded.Thestatuteofreposeset  forthinTennesseeCodeAnnotated2926116barstheplaintiffs  amendmentand,therefore,theamendmentshouldbedismissed.The  Courtalsofindsthatthemotionin_limine_filedinbehalfofDavidM.  _ONeal_,M.D.andChattanoogaOrthopaedicGroup,P.C....shouldbe  sustained.p` x` x Thisappealfollowed. P @)II. 0   Theissuesbeforeusaretwo: `   8 ` 1.Dotheamendmentstothecomplaintrelatebacktothedateof @ filingoftheoriginalcomplaint?0` x` x       8 ` 2.Didthetrialcourtabuseitsdiscretioningrantingthemotionin  _limine_astotheevidencepertainingtoDr._ONeal_sdebilitatinghand  condition?` x` x  Thecriticalquestionbeforeusiswhethertheamendmentsthatwereaddedtothecomplaintbyorder p enteredSeptember24,1999,relatebacktoFebruary13,1995,thedateonwhichtheoriginal `  complaintwasfiled.Iftheydo,theamendmentsweretimelyfiled;if,ontheotherhand,theydonot, P  theyarebarredbythestatuteofreposesincetheyclearlywerefiledmorethanthreeyearsafterthe @  latestpossibledateofculpableconductonthepartofthedefendants. 0    Whilethedefendantsdidnotfileawrittenmotion,itisclearthatthebasesoftheirdismissal `  motionaretheaffirmativedefensesofthestatuteoflimitationsandthestatuteofrepose.Inthis P  case,suchamotionistreatedasonefiledpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6) failuretostate @  aclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted._  See_Ԁalso Anthonyv._Tidwell_ ,560S.W.2d908,909 0  (Tenn.1977).( Acomplaintissubjecttodismissalunderrule12.02(6)forfailuretostateaclaim   ifanaffirmativedefenseclearlyandunequivocallyappearsonthefaceofthecomplaint.)Ifthe  amendmentsdonotrelateback,thebarofthestatuteofrepose clearlyandunequivocallyappears  onthefaceofthecomplaint. Id .    Underourwellestablishedstandardofreview,wemust construethecomplaintliberallyin  favoroftheplaintiff,takingallallegationsoffactthereinastrue. Cookv.Spinnakersof p _Rivergate_,Inc .,878S.W.2d934,938(Tenn.1994).Themotionifthiscasemustbedenied unless ` itappearsthattheplaintiffcanprovenosetoffactsinsupportof[his]claimthatwouldentitle[him] P torelief. Id . @ @pp(III.  p   ThiscaseturnsontheproperinterpretationandapplicationofTenn.R.Civ.P.15.03,which P providesasfollows: @   8 ` Whenevertheclaimordefenseassertedinamendedpleadingsarose   outoftheconduct,transaction,oroccurrencesetforthorattempted ! tobesetforthintheoriginalpleading,theamendmentrelatesbackto "  thedateoftheoriginalpleading.Anamendmentchangingtheparty #! orthenamingofthepartybyoragainstwhomaclaimisasserted $" relatesbackiftheforegoingprovisionissatisfiedandif,withinthe % # periodprovidedbylawforcommencinganactionorwithin120days p&!$ aftercommencementoftheaction,thepartytobebroughtinby `'"% amendment(1)hasreceivedsuchnoticeoftheinstitutionofthe P(#& actionthatthepartywillnotbeprejudicedinmaintainingadefense @)$' onthemerits,and(2)kneworshouldhaveknownthat,butfora 0*%( mistakeconcerningtheidentityoftheproperparty,theactionwould  +p&) havebeenbroughtagainsttheparty.,`'*` x` x Ї@*Thequestionbeforeusissimplythis:Takingthefactsassetforthintheamendedcomplaintastrue,  andliberallyconstruingthosefactsinfavoroftheplaintiff,canwesaythattheamendments arose  outoftheconduct,transaction,oroccurrencesetforthorattemptedtobesetforthintheoriginal  pleading,i.e.,theoriginalcomplaint? Id .Inordertoanswerthisquestion,wemustreview_caselaw_Ԁ p interpretingthe relationbackdoctrinefoundinRule15.03.Inthisconnection,theplaintiffurges `  ustofindthatthetrialcourtsbasisforholdingthattheamendmentsdonotrelatebackbecause P   the_amendment[s_]state[]acauseofactionnotheretoforepleadedisnolongerthetestinthis @  jurisdiction. 0  @jj)IV. `  @)A. @    Rule15.03appearstohavebeenfirstconstruedbytheSupremeCourtin?+ ` hp x X? _Karash_Ԁv._Pigott_ ,   530S.W.2d775(Tenn.1975).Inthatcase,theplaintiffsoriginalcomplaint,soundinginstrict  liabilityandnegligence,centeredaroundatransfusionofcontaminatedblood. Id .at776.The  proposedamendmentsoughttoaddanallegationofassaultandbattery. Id .TheSupremeCourt,  speakingthroughthelateJusticeHenry,foundthatthelanguageofRule15.03 issoclearand  unequivocalthatitisvirtuallyself-construing, id .at777,andopinedthat [_t]he_Ԁtime-honorednew  causeofactionobjectiontoamendmentshasbeensubstantiallyerodedbythe...RulesofCivil p Procedure. Id .TheSupremeCourtthenconcludedthat [_c]learly_,theassaultandbattery,as ` chargedintheproposedamendment,ifitoccurred,aroseoutofandwasapartandparcelofthe P conduct,transactionandoccurrencesetforthintheoriginalcomplaint. Id . @   In1984,theCourtofAppealsdecidedthecaseof Gamblev.HospitalCorp.ofAmerica ,676  p S.W.2d340(Tenn.Ct.App.1984).Inthatcase,wefoundthatanamendmentallegingnegligence ` inasecondoperationdidnotrelatebacktoanearliercomplaintallegingnegligenceduringanearlier P operation. Id .at347.Weheld thatalthoughthesubsequentoperationmightariseoutofthe @ conduct,transactionoroccurrenceintheoriginalpleading,theclaimofnegligenceinthesecond 0 operationdidnotariseoutoftheconduct,transactionoroccurrencesetoutintheoriginal   pleading. Id .(Emphasisin Gamble ).Inthecourseofouropinion,wediscussedseveralfederal ! casesholdingthatnoticewasakeyelementindeterminingwhetheranamendmentrelatesbackto "  thedateofanearlierpleading. Id .at343-47.Withrespecttothenoticequestion,westatedthat #!   <(` ` hp u X<[_w]hile_Ԁwedonotrejectthenoticeanalysisusedinthefederalcourt % # decisionsandrecommendedbyleadingscholars,weareofthe p&!$ opinionthatwedonotgettothequestionofnotice.Inthiscasewe `'"% looksolelytothestatutorylanguageandthedecisionofourSupreme P(#& Courtwhichaddressedthequestionofrelationbacksolelyinterms @)$' ofthestatutorystandard. 0*%(   E+ ` hp x ` Xu[E Id .at347. ,`'* Ї  OnAugust20,1984,theSupremeCourtdeniedpermissiontoappealinthe Gamble caseand,  onthesameday,decided Floydv._Rentrop_ ,675S.W.2d165(Tenn.1984),anothercaseconcerning  therelation-backdoctrineinthefieldofmedicalmalpractice.ItistruethattheCourtstatedinthat  casethat [_n]otice_Ԁisthecriticalelementinvolvedindeterminingwhetheramendmentstopleadings  relateback. Id .at168.However,theamendmentinthatcasesoughttoaddanewpartydefendant. p  Id .at166.ThelanguageofRule15.03providesthatadditionalrequirements,includingnotice,must `  bemetwhenthisisthecase: P    <(` ` hp u X<Anamendmentchangingthepartyorthenamingofthepartybyor 0  againstwhomaclaimisassertedrelatesbackifthe[conduct,  p  transaction,oroccurrencetest]issatisfiedandif,withintheperiod `  providedbylawforcommencinganactionorwithin120daysafter P  commencementoftheaction,thepartytobebroughtinby @  amendment(1)hasreceivedsuchnoticeoftheinstitutionofthe 0  actionthatthepartywillnotbeprejudicedinmaintainingadefense   onthemerits,and(2)kneworshouldhaveknownthat,butfora  mistakeconcerningtheidentityoftheproperparty,theactionwould  havebeenbroughtagainsttheparty.      h      p      E+ ` hp x ` Xu[E Id .(Emphasisadded.)Therefore,wedonotbelievethat Floyd canbereadasrequiringtheelement  ofnoticeforamendmentsnotseekingtochangethenameofapartyorotherwiseseekingtoname p anewparty. `   In1987,wedecided EnergySavingProducts,Inc.v._Carney_ ,737S.W.2d783(Tenn.Ct. @ App.1987).Inthatcase,theoriginalcauseofactionsoughttorecoveronadebtowedonanopen 0 account. Id .at784.Later,theplaintiffsoughttoamenditscomplainttoallegethatthedefendants  p fraudulentmisrepresentationsinducedtheplaintifftofurnishgoodsonopenaccount. Id .Weheld ` that [_c]learly_,theallegationsoffraudulentmisrepresentationaroseoutofandwerepartofthe P conductandtransactionsetforthintheoriginalcomplaint. Id . @   Fromthesecases,weconcludethat,whereanamendmentdoesnotseektochangeaparty    ornameanewparty,Tennesseecourtsaretodeterminewhethertheamendmentrelatesbacktothe ! dateofanearlierpleadingaccordingtothe virtuallyselfconstruinglanguageofRule15.03."Anthonyv.~:X [XXX_h #  9      _#XXX:X [d#=XCXXXԀ#XXX=XCe#See ~  _Karash_ ,530S.W.2dat777.Thus,ifanamendmentarisesfromthe conduct,transaction,or ~ occurrenceintheoriginalpleading,theamendmentrelatesbacktothedateoftheoriginalpleading n andthusavoidstheeffectofthestatuteoflimitations,see EnergySaving ,at784,and,inthiscase, ^ thestatuteofrepose.Iftheamendmentdoesnotariseoutofthesameconduct,transaction,or N occurrenceastheoriginalpleading,however,itdoesnotrelatebacktotheoriginalpleadingandthus >  willbetime-barredifthelimitationsorreposeperiodhasexpired. Id . . ~   Uponexaminationoftherelevantlaw,weagreewiththeplaintiffthatthetrialcourterred  ^ inutilizingacauseofactiontestindeterminingwhethertheplaintiffsamendmentsrelatebackto  N  thedateoftheoriginalcomplaint.Wefindandholdthattheproperinquiryinthiscaseissimply  >  whethertheamendmentsariseoutoftheconduct,transaction,oroccurrenceintheoriginal .  complaint.     Thedefendantsrelyon Moorev.Baker ,989F.2d1129(11thCir.1993)tosupporttheir   argumentthattheplaintiffsamendmentsdonotrelateback.In Moore ,theplaintiffsoriginal   complaintallegedthatthedefendantphysiciancommittedmedicalmalpracticebyfailingtoinform  theplaintiffofanon-surgicalalternative. Id .at1131.Afterthestatuteoflimitationshadrun,the ~ plaintiffsoughttoamendhercomplainttoallegenegligenceintheperformanceofthesurgeryand n intherenderingofpost-operativecare. Id .TheEleventhCircuitheldthattheproposedamendment ^ didnotrelatebackbecausethenewclaimdidnotariseoutofthesameconduct,transaction,or N occurrenceastheoriginalclaim. Id .at1132.Thecourtstatedthat >   <(` ` hp u X<theallegationsassertedin[theplaintiffs]originalcomplaintcontain n nothingtoput[thedefendant]onnoticethatthenewclaimsof ^ negligencemightbeasserted.Evenwhengivenaliberal N construction,thereisnothingin[theplaintiffs]originalcomplaint > whichmakesreferencetoanyactsofallegednegligenceby[the . defendant]eitherduringoraftersurgery.Theoriginalcomplaint  focuseson[thedefendants]actionsbefore[theplaintiff]decidedto  undergosurgery,buttheamendedcomplaintfocuseson[the   defendants]actionsduringandafterthesurgery.Theallegedactsof ! negligenceoccurredatdifferenttimesandinvolvedseparateand "  distinctconduct.Inordertorecoveronthenegligenceclaim  containedinheramendedcomplaint,[theplaintiff]wouldhaveto  provecompletelydifferentfactsthanwouldotherwisehavebeen  requiredtorecoverontheinformedconsentclaimintheoriginal  complaint. p   E+ ` hp x ` Xu[E Moore ,989F.2dat1132(footnoteomitted).  Aspreviouslystated,ourappellatedecisionsanalyze P  theissueofrelationbackonthe virtuallyselfconstruinglanguageofRule15.03,see _Karash_ ,530 @  S.W.2dat777,withoutimposinganoticerequirementnotfoundintherule.Whilenoticemaybe 0  ausefulanalyticaltoolinattemptingtodeterminewhetheranamendmentarisesoutofthesame  p  conduct,transaction,oroccurrenceastheoriginalpleading,noticeisnotanelementuntoitself. `    Webelievethatthefactsintheinstantcasearedistinguishablefromthosein Moore . @  Informedconsentispartandparcelofthesurgicalexperience.Therefore,asweviewtheallegations 0  ofthecasenowbeforeus,theamendmentsaroseoutofthesamesurgicalexperienceallegedinthe   originalcomplaint.In Moore ,thenegligenceinthesurgeryisnotapartofthebatteryallegedinthe  originalcomplaint.AstheSupremeCourthaspointedout, ifabatteryexists,thenmalpracticemay  notnecessarilybereached. _Shadrick_Ԁv._Coker_ ,963S.W.2d726,732(Tenn.1998).Inanyevent,  weview Moore aspersuasive,notcontrolling,authority.  @)B. p   TheSupremeCourtexaminedthelackofinformedconsentcauseofactioninarecenttrilogy P ofcases.See Bryantv._HCA_ԀHealthServicesofTennessee,Inc. ,15S.W.3d804(Tenn.2000); @  _Ashe_Ԁv.RadiationOncologyAssoc. ,9S.W.3d119(Tenn.1999); Blanchardv._Kellum_ ,975S.W.2d 0 522(Tenn.1998).Totheextentthattheyarerelevanttotheinstantcase,wewillbrieflyreviewthe  p principlessetforthinthistrilogyofcases. `   TheMedicalMalpracticeAct( theAct),_T.C.A._Ԁ2926115to120(1980), providesfor @ amedicalmalpracticecauseofactionbasedontheinadequacyofapatientsconsenttoamedical 0 procedure. Bryant ,15S.W.3dat808.Thepertinentstatuteis_T.C.A._Ԁ2926118:      `     h      p     8 ` Inamalpracticeaction,theplaintiffshallprovebyevidenceas "  requiredby2926115(b)thatthedefendantdidnotsupply #! appropriateinformationtothepatientinobtaininghisinformed $" consent(totheprocedureoutofwhichplaintiffsclaimallegedly % # arose)inaccordancewiththerecognizedstandardofacceptable p&!$ professionalpracticeintheprofessionandinthespecialty,ifany,that `'"% thedefendantpracticesinthecommunityinwhichhepracticesand P(#& insimilarcommunities.@)$'` x` x   A [_l]ack_Ԁofinformedconsentinamedicalmalpracticeactionunder[_T.C.A._]2926118operates  +p&) tonegateapatientsauthorizationforaproceduretherebygivingrisetoacauseofactionfor ,`'* battery. Blanchard ,975S.W.2dat524.(Emphasisadded).Seealso Bryant ,15S.W.3dat809.  _T.C.A._Ԁ2926118isdesignedto protect[]apatientfromaphysicianwhocommitsabatterywhen  performingaprocedurewithoutlegallysufficientconsent.15S.W.3dat809.    InaninformedconsentmedicalmalpracticeactionundertheAct,aplaintiffmustprove (1) p whatareasonablemedicalpractitionerinthesameorsimilarcommunitywouldhavedisclosedto `  thepatientabouttheriskposedbytheproposedprocedureortreatment;and(2)thatthedefendant P  departedfromthenorm. _Ashe_ ,9S.W.3dat121.Insuchacase,theissueofcausationisbasedon @  anobjectivestandard: whetherareasonablepersoninthepatientspositionwouldhaveconsented 0  totheprocedureortreatmentinquestionifadequatelyinformedofallsignificantperils. Id .at124.  p  Becausetheinformedconsentdoctrineispredicatedonatheoryofbattery,asopposedtonegligence, `  adefendantwhoproceedswithatreatmentorprocedurewithoutfirstobtainingtheinformedconsent P  ofthepatientisliable fortheresultinginjuriesregardlessofwhetherthoseinjuriesresultedfrom @  negligence. _Shadrick_ ,963S.W.2dat732. 0    Inmostinformedconsentmedicalmalpracticeactions,theplaintiffallegesthatthedefendant  failedtoadvisethepatientofariskinvolvedintheproperperformanceoftheprocedure.See,e.g.,   _Ashe_ ,9S.W.3dat120(patientwasnotadvisedthatradiationtreatmentmightresultinpermanent  injurytoherspinalcord).Inothercases,theallegationisthattherewasinformationregardingthe  procedurethatthepatientwasentitledtohaveinordertomakeaninformeddecisionastowhether  tohavetheprocedureperformed.See Bryant ,15S.W.3dat807,(failureofaphysiciantoadvise p thataprocedurewasexperimentalandhadnotbeenapprovedbytheFDA). `   _T.C.A._Ԁ2926118isbroadlywritten.Itreferstoafailureofadefendantto supply @ appropriateinformationtoenableapatienttogiveinformedconsent.Intheinstantcase,the 0 informationinquestiondoesnotpertaintothesurgeryperse.Inthisregard,theinstantcaseis  p differentfromthe _Ashe_ and Bryant cases.Here,itisallegedthatDr._ONeal_,asurgeon,suffers ` fromahandconditionthataffectshisuseofthosehands.Theplaintiffallegesthathewasentitled P toknowthisinformationunder_T.C.A._Ԁ2926118.Interpretingtheamendmentsliberallyinfavor @ oftheplaintiffaswearerequiredtodointhis onthepapersanalysiswefindandholdthat 0 theplaintiffhasallegedaninformedconsentmalpracticeactionagainstDr._ONeal_Ԁinthe   amendments. ! @)C. #!   Theconceptofthe conduct,transaction,oroccurrenceintheoriginalcomplaintpertains % # totheunderlyingfactualpredicateassetforthintheoriginalcomplaintuponwhichaplaintiff p&!$ originallybasedhisorhercauseorcausesofaction.Inthiscase,thosewordsmean,ingeneral,the `'"% surgicalprocedureinvolvingtheplaintiffstotalrighthipreplacement.Theoriginalcomplaintrefers P(#& totests,otherwiseunidentified,thesurgeryitself,andpostoperativecare.Isthis conduct, @)$' transaction,oroccurrencebroadenoughtocoverDr._ONeal_shandconditionwhenheperformed 0*%( thesurgeryandconversations,orlackthereof,pertainingtothatconditionpriortoandleadingup  +p&) tothesurgery?Webelievetheanswermustbeintheaffirmative.TheTennesseecases,e.g., ,`'*  _Karash_ ,withits virtuallyselfconstruinglanguageand EnergySaving ,suggestthatthe conduct,  transaction,oroccurrencelanguageshouldbebroadlyconstrued. Gamble isnotanimpediment  tothisapproachbecausethatcase,unliketheinstantcase,involvedtwoseparateanddistinct  surgeries. Floyd isacaseinvolvingtheadditionofanewdefendant,which,aspreviouslyindicated,  isafactualscenariosubjecttospecificrequirementsnotapplicabletotheinstantcase.Finally, p  _Rainey_ԀBros. ,involvesaspecificfactualpatternintheoriginalcomplaintthatissomewhatdifferent `  fromthefactsuponwhichtheamendmentwasbased.Furthermore,thecauseofactioninthe P  proposedamendmentin _Rainey_ԀBros. istotallyunrelatedtothecauseofactionsetforthinthe @  originalcomplaint. 0    WeareoftheopinionthatthebodyoffactsandcircumstancesthatarerelevantintheRule `  15.03analysisintheinstantcasearethosesurroundingtheFebruary16,1994,surgery.Wefindno P  supportinthelanguageoftheruleorinthepertinent_caselaw_Ԁforsegregatingbyan_imaginery_Ԁline @  thosepreoperativeeventsrelatingtoandleadinguptothesurgeryfromeventsoccurringduringand 0  afterthesurgery.Alleventsrelatetothesurgery.Parsingofthesurgeryiscontrarytotheletterand   spiritofRule15.03.Weconcludetheamendmentsrelatebacktothedateoffilingoftheoriginal  complaint.Therefore,sincetheoriginalcomplaintwasfiledwithinoneyearofthedateofsurgery  andsincetheamendmentsrelatebacktothatfilingdate,theamendmentsarenotbarredbythe  statuteoflimitationsandobviouslynotbythestatuteofrepose.Accordingly,wefindandholdthat  thetrialcourterredindismissingtheamendmentsbasedonaperceivedviolationofthestatuteof  repose. p @)V. P   Thesecondissueinthiscasequestionsthecorrectnessofthetrialcourtsdecisiontogrant 0 thedefendantsmotionin_limine_regardingevidencepertainingtoDr._ONeal_sallegedlydisabling  p handcondition.Ingrantingthemotion,thetrialcourtdidsoafterfirstrulingthatthisevidence ` pertainstotheallegationsoftheamendments,whichhehadpreviouslydeterminedshouldbe P dismissed.Wehavenowruledthatthedismissalwasinerrorandthisobviouslychanges,ina @ substantialandsignificantway,thefactualpredicateunderlyingthetrialcourtsdecisiononthe 0 motionin_limine_.However,sincethemotionin_limine_wasmadeandruledupon,webelieveitis   appropriatethatweexaminethisevidence. !   Duringdiscovery,theplaintifflearnedthatDr._ONeal_Ԁsuffersfromaconditionknownas #! _scleroderma_Ԁwith_Raynaud_sphenomenon.Symptomsofthisprogressiveconditionincludecold $" intolerance,pressureintolerance,andblanchingofthefingers.Othersymptomsincludepainand % # decreasedsensationandfunction.Dr._ONeal_ssymptomsbegangraduallyin1989or1990.Prior p&!$ toperformingtheplaintiffssurgery,Dr._ONeal_Ԁhadscheduledavisittoanotherphysicianforthe `'"% purposeofundergoingteststodeterminethecauseofhissymptoms.Thesetestswereconducted P(#& thedayaftertheplaintiffssurgery.Amedicalrecordconcerningtheresultsofthesetestsstatesthe @)$' following: 0*%(    +p&) 8  8`   Approximatelyfouryearsago[Dr._ONeal_]beganwithswellingand   gradualprogressionoflossofrangeofmotioninhishands.Overthe  lasteighteenmonthstotwoyearshehasnoticedthatwhenhewears  surgicalglovesforanysignificantlengthoftimehisfingersgo  completelywhiteonbothsides,perhapsslightlyearlierontheright p side,andhashadincreasinglossinrangeofmotion.Afterdoinga1 `  1_1/2_Ԁhourprocedure,hisfingersaretotallyblanchedand P  _hypesthetic_f #  10      ׀regardlessofthefactthathehaschangedhisglovesize.@ ` x` x   Dr._ONeal_ԀtestifiedinhisdepositionthathewasinsurgerywithMr.Hawkfor  p  approximatelytwohours.Healsoconcededthat,evenafterprogressivelyincreasingthesizeofhis `  surgicalgloves,hisfingersgenerallystillblanchedafterapproximately90minutesofsurgery.He P  furtherstatedthathemayhavehadafewmeasurabledegreesoflossofmotiononthedayofthe @  tests.Hedenied,however,thateitherofthesesymptomsimpairedhisperformanceofMr.Hawks 0  surgery.Hefurtherstatedthathedidnotexperienceanysymptomssuchaspainordecreased   sensationthatwouldhavecausedanyfunctionalimpairment.    AphysiciansreportregardingDr._ONeal_sconditionconcludesthatDr._ONeal_Ԁ isapoor  candidatetocontinuehisorthopaedicsurgicalcareer.AletterfromtheexaminingphysiciantoDr.  _ONeal_Ԁstatesthat  8  8`   [_i]t_Ԁismyfeelingthatinviewofyourautoimmunedisorder, ` _scleroderma_Ԅ_scleroderma_Ԁwith_Raynaud_sphenomenon,thatyour P continuedoperativesurgeryislikelytobedetrimentaltoyouand @ potentiallyhazardousasyourdiseaseprogresses.Iwouldtherefore 0 stronglyurgeyoutoconsiderdiscontinuingactiveoperativesurgery. p` x` x ThisletterisdatedMarch31,1994,andisbaseduponanexaminationperformedonMarch2,1994, P lessthanamonthaftertheplaintiffssurgery. @   AreviewofDr._ONeal_smedicalrecordsandhisdisabilityinsuranceapplicationsreveals   thefollowing:Dr._ONeal_ԀconsidershimselftohavebeenpartiallydisabledasofMay1,1994.He ! initiatedtheprocessofreducinghispatientloadinMay,1994,becausehehadbeguntodevelop "  soresandulcerationsonhisfingers.Dr._ONeal_ԀcompletelyceasedpracticingmedicineinJune, #! 1994,andheconsidershimselftohavebeencompletelydisabledasofJuly1,1994,becausehewas $" unabletowearsurgicalgloves,toleratethecold,orfunctionintheoperatingroom.Ultimately,Dr. % # _ONeal_ԀwasdeclareddisabledbytheSocialSecurityAdministrationandanumberofinsurance p&!$ companies.Duringhisdeposition,Dr._ONeal_Ԁdescribedhisdisabilityasbeingmoreofaninability `'"% todosurgeryonaregularbasisduetohistendencytodevelopulcerationsonhisfingersafter P(#& wearingsurgicalglovesratherthananinabilitytoperformsurgeryonanyparticularday. @)$' Ї  Tenn.R._Evid_.401providesthat    8 ` [_r]elevant_Ԁevidencemeansevidencehavinganytendencytomake  theexistenceofanyfactthatisofconsequencetothedetermination  oftheactionmoreprobableorlessprobablethanitwouldbewithout p theevidence.` ` x` x Tenn.R._Evid_.403providesthat @    8 ` [_a]lthough_Ԁrelevant,evidencemaybeexcludedifitsprobativevalue  p  issubstantiallyoutweighedbythedangerofunfairprejudice, `  confusionoftheissues,ormisleadingthejury,orbyconsiderations P  ofunduedelay,wasteoftime,orneedlesspresentationofcumulative @  evidence.0 ` x` x   Aswehavepreviouslyindicated,thetrialcourtsdecisiontograntDr._ONeal_smotionin  _limine_wasmadefollowingitsdismissaloftheplaintiffsamendments.Wehavesignificantly  modifiedthecontextofthetrialcourtsdecision,however,byrulingthattheamendmentsshould  nothavebeendismissedbecausetheyrelatebacktothedateoftheoriginalcomplaint.    Atthisjunctureintheproceedings,wefindandholdthatthetrialcourterredinexcluding p evidencethatgoestotheveryheartoftheplaintiffsinformedconsentmedicalmalpracticeclaim. ` Thisevidence,totheextentthatitshedslightonDr._ONeal_shandconditionleadinguptothe P surgery,isnotonlyrelevantontheissueofinformedconsent,itisoftheveryessenceoftheclaim. @ Accordingly,werejectthedefendantsclaimofnonrelevancyandtheirargumentpertainingto 0 exclusionunderTenn.R._Evid_.403.  p   TheplaintiffarguesthatDr._ONeal_shandconditionisalsorelevanttotheplaintiffsvarious P claimsofnegligenceintheoriginalcomplaintandintheamendments.Inourjudgment,thisisa @ determinationthatisbetterlefttothetrialcourtsjudgmentduringthetrialwhenthecourtcan 0 evaluatethestateoftheproofwhenthesubjectevidenceisoffered.However,thisdoesnotaffect,   inanyway,ourdeterminationthatsuchevidenceisadmissibleontheinformedconsentclaim, ! assumingthattheplaintiffcanprove,byexperttestimony,thatthisevidenceisofthetype "  contemplatedby_T.C.A._Ԁ2926118. #! @jj)VI. % #   Theorderofthetrialcourtdismissingtheamendmentstothecomplaintandgrantingthe `'"% appelleesmotionin_limine_isreversed.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellees.Thiscaseis P(#& remandedforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion. @)$'    `     h     ___________________________________ ,`'*    `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE