WPC " {#U DP % 0(4 0l 0DQ 1m 0d 0f  D3 w( 0J> 0D 0T 0^ ~ 0hD 0r AO 0Dm 0| 0- 0 1uCU, 0d 0@H B D/ BU,B)DCF AMU*eJv~`v 0 0; 0 0 0V 01!HP LaserJet IIP PlusHPPCL,,,,,,,,0P ?1J8( P8hZ,Century-WP RegularX($1# 3|xj((3$ !      0  (#$  0   uvwxyz#,37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(<1$26.  0  3  0  (gfi$0  2(6.  0  .  0  3  0` (#(#&&&&'dxd  2 0Indent123  (3$ !  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  ԃLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 526 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  $(C<< C($$   1  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X("$     d**' dxdP Pd<  9p`(Monaco% Line 7 d,,,,7Border 1dd$-C << G<  9p`(Arial  !#d#  "    / eee FILED/X /"US ,  0 !  /X CecilCrowson,Jr.   / eee AppellateCourtClerk   X @ !#d#  $       Mr.Jacoincorrectlyidentifiedthepartiesinhispetitionforreviewin8 thechancerycourtbynaminghimselfas respondent/appellantandtheDepartmentofHealth,BureauofMedicaidas petitioner/appellee.InasmuchasJacocommencedtheactioninchancerycourt,heisactuallythepetitioner.TheDepartmentofHealth,BureauofMedicaidshouldbeidentifiedastherespondent.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA: T Monaco  BA: T Monaco (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(#(# ! . &++Xd&#++Xd#    K   \RA'\7XXdd7INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEWESTERNSECTIONATNASHVILLE  _____________________________________________________________________________JOHNJACO,     DavidsonChanceryNo.95192III       C.A.No.01A019507CH00285 Petitioner/Appellant          Hon.RobertS.Brandt,ChancellorL.1-;+'h| `Lv.       DEPARTMENTOFHEALTH,BUREAUOFMEDICAID Respondent/AppelleeTHOMASF.BLOOM,Nashville,AttorneyforPetitioner/AppellantCHARLESW.BURSON,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter,andMICHELLEK.HOHNKE,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,NashvilleAttorneysforRespondent/Appellee AFFIRMED OpinionFiled:____________________________________________________________________________ TOMLIN,Sr.J.       Thisappealinvolvedjudicialreviewofanadministrativedecisionregardingthedenialofpetitionersapplicationforbenefitsforcareatanursinghomefacility.ThechancellorgrantedthemotiontodismissoftheDepartmentofHealth,BureauofMedicaid( respondentsorbyname)onthegroundthatthetrialcourtdidnothavesubjectmatterjurisdictionduetothefailureofpetitioner 2   ׀tocauseasummonstobeproperlyissuedandservedontheDepartmentwithinthesixty(60)daytimelimitspecifiedinT.C.A.45322(b)(1).Thesoleissuepresentedforreviewbythiscourtiswhetherthechancellorerredindismissingpetitionerssuitforjudicialreviewforlackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction.Wefindnoerrorandaffirm. Petitionerappliedforapreadmissionevaluation(PAE)soastomakehimeligibleforMedicaidbenefitsforcareatanIntermediateCareFacility(ICF).SeeT.C.A.715107(a)(15)(1995).ThisisrequiredbecausetheDepartmentofHealthwillnotreimburseanICFunlesstheDepartmenthasapprovedaPAEforthisindividual.Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.r.1200121.10(2)(1983).OnNovember21,1994,theDepartmentissuedafinalorderdenyingpetitionersPAEapplication. TheUniformAdministrativeProceduresAct(UAPA)providesjudicialreviewforanindividualwhoisaggrievedbyafinaldecisionofastateagencyinacontestedcase.T.C.A.45322(b)(1)(1991).Judicialreviewmaybeobtainedasfollows:8 (b)(1)ProceedingsforreviewareinstitutedbyfilingapetitionforreviewinthechancerycourtofDavidsonCounty,unlessanothercourtisspecifiedbystatute.Suchpetitionshallbefiledwithinsixty(60)daysaftertheentryoftheagencysfinalorderthereon.8 8 (2)...Copiesofthepetitionshallbeservedupontheagencyandallpartiesofrecord,includingtheattorneygeneralandreporter,inaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedurepertainingtoserviceofprocess.T.C.A.45322(b)(1)&(2)(1991). OnJanuary18,1995,JacofiledapetitionintheChanceryCourtofDavidsonCountyseekingreviewoftheDepartmentsfinalorder.AtthattimehemailedacopyofthepetitiontotheofficeofthestateAttorneyGeneralandtotheDepartmentofHealth.However,hefailedtofileandcausetobeissuedasummons.PetitionerdidnotfileasummonsuntilMarch24,1995.IngrantingtheDepartmentsmotiontodismiss,thechancellorheldthatthepetitionerslatefilingandissuanceofthesummonswasajurisdictionaldefectasamatteroflaw. ItisundisputedthatJacofiledhispetitionforreviewwithinthe60dayperiodassetoutinT.C.A.45322(b)(1).Itisalsoundisputedthathefailedtofileandcausedtobeissuedasummonsuntilwellafterthe60dayperiodhadexpired.  THEEFFECTOFSERVICEOFPROCESS   Althoughnotdirectlyrelevant,bywayofbackgroundwefirsttakealookatRule3oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureasitexistedpriortothislitigation.Itreadasfollows:8 8 Allcivilactionsarecommencedbyfilingacomplaintwiththecourt.Anactioniscommencedwithinthemeaningofanystatuteoflimitationsuponsuchfilingofacomplaint,whetherprocessbereturnedservedorunserved....T.R.C.P.4.01calledfortheclerkofthecourtuponthefilingofacomplaintto forthwithissuetherequiredsummonsandcauseitalongwiththecomplainttobeserveduponthepersonsued. Rule3wasamendedbythegeneralassembly,effectiveJuly1,1992.AmendedRule3,directlyrelevanttothelitigationbeforeus,readsinpertinentpartasfollows:8 Allcivilactionsarecommencedbyfilingacomplaintandsummonswiththeclerkofthecourt.Anactioniscommencedwithinthemeaningofanystatuteoflimitationsuponsuchfilingofacomplaintandsummons,whetherprocessbeissuedornotissuedandwhetherprocessbereturnedandservedorunserved....T.R.C.P.3(emphasisadded).TheAdvisoryCommissionCommenttothe1992amendmentstatesthat [t]heburdenofpreparingthesummonsisplacedonthelawyer,whoshouldtakestepstoensurethatitisissuedandplacedinthehandsofadeputysherifforprivateprocessserverimmediatelyafterfiling.(emphasisadded).Althoughthefactsaresomewhatdissimilar,inSouthwestMotorFreight,Inc.v.DepartmentofCommerce&Ins.,No.01A019209CH00371,1993WL82423(Tenn.App.Mar.24,1993)thiscourtnotedthedifferenteffecttobehadasaresultofthe1992amendmenttoRule3.AlthoughthelitigationinSouthwestMotorFreightbeganduringthetimethattheformerRule3wasineffect,thatcourtnotedthat [u]ndertheamendedRule3thefilingofbothacomplaintandasummonsisrequiredtocommenceacaseforpurposesofthe60daylimitationstatute.Id.at*3. IntherecentcaseofHRA,Inc.v.TennesseeDeptofCommerce&Ins.,No.01A019503CH00087,1995WL458983(Tenn.App.Aug.4,1995),whichwedeemrelevantandtoalargedegreecontrolling,petitionerproperlyfiledandthereafterservedcopiesofapetitionforreviewbymailwithin60daysoftheentryofthefinalorderoftheagency.Therewasnothingintherecordtoindicatethatprocesswasfiledandservedonanyparty.Id.at*2.HRAcontendedthatalthoughitfailedtonameaproperpartyinitsoriginalpetitionforreview,itnonethelessputtherespondentonnoticebymailingacopyofthepetitiontotheattorneyfortheomittedparty.Id.8  Inthecasebeforeus,petitionerseekstohavethiscourtexcusehisfailuretotimelyfileprocess(summons)againsttheDepartmentonthegroundsthattheDepartmentreceivednoticeofthefilingofthepetitionforreviewbyvirtueofacopyofthepetitionbeingmailedtoitscounsel"theAttorneyGeneral"andthustheDepartmentwouldnotbeprejudiced. InHRA,themiddlesectionofthiscourtnotedthat [t]he60daylimitisnotproceduralbutjurisdictional.TheCourtshavenomoreauthoritytoextendthe60daytimeforpetitionsforreviewthantheywouldhavetoextendthe30daytimefornoticeofappeal.HRA,Inc.at*5.Forthesamereasonwerejecttheargumentofpetitioner.AlthoughJacospetitionforreviewwastimelyfiledpursuanttoT.C.A.45322,hisfailuretohaveasummonsfiledandissuedwithinthe60day statuteoflimitationsperiodamountedtoajurisdictionaldefect. Accordingly,thedecreeofthechancellorisaffirmedinallrespects.Thecostinthiscauseonappealtaxedtopetitioner,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.      _________________________________________      TOMLIN,SR.J.      ________________________________________           (CONCURS)      ________________________________________           (CONCURS)