ÿWPC† …# VUNa %¯ 0 (µw@Ý4 1 0l@ 0D¬ 0Jð 0T: 0^Ž 0hì 0rT 0|Æ 0†B 0È 1uX 0dÍ U>1B)oDC˜ AMÛU*(ëRi=ñ¦¨—î?õ-Þ"v~ D3~ B±vÓÎ 0@¡ AOáÆ0 0Dö D/: Bi˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ˜ ™ š › œ£žŸU Ó€¬z!dp3|x¬((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial áÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌò òOctober€9,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€!ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó _Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€test€results,€signed€by€Dr.€Niblack,€state€that€ð ð[Luna]€can€not€be€excluded€as€the€fatherÏof€Ashley€Miller.€€The€combined€paternity€index€(genetic€odds€in€favor€of€paternity)€is€21.38.€€TheÏrelative€chance€of€paternity€is€95.53%.ððÌ çÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAt€this€time,€the€business€actually€operated€under€the€name€Gene€Proof€Technologies.€€Dr.ÏNiblack€remained€its€director.Ì žÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€complaint€inadvertently€reads€ð ð1993.ððÌ äÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝSpecifically,€these€are€the€depositions€of€Miller,€Lunaððs€parents,€Donna€Stoker,€LaurieÏAustin€and€Pamela€Medkiff.Ì ëÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝFor€clarity,€any€future€reference€to€ð ðAppellantsðð€throughout€this€opinion€will€be€in€regardÏto€Miller€and€Ashley€Luna.Ì ÔÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellants€argue€that€these€damages€relate€to€Ashley€Lunaððs€loss€of€the€parent„childÏrelationship.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@++++'ÿÿdxd dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€WESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌó óà à)ò òÌMELANIE€MILLER,€individually€andó óà à)à àShelby€County€Circuit€CourtÌò òas€Next€Friend€for€ASHLEY€MILLERó óà à)à àNo.€54181€T.D.Ìò òLUNA,€a€minor,€and€Next€Friend€ofó óà à)Ìò òGREGORY€LUNA,€deceasedó ó,à à)Ìà à)à àÌ€€€€€Plaintiffs/Appellants.à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)à àC.€A.€NO.€02A01„9505„CV„00101ÌÙ€€ÙßL€ ";+'h|Í` Å `€€Lßà à)Ìò òGARY€D.€NIBLACK,€M.D.,ó óà à)Ìò òLABORATORY€INVESTMENTS,€INC.ó ó,à à)Ìò òand€REN€LABORATORIES,€INC.ó óà à)Ìò òd/b/a€REN€HISTOCOMPATIBILITYó óà à)Ìò òLABORATORY,€A€Joint€Venture,€andó óà à)Ìò òJOHN€DOEó ó,à à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendants/Appellees.à à)Ìà à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Circuit€Court€of€Shelby€County€at€Memphis.Ìò òHonorable€William€OððHearn,€Judge€by€Designation€ó óÌÌÌÌò òLynda€F.€Teemsó ó,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Plaintiffs/Appellants.ÌÌÌÌò òJ.€Cecil€McWhirteró ó,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌò òSally€F.€Barronó ó,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€Defendant/Appellee,€Laboratory€Investments,€Inc.ÌÌÌò òJames€E.€Moffitt,ÌReid€D.€Leitneró ó,ÌLEITNER,€WARNER,€MOFFITT,€WILLIAMS,€DOOLEY,€CARPENTER€Ì&€NAPOLITAN,€Nashville,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€Defendnat/Appellee,€Ren€Laboratories,€Inc.ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òREVERSED€IN€PART,€AFFIRMED€IN€PART€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òLILLARD,€J.€ó ó:€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓÓÓà àThis€is€an€action€for€negligence€in€the€conducting€of€a€paternity€test.€€The€trial€courtÏentered€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€appellees,€Gary€D.€Niblack,€M.D.,€LaboratoryÏInvestments,€Inc.€and€Ren€Laboratories,€Inc.€d/b/a€Ren€Histocompatibility€Laboratory,€a€jointÏventure,€and€John€Doe.€€The€appellants,€Melanie€Miller,€individually€and€as€next€friend€for€AshleyÏMiller€Luna,€a€minor,€€and€next€friend€of€Gregory€Luna,€deceased,€have€appealed€presenting€theÏsingle€issue€of€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€doing€so.€€For€reasons€hereinafter€set€forth,€weÏaffirm€in€part€and€reverse€in€part€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àOn€October€30,€1990,€Melanie€Miller€gave€birth€to€a€baby€girl,€Ashley.€€On€MayÏ22,€1991,€Ms.€Miller€filed€a€petition€to€establish€paternity€against€Gregory€Luna€in€juvenile€court.€ÏThe€court,€ð ðupon€motion€of€the€state,ðð€ordered€the€parties€to€submit€to€blood€tests.€€A€paternityÏblood€test€was€performed€by€Ren€Histocompatibility€Laboratory€(RHL),€where€Dr.€Niblack€isÏemployed€as€its€director.€€RHL€provided€these€services€pursuant€to€its€contract€with€the€juvenileÏcourt€of€Memphis€and€Shelby€County.€€The€results€of€the€test,€which€excluded€Luna€as€the€naturalÏfather€of€Ashley,€were€submitted€to€the€court€who€dismissed€the€petition€on€June€4,€1991,€ð ðdue€toÏ[Luna]€having€been€excluded€by€blood€tests.ðð€€Luna€died€on€February€18,€1992.€€On€June€16,Ï1992,€Miller€filed€a€petition€to€establish€the€paternity€of€Ashley€against€Randall€Carter€in€theÏjuvenile€court.€€The€court€ordered€the€parties€to€submit€to€blood€tests€which€were€once€againÏperformed€by€RHL.€€The€tests€excluded€Carter€as€the€father.€€The€results€of€the€tests€were€releasedÏto€the€juvenile€court€by€letter€dated€September€9,€1992.€€The€court€dismissed€Millerððs€petition€onÏSeptember€15,€1992.€€ÌÌà àOn€February€1,€1993,€Miller€filed€a€ð ðMotion€for€Relief€from€Judgment,ðð€assertingÏthat€on€September€27,€1992,€she€discovered€the€results€of€a€blood€test€repeated€on€herself€and€theÍchild€indicating€that€there€was€a€ð ðmix„upðð€on€the€earlier€test€results€and€that€Luna€was€in€factÏAshleyððs€father.× ƒ# ××  ×€€Blood€tests€were€then€performed€by€RHL× ƒ$ ××  ×€on€Ms.€Miller€and€Ashley€and€onÏLunaððs€parents,€to€confirm€the€accuracy€of€Lunaððs€prior€blood€data.€€After€a€hearing€which€revealedÏthe€new€test€results,€the€trial€court€found€Luna€the€natural€father€of€Ashley€and€ordered€its€priorÏjudgment€of€June€4,€1991€ð ðset€aside€as€having€been€based€upon€an€incorrect€testing€result.ðð€€TheÏcourt€ordered€that€the€surname€of€the€child€be€changed€to€Luna€and€that€she€be€consideredÏlegitimate€for€purposes€of€inheritance€and€support.ÌÌà àOn€June€2,€1993,€Appellants€filed€the€present€action€alleging€that€Appellees€deviatedÏfrom€the€recognized€standard€of€care€in€failing€to€properly€test€the€blood€products€and€report€theÏactual€paternity€of€the€child.€€Appellants€alleged€that€Miller€learned€the€test€results€excluding€LunaÏas€the€father€of€Ashley€were€erroneous€on€September€9,€1992.× ƒ% ××  ×€€Appellees€denied€all€materialÏallegations€and€moved€for€summary€judgment€or,€in€the€alternative,€for€partial€summary€judgment,Ïasserting€that€the€complaint€was€barred€by€the€doctrine€of€judicial€immunity,€the€public€dutyÏdoctrine€and€the€applicable€one€year€statute€of€limitations.€€It€was€further€asserted€that€Lunaððs€causeÏof€action€abated€upon€his€death;€that€Ashley€Luna€lacked€standing€to€sue€as€ð ðnext€friendðð€of€Luna;Ïthat€Miller€and€Ashley€Luna€had€suffered€no€actionable€damages;€and,€finally,€that€Appellants€couldÏnot€recover€ð ðhedonicðð€damages.€€In€support€thereof,€Appellees€relied€upon€various€depositions,× ƒ& ××  ×Ïthe€affidavit€of€Wendy€Durand€and€Appellantsðð€responses€to€interrogatories€and€requests€forÍproduction€of€documents.€€Appellants€responded€to€the€motion€by€filing€a€memorandum€wherein€itÏwas€argued€that€ð ðthere€are€numerous€issues€of€material€fact€involved€in€this€record€.€.€.€.ðð€ÏHowever,€no€discovery€materials€were€specifically€introduced€or€expressly€relied€upon€byÏAppellants€in€opposing€the€motion.ÌÌà àIt€is€well€established€that€the€party€seeking€summary€judgment€bears€the€burden€ofÏpersuading€the€court€that€no€genuine€and€material€factual€issues€exist€and€it€is,€therefore,€entitled€toÏjudgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€òòò òSee,€e.g.,€Byrd€v.€Hallóóó ó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€211€(Tenn.€1993).€ÏIn€reviewing€motions€for€summary€judgment,€we€are€to€view€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorableÏto€the€nonmoving€party,€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€in€that€partyððs€favor€and€discard€allÏcountervailing€evidence.€€It€is€only€when€there€is€no€disputed€issue€of€material€fact€that€summaryÏjudgment€should€be€granted€by€the€trial€court€and€sustained€by€the€court€of€appeals.€€òòò òByrdóóó ó,€847ÏS.W.2d€at€210„11;€òòò òFly€v.€Cannonóóó ó,€813€S.W.2d€458,€460€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€courtððs€order€granting€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€appellees€fails€toÏset€forth€its€specific€reason(s)€for€doing€so.€€Therefore,€we€will€consider€each€assertion€raised€byÏthe€appellees€in€their€motion.€€We€first€consider€whether€Lunaððs€cause€of€action€abated€upon€hisÏdeath.€€T.C.A.€ðð€20„5„102€provides:ÌÌÓÓà8 àò òActions€surviving€death€of€partyó ó.€€„„€No€civil€actionÏcommenced,€whether€founded€on€wrongs€or€contracts,€exceptÏactions€for€wrongs€affecting€the€character€of€the€plaintiff,€shall€abateÏby€the€death€of€either€party,€but€may€be€revived;€nor€shall€any€rightÏof€action€arising€hereafter€based€on€the€wrongful€act€or€omission€ofÏanother,€except€actions€for€wrongs€affecting€the€character,€be€abatedÏby€the€death€of€the€party€wronged;€but€the€right€of€action€shall€passÏin€like€manner€as€the€right€of€action€described€in€ðð€20„5„106.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àT.C.A.€ðð€20„5„106€states,€in€part€pertinent:ÌÌÓÓà8 àò òInjury€resulting€in€death€„„€Succession€to€cause€of€actionÍ„„€Beneficiary€who€is€minor€or€legally€incompetent.€„„ó ó€(a)ÏThe€right€of€action€which€a€person,€who€dies€from€injuries€receivedÏfrom€another,€or€whose€death€is€caused€by€the€wrongful€act,Ïomission,€or€killing€by€another,€would€have€had€against€theÏwrongdoer,€in€case€death€had€not€ensued,€shall€not€abate€or€beÏextinguished€by€the€personððs€death€but€shall€pass€òòò òto€the€personððsÏsurviving€spouse€and,€in€case€there€is€no€survivingÏspouse,€to€the€personððs€children€or€next€of€kinó óóó;€(emphasisÏadded).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€record€establishes€that€Luna€is€survived€by€his€spouse,€Audrey€Cook€Luna.€€InÏaccordance€with€the€foregoing€statutes,€we€find€that€if€any€action€exists€on€behalf€of€the€deceased,Ïit€is€properly€maintained€only€by€his€surviving€spouse.€€As€such€is€not€the€case€here,€we€find€thatÏthe€suit€pursued€on€behalf€of€Luna€by€his€daughter€Ashley€as€ð ðnext€friendððshould€be€dismissed.€ÏWe€hold€that€summary€judgment€was€properly€granted€to€the€appellees€as€to€this€cause€of€action.× ƒ' ××  ×ÌÌà àWe€next€consider€the€assertion€that€the€present€claims€are€barred€by€the€doctrine€ofÏjudicial€immunity.€€It€is€contended€that€Appellees€are€the€duly€authorized€agents€of€the€juvenileÏcourt€and€are€entitled€to€judicial€immunity€from€liability€for€their€acts€as€judicial€officers€under€theÏdirection€of€the€juvenile€court.€€ÌÌà àThe€doctrine€of€absolute€judicial€immunity,€which€first€arose€under€common€law,Ïhas€been€extended€to€persons,€other€than€judges,€performing€judicial€or€quasi€judicial€functions.€Ïòòò òLaLonde€v.€Eissneróóó ó,€539€N.E.2d€538,€540€(Mass.€1989);€òòò òHoward€v.€Drapkinóóó ó,€271€Cal.ÏRptr.€893,€901€(Cal.€Ct.€App.€1990);€òòò òHarris€v.€Brustowiczóóó ó,€671€So.2d€440,€443€(La.€Ct.ÏApp.€1995).€€In€òòò òLaLondeóóó ó,€a€mother€and€child€brought€suit€against€a€court€appointed€psychiatristÏto€recover€for€the€allegedly€negligent€evaluation€rendered€by€the€doctor€to€the€court,€causing€aÏcontinuation€of€the€fatherððs€visitation€privileges.€€òòò òLaLondeóóó ó,€539€N.E.2d€538.€€The€psychiatristÏargued€that€he€was€entitled€to€quasi€judicial€immunity€because€he€had€been€court€appointed.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€atÍ539.€€The€Massachusetts€Supreme€Court€agreed€and€affirmed€the€trial€judgeððs€ruling,€affording€theÏpsychiatrist€absolute€judicial€immunity.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€€The€court€reasoned:ÌÌÓÓà8 àCourts€have€expanded€the€doctrine€of€absolute€judicial€immunity€toÏinclude€these€ð ðquasi€judicialðð€officers€because€they€are€involved€inÏan€integral€part€of€the€judicial€process€and€thus€must€be€able€to€actÏfreely€without€the€threat€of€a€law€suit.€€òòò òRobichaud€v.€Ronanóóó ó,€351ÏF.2d€533,€535„538€(9th€Cir.€1965).€€When€acting€at€a€judgeððsÏdirection,€these€ð ðquasi€judicialðð€officers€enjoy€the€same€absoluteÏimmunity€for€their€conduct.€€òòò òTemple€v.€Marlborough€Div.€ofÏthe€Dist.€Court€Depððt,€supraóóó ó,€395€Mass.€at€133,€479€N.E.2dÏ137€(court€clerk).ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.€€Most€jurisdictions€have€held€that€common€lawÏimmunity€protects€persons€appointed€by€a€court€to€conduct€a€medicalÏor€psychiatric€evaluation€and€render€an€opinion€or€to€provide€otherÏexpert€assistance€because€of€their€integral€relation€to€the€judicialÏprocess.€€òòò òSee,€e.g.,€Moses€v.€Parwatikaróóó ó,€813€F.2d€891,€892Ï(8th€Cir.),€cert.€denied.€____€U.S.€____,€108€S.Ct.€108,€98ÏL.Ed.2d€67€(1987)€psychiatrist);€òòò òMyers€v.€Morrisóóó ó,€810€F.2dÏ1437,€1467€(8th€Cir.),€cert.€denied,€___€U.S.€___,€108€S.Ct.€97,Ï98€L.Ed.2d€58€(1987)€(therapists€in€child€sexual€abuse€case);Ïòòò òBurkes€v.€Callion,€supraóóó ó€at€319€(psychiatrists);€òòò òBartlett€v.ÏWeimeróóó ó,€268€F.2d€860,€862€(7th€Cir.€1959),€cert.€denied,€361ÏU.S.€938,€80€S.Ct.€380,€4€L.Ed.2d€358€(1960)€(physicians);Ïòòò òWilliams€v.€Rappeportóóó ó,€699€F.Supp.€501,€507„508Ï(D.Md.1988)€(psychiatrist€and€psychologist€appointed€duringÏcustody€determination);€òòò òMiner€v.€Bakeróóó ó,€638€F.Supp.€239,€241Ï(E.D.Mo.€1986)€(psychiatrist);€òòò òDoe€v.€Hennepin€Countyóóó ó,€623ÏF.Supp.€982,€986€(D.Minn.1985)€(therapists€in€child€sexual€abuseÏcase);€òòò òPhillips€v.€Singletaryóóó ó,€350€F.Supp.€297,€300Ï(D.S.C.1972)€(physician);€òòò òBartlett€v.€Dutyóóó ó,€174€F.Supp.€94,€97„98€(N.D.Ohio€1959)€(physician).€€These€courts€recognized€thatÏð ð[p]sychologists€and€other€experts€would€be€reluctant€to€accept€courtÏappointment€if€they€thereby€opened€themselves€to€liability€for€theirÏactions€in€this€official€capacity.ðð€€òòò òDoe€v.€Hennepin€County,Ïsupraóóó ó€at€986.€€òòò òMoses€v.€Parwatikar,€supraóóó ó€at€892.€€Also,Ïhuman€nature€indicates€that€court„appointed€experts,€faced€with€theÏthreat€of€personal€liability,€will€be€less€likely€to€offer€theÏdisinterested€objective€opinion€that€the€court€seeks.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òIdóóó ó.€at€540„41.€ÌÌà àIn€òòò òHoward€v.€Drapkinóóó ó,€a€child€custody€case,€the€court€held€that€a€psychologistÏordered€by€the€court€to€evaluate€the€family€and€render€her€findings€and€recommendations€wasÍentitled€to€absolute€quasi€judicial€immunity€in€a€suit€by€the€parents€alleging,€òòò òinter€aliaóóó ó,Ïprofessional€negligence.€€òòò òHowardóóó ó,€271€Cal.€Rptr.€at€895,€905.€€òòò òHowardóóó ó€held€that€in€order€toÏdetermine€whether€an€individual€has€quasi€judicial€immunity,€the€connection€between€that€personððsÏactivity€and€the€judicial€process€is€to€be€evaluated,€rather€than€the€status€of€the€individual.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€atÏ898.€€The€court€further€held€that€as€is€the€reason€for€granting€judicial€immunity,€quasi€judicialÏimmunity€is€extended€ð ðto€promote€uninhibited€and€independent€decision€making.ðð€€òòò òIdóóó ó.ÌÌà àA€different€result€was€reached€by€the€Louisiana€Court€of€Appeals€in€òòò òHarris€v.ÏBrustowiczóóó ó.€€There,€parents€filed€suit€against€the€coroner€and€coronerððs€office€for€the€allegedÏwrongful€death€of€their€son€in€failing€to€issue€an€order€of€protective€custody€after€agreeing€to€doÏso.€€òòò òHarrisóóó ó,€671€So.2d€at€440„42.€€The€issue€before€the€court€was€whether€the€defendants€wereÏentitled€to€judicial€immunity.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€at€441.€€In€holding€the€defendants€subject€to€liability€for€theirÏalleged€actions,€the€court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àUnder€the€doctrine€of€judicial€immunity,€a€judge€is€entitled€toÏabsolute€immunity€from€liability€for€acts€he€performs€in€his€judicialÏrole€which€are€integral€to€the€judicial€process.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€Supreme€Court€[in€òòò òForrester€v.€Whiteóóó ó,€484€U.S.Ï219,€225€(1988)],€held€that€immunity€was€ð ðjustified€and€defined€byÏthe€functions€it€protects€and€serves,€not€by€the€person€to€whom€itÏattaches.ðð€.€.€.€€In€this€context,€the€Court€drew€a€distinction€betweenÏjudicial€acts€and€administrative€or€executive€acts,€noting€that€theÏlatter€have€not€been€recognized€as€judicial€acts€warranting€immunity,Ïeven€though€essential€to€the€functioning€of€the€courts.€.€.€.€Further,Ïthe€Court€indicated€recognition€of€such€immunity€should€be€sparing,Ïin€view€of€the€fact€that€absolute€immunity€is€ð ðstrong€medicine.ðð€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àNevertheless,€quasi„judicial€immunity€has€been€extended€inÏsome€instances€to€nonjudicial€persons€fulfilling€quasi„judicialÏfunctions€intimately€related€to€the€judicial€process.€.€.€.€TheÏdeterminative€factor€is€whether€the€person€performs€a€judicialÏfunction€with€an€integral€relationship€to€the€judicial€process.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àà àIn€the€present€case,€plaintiffs€do€not€complain€of€the€exerciseÏof€the€coronerððs€judgment€resulting€in€a€decision€to€deny€the€requestÏfor€a€protective€order.€€Rather,€the€basis€of€plaintiffsðð€claims€is€theÏallegation€that€the€coroner€failed€to€personally€review€the€request€forÍprotective€order€and€make€any€decision€thereon,€failed€to€provideÏadequate€procedures€for€the€handling€of€such€requests€by€a€well„trained€staff,€failed€to€supervise€his€staff,€and€delegatedÏresponsibility€for€the€handling€of€such€requests€to€unqualified,Ïnonmedical€personnel.€€In€the€alternative,€plaintiffs€contend€theÏcornerððs€office€was€negligent€and€acted€in€bad€faith€in€failing€toÏexpeditiously€take€Rogowski€into€custody€after€agreeing€to€do€so.€ÏWe€find€that€the€alleged€acts€and€omissions€are€not€judicial€functionsÏintegral€to€the€judicial€process,€but€are€primarily€administrative,Ïexecutive€and/or€operational€in€nature.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òIdóóó ó.€at€442„43€(citations€omitted).ÌÌà àIn€the€instant€matter,€the€affidavit€of€Wendy€Durand€states,€as€here€pertinent:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àOn€January€16,€1991,€the€Memphis€Juvenile€Court€andÏShelby€County€entered€into€a€contract€for€services€with€RENÏLaboratories,€also€known€as€REN€Histocompatibility€.€.€.€.€€UnderÏthis€contract,€REN€Histocompatibility€was€to€provide€all€paternityÏblood€testing€for€the€Memphis€Juvenile€Court.€€In€May„June,€1991,ÏREN€Histocompatibility€performed€for€the€Memphis€Juvenile€CourtÏapproximately€50€sets€of€blood€tests€per€week.€€The€blood€samplesÏfrom€the€testee€was€[sic]€drawn€at€the€Memphis€JuvenileÏCourthouse,€and€transported€to€Nashville,€Tennessee€for€testing€atÏthe€REN€Histocompatibility€Laboratory.€€REN€furnished€its€testÏresults€to€the€Juvenile€Court€in€the€form€of€a€written€report.ÌÌà8 àà àOn€April€16,€1991,€[Miller]€brought€against€[Luna]€a€PetitionÏwith€the€[Court]€to€establish€the€paternity€of€her€daughter,€.€.€.€€At€aÏpreliminary€hearing€.€.€.€Juvenile€court€Referee€.€.€.€ordered€.€.€.€thatÏupon€motion€of€the€State€all€parties€submit€to€blood€testsÏadministered€by€the€Memphis€Juvenile€Court.ÌÌÌÌÓÓThe€contract,€attached€to€Durandððs€affidavit,€indicates:€ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€Lab€will€perform€testing€on€Red€Blood€Cell€AntigensÏ(RBC)€on€all€individuals€referred€for€testing.€€If€upon€completion€ofÏtesting€of€RBC,€there€is€a€direct€exclusion€or€multiple€indirectÏexclusions,€unless€otherwise€instructed,€the€Lab€will€discontinueÏtesting.€€However,€in€case€where€the€specimens€from€the€parties€doÏnot€arrive€in€the€Lab€on€the€same€day,€the€Lab€will€perform€RBCÏand€Human€Leukocyte€Antigen€(HLA)€procedures€on€all€partialÏcases€submitted.ÌÌà8 àà àIf€upon€completion€of€RBC,€there€is€no€direct€exclusion€orÏmultiple€indirect€exclusions,€the€Lab€will€perform€HLA€testing.ÌÌà8 àà àIf€upon€completion€of€RBC€and/or€HLA,€the€probability€ofÏpaternity€is€less€than€99%,€the€Lab€will€extend€testing€using€serumÏproteins,€red€cell€enzymes€and/or€DNA€Probe.€€If,€after€performingÏall€testing,€the€probability€of€paternity€is€less€than€99%,€there€will€beÏno€charge€for€any€services€provided.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àWe€find€the€contract€between€RHL€and€the€Juvenile€Court€exact€in€its€requirementsÏof€RHL€in€performing€the€blood€tests.€€There€is€no€room€for€discretion€as€to€the€type€of€tests€to€beÏperformed€or€the€order€in€which€they€are€conducted.€€Moreover,€the€test€results€are€not€subject€toÏdifferent€interpretation.€€They€either€exclude€the€alleged€father€or€do€not.€€This€is€directly€oppositeÏto€the€aforementioned€cases€concerning€psychologists€or€psychiatrists€who€were€appointed€by€theÏcourt€to€conduct€an€ð ðevaluation.ðð€€Here,€the€tasks€of€RHL€did€not€lend€themselves€to€ð ðuninhibitedÏand€independent€decision€making.ðð€€ÌÌà àWe€believe€the€facts€of€our€case€are€more€closely€aligned€to€those€in€òòò òHarrisóóó ó.€€As€inÏòòò òHarrisóóó ó,€the€appellants€here€do€not€question€Appelleesðð€decision€regarding€whether€or€how€the€testsÏwere€to€be€conducted.€€The€appellants€allege€negligence€in€the€appelleesðð€actual€performance€of€theÏtests.€€ð ðImmunity€can€only€exist€where€the€defendant€official€is€required€to€exercise€some€modicumÏof€official€discretion€.€.€.€.€since€the€rationale€for€official€[quasi€judicial]€immunity€is€the€promotionÏof€fearless,€vigorous,€or€effective€administration€of€policies€of€government,€the€qualification€ofÏimmunity€which€limits€it€to€discretionary€acts€is€eminently€practical.ðð€€63€Am.€Jur.€2d€òòò òPublicÏOfficers€and€Employeesóóó ó€ðð€362€(1984).€€We€conclude€that€the€record€before€us€does€notÏestablish€that€Appellees€are€entitled€to€judicial€immunity€as€a€matter€of€law.ÌÌà àAppellees€also€assert€that€the€present€action€is€barred€under€the€public€duty€doctrine.€ÏThey€contend€that€they€performed€the€subject€blood€tests€as€a€public€officer€for€the€purposes€of€theÏpublic€duty€doctrine.€€They€point€to€the€fact,€as€found€in€Durandððs€affidavit,€that€the€tests€wereÏauthorized€and€paid€for€by€the€juvenile€court€and€that€all€test€results€were€reported€directly€to€theÍcourt.€€They€argue€that€as€a€public€officer,€their€duty€was€to€the€public€at€large,€not€the€appellants€inÏparticular.ÌÌà àThe€public€duty€doctrine€shields€a€public€employee€from€suits€for€injuries€that€areÏcaused€by€the€public€employeeððs€breach€of€a€duty€owed€to€the€public€at€large.€€òòò òEzell€v.ÏCockrellóóó ó,€902€S.W.2d€394,€397€(Tenn.€1995).€€òòò òEzellóóó ó€recognized€that€the€doctrine€survivedÏenactment€of€Tennesseeððs€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act€and€that€sound€public€policy€warrantsÏits€continued€application.€€òòò òEzellóóó ó,€902€S.W.2d€at€404.€€In€òòò òBennett€v.€Stuttsóóó ó,€521€S.W.2d€575Ï(Tenn.€1975),€our€supreme€court€held:ÌÌÓÓà8 àPublic€wrongs€or€neglect€or€breach€of€public€duty€generally€cannotÏbe€redressed€at€a€suit€in€the€name€of€an€individual€or€individualsÏwhose€interest€in€the€right€asserted€does€not€differ€from€that€of€theÏpublic€generally,€or€who€suffers€injury€only€in€common€with€themÏgenerally,€and€not€peculiar€to€himself,€even,€it€seems,€though€hisÏloss€is€greater€in€degree,€unless€such€right€of€action€is€given€byÏstatute.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òBennettóóó ó,€521€S.W.2d€at€577€(quoting€59€Am.€Jur.€2d€òòò òPartiesóóó ó€ðð€30).ÌÌà àAs€its€definition€would€imply,€the€doctrine€is€subject€to€a€ð ðspecial„dutyðð€exception.€ÏThe€òòò òEzellóóó ó€court€held€that€a€special€duty€of€care€exists,€rendering€the€doctrine€inapplicable,€where:ÌÌÓÓà8 à1)€officials,€by€their€actions,€affirmatively€undertake€to€protect€theÏplaintiff,€and€the€plaintiff€relies€upon€the€undertaking;€2)€a€statuteÏspecifically€provides€for€a€cause€of€action€against€an€official€orÏmunicipality€for€injuries€resulting€to€a€particular€class€of€individuals,Ïof€which€the€plaintiff€is€a€member,€from€failure€to€enforce€certainÏlaws;€or€3)€the€plaintiff€alleges€a€cause€of€action€involving€intent,Ïmalice,€or€reckless€misconduct.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òEzellóóó ó,€902€S.W.2d€at€402.ÌÌà àIn€his€deposition,€Dr.€Niblack€attempts€to€explain€the€different€test€results€by€statingÏthat€the€samples€were€ð ðswitched€from€one€report€to€the€other,€so€that€the€motherððs€report€is€listed€asÏthe€childððs€report€and€vice€versa.ðð€€We€believe€there€was€an€affirmative€undertaking€by€Appellees€toÏaccurately€record€the€blood€tests€of€Appellants€and€that€Appellants€were€justified€in€relying€uponÏAppellees€to€do€so.€€Appellants€do€not€question€the€manner€in€which€the€lab€generally€performs€itsÏtests€or€the€specific€procedures€utilized€or€followed,€but€their€alleged€negligence€in€ð ðswitchingðð€theÏspecific€test€results€of€Appellants.€€The€injury€involved€here€is€peculiar€to€Appellants.€We€concludeÏthat€the€record€fails€to€establish€the€appelleesðð€entitlement€to€immunity€from€suit€under€the€publicÏduty€doctrine.ÌÌà àAppellees€next€assert€that€the€present€action€is€barred€by€the€one„year€statute€ofÏlimitations.€€T.C.A.€ðð€28„3„104€provides€that€actions€for€ð ðinjuries€to€the€personðð€are€to€beÏcommenced€within€one€year€after€the€cause€of€action€accrues.€€Under€the€discovery€rule,€the€causeÏof€action€accrues€and€the€statute€of€limitations€begins€to€run€when€the€injury€occurs€or€isÏdiscovered,€or€when€in€the€exercise€of€reasonable€care€and€diligence,€it€should€have€beenÏdiscovered.€€òòò òE.g.,€Woods€v.€Sherwin„Williams€Co.óóó ó,€666€S.W.2d€77,€78€(Tenn.€App.Ï1983).€€The€rule€applies€only€when€the€plaintiff€does€not€discover€and€could€not€be€reasonablyÏexpected€to€discover€that€he€has€a€right€of€action.€€It€does€not€allow€the€plaintiff€to€wait€until€heÏknows€all€of€the€injurious€effects€or€consequences€of€the€tortious€act.€€Moreover,€the€statute€isÏtolled€only€during€the€period€when€the€plaintiff€has€no€knowledge€at€all€that€a€wrong€has€occurredÏand,€as€a€reasonable€person,€is€not€put€on€inquiry.€€òòò òWoodsóó,ó ó€666€S.W.2d€at€80.ÌÌà àAppellees€argue€that€Miller€had€either€actual€knowledge€or€was€put€on€inquiry€noticeÏof€her€alleged€injuries€on€June€4,€1991€„€the€day€her€petition€against€Luna€was€dismissed€by€theÏjuvenile€court.€€The€record€establishes€that€during€the€critical€time€period,€Miller€had€sexualÏrelations€with€only€Luna€and€Carter.€€She€had€sexual€intercourse€with€Carter€only€one€time€onÏFebruary€26,€1990.€€The€child€was€not€born€prematurely.€€In€her€deposition,€Miller€states€that€sheÍbelieved€herself€pregnant€prior€to€having€sex€with€Carter.€€She€said€that€her€pregnancy€wasÏconfirmed€in€March€1990€and€that€she€informed€Luna€of€this€the€following€month€because€sheÏbelieved€him€the€father.€€Appellees€assert€that€because€Miller€had€sexual€relations€with€CarterÏapproximately€8€months€before€the€childððs€birth,€a€reasonable€person€should€have€known€orÏconcluded€that€Carter€could€not€be€the€natural€father.ÌÌà àMillerððs€deposition€also€states€that€although€she€suspected€pregnancy€prior€toÏrelations€with€Carter,€she€thought€her€symptoms€ð ðcould€be€due€to€nerves.ðð€€Miller€stated€that€sheÏfirst€saw€the€test€results€excluding€Luna€as€the€childððs€father€in€court€on€or€about€June€4,€1991.€ÏWhen€asked€if€she€felt€the€results€were€wrong,€she€replied€ð ðI€didnððt€knowðð€and€ð ðI€thought€itÏprobably€was.ðð€€She€further€told€the€referee€that€she€believed€the€results€were€in€error.€€WhenÏasked,€ð ðafter€you€knew€the€blood€test€had€excluded€[Luna],€then€you€knew€[Carter]€was€the€father,Ïdidnððt€you?ðð,€she€replied€ð ð[y]es€.€.€.€I€thought€[Carter]€would€be.ðð€€She€further€declared:ÌÌÓÓà8 àA.à àWhen€the€blood€test€came€back€and€said€[Luna]€was€not,€IÏthought,€well,€it€has€to€be€Randall€Carter.ÌÌà8 àQ.à à.€.€.€was€there€a€logical€certainty€to€that€or€was€there€anyÏdoubt€left€in€your€mind?ÌÌà8 àA.à àI€was€real€unsure€about€it€to€begin€with.€€I€talked€to€myÏmother€about€it€at€length.€€She€brought€up€several€medical€cases,Ïpregnancy€upon€pregnancy,€that€made€me€think€that€it€was€probablyÏRandall€Carterððs.ÌÌà8 à.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àA.€à à.€.€.€.€€Obviously,€if€it€wasnððt€[Luna],€it€was€Randall€Carter.Ï.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àQ.à à.€.€.€.€How€many€days€after€the€court€hearing€was€it€that€youÏbecame€sure€that€it€was€Randall€Carter?ÌÌà8 àA.à àI€called€Randall€Carter€that€day.ÌÌà8 à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àQ.à à.€.€.€.€Was€there€any€doubt€left€in€your€mind€that€Greg€Luna€.Ï.€.€might€have€been€the€father?ÌÌà8 àA.à àI€donððt€know.ÌÌà8 àQ.à àYou€donððt€know€if€he€might€have€been€the€father€or€youÏdonððt€know€if€there€is€any€doubt€in€your€mind?ÌÌà8 àA.à àI€thought€that€Randall€Carter€was€the€father.€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àMiller€said€that€she€did€not€consider€ð ðinformal€retestingðð€after€getting€the€results€onÏJune€4€because€she€ð ðwas€told€the€test€was€ninety„nine€percent€accurateðð€and€she€ð ðexpected€the€testÏto€be€done€correctly.ðð€€Miller€stated€that€as€soon€as€she€received€the€second€test€results€(involvingÏCarter)€she€knew€that€a€mistake€had€been€made,€but€that€ð ð[y]ou€have€to€have€the€second€test€to€beÏable€to€compare.ðð€€As€heretofore€noted,€the€second€set€of€blood€tests€were€concluded€on€SeptemberÏ9,€1992€and€Millerððs€petition€as€to€Carter€was€dismissed€on€September€15,€1992.€€Based€upon€ourÏreview€of€the€record,€we€find€that€Appellees€have€failed€to€carry€the€burden€of€persuading€thisÏCourt€that€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations€has€run€in€this€case€as€a€matter€of€law.€€ÌÌà àAppellees€also€argue€that€Miller€and€the€child€have€suffered€no€actionable€damages.€ÏThe€complaint€alleges€as€damages€ð ðmental€anguish,€loss€of€support,€loss€of€social€securityÏbenefits,€and€loss€of€enjoyment€of€life.ðð€€According€to€her€deposition,€Miller€incurredÏapproximately€$8,000€in€medical€expenses€related€to€the€birth€of€her€child,€for€which€she€wasÏnever€reimbursed.€€We€reject€Appelleesðð€contention€that€the€record€establishes€that€Luna€wouldÏhave€been€unwilling€or€unable€to€pay,€thereby€rendering€these€damages€too€speculative.€€BasedÏupon€the€record,€we€cannot€find€as€a€matter€of€law€that€these€type€damages€are€too€speculative€toÏpermit€recovery.€ÌÌà àWe€further€cannot€find€the€alleged€damages€sustained€by€Ashley€Luna,€in€the€formÏof€child€support,€too€speculative€to€permit€recovery€as€a€matter€of€law.€€The€record€reveals€thatÏLuna€was€employed€by€CSX€Services€from€August€12,€1991€to€January€3,€1992,€when€he€wasÏlaid€off€due€to€lack€of€work.€€He€earned€$9€an€hour€as€a€full€time€employee.€€Had€the€first€paternityÏtest€revealed€Luna€as€Ashleyððs€natural€father,€he€would€have€been€obligated€to€and€ordered€toÍprovide€support€for€his€child€in€accordance€with€the€child€support€guidelines.€€It€appears€that€heÏwould€have€been€capable€of€doing€so€at€least€during€the€period€of€his€employ.ÌÌà àMiller€states€that€although€her€daughter€currently€receives€social€security€benefits€asÏa€result€of€her€fatherððs€death,€in€the€amount€of€$573€per€month,€Ashley€has€not€received€benefitsÏfor€the€six€month€period€immediately€preceding€his€death.€€She€asserts€that€the€Social€SecurityÏAdministration€will€only€pay€up€to€six€months€back€pay€from€the€time€of€filing€the€petition€forÏbenefits.€€She€first€applied€for€benefits€on€behalf€of€her€daughter€in€April€1993.€€Appellees€contendÏthat€the€proximate€cause€of€Ashleyððs€being€deprived€of€approximately€six€months€of€benefits€is€herÏmotherððs€failure€to€timely€establish€paternity,€which€according€to€Appellees,€she€could€have€doneÏhad€she€obtained€retesting.€€This€is€an€argument€properly€addressed€to€the€trier€of€fact.ÌÌà àAs€to€the€alleged€damages€of€ð ðmental€anguish,ðð€it€appears€that€Appellants€areÏasserting€a€claim€for€negligent€infliction€of€emotional€distress.€€In€òòò òCamper€v.€Minoróóó ó,€915ÏS.W.2d€437€(Tenn.€1996),€our€supreme€court€abandoned€the€ð ðphysical€manifestationðð€or€ð ðinjuryððÏrule,€holding€that€such€would€ð ðno€longer€be€used€to€test€the€validity€of€a€prima€facie€case€ofÏnegligent€infliction€of€emotional€distress.ðð€€òòò òCamperóóó ó,€915€S.W.2d€at€446.€€The€court€continued:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[W]e€conclude€that€these€cases€should€be€analyzed€under€the€generalÏnegligence€approach€.€.€.€.€€In€other€words,€the€plaintiff€must€presentÏmaterial€evidence€as€to€each€of€the€five€elements€of€generalÏnegligence€„„€duty,€breach€of€duty,€injury€or€loss,€causation€in€fact,Ïand€proximate,€or€legal,€cause,€.€.€.€in€order€to€avoid€summaryÏjudgment.€€Furthermore,€we€agree€that€in€order€to€guard€againstÏtrivial€or€fraudulent€actions,€the€law€ought€to€provide€a€recoveryÏonly€for€ð ðseriousðð€or€ð ðsevereðð€emotional€injury.€€A€ð ðseriousðð€orÏð ðsevereðð€emotional€injury€occurs€ð ðwhere€a€reasonable€person,Ïnormally€constituted,€would€be€unable€to€adequately€cope€with€theÏmental€stress€engendered€by€the€circumstances€of€the€case.ðð€€Finally,Ïwe€conclude€that€the€claimed€injury€or€impairment€must€beÏsupported€by€expert€medical€or€scientific€proof.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òCamperóóó ó,€915€S.W.2d€at€446€(citations€omitted).ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€Appellants€have€not€presented,€by€affidavit€or€otherwise,€expertÏmedical€or€scientific€proof€regarding€their€alleged€emotional€injuries.€€Moreover,€we€find€the€recordÏbefore€us€inadequate€to€establish€the€seriousness€or€severity€of€injury€which€we€believe€is€requiredÏunder€òòò òCamperóóó ó.€€We,€therefore,€hold€the€appellees€were€properly€granted€summary€judgment€as€toÏthe€claim€for€ð ðmental€anguish.ððÌÌà àFinally,€it€is€asserted€that€Appellants€are€not€entitled€to€recover€hedonic€damages.€ÏAppellants€have€alleged€a€ð ðloss€of€enjoyment€of€life,ðð× ƒ( ××  ×€which€we€treat€as€a€request€for€hedonicÏdamages.€€With€respect€thereto,€we€find€that€summary€judgment€was€properly€entered€in€favor€ofÏthe€appellees.€€In€òòò òSpencer€v.€A„1€Crane€Service,€Inc.óóó ó,€880€S.W.2d€938€(Tenn.€1994),€ourÏsupreme€court€specifically€held€these€damages€unrecoverable€in€actions€pursued€under€theÏwrongful€death€statutes.€€òòò òSpenceró óóó,€880€S.W.2d€at€943.€€The€òòò òSpenceróóó ó€court€acknowledged€twoÏð ðgeneral€rationalesðð€in€disallowing€damages€of€this€type:€first,€they€do€not€fulfill€the€compensatoryÏfunction€of€tort€law;€and€second,€valuing€the€pleasures€of€life€is€too€speculative€to€form€a€basis€forÏcomputing€damages.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€€We€believe€these€same€rationales€apply€to€the€present€action€and€warrantÏa€denial€of€recovery€of€these€damages.€€ÌÌà àIt€results€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed€in€part€and€affirmed€in€part,Ïwith€this€cause€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings€herewith€consistent.€€Costs€areÏassessed€equally€against€the€parties.ÌÌÌÓ` Ü` È“XÓÓÓà à_______________________________Ìà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌLILLARD,€J.€(Concurs)