ÿWPCY@ V#†ÄUNJ %˜ 0(žbÆ 0³Îw@4ÁÕ 0Dä 0J( 0Tr 0^Æ$ B, 0hI±±w± 0DÇÆ AOÑ 0D 0@d D3¤ D/× B 0r# 0|• 0† 0— 1u' U,œ 0dÈ U,,UC>XB)–DC¿ AMU*Oey z…W ÷*O9,ˆO´ Û#EÞ$£#&#Æ'#é(Ê *þÖ+Ô.q0Û€3­[6v~9vÓ†:˜IBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 ØP —6BŠo >P'æ() Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular¼($¡¡- ù-(c(2äo$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÔ€XELX¼¼Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó à á Dâ ã Dä å Dæ Dç Uè é D1# 6Ø'ç3|x­(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  (3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ݃Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5%('*Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò'ÿÿdxd++'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô,-/0 ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d<<<<7Border 1dd%(=Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€;ÔÓ  ÓÔ€?ÔÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€?¼Ôó óÌò òÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ@ ÔÔ!  Ôó óÌÌò òCecil€Crowson,ÏJr.Ô€;Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€;ÂÔÔ€?ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellate€Court€Clerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼Ô Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€;XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAn€open€reduction€of€a€fracture€is€a€surgical€procedure€involving€the€manipulation€ofÏthe€affected€bone€or€bones€after€an€incision€into€the€skin€and€muscle€over€the€site€of€theÏfracture.€€€òòSeeóó€Stedman›ððs€Concise€Medical€Dictionary€872€(œ2d›€ed.€œ1994)€(ð ðStedmanððsðð).›Ì MÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€;XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€closed€manipulation€did€not€require€a€second€incision;€however,€the€pins€attachingÏthe€tibia€to€the€external€fixator€did€protrude€through€the€skin.€€A€fixator€is€a€device€providingÏrigid€immobilization€through€external€skeletal€fixation€by€means€of€rods€attached€to€pins€whichÏare€placed€in€or€through€the€bone.€€òòSeeóó€Stedmanððs€386.›Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€;XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€motion€was€proper€because€a€defendant€physicianððs€affidavit€is€sufficient€by€itselfÏto€support€the€physicianððs€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€òòSmith€v.€Gravesóó,€672€S.W.2d›€787,Ï789„90€(Tenn.€Ct.€œApp›.€1984).€€There€is,€however,€a€growing€judicial€hostility€toward€expertÏaffidavits€used€to€support€or€to€oppose€motions€for€summary€judgment€that€contain€only€anÏopinion€without€supplying€a€foundation€of€specific€facts.€€òòSeeóó€Edward€Brumet,€òòSummaryÏJudgment€Materialsóó,€147€F.R.D.€647,€674„676€(1993)€("Brumet").€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€;XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòGoodman€v.€Phythyon,óó€803€S.W.2d€697,€702„03€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990);€òòHurst€v.ÏDougherty,€óó800€S.W.2d€183,€185€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990);€òòParker€v.€Vanderbilt€Univ.,óó€767ÏS.W.2d€412,€420€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988);€òòAyers€v.€Rutherford€Hosp.,€Inc.,€óó689€S.W.2d€155,Ï160€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984).Ì EÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€;XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝRule€12.04(d)€of€the€Local€Rules€of€Practice€requires€responses€to€motions,€includingÏcounter„affidavits,€to€be€filed€by€the€close€of€business€on€the€Monday€preceding€the€Friday€onÏwhich€the€motion€is€to€be€heard.€€Accordingly,€Dr.€Schlaflyððs€affidavit€should€have€been€filedÏby€€December€12,€1994.€€Local€rules€may€require€that€opposing€affidavits€be€filed€earlier€thanÏrequired€by€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€òòseeóó€òòPfeil€v.€Rogers,óó€757€F.2d€850,€857„58€(7th€Cir.€1985)€òòcert.€deniedóó,€475€U.S.€1107€(1986);€10A€Charles€A.€Wright€et€al.,€òòFederalÏPractice€and€Procedureóó€ðð€2719,€at€12„14€(2d€ed.€1983);€however,€trial€courts€may,€in€theirÏdiscretion,€accept€late€affidavits.€€òòBeaufort€Concrete€Co.€v.€Atlantic€States€Constr.€Co.,óó€352ÏF.2d€460,€462€(5th€Cir.€1965),€òòcert.€denied,óó€384€U.S.€1004€(1966).Ì "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€;XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝBrumet,€òòsupraóó€note€3,€147€F.R.D.€at€647.Ì EÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€;XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòPrice€v.€Becker,óó€812€S.W.2d€597,€598€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991);òò€State€v.€Hartley,óó€790ÏS.W.2d€276,€278€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)€(affidavit€based€on€information€and€belief€isÏinsufficient);€òòKeystone€Ins.€Co.€v.€Griffith,óó€659€S.W.2d€364,€365„66€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983)Ï(affidavit€based€on€information€and€belief€is€insufficient).Ì ÑÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€;XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòByrd€v.€Hall,€óó847€S.W.2d€at€215„16;òò€Teeters€v.€Currey,óó€518€S.W.2d€512,€514Ï(Tenn.€1974);€òòBraswell€v.€Carothers,óó€863€S.W.2d€722,€729€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993);òò€Baker€v.ÏLederle€Labs.,óó€696€S.W.2d€at€893.Ì ;Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€;XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòFowler€v.€Happy€Goodman€Family,óó€575€S.W.2d€496,€498€(Tenn.€1978).Ì ™Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€;XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115(b).€€The€affiant€need€not€practice€in€the€same€specialtyÏas€the€defendant€physician.€òò€Goodman€v.€Phythyon,óó€803€S.W.2d€at€701„02.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€;XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115(a)(1).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€;XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115(a)(2).Ì ÀÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€;XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115(a)(3).€€òòKilpatrick€v.€Bryant,€óó868€S.W.2d€594,€602Ï(Tenn.€1993)€(the€plaintiff€must€demonstrate€that€the€defendant's€negligence€more€likely€thanÏnot€caused€the€injury).Ì ôÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€;XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòKilpatrick€v.€Bryant,óó€868€S.W.2d€at€602€(causation€in€fact€is€a€matter€of€probabilityÏnot€possibility);€òòWhite€v.€Methodist€Hosp.€South,óó€844€S.W.2d€at€648„49€(the€plaintiff€mustÏprove€more€than€a€mere€possibility);€òòWhittemore€v.€Classen,óó€808€S.W.2d€447,€458€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1991)€(a€jury€cannot€base€a€verdict€on€"it€might€have€been"€but€must€find€"it€probablyÏwas");€òòSt.€Martin€v.€Doty,€óó493€S.W.2d€95,€97€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1972)€(courts€cannot€stretchÏ"possibilities"€into€"probabilities").Ì “Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€;XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€curriculum€vitae€states€that€Dr.€Schlafly€completed€his€internship€and€residencyÏin€1985€and€that€he€was€licensed€to€practice€medicine€in€Missouri€in€1985.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€;XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝExpert€opinions€in€medical€malpractice€cases€must€be€to€a€reasonable€degree€ofÏmedical€certainty.€€òòKilpatrick€v.€Bryant,€óó868€S.W.2d€at€602.€€The€concept€of€"reasonableÏdegree€of€medical€certainty"€is€a€legal,€not€medical,€concept.€€While€an€expert's€use€of€theseÏwords€in€laying€the€foundation€to€his€or€her€opinion€is€well„advised,€no€reported€decisionÏrequires€that€medical€experts€must€use€this€precise€phrase€when€stating€an€opinion.€€The€phraseÏusually€appears€in€a€lawyer's€question,€not€in€a€medical€expert's€answer.Ì ÑÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€;XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝDr.€Schlafly€stated€that€his€opinion€was€based€on€the€medical€records€he€had€beenÏprovided.€€The€majority€seems€to€infer€that€his€opinion€was€undermined€because€he€did€notÏhave€all€the€available€records€at€hand€when€he€formed€his€opinion.€€The€nature€of€the€recordsÏrelied€on€by€Dr.€Schlafly€goes€to€the€weight€of€his€opinion,€not€his€competency€to€give€anÏopinion.€€Courts€should€not€weigh€the€evidence€in€a€summary€judgment€proceeding.€òò€Byrd€v.ÏHall,óó€847€S.W.2d€at€211.Ì £Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€;XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€have€not€encouraged€the€same€liberality€with€regard€to€affidavits€attached€to€Tenn.ÏR.€Civ.€P.€60€motions€filed€after€a€summary€judgment€has€become€final.€òò€Braswell€v.ÏCarothers,óó€863€S.W.2d€at€730€(the€judgment€was€final€and€the€movant€relied€on€the€newlyÏdiscovered€evidence€rule);€òòBlair€v.€Johnson€City€Medical€Ctr.,€óó724€S.W.2d€370,€371€(Tenn.ÏCt.€App.€1986)€(the€requirements€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60€were€not€met).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€2ÔÓ&€::X„d&ÓÑ#€::Xd#ÑÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€/4¼¼ddÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ , ÑÑ   ÑÑ  ÑÑ€< §u` ÑÔ€;„ÔÌÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEó óÌÙ€%ÙßL€>A=;+'h|‡¾þ `€€LßÌÔ€;¼ÔÌÌTOM€AND€KAREN€MOORE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€94C„1356ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9507„CV„00295ÌLLOYD€A.€WALWYN,€M.D.,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÔ€;„Ôà@ àòòò òDISSENTING€OPINIONÔ€;¼Ôó óóóÌÓ€ÓÌÌà àBoth€the€trial€court€and€the€majority€of€this€panel€have€decided€thatÏTom€and€Karen€Moore€are€not€entitled€to€a€jury€trial€on€their€medicalÏmalpractice€œclaim›€œagainst€Dr.€Lloyd€A.€Walwyn€because›€of€œshortcomings€in›Ïthe€œaffidavits›€they€filed€in€opposition€to€Dr.€œWalwyn›ððs€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment.€€While€I€do€not€relish€defending€sloppy€lawyering,€I€am€convincedÏthat€my€colleagues€have€scrutinized€the€Mooresðð€œcounter„affidavits€using›Ïœstandards›€œstricter€than›€œthose€required›€by€Tenn.€R.€œCiv›.€P.€56.05€and€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115€(1980).€€œI›€would€vacate€the€summary€judgmentÏœbecause€the›€œcounter„affidavits€demonstrate›€the€existence€of€genuine€andÏmaterial€factual€issues€œthat€only€a€jury€should€resolve.›ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àTom€Moore€severely€injured€his€left€forearm€and€left€leg€when€he€fellÏfrom€a€roof€on€May€1,€1993.€€He€was€first€taken€to€the€Williamson€CountyÏMedical€Center€and€was€later€transferred€to€the€Tennessee€Christian€MedicalÏCenter€where€he€came€under€the€care€of€Dr.€Lloyd€A.€œWalwyn›.€€Dr.€œWalwyn›Ïdetermined€that€injuries€to€Mr.€Mooreððs€leg€required€surgery€and€on€May€2,Ï1993,€performed€an€open€reduction€of€the€fractures€of€the€left€fibula€andÏtibia.œ× ƒB ××  ×›€€During€this€procedure,€Dr.€œWalwyn›€repaired€the€fractured€fibula€usingÏa€plate€and€screws€and€repaired€the€fractured€tibia€using€two€screws.€€ThreeÏdays€after€the€surgery,€Dr.€œWalwyn›€performed€a€closed€manipulation€of€theÏfracture€of€the€tibia€and€inserted€pins€into€the€tibia€to€stabilize€it€with€anÏexternal€œfixator›.œ× ƒC ××  ×›ÌÌà àMr.€Moore€left€the€hospital€on€May€7,€1993.€€He€œchanged€physiciansÏafter€three›€office€visits€with€Dr.€œWalwyn›€between€May€19€and€June€16,€1993.€ÏIn€July€œ1993,€the€physicians›€at€Metro€General€Hospital€advised€Mr.€Moore€thatÏhis€leg€fracture€would€require€additional€surgery€because€he€had€ð ðinfected€pinsÏon€his€current€external€œfixator›€which€communicate€with€his€fracture€site.ðð€ÏDuring€surgery€on€July€21,€1993,€Dr.€Melvin€Law€confirmed€infection€of€theÏpin€sites€and€also€infected€nonunion€of€both€the€left€tibia€and€left€fibula.€€Dr.ÏLaw€irrigated€and€debrided€the€infected€tibia,€fibula,€and€pin€sites.€€He€alsoÍreplaced€the€external€œfixator›€œDr.›€œWalwyn›œ€had€installed.›€€œDr.€Law€removed€theÏsecond›€external€œfixator›€œand€placed€Mr.€Mooreððs€leg€in€a€cast€in›€October€œ1993.€€›œÌ›Ìà àMr.€Moore€and€his€wife€sued€Dr.€œWalwyn›€and€others€on€May€2,€1994.€ÏThey€alleged€that€the€infection€in€Mr.€Mooreððs€leg€was€caused€by€Dr.ÏœWalwyn›ððs€negligent€failure€to€prescribe€œsufficient€antibiotics›€œbefore,›€during,Ïœand€after›€the€May€2,€1993€œsurgery.€€They›€also€alleged€that€œthe›€infection€causedÏby€Dr.€œWalwyn›ððs€negligent€failure€to€prescribe€antibiotics€required€Mr.ÏMoore€to€undergo€ð ðfour€œsurgeries›€including€nine€different€proceduresðð€and€toÏexperience€pain,€suffering,€additional€medical€expenses,€and€loss€of€œwages.€€InÏaddition,€they€alleged€that€Dr.€Walwyn€declined€to€treat€Mr.€Moore€afterÏlearning€that€he€lacked€the€funds€to€pay€him.›ÌÌÌÌÌÌà àFrom€this€point€on,€the€case€fell€into€the€predicable€pattern€common€toÏmany€medical€malpractice€cases.€€On€October€19,€1994,€Dr.€œWalwyn›€filed€aÏmotion€for€summary€judgment€supported€by€his€own€self„serving€affidavitÏasserting€in€the€most€general€terms€that€he€ð ðacted€with€ordinary€andÏreasonable€careðð€in€accordance€with€ð ðthe€recognized€standard€of€professionalÏpractice€in€orthopaedic€surgery€in€Nashville€and€similar€areas.ððœ× ƒD ××  ×›€€This€motionÍplaced€the€burden€œsquarely€on›€the€Moores€to€produce€œa€competent€affidavitÏsupporting›€their€claim€that€Dr.€œWalwyn›€had€committed€malpractice.œ›€€œFailureÏto€produce€competent€expert€testimony€contradicting€Dr.€Walwynððs€affidavitÏwould€result€in€the€summary€dismissal€of€the€Moores'€claims€against€Dr.ÏWalwyn€because€they€could€›only€be€substantiated€with€expert€œtestimony.× ƒE ××  ×›ÌÌà àœThe€Moores€responded€to€Dr.€Walwynððs€motion€for€summary€judgmentÏon€December€5,€1994,€with€a€memorandum€of€law€and€a€promise€that€counter„affidavits€would€be€filed€no€later€than€one€day€before€the€hearing€on€theÏsummary€judgment€motion.€€The€Moores€were€apparently€unable€to€locate€anÏorthopaedic€surgeon€in€Tennessee€willing€to€testify€against€Dr.€Walwyn.€€OnÏthe€day€before€the€hearing,€they€filed€the€ð ðaffidavitðð€of€Dr.€Bruce€Schlafly,€aÏboard„certified€orthopaedic€surgeon€practicing€in€Missouri,€who€opined€thatÏð ðDr.€Lloyd€Walwyn€.€.€.€breached€the€recognized€standard€of€care€in€failing€toÏadminister€antibiotics€and€such€breach€of€care€caused€Tom€Moore€injuries€thatÏhe€would€not€have€otherwise€suffered.ðð€€ÌÌà àDr.€Walwynððs€lawyers€launched€a€fusillade€of€objections€to€the€form,Ïsubstance,€and€timing€of€Dr.€Schlaflyððs€affidavit€at€the€December€16,€1994Ïhearing.€The€trial€court€decided€to€consider€Dr.€Schlaflyððs€affidavit€evenÏthough€it€had€not€been€filed€within€the€time€required€by€the€local€rules€ofÏcourt.× ƒF ××  ×€€On€January€11,€1995,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€granting€Dr.ÍWalwynððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€because€ð ðthere€is€no€genuine€issue€asÏto€a€material€fact€concerning€whether€the€defendants€deviated€from€theÏrecognized€standard€or€acceptable€professional€practice.ððÌÌà àThe€Moores€hired€a€second€lawyer€who€filed€a€ð ðmotion€to€reconsiderððÏon€February€9,€1995.€€Since€Dr.€Walwynððs€lawyers€had€taken€issue€with€theÏform€of€Dr.€Schlaflyððs€original€ð ðaffidavit,ðð€the€Mooresðð€motion€wasÏaccompanied€by€a€second€affidavit€by€Dr.€Schlafly€that€was€ð ðmore€succinct€inÏform€for€the€Court€to€consider.ðð€€The€motion€reiterated€that€ð ðthere€wasÏsufficient€proof€to€show€that€the€Defendant€deviated€from€the€acceptableÏstandard€of€care€sufficient€to€raise€a€question€of€fact.ððÌÌà àThe€trial€court€conducted€another€hearing€on€February€24,€1995.€€TheÏtrial€court€declined€to€consider€Dr.€Schlaflyððs€second€affidavit€because€theÏMoores€had€ð ðnot€made€a€sufficient€showing€as€to€why€the€affidavit€testimonyÏof€Dr.€Schlafly€in€support€of€the€Motion€to€Reconsider€could€not€have€beenÏsubmitted€earlier€in€response€to€the€Defendantsðð€Motions€for€SummaryÏJudgment€and€why€the€testimony€of€the€same€witness€should€be€consideredÏagain€in€this€proceeding.ðð€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€denied€the€MooresððÏmotion€and€reaffirmed€its€conclusion€that€Dr.€Walwyn€was€entitled€to€aÏjudgment€as€a€matter€of€law.ÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òII.ó ó›Ìà@ àò òòòPurpose€of€Summary€Judgmentsóóó óÌÌà àA€summary€judgment€œproceeding€provides›€an€efficient€and€effectiveÏmeans€to€conclude€a€case€that€can€be€decided€œon›€legal€issues€alone.€€òòAlexanderÏv.€Memphis€Individual€Practice€Ass'n,€óó870€S.W.2d€278,€280€(Tenn.€1993);ÏòòWhite€v.€Methodist€Hosp.€South,€óó844€S.W.2d€642,€651„52€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ïœ1992).›€€It€should€not€be€used€for€docket€control,€òòSchaefer€v.€Larsen,óó€688ÏS.W.2d€430,€433€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984),€or€to€replace€a€trial€of€genuine,Ïmaterial€factual€issues.€€òòBlocker€v.€Regional€Medical€Ctr.,óó€722€S.W.2d€660,Ï660„61€(Tenn.€1987);òò€Foley€v.€St.€Thomas€Hosp.,óó€906€S.W.2d€448,€452€(Tenn.ÏCt.€App.€1995).€€Accordingly,€summary€judgment€proceedings€should€not€beÏpermitted€to€become€"trials€by€paper,"× ƒG ××  ×€and€should€not€be€used€to€find€facts,€toÏresolve€disputed€factual€œissues,›€or€œto›€choose€among€various€factual€inferencesÏthat€may€be€drawn€from€undisputed€facts.€€òòByrd€v.€Hall,óó€847€S.W.2d€208,€216Ï(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà àThe€party€seeking€a€summary€judgment€has€the€burden€of€demonstratingÏthe€absence€of€material€factual€disputes€and€its€entitlement€to€a€judgment€as€aÏmatter€of€law.€€òòByrd€v.€Hall,óó€847€S.W.2d€at€215;òò€Gambill€v.€Middle€Tenn.ÏMedical€Ctr.,óó€751€S.W.2d€145,€146€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988).€€The€courts€holdÏparties€seeking€a€summary€judgment€to€stringent€standards.€€òòBaker€v.€LederleÏLabs.,óó€696€S.W.2d€890,€893€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985).€€Accordingly,€they€willÍgrant€a€summary€judgment€only€if€the€facts€and€the€conclusions€reasonablyÏdrawn€from€the€facts€support€the€conclusion€that€the€moving€party€is€entitledÏto€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€òòBrookins€v.€The€Round€Table,€Inc.,óó€624ÏS.W.2d€547,€550€(Tenn.€1981);€òòMansfield€v.€Colonial€Freight€Sys.,óó€862ÏS.W.2d€527,€530€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€They€should€not€grant€a€summaryÏjudgment€if€œany€uncertainty›€or€doubt€exists€with€regard€to€the€facts€or€theÏconclusions€to€be€drawn€from€the€facts.€€òòByrd€v.€Hall,óó€847€S.W.2d€at€211;ÏòòPoore€v.€Magnavox,€Inc.,óó€666€S.W.2d€48,€49€(Tenn.€1984);€òòGambill€v.€MiddleÏTenn.€Medical€Ctr.,€óó751€S.W.2d€at€147;€òòBaker€v.€Lederle€Labs.,óó€696€S.W.2dÏat€894.€€ÌÌà àThe€courts€customarily€treat€the€nonmoving€party's€papers€moreÏindulgently€than€they€do€the€papers€filed€by€the€party€seeking€the€summaryÏjudgment.€€The€evidence€supporting€and€opposing€the€summary€judgment€willÏbe€considered€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€œnonmoving›€party.€€òòSpeaker€v.ÏCates€Co.,óó€879€S.W.2d€811,€813€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€nonmoving€party€is€alsoÏentitled€to€all€favorable€inferences€that€can€be€reasonably€drawn€from€theÏproof.€òò€Byrd€v.€Hall,óó€847€S.W.2d€at€210„11;€òòCowden€v.€Sovran€Bank/CentralÏSouth,óó€816€S.W.2d€741,€744€(Tenn.€1991);€òòBlocker€v.€Regional€Medical€Ctr.,óóÏ722€S.W.2d€at€663.€€The€œcourtsð𛀜indulgence›€may€also€extend€œto›€the€form€of€theÏnonmoving€party's€papers.€€Technically€defective€papers€may€be€sufficient€toÏdefeat€a€summary€judgment€if€they€apprise€the€court€of€important€relevantÏevidence€that€the€nonmoving€party€can€and€will€introduce€at€trial.€€6€James€A.ÏMoore€et€al.,€òòMoore's€Federal€Practiceóó€ðð€56.22[1]€(2d€ed.€1995);€10A€CharlesÏA.€Wright€et€al.,€òòFederal€Practice€&€Procedureóó€ðð€2738,€at€485€(2d€ed.€1983).ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌà@ àò òòòThe€Form€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56€Affidavitsóóó óÌÌà àThe€trial€court€decided€to€consider€Dr.€Schlafly's€original€"affidavit"Ïfiled€on€December€15,€1994,€even€though€its€form€was€irregular.€€TheÏmajority€has€now€concluded€that€the€trial€court€should€have€excluded€theÏ"affidavit"€because€of€defects€in€the€signature€and€the€jurat.€€I€would€not€findÏthese€relatively€innocuous€defects€to€be€fatal€to€the€Moores'€case.ÌÌà àParties€seeking€or€opposing€a€summary€judgment€may,€but€are€notÏrequired€to,€use€evidentiary€materials€to€support€their€respective€œpositions.›€€InÏmost€circumstances,€the€sole€purpose€of€these€evidentiary€materials€is€toÏprovide€the€court€with€some€reliable€indication€of€the€proof€the€parties€intendÏto€present€at€trial.€€òòRooker€v.€Rimer,óó€776€S.W.2d€124,€128€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1989),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€493€U.S.€1073€(1990).€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.03€permits€theÏuse€of€various€types€of€materials€including€affidavits,€depositions,€answers€toÏinterrogatories,€and€admissions€on€file.€€Litigants€in€Tennessee's€courts€nowÏgenerally€use€affidavits€to€support€and€to€oppose€motions€for€summaryÏjudgment.ÌÌà àAn€affidavit€is€nothing€more€than€a€written€statement€made€and€signedÏunder€oath€before€an€authorized€person.€€òòHarvey€v.€State,€óó166€Tenn.€227,€229,Ï60€S.W.2d€420,€420€(1933);€òòJas.€N.€Watt€&€Co.€v.€Carnes,óó€51€Tenn.€(4€Heisk.)Ï532,€534€(1871).€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56€contains€no€additional€requirementsÏwith€regard€to€the€form€of€affidavits€in€summary€judgment€proceedings.€ÏAccordingly,€documents€meeting€the€general€common„law€requirements€ofÏbeing€made€and€signed€under€oath€should€be€considered€as€long€as€they€complyÏwith€the€other€substantive€requirements€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.ÌÌà àDr.€Schlafly's€"affidavit"€filed€on€December€15,€1994,€is€not€in€theÏcustomary€affidavit€form.€€It€consists€of€three€related€documents:€€a€one„pageÏintroductory€statement,€a€four„page€curriculum€vitae,€and€a€four„page€reportÏœof€Dr.€Schlafly's€€findings›€and€conclusions€about€Mr.€Moore's€medical€care.€ÏThe€curriculum€vitae€and€report€are€specifically€incorporated€into€theÏstatement.€€Dr.€Schlafly's€introductory€statement€recites€that€he€was€"dulyÏsworn"€and€thereafter€states€that€he€has€practiced€his€specialty€in€Missouri€forÏmore€than€one€year,€that€Dr.€Walwyn€œ"breached›€the€recognized€standard€ofÏcare€in€failing€to€administer€antibiotics,"€and€that€this€"breach€caused€TomÏMoore€to€suffer€injuries€he€would€not€œhave€otherwise›€œsuffered›€as€is€more€fullyÏexplained€in€my€attached€report."€€Dr.€Schlafly€signed€the€œstatement,›€but€hisÏsignature€is€not€immediately€followed€by€a€jurat€and€notary's€signature.ÌÌà àThe€April€1994€curriculum€vitae€attached€to€the€statement€shows€thatÏDr.€Schlafly€is€a€board„certified€orthopaedic€surgeon,€that€he€has€been€licensedÏto€practice€his€specialty€in€Missouri€since€1985,€and€that€he€currently€hasÏadmitting€privileges€at€seven€St.€Louis„area€hospitals.€€The€report€datedÏDecember€13,€1994€œcontains€Dr.›€Schlafly's€expert€findings€and€conclusionsÏbased€on€œthe›€copies€of€Mr.€Moore's€medical€records€that€had€been€provided€toÏhim.€€Dr.€Schlafly€signed€the€last€page€of€the€report,€and€a€œcustomary€jurat›Ïfollows€his€signature,€as€well€as€the€seal€and€signature€of€a€Missouri€notaryÏpublic.ÌÌà àThe€majority€has€decided€that€these€documents,€taken€together,€do€notÏqualify€as€an€affidavit€because€the€first€document€does€not€contain€a€juratÏfollowing€Dr.€Schlafly's€signature€and€because€the€jurat€and€notary's€signatureÍon€the€last€page€of€Dr.€Schlafly's€report€is€dated€the€day€before€the€dateÏappearing€on€the€first€page.€€œThe€majority€apparently›€views€the€difference€inÏthe€dates€as€undisputable€evidence€that€the€œjurat›€œon€the€last€page€cannot›€applyÏto€œthe€preceding€one„page›€statement€œand€the›€curriculum€vitae.€€There€are,Ïhowever,€other€plausible€inferences.€€Dr.€Schlafly€could€have€post„dated€orÏmisdated€the€one„page€statement€and€could€have€signed€both€the€first€and€theÏlast€page€at€the€same€time,€before€the€notary€affixed€her€certificate.€€ThisÏconclusion€is€consistent€œwith›€the€complementary€statements€on€the€first€and€lastÏpages€of€the€documents€that€Dr.€Schlafly€was€"duly€sworn"€before€he€signedÏand€acknowledged€the€œdocuments.›ÌÌà àEven€if€these€technical€defects€prevent€the€December€15,€1994,Ïdocuments€from€qualifying€as€an€"affidavit"€in€the€strictest€sense€of€the€term,Ïthe€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€considering€them.€€Despite€theÏirregularities€in€their€form,€the€documents€demonstrate€that€Dr.€Schlafly€canÏand€will€provide€competent€expert€testimony€œcontradicting›€Dr.€Walwyn'sÏconclusions€with€regard€to€negligence€and€proximate€cause.€€Accordingly,€IÏcannot€concur€with€the€majority's€conclusion€that€the€form€of€Dr.€Schlafly'sÏDecember€15,€1994€œ"affidavitðð›€prevents€its€consideration.ÌÌà@ àò òIV.ó óÌà@ àò òòòExpert€Affidavits€in€Medical€Malpractice€Cases€óóó óÌÌà àœTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.05€and€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115€control€theÏsubstance›€of€affidavits€used€to€support€or€to€oppose€œmotions›€for€summaryÏjudgment€in€œmedical›€malpractice€œcases.€€Tenn.›€R.€Civ.€P.€56.05€contains€threeÍrequirements.€€First,€affidavits€must€be€made€on€personal€knowledge.× ƒH ××  ×€ÏSecond,€they€must€set€forth€facts€that€would€be€properly€admissible€at€trial,Ïbut€the€affidavits€themselves€need€not€be€admissible.× ƒI ××  ×€€Third,€they€mustÏaffirmatively€show€that€the€affiant€is€competent€to€testify€to€the€mattersÏcontained€in€the€affidavit.× ƒJ ××  ×€€The€courts€may€decline€to€œconsider›€affidavits€thatÏdo€not€meet€these€standards.€€òòSee€Keystone€Ins.€Co.€v.€Griffith,óó€659€S.W.2d€œatÏ366.›ÌÌà àIn€addition€to€the€requirements€in€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.05,€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€29„26„115€contains€five€substantive€requirements€for€expert€affidavitsÏin€medical€malpractice€cases.€€The€affiant€must€first€demonstrate€that€he€or€sheÏsatisfies€the€œgeographic€and€durational€requirements›€œin›€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115(b).€€Second,€the€affiant€must€demonstrate€that€he€or€she€practices€in€aÏprofession€or€specialty€that€makes€his€or€her€testimony€relevant€to€the€issues€inÏthe€case.× ƒK ××  ×€€Third,€the€affiant€must€œassert€familiarity€with›€the€recognizedÏstandard€of€professional€practice€in€the€community€where€the€defendantÏœpractices›€or€in€similar€communities.× ƒL ××  ×€€Fourth,€the€affiant€must€œgive€anÍopinion€concerning€whether€the›€defendant€acted€with€less€than€or€failed€to€actÏwith€ordinary€and€reasonable€care€in€accordance€with€the€proper€standard€ofÏpractice.× ƒM ××  ×€€Fifth,€the€affiant€must€œgive€an€opinion€concerning€whether€the›Ïdefendant's€negligence€more€likely€than€not€caused€the€plaintiff€to€sufferÏinjuries€that€he€or€she€would€otherwise€not€have€suffered.× ƒN ××  ×€€The€"more€likelyÏthan€not"€standard€has€also€been€expressed€in€terms€of€requiring€plaintiffs€inÏmedical€malpractice€cases€to€prove€causation€in€fact€as€a€matter€of€probability,Ïnot€mere€possibility.× ƒO ××  ×ÌÌÌÑ À Ñà@ àò òòòDr.€Schlafly's€December€15,€1994€Affidavitóóó óÌÌà àThe€majority€has€concluded€that€Dr.€Schlafly's€December€15,€1994Ï"affidavit"€is€œsubstantively›€deficient€in€three€areas.€€First,€it€does€notÏdemonstrate€that€Dr.€Schlafly€is€competent€to€give€an€expert€opinion€under€theÏlocality€rule€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115(b).€€Second,€it€fails€to€describeÏthe€existing€standard€of€care€in€Nashville€and€similar€communities€œor›€Dr.ÏSchlafly's€familiarity€with€this€standard.€€Third,€it€does€not€recite€that€Dr.ÏWalwyn's€negligence€caused€Mr.€Moore's€injuries€"with€a€reasonable€degreeÍof€medical€certainty."€€I€concur€only€with€the€œmajorityððs€conclusion›Ïœconcerning€the›€standard€of€care€in€Nashville€and€similar€communities.ÌÌà àThis€court€has€admonished€lawyers€to€couch€their€medical€expert'sÏconclusions€in€the€language€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115€in€order€to€avoidÏjust€the€sort€of€interpretative€disputes€that€are€involved€in€this€case.€€òòGambillÏv.€Middle€Tenn.€Medical€Ctr.,óó€751€S.W.2d€at€148.€€Careful€practitioners€haveÏheeded€this€advice,€but€it€is€not€always€possible€to€frame€expert€conclusions€inÏthe€precise€words€of€the€statute€because€of€œdifferences›€in€œthe€medical›€and€legalÏœvocabularies›€and€œframes›€of€reference.€€œÌÌà àTenn.›€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115€is€not€"holy€writ,"€and€it€should€never€beÏso€rigidly€applied€that€it€requires€the€ritualistic€incantation€of€its€precise€termsÏin€order€to€permit€an€injured€party€to€maintain€a€malpractice€claim€against€aÏhealth€care€provider.€€The€courts€should€œexpect€substantial›€adherence€to€theÏlanguage€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115€but€should€never€abandon€theirÏjudicial€powers€of€reasonable€interpretation€and€construction.€€At€theÏsummary€judgment€stage,€any€reasonable€doubt€concerning€the€meaning€orÏeffect€of€an€expert€affidavit€should€be€resolved€in€the€nonmoving€party'sÏfavor.ÌÌà àViewed€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€Moores,€Dr.€Schlafly'sÏDecember€15,€1994€œð ðaffidavitðð›€establishes€that€he€is€a€board€certifiedÏorthopaedic€surgeon€in€Missouri€and€that€he€has€been€practicing€his€specialtyÍin€and€around€St.€Louis€since€Ñ ° Ñ1985.× ƒP ××  ×€€This€is€sufficient€to€satisfy€theÏgeographic€and€durational€requirements€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115(b).€€ÌÌà àœDr.€Schlaflyððs€statement›€and€report€also€œconclude€that›€Dr.€Walwyn'sÏ"breach€caused€Tom€Moore€injuries€he€would€not€œhave€otherwise›€œsuffered"›Ïand€that€"the€omission€of€intravenous€antibiotics€(except€for€the€single€dose),Ïduring€the€May€œhospitalization€at›€Tennessee€Christian€Medical€Center,€wasÏprobably€a€contributing€factor€in€the€later€development€of€Mr.€Moore's€boneÏinfection."€€While€the€report€contains€other€references€to€"possibilities"€andÏdoes€not€preface€Dr.€Schlafly's€opinion€with€the€qualification€that€it€is€basedÏon€"a€reasonable€degree€of€medical€certainty,"€these€two€statements,€taken€in€aÏlight€most€favorable€to€the€Moores,€should€be€sufficient€to€create€a€juryÏquestion€on€the€issue€of€causation.× ƒQ ××  ×€€ÌÌà àThe€only€material€shortcoming€in€Dr.€Schlafly's€December€15,€1994Ï"affidavit"€is€the€omission€of€any€reference€to€the€appropriate€œrecognized›Ïstandard€of€professional€œpractice›€in€Nashville€or€similar€communities€asÏrequired€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115(a)(1).€€Dr.€Schlafly's€report€doesÏnot€state€that€he€is€familiar€with€the€standard€of€practice€for€orthopaedicÏsurgeons€in€Nashville€or€similar€communities€or€that€this€standard€requiresÏantibiotic€prophylaxis€in€clean€orthopaedic€surgery.€€The€report€contains€onlyÍa€general€reference€to€the€"recognized€standard€of€care"€and€to€a€report€thatÏ"the€overwhelming€number€of€orthopaedic€surgeons€in€the€United€States€haveÏchosen€to€adopt€some€type€of€prophylaxis."€€The€report€does€not€link€theseÏgeneral€references€to€Middle€Tennessee.× ƒR ××  ×€€ÌÌÌà@ àò òòòDr.€Schlafly's€January€30,€1995€Affidavitóóó óÌÌà àThe€majority€notes€that€the€only€difference€between€Dr.€Schlafly'sÏDecember€15,€1994€and€January€30,€1995€affidavits€is€that€the€latter€"uses€allÏthe€appropriate€'buzz'€words€found€in€the€statute€and€the€rules."€€Thus,€theÏmajority€appears€to€concede,€as€well€they€must,€that€the€January€30,€1995Ïaffidavit€meets€all€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.05€and€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€29„26„115.€€I€concur€with€this€conclusion.€€œIt›€œfollows,›€therefore,€thatÏthe€January€30,€1995€affidavit,€if€entitled€to€consideration,€establishes€theÏexistence€of€a€material€factual€dispute€sufficient€to€defeat€Dr.€Walwyn'sÏmotion€for€summary€judgment.ÌÌà@ àò òV.ó óÌà@ àò òòòConsideration€of€the€January€30,€1995€Affidavitóóó óÌÌà àThe€only€remaining€issue€concerns€the€trial€court's€decision€not€toÏconsider€Dr.€Schlafly's€January€30,€1995€affidavit€because€the€Moores€did€notÍadequately€explain€the€reasons€for€their€failure€to€submit€a€proper€affidavitÏprior€to€the€hearing€on€Dr.€Walwyn's€summary€judgment€motion.€€TheÏmajority€has€affirmed€the€trial€court's€decision€because€the€second€affidavitÏdoes€not€contain€"new€evidence"€and€because€it€is€"nothing€more€than€the€firstÏaffidavit€dressed€up."€€The€majority's€reasoning€is€plainly€at€odds€with€ourÏprior€opinions€œpermitting€the€consideration€of€late„filed›€affidavits€inÏopposition€to€motions€for€summary€judgment.ÌÌà àThis€court€has€specifically€held€that€the€"newly€discovered€evidence"Ïstandard€normally€associated€with€motions€for€new€trial€should€not€be€used€inÏsummary€judgment€cases€to€exclude€affidavits€attached€to€timely€filed€Tenn.€R.ÏCiv.€P.€59.04€motions€to€alter€or€amend.€òò€Richland€Country€Club€v.€CRCÏEquities,€Inc.,óó€832€S.W.2d€554,€557„58€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991);€òòSchaefer€v.ÏLarsen,óó€688€S.W.2d€at€433.€€Accordingly,€we€have€directed€trial€courts€toÏlook€with€favor€on€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motions€filed€before€a€summaryÏjudgment€becomes€final€because€the€moving€party€is€seeking€an€opportunity€toÏtry€its€case€for€the€first€time.× ƒS ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€Moores'€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion€was€filed€before€the€orderÏgranting€Dr.€Walwyn's€motion€for€summary€judgment€became€final€and€didÏnot€€invoke€the€"newly€discovered€evidence"€standard.€€Dr.€Schlafly's€secondÏaffidavit€was€not€intended€to€supply€new€evidence€but€rather€to€cure€perceivedÏdeficiencies€in€his€first€affidavit.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.05€specificallyÏauthorizes€trial€courts€to€permit€parties€to€supplement€affidavits€filed€inÍsummary€judgment€proceedings.€€The€trial€court€should€have€considered€Dr.ÏSchlafly's€supplemental€affidavit€in€this€case€because€it€established€that€Dr.ÏWalwyn€had€not€carried€his€burden€of€demonstrating€the€absence€of€genuine,Ïmaterial€factual€disputes.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ