ÿWPC¬ …# VU Da %¥ 0(« 0”Ó4g { Š w@’ 0DÒ 0J 0T` 0^´ 0h 0rz 0|ì 0†h 0î 1u~ 0dó B)WDC€ AMÃU*ì: B&v~CvÓÁ D3” 0@Ç AOÆV 0D D/` B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 8§ÖhZŠ,Century-WP RegularX($¡¡(D(2´¤$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóóz!3|x   D  {  E   Ó€ (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial âÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òOctober€17,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHPð€ÿÜÿìô”(üHPð€P € €'Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò&&&&'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›œ›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌ______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌJASON€NARENKIVICIUS,à àà àà àShelby€Circuit€No.€48992€T.D.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€02A01„9508„CV„00175Ìà àPlaintiff,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHon.€Robert€A.€LanierÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÙ€€ÙœßL€#%";+'h|v“` Å `€€Lß›WILLIAM€M.€LOCANTE,€œD.D.S.,›ÌÌà àDefendants.ÌÌGEORGE€BAILEY,€Memphis,€Attorney€for€Plaintiff.ÌÌRICHARD€GLASSMAN,€Glassman,€Jeter,€Edwards€&€Wade,ÏMemphis,€Attorney€for€Defendant.ÌÌò òòòœMODIFIED€AND€AFFIRMEDó óóó›ÌÌOpinion€filed:Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌò òTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ó óà@ àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÓÓÔ€Ôà àThis€is€a€dental€malpractice€case.€€Jason€Narenkivicius€(ð ðPlaintiffðð)€filedÏsuit€against€William€Locante,€D.D.S.€(ð ðDefendantðð)€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€ShelbyÏCounty,€alleging€that€the€defendant€had€been€guilty€of€negligence€in€performing€aÏroutine€root€canal€procedure€on€him,€that€later€produced€an€infection.€€Following€aÏbench€trial€the€court€gave€plaintiff€a€judgment€in€the€amount€of€two€thousand€twoÏhundred€thirty€five€and€68/100€($2235.68)€dollars€in€special€damages€and€fortyÍthousand€($40,000.00)€dollars€in€compensatory€damages.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àOn€appeal,€defendant€has€set€forth€some€four€issues,€which€in€essence€dealÏwith€the€specific€findings€relative€to€defendantððs€negligence€and€plaintiffððs€lackÏof€negligence.€€We€restate€them€as€follows:€Did€the€trial€court€err€(1)€in€findingÏthat€defendant€was€guilty€of€professional€negligence€in€his€treatment€and€care€ofÏplaintiff€that€resulted€in€plaintiffððs€injuries€and€damages;€(2)€in€finding€thatÏplaintiff€was€not€guilty€of€contributory€negligence.€€Defendant€also€presents€anÏissue€to€the€effect€that€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€forty€thousand€($40,000.00)Ïdollars€in€compensatory€damages€was€excessive.€€Likewise,€plaintiff€seeks€to€haveÏdefendantððs€appeal€declared€frivolous.€€For€the€reasons€hereinafter€stated,€weÏaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court,€but€reduce€plaintiffððs€compensatoryÏdamages€to€twenty€thousand€($20,000.00)€dollars.€€We€find€no€frivolous€appeal.Ìà àOn€September€29,€1991€plaintiff€developed€a€painful€toothache.€€TheÏfollowing€day,€he€visited€and€was€examined€by€defendant,€who€indicated€thatÏplaintiff€needed€a€root€canal€in€the€Ñ7€ç.XXdìXXdì7Ñtooth€involved.€€Defendant€proceeded€toÏperform€a€root€canal€and€afterward€placed€a€temporary€crown€over€the€tooth.€€OnÏthe€following€day,€plaintiff€returned€to€defendantððs€office€to€have€a€permanentÏcrown€made.€€At€that€time€plaintiff€had€no€swelling€and€was€able€to€treat€his€painÏwith€nothing€but€aspirin.€€Over€the€course€of€that€week€plaintiff€returned€toÍdefendantððs€office€several€times€because€the€temporary€crown€continued€to€fallÏoff.€€During€the€week€the€pain€continued€to€increase,€to€and€through€the€7th€ofÏOctober.€€On€that€date€plaintiff€returned€to€defendantððs€office,€complaining€of€pain.€ÏDefendant€prescribed€an€analgesic,€Vicodin.€€Two€days€later€plaintiff€returned€toÏdefendantððs€office€because€of€increased€pain.€€Plaintiff€testified€that€on€theÏOctober€9th€visit€he€informed€defendant€that€the€area€around€his€tooth€wasÏpainful,€tender,€and€swollen.€€Defendant€stated€that€he€only€remembered€plaintiffÏmentioning€the€pain€he€was€experiencing€and€that€the€examination€of€the€areaÏcomplained€of€on€that€date€showed€no€sign€of€any€swelling.€€Defendant€performedÏno€further€diagnostic€tests.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àAt€this€point€the€testimony€becomes€even€more€conflicting.€€DefendantÏstates€the€he€specifically€told€plaintiff€on€the€October€9th€visit€that€if€his€jawÏswelled€any€more,€for€him€to€come€back€and€contact€his€office€as€soon€as€possible.€ÏPlaintiff€denies€ever€receiving€such€a€warning€from€defendant.€€At€that€timeÏdefendant€did€prescribe€Anaprox,€a€narcotic€analgesic.€€From€Friday€throughÏSunday,€October€11ð"ð13,€plaintiffððs€pain€and€swelling€increased€substantially.€€OnÏthat€Saturday,€plaintiff€attended€his€collegiate€homecoming€football€game€and€byÏlate€that€evening€his€lip€had€begun€to€swell.€€On€Sunday,€October€13th,€the€entireÏright€side€of€plaintiffððs€face€was€swollen€and€his€right€eye€was€swollenÔ€Ô€almostÍshut.€€Plaintiff€telephoned€the€defendantððs€office€that€day€and€as€a€result€thereof,Ïa€prescription€for€penicillin€and€a€narcotic€pain€reliever€were€made€available€forÏhim€to€pick€up.€€It€was€nearly€two€weeks€after€the€root€canal€procedure€had€beenÏperformed€that€plaintiff€received€his€first€prescription€from€the€defendant€for€anÏantibiotic.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àPlaintiff€returned€to€defendantððs€office€on€October€14th€for€furtherÏexamination.€€At€that€time,€defendant€sent€plaintiff€to€see€Dr.€David€Zelig,€whoÏexamined€plaintiff€and€diagnosed€his€condition€as€an€infection€from€the€root€canalÏprocedure.€€Dr.€Zelig€drained€the€infected€area€and€prescribed€an€antibiotic€andÏnarcotic€pain€reliever€for€him.€€Upon€awakening€the€next€day€and€discovering€thatÏthe€swelling€had€not€receded,€plaintiff€returned€to€Dr.€Zeligððs€office.€€He€wasÏsubsequently€admitted€to€the€hospital€for€treatment€of€a€severe€infection.€ÏPlaintiff€underwent€general€anesthesia€during€which€a€surgical€incision€was€madeÏto€allow€the€infection€to€drain.€€Plaintiff€was€released€after€two€days€in€theÏhospital.€€Plaintiff€testified€that€on€the€day€of€his€release,€October€17,€most€ofÏthe€pain€resulting€from€the€infection€and€subsequent€surgery€had€almost€subsided.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà@ àò òI.€The€Issue€of€Defendantððs€Negligenceó óÌÓÓÌÓÓà àOur€scope€of€review€on€appeal€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€in€the€trial€court.€ÍAll€findings€of€fact€made€by€that€court€come€to€this€court€with€a€presumption€ofÏcorrectness,€and,€absent€an€error€of€law€we€must€affirm€these€findings,€unless€weÏfind€the€preponderance€of€evidence€to€be€otherwise.€T.R.A.P.€13(d).ÌÓÓÔ€ÔÌÓÓà àDr.€J.€Fred€Case,€an€endodontist,€testified€as€an€expert€witness€on€behalf€ofÏthe€plaintiff.€€As€defined€by€Dr.€Case,€an€endodontist€is€a€dentist€who€has€throughÏspecialty€training€limited€his€practice€to€the€treatment€of€pulpal€disease.€ÏPrimarily€an€endodontist€performs€root€canal€treatments€and€also€performsÏcertain€surgeries.€€Dr.€Case€was€qualified€as€an€expert€in€this€field€by€virtue€of€hisÏmedical€training,€residency€and€practice,€which€he€began€as€a€specialized€one€inÏMemphis€in€1978.€€Dr.€Case€also€was€an€assistant€clinical€professor€in€endodonticsÏat€the€University€of€Tennessee€Dental€School.€€After€describing€to€the€court€what€aÏroot€canal€procedure€is€and€why€and€under€what€circumstances€such€a€procedureÏwould€be€performed,€Dr.€Case€testified€as€to€the€standard€of€care€to€be€followed€inÏthe€performance€of€such€a€procedure:ÌÌÓÓQ.à8 àAnd,€Dr.€Case,€in€the€performance€of€this€procedure€is€there€„€„€doÏdentists,€general€dentists€and€endodontists€in€the€performance€of€thisÏprocedure,€is€it€important€or€does€it€matter€whether€or€not€theÏtechnique€used€is€aseptic?ÌÌA.à8 àYes,€it€matters€a€lot.€€The€standard€of€care€in€endodontics€whetherÏone€be€a€general€practitioner€or€an€endodontist€would€be€to€isolateÏthe€tooth€in€question€from€the€saliva,€from€the€oral€contaminants€inÍthe€mouth,€and€make€that€access€opening€only€after€the€rubber€dam€isÏplaced€to€protect€the€inside€of€the€tooth€that€may€only€be€inflammedÏfrom€being€contaminated€with€bacteria€from€the€rest€of€the€mouth.ÌÌÌÓÓà àDr.€Case€further€testified€that€he€had€reviewed€the€records€of€the€plaintiffððsÏtreatment€at€St.€Frances€Hospital,€the€treatment€records€of€the€plaintiff€belongingÏto€the€defendant€and€had€reviewed€the€defendantððs€deposition.€€Dr.€Case€thenÏtestified€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓQ.à8 àDr.€Case,€letððs€first€address€the€issue€of€the€rubber€dam.€€Do€you€haveÏan€opinion€to€a€reasonable€degree€of€dental€certainty€as€to€whether€orÏnot€the€use€of€a€rubber€dam€in€the€performance€of€a€root€canal€is€theÏacceptable€professional€practice€in€Shelby€County€and€similarÏcommunities?ÌÌA.à8 àYes,€I€do€have€an€opinion,€and€that€opinion€is€that€the€use€of€a€rubberÏdam€either€by€an€endodontist€or€a€general€practitioner€is€the€standardÏof€care,€or€is€what€any€reasonable€prudent€dentist€would€do€in€theÏtreatment€of€a€rubber€dam€„„€of€a€root€canal€treatment.ÌÌQ.à8 àAll€right,€sir.€€Is€the€need€for€the€use€of€that€rubber€dam,€is€thatÏrelated€in€any€way€to€the€aseptic€technique€that€you€discussedÏearlier?ÌÌA.à8 àYes,€it€is.€€A€variety€of€texts€list€reasons€for€using€a€rubber€dam,€andÏlisted€usually€foremost€at€the€top€of€that€list€would€be€to€protect€theÏinside€of€the€tooth€from€contamination€from€the€oral€environment,€orÏasepsis.€€Itððs€an€aseptic€technique.ÌÌÌÓÓà àDr.€Case€testified€that€the€purpose€of€the€barrier€formed€by€the€rubber€damÍis€to€prevent€saliva,€bacteria€and€the€microorganisms€that€they€contain,€usuallyÏòòStreptococcusóó,€òòStrep€Mutinsóó,€and€òòStrep€ViridansóóÔ€Ô€from€penetrating€the€tooth€onÏwhich€the€root€canal€is€being€performed.€€Dr.€Case€also€noted€that€the€hospitalÏrecords€of€plaintiff€indicated€that€the€infection€in€his€tooth€and€jaw€was€òòStrepÏViridansóó.€€Defendant€conceded€that€he€did€not€use€a€rubber€dam€in€performing€thisÏprocess.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àIn€addition,€Dr.€Case€testified€that€defendant€perforated€plaintiffððs€tooth€byÏvirtue€of€using€a€file€that€was€too€large.€€And€while€no€evidence€was€presented€asÏto€whether€this€in€and€of€itself€fell€below€the€standard€of€care,€Dr.€Case€testifiedÏthat€the€failure€of€defendant€to€use€a€rubber€dam€was€important€in€that€thisÏfailure€provided€ð ða€very€logical€sequence€of€eventsðð€for€carrying€the€òòStrepÏViridansóó€deep€into€a€bony€area€that€resulted€in€a€serious€infection€some€ten€daysÏlater.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àDr.€Case€further€testified€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌQ.à8 àAll€right,€sir.€€And€do€you€have€an€opinion€to€a€reasonable€degree€ofÏmedical€certainty€as€to€whether€or€not€the€filing€into€the€boneÏwithout€the€presence€of€a€rubber€dam€is€acceptable€professionalÏpractice€in€Memphis€and€Shelby€County?ÌÌA.à8 àNo,€itððs€my€opinion€œthat€that›€is€not.ÌÌQ.à8 àAll€right,€sir.€€Now,€would€it€be€acceptable€professional€practice€for€aÍgeneral€practitioner€doing€endodontics?ÌÌA.à8 àNo,€it€would€not.ÌÌQ.à8 àDoctor,€do€you€have€any€opinion€as€to€whether€or€not€there€is€aÏseparate€standard€of€care€for€general€practitioners€doing€endodonticsÏversus€a€specialist€doing€endodontics?ÌÌA.à8 àItððs€my€understanding€that€there€is€not€a€separate€standard€of€care.ÌÌQ.à8 àYou€say€there€is€none?ÌÌA.à8 àThere€is€not.ÌÌÌÓÓà àPlaintiffððs€counsel€called€defendant€to€the€stand€to€testify€regarding€hisÏroot€canal€procedure.€€Defendant€testified€that€in€his€opinion€it€was€not€mandatoryÏto€use€a€rubber€dam€in€root€canal€therapy.€€He€stated€that€the€reason€for€not€usingÏa€rubber€dam€on€plaintiff€was€the€only€way€he€could€have€done€it€was€ð ðto€clampÏthe€gingiva€or€on€down€the€alveolar€ridgeðð€and€that€it€would€have€been€traumatic€inÏhis€opinion€on€the€plaintiff€to€do€that.€€Stated€another€way,€defendant€testifiedÏthat€there€was€not€enough€tooth€to€clamp€onto.€€At€this€point€plaintiffððs€counselÏoffered€into€evidence€the€Marquette€University€Endodontic€Clinic€Manual€by€Drs.ÏAustin,€McWalter€and€Tilk,€the€latter€person€having€served€as€defendantððsÏinstructor.€€This€manual€stated€in€part€that€ð ðuse€of€a€rubber€dam€is€mandatory€forÏall€root€canal€treatment.ðð€€Defendant€conceded€that€it€provided€for€no€exceptions.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àDefendant€further€acknowledged€that€he€was€acquainted€with€an€endodontistÍnamed€Dr.€Franklin€Weine,€who€wrote€a€textbook€entitled€ð ðEndodontic€Therapy.ðð€ÏDefendant€conceded€that€Dr.€Weineððs€textbook€stated€that€ð ðhowever,€once€access€isÏobtained,€the€rubber€dam€should€be€placed€immediately,€and€under€noÏcircumstances€should€an€enlarging€instrument€be€used€without€its€presence.ðð€ÏContinuing,€Weineððs€treatise€stated:ÌÓÓÌà8 àSeveral€excuses€are€given€for€avoiding€the€use€of€a€rubber€dam€inÏendodontic€therapy,€but€all€are€basically€procrastinations€and€easilyÏrefutable.€€Some€of€the€excuses€offered€are€the€additional€timeÏrequired€for€application,€barely€more€than€a€few€seconds,€plans€forÏthe€tooth€to€be€left€open€anyway,€and€lack€of€super€gingival€toothÏstructure.ÌÌÌÓÓDefendant€admitted€that€the€latter€given€reason€or€excuse€was€the€reason€that€heÏdid€not€use€a€rubber€dam€in€this€instance.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àLastly,€defendant€was€asked€about€certain€portions€of€the€text€of€ð ðPathwaysÏto€the€Pulpðð€by€Drs.€Cohen€and€Burns.€€Read€into€the€record€as€a€basis€of€inquiry€ofÏdefendant€was€the€following:ÌÓÓÌà8 àThe€advantages€and€absolute€necessity€of€the€rubber€dam€must€alwaysÏtake€precedence€over€convenience€and€expediency,€a€rationale€oftenÏcited€by€clinicians€who€condemn€its€use.€€The€rationale€for€use€of€theÏrubber€dam€in€endodontics€is€that€it€insures€the€following:€ð ð(3)€aÏsurgically€clean€[area]€isolated€from€saliva,€hemorrhage,€and€otherÏtissue€fluids.ðð€€Ô€ÔÌÌÌÓÓà àWhen€questioned€about€this€portion€of€the€text,€defendant€stated€that€whileÏthe€authors€proclaimed€that€the€standard€of€care€in€endodontics€is€that€it€isÏmandatory€to€use€a€rubber€dam,€he€stated€that€he€disagreed€with€that,€statingÏð ðthere€is€a€lot€of€evidence€to€prove€that€it€does€not.ðð€€However,€he€offered€noneÏduring€his€cross„examination.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àDefendantððs€expert€witness€Dr.€Ken€Issacman,€a€Memphis€dentist,€on€theÏissue€of€the€use€of€the€rubber€dam€as€a€standard€of€care€in€Memphis,€testified€thatÏhe€was€of€the€opinion€that€probably€half€of€the€endodontic€procedures€wereÏperformed€[in€Memphis]€with€the€use€of€the€rubber€dam€and€half€were€not.€€HeÏadmitted€however,€on€cross„examination,€that€he€had€no€basis€in€fact€for€thisÏopinion.€€He€did€not€testify€that€defendant€did€not€fall€below€the€standard€of€care,Ïbut€did€testify€that€the€standard€of€care€was€the€same€for€a€general€practitionerÏdoing€a€root€canal€as€it€was€for€a€specialist.€€Dr.€Isaacman€further€stated€that€heÏrecognized€plaintiffððs€expert€witness,€Dr.€Case,€as€having€superior€training,Ïeducation,€experience€and€knowledge€of€treatment€modalities€and€decisionsÏregarding€endodontics.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àAs€to€the€issue€of€whether€or€not€defendantððs€failure€to€timely€prescribeÏantibiotics€was€negligence€and€contributed€to€plaintiffððs€infection,€Dr.€CaseÏtestified€that€the€continued€existence€of€pain€for€almost€nine€days€following€theÍperforming€of€the€root€canal€procedure€would€be€indicative€of€an€infection.€€HeÏalso€stated€that€the€use€of€an€antibiotic€within€nine€days€of€a€root€canalÏprocedure,€with€a€reasonable€degree€of€medical€certainty,€would€have€preventedÏany€serious€infection€from€occurring.€€He€stated€that€defendantððs€failure€toÏdispense€an€antibiotic€was€a€judgment€which€was€neither€reasonable€nor€prudentÏand€was€the€direct€and€proximate€cause€of€plaintiffððs€severe€course€of€infection.€ÏDr.€Case€further€stated€that€the€later€use€of€an€antibiotic€(penicillin)€by€anotherÏphysician€resolved€plaintiffððs€infection,€thereby€demonstrating€that€the€infectionÏcould€have€been€effectively€treated€if€an€antibiotic€had€been€administered€earlierÏby€the€defendant.€€Considering€all€of€the€above,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€theÏevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€court€in€regard€toÏthese€issues.€€We€find€them€to€be€without€merit.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà@ àò òII.€Plaintiffððs€Comparative€Fault€and€Excessive€Damagesó óÌÌò òÌœA.›€The€Comparative€Fault€Issue.ó óÌÓÓÌÓÓà àIn€earlier€days€we€would€couch€this€issue€as€to€whether€or€not€plaintiff€wasÏguilty€of€proximate€contributory€negligence.€€Since€òòMcIntyre€v.€Balentineóó,€833ÏS.W.2d€53€(Tenn.€1990)€the€issue€should€be€stated€as€to€whether€or€not€the€trialÍcourt€erred€in€failing€as€a€result€of€this€record€to€find€plaintiff€guilty€of€someÏpercentage€of€contributory€fault.€€There€was€basically€conflicting€evidence€inÏregard€to€this€issue.€€Defendant€testified€that€he€specifically€advised€plaintiff€onÏthe€ninth€day€following€the€root€canal€procedure:€ð ðJason,€if€you€swell,€you€call€meÏright€away.ðð€€Defendant€admitted€on€cross„examination€that€there€was€noÏdocumentation€in€his€medical€notes€or€records€concerning€this€alleged€warning.€€OnÏthe€other€hand,€plaintiff€denied€ever€receiving€such€a€warning€from€the€defendant.€ÏPlaintiff€further€testified€that€on€Sunday,€October€13,€upon€noticing€that€theÏentire€right€side€of€his€face€had€begun€to€swell,€he€called€defendantððs€officeÏseeking€an€appointment.€€Defendant€was€out€of€town€and€instructed€plaintiff€toÏcome€to€defendantððs€office€the€following€day.€€In€the€meantime,€defendantððsÏsecretary€notified€another€doctor€to€call€in€a€prescription€for€a€painkiller€andÏpenicillin.€€The€following€day,€October€14th,€the€plaintiff€€went€to€defendantððsÏoffice€who€examined€him€and€sent€him€to€see€Dr.€David€Zelig.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àAfter€hearing€this€contradictory€evidence,€at€the€conclusion€of€all€the€proof,Ïthe€trial€judge€weighed€the€evidence€and€found€no€fault€on€the€part€of€plaintiff€forÏthe€injuries€and€damages€he€received.€€In€òòGalbreath€v.€Harrisóó,€811€S.W.2d€88,€91Ï(Tenn.€App.€1990)€this€court€stated€œthat:ÌÓÓÌ›à8 àFindings€of€the€trial€court€that€are€dependent€upon€determining€theÍcredibility€of€witnesses€are€entitled€to€great€weight.€€The€reason€forÏthis€is€that€the€trial€judge€alone€has€the€opportunity€to€observe€theÏmanner€and€demeanor€of€the€witnesses€while€testifying.€€On€an€issueÏwhich€hinges€on€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€trial€court€willÏnot€be€reversed€unless€there€is€found€in€the€record€clear,€concrete,Ïand€convincing€evidence€other€than€the€oral€testimony€of€witnessesÏwhich€contradict€the€trial€courtððs€findings.ÌÌœÌThis›€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌò òœÌB.›€The€Amount€of€Damages.à àó óÌÌœÌÓÓ›à àDefendant€contends€that€the€action€of€the€trial€court€in€awarding€plaintiffÏforty€thousand€($40,000.00)€dollars€in€compensatory€damages€is€excessive.€ÏPlaintiffððs€saga€begin€on€September€30,€1991€and€in€essence€came€to€an€end€onÏOctober€17,€1991.€€Plaintiff€was€a€patient€of€defendant€from€September€30th€untilÏOctober€14th,€when€he€was€sent€by€defendant€to€see€Dr.€David€Zelig,€who€œbegan›Ïtreating€him.€€On€the€following€day€he€hospitalized€him€for€two€days,€during€whichÏtime€he€performed€surgery€to€relieve€the€pain€and€the€infection.€€For€a€number€ofÏthese€days€plaintiff€complained€of€substantial€to€severe€pain.€€At€the€same€time,Ïhe€was€not€in€pain€sufficient€to€deter€him€from€attending€a€weekend€reunion.€ÏPlaintiff€testified€that€upon€leaving€the€hospital€following€the€second€surgery€theÏpain€was€quickly€gone.€€No€proof€was€presented€regarding€any€anatomical€disabilityÏor€physical€impairment€as€a€result€of€either€the€root€canal€procedure€or€theÍsubsequent€surgery.€€The€evidence€preponderates€against€the€amount€of€theÏjudgment€awarded.€€In€our€opinion,€the€compensatory€damage€award€should€beÏreduced€to€twenty€thousand€($20,000.00)€dollars.€ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmÔ€Ôed€in€all€œrespects›Ïœexcept,›€as€set€forth€œhereandabove,›€the€award€for€compensatory€damages€is€reducedÏfrom€forty€thousand€($40,000.00)€dollars€to€twenty€thousand€($20,000.00)€Ìdollars.€€We€are€of€the€opinion€that€plaintiffððs€contention€that€defendantððs€appealÔ€ÔÌœis›€frivolous€is€without€merit.€€Costs€in€this€cause€on€appeal€are€taxed€one„third€œÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ(1/3)›€to€plaintiff€and€two„thirds€(2/3)€to€defendant,€for€which€execution€mayÏissue,€if€necessary.Ô€Ôà àÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœ_________________________________________›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCRAWFORD,€œP.€J.›à àà à(CONCURS)ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœ_________________________________________›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àFARMER,€J.à àà àà à(CONCURS)Ì