ÿWPCn …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0lH 0D´ 0Lø 0JD 0TŽ 0^â 0h@ 0r¨ 0| 0†– 0 1u¬ 0d! AM…ãÒµ BRU>oB)­DCÖ AMU*f 0N D3Þ 0Xiv~xvÓö AOÉÆ 0DÞ D/" BQ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ x y Ez { | re} V~ D U€ ӀРDÒ »P¼E3|xŠ ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó> ÿÿ$Small Circleððà0 à2 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€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÙÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌNovember€27,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó “Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóBoth€Rose€and€Hoffman€filed€motions€before€this€Court€forÏconsideration€of€post„judgment€facts„„the€discovery€of€an€expert€witnessÏfrom€a€contiguous€state€after€the€trial€courtððs€issuance€of€a€finalÏjudgment.€€This€Court€denied€the€motions€on€the€basis€that€the€existenceÏof€this€witness€related€directly€to€the€merits€of€the€case,€that€it€was€theÏsubject€of€dispute€between€the€parties,€and€that€it€was€not€a€fact€thatÏoccurred€after€the€judgment,€despite€counsel€not€having€discovered€theÏwitness€earlier.€€See€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€14(a).Ì d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial>‡¦$"Small Circleð"ðà0  à""""'ÿÿdxd(0"ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€court€also€found€that€Kaufmanððs€affidavit€did€not€establish€theÏnecessary€foundation€required€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115(a)(1).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  inion Geneva ÒÒ  inion Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  Ý›ò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑœÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌà@ àò òWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóÌHERBERT€E.€ROSE,€SR.€andà àà à)à àÌJEANNINE€MARIE€ROSE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óPlaintiffs/Appellants,ò òà àà àà à)à àó óDavidson€Circuit€No.€94C„1379ÌœßR€ %A1-j|½­` ç `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌH.C.A.€HEALTH€SERVICES€OF€€€€€€€€€€€à à)€€€€€€€€€€ó ó€€€€€€€€€€€Ìò òTENNESSEE,€INC.,€et€al.,€ó ó€ò òà àà à)à àó ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óConsolidated€Appeal€No.€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà à01„A„01„9510„CV„00456ò òà àÌó óà àDefendants/Appellees.à àò òà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌDANIEL€D.€HOFFMAN,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,ò òà àà àà à)€€€€€à àó óDavidson€Circuit€No.€94C„1794Ìò òà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌH.C.A.€HEALTH€SERVICES€OFà àà à)ÌTENNESSEE,€INC.,€et€al.,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óDefendants/Appellees.ò òà àà à)Ìòòó óÌò òóóÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€WALTER€C.€KURTZ,€JUDGE€€€ÌòòÌÌÓ  ÓFor€the€Plaintiffs/Appellantsóó:òòà àà àFor€the€Defendants/Appellees:à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÓ  ÓóóÌLarry€D.€Wilks€€€à àà àà àà àà àC.€J.€Gideon,€Jr.ÌSidney€W.€Gilreath€€à àà àà àà àWilliam€S.€WaltonÌNashville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌGregory€D.€SmithÌClarksville,€TennesseeÌò òÌÌà@ à€€€€€€€€AFFIRMED€ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ò òÇØØÙ  ÙÓÓÑ7€E?XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àOPINIONó óÌà àThis€case€involves€two€cases€consolidated€on€appeal,€the€first€filedÏby€plaintiff€Herbert€Rose€(ð ðRoseðð)€and€the€second€by€plaintiff€DanielÏHoffman€(ð ðHoffmanðð).€€Both€cases€are€medical€malpractice€actionsÏinvolving€the€use€of€pedicle€screws€in€spinal€column€surgery.€€In€both,€theÏtrial€court€granted€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€defendant€H.C.A.€HealthÏServices€of€Tennessee,€Inc.,€d/b/a€Centennial€Medical€Center€(ð ðCMCðð).€€€ÏBoth€plaintiffs€submitted€affidavits€from€the€same€expert,€and€the€trialÏcourt€disallowed€the€affidavits€of€the€plaintiffsðð€expert€on€the€basis€thatÏhe€did€not€meet€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115(b).€€WeÏaffirm.Ìà àRose€and€Hoffman€both€underwent€back€surgery€at€CMC.€€The€surgeryÏon€both€plaintiffs€was€performed€by€Dr.€David€McCord€(ð ðMcCordðð).€€In€bothÏcases,€McCord€utilized€€a€surgical€procedure€involving€the€use€of€pedicleÏscrews€in€the€spinal€column.€€In€Roseððs€case,€it€was€later€discovered€thatÏone€of€the€pedicle€screws€had€loosened.€€Subsequently,€Rose€had€furtherÏsurgery€to€remove€the€medical€instrumentation€that€McCord€had€placed€inÏhis€back.€€Nineteen€months€after€this€operation,€Rose€saw€an€episode€ofÏthe€television€series€òòò ò20/20ó óóó€which€featured€a€segment€on€the€problemsÏassociated€with€pedicle€screws€used€in€back€surgery.€€He€filed€suit€againstÏthe€manufacturer,€McCord,€Tennessee€Spine€Center,€Inc.,€and€CMC.Ìà àHoffman€also€developed€problems€with€the€pedicle€screws€used€inÏhis€spine.€€A€myelogram€CAT€scan€performed€in€December€of€1993€revealedÏthat€some€of€the€pedicle€screws€had€broken.€€After€Hoffman€watched€theÏsame€òòò ò20/20ó óóó€episode€Rose€had€seen,€he€also€filed€suit€against€the€sameÏfour€defendants.€€Both€plaintiffs€were€represented€by€the€same€attorneys.€ÏBoth€lawsuits€alleged€that€CMC€had€been€negligent€in€allowing€McCord€toÏperform€surgery€at€the€hospital€and€in€failing€to€properly€monitor€his€useÏof€pedicle€screws,€allegedly€used€in€a€manner€not€approved€by€the€FDA.€ÏCMC€filed€motions€for€summary€judgment€in€both€cases.€€In€support€of€bothÏmotions,€CMC€filed€affidavits€from€Wanda€Scharf€(ð ðScharfðð)€and€TeresaÏAdler€(ð ðAdlerðð).Ìà àScharf,€CMCððs€medical€staff€coordinator,€indicated€that€she€wasÏfamiliar€with€the€accepted€standards€of€hospital€practice€in€the€NashvilleÏcommunity€for€credentialing€of€physicians€applying€for€and€reapplying€forÏstaff€privileges.€€Scharf€stated€that€CMC€complied€with€those€standards€inÏevaluating€McCord€and€granting€him€staff€privileges€at€the€hospital,€thatÏMcCord€was€not€an€employee€of€CMC€during€the€times€in€question,€and€thatÏCMC€ð ðdid€not€exercise€control€over€the€precise€methods€or€means€employedÏby€Dr.€McCord€in€his€treatment€of€Herbert€Rose€[and€Daniel€D.€Hoffman].ðð€ÏScharf€added,€ð ðDr.€McCord€exercised€his€independent€judgment€andÍexperience,€as€a€physician,€in€deciding€what€treatment€choices€to€make.ðð€€Ìà àAdler,€a€licensed€registered€nurse,€indicated€that€she€was€familiarÏwith€the€recognized€standard€of€care€in€the€operation€of€a€surgicalÏdepartment€at€a€hospital€in€the€Nashville€community.€€She€stated€that€CMCÏwas€not€involved€in€selecting€the€surgical€instruments€used€by€surgeonsÏwith€staff€privileges.€€Adler€noted€that€surgeons€with€staff€privilegesÏwere€responsible€for€deciding€what€equipment€to€use.€€She€stated€that€theÏsurgeons€informed€CMC€what€equipment€to€order€for€any€particularÏoperation€and€that€CMC€merely€provided€the€equipment€as€requested.€€AdlerÏmaintained€that€this€procedure€was€followed€in€both€Roseððs€and€HoffmanððsÏcases€and€that€it€€complied€with€the€standard€of€care€in€Nashville.Ìà àBoth€Rose€and€Hoffman€responded€to€CMCððs€summary€judgmentÏmotion€with€an€affidavit€from€Arthur€Kaufman,€M.D.€(ð ðKaufmanðð),€who€hadÏbeen€teaching€and€practicing€ð ðadministrative€medicineðð€since€the€earlyÏ1970's.€€Kaufman€opined€that€the€hospital€failed€in€its€duty€to€ascertainÏthe€regulatory€status€of€the€pedicle€screws€when€it€acquired€them€forÏMcCord.€€CMC€moved€the€trial€court€to€strike€Kaufmanððs€affidavit€on€theÏbasis€that€Kaufman,€licensed€only€in€Maryland€and€West€Virginia€during€theÏyear€prior€to€the€alleged€negligence€in€both€cases,€was€not€a€competentÏwitness,€having€failed€to€meet€the€statutory€requirements€of€Tenn.€CodeÍAnn.€ðð€29„26„115(b),€requiring€health€care€experts€in€malpractice€actionsÏto€be€licensed€in€Tennessee€or€a€contiguous€state.€€Rose€and€Hoffman€filedÏaffidavits€from€their€two€attorneys€and€Kaufman€stating€that€they€hadÏdiligently€searched€for€an€expert€in€Tennessee€or€a€contiguous€state€butÏhad€been€unable€to€locate€one.€€Both€plaintiffs€requested€a€waiver€of€theÏcontiguous€state€licensing€requirement€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115(b).€ÏIn€response,€CMC€filed€three€affidavits€listing€the€number€of€hospitals€inÏTennessee€and€Arkansas€and€the€number€of€physicians€operating€withinÏTennessee€and€its€contiguous€states.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motionsÏfor€waiver,€granted€the€requests€to€strike€Kaufmanððs€affidavit,€andÏawarded€summary€judgment€to€CMC€in€both€cases.€€In€the€Rose€case,€theÏtrial€court€also€found€that€the€statute€of€limitations€ran€prior€to€theÏfiling€of€the€complaint.Ìà à€€Both€Rose€and€Hoffman€moved€the€court€to€alter€or€amend€itsÏjudgment€and€in€support€of€the€motion€submitted€a€second€affidavit€fromÏLewis€Mustard€(ð ðMustardðð),€a€self„styled€hospital€and€health€careÏadministrator€residing€in€North€Carolina€but€not€licensed€in€Tennessee€orÏany€of€its€contiguous€states€as€a€medical€practitioner€or€specialist.€€TheÏtrial€court€denied€the€motions€to€amend.€€Although€other€defendants,Ïincluding€McCord,€remained€in€the€lawsuit,€the€trial€courtððs€orders€ofÍsummary€judgment€to€CMC€in€both€cases€were€made€final€under€Rule€54.02Ïof€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€Rose€and€Hoffman€appeal€theÏentry€of€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€CMC€and€the€denial€of€the€motion€toÏalter€or€amend€the€judgment.€€The€two€cases€were€consolidated€on€appeal.× ƒ! ××  ×Ìà àOn€appeal,€both€Rose€and€Hoffman€argue€that€the€trial€court€abusedÏits€discretion€in€not€allowing€a€waiver€of€the€contiguous€state€licensingÏrequirement€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115(b),€in€striking€KaufmanððsÏaffidavit,€and€in€denying€the€motions€to€alter€or€amend€the€judgment,€inÏsupport€of€which€Mustardððs€affidavit€was€filed.€€In€addition,€Rose€claimsÏthat€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€the€statute€of€limitations€had€runÏprior€to€his€filing€suit.€€Ìà àA€trial€court€should€grant€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€when€theÏmovant€demonstrates€that€there€are€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€andÏthat€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Tenn.ÏR.€Civ.€P.€56.03.€€The€party€moving€for€summary€judgment€bears€the€burdenÍof€demonstrating€that€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists.€€ò òòòByrd€v.ÏHallóóó ó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€211€(Tenn.€1993).€€On€a€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment,€the€trial€court€and€the€appellate€court€must€take€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,€allow€allÏreasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€that€party,€and€discard€all€countervailingÏevidence.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€210„11.€€The€phrase€"genuine€issue"€as€stated€in€RuleÏ56.03€refers€to€genuine,€factual€issues€and€does€not€include€issuesÏinvolving€legal€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€the€facts.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€211.€€InÏòòò òByrdó óóó,€the€Court€said:ÌÓÓà8 àOnce€it€is€shown€by€the€moving€party€that€there€is€no€genuineÏissue€of€material€fact,€the€nonmoving€party€must€thenÏdemonstrate,€by€affidavits€or€discovery€materials,€that€thereÏis€a€genuine,€material€fact€dispute€to€warrant€a€trial.€€In€thisÏregard,€Rule€56.05€provides€that€the€nonmoving€party€cannotÏsimply€rely€upon€his€pleadings€but€must€set€forth€òòspecificÏfactsóó€showing€that€there€is€a€genuine€issue€of€material€factÏfor€trial.€€"If€he€does€not€so€respond,€summary€judgment€.€.€.Ïshall€be€entered€against€him."ÌÌÓÓœòòò òId.ó óóó›€(citations€omitted).€€Summary€judgment€is€only€appropriate€when€theÏcase€can€be€decided€on€the€legal€issues€alone.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€210.€€Since€onlyÏquestions€of€law€are€involved,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctnessÏregarding€a€trial€court's€grant€of€summary€judgment.€€ò òòòJohnson€v.€EMPE,ÏInc.óóó ó,€837€S.W.2d€62,€68€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€Review€of€the€grant€ofÏsummary€judgment€is,€therefore,€òòò òde€novoó óóó.Ìà àRose€and€Hoffman€assert€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏstriking€Kaufmanððs€affidavit,€based€on€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115(b).€ÏThis€statutes€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà à(b)€€No€person€in€a€health€care€profession€requiringÏlicensure€under€the€laws€of€this€state€shall€be€competent€toÏtestify€in€any€court€of€law€to€establish€the€facts€required€toÏbe€established€by€subsection€(a)€unless€he€was€licensed€toÏpractice€in€the€state€or€a€contiguous€bordering€state€aÏprofession€or€specialty€which€would€make€his€expertÏtestimony€relevant€to€the€issues€in€the€case€and€had€practicedÏthis€profession€or€specialty€in€one€of€these€states€during€theÏyear€preceding€the€date€that€the€alleged€injury€or€wrongful€actÏoccurred.€.€.€.€The€court€may€waive€this€subsection€when€itÏdetermines€that€the€appropriate€witnesses€otherwise€wouldÏnot€be€available.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115(b)€(1980).€€The€record€is€clear€that€KaufmanÏis€not,€nor€was€he€during€the€year€preceding€the€alleged€injury,€licensed€toÏpractice€in€Tennessee€or€one€of€its€contiguous€border€states.€€During€theÏperiod€in€question,€he€was€only€licensed€to€practice€in€Maryland€and€WestÏVirginia.€Ìà àRose€and€Hoffman€argue€that€this€requirement€should€have€beenÏwaived.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115(b)€provides€that€this€requirementÏmay€be€waived€if€the€court€ð ðdetermines€that€the€appropriate€witnessesÏotherwise€would€not€be€available.ðð€€Trial€courts€have€broad€discretion€inÏdetermining€the€competency€of€experts.€€òòò òCoyle€v.€Prietoó óóó,€822€S.W.2dÍ596,€600€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€The€trial€courtððs€determination€of€theÏqualifications,€or€lack€thereof,€of€any€particular€witness€may€be€reversedÏonly€upon€a€finding€of€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€€òòò òId.ó óóóÌà àIn€support€of€their€motions€for€waiver€of€the€locality€rule,€Rose€andÏHoffman€each€filed€three€affidavits€from€the€same€persons.€€The€first€wasÏfrom€one€of€their€attorneys,€Larry€Wilks€(ð ðWilksðð).€€Wilks€claimed€that€heÏhad€conducted€a€diligent€search€and€inquiry€for€an€expert.€€As€support€forÏthis€statement,€he€noted€that€he€had€spoken€with€the€plaintiffsðð€otherÏattorney€in€the€case,€Sidney€W.€Gilreath€(ð ðGilreathðð),€and€with€an€attorneyÏin€Philadelphia,€who€had€referred€him€to€Kaufman.€€He€noted€that€KaufmanÏhad€helped€him€in€his€search.€€Wilks€expressed€the€belief€that€the€size€ofÏCMCððs€parent€corporation,€the€Columbia/HCA€System€(ð ðHCAðð),€made€itÏdifficult€to€find€an€expert€without€a€conflict€of€interest.€€As€an€example,Ïhe€stated€that€he€had€talked€to€an€unnamed€administrator€of€a€localÏhospital€in€Springfield,€Tennessee,€who€could€not€testify€because€of€hisÏrelationship€with€HCA.€€Ìà àThe€second€affidavit€filed€by€Rose€and€Hoffman€was€from€Gilreath,Ïtheir€other€attorney.€€Gilreath€asserted€that€he€had€conducted€a€diligent,Ïyet€unsuccessful,€search€in€Tennessee€for€an€expert€in€the€field€ofÏhospital€risk€management€and€quality€assurance.€€He€claimed€to€haveÍspoken€with€various€unidentified€health€care€professionals€who€would€talkÏto€him€only€if€their€names€would€not€be€disclosed€or€listed€as€expertÏwitnesses€in€either€case.€€Gilreath€also€stated€that€he€had€talked€toÏunidentified€physicians€in€Knoxville€and€Johnson€City.€€Finally,€heÏemployed€the€services€of€an€unnamed€professional€expert€witness€finder,Ïwho€was€also€unable€to€find€a€witness€in€Tennessee€or€a€contiguous€state.Ìà àRose€and€Hoffman€also€filed€a€supplemental€affidavit€from€Kaufman.€ÏKaufman€stated€that€he€had€made€a€genuine€and€diligent€effort€to€find€aÏwitness€in€Tennessee€or€one€of€its€contiguous€states.€€He€supported€thisÏclaim€by€stating€that€he€had€ð ðconsidered€no€less€than€4€individuals€andÏ[had]€spoken€with€no€less€than€4€individuals.ðð€€Kaufman€also€expressed€theÏbelief€that€the€size€of€HCA€made€it€difficult€to€find€a€witness€inÏTennessee€or€a€contiguous€state.€Ìà àIn€response€to€Roseððs€and€Hoffmanððs€€motions,€CMC€filed€threeÏaffidavits€from€the€same€persons€in€both€cases.€€The€first€was€fromÏWilliam€Ives,€Vice€President€of€Information€Services€for€the€TennesseeÏHospital€Association.€€Ives€stated€that,€ð ð[a]s€of€1993,€there€were€a€totalÏof€159€hospitals€operating€in€Tennessee.ðð€€The€second€affidavit€was€fromÏWallace€Cunningham,€Vice€President€of€the€Arkansas€Hospital€Association.€ÏCunningham€stated€that,€ð ð[a]s€of€1993,€there€were€a€total€of€99€hospitalsÍoperating€in€Arkansas,€nine€(9)€of€them€being€psychiatric€hospitals.ðð€€TheÏthird€affidavit€was€from€Thomas€Pasko,€a€research€associate€for€theÏAmerican€Medical€Association€in€Chicago,€Illinois.€€He€stated€that,€as€ofÏJanuary€1993,€the€following€number€of€licensed€physicians€were€listedÏwithin€their€respective€states:€€11,613€in€Tennessee;€7,672€in€Alabama;Ï4,353€in€Arkansas;€13,475€in€Georgia;€7,334€in€Kentucky;€3,763€inÏMississippi;€11,609€in€Missouri;€15,036€in€North€Carolina;€and€15,008€inÏVirginia.Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€that€both€Rose€and€Hoffman€had€ð ðfailed€to€makeÏsufficient€showing€of€non€availability€[sic]€of€other€experts€to€allow€forÏthe€admissibility€of€the€affidavit€of€Dr.€Arthur€Kaufman€pursuant€to€T.C.A.Ïðð€29„26„115(b).ðð× ƒ. ××  ×€€€€We€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€courtððs€ruling.€ÏThe€affidavits€submitted€by€Rose€and€Hoffman€were€generalized€andÏunspecific,€and€reflect€only€a€cursory€effort€to€find€an€appropriate€expertÏfrom€Tennessee€or€a€contiguous€border€state.€€Wilks€describes€talking€toÏonly€one€unnamed€Tennessee€administrator€in€support€of€his€conclusoryÏassertion€that€the€size€of€HCA€makes€it€difficult€to€find€an€expert.€ÏGilreathððs€affidavit€does€not€list€the€number€of€physicians€he€talked€to,Ínor€does€it€provide€any€information€regarding€the€efforts€made€by€hisÏunnamed€professional€witness€finder.€€Kaufman€apparently€only€talked€toÏfour€prospective€witnesses.€€From€this€the€trial€court€correctly€concludedÏthat€neither€Rose€nor€Hoffman€had€established€that€waiver€of€the€localityÏrule€was€warranted€or€that€ð ðappropriate€witnesses€otherwise€would€notÏbe€available.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€29„26„115(b)€(1980).Ìà àRose€and€Hoffman€argue€that€HCA€is€such€a€large€corporation€thatÏMaryland€is€contiguous€to€its€corporate€presence,€and€thus€Kaufman€meetsÏthe€requirements€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115(b).€€This€interpretationÏis€contrary€to€the€plain€language€of€the€statute.€Ìà àThe€affidavits€submitted€by€CMC€in€support€of€its€motion€forÏsummary€judgment€in€each€case€established€that€CMC€did€not€violate€theÏappropriate€standard€of€care.€€As€discussed€above,€both€Rose€and€HoffmanÏfailed€to€file€an€affidavit€from€a€competent€witness€to€create€a€genuineÏquestion€of€material€fact€on€this€issue.€€Consequently,€summary€judgmentÏwas€properly€granted.Ìà àAfter€entry€of€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€CMC,€both€Rose€andÏHoffman€filed€a€motion€with€the€trial€court€to€alter€or€amend€itsÏjudgment.€€In€both€cases,€Mustardððs€affidavit€was€filed€in€support€of€theÏmotion€to€alter€or€amend.€€In€addition,€they€filed€a€second€affidavit€fromÍWilks,€in€which€Wilks€stated€that€he€had€continued€his€search€for€aÏTennessee€witness.€€This€continued€search€involved€contacting€threeÏdoctorsðð€offices,€speaking€with€two€physicians€and€asking€for€theirÏassistance€in€the€search,€further€using€Kaufmanððs€assistance,€speakingÏwith€three€other€lawyers€and€enlisting€their€aid,€and€contacting€anÏunnamed€medical€witness€service,€all€to€no€avail.€€The€trial€court€deniedÏthe€motion€in€both€cases.€€Ìà àThere€is€no€indication€that€Mustard€was€unavailable€prior€to€theÏentry€of€summary€judgment€or€that€Wilksðð€further€efforts€could€not€haveÏbeen€made€prior€to€the€entry€of€summary€judgment.€ò òòòSee€Marr€v.ÏMontgomery€Elevator€Co.ó ó,€óó922€S.W.2d€526,€527„28€(Tenn.€App.€1995);Ïò òòòSchaefer€by€Schaefer€v.€Larsonó óóó,€688€S.W.2d€430,€433€(Tenn.€App.Ï1984).€€Moreover,€the€motion€to€alter€or€amend€in€each€case€related€toÏproffered€expert€testimony,€the€affidavits€of€Mustard€and€Kaufman,€andÏwaiver€of€the€locality€rule.€€As€noted€earlier,€trial€courts€have€broadÏdiscretion€in€determining€the€competency€of€experts.€€ò òòòCoyle€v.€Prietoó óóó,Ï822€S.W.2d€596,€600€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€We€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€inÏthe€trial€courtððs€decision€to€deny€both€plaintiffsðð€motions€to€alter€orÏamend€the€entry€of€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€CMC.€€ò òòòSee€Marró óóó,€922ÏS.W.2d€at€527„28.Ìà àIn€sum,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€in€both€cases€toÏdisallow€Kaufmanððs€affidavit€based€on€the€locality€rule,€to€decline€toÏpermit€waiver€of€the€locality€rule,€to€enter€summary€judgment€in€favor€ofÏCMC,€and€to€deny€both€plaintiffððs€motions€to€alter€or€amend€the€judgment.€ÏThis€pretermits€the€issue€raised€by€Rose€of€whether€the€trial€courtÏproperly€ruled€that€his€claims€were€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.Ìà àAccordingly,€we€€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgmentÏto€CMC€in€both€of€the€cases€consolidated€in€this€appeal.€€Costs€are€taxedÏagainst€Appellants,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ìó óà àò òÌœÌCONCUR:›ÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ó ó