ÿWPC7 …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw.å4 ' 6 0J> 0Tˆ 0^Ü 0h: 0r¢ 0| 0† 0 1u¦ 0d U> B)½ DCæ AM)U*v v~± B/vÓL D3 0@R AO’Æá 0D§ D/ë B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-EDÓ€DÒ 3|x2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌDecember€18,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€æ^XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñò ò›Þ ÞÌMATTHEW€SEFFERNICK,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€93C„1800ÌVS.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„9606„CV„00282̜ـ€ÙßR€!# A1-j|LÎ` ç `€€@ÿRß›SAINT€THOMAS€HOSPITAL€ANDà à)ÌBARRY€E.€YARBROUGH,€M.D.,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌDefendants/Appellees.à àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àHONORABLE€THOMAS€W.€BROTHERS,€JUDGEÌó óÌÌÌÌÌGILBERT€&€FAULKNERÌRoger€L.€Gilbert,€#11499ÌTwo€Centre€Square,€Suite€625Ì625€Gay€StreetÌKnoxville,€TN€37902ÌATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÌÌÌGIDEON€&€WISEMANÌC.€J.€Gideon,€Jr.,€#6034ÌSuite€1900ÌNationsBank€PlazaÌNashville,€TN€37219„1782ÌATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANTS/APPELLEESÌÌÌò òÓ  ÓREVERSED,€VACATED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWISÌœBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGE›ÌÌÌÇò òMATTHEW€SEFFERNICK,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€93C„1800ÌVS.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„9606„CV„00282ÌSAINT€THOMAS€HOSPITAL€ANDà à)ÌBARRY€E.€YARBROUGH,€M.D.,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌDefendants/Appellees.à àà àà à)ÌÌó óÌÌà@ àòòÔ€¼Ôò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ€XÔóóÌÓÓÓ  Óà àÌà àThe€captioned€plaintiff€has€appealed€from€a€summary€judgment€dismissing€hisÏmalpractice€suit€against€the€captioned€defendants.€€ÌÌà àAppellant€presents€the€following€issues:ÌÓÓà àà àA.à àWhether€€the€Trial€Court€correctly€€granted€the€Ìà àà àdefendantsðð€motion€to€strike€the€testimony€of€€WinstonÌà àà àHall€€€Worthington,€€M.D.€€and€€motion€€for€€summaryÌà àà àjudgment.ÌÌà àà àB.à àWhether€the€Trial€Court€correctly€held€that€theÌà àà àtestimony€of€Winston€Hall€Worthington€fails€to€satisfyÌà àà àthe€legal€requirements€to€prove€causation.ÌÌà àà àC.à àWhether€€the€€Trial€€Court€€correctly€€awarded€ÌÓÓà àà àdiscretionary€costs€to€the€defendants.ÌÌà àThe€complaint€alleges€that€plaintiff€sought€treatment€at€the€emergency€room€of€theÏdefendant€hospital;€that€he€was€treated€by€the€defendant€physician€and€œreleased;€that,›€as€a€resultÏof€negligent€treatment,€severe€complications€œensued,›€including€loss€of€vision€œin›€the€affectedÏeye.ÌÌà àThe€defendants€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€supported€by€the€affidavit€of€theÏdefendant€physician€detailing€the€nature€of€the€injury,€the€treatment€administered€andÏinstructions€given,€and€asserting€that€his€care€and€treatment€of€plaintiff€conformed€with€theÏaccepted€standards€of€professional€practice€in€the€specialty€of€emergency€and€that€no€act€orÏomission€of€the€affiant€caused€the€complications€stated€in€the€complaint.ÌÌà àIn€addition€to€his€own€affidavit€of€the€facts,€plaintiff€filed€the€affidavit€of€Winston€HallÏWorthington,€œM.D.,€which€stated›€that€he€had€reviewed€the€medical€records€of€the€treatment€ofÏœplaintiff,›€and€that€said€treatment€fell€below€the€standards€of€care€in€Nashville,€Tennessee.ÌÌà àOn€November€16,€1993,€the€Trial€Judge€overruled€defendantsðð€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment.ÌÌà àOn€October€19,€1995,€defendants€filed€a€Motion€to€Strike€and€Motion€for€SummaryÏJudgment€which€read€as€follows:ÌÓÓà àà àCome€€€the€€€Defendants,€€Barry€€Yarbrough,€€M.D.€€and€€St.€Ìà àà àThomas€Hospital,€and€move€the€Court€to:ÌÌà àà àA.à àStrike€€the€€testimony€€of€Winston€Hall€Worthington,Ìà àà àM.D.€on€the€grounds€that€his€testimony€is€(I)€untrustworthy,Ìà àà à(ii)€€that€€he€€is€€not€€an€expert,€(iii)€that€his€testimony€fails€to€Ìà àà àmeet€€the€€legal€threshold€to€establish€causation,€(iv)€that€hisÌà àà àtestimony€€will€€not€€substantially€assist€the€jury,€and€(v)€thatÌà àà àhis€testimony€will€be€so€misleading€and€confusing€to€the€juryÌà àà àthat€it€should€be€excluded€under€T.R.E.€403;ÌÌà àà àB.à àEnter€Summary€Judgment€in€favor€of€the€Defendants.ÌÌà àà à€€€€In€€support€€of€€this€€Motion,€€the€€defendants€€file€and€rely€Ìà àà àupon:ÌÌà àà àA.à àThe€€€€deposition€€€€testimony€€€€of€€€€€Winston€€€€Hall€Ìà àà àWorthington,€€M.D.€€in€€the€€discovery€€deposition€€taken€on€Ìà àà àAugust€30,€1995;ÌÌà àà àB.à àThe€€€€deposition€€€€testimony€€€€of€€€€€Winston€€€€Hall€Ìà àà àWorthington,€M.D.€in€€òòHutchison€€v.€€Huskey€€and€Pilot€Oil€Ìà àà àœCo.,€óóCircuit›€Court€for€Knox€County,€Docket€Number€2„220„Ìà àà à89;ÌÌà àà àC.à àA€certified€copy€of€the€Arkansas€Medical€Board€fileÌà àà àon€Winston€Hall€Worthington,€M.D.;€andÌÌÓÓà àà àD.à àA€Memorandum€Brief.ÌÌà àOn€November€30,€1995,€the€Trial€Court€entered€an€order€stating:ÌÓÓà àà à€€€€ò òTHIS€CAUSEó ó€€came€to€be€€heard€€before€the€HonorableÌà àà àThomas€W.€Brothers€on€€the€17th€day€€of€€November,€1995Ìà àà àupon€€the€€Motions€€of€€the€€Defendants,€€Barry€Yarbrough,€Ìà àà àM.D.€and€€St.€Thomas€Hospital,€to€(A)€strike€the€testimonyÌÓÓÓÓà àà àof€€€Winston€€Hall€€Worthington,€€M.D.€€and€€(B)€€€to€€enter€Ìà àà àSummary€Judgment€in€favor€of€the€Defendants.ÌÌà àà à€€€€The€€€Motions€€€are€€€well„taken€€and€€are€€granted.€€€The€Ìà àà àtestimony€of€€Winston€€Hall€€Worthington,€M.D.€is€strickenÌà àà àunder€€T.R.Civ.P.€56.05€€and€T.R.E.€703.€€The€Court€finds€Ìà àà àthat€€there€€is€€an€€inadequate€factual€and€scientific€basis€for€Ìà àà àthe€€testimony€of€Dr.€Worthington,€that€Dr.€WorthingtonððsÌà àà àtestimony€€will€not€substantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact,€thatÌà àà àmany€€material€€aspects€€of€€Dr.€€Worthingtonððs€€testimony,€Ìà àà àcomparing€€€his€€€affidavit€€€with€€€his€€€August€€€30,€€€1995€Ìà àà àdeposition€€testimony,€€cannot€€be€€reconciled,€and€that€Dr.Ìà àà àWorthingtonððs€opinions€are,€fundamentally,€untrustworthy.Ìà àà àThe€testimony€is,€therefore,€stricken.ÌÌà àà à€€€€There€€is€€no€€genuine€€issue€as€to€any€material€fact,€and€Ìà àà àthe€Defendants€are€entitled€to€Summary€Judgment€in€theirÌà àà àfavor€as€a€matter€of€law.ÌÌà àà à€€€€ò òIT€IS,€THEREFORE,€ORDEREDó ó€that€€this€cause€beÌà àà àand€€the€same€€is€€hereby€dismissed€€with€prejudice.€€CostsÌà àà àof€this€cause€are€taxed€to€the€€plaintiff,€and/or€his€sureties,ÌÓÓà àà àfor€which€let€execution€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌà àUpon€appeal€from€the€foregoing€order,€the€plaintiff€first€argues€œthat€the€T.R.C.P.›Ïœcontain›€no€provision€for€a€motion€to€strike€testimony.€€Although€not€expressly€authorized€byÏany€official€rule€of€evidence€or€procedure,€œmotions›€to€strike€inadmissible€evidence€œare›€aÏrecognized€and€frequently€employed€device€to€remove€from€consideration€evidence€which€hasÏbeen€previously€filed€or€otherwise€presented€to€the€Court.€€In€jury€trials,€it€is€accompanied€by€aÏrequest€that€the€jury€be€instructed€to€disregard€evidence€which€has€been€œheard,›€but€is€laterÏdetermined€to€be€inadmissible.ÌÌà àIn€œòòRailway€Co.,›€v.€Beeleróó,€90€Tenn.€548,€18€S.W.€391€(1891),€a€ð ðmotion€to€strike€allÏevidence€in€regard€to€the€deedðð€was€disapproved€as€too€general€ð ðsince€some€of€the€evidence€isÏclearly€competent.ððÌÌà àIn€òòArp€v.€Wolfeóó,€Tenn.€App.€1962,€354€S.W.2d€799,€a€motion€to€strike€evidence€wasÏoverruled€because€the€offending€evidence€was€elicited€by€the€movant.ÌÌà àIn€òòCreed€v.€Whiteóó,€30€Tenn.€(11€Humph)€549€(1851),€œthe€Court›€held€that€illegal€orÏirrelevant€evidence€may€on€motion€at€any€time€before€the€jury€retires€be€excluded€from€the€juryÏon€motion.ÌÌà àA€motion€to€strike€(or€exclude)€evidence€is€firmly€established€as€part€of€trial€practice€inÏthis€State.€€In€88€œC.J.S.›€œTrial›€ðððð€133„156€œa›€œ36„page›€article€on€Motions€to€Strike€œevidence€isÏfound.›ÌÌà àAppellant€next€insists€that€the€rules€of€evidence€make€no€provision€for€exclusion€ofÏexpert€testimony€because€of€the€character€of€the€expert.ÌÌà àT.R.E.€Rule€œ702›€states€that€a€qualified€expert€ð ðmay€testify€in€the€form€of€an€opinion.ððÌÌà àT.R.E.€Rule€œ703›€states€that€the€Court€shall€œð ðdisallowðð›€expert€opinion€testimony€if€theÏunderlying€facts€or€data€indicate€a€lack€of€trustworthiness.ÌÌà àThe€Trial€Judge€has€wide€discretion€in€the€matter€of€the€qualifications€of€expertÏwitnesses.€€òòOtis€v.€Cambridge€œMut.€Fire›€Ins.€Co.óó,€Tenn.€1992,€850€S.W.2d€439.ÌÌà àThe€qualifications,€admissibility,€relevancy€and€competency€of€expert€testimony€areÏmatters€€which€rest€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€Trial€Court;€such€discretion,€however,€isÏnot€absolute€and€may€be€overturned€on€appeal€where€the€discretion€is€arbitrarily€exercised.€ÏòòState€v.€Ballard,óó€Tenn.€1993,€855€S.W.2d€557.ÌÌà àNo€Tennessee€authority€is€cited€or€found€wherein€the€testimony€of€an€expert€wasÏexcluded€because€of€his€unsatisfactory€character€for€truthfulness.ÌÌà àT.R.E.€Rule€703€requires€rejection€of€opinion€testimony€where€ð ðthe€underlying€facts€orÏdata€indicate€lack€of€trustworthiness.ðð€€€The€obvious€meaning€of€the€rule€is€that€an€opinion€mayÏbe€excluded€if€it€is€based€upon€facts€which€are€not€adequately€shown€to€be€true.€€DefendantsÏinsist€that€the€disqualifying€untrustworthiness€extends€to€and€includes€untrustworthiness€of€theÏwitness€who€testified€as€an€œexpert.€€This›€Court€has€some€reluctance€to€adopt€this€insistence;Íhowever,€one€qualification€of€an€expert€is€his€reliability€both€as€to€training€and€as€to€honestyÏand€candor€in€expressing€his€opinion.ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€impeachment€of€the€reliability€of€the€opinion€of€Dr.€WorthingtonÏconsisted€of€the€following:ÌÌà àThe€affidavit€of€Dr.€Worthington€(which€precipitated€the€first€order€overrulingÏdefendantððs€motion€for€summary€judgment)€stated:ÌÓÓà àà à€€€€I€€am€€familiar€with€the€standard€of€medical€care€for€€myÌà àà àmedical€€specialty€in€Nashville,€Tennessee.€€€By€experienceÌà àà àand€€training,€I€am€familiar€with€the€accepted€€standards€ofÌà àà àprofessional€€€practice€€€for€€€a€€€physician,€€€practicing€€€the€Ìà àà àspecialty€of€emergency€medicine,€in€the€care€and€treatment€Ìà àà àof€a€patient€like€Matthew€Seffernick€in€June€of€1992.€ÌÌà àà à€€€€That€€I€€have€€received€€the€€medical€records€concerningÌà àà àMatthew€€€Seffernick€€€from€€€the€€Saint€€Thomas€€Hospital€Ìà àà àemergency€€€room,€€€€Ambulatory€€€€Care€€€€of€€€€Tennessee,€Ìà àà àOpthalamic€Associates€Care€Center€and€John€Hoskins,€MD.Ìà àà àI€have€also€reviewed€Dr.€Yarbroughððs€September€24,€1993,€Ìà àà àAffidavit.ÌÌà àà à€€€€From€€my€review€of€these€records€and€this€affidavit,€it€is€Ìà àà àclear€to€me€within€a€reasonable€degree€of€medical€certainty€Ìà àà àthat€€Barry€€E.€Yarbrough,€M.D.€fell€below€the€standard€of€Ìà àà àcare€€in€€his€€care€€and€€treatment€of€Matthew€Seffernick€on€Ìà àà àJune€27,€1992,€in€Nashville,€Tennessee.€That€this€deviationÌà àà àfrom€€the€€standard€€of€€care€by€Barry€E.€Yarbrough,€M.D.,€Ìà àà àproximately€€€resulted€€in€€Mr.€€Seffernick€€€suffering€€€from€Ìà àà àendopthalimitis€€of€€the€€right€€eye€€which€resulted€in€retinal€Ìà àà àdetachment€surgery€and€the€loss€of€sight€in€this€eye.ÌÌà àà à€€€€That€€Barry€€E.€€Yarbrough,€€M.D.,€€specifically€deviated€Ìà àà àfrom€the€standard€of€care€in€his€treatment€of€Mr.€Seffernick€Ìà àà àby€€failing€€to€€set€€Mr.€€Seffernick€an€appointment€to€return€Ìà àà àwithin€24€hours€for€an€examination€to€ascertain€if€there€wasÌà àà àan€€infection€€occurring€€or€€if€€the€€damage€to€the€eye€was€Ìà àà àclearing.€€Had€this€been€done,€it€would€have€been€obvious€Ìà àà àthat€€Mr.€€Seffernick€€sustained€€an€€infection.€€This€would€Ìà àà àhave€€allowed€€for€€proper€€care€€and€would€have€kept€Mr.€Ìà àà àSeffernick€from€sustaining€the€injury€he€sustained.ÌÌà àà à€€€€That€Barry€E.€Yarbrough,€M.D.,€€specifically€€deviated€Ìà àà àfrom€€€the€€€standard€€€of€€€care€€€in€€his€€treatment€€of€€Mr.€Ìà àà àSeffernick€€by€€failing€€to€€place€€the€patient€on€GaramycinÌà àà àOintment€€and€€patch€€the€€eye€overnight€in€which€case€the€Ìà àà àointment€would€have€worked€longer€and€provided€a€moreÌà àà àcontinuous€€coverage€over€several€hours€than€the€solutionÌà àà àBarry€€E.€€Yarbrough,€€M.D.€€used.€€€Barry€E.€Yarbrough,€Ìà àà àM.D.€€failed€€to€€prescribe€€the€€use€€of€€the€€solution€on€anÌà àà àevery€€four€€hour€€basis€€until€€the€€patient€€returned€for€re„Ìà àà àexamination€€the€€next€€day.€€€That€if€€Barry€E.€Yarbrough,Ìà àà àM.D.,€had€treated€Mr.€Seffernick€in€this€fashion,€MatthewÌà àà àSeffernick€€would€€not€€have€suffered€the€resulting€injuriesÌÓÓà àà àthat€he€sustained.Ìà àà à€€€€Ìà àDefendantsðð€brief€cites€a€subsequent€deposition€of€Dr.€Worthington€which€is€not€foundÏin€the€record.€€The€record€contains€a€document€entitled€ð ðNotice€of€Filingðð€which€containsÏpurported€excerpts€from€said€deposition,€but€the€document€cannot€be€œconsidered€as€evidence›€inÏsupport€of€the€second€motion€for€summary€œjudgment€because€it€contains€no€affidavit€asÏrequired€by€T.R.C.P.€Rules€30.03€and€56.05.›ÌÌà àDefendants€also€allege€the€conviction€of€Dr.€Worthington€in€a€federal€case€evidenced€byÏcitation€to€the€published€report€of€the€opinion€of€the€appellate€court€in€that€case.€€PublishedÏopinions€of€appellate€courts€are€not€competent€evidence€of€the€facts€stated€therein.€€If€the€resultÏof€the€case€is€material,€it€may€be€proven€by€a€certified€copy€of€the€judgment.ÌÌà àWithout€competent€evidence€to€impeach€the€witness,€the€summary€judgment€is€withoutÏsupport€and€must€be€reversed.ÌÌÌÌÌà àThe€summary€judgment€of€dismissal€is€reversed€and€vacated.€€The€cause€is€remanded€toÏthe€Trial€Court€for€further€proceedings€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€against€the€defendants„appellees.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓÔ€¼Ôà àREVERSED,€VACATED€AND€REMANDEDÔ€XÔó óÌÓÓÓ  ÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœBEN€H.€CANTRELL,›€JUDGE