ÿWPC³ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ U,- 0dY U,½ U>é B)'DCP AM“U*à B #'v~JvÓÈ D3› 0@Î AOÆ] 0D# D/g B–˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- ›EœEžŸE ¡ue¢D£Ó€­Gav 3|x­2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial d Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌApril€26,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ћрÑÑ7€fHXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑœTHERESA›€œSTANBURY›€and€spouse,à à)ÌJOHN€H.€œSTANBURY›,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellees,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€First€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€œ93C›„1265ÌœVS›.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„9509„CV„00420ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€#&";+'h|` ç `€€Lß›BRIAN€E.€œBACARDI›€and€HOSPITALà à)ÌCORPORATION€OF€AMERICA,€d/b/aà à)ÌCENTENNIAL€MEDICAL€CENTER,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellants.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€FIRST€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àHONORABLE€HAMILTON€V.€œGAYDEN›,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌHelen€S.€RogersÌJONES,€ROGERS€&€œFITZPATRICK›ÌSuite€1550€œSunTrust›€Bank€BuildingÌ201€Fourth€Avenue,€NorthÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219ÌATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEESÌÌÌœLela›€M.€œHollabaugh›ÌœMANIER›,€HEROD,€œHOLLABAUGH›€&€SMITHÌFirst€Union€Tower,€Suite€2200Ì150€Fourth€Avenue,€NorthÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219„2494ÌATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTSÌÌÌREVERSED,€DISMISSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGE,€CONCURS,ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE,€FILES€SEPARATE€OPINION€CONCURRING€INÏPART€AND€DISSENTING€IN€PART.ÌÇTHERESA€œSTANBURY›€and€spouse,à à€)ÌJOHN€H.€œSTANBURY›,à àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellees,à àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àDavidson€First€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àNo.€€œ93C›„1265ÌœVS›.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„9509„CV„00420ÌBRIAN€E.€œBACARDI›€and€HOSPITALà à€)ÌCORPORATION€OF€AMERICA,€d/b/aà à€)ÌCENTENNIAL€MEDICAL€CENTER,à à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àDefendants/Appellants.à àà à€)ÌÌÌà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÓÓà àÌà àThe€defendant,€Brian€E.€œBacardi›,€has€appealed€from€a€jury€verdict€and€judgmentÏawarding€plaintiff,€Theresa€œStanbury›,€$211,000€and€her€husband,€John€H.€œStanbury›,Ï$10,000,€as€damages€for€alleged€malpractice€in€surgery€and€treatment€of€Mrs.€œStanbury›.€€TheÏother€captioned€defendant,€Hospital€Corporation€of€America,€was€dismissed€by€nonsuit€and€isÏnot€involved€in€this€appeal.ÌÌà àThe€sole€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€plaintiffsðð€suit€is€barred€by€the€one€year€medicalÏmalpractice€statute€of€limitations,€T.C.A.€ðð29„26„116.ÌÌà àThe€patient€first€saw€defendant€on€November€22,€1991.€€On€December€11,€1991,Ïdefendant€performed€the€following€surgical€procedures€on€both€feet€of€the€patient:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(a)€œtranspositional›€osteotomy€fifth€metatarsal€with€internalÏfixation€bilateral;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(b)€arthroplasty€proximal€interphalangeal€joint€third,€fourth€andÏfifth€bilateral;ÌÌà8 àà8 àðð€œexostectomy›€remodeling€distal€medial€fifth€bilateral;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(d)€middle€phalangectomy€fourth€bilateral;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(e)€flex€œortenotomy›€third,€fourth€and€fifth€bilateral;€and€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(f)€tenoplasty€extensor€œdigitorus›€longus€bilateral.ÌÌÓÓà àOn€December€20,€1991,€the€surgical€dressings€were€removed€from€the€patientððs€feetÏand€she€was€able€to€observe€the€outward€evidence€of€the€procedures€performed€on€December€Ï11,€1991.€€The€patient€was€seen€by€defendant€on€January€10,€1992,€January€17,€1992,ÏFebruary€14,€1992,€and€March€17,€1992.€€On€April€3,€1992,€defendant€performed€a€furtherÏsurgical€procedure€to€correct€a€misalignment€of€the€fifth€toe€on€the€right€foot.€€On€May€5,€1992,Ïdefendant€removed€the€sutures€from€the€site€of€the€surgery€and€informed€the€patient€that€thereÏwas€nothing€further€he€could€do€to€relieve€her€problems.ÌÌà àThis€suit€was€filed€on€April€30,€1993.€€The€complaint€alleged€deviation€from€theÏrecognized€standard€of€acceptable€medical€practice€in€the€following€particulars:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àA.€€Negligently€recommending€surgery€to€the€plaintiff€whichÏwas€not€indicated,€given€her€signs,€symptoms€and€physicalÏcondition;ÌÌà8 àà8 àB.€€Failing€to€obtain€the€plaintiffððs€informed€consent€to€theÏsurgery€performed€on€December€11,€1991;ÌÌà8 àà8 àC.€€Negligently€performing€the€surgical€procedures€on€DecemberÏ11,€1991€and€April€3,€1992;ÌÌà8 àà8 àD.€€Performing€unnecessary€surgery€on€December€11,€1991€andÏApril€3,€1992;€ÌÌà8 àà8 àE.€€Negligently€providing€post„surgical€care€including€the€failureÏto€maintain€antiseptic€techniques;ÌÌà8 àà8 àF.€€Negligently€causing€an€infection€to€Theresa€œStanbury›ððs€feetÏby€ignoring€basic€principles€of€antiseptic;ÌÌà8 àà8 àG.€€Ignoring€the€patientððs€complaints€of€pain€and€infection;ÌÌà8 àà8 àH.€€Intentionally€and€falsely€preparing€his€office€notes€with€theÏintent€to€conceal€from€the€plaintiff€and€anyone€else€her€trueÏcondition€and€result.ÌÌÌÓÓà àDefendantsðð€answer€included€the€affirmative€defense€of€statute€of€limitations.ÌÌà àThe€Trial€Court€submitted€to€the€jury€several€issues€of€fact,€including€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à3(a)€Did€the€defendant,€Brian€œBacardi›,€deviate€from€theÏrecognized€standard€of€care€for€podiatrists€in€this€community€by€ÌÌà8 àà8 ànegligently€performing€the€surgical€procedures€on€December€11,Ï1991,€and/or€April€3,€1992,€on€the€plaintiff,€Theresa€œStanbury›?ÌÌÌÓÓà àAs€to€this€question€the€foreman€of€the€jury€asked€the€following€question€and€the€TrialÏJudge€responded€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àMR.€ROBINSON:€I€think€the€misunderstanding€is€are€we€toÏdecide€on€that€question,€whether€or€not€during€the€actual€surgeryÏitself,€was€a€mistake€made?ÌÌà8 àà8 àTHE€COURT:€Okay.€€Thatððs€what€I€thought€you€meant.€€No,Ïthatððs€not€part€of€the€lawsuit.€€Okay.€€The€lawsuit,€ð ðnegligentððÏrefers€to€other€acts€of€alleged€malpractice.€€But€as€far€as€theÏoperation€itself,€thatððs€not€part€of€the€lawsuit.€€ÌÌÌÓÓà àOn€February€14,€1995,€the€Trial€Court€entered€a€ð ðFinal€Decreeðð€reciting:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€.€.€.€After€deliberating€on€February€1€and€2,€1995,€the€juryÏreturned€a€verdict€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff,€Theresa€œStanbury›,€onÏthe€issues€of€recommending€and€performing€unnecessaryÏsurgery,€lack€of€informed€consent€and€negligently€performingÏsurgery,€and€awarded€Theresa€œStanbury›€compensatory€damagesÏof€Two€Hundred€Eleven€Thousand€($211,000.00)€Dollars.€€TheÏjury€also€returned€a€verdict€for€the€plaintiff,€John€œStanbury›,€forÏhis€claim€for€loss€of€consortium€in€the€amount€of€Ten€ThousandÏ($10,000.00)€Dollars.€.€.€.ÌÌÌÓÓJudgment€was€entered€accordingly.ÌÌà àOn€February€24,€1995,€the€Trial€Court€entered€an€order€containing€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€.€.€.€At€the€close€of€the€plaintiffððs€case€in€chief,€the€defendantÏmoved€for€a€directed€verdict€on€the€entire€cause€on€the€groundsÏthat€the€plaintiffððs€cause€of€action€was€barred€by€the€one€yearÏstatute€of€limitations€of€the€Tennessee€Medical€Malpractice€Act.€ÏDefendantððs€Motion€for€Directed€Verdict€was€denied€and€theÏCourt€held€that€as€a€matter€of€law,€plaintiffððs€claim€was€notÏbarred€by€the€Statute€of€Limitations€of€the€Medical€MalpracticeÏAct.Ìà8 àà8 àÌà8 àà8 à€€Further,€defendant€moved€for€a€directed€verdict€on€theÏfollowing€issues:ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à1.€€Negligently€providing€post„surgical€care,€includingÏthe€failure€to€maintain€antiseptic€techniques;ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à2.€€Negligently€causing€an€infection€to€TheresaÏœStanbury›ððs€feet€by€ignoring€basic€principles€of€antiseptic;ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à3.€€Ignoring€the€patientððs€complaints€of€pain€andÏinfection;ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à4.€€Intentionally€and€falsely€preparing€his€office€notesÏwith€the€intent€to€conceal€from€the€plaintiff€and€anyone€else€herÏtrue€condition€and€result.€€The€Court€was€of€the€opinion€thatÏdefendantððs€Motion€for€Directed€Verdict€on€these€issues€wasÏwell€taken.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€Defendant€also€moved€for€a€directed€verdict€on€the€issue€ofÏnegligently€performing€the€surgical€procedures€on€December€11,Ï1991€and€April€3,€1992.€€The€Court€was€of€the€opinion€thatÏdefendantððs€motion€on€this€issue€was€not€well€taken€and€wasÏoverruled.€€ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€At€the€close€of€all€of€the€proof,€the€defendant€moved€forÏdirected€verdict€on€the€grounds€that€plaintiff€failed€to€presentÏcompetent€expert€testimony€concerning€the€standard€of€care€forÏpodiatrists€practicing€in€the€Nashville,€Davidson€CountyÏcommunity€during€the€years€1991€and€1992.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€The€Court€was€of€the€opinion€that€this€motion€was€not€wellÏtaken€and€it€was€denied.ÌÌÌÓÓà àOn€appeal€to€this€Court,€defendant€states€the€issue€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€Whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€denying€defendantððs€motionÏfor€directed€verdict€on€the€statute€of€limitations€and€holding€as€aÏmatter€of€law€that€plaintiffsðð€cause€of€action€was€not€time€barred.ÌÌÌÓÓà àIt€is€undisputed€that€this€suit€was€filed€more€than€a€year€after€all€services€rendered€byÏdefendant€except€the€final€office€visit€on€May€5,€1992.€€Nevertheless,€plaintiffs€insist€that€theÏstatute€of€limitations€had€not€expired€on€April€30,€1993,€when€this€suit€was€filed,€upon€theoriesÏof€continuing€treatment€and€fraudulent€concealment.€€In€support€of€these€theories,€plaintiffs€citeÏthe€following:Ìà à1.€€Defendant€continued€to€treat€Mrs.€œStanbury›€to€and€including€May€5,€1992,€when€heÏremoved€the€sutures€from€her€last€surgery.€€Ìà à2.€€On€May€5,€1992,€defendant€told€the€patient€that€healing€would€take€about€a€year.€€InÏthis€respect,€Mrs.€œStanbury›€testified:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€Q.€€Did€Dr.€œBacardi›€talk€to€you€about€how€long€it€was€going€toÏtake€you€to€recover€after€he€did€surgery€on€your€right€toe?ÌÌÌà8 àà8 à€€A.€€Only€at€the€last€visit€where€he€decided€that€I€wasnððt€pleasedÏwith€it€so€he€didnððt€like€my€response€and€he€just€said,€ð ðYouððveÏgot€to€give€it€at€least€a€year€and€then€worry€about€it.ððÌÌà8 àà8 à€.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€Q.€€Now,€at€this€last€office€visit,€did€you€complain€to€Dr.ÏœBacardi›€about€what€was€going€on?ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€A.€€Oh,€yes.€€Of€course.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€Q.€€And€what€did€he€tell€you€about€what€to€expect€from€yourÏfeet?ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€A.€€He€said€that€I€was€trying€to€resolve€something€that€neededÏmore€time.€€Needed€time.€€To€give€yourself€a€year€and€see€whatÏyou€feel€after€that.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€Q.€€Well,€was€there€any€length€of€time€mentioned€or€anyÏindication€given€by€him€of€how€long€you€were€going€to€be€off€Ïwork?ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€A.€€Not€until€after€everything€was€done.€€When€he€said€heÏcouldnððt€do€nothing€for€me€he€said,€ð ðGive€it€a€year€and€see€ifÏyouððre€happy€then.ððÌÌÌÓÓà àDefendant€testified€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€Q.€€Dr.€œBacardi›,€youððre€telling€the€jury€from€here€to€here€isÏstraight?ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€A.€€I€also€said€that€the€digit€is€bandaged€purposely€in€someÏover„correction€at€the€time€of€surgery,€and€thatððs€routine€with€theÏlittle€toe,€because€they€do€tend€to€pull€back€in€towards€the€fourth.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€Sometimes€we€get€that€pulling€in€of€the€fifth€toe€towards€theÏfourth€toe€down€the€road,€a€half€year€or€a€year€later.€€Thatððs€notÏunusual.€€And€what€we€do€during€the€surgery€is€to€bandage€thatÏtoe€in€a€little€over„correction€purposely.€€And€as€time€goes€on,Ïyou€will€see€the€toe€remains€straight.ÌÌÌÓÓà àNo€other€evidence€is€cited€or€found€which€would€defeat€the€defense€of€statute€ofÏlimitations.ÌÌÌÌà àT.C.A.€Section€29„26„116€provides€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò òStatute€of€limitations.€€„€Counterclaim€for€damages.€„€ó ó€Ï(a)€(1)€The€statute€of€limitations€in€malpractice€actions€shall€beÏone€(1)€year€as€set€forth€in€ðð€28„3„104.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€(2)€In€the€event€the€alleged€injury€is€not€discovered€within€theÏsaid€one€(1)€year€period,€the€period€of€limitation€shall€be€one€(1)Ïyear€from€the€date€of€such€discovery.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€(3)€In€no€event€shall€any€such€action€be€brought€more€thanÏthree€(3)€years€after€the€date€on€which€the€negligent€act€orÏomission€occurred€except€where€there€is€fraudulent€concealmentÍon€the€part€of€the€defendant€in€which€case€the€action€shall€beÏcommenced€within€one€(1)€year€after€discovery€that€the€cause€ofÏaction€exists.ÌÌÌÓÓà àð ðDiscoveryðð€means€the€discovery€of€the€existence€of€a€right€of€action,€that€is,€factsÏwhich€would€support€an€action€for€tort€against€the€œtortfeasor›.€€Such€facts€include€not€only€theÏexistence€of€an€injury,€but€the€tortious€origin€of€the€injury.€€òòHathaway€v.€Middle€Tenn.ÏAnaesthesiology,€óóTenn.€App.€1986,€724€œS.W.2d›€355.ÌÌà àThis€rule€was€previously€followed€by€Tennessee€Courts,€òòTeeters€v.€Curry,€óóTenn.Ï1974,€518€œS.W.2d›€512,€93€œA.L.R.3rd›€207;€but€was€codified€by€the€quoted€section€of€theÏCode.€€òòœHoush›€v.€Morris,€óóTenn.€App.€1991,€818€œS.W.2d›€39.ÌÌà àThe€gravamen€of€plaintiffsðð€action€is€that,€on€December€11,€1991,€defendant€performedÏsurgery€negligently,€without€actual€or€informed€consent,€and€without€advising€the€patient€of€theÏlengthy€recovery€period€to€follow€the€surgery.€€The€evidence€is€uncontradicted€that€plaintiffsÏdiscovered€or€should€have€discovered€facts€supporting€each€of€these€complaints€more€than€aÏyear€prior€to€the€institution€of€this€suit€on€April€30,€1993.ÌÌà àAs€stated€above,€the€complaint€alleged€the€performance€of€unnecessary€surgery.€€ThereÏis€expert€evidence€that€at€least€some€of€the€surgery€was€unnecessary,€but€the€claim€for€same€isÏbarred€unless€saved€by€the€ð ðdiscovery€rule.ðð€€No€evidence€is€cited€or€found€that€plaintiff€did€notÏdiscover€or€should€not€reasonably€discovered€that€the€surgery€was€unnecessary€at€least€oneÏyear€before€this€suit€was€filed.€€The€brief€of€appellee€does€not€rely€upon€this€aspect€of€the€rule.ÌÌà àThere€is€no€evidence€that€any€fact€necessary€to€support€plaintiffsðð€suit€was€fraudulentlyÏconcealed€from€them€at€such€a€time€and€under€such€circumstances€as€would€extend€the€statutoryÏtime€for€bringing€suit€until€April€30,€1993.ÌÌà àPlaintiffs€rely€upon€the€ð ðcontinuing€treatment€doctrine.ðð€€In€òòœFrazor›€v.€Osborne,€óó57ÏTenn.€App.€10;€414€œS.W.2d›€118€(1966),€a€surgeon€left€a€surgical€sponge€imbedded€in€theÏpatient€and€thereafter€continued€to€treat€the€unhealed€incision€without€probing€the€incision€for€aÏforeign€object.€€The€Trial€Court€directed€a€verdict€for€the€surgeon€on€the€ground€of€the€statuteÏof€limitations.€€This€Court€reversed€and€remanded€for€a€new€trial€stating:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€Bearing€in€mind€that€there€is€evidence€in€this€case€to€indicateÏthat€the€professional€relationship€between€the€decedent€and€theÏdefendant,€Dr.€J.€W.€Osborne,€did€not€cease€until€the€discoveryÏof€the€imbedded€sponge€in€May,€1961,€or€sometime€after€that,€itÏis€our€view€that€the€evidence€is€such€that€the€question€of€whetherÏor€not€this€professional€relationship€did€continue€until€within€oneÏyear€of€the€filing€of€the€suit€is€one€that€should€have€beenÏsubmitted€to€the€jury,€and,€if€found€by€the€jury€that€saidÏrelationship€continued€until€within€the€statutory€period€of€oneÏyear,€the€question€of€liability€for€negligence€would€have€been€forÏthe€jury€to€decide.ÌÌòòœFrazor›,€óó57€Tenn.€App.€at€20.ÌÌÓÓIn€òòœFrazor›,€óóthe€negligence€included€failure€to€discover€the€cause€of€the€unhealed€wound.€€SoÏlong€as€Dr.€Osborne€continued€as€the€treating€physician,€his€duty€to€discover€and€his€failure€toÏdiscover€continued.€€Thus,€under€the€circumstances€of€òòœFrazor›,€óóthe€continuance€of€the€physicianÏrelationship€resulted€in€the€continuance€of€the€negligent€failure€to€discover€the€sponge.ÌÌà àNo€such€set€of€circumstances€are€shown€in€the€present€case.€€The€professionalÏrelationship€did€continue,€but€there€is€no€evidence€that€the€negligence,€if€any,€of€defendantÏcontinued€into€the€one€year€period€preceding€the€filing€of€this€suit.€€The€only€professionalÍservices€rendered€within€one€year€preceding€suit€was€the€removal€of€sutures€on€May€5,€1993;Ïand€there€is€no€showing€of€any€negligence€in€the€removal€of€the€sutures,€or,€for€that€matter,€inÏthe€performance€of€the€last€surgery€on€April€3,€1992,€which€included€the€insertion€of€theÏsutures€which€were€removed€on€May€5,€1992.ÌÌà àThe€opinion€in€òòœFrazor›óó€contains€some€language€which€may€be€interpreted€as€supportingÏa€rule€that€no€statute€of€limitations€or€malpractice€begins€to€run€until€the€termination€of€theÏdoctor„patient€relationship.€€This€Court€does€not€so€interpret€such€language€which€referred€onlyÏto€breach€of€duties€(such€as€duty€to€discover)€which€continued€so€long€as€the€physicianÏcontinued€to€treat€the€disorder€which€resulted€from€the€continued€failure€to€discover€the€cause.ÌÌà àMoreover,€since€the€recognition€of€the€continuing€treatment€doctrine€in€òòœFrazor›,€óóitsÏapplicability€has€been€eroded€or€entirely€eliminated€by€the€above€cited€statute€and€subsequentÏdecisions.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòœHoush›€v.€Morris,€supra,€óóthis€Court€affirmed€a€summary€judgment€dismissing€aÏmedical€malpractice€suit€and€said:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€Since€the€holding€in€òòœFrazor›,€óóour€courts€have€adopted€andÏcontinuously€applied€the€ð ðdiscovery€rule.ðð€€This€rule€is€codifiedÏand€made€applicable€to€malpractice€actions€by€T.C.A.€ðð€29„26„116.€€The€present€action€is€governed€by€T.C.A.€ðð€29„26„116.ÌÌÌÓÓà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€this€Court€finds€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€failing€to€directÏa€verdict€for€the€defendant€on€the€ground€of€the€bar€of€the€statute€of€limitations.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€in€favor€of€both€plaintiffs€is€reversed€and€vacated,€andÏplaintiffsðð€suit€is€dismissed€at€their€cost.€€The€cause€is€remanded€to€the€Trial€Court€for€entry€inÏconformity€with€this€opinion€and€such€other€proceedings€as€may€be€necessary.Ì̛̜à àReversed,€Dismissed€and€Remanded.ÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌÌ_____________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGE,€CONCURSÌÌÌÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE,€FILES€SEPARATEÌOPINION€CONCURRING€IN€PART€AND€DISSENTING€IN€PART.