ÿWPCÜ! ¨’>ÃÂØX/×&ìÖ—™ñMÉJ&%œ…Ñ c '¨{Ò9T"í±œaZN¼06_”³cÿýISÂvñ.Á²áå‰dyB“¿Ð1È‹$,æù H.ºø^2¨Ë:8•J’Nd¹=UÌùRíµ†²ï\?`¿ñ[Q·åŽ§F>†y¨çåÝﶟ[@€™ŠùP¹‚Y/Ap*¯dÀ¾YVGkD¡c0 hÍ-ð§ Ù]Wƒaþ§TÓ\öŒü_¨·”!¹ Ýš§SÉ;ÛÊ¡è ¡r3âƒý©²@ìÓΙÊ!_¦j톎>Y¤þÉÿäÁšƒ_+ÀIÕ%rBƒk]¾ù=«\5‰ãS¿ c¾$P×47ù[‘Ò¢¬X~ÓÝÂNüc"mÝšVGžXBÓ/¨X±/âƒ7ûù9mìÃ\RkV÷_%¶áΆF’CÿLЩ*Ó†ÏÓ­N”Rh¥%0eû 4Ò‡j Ÿ³&>pï²êF€°Ý*¨[v ™³Ë±/åG`ŽÌŽ]séÃWÏäÕõ4ö*£’sÕü·²(‡Ú Öä,¤s ‚^¦"ÆœYrõ•~3wí¯\–p㣇¡°í»Ó²ÓŠÆ8ÉCd#!xUN™ %ç 0(íw 4 - < V b^ :f N  0P¢ ^ ò þ m 1‡ 0cž 0w 0Šx 0  0´¢ 0ÇV 0Û 0ïø 1uç 0¤\ 72U@2UNrÀÀ 0D€Ä®Ì×zzzQU:fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff 0D      Bää D5 A6 D?· BGö AQ= ÆŽ 0DT! 0D˜!˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡tpO'tttttt3|xwaiver- ù- 0Ñ#€O@Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € Ñ((3/Q$««Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ d Ô›nZ'L ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀhX@CEIMQUY]aAutoList1$$$$$$$$i)1)a)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b·¤$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xir$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÜ$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(ŸF$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³Àô$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(ǵ{$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à##37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(T(2¦#$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ  ÑÑÑà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóói)ô\  `(Times NewRomanTT(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ¶Ý ƒ¦#$ÝÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ @ ÑÑ@Ñà Ø àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€his€answer,€Husband€also€claimed€that€Wifeððs€lawsuit€was€part€of€a€continuedÐ ° Ðpattern€of€maliciousness€and€harassment€on€Wifeððs€part.€Statements€in€support€of€this€claimÐ œì Ðand€statements€in€Husbandððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€and€an€affidavit€filed€in€supportÐ ˆØ Ðthereof€have€been€included€in€Husbandððs€brief€in€this€appeal.€That€inclusion€is€the€basis€of€aÐ tÄ Ðmotion€to€strike€specific€sentences€from€Husbandððs€brief€filed€by€Wife.€Wifeððs€motion€toÐ `° Ðstrike€asserts€that€the€specified€sentences€should€be€stricken€under€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27Ð L œ Ðbecause€they€are€not€relevant€to€the€issues€in€this€appeal€and€under€Tenn.€R.€App.€13(c)Ð 8 ˆ Ðbecause€they€are€not€evidence.€Having€fully€considered€Wifeððs€motion,€the€response€thereto,Ð $ t Ðand€the€record€herein,€we€deny€the€motion.€However,€this€Courtððs€decision€as€set€out€in€thisÐ  ` Ðopinion€is€based€only€upon€the€evidence€in€the€record.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó  ¤Ý ƒ¦#$ÝÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ @ ÑÑ@Ñà Ø àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔTenn.Ô_Ô€Ô_ÔR.Ô_Ô€Civ.€P.€35€provides€that:€€Ð ° Ðà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àWhen€the€mental€or€physical€condition€(including€the€bloodÐ œì Ðgroup)€of€a€party,€or€of€a€person€in€the€custody€or€under€theÐ ˆØ Ðlegal€control€of€a€party,€is€in€controversy,€the€court€in€whichÐ tÄ Ðthe€action€is€pending€may€order€the€party€to€submit€to€aÐ `° Ðphysical€or€mental€examination€by€a€suitably€licensed€orÐ L œ Ðcertified€examiner€or€to€produce€for€examination€the€person€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðcustody€or€legal€control.€The€order€may€be€made€only€onÐ $ t Ðmotion€for€good€cause€shown€and€upon€notice€to€the€person€toÐ  ` Ðbe€examined€and€to€all€parties€and€shall€specify€the€time,Ð ü L  Ðplace,€manner,€conditions,€and€scope€of€the€examination€andÐ è 8  Ðthe€person€or€persons€by€whom€it€is€to€be€made.€€ÓÓÐÔ$ 0 ¤0 ¤ Ð ÍÝ ƒ¦#$ÝÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ @ ÑÑ@Ñà Ø àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡¼2ä»XXÔ€€Ô#†Xy(X»¼2ä‹#ÔMoreover,€Wifeððs€own€expert€acknowledged€the€possibility€that€Wife€contractedÐ ° Ðthe€disease€prior€to€her€marriage€or€contracted€it€other€than€through€sexual€contact.€€Ô‡¼2ä»XXy(ÔÔ#†Xy(X»¼2ä‹#Ô Ý ƒb¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€'XmãXXXÔÔ€'ýX'XmãÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€'XmãX'ýÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€26,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAxÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý dYYYY)ÿÿ!dxdxT^yúÿ  <<= 8ÀÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ____3 TripledxdCTriple 1+| d d dabTc[Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ'€Ð‡Xè“X°œX'ÓÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ  ÑÑ€ foÑÔ€¼ÏI»XXÔßx€`&[B2.jzÁGÿ`  `€€@ÿEž÷` 8ttxPÖ/( È xßà@  êàò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@{{(êàAT€NASHVILLEó óˆÐ Ä ÐÌÌJUNE€Z.€WILKINSON,à à àà 8 àà  à)Ð üL Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)ÌÓ6€ü(‚X˜‘X€Ð‡Xè“X6Óà Ø àPlaintiff/Appellant,à  à)à  àAppeal€No.Ð  p Ðà Ø àà  à)à  à01A01„9808„CV„00446Ð 2 ‚ Ðv.à Ø àà  à)Ð D ” Ðà Ø àà  à)à  àDavidson€CircuitÐ V¦  ÐGRANT€R.€WILKINSONà  à)à  àNo.€97C„1364Ð h¸  Ðà Ø àà  à)Ìà Ø àDefendant/Appellee.à  à)Ð ŒÜ  Ðà Ø àà  à)ÌÌÌÓ  Óò òCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÐ Ô$ ÐÌÌò òAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURTÐ  \ ÐFOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌó óÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€BARBARA€HAYNES€PRESIDINGÌÓ9°,X‚Xì“X€ü(‚X˜‘X9ÓÌÓ  ÓÌÌNICHOLAS€D.€HAREÌ500€Church€StreetÌ5òòthóó€FloorÐ Ä# ÐNashville,€Tennessee€37219ÌÌATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÌÌÌJOHN€J.€Ô_ÔHOLLINSÔ_Ô,€SR.ÌÔ_ÔHOLLINSÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔWAGSTERÔ_Ô€&€Ô_ÔYARBROUGHÔ_Ô,€P.C.Ì424€Church€Street,€Suite€2210ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219ÌÌATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÌÌò òà@uu#êàAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDó ó€ˆÐ ®1þ,* ÐÌÌà Ø àà ¼ àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÔ_ÔCANTRELLÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_ÔÌCAIN,€J.Ð  D:”52 ÐÑ foÑâ  âÑ8€F<XXdìXXdì8ÑÑ€ Ñâ  âÑ  ÑÔ_Ôà@µµ+êàÔ‡°a-°»¼ÏIÔOPINIONÔ#†¼ÏI»°°a-Ý #ԈР° ÐÓ€ÓÓ9°,X°4ì“X°,X‚Xì“X9Óà  àÌÓ€Óà  àIn€this€personal€injury€case,€Plaintiff€June€Z.€Wilkinson€(ð ðWifeðð)Ð m Ðalleged€that€her€former€husband,€€Defendant€Grant€R.€Wilkinson€(ð ðHusbandðð)Ð A ‘ Ðinfected€her€with€Herpes€Simplex€II.€€€Wife€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€decisions€to€Ð e µ Ðdeny€her€motion€for€a€physical€examination€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€35€and€grant€Ð ‰Ù  ÐHusbandððs€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€€For€the€following€reasons,€we€affirm.Ð ­ý  Ðà  àThe€record€shows€that€the€parties€married€in€July€1978.€€They€had€twoÐ Ñ!  Ðchildren€in€1980€and€1981.€€In€1984,€Wife€ð ðbegan€noticing€a€skin€condition.ðð€€Ð õE ÐBy€1992,€the€outbreaks€had€become€more€severe.€€In€March€1994,€a€NashvilleÐ i Ðdermatologist€informed€Wife€that€her€skin€condition€was€caused€by€the€HerpesÐ = ÐSimplex€II€virus.€€€This€diagnosis€was€made€during€the€pendency€of€the€partiesððÐ a± Ðdivorce€proceedings.€€Ð …Õ Ðà  àConvinced€that€Husband€had€committed€Ô‡¼P»»¼2äÔadultery€and€infected€her€withÐ ©ù Ðthe€disease,€Wife€amended€her€divorce€complaint€to€assert€such€a€claim.€€WifeÐ ý!M Ðmoved€for€an€order€requiring€that€Husband€submit€to€a€blood€test,€and€the€trialÐ -$} Ðcourt€denied€that€motion.€The€divorce,€which€was€final€in€January€1995,€wasÐ ]&­! Ðgranted€to€Husband€based€upon€the€inappropriate€marital€conduct€of€Wife.€€TheÐ (Ý#! Ðfinal€decree€did€not€mention€the€issue€of€the€blood€test€or€wifeððs€allegations€ofÐ ½* &# Ðinfection€by€Husband.Ð í,=(% Ðà  àAfter€the€divorce€was€final,€Wife€filed€a€personal€injury€action,€allegingÐ /m*' Ðthe€€Herpes„based€cause€of€action.€€During€the€pendency€of€that€lawsuit,€inÐ M1,) ÐDecember€1995,€Husband€voluntarily€submitted€a€blood€sample€for€testing€at€theÐ }3Í.+ ÐUniversity€of€Washington€Medical€Center€Laboratory.€€The€result€was€negative.Ð ­5ý0- ÐHusbandððs€counsel€provided€the€results€of€that€test€to€Wifeððs€counsel€in€JanuaryÐ Ý7-3/ Ðof€1996.€Wife€subsequently€filed€a€motion€for€physical€examination€under€Tenn.Ð  :]51 ÐR.€Civ.€P.€35,€requesting€that€Husband€be€compelled€to€submit€to€another€bloodÐ ° Ðtest.€The€court€denied€that€motion€on€March€29,€1996,€and€Wife€eventuallyÐ à0 Ðdismissed€that€lawsuit.Ô#†¼2ä»»¼PO#ÔÔ‡¼P»»¼2äÔÐ  ` Ðà  àIn€April€1997,€Wife€filed€the€underlying€complaint€grounded€on€herÐ @  Ðcontraction€of€€Herpes.€€€€The€complaint€alleged€battery,€gross€negligence,€simpleÐ p À Ðnegligence,€negligent€infliction€of€emotional€distress€and€outrageous€conductÐ  ð  Ðarising€from€her€contraction€of€the€diseaseÔ#†¼2ä»»¼P#Ô.€Attached€to€the€complaint€was€theÐ Ð  Ðaffidavit€of€a€physician€who€opined€that€the€accuracy€of€the€results€of€the€bloodÐ $t Ðtest€previously€taken€by€Husband€was€medically€suspect€ð ðto€the€extent€that€itÐ H˜ Ðcannot€be€reasonably€relied€upon€for€the€conclusion€contained€therein€that€GrantÐ l¼ ÐR.€Wilkinson€is€not€in€fact€a€carrier€of€Herpes€Simplex€Type€II.ððÐ à Ðà  àHusband€answered€and,€in€addition€to€asserting€certain€defenses,€Ð ´ Ðdenied€that€he€had€Herpes€Simplex€II€virus€and€denied€that€he€infected€Wife€withÐ Ø( Ðthat€virus.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Husband€moved€for€summary€judgment,€arguing€that€blood€test€heÐ ü L Ðhad€undergone€demonstrated€that€he€did€not€have,€and€had€never€had,€€HerpesÐ  #p ÐSimplex€II.€€In€support€of€the€motion,€Husband€offered€affidavits€and€depositionÐ D%”  Ðexcerpts€substantiating€the€regularity€of€the€blood€testing€procedures€which€hadÐ h'¸"  Ðbeen€employed€as€well€as€explaining€the€results€of€the€test.€Ô‡¼P»»¼2äÔTwo€days€afterÐ Œ)Ü$" ÐHusband€moved€for€summary€judgment,€Ô#†¼2ä»»¼Pd#ÔWife€filed€a€motion€for€a€physicalÐ à+0'$ Ðexamination€of€Husband€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€35.Ô‡¼P»»¼2äÔ€€She€sought€a€second€bloodÐ 4.„)& Ðtest,€arguing€that€the€appearance€of€impropriety€rendered€€Husbandððs€first€testÐ ° Ðinvalid.Ô#†¼2ä»»¼PU#Ô€Ô‡¼P»»¼2äÔThe€trial€court€denied€Wifeððs€motion€for€a€physical€examination€andÐ à0 Ðgranted€Husband's€motion€for€summary€judgment.€Wife€appeals.€Ô#†¼2ä»»¼P7#Ô€€Ð 4 „ Ðà  àÔ‡¼P»»¼2äÔà@¦¦-êàI.ˆÐ ˆ Ø Ðà  àWifeððs€expert€opined€that€Wife€probably€contracted€the€virus€aroundÐ ¸   Ðthe€time€she€first€experienced€the€rash€and€visited€a€doctor€in€1984,€although€theÐ è8  Ðsymptoms€had€been€earlier€diagnosed€as€ð ðzosterðð€and€were€first€diagnosed€asÐ h  ÐHerpes€Simplex€II€in€1994.€The€expert€further€opined€that:€Ð H˜ ÐÓÓà8  àIt€is€my€opinion€within€a€reasonable€degree€of€medicalÐ xÈ Ðcertainty,€assuming€plaintiff€did€not€have€the€Herpes€SimplexÐ à ÐType€II€virus€prior€to€her€marriage€to€the€defendant€and€thatÐ ¨ø Ðplaintiff€was€monogamous€during€her€marriage€to€theÐ À Ðdefendant,€that€sexual€contact€with€the€defendant€was€theÐ Ø( Ðmost€likely€cause€of€plaintiffððs€infection€with€the€HerpesÐ ð@ ÐSimplex€Type€II€virus.ÐX Ð  Ð  ÐÌÔ#†¼2ä»»¼P4#ÔÔ‡¼P»»¼2äÔÓÓ€à  àHowever,€the€expert€also€specifically€discussed€a€possible,€althoughÐ 8ˆ Ðrare,€source€of€infection€other€than€sexual€contact.€€Ð h!¸ Ðà  àExperts€for€both€Husband€and€Wife€agree€that€a€properly€conductedÐ ˜#è Ðblood€test€which€reveals€an€absence€of€HSV„II€antibodies€indicates€that€theÐ È%! Ðperson€tested€had€never€acquired€the€virus€and,€therefore,€could€not€transmit€theÐ ø'H#  Ðinfection.€They€also€agree€that€the€Western€Blot€test,€which€was€the€testÐ (*x%" Ðperformed€herein,€was€the€most€appropriate€test€to€use€and€that€the€lab€whichÐ X,¨'$ Ðconducted€the€blood€test€in€this€case€was€the€preeminent,€and€perhaps€only,€labÐ ˆ.Ø)& Ðfor€such€testing.€Ð ¸0,( Ðà  àThus,€there€is€no€real€dispute€in€this€case€as€to€the€effect€of€the€bloodÐ è28.* Ðtest€results€if€those€results€are€valid.€Husband€will€have€demonstrated€that€WifeððsÐ 5h0, Ðclaim€that€he€infected€her€with€the€virus€cannot€be€maintained.€The€real€disputeÐ H7˜2. Ðherein€is€whether€the€results€of€the€blood€test€can€be€relied€upon€because€ofÐ x9È40 Ðvarious€procedural€irregularities€alleged€by€Wife,€related€to€the€taking€orÐ ° Ðhandling€of€the€samples€or€the€manipulation€of€the€results€and€not€to€theÐ à0 Ðmethodology€actually€employed€in€the€testing.Ð  ` Ðà  àWife€essentially€made€two€allegations€surrounding€the€blood€test:€(1)Ð @  Ðhusband€manipulated€the€samples,€or€at€least€the€possibility€exists€that€heÐ p À Ðmanipulated€them,€and€(2)€Husband€convinced€the€head€of€the€University€ofÐ  ð  ÐWashington€Medical€Center€Laboratory€to€falsify€the€results€of€the€test.€Ð Ð  ÐSpecifically,€she€contended€that€Husband€sent€the€blood€sample€to€the€labÐ P Ðhimself€since€the€Federal€Express€mailing€labels€showed€Husbandððs€name€andÐ 0€ Ðaddress€as€the€sender,€thus€raising€the€specter€of€tampering.€€She€also€suggestedÐ `° Ðirregularity€in€the€fact€that€a€second€blood€sample€had€to€be€taken€and€sent€to€theÐ à Ðlab€since€the€first€sample€arrived€at€the€lab€in€an€unlabeled€vial.€Wife€also€allegedÐ À Ðthat€the€fact€that€Husband€had€called€the€lab€in€Washington€and€talked€to€theÐ ð@ Ðdoctor€in€charge€of€the€blood€sampling€program,€Dr.€Lawrence€Corey,€before€theÐ  !p Ðsamples€were€sent€was€suspicious,€especially€since€Husband€had€lectured€at€theÐ P#  ÐUniversity€of€Washington€and€had€performed€on„site€reviews€there€related€toÐ €%Ð  Ðfederal€grants.Ô#†¼2ä»»¼PO##Ô€€A€note€in€the€records€of€the€doctor€who€examined€Husband€andÐ °'#  Ðhad€the€sample€taken,€Dr.€Denise€Buntin,€stated€that€Husband€had€informed€herÐ *T%" Ðthat€€he€had€spoken€to€Dr.€Corey€ð ðconcerning€the€necessity€for€this€testing."€€€€Ô‡¼P»»¼2äÔÐ (,x'$ Ðà  àWifeððs€expert€opined€in€her€affidavit€that:ÓÓÐ L.œ)& ÐÌà8  àIt€is€my€opinion€that€there€are€several€aspects€of€the€bloodÐ |0Ì+( Ðtest€of€defendant€by€Dr.€Denise€Buntin€and€the€circumstancesÐ ”1ä,) Ðsurrounding€it€that€do€not€comport€with€usual€and€customaryÐ ¬2ü-* Ðprocedure€in€such€a€test;€specifically:€it€is€unusual€for€aÐ Ä3/+ Ðpatient€to€have€personal€contact€with€the€doctor€in€charge€ofÐ Ü4,0, Ðthe€laboratory€which€is€to€perform€the€analysis€of€theÐ ô5D1- Ðpatientððs€blood;€and€is€especially€unusual€for€the€patient€toÐ  7\2. Ðdiscuss€with€that€doctor€allegations€in€a€lawsuit€which€bearÐ $8t3/ Ðon€the€blood€analysis€to€be€performed€by€that€doctor;€it€isÐ <9Œ40 Ðunusual€for€a€patient€having€a€blood€test€to€have€personalÐ ° Ðdiscussion€about€shipping€and€handling€procedures€involvedÐ È Ðin€the€blood€test€with€the€laboratory€which€is€to€perform€theÐ à0 Ðanalysis€of€the€patientððs€blood;€while€it€would€be€completelyÐ øH Ðimproper€for€a€patient€himself€or€herself€to€send€their€ownÐ  ` Ðblood€sample€to€the€laboratory€which€is€to€perform€theÐ ( x Ðanalysis€of€that€blood,€it€is€unusual€for€a€patient€to€be€listedÐ @  Ðas€the€sender€of€a€blood€sample€to€the€laboratory€which€is€toÐ X ¨ Ðdo€the€analysis€of€the€patientððs€blood€when€that€patient€is€notÐ p À Ðin€fact€the€sender.ÐˆØ  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÔ#†¼2ä»»¼P}/#ÔÓë/Óà  àIn€an€affidavit€offered€in€support€of€Husbandððs€motion,€Dr.€Buntin€Ð ¸  Ðstated€that€Husbandððs€blood€samples€were€collected€and€sent€to€the€lab€by€herÐ Ü,  Ðoffice,€although€Husband€had€provided€her€with€containers€and€Federal€ExpressÐ P Ðenvelopes€listing€him€as€the€sender.€€Dr.€Corey€€submitted€an€affidavit€stating€thatÐ $t Ðhe€did€not€know€Husband,€that€he€did€not€recall€any€conversation€with€him,€andÐ H˜ Ðthat€the€blood€sample€was€submitted€ð ðthrough€routine€channels€via€standardÐ l¼ Ðpractices.ððÐ à ÐÔ‡¼P»»¼2äÔà  àThe€record€shows€that€Husband€was€a€pharmacology€professor€at€aÐ ´ Ðlocal€university€whose€duties€had€included€teaching,€research€and€involvementÐ ä!4 Ðin€therapeutic€drug€monitoring.€€Husband€testified€that€he€had€contacted€Dr.Ð $d ÐCorey€six€months€after€Wife€filed€her€first€Herpes€related€claim€because€heÐ D&”! Ðwanted€to€know€how€he€could€clear€his€name.€€On€only€one€occasion,€he€calledÐ t(Ä#! ÐDr.Corey€because€he€had€heard€from€a€colleague€€that€Dr.€Corey€was€the€topÐ ¤*ô%# Ðauthority€on€such€tests.€€Husband€testified€that€Dr.€Corey€told€him€that€ð ðitððsÐ Ô,$(% Ðsimple,€send€a€test,€okay,€if€it€is€positive€you€canððt€tell€who€gave€it€to€whom,€ifÐ /T*' Ðitððs€negative€you€are€clean€and€home€free.ðð€€Husband€stated€that€he€told€Dr.Ð 41„,) ÐCorey€about€his€case€ð ðonly€in€the€vaguest€outlineðð€that€his€former€wife€hadÐ d3´.+ Ðaccused€him€of€giving€her€Herpes.€€Ð ”5ä0- Ðà  àLater,€when€Dr.€Buntinððs€office€inquired€about€the€mechanics€ofÐ Ä73/ Ðsending€the€blood€samples€to€the€laboratory,€Husband€called€the€laboratory€againÐ ô9D51 Ðand€spoke€to€a€technical€person€about€transporting€the€blood€sample.€€HusbandÐ ° Ðalso€testified€that€he€had€never€met€Dr.€Buntin€prior€to€their€first€appointment.€Ð à0 ÐHe€stated€that€he€met€with€the€doctor,€then€a€nurse€technician€took€his€blood,Ð  ` Ðwhile€the€doctor€remained€in€the€room.€€He€testified€that€he€prepared€the€FederalÐ @  ÐExpress€€shipping€label€and€container€for€Dr.€Buntin€because€she€informed€himÐ p À Ðthat€she€did€not€have€containers€in€which€to€ship€the€blood€sample€and€the€dryÐ  ð  Ðice€required€to€transport€the€blood.€€He€paid€for€the€shipping.€€Husband€testifiedÐ Ð  Ðthat€he€handed€the€empty€package€to€a€person€in€Dr.€Buntinððs€office€and€had€noÐ P Ðknowledge€of€the€package€from€that€point.€€€According€to€Husband,€two€daysÐ 0€ Ðlater,€Dr.€Buntinððs€office€informed€Husband€that€the€laboratory€had€refused€toÐ `° Ðprocess€his€blood€because€his€name€was€not€on€the€test€tube€containing€the€bloodÐ à Ðand€they€needed€another€blood€sample.€€A€technician€took€the€second€sample,Ð À Ðand€€Husband€did€not€think€he€even€saw€the€doctor€on€his€second€visit.€HusbandÐ ð@ ÐÔ#†¼2ä»»¼P½8#Ôexplained€that€he€had€prepared€that€shipping€materials€again€for€sending€theÐ  !p Ðblood€sample€to€the€lab€and€provided€the€cold€storage€box€and€the€dry€ice€for€theÐ D#” Ðshipment.€After€the€blood€was€drawn,€he€left€the€office.Ð h%¸  Ðà  à€€Dr.€Buntinððs€affidavit€included€the€following:€Ð Œ'Ü"  ÐÓÓà8  àThe€vials€of€Dr.€Wilkinsonððs€blood€were€sent€to€the€virologyÐ °)%" Ðlaboratory€of€Dr.€Lawrence€Corey€by€my€office€and€not€byÐ Â*&# ÐDr.€Wilkinson.€Dr.€Wilkinson€did€furnish€my€office€with€pre„Ð Ô+$'$ Ðlabeled€containers€to€send€the€blood€to€the€virologyÐ æ,6(% Ðlaboratory€of€Dr.€Lawrence€Corey,€but€the€blood€was€not€sentÐ ø-H)& Ðby€him.€It€was€necessary€to€send€two€different€vials€of€Dr.Ð  /Z*' ÐWilkinsonððs€blood€to€Dr.€Coreyððs€laboratory€because€the€firstÐ 0l+( Ðvial€that€was€sent€was€not€labeled€with€Dr.€Wilkinsonððs€nameÐ .1~,) Ðon€it.€In€neither€instance€did€Dr.€Wilkinson€have€access€to€theÐ @2-* Ðà8@  Ð  Ð àblood€sample€subsequent€to€its€removal€from€him.€.€.à8 @Ä àDr.€Wilkinsonððs€blood€wasÐ R3¢.+ Ðsubmitted€to€the€virology€laboratory€in€a€normal€and€routine€way.Ó]DÓÐ d4´/, Ðà  àÔ‡¼P»»¼2äÔMoreover,€Dr.€Corey€attested€that€he€had€no€memory€of€speaking€toÐ ˆ6Ø1. ÐHusband€and€that,€in€any€event,€Dr.€Corey€had€no€influence€on€how€the€bloodÐ ¸840 Ðsample€was€handled€or€processed.€€Dr.€Corey€also€indicated€that€he€had€neverÐ ° Ðheard€Husband€lecture€and€Husband€was€not€a€personal€friend€or€acquaintance.€Ð à0 ÐDr.€Corey€also€stated,€ð ðOur€laboratory€is€the€premier€reference€laboratory€forÐ  ` ÐHSV€serological€testing€and€we€process€all€specimens€in€accordance€with€allÐ @  Ðrules€and€regulations€of€laboratory€practice.ðð€He€concluded€his€affidavit€with€theÐ p À Ðstatement,€ð ðLet€me€assure€you€that€there€was€in€no€way€any€tampering€of€thisÐ  ð  Ðlaboratory€sample€after€being€received€at€the€University€of€Washington.ððÔ#†¼2ä»»¼PTH#ÔÔ‡¼P»»¼2äÔÐ Ð  ÐÓ  ÓII.Ô#†¼2ä»»¼PîK#ÔÔ‡¼P»»¼2äÔÐ P ÐÓ"LÓà  àÔ#†¼2ä»»¼PTL#ÔWife€argues€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€denying€herÐ 0€ Ðmotion€for€physical€examination€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€35.€€We€disagree.Ð T¤ Ðà  àAs€the€movant,€Wife€had€the€burden€of€showing€good€cause€for€theÐ xÈ Ðsecond€blood€test€she€was€requesting.׃"×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Denials€of€motions€asserted€under€Tenn.Ð œì ÐR.€Civ.€P.€€35€are€reviewed€for€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòSee€Massengale€v.Ð À ÐMassengaleóó,€915€Ô‡¼2ä»»¼2äÔS.W.2dÔ#†¼2ä»»¼2ä O#Ô€818,€820€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€Inòò€BIF,€Inc.€v.€ServiceÐ ä 4 ÐConstr.€Co.,€Inc.óó,€(no€appeal€number€given),€1988€WL€72409€(Tenn.€App.€JulyÐ #X Ð13,€1988)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed)€this€court€discussed€theÐ ,%|  Ðmeaning€of€the€abuse€of€discretion€standard€of€appellate€review€and€stated:Ð P' "  ÐÓÓà8  àThe€standard€conveys€two€notions.€First,€it€indicates€that€theÐ t)Ä$" Ðtrial€court€has€the€authority€to€choose€among€several€legallyÐ †*Ö%# Ðpermissible,€sometimes€even€conflicting,€answers.€Second,€itÐ ˜+è&$ Ðindicates€that€the€appellate€court€will€not€interfere€with€theÐ ° Ðtrial€courtððs€decision€simply€because€it€did€not€choose€theÐ Â Ðalternative€the€appellate€court€would€have€chosen.€(internalÐ Ô$ Ðcitations€omitted).Ðæ6 Ð  Ð  ÐÌòòBIF,óó€1988€WL€72409€at€*2.Ð  Z ÐÌÓÆPÓà  àThe€court€further€stated€that,€ð ðWhen€the€courts€refer€to€an€abuse€ofÐ . ~ Ðdiscretion,€ððthey€are€simply€saying€that€either€discretion€reposed€in€the€lowerÐ R¢  Ðcourt€judge€was€not€exercised€in€conformity€with€applicable€guidelines€or€theÐ vÆ  Ðdecision€was€plainly€against€the€logic€and€effect€of€the€facts€before€the€court.ððððòòÐ šê  ÐId.óó€(quoting€Waltz,òò€Judicial€Discretion€in€the€Admission€of€Evidence€Under€theÐ ¾ ÐFederal€Rules€of€Evidenceóó,€79€Nw.€U.L.€Rev.€1097,€1101€(1984„85)).€€The€òòBIFóóÐ â2 Ðcourt€concluded€that€a€trial€courtððs€discretionary€decisions€should€be€reviewedÐ V Ðunder€a€standard€which€requires€us€to€examine€whether€(1)€the€factual€basis€forÐ *z Ðthe€decision€is€supported€by€sufficient€evidence;€(2)€the€applicable€legalÐ Nž Ðprinciples€were€correctly€identified€and€applied;€and€(3)€the€decision€is€within€theÐ r Ðrange€of€acceptable€alternatives.€€òòSee€idóó.€at€*3.Ð –!æ Ðà  àHere,€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€deny€Wifeððs€motion€was€grounded€onÐ º#  Ða€sufficient€factual€basis.€€The€affidavit€of€Dr.€Buntin€refuted€Wifeððs€accusationÐ Þ%.! Ðthat€Husband€had€submitted€the€blood€samples€to€the€lab.€€Dr.€Coreyððs€swornÐ (R#! Ðstatement€countered€Wifeððs€claim€that€Husband€had€convinced€Dr.€Corey€toÐ &*v%# Ðfalsify€the€labððs€€results.€Wife€presented€only€the€testimony€of€her€expert€thatÐ J,š'% Ðcertain€aspects€of€the€procedures€used€were€ð ðunusual.ðð€Ô‡¼P»»¼2äÔHusbandððs€testimonyÐ n.¾)' Ðexplained€these€purportedly€ð ðunusualðð€circumstances.Ô#†¼2ä»»¼PàY#ÔÔ‡¼P»»¼2äÔ€His€explanations€counterÐ Â0,) Ðeach€charge€of€ð ðunusualnessðð€raised€by€Wifeððs€expert.€€€Here,€it€appears€thatÐ ò2B.+ ÐHusband,€a€professional€scientist,€sought€a€definitive€test€from€the€foremostÐ "5r0- Ðauthority€in€the€field€and€made€inquiries€to€satisfy€himself€on€the€best€way€toÐ R7¢2/ Ðproceed.€€Husbandððs€testimony€makes€it€clear€that€he€was€more€familiar€withÐ ‚9Ò41 Ðtransporting€biological€samples€than€Dr.€Buntin€and€therefore€prepared€theÐ ° Ðnecessary€labels€and€packaging€for€the€shipping€of€his€samples.€€Ð à0 Ðà  àNothing€in€the€record€supports€Wifeððs€assertions€of€improprietyÔ#†¼2ä»»¼P‡Z#ÔÔ‡¼P»»¼2äÔ.€Ô#†¼2ä»»¼PŽ]#ÔWifeððsÐ  ` Ðposition€would€require€the€trial€court€to€disbelieve€the€sworn€testimony€of€Dr.Ð d ´ ÐBuntin€and€Dr.€Corey€in€the€absence€of€any€colorable€evidence€contradictingÐ ˆ Ø Ðtheir€statements.€Having€raised€the€issue€of€the€ð ðunusualnessðð€of€certain€aspectsÐ ¬ü  Ðof€the€testing€procedures,€Wife€had€no€further€evidence€once€that€ð ðunusualnessððÐ Ð  Ðwas€explained€to€the€satisfaction€of€the€trial€court.€We€cannot€say€that€the€trialÐ ôD Ðcourtððs€decision€lacked€a€sufficient€factual€basis.Ô‡¼P»»¼2äÔà @ àÔ#†¼2ä»»¼P'`#ÔÔ‡¼P»»¼2äÔ€Ô#†¼2ä»»¼Pu`#ÔÐ h Ðà  àNor€did€the€trial€court€misidentify€or€misapply€the€appropriate€law.€€TheÐ l¼ Ðlegal€test€to€be€applied,€as€stating€in€Rule€35,€is€that€an€order€requiring€a€party€toÐ à Ðsubmit€to€an€examination€ð ðmay€be€made€only€on€motion€for€good€cause€shown.ððÐ ´ ÐIn€the€absence€of€any€colorable€evidence€that€the€initial€test€was€performedÐ Ø( Ðimproperly,€we€cannot€agree€with€Wife€that€the€trial€court€failed€ð ðto€recognizeÐ ü L Ðthe€evidentiary€dispute€as€to€whether€the€blood€test€was€done€properly.ðð€€Ð  #p ÐComments€by€counsel€and€by€the€court€during€the€hearing€on€Wifeððs€motionÐ D%”  Ðclearly€demonstrate€that€the€court€interpreted€the€issues€and€the€evidenceÐ h'¸"  Ðcorrectly.€Wife€stated€that€her€argument€that€a€new€blood€test€should€be€orderedÐ Œ)Ü$" Ðwas€based€on€ð ðthe€fact€that€his€blood€test€was€not€done€by€the€book.ðð€€The€trialÐ °+'$ Ðcourt€analyzed€the€state€of€the€evidence€supporting€Wifeððs€argument,€observingÐ Ô-$)& Ðthat€her€argument€was€based€entirely€on€her€expertððs€affidavit€which€relied€onÐ ø/H+( Ðassumptions€that€had€been€refuted€by€Husbandððs€evidence.€€In€light€of€the€dearthÐ 2l-* Ðof€evidence€€supporting€Wifeððs€argument,€we€agree€that€wife€did€not€meet€theÐ @4/, Ðrequisite€burden€of€showing€good€cause.€Thus,€the€trial€court€did€not€misidentifyÐ d6´1. Ðor€misapply€the€applicable€law.Ð ˆ8Ø30 Ðà  àFinally,€given€the€state€of€the€evidence,€we€find€the€decision€was€wellÐ ° Ðwithin€the€range€of€acceptable€alternatives.€€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€did€notÐ Ô$ Ðabuse€its€discretion€by€denying€Wifeððs€motion€for€a€physical€examination.Ð øH ÐÐ   l Ðà@XX,êàIII.ˆÐ ° Ðà  àWife€states€that€the€denial€of€her€motion€for€physical€examinationÐ Ô$ Ðviolated€her€due€process€rights.€€€Although€she€quotes€extensively€from€the€stateÐ øH Ðand€federal€constitutions,€Wife€offers€no€argument€and€never€states€the€reasonÐ  l Ðwhy€this€contention€requires€appellate€relief.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7).€€Ð @  Ðà  àAfter€filing€the€Rule€35€motion,€Wife€received€proper€notice€and€theÐ d´  Ðopportunity€to€be€heard.€€òòSee€Phillips€v.€State€Bd.€of€Regentsóó,€863€S.W.2d€45,€50Ð ˆØ  Ð(Tenn.€1993).€Wife€does€not€assert€that€she€was€not€permitted€adequate€time€toÐ ¬ü Ðprepare€for€the€impending€hearing.€€òòSee€Memphis€Light,€Gas€and€Water€Div.€v.Ð Ð  ÐCraftóó,€€436€U.S.€1,€14,€98€S.€Ct.€1554,€1562-63,€56€L.€Ed.€2d€30€(1978).€€€At€aÐ ôD Ðhearing€on€the€matter,€Wife€was€permitted€unrestricted€argument€and€was€notÐ h Ðprohibited€from€presenting€supporting€evidence.€€òòSee€Phillipsóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€50;òòÐ <Œ ÐIn€re€Riggsóó,€612€S.W.2d€461,€465€(Tenn.€App.€1980)€("In€litigation€betweenÐ `° Ðprivate€parties€over€private€rights,€it€is€well-settled€that€due€process€of€lawÐ „ Ô Ðrequires€that€both€notice€and€an€opportunity€to€be€heard€be€given€to€necessaryÐ ¨"ø Ðparties€as€to€the€essentials€of€a€judicial€proceeding.");€òòsee€also€Redd€v.€TennesseeÐ Ì$  ÐDepððt€of€Safety,óó€895€S.W.2d€332,€335€(Tenn.€1995).€€These€facts€and€the€absenceÐ ð&@"  Ðof€any€argument€explaining€this€issue€preclude€us€from€finding€that€Wifeððs€dueÐ )d$" Ðprocess€rights€were€abridged.€The€trial€court€herein€simply€ruled€on€a€motionÐ 8+ˆ&$ Ðallowed€by€the€rules€of€civil€procedure,€and€we€have€held€that€the€trial€courtÐ \-¬(& Ðacted€within€its€discretion.€Wife€has€failed€to€state€a€claim€for€denial€of€dueÐ €/Ð*( Ðprocess.€Ð ¤1ô,* Ðà@RR-êàIV.ˆÐ È3/, Ðà  àWife€maintains€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€Husbandððs€motionÐ ì5<1. Ðfor€summary€judgment.€€She€argues€that€the€validity€of€the€blood€test€remains€aÐ 8`30 Ðdisputed€issue.Ô‡¼P»»¼2äÔ€Wifeððs€lawsuit€is€based€on€her€allegation€that€Husband€infectedÐ ° Ðher€with€the€Herpes€Simplex€II€virus.€Husband€has€responded€by€claiming€heÐ T Ðcould€not€have€so€infected€Wife€because€he€has€never€had€the€virus,€asÐ 4 „ Ðdemonstrated€by€the€results€of€the€blood€test.€Ô#†¼2ä»»¼P}q#ÔÐ d ´ Ðà  àSummary€judgment€is€appropriate€only€when€the€movant€demonstratesÐ ” ä Ðthat€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€remain€to€be€tried,€and€further€shows€that,Ð ¸  Ðunder€the€undisputed€facts,€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matterÐ Ü,  Ðof€law.€€òòSee€White€v.€Lawrenceóó,€975€S.W.2d€525,€528€(Tenn.€1998).€€When€rulingÐ P Ðon€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€court€must€view€the€evidence€in€the€lightÐ $t Ðmost€favorable€to€the€nonmovant,€and€discard€all€countervailing€evidence.€€òòSeeÐ H˜ Ðid.€óóat€529.€€If€there€is€a€dispute€as€to€any€material€fact€or€any€doubt€as€to€theÐ l¼ Ðconclusion€to€be€drawn€from€the€evidence,€the€motion€must€be€denied.€òò€SeeÐ à ÐDooley€v.€Everettóó,€805€S.W.2d€380,€383€(Tenn.€App.€1990).€€€However,€a€partyÐ ´ Ðmay€prevail€on€summary€judgment€by€demonstrating€that€the€nonmoving€partyÐ Ø ( Ðwill€be€unable€to€prove€an€essential€element€of€its€case€because€the€failure€ofÐ ü"L Ðproof€on€an€essential€element€of€a€claim€necessarily€renders€all€other€factsÐ  %p  Ðimmaterial.€òòSee€Alexander€v.€Memphis€Individual€Practice€Ass'nóó,€870€S.W.2dÐ D'”"  Ð278,€280€(Tenn.€1993);€òòsee€also€Byrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€Ô‡¼2ä»»¼2äÔS.W.2dÔ#†¼2ä»»¼2ägx#Ô€208,€213€(Tenn.€1993).€Ð h)¸$" ÐBecause€these€are€solely€legal€determinations,€our€review€of€the€trial€court'sÐ Œ+Ü&$ Ðruling€on€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€is€òòde€novo€óówith€no€presumption€ofÐ °-)& Ðcorrectness.€òò€See€White,óó€975€S.W.2d€at€528-29.€€Ð Ô/$+( Ðà  àThe€record€before€the€trial€court€at€the€time€of€the€summary€judgmentÐ ø1H-* Ðruling€included€the€results€of€Husbandððs€blood€test€which,€even€according€toÐ 4l/, Ðâ âWifeððs€expert,€proved€conclusively€that€Husband€could€not€have€infected€WifeÐ @61. Ðwith€the€virus.׃#×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Wife€presented€no€evidence€to€the€contrary.€Instead,€€Wife€arguesÐ ° Ðâ âthat€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€existed€as€to€the€reliability€of€the€test€results.€Ð Ô$ ÐAssuming€òòarguendo€óóthat€the€material€fact€at€issue€is€the€validity€of€the€test€ratherÐ øH Ðthan€Husbandððs€infection€with€the€disease,€Wifeððs€evidence€simply€does€notÐ  l Ðcreate€a€genuine€issue.€Ð @  Ðà  àThe€evidence€submitted€by€Wife€regarding€the€validity€of€the€blood€testÐ d´  Ðresult€for€purposes€of€the€ð ðgenuine€issueðð€analysis€under€the€summary€judgmentÐ ˆØ  Ðstandard€is€the€same€evidence€she€presented€in€support€of€her€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€35Ð ¬ü Ðmotion.€€That€material€is€set€out€earlier€in€this€opinion.€Essentially,€Wife€hasÐ Ð  Ðpresented€an€expertððs€affidavit€that€the€testing€procedure,€as€she€understood€it,Ð ôD Ðincluded€some€aspects€she€deemed€ð ðunusual.ðð€Husband€presented€evidenceÐ h Ðwhich€explained€those€ð ðunusualðð€aspects.€Ô‡¼P»»¼2äÔHusbandððs€evidence€dispels€the€issuesÐ <Œ Ðof€material€fact€Wife€attempted€to€Ô#†¼2ä»»¼Pí#Ôraise.€€His€explanations€counter€each€chargeÐ à Ðof€ð ðunusualnessðð€raised€by€Wifeððs€expert.€€€Moreover,€the€mere€fact€that€aÐ ä 4 Ðprocedure€is€ð ðunusualðð€does€not€of€itself€raise€a€disputed€issue€of€fact.€€NothingÐ #X Ðin€the€record€supports€Wifeððs€assertions€of€impropriety,€and€her€suspicions€do€notÐ ,%|  Ðcreate€a€genuine€issue€as€to€the€testððs€validity.€Absent€some€evidence€actuallyÐ P' "  Ðraising€€a€disputed€issue€regarding€the€validity€of€the€results€of€Husbandððs€bloodÐ t)Ä$" Ðtests,€we€believe€summary€judgment€was€appropriate.Ð ˜+è&$ Ðà  àThe€question€before€the€trial€court€on€summary€judgment€was€whetherÐ ¼- )& ÐHusband€had€demonstrated€that€Wife€would€be€unable€to€prove€an€essentialÐ à/0+( Ðelement€of€her€claim.€Based€on€the€evidence€before€the€trial€court,€we€affirm€theÐ 2T-* Ðgrant€of€summary€judgment€to€Husband.Ð (4x/, ÐÐ L6œ1. Їà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€and€this€caseÐ ° Ðis€remanded€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€be€necessary.€Costs€of€thisÐ Ô$ Ðappeal€shall€be€taxed€to€Appellant,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€Ð øH ÐÌÓÓà  àà ¼ à_____________________________Ð @  Ðà  àà ¼ àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEÐ R¢  ÐÌCONCUR:Ð vÆ  ÐÌÌ___________________________________Ð ¬ü ÐBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€Ð ¾ ÐPRESIDING€JUDGE€(M.S.)Ð Ð  ÐÌÌ___________________________________Ð V ÐWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ h ÐÌÌÌ