WPC ͇mr29DRe(SՏӪӊ0Z4& e?J7x㇧sX>25dè79ݗUGk+_mhCڴ4_w)Ή֡seK<$wv"Z_0))SW=ve-ߎR[e6CA;hTDgl<񆺜ֲYv:0:@Ɲj1 !Cj(Ηf4\uE6 a:7Ȩ^Tq 9nh0Un8q'iNf{zqJzwwmwzHGO$*{MÙ4ЏsՖz (ͤ,gX-yCcgJ>ܜNɾj Mv8s"}\3WTBkD<_1WKf-9s;-2scE- 4`T V:$b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 0D   a 'UNN;=F ERT0UNb 0 B 0 D3r D- 0K ASp 06 0D AHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0t+s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularQ+:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular RN$      1  (   _ Blankenship wasdecidedonNovember29,1999.  < RN$      2  (   _The madewholedoctrineinTennesseeisgroundedinthebeliefthatthesubrogationrightsofaninsurerare  basedonprinciplesofequityandnaturaljustice.Therefore,beforeaninsurerisentitledtoassertarightofsubrogation, t theinsuredmustfirstbe madewhole,orfullycompensatedfortheirloss. SeeWimberlyv.AmericanCas.Co. ,584 8 S.W.2d200(Tenn.1979).Aninsuredisnotmadewholeiftheinsuredstotalrecoveryfromatortfeasorandinsureris N lessthanthelosssustained. SeeEastwoodv.GlensFallsIns.Co. ,646S.W.2d156,158(Tenn.1983). RN$      3  (   _TheoriginalcomplaintagainstMr.Nowlinsought$5Millionincompensatorydamages.  RN$      4  (   _Appellantraisesasathirdissue: DoestheMay24,2000,amendmenttotheTennCarestatutesetforthin  Tenn.CodeAnn.Sec.715117providethatapersonalinjuryplaintiffsattorneyfeesandcostsaretobedeductedfrom t theStatessubrogationinterestwhentherecordestablishesthattheStateelectedtorepresentitsowninterest[s]and 8 expresslyrejectedrepresentationbytheplaintiffsattorneyinthematter?Wefinditunnecessarytoaddressthisissue L inlightofourdecisioninthiscase,andbecausecounselfortheAppelleestatesthathe isnotseekingareductionin  TCCNssubrogationforworkperformedinsecuringsettlement.(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular  RN$      5  (   _Subsequenttothedecisionin _Blankenship_ ,section715117oftheTennesseeCodewasamendedonMay  24,2000,toincludesection715117(g)(k).Section715117(k)nowstates: Itistheintentionofthegeneral v assemblythatsubsections(g)through(j)beusedinlieuofapplicationofthemadewholedoctrineforanyrecovery : authorizedunderthissection.Tenn.CodeAnn.715117(k)(Supp.2001). - -(|G2N$ !.8A4d XXd8         0  4x d(|3P$ !.8A4d XXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3P$ !.8A4d XXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Md d8     _  *x8"XXdd 8  @ >*xINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#*x> #Ԉ &   October16,2001Session L XdX*x #*xXXd#TAYLORBROWN,etal.v.JERRYNOWLIN,etal.XdX*x  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty  J @@No.300756T.D.RobertL.Childers,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200101455_COA_ԄR3CVFiledNovember30,2001   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Thisdisputeaddressestheapplicabilityofthe madewholedoctrinetothesubrogationrightsof x  TennCare,Tennesseesmedicaidwaiverprogram,wheretheinsuredandthetortfeasorreacheda d settlementagreementwithouttheparticipationorconsentofTennCare.Weholdthatthemade P wholedoctrinedidapplytoTennCareatthetimethiscasewassettledandtheorderentered. < Affirmed.  (x #*xXXdq#XdX*xTenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed;and L Remanded  8   #*xXd#XdX.*xDavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE.HighersandHollyK.  Lillard,J.J.,joined.  RhondaM.Whitted,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,TennesseeCoordinatedCareNetwork,  d/b/aAccess...MedPLUS. p ShannonD.Elsea,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellees,TaylorBrown,individually,ByMother H  andNextFriendToyaBrown,andToyaBrown,individually. 4!   OPINION #*xXXd#XdX*x  #\" #*xXXd) #  XdX*x       @  @`  @  @     OnOctober17,1998,fiveyearoldTaylorBrown(Brown)sustainedsevereinjuriesafter $4 $ beingejectedfromavehiclewhichwasstruckbyavehicledrivenbyMr.JerryNowlin.(Nowlin) She % !% receivedcareforherextensiveinjuriesatLeBonheurChildrensMedicalCenterinMemphis. & "& Medicalbillsforthefirst30daysoftreatmentatLeBonheurwereover$134,000. TennCare, '"' TennesseesMedicaidwaiverproject,paid$81,887.98forTaylorstreatment. Taylorisnowa (#( quadriplegicanddependentuponaventilator. )$)   OnMarch3,1999,BrownsattorneycontactedtheTennesseeCoordinatedCareNetwork X+&+ (TCCN),thecontractorfortheStateunderTennCare,advisingthemofthecollisionandrequesting D,', theamountofitssubrogationinterest.OnMarch5,1999,TCCNsagent,InnovativeRecovery 0-(- Services,Inc.(_IRSI_),responded,advisingBrownsattorneyof_TCCN_ssubrogationclaimsand  informinghimthat _TCCN_sinterestisbeingprotectedbyInnovativeRecoveryServices,Inc.  (_IRSI_)._IRSI_Ԁisentitledtoreceivethefullamountofproceedspaidby_TCCN_ԀonbehalfofMs.  Brown. OnMarch17,1999,Brownagaincontacted_TCCN_Ԁandrequestedthat_TCCN_Ԁwaiveits t subrogationinterest. OnMay17,1999,_TCCN_Ԁagreedtoreduceitssubrogationinterestby50%. `  InherletterofMay27,1999,theattorneyfor_IRSI_Ԁrequestedthatshebeadvisedofthestatusofany L  actionandinformedBrownthat_IRSI_Ԁintendedtoparticipateinallproceedings. Theattorneyand 8  _IRSI_ԀcontactedBrownsattorneyonSeptember27and29,1999,respectively,againrequesting $ t informationonthestatusofanyactionandadvisinghimof_IRSI_sintentiontointervene.   `   Awarethatadecisionin _Blankenship_Ԁv.Estateof_Bain_ ,5S.W.3d647(Tenn.1999)  #  1        8  regardingtheapplicationofthe madewholedoctrineV  #  2      ׀to_TennCare_Ԁwasforthcomingfromthe $  TennesseeSupremeCourt,Brownfiledaclaimagainst_Nowlin_,intendingtoholdthematterbefore   thetrialcourtpendingtheSupremeCourtsdecision.Inthemeantime,Brownwasmadeawarethat   _Nowlin_Ԁwasnotcooperatinginthedefenseoftheclaim,andthathisinsurancecompanywaslikely   torequestadeclaratoryjudgmentinordertorefusecoverageof_Nowlin_Ԁperthecontractofinsurance.   Browndeterminedthat_Nowlin_Ԁhadnoexecutableassetswithwhichtosatisfyaverdict,and p determinedthattheactionwasbestsettledinordertoavoidlossofallmonieswhichmayhavebeen \ available.  H   Thepartiesagreedtosettlefor$100,000  #  3      ׀andanorderapprovingtheminorssettlementwas  p enteredbythetrialcourtonAugust3,1999. Inhisorder,thetrialjudgespecificallyfoundthatthe  \ minorchild,TaylorBrown,wasnotmadewhole.TheAugust3orderstatedthattheproceedswere L tobeheldbythecourt untilsuchtimeasthesubrogationinterestofAccess_MedPlus_Ԁ(_TennCare_) 8 isdetermined...  $   TheSupremeCourtheldin _Blankenship_ that_TennCare_Ԁwassubjecttothemadewhole  doctrineandthereforecouldnotenforceitssubrogationinterestifaninsuredwasnotfirstfully  compensated. Seeid. at649.Followingthedecisionin _Blankenship_ ,onApril26,2001,thetrial  courtgrantedBrownsmotiontodismiss_TCCN_sDecember12,2000,motiontointerveneand t _intervenor_Ԁcomplaintforlackofstanding,findingthatatthetimetheactionwassettled, `  compromisedandtheorderentered_TennCare_Ԁwassubjecttothemadewholedoctrine. Thisappeal L! by_TCCN_Ԁfollowed.  8"     `  $#t!   Issues 0 @`   N!  Thedeterminativeissuespresentedinthiscase,asweperceivethem,are:  8   ` I.Doestheequitable madewholedoctrineapplytotheStatessubrogation \ interestinthirdpartyrecoveriesinpersonalinjuryactionssettledpriorto H   _Blankenship_Ԁv.Estateof_Bain_ ?4    8   ` II.Doestheequitable madewholedoctrineapplytotheStatessubrogation  \ interestinthirdpartyrecoveriesinpersonalinjuryactionspriorto _Blankenship_Ԁv.  H  Estateof_Bain_ whentheStatedoesnotconsentorparticipateinthesettlement  4  betweenplaintiffandthe_tortfeasor_?  #  4      $       StandardofReview XdXXXd @  @  @h  @    %  Thefactsinthiscaseareundisputedandtheissuesraisedonappealaremattersoflaw.Our   reviewwithrespecttothetrialcourtslegalconclusionsis denovo withnopresumptionof l correctness.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d). SeeBellexrel.Snyderv._Icard_,Merrill,Cullis,_Timm_,_Furen_ X &_Ginsburg_,P.A. ,986S.W.2d550,544(Tenn.1999).#XdXXXd%#Ԁ D    ApplicabilityoftheMadeWholeDoctrineto_TennCare_Ԁ  l (  Counselfor_TCCN_Ԁarguesthat _Blankenship_ attemptedtochangethelawregardingthe @ applicabilityofthemadewholedoctrineto_TennCare_,andthat _Blankenship_ wouldnotapplytothis , casesincetheaccident,settlementandorderoccurredpriortotheNovember29,1999,decision. In  short,shearguesthatapplyingthemadewholedoctrinetothiscaserequiresretroactiveapplication  of _Blankenship_ .Wedisagree.    In _Blankenship_ ,theTennesseeSupremeCourtfoundthatsection715117ofthe x TennesseeCode,whichprovides_TennCare_Ԁarightofsubrogation,neitherembracednorabandoned d themadewholedoctrine.(  #  5      ׀ Blankenship ,5S.W.3dat651.TheCourtfurtherfoundthatwhenthe P  TennCarestatutewasamendedtoprovidearightofsubrogation,thedecisionin Wimberly had