ÿWPCÔ Þ•x 5Äð–˜|.B7½é ÀŸ—ÀòóÉíhˆÏ™FÄ36d;xîâÃÙþkZ¢ÍÆø@ß|»¼/”æ%š¶o‘…—S-êDÒJéîP*ÿûÍâi{*Û6aÒ½Êøq˜É“ïN",ýñ i  û3:š:îB䂞µŸ·¼«KžWSú¿]ÔÍR¤]š¶íÖß\Ä¡>“Ú±'« üEÅo’ž!"Œ —#íß°ò¤´àì¯Èò W€åÚ vy” d¥‡FìçÌy$¢½iÁ }kHŠ*˜µ}ØÇmê\\*ƒ_Á,ó34TêRWîÌ‚h[äg"áîa'Š>áwP$úVº R¿°dG=^Ëo¦uÆx„f‘²›GÓˆˆ§ÃnÛ– >j–ŸÁoºF®|¾wbÛ— O|IìëæJd©£PžÊÈB0£ÿÛD.óÊ:o]Òõd?ÄÔÅÒå´ÓœºŒAú0fä6¸’;×È…´ö;qR„ÂKðBöÂÀCÕSyy•˜Ê>KÜKn»ÀÀR¹Œ%ÓL®Ž”;ÍGêH¿±ç$Äy¶bùÿ÷r) š‡>wZjÿÇe†¡Iˆ±Û˜CP[˜4g„Á‚Ç5:}«™r)YÉ3<ÚbUN\ %ª 0ˆ°#Á8 Œù Ú… ^ _ zk Òå UBN·  m w Æ" Æè Æ®Æt4:NNNNEPR 0Da b¥ ^ e m u } …  •  ¥  ­  ·ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁbÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ 0ëÑÑÑÑ B¼¼ 0¤Ù D3} D-° 0KÝÝ AS(Æ{ 0¤A 0Då A«)(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular »(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\CUSTOM~1\OPINION3.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\Custom WP Templates\opinion3.wpt ¥^)â  ˜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.wpt(ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman RegularÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5àN[)´¥¡3|x(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó?\Appellants Attorney Name & Appellant's Name.?\Appellees Attorney Name & Appellee's Name.1234567891011 - ù-(|G2iæ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€H=»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+¡ò»»Ô d(|3ç$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€H=»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ç$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€H=»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Aõ»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€ ¼ÌŽ»» »ÔÑ8€/%XXdê»»d 8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡ îËî» ¼ÌŽÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@88$ìàAT€KNOXVILLE€Ô#† ¼ÌŽ»î îË #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓOCTOBER€2,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÌÔ‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔÌÌò òÔ#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"ö#ÔÔ% ‡ ÔCHERYL€N.€Ô_ÔBUCKNERÔ_Ô,€òòÔ%†=Ôet€al.óó€v.€Ô% ‡ ÔDAVID€F.€Ô_ÔHASSELLÔ_Ô,€M.D.Ô%†žÔ,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔó óÐ ø H ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%†MÔAppeal€from€the€Ô% ‡ ÔCircuit€Court€Ô%†{Ôfor€Ô% ‡ ÔKnoxÔ%† «Ô€CountyÐ ø H Ðà@@øøìàNo.€Ô% ‡! Ô1„141„98Ô%†!ÿÔÔ% ‡" Ô€€€€Dale€C.€Workman,€JudgeÔ%†"%ÔÐ ä 4  ÐÌFILED€OCTOBER€€30,€2000Ð ¼  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<§` AßÐ ¨ø  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€Ô% ‡# ÔE1999„02564„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€€Ô%†#ÔÐ £ó  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<z` AßÐ {Ë Ðó óÌÓ  Óò òÌÓÓÓÓó óRonald€L.€Ô_ÔBucknerÔ_Ô€was€diagnosed€with€a€rare€form€of€melanoma€which€ultimately€resulted€in€hisÐ b² Ðdeath.Ô#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"#ÔÔ‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔ€€His€wife,€Cheryl€N.€Ô_ÔBucknerÔ_Ô,€brought€this€medical€malpractice€action€against€her€husband'sÐ Nž Ðfamily€physician,€Dr.€David€F.€Ô_ÔHassellÔ_Ô.€€The€Trial€Court€excluded€portions€of€the€testimony€of€Mr.Ð :Š ÐÔ_ÔBucknerÔ_Ô's€dermatologist€and€Ô_ÔdermatopathologistÔ_Ô€due€to€Ms.€Ô_ÔBucknerÔ_Ô's€failure€to€name€theseÐ &v Ðphysicians€as€expert€witnesses€in€her€answers€to€interrogatoriesÔ#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"Õ#ÔÔ‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔ€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€26.€€TheÐ b Ðjury€returned€a€verdict€in€favor€of€Dr.€Ô_ÔHassellÔ_Ô,€and€thereafter,€Ms.€Ô_ÔBucknerÔ_Ô€filed€a€Motion€for€NewÐ þN ÐTrial€based€upon€the€weight€of€the€evidence€and€the€Trial€Court's€exclusion€of€the€dermatologist'sÐ ê: Ðtestimony€regarding€the€standard€of€care.€€The€Trial€Court€denied€the€Motion.€€On€appeal,€Ms.Ð Ö& ÐÔ_ÔBucknerÔ_Ô€contends€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€excluding€the€testimony€at€issue€because€Dr.€Ô_ÔHassellÔ_ÔÐ Â Ðdid€not€suffer€any€prejudice€from€these€physicians€not€having€been€identified€as€expert€witnesses€inÐ ®þ ÐPlaintiff's€answers€to€interrogatories€as€his€€attorney€was€aware€of€the€dermatologist's€opinions€priorÐ šê Ðto€his€deposition€for€proof,€and€because€each€of€€these€treating€physicians€whose€testimony€wasÐ †Ö Ðexcluded€was€not€a€Rule€26€expert€witness.€We€affirm.Ð r  ÐÓãÓÓÓÓÓÌÌò òÔ% ‡$ ÔTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3Ô%†$ð Ô;€Judgment€of€the€Ô% ‡% ÔCircuit€Court€Affirmed;€Case€Remanded.Ô%†%2Ôó óÐ 6#†" ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#† ¼ÌŽ»à X"M #ÔÔ‡ X"X. ¼ÌŽÔÌÔ_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,€D.€MichaelÔ#† ¼ÌŽ»à X"Á#ÔÔ‡ X"X. ¼ÌŽÔ,€€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòÔ% ‡& ÔHouston€M.€Ô_ÔGoddardÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô€óóÐ ú%J!% Ðand€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.Ô%†&Ôóó,€joined.Ð æ&6"& ÐÌÌÔ% ‡ ÔDonna€Keene€Holt€and€David€E.€Waite,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Cheryl€N.€Ô_ÔBucknerÔ_Ô.Ô%†^ÔÐ ª)ú$) ÐÌÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%†ÔJames€G.€Ô_ÔO'KaneÔ_Ô,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€David€F.€Ô_ÔHassellÔ_Ô,€M.D.Ð ‚+Ò&+ ÐÓ’ÓÓÙ ÓÐ n,¾',ý Ðò òÓÓOPINIONó óÔ#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"6#ÔÔ‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔÐ ° ÐÔ_ÔÌòòóóÔ#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"U#ÔÔ‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔÓ  Óà@ÛÛ%ìàòòò òBackgroundóóó óˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àThis€appeal€arises€from€a€medical€malpractice€action€based€primarily€upon€a€failureÐ `° Ðto€biopsy€an€alleged€non„healing€skin€lesion.€€The€case€was€tried€by€a€jury€who€found€in€favor€ofÐ L œ ÐDavid€F.€Hassell,€M.D.€(hereafter€"Defendant").€€Plaintiff,€Cheryl€N.€Buckner,€brought€this€medicalÐ 8 ˆ Ðmalpractice€action€against€Defendant,€a€family€physician,€on€behalf€of€her€deceased€husband,€RonaldÐ $ t ÐL.€Buckner.€€In€1994,€Mr.€Buckner€was€diagnosed€with€amelanotic€melanoma,€a€rare€form€ofÐ  ` Ðmelanoma.€€Mr.€Buckner's€melanoma€metastasized€and,€ultimately,€resulted€in€his€death€in€1998.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àDefendant€treated€Mr.€Buckner€from€1989€to€1993.€€In€May,€1990,€ò òòòóóó ó€Defendant€beganÐ Ô$  Ðtreating€Mr.€Buckner€for€inflammation€and€dermatitis€on€his€second€right€toe.€Over€the€next€threeÐ À  Ðyears,€Defendant€periodically€treated€Mr.€Buckner's€toe€which€had€bouts€of€partial€healing,€only€toÐ ¬ü  Ðrelapse€with€bleeding€andÔ#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"Ã#ÔÔ‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔ€a€breakdown€of€the€skin.€€At€one€point,€Mr.€Buckner€did€not€complain€toÐ ˜è  ÐDefendant€of€any€problems€with€his€toe€for€a€nineteen€month€period€during€which€he€soughtÐ „Ô  Ðtreatment€from€Defendant€for€other€matters.€€Defendant€last€saw€Mr.€Buckner's€foot€€in€June,€1993,Ð pÀ Ðand€testified€that€at€that€time,€Mr.€Buckner's€toe€was€90%€healed.€€Defendant€never€referred€Mr.Ð \¬ ÐBuckner€to€a€specialist,€nor€did€he€take€a€biopsy€of€the€affected€skin.€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àMr.€Buckner€was€subsequently€treated€by€a€dermatologist,€Dr.€Anthony€Meyers,€andÐ  p Ða€dermatopathologist,€Dr.€Paul€Googe.€€Ô#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"©#ÔÔ‡ ôjæ ò» ¼ÌŽÔ€Ô#† ¼ÌŽ» ò ôjæ¤#ÔÔ‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔIn€May,€1994,€at€the€time€of€Mr.€Buckner's€first€visit,€Dr.Ð  \ ÐMeyers€was€the€first€physician€to€biopsy€Mr.€Buckner's€skin€on€his€toe.€€This€biopsy€led€to€theÐ øH Ðdiagnosis€of€amelanotic€melanoma.€€Ô#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"ç#ÔÔ‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€excluded€portions€of€Dr.€Meyers'€and€Dr.€Googe's€testimony€becauseÐ ¼  ÐPlaintiff€did€not€disclose€in€her€Rule€26€interrogatory€answers€that€these€physicians€€would€provideÐ ¨ø Ðexpert€opinion€testimony.€€This€exclusion€is€the€basis€of€Plaintiff's€appeal.€€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àA€review€of€the€relevant€discovery€exchanged€between€the€parties€in€this€matter€is€asÐ l¼ Ðfollows:€€Defendant's€attorney€scheduled€the€deposition€for€proof€of€Dr.€Meyers€to€take€place€the€nextÐ X ¨ Ðmonth.€€At€that€time,€Defendant's€attorney€suggested€to€Plaintiff's€attorney€that€in€lieu€of€taking€aÐ D!” Ðdiscovery€deposition,€she€could€interview€Dr.€Meyers.€€Shortly€thereafter,€Defendant€served€hisÐ 0"€  Ðinterrogatory€answers€which€identified€Dr.€Meyers€as€a€witness€who€was€expected€to€providedÐ #l! Ðopinion€testimony€at€trial.€€Plaintiff's€attorney€conducted€an€informal€discovery€interview€of€Dr.Ð $X" ÐMeyers€Ô#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"#ÔÔ‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔand€found€that€Dr.€Meyers'€opinions€were€actually€favorable€to€Plaintiff€and€that€defenseÐ ô$D # Ðcounsel€had€interviewed€Dr.€Meyers.€€Defendant€cancelled€his€scheduled€deposition€of€Dr.€MeyersÐ à%0!$ Ðbut,€at€the€request€of€Plaintiff's€attorney,€agreed€to€keep€the€original€deposition€date€so€that€Plaintiff'sÐ Ì&"% Ðattorney€could€take€Dr.€Meyers'€proofÔ#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"Ÿ #ÔÔ‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔ€deposition.€€Twenty€three€days€prior€to€Dr.€Meyers'€depositionÐ ¸'#& Ðdate,€Defendant€served€interrogatories,€including€a€Rule€26€òòóóexpert€witness€interrogatory,€on€Plaintiff.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐThe€record€does€not€contain€any€indication€that€defense€counsel€requested€Plaintiff's€responses€toÐ )à$( Ðthese€interrogatories€prior€to€the€thirty€days€allowed€by€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€33.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àDuring€Dr.€Meyers'€deposition,€Plaintiff's€attorney€elicited€testimony€from€Dr.€MeyersÐ ° Ðconcerning€the€following€issues,€among€others:€€the€standard€of€care€regarding€when€a€non„healingÐ œì Ðlesion€should€be€biopsied;€what€residents€are€taught€regarding€the€care€of€patients;€€and€that€theÐ ˆØ Ðstandard€of€care€is€the€same€for€dermatologists€as€it€is€for€any€other€physician€treating€a€skinÐ tÄ Ðproblem.€€Defense€counsel€objected€to€these€matters€at€the€time€of€the€deposition€on€the€basis€thatÐ `° ÐPlaintiff€had€not€disclosed€that€Dr.€Meyers€would€be€providing€expert€opinion€testimony€regardingÐ L œ Ðthe€standard€of€care.€€Thereafter,€Plaintiff€answered€Defendant's€interrogatories€but€failed€to€list€Dr.Ð 8 ˆ ÐMeyers€and€Dr.€Googe€as€expert€witnesses.€€Ô#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"i"#ÔÔ‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔDefendant€also€later€objected€to€this€testimony€inÐ $ t ÐDefendant's€designation€of€depositions€and€objections.€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àNearly€one€year€later€on€the€day€before€trial,€the€parties€tendered€this€dispute€to€theÐ è 8  ÐTrial€Court€for€its€consideration.€€The€Trial€Court€ruled€that€Dr.€Meyers'€and€Dr.€Googe'sò ò€ó ótestimonyÐ Ô$  Ðregarding€the€issue€of€the€standard€of€care€would€be€excluded€because€of€Plaintiff's€failure€to€discloseÐ Ä  Ðthe€physicians€as€expert€witnesses€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€26.Ð °  Ѐ€Ð œì  Ðà  àà ` àContained€in€the€excluded€portions€of€Dr.€Meyers'€testimony€was€Dr.€Meyers'€opinionÐ ˆØ  Ðthat€the€standard€of€care€required€that€a€non„healing€lesion€be€biopsied€within€two€to€three€weeks.€Ð tÄ ÐBy€comparison,€the€jury€heard€testimony€from€one€of€Plaintiff's€retained€expert€witnesses,€Dr.€Safer,Ð `° Ða€dermatologist,€that€the€standard€of€care€required€a€biopsy€in€such€a€situation€within€three€to€sixÐ Lœ Ðmonths.€€Thereafter,Ô#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"ì'#ÔÔ‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔ€Defendant€himself€testified€that€a€persistent€lesion€which€does€not€respond€toÐ 8ˆ Ðtreatment€should€be€biopsied€within€six€weeks.€€€Defendant€also€testified€that€during€his€treatmentÐ $t Ðof€Mr.€Buckner's€toe,€it€did€not€appear€the€way€it€did€in€the€photograph€secured€by€Dr.€Meyers€inÐ ` ÐMay,€1994.€€Other€portions€of€Dr.€Meyers'€testimony€related€to€the€standard€of€care€issue€wereÐ üL Ðexcluded,€including€Dr.€Meyers'€testimony€that€the€standard€of€care€for€a€dermatologist€is€the€sameÐ è8 Ðas€it€is€for€any€other€physician€treating€a€skin€problem.Ð Ô$ ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€the€jury€returned€a€verdict€in€favor€of€Defendant,€Plaintiff€filed€her€Motion€forÐ ¬ü ÐNew€Trial€which€was€denied.€€In€her€Motion,€Plaintiff€argued€that€the€verdict€was€contrary€to€theÐ ˜è Ðweight€of€the€evidenceÔ#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"±,#ÔÔ‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔ€and€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€excluding€portions€of€Dr.€Meyers'€testimonyÐ „Ô Ðregarding€the€standard€of€care.€€Plaintiff€did€not€include€the€Trial€Court's€exclusion€of€Dr.€Googe'sÐ pÀ Ðtestimony€as€a€basis€for€her€Motion.Ô#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"0#ÔÔ‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔÐ \ ¬ Ðà@))%ìàò òòòDiscussionó óóóˆÐ H!˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€appeal,€Plaintiff€raises€the€following€issues:€1)€did€the€Trial€Court€err€in€excludingÐ  #p! Ðportions€of€Dr.€MeyersÔ#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"Ò1#ÔÔ‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔ'€testimony€when€Plaintiff's€discovery€responses€were€not€due€at€the€time€ofÐ  $\" ÐDr.€Meyers'€deposition€and€when€Defendant€was€not€prejudiced€by€this€testimony€since€defenseÐ ø$H # Ðcounsel€was€aware€of€Dr.€Meyers'€opinions€prior€to€the€deposition;€2)€was€the€exclusion€of€Dr.Ð ä%4!$ ÐMeyers'€and€Dr.€Googe's€testimony€error€since€the€witnesses€were€treating€physicians€and€notÐ Ð& "% Ðretained€expert€witnesses;€and€3)€was€the€Trial€Court's€exclusion€of€this€testimony€an€inappropriateÐ ¼' #& Ðsanction.Ð ¨(ø#' ÐÌà  àà ` àDefendant€states€the€issues€on€appeal€as€follows:€1)€did€Plaintiff€waive€her€issueÐ €*Ð%) Ðregarding€the€exclusion€of€Dr.€Googe's€testimony€since€she€failed€to€raise€the€issue€in€her€Motion€forÐ l+¼&* ÐNew€Trial;€2)€did€Dr.€Meyers'€and€Dr.€Googe's€testimony€regarding€the€standard€of€care€constituteÐ ° Ðexpert€opinion€testimony€which€fell€outside€their€treatment€history€of€Mr.€Buckner;€and€3)€did€theÐ œì Ðexclusion€of€the€testimony€at€issue€more€probably€than€not€affect€the€judgment.Ð ˆØ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð àÌà  àà ` àWith€respect€to€the€Trial€Court's€exclusion€of€Dr.€Googe's€testimony,€we€€find€that€thisÐ `° Ðmatter€is€not€properly€before€this€Court.€€Plaintiff€failed€to€raise€this€issue€in€her€Motion€for€NewÐ L œ ÐTrial,€and€as€a€result,€waived€this€issue€for€purposes€of€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e);€òòFlynn€v.Ð 8 ˆ ÐShoney's,€Inc.óó,€850€S.W.2d€458,€461€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992)Ô#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"3#ÔÔ‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔ;òò€Boyd€v.€Hicksóó,€774€S.W.2d€622,€627Ð $ t Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).Ð  ` Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff's€remaining€issues€concern€the€Trial€Court's€exclusion€of€portions€of€Dr.Ð è 8  ÐMeyers'€testimony€regarding€the€standard€of€care.€€€The€Trial€Court€excluded€this€testimony€due€toÐ Ô$  ÐPlaintiff's€failure€to€disclose€Dr.€Meyers€as€a€Rule€26€expert€witness€in€her€answers€to€interrogatories.€Ð À  ÐThe€record€shows€that€Plaintiff€did€not€notify€Defendant€of€her€intent€to€elicit€standard€of€careÐ ¬ü  Ðtestimony€from€Dr.€Meyers€prior€to€his€deposition€for€proof.€€In€addition,€although€Dr.€Meyers'Ð ˜è  Ðdeposition€was€taken,€at€Plaintiff's€attorney's€insistance,€prior€to€the€date€that€Plaintiff€served€herÐ „Ô  Ðinterrogatory€answers€on€Defendant,€Plaintiff€never€identified€Dr.€Meyers€as€an€expert€witness€in€herÐ pÀ Ðresponses,€nor€did€she€supplement€her€interrogatory€answers.€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àRule€26.02(4)€of€the€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€provides€that:Ð 4„ ÐÌà0  àà8` (#(#à(A)(i)€€A€party€may€through€interrogatories€require€any€other€party€to€identifyÐ  \ Ðeach€person€whom€the€other€party€expects€to€call€as€an€expert€witness€at€trial,Ð øH Ðto€state€the€subject€matter€on€which€the€expert€is€expected€to€testify,€and€toÐ ä4 Ðstate€the€substance€of€the€facts€and€opinions€to€which€the€expert€is€expectedÐ Ð  Ðto€testify€and€a€summary€of€the€grounds€for€each€opinion.м ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌMoreover,€Rule€26.05€requires€that€answers€to€interrogatories€be€supplemented€in€the€followingÐ ”ä Ðcircumstances:Ð €Ð ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€A€party€is€under€a€duty€seasonably€to€supplement€the€party'sÐ X ¨ Ðresponses€with€respect€to€any€question€directly€addressed€to€.€.€.€ÐD!”` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(B)€the€identity€of€each€person€expected€to€be€called€as€an€expertÐ 0"€  Ðwitness€at€trial,€the€subject€matter€on€which€the€person€is€expected€toÐ #l! Ðtestify,€and€the€substance€of€that€testimony.Ð$X"` x` x ÐÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð àà  àà8` ` Ð ` Ð à(2)€A€party€is€under€a€duty€seasonably€to€amend€a€prior€response€if€the€partyÐ à%0!$ Ðobtains€information€upon€the€basis€of€which€the€party€(A)€knows€that€theÐ Ì&"% Ðresponse€was€incorrect€when€made;€or€(B)€knows€that€the€response€thoughÐ ¸'#& Ðcorrect€when€made€is€no€longer€true€and€the€circumstances€are€such€that€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfailure€to€amend€the€response€is€in€substance€a€knowing€concealment.Ð)à$(` Ð ` Ð  Ðà  àà ` àAlthough€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€do€not€specify€a€sanction€to€beÐ |*Ì%) Ðimposed€when€a€party€fails€to€identify€an€expert€witness€in€her€discovery€answers,€our€SupremeÐ h+¸&* ÐCourtò òòò€óóó ófound€that€"the€inherent€power€of€trial€judges€permits€the€trial€judge€to€take€appropriateÐ ° Ðcorrective€action€against€a€party€for€discovery€abuse."€€òòLyle€v.€Exxon€Corp.óó,€746€S.W.2d€694,€699Ð œì Ð(Tenn.€1988)€(citing€òòStrickland€v.€Stricklandóó,€618€S.W.2d€496,€501€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1981)).€€A€trialÐ ˆØ Ðjudge's€exclusion€of€expert€witness€testimony€is€subject€to€an€abuse€of€discretion€review€by€thisÐ tÄ ÐCourt.€€òòId.óó€(citing€òòBrooks€v.€United€Uniform€Co.óó,€682€S.W.2d€913€(Tenn.€1984)).€€The€òòLyleóó€courtÐ `° Ðwent€on€to€find€that€exclusion€of€an€expert€witness'€testimony€may€be€an€appropriate€sanction€for€aÐ L œ Ðparty's€failure€to€name€the€expert€witness€but€stated€that€"other€sanctions€may€be€appropriate€whereÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€failure€to€name€an€expert€witness€is€not€knowing€and€deliberate."€€òòId.óó€€€In€reviewing€the€inquiryÐ $ t Ðthat€trial€judges€should€make€when€determining€the€appropriate€sanction,€the€òòLyleóó€court€set€forth€theÐ  ` Ðfollowing€considerations:Ð ü L  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à1.à0¸ ` x` xàThe€explanation€given€for€failure€to€name€the€witness;ÐÔ$ ¸ x¸ x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à2.à0¸ ` x` xàThe€importance€of€the€testimony€of€the€witness;ÐÀ ¸ x¸ x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à3.à0¸ ` x` xàThe€need€for€time€to€prepare€to€meet€the€testimony;€andЬü ¸ x¸ x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à4.à0¸ ` x` xàThe€possibility€of€a€continuance.Ð˜è ¸ x¸ x ÐÌòòId.€(óócitingòò€Strickland,€óó618€S.W.€2d€at€501òò).Ð pÀ ÐóóÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€argues€that€Defendant's€attorney€was€aware€of€Dr.€Meyers'€opinions€prior€toÐ H˜ Ðhis€proof€deposition.€€The€record,€however,€reflects€only€that€Defendant's€attorney€had€interviewedÐ 4„ ÐDr.€Meyers€prior€to€the€deposition.€€We€find€nothing€in€the€record€that€shows€whether€or€notÐ  p ÐDefendant's€attorney€knew€Dr.€Meyers'€opinions€on€the€standard€of€care€issues€prior€to€Dr.€Meyers'Ð  \ Ðproof€deposition.€€It€would€be€inappropriate€for€this€Court€to€speculate€as€to€what€questionsÐ øH ÐDefendant's€attorney€asked€Dr.€Meyers€at€his€interview€of€Dr.€Meyers,€and€what€Dr.€Meyers'€answers€Ð ä4 Ðto€those€questions€were.€€The€record€contains€an€insufficient€basis€to€support€this€aspect€of€Plaintiff'sÐ Ð  Ðargument.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àUnder€the€circumstances€presented€in€this€matter,€we€cannot€say€that€the€Trial€CourtÐ ”ä Ðabused€its€discretion€when€it€excluded€the€testimony€of€€Dr.€Meyers€regarding€the€standard€of€care.€Ð €Ð ÐòòSee€id.óó;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòAmmons€v.€Bonillaóó,€886€S.W.2d€239,€242„43€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994)€(holding€thatÐ l¼ Ðthe€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€when€it€excluded€expert€testimony€due€to€a€party's€failureÐ X ¨ Ðto€supplement€discovery€responses).€€The€question€before€this€Court€is€not€whether€we€would€haveÐ D!” Ðreached€the€same€decision€the€Trial€Court€did,€but€instead€whether€"the€trial€court€has€misconstruedÐ 0"€  Ðor€misapplied€the€controlling€legal€principles€or€has€acted€inconsistently€with€the€substantial€weightÐ #l! Ðof€the€evidence."€€òòWhite€v.€Vanderbilt€Univ.óó,€21€S.W.3d€215,€223€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€Further,€Ð $X" Ð"[a]ppellate€courts€should€permit€a€discretionary€decision€to€stand€if€reasonable€judicial€minds€canÐ ô$D # Ðdiffer€concerning€its€soundness."€€òòIdóó.€€Under€the€facts€before€us,€€reasonable€judicial€minds€couldÐ à%0!$ Ðdiffer€concerning€the€soundness€of€the€Trial€Court's€decision.€€Therefore,€the€Trial€Court'sÐ Ì&"% Ðdiscretionary€decision€to€exclude€Dr.€Meyers€testimony€stands.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€record€reflects€that€prior€to€Meyers'€proof€depositionÔ#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"/:#ÔÔ‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔ,€Plaintiff€did€not€notifyÐ )à$( Ðdefense€counsel€of€her€intent€to€secure€testimony€from€Dr.€Meyers€regarding€the€standard€of€care,Ð |*Ì%) Ðand€that€defense€counsel€timely€objected€to€that€line€of€questioning.€€Plaintiff€and€Defendant€failedÐ h+¸&* Ðto€bring€these€objections€to€the€Trial€Court's€attention€prior€to€trial,€which€resulted€in€the€TrialÐ ° ÐCourt's€€ruling€on€these€objections€the€day€before€trial.€€Once€Defendants'€counsel€objected€to€Dr.Ð œì ÐMeyers'€testimony€on€the€standard€of€care€issues,€Plaintiff€had€available€steps€to€eliminateÐ ˆØ ÐDefendant's€objections€and€prevent€this€issue€from€ever€arising.€€Upon€Defendant's€objections,Ð tÄ ÐPlaintiff's€counsel€could€have€suspended€the€deposition,€submitted€her€Rule€26€expert€interrogatoryÐ `° Ðanswers,€and€reconvened€the€deposition€of€Dr.€Meyers€on€the€standard€of€care€issue.€€It€is€relevantÐ L œ Ðto€note€that€Plaintiff€did€not€designate€the€entirety€of€Dr.€Meyers'€deposition€to€be€submitted€to€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðjury,€but€rather€designated€only€portions€of€that€deposition€to€be€submitted€to€the€jury.€€Until€PlaintiffÐ $ t Ðdesignated€those€portions€of€Dr.€Meyers'€deposition,€Defendant€did€not€know€for€certain€that€PlaintiffÐ  ` Ðintended€to€present€those€portions€of€Dr.€Meyers'€deposition€to€the€jury.€€Plaintiff€did€not€identify€Dr.Ð ü L  ÐMeyers€as€an€expert€witness€in€her€answers€to€interrogatories€served€òòafteróó€Dr.€Meyers'€proofÐ è 8  Ðdeposition.€€Moreover,€the€record€does€not€show€that€Plaintiff€asked€for€a€continuance€once€the€TrialÐ Ô$  ÐCourt€ruled€that€this€testimony€should€be€excluded.€€Even€if€the€Trial€Court€abused€its€discretion€inÐ À  Ðexcluding€this€portion€of€Dr.€Meyers'€testimony,€which€we€hold€it€did€not,€Plaintiff€"failed€to€takeÐ ¬ü  Ðany€action€to€'prevent€or€nullify€the€harmful€effect€of€an€error.'"€€òòAmmonsóó,€886€S.W.2d€€at€243Ð ˜è  Ð(quoting€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a)).€€Ð „Ô  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àÌà  àà ` àSimilarly,€we€reject€Plaintiff's€argument€that€she€was€not€under€a€duty€to€identify€Dr.Ð \¬ ÐMeyers€in€her€interrogatory€answers€since€Dr.€Meyers€was€not€an€expert€witness€under€Rule€26Ð H˜ Ðbecause€he€was€a€treating€physician.Ô#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"éV#ÔÔ‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔ€€This€Court€in€òòAlessio€v.€Crookóó,€633€S.W.2d€770€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð 4„ ÐApp.€1982)Ô#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"a#ÔÔ‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔ,€reviewed€the€issue€of€when€a€treating€physician€is€an€expert€witness€and€held€that:€Ð  p Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[a]n€expert€whose€information€was€not€acquired€in€preparation€forÐ øH Ðtrial€but€rather€because€he€was€an€actor€or€viewer€in€regard€to€theÐ ä4 Ðoccurrence€should€be€treated€as€an€ordinary€witness€and€not€as€anÐ Ð  Ðexpert€as€contemplated€by€Rule€26,€TRCP€[sic].м ` x` x ÐÌòòIdóó€at€779.€The€court€in€òòAlessioóó€found€that€the€physician€in€question€was€not€an€expert€witnessÐ ”ä Ðaccording€to€Rule€26€because€he€had€gathered€his€information€as€the€plaintiff's€surgeon.€€òòId.óó€at€780.€Ð €Ð ÐòòÔ#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"Àa#ÔÔ‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔóóIn€this€case,€although€Dr.€Meyers€was€one€of€Mr.€Buckner's€treating€physicians,€the€substance€of€theÐ l¼ Ðexcluded€testimony€involved€matters€outside€of€Dr.€Meyers'€mere€treatment€of€Mr.€Buckner.€€Dr.Ð X ¨ ÐMeyers'€testimony€regarding€the€applicable€standard€of€care€was€drawn€from€Dr.€Meyers'€expertiseÐ D!” Ðand€experience€and€not€just€from€his€participation€as€an€actor€or€viewer€in€Mr.€Buckner's€treatment.Ô#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"e#ÔÔ‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔ€Ð 0"€  ÐThis€testimony,€in€turn,€rendered€him€an€expert€witness€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€26€on€the€standardÐ #l! Ðof€care€issue.Ð $X" ЀÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€cites€the€recent€opinion€by€this€Court,€òòWhite€v.€Vanderbilt€Univ.óó,€21€S.W.3dÐ à%0!$ Ð215,€in€support€of€her€argument€that€Dr.€Meyers€is€not€an€expert€because€he€was€Mr.€Buckner'sÐ Ì&"% Ðtreating€physician.€€While€we€recognize€that€òòWhiteóó€held€that€treating€physicians€are€expert€witnessesÐ ¸'#& Ðwho€do€not€fall€within€the€parameters€of€Rule€26€because€they€are€"experts€who€were€not€specificallyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðretained€in€anticipation€of€litigation€or€in€preparation€for€trial,"€we€do€not€find€that€òòWhiteóóisÐ )à$( Ðcontrolling€under€the€particular€circumstances€of€this€case.€€òòId.óó€at€224.€€€In€classifying€this€type€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðexpert€witness,€Ô#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"#g#ÔÔ‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔthis€Court€in€òòWhiteóó€relied€upon€òòAlessio€v.€Crookóó€which,€as€discussedòòòòóó,óó€focused€on€òòhowóóÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€witness€obtained€his€information€in€preparation€of€his€testimony.€€Dr.€Meyers'€testimonyÐ ° Ðregarding€the€standard€of€care€was€based€not€solely€on€his€treatment€of€Mr.€Buckner,€but€instead,€wasÐ œì Ðgleaned€also€from€his€experience€and€expertise€as€a€dermatologist.€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€theÐ ˆØ ÐTrial€Court€correctly€found€that€Dr.€Meyers€was€an€expert€witness€on€the€standard€of€care€issueÐ tÄ Ðwhose€identity€should€have€been€disclosed€by€Plaintiff€in€her€answers€to€interrogatoriesÔ#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"k#ÔÔ‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔ€pursuant€toÐ `° ÐRule€26.€€Our€holding€supports€the€important€policy€".€.€.€that€discovery€should€enable€the€parties€andÐ L œ Ðthe€courts€to€seek€the€truth€so€that€disputes€will€be€decided€by€facts€rather€than€by€legalÐ 8 ˆ Ðmaneuvering."€€òòIdóó.€at€223€(citations€omitted).€€To€hold€otherwise€would€give€future€parties,€bothÐ $ t Ðplaintiffs€and€defendants,€the€tool€necessary€to€hide€a€standard€of€care€witness€until€trial.€€Such€aÐ  ` Ðresult€would€be€contrary€to€the€above€stated€policy.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àNevertheless,€in€the€event€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€excluding€portions€of€Dr.Ð Ô$  ÐMeyers'€testimony,€we€cannot€say,€after€a€review€of€the€proof€submitted€to€the€jury,€that€the€excludedÐ À  Ðtestimony€more€probably€than€not€affected€the€judgment.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€36(b);€òòAmmonsóó€òòv.Ð ¬ü  ÐBonillaóó,€886€S.W.2d€at€243;€òòCordell€v.€Ward€School€Bus€Mfg.óó,€597€S.W.2d€323,€328€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ˜è  Ð1980).€€The€excluded€portions€of€Dr.€Meyers'€testimony€included€his€opinion€that€the€standard€of€careÐ „Ô  Ðrequired€a€non„healing€lesion€to€be€biopsied€within€two€to€three€weeks.€€Although€Plaintiff's€retainedÐ pÀ Ðexpert,€Dr.€Safer,€testified€that€such€a€lesion€should€have€been€biopsied€within€three€to€six€months,€Ð \¬ ÐDefendant€himself€testified€to€a€more€stringent€standard€which€required€conducting€a€biopsy€of€aÐ H˜ Ðnon„healing€lesion€within€six€weeks.€€The€jury€also€heard€testimony€from€Dr.€Meyers€that€heÐ 4„ Ðinstructs€familyÔ#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"n#ÔÔ‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔ€practice€residents€to€biopsy€no€later€than€six€weeks€and€testimony€from€DefendantÐ  p Ðthat€Ô#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"üt#ÔÔ‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔDr.€Meyers€was€one€of€his€instructors€during€his€residencyÔ#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"ªu#ÔÔ‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔ.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àConsidering€this€testimony,€the€record€reveals€that€the€disputed€issue€presented€to€theÐ ä4 Ðjury€in€this€matter€concerned€not€simply€when€Defendant€should€have€biopsied€Mr.€Buckner's€toe,Ð Ð  Ðbut€instead€what€was€the€condition€of€Mr.€Buckner's€toe€during€the€period€of€Defendant's€treatment.€Ð ¼  ÐÔ#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"&v#Ôò òòòÔ‡ X"X» ¼ÌŽÔóóó óUnder€the€medical€testimony€presented€to€the€jury,€it€was€the€condition€of€Mr.€Buckner's€toe€thatÐ ¨ø Ðtriggered€when€a€biopsy€was€required€under€the€standard€of€care.€€From€our€review€of€the€record,€itÐ ”ä Ðappears€that€Defendant€agreed€that€if€Mr.€Buckner's€toe€when€seen€by€Defendant€was€in€the€conditionÐ €Ð Ðthat€Plaintiff€insisted€it€was€in,€the€undisputed€standard€of€care€required€Defendant€to€obtain€aÐ l¼ Ðbiopsy.€€It€appears€the€real€disputed€issue€presented€to€the€jury€was€the€condition€of€Mr.€Buckner'sÐ X ¨ Ðtoe€at€the€times€he€was€seen€by€Defendant.€€As€a€result,€we€cannot€find€that€the€exclusion€of€portionsÐ D!” Ðof€Dr.€Meyers'€testimony,€even€if€in€error,€more€probably€than€not€affected€the€jury's€decision.€€òòSeeóóÐ 0"€  ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).ò òÐ #l! Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà@  %ìàòòConclusionóóó óˆÐ ô$D # ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed,€and€this€matter€remanded€for€further€proceedingsÐ Ì&"% Ðas€may€be€required,€if€any,€consistent€with€this€Opinion,€and€for€collection€of€the€costs€below.€€CostsÐ ¸'#& Ðof€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€Appellant,€Cheryl€N.€Buckner,€and€her€surety.€Ô#† ¼ÌŽ»X X"øw#ÔÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÌÐ ´+'* ЇÌÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#à___________________________________€ÐÔ$À(#À(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGE