WPCY # VUNa % 0(UPw@- 4m  0l 0D 0J@ 0T  0^ 0hD 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0d%U>U6B)DC& AMiU* D3 B0 0@@v~cv AO 0D D/  B<HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLd(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular EEEDӀڃ"3|x((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd-'C << G<  9p`(Arial++++'dxd d  !#d#$  ))   YYY FILED)X December29,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.)AppellateCourtClerk ("$      !#d#$   $       %%Rule15.03,Tenn.R.Civ.P.,asapplicabletothiscase,providedasfollows: 8 Whenevertheclaimordefenseassertedintheamendedpleadingsaroseoutoftheconduct,transactionoroccurrencesetforthorattemptedtobesetforthintheoriginalpleading,theamendmentrelatesbacktothedateoftheoriginalpleading.Anamendmentchangingthepartyagainstwhomaclaimisassertedrelatesbackiftheforegoingprovisionissatisfiedandif,withintheperiodprovidedbylawforcommencingtheactionagainsthim,thepartytobebroughtinbyamendment(1)hasreceivedsuchnoticeoftheinstitutionoftheactionthathewillnotbeprejudicedinmaintaininghisdefenseonthemerits,and(2)kneworshouldhaveknownthat,butforamisnomerorothersimilarmistakeconcerningtheidentityoftheproperparty,theactionwouldhavebeenbroughtagainsthim.Exceptasabovespecified,nothinginthisruleshallbeconstruedtoextendanyperiodoflimitationsgoverningthetimeinwhichanyactionmaybebrought.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . $  P %7HXXdd7\RA'\  R(,'A1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEERICHARDC.CANADAandwife  )C/ANO.03A019606CV00182SHARONCANADA,     )       )  PlaintiffsAppellants, )       )       )       )v.       )       )       )       )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHEACECODENT,ZAHNDENTALCOMPANY, )BRADLEYCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURTINC.,andHENRYSCHEIN,INC.,  )       )  Defendants,   )       )       )and       )       )       )̜ACECODENTINCORPORATED,   )       )HONORABLEEARLEG.MURPHY,  DefendantAppellee.  )JUDGEForAppellants      ForAppelleeJIMMYW.BILBO      DAVIDF.HENSLEYLogan,Thompson,Miller,Bilbo,  Milligan,Barry,HensleỳThompson&Fisher,P.C.    &EvansCleveland,Tennessee    Chattanooga,Tennessee̛̜@   OPINION %%X̛̜REVERSEDANDREMANDED       Susano,J.  ByorderenteredDecember15,1997,theSupremeCourtremandedthiscasetousforfurtherconsiderationinlightofitsopinionin Granthamv.JacksonMadisonCountyGeneralHospitalDistrict ,954S.W.2d36(Tenn.1997).  In Grantham ,theplaintiffsfiledsuitonFebruary18,1994,againstadefendantidentifiedintheoriginalcomplaintasϜJacksonMadisonCountyGeneralHospital.OnFebruary24,1994,fourdaysafterthestatuteoflimitationshadexpiredontheplaintiffstortclaims,thecomplaintwasservedontheagentforserviceofprocessforJacksonMadisonCountyGeneralHospitalϜDistrict.Thehospitalfiledamotiontodismiss,arguingthattheplaintiffshadomittedtheword DistrictfromthehospitalsnameandthatJacksonMadisonCountyGeneralHospitalwasnotalegalentity.Thetrialcourtallowedanamendmenttothecomplainttoreflectthehospitalscorrectname;buttheCourtofAppealsreversed,findingthattheplaintiffswereattemptingtoaddanewpartyaftertheperiodoflimitationshadexpired.InϜsoruling,theCourtofAppeals heldthattheamendmentdidnotrelatebacktothefilingoftheoriginalcomplaintbecausethedefendantwasservedaftertheexpirationoftimeforcommencementofaction. Id .at37.̛  TheSupremeCourtreversedtheCourtofAppealsandaffirmedthetrialcourt.Inthecourseofitsopinion,theSupremeCourtstatedasfollows: 8 Webelievethattheplaintiffsdidnotselectthewrongdefendantbutsimplymislabeledtherightdefendant.Plaintiffsproperlyidentifiedthedefendantinseveralrespects.TheyreferredtothedefendantasahealthcarefacilitydoingbusinessinMadisonCounty,Tennessee.Theyservedthecomplaintonthedefendantsproperagentforserviceofprocessatdefendantsplaceofbusiness.Theyalsoapproximatedthedefendantsnameinthecaptionofthecomplaintas JacksonMadisonCountyGeneralHospital.Thedefendantscorrectnameis JacksonMadisonCountyGeneralHospitalDistrict.Everywordintheplaintiffsdesignationappearsinthecorrectdesignation.Thesoledifferenceisthattheplaintiffsomittedtheword District.@ *** 8 ...theplaintiffsinthepresentcasearenotattemptingtoaddthenameofanindividualoranotherbusiness.Theyaremerelyattemptingtocorrectthemislabelingofthepartytheyintendedtosue.Wefindthattheapproximationintheoriginalcomplaintwassufficientlyclosetopreventprejudicebyapprisingthedefendantitwasbeingsued.Theamendedcomplaintsclaim aroseoutofthesameconduct,transactionoroccurrencesetforth...intheoriginal[complaint].ϜTenn.R.Civ.P.,Rule15.03.TherequirementsofRule15.03havebeensatisfied,andtheplaintiffsshouldbeallowedtoamendtheircomplaint. Id. at3738.̛  Intheinstantcase,thecaptionoftheoriginalcomplaintidentifiedtherelevantdefendantasfollows: 8 ACECODENT,aNewYorkcorporation  whoseregisteredagentforservice  ofprocessisKyungJinKoh,  4370KissenaBlvd.,Flushing,  NewYork,11355ThatcomplaintwasfiledonMay19,1995.ItsoughtdamagesϜarisingoutofpersonalinjuriessustainedbytheplaintiffϜRichardC.CanadainanaccidentonMay21,1994.ItallegedthatthedamageswereproximatelycausedbyadefectiveproductmanufacturedbyAceCodent.  Asinthe Grantham case,thecomplaintintheinstantcasewasservedonanagentforthecorrectparty,AcecodentϜIncorporated,aftertheoneyearstatuteoflimitationshadexpired.Asin Grantham ,thedefendantAcecodentIncorporatedϜarguesthattheplaintiffsintheinstantcaseattemptedtonameanewpartyaftertheoneyearstatuteoflimitationshadrun,andthattheamendmentdidnotrelatebacktotheoriginalfilingunderthelanguageofthethenexistingversionofRule15.03,ϜTenn.R.Civ.P. .   כ  Theinstantcaseiscontrolledby Grantham .TheϜplaintiffsinthecaseatbarapproximatedthedefendantscorrectnameintheoriginalcomplaint.Thewords AceCodentappearalbeitasonewordinthecorrectdesignationassetforthintheamendedcomplaint.Anagentforthecorrectdefendantwasservedwithprocess.AstheSupremeCourtsaidin Grantham , theapproximationintheoriginalcomplaintwassufficientlyclosetopreventprejudicebyapprisingthedefendantitwasbeingsued. Id. at38.Following Grantham ,weholdthattheamendedcomplaintinthiscaserelatesbacktothefilingoftheoriginalcomplaintandthusisnotsubjecttothebaroftheoneyearstatuteoflimitations.Accordingly,ourholdingtothecontrarywaserroraswasthetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentbaseduponthebarofthestatuteoflimitations.  OurjudgmentofJune9,1997,isherebyvacatedandheldfornaught.Furthermore,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisreversed.Thiscaseisremandedforfurtherproceedings,consistentwiththisopinion.Allcostsonappealaretaxedagainsttheappellee,AcecodentIncorporated.      _____________________________      CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.________________________DonT.McMurray,J.