ÿWPCâ 4# èUNó %A 0(Gw@o4¯ÃÒ 0lÚ 0DF 0@Š 0JÊ 0T 0^h 0hÆ 0r. 0|  0† 0¢ 1u2 0d§ B D3( U>[ B)™ DC AM U*R | AQ„ ÆÕ 0D› 0Dß D/# BRo“€~v~‘vÓ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nL,Î(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ; < = > ?£@ABÓ€NOŒƒ*#3|xO((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò2 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d 'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd*%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial þÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òSeptember€23,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó*+,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€trial€court€entered€orders€of€voluntary€non„suit€as€to€defendants€City€Drug€Company,ÏD€&€K,€Inc.,€Pharmaceutical€Services,€Inc.,€and€Robert€Walker.Ì ‰Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝMedco€filed€a€motion€for€judgment€on€the€pleadings.€€Pursuant€to€Rule€12.03€T.R.C.P.,Ïð ð[i]f,€on€motion€for€judgment€on€the€pleadings,€matters€outside€the€pleadings€are€presented€to€andÏnot€excluded€by€the€court,€the€motion€shall€be€treated€as€one€for€summary€judgment€.€.€.€.ððÌ tÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝEffective€July€1,€1997€Rule€3€is€amended€to€delete€the€words€ð ðand€summons.ðð€€TheÏadvisory€commission€comment€notes€that€deletion€of€the€requirement€of€filing€a€summons€inÏaddition€to€a€complaint€returns€the€requirement€for€commencement€to€pre„1992€status.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  Ýò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€WESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€JACKSONó óÌÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌà à)Ìò òœÙ€*ÙßR€&(%A1-j|íè` Å `€€@ÿRß›WESLEY€CARYó ó,à à)à àBenton€County€Circuit€CourtÌà à)à àNo.€3674Ì€€€€€Plaintiff/Appellant.à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)à àC.A.€No.€02A01„9511„CV„00263Ìà à)Ìò òROBERT€BOURNE,€M.D.,€et€aló ó,à à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendants/Appellees.à à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Circuit€Court€of€Benton€County€at€Camden.Ìò òHonorable€Julian€P.€Guinn,€Judge€ó óÌÌÌò òRobert€G.€Gilderó ó,€Southaven,€MississippiÌò òL.€Anne€Jacksonó ó,€Southaven,€MississippiÌAttorneys€for€Plaintiff/Appellant.ÌÌò òÌMarty€R.€Phillipsó ó,€RAINEY,€KIZER,€BUTLER,€REVIERE€&€BELL,€P.L.C.,€Jackson,€TNÌAttorney€for€Defendants/Appellees€Robert€Bourne,€M.D.€and€Agustin€Vitualla,€M.D.Ìò òMichael€E.€Evansó ó,€EVANS€&€TODD,€Nashville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellee€Medco€Drugs,€Inc.Ìò òFloyd€S.€Flippinó ó,€ADAMS,€RYAL€&€FLIPPIN,€Humboldt,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellee€David€Berger,€M.D.Ìò òC.€J.€Gideon,€Jr.,ÌJohn€T.€Reese,ó óÌGIDEON€&€WISEMAN,€Nashville,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€Defendant/Appellee€Jon€Winter,€D.O.Ìò òRebecca€Adelmanó ó,€GLASSMAN,€JETER,€EDWARDS€&€WADE,€P.C.,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellee€Robert€L.€Horton,€Jr.,€D.D.S.Ìò òDavid€A.€Lufkinó ó,€LUFKIN€&€HENLEY,€Knoxville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellee€Rite€Aid€of€Tennessee,€Inc.Ìò òCatherine€B.€Claytonó ó,€Jackson,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellee€Wal„Mart€Stores,€Inc.Ìò òJohn€S.€Littleó ó,€Jackson,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellee€Fry€Drug€Company,€Inc.Ìò òLela€M.€Hollabaughó ó,€MANIER,€HEROD,€HOLLABAUGH€&€SMITH,€Nashville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendants/Appellees€Paul€Melton€d/b/a€Meltonððs€Pharmacy€and€Fredððs€Stores€ofÏTennessee,€Inc.€d/b/a€FredððsÌò òTom€Cortsó ó,€ORTALE,€KELLEY,€HERBERT€&€CRAWFORD,€Nashville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellee€Herndon€DrugsÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:Ìò òAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÌà àò òFARMER,€J.ó óÌÌò òCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òLILLARD,€J.ó ó:€œ(Concurs)ÌÌ›ÓÓÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓœà àThis€is€an€appeal€from€the€trial€courtððs€orders€dismissing€Wesley€Caryððs€complaintÏagainst€various€health€care€providers€for€their€alleged€contribution€to€the€breakup€of€his€marriage€toÏLinda€K.€Cary.€€Wesley€Cary€(hereinafter,€ð ðCaryðð€or€ð ðMr.€Caryðð)€alleged€that€the€marriage€hadÏbeen€irreconcilably€broken€due€to€his€wifeððs€prescription€drug€addiction,€which€he€alleged€was€aÏresult€of€the€over€prescription€of€drugs€and€overfilling€of€prescriptions€by€the€defendants.€€WeÏaffirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision.€€ÌÌà@ àò òFACTSó óÌÌà àWesley€Cary€and€Linda€Cary€(hereinafter,€ð ðMs.€Caryðð),€were€married€in€1968,€andÏresided€in€Camden,€Benton€County,€Tennessee,€throughout€their€marriage.€€On€May€24,€1994,€theÏparties€separated.€€Prior€to€their€separation,€it€is€undisputed€that€the€parties€had€been€estranged.€€AsÏearly€as€November,€1991,€Cary€had€told€Robert€Bourne,€M.D.€that€he€and€Ms.€Cary€had€beenÏhaving€marital€difficulties.€€The€Carysðð€problems€exacerbated€over€the€years€to€the€point€that€theyÏtook€separate€vacations€and€had€separate€bank€accounts.€€Ms.€Cary€filed€for€divorce€in€theÏChancery€Court€of€Benton€County€in€September,€1994.€€In€his€answer€and€counter„complaint€forÏdivorce,€Mr.€Cary€stated€that€Ms.€Cary€ð ðbecame€addicted€to€various€prescription€drugs€andÏprescription€medications€for€a€long€period€of€time€prior€to€the€final€separation€of€the€partiesðð€andÏthat€she€had€denied€him€conjugal€rights€ð ðfor€a€long€period€of€time€prior€to€the€separation.ðð€€WhileÏthe€termination€of€the€marriage€is€not€the€subject€of€the€instant€proceeding,€it€is€relevant€to€theÏissues€raised€in€this€cause.€€Ìà àOn€May€26,€1994,€Cary€learned€from€Robert€Borne,€M.D.,€that€Linda€Cary€hadÏforged€prescriptions€to€obtain€medications€to€which€she€had€become€addicted.€€Cary€stated€in€anÏaffidavit€filed€in€the€trial€court€that€he€had€no€knowledge€of€his€wifeððs€addiction€prior€to€May€26,Í1994,€and€could€not€have€known€of€it€until€that€time.€€Cary€further€stated€that€until€May€26,€1994,Ïhe€had€ð ðabsolutely€no€idea€that€the€drastic€change€in€my€wifeððs€behavior€and€attitude€had€anythingÏto€do€with€drugs.ðð€€After€his€meeting€with€Dr.€Bourne,€Cary€began€an€investigation€into€his€wifeððsÏprescription€drug€addiction.€€The€results€of€the€investigation€revealed€that€Ms.€Cary€had€obtainedÏmany€prescriptions€from€a€number€of€physicians€and€dentists€and€had€them€filled€at€severalÏpharmacies.ÌÌà àOn€May€3,€1995,€Cary€filed€a€complaint€for€medical€malpractice€in€the€Circuit€CourtÏof€Benton€County.€€In€the€complaint,€Cary€named€as€defendants:€Robert€Bourne,€M.D.,€DavidÏBerger,€M.D.,€Jon€Winter,€D.O.,€Agustin€Vitualla,€M.D.,€Robert€L.€Horton,€Jr.,€D.D.S.,€RobertÏWalker,€D.D.S.,€Rite„Aid€Pharmacy€#1402,€Wal„Mart€Pharmacy,€Medco€Drugs,€Inc.,€Fry€DrugÏCompany,€Paul€Melton€d/b/a€Meltonððs€Pharmacy,€Herndon€Drug€Company,€PharmaceuticalÏServices,€D€and€K,€Inc.,€and€City€Drug€Company.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€No€summons€were€filed€with€the€originalÏcomplaint.€€In€the€complaint,€Cary€asserted€that€his€marriage€had€been€ð ðirreconcilably€broken€as€aÏdirect€and€proximate€result€of€his€spouse,€Linda€Kay€Caryððs€prescription€drug€addiction.ðð€€CaryððsÏcause€of€action€arises€solely€from€the€alleged€termination€of€his€marriage;€however,€at€no€time€hasÏLinda€K.€Cary€been€a€party€to€the€instant€proceeding.ÌÌà àOn€May€30,€1995,€Cary€filed€an€amended€complaint€but€did€not€allege€anyÏadditional€causes€of€action.€€Cary€attached€to€the€amended€complaint€summons€as€to€allÏDefendants.€€Also€on€May€30,€1995,€the€circuit€court€clerk€issued€said€summons€to€all€defendantsÏexcept€Rite„Aid€Pharmacy.€€The€summons€as€to€Rite„Aid€Pharmacy€was€issued€subsequently€onÏJuly€19,€1995.€€ò òÌó óÌà àThe€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€remaining€Defendants€andÍPlaintiff€appeals.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€Review€of€the€trial€courtððs€decision€on€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€is€òòò òdeÏnovoó óóó.€€No€presumption€or€correctness€attaches€to€the€trial€courtððs€disposition.€€The€Court€mustÏreview€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€party€and€must€also€draw€allÏreasonable€inferences€in€the€nonmoving€partyððs€favor.€€òòò òByrd€v.€Hallóóó ó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210„211Ï(Tenn.€1993).€€Courts€should€grant€summary€judgment€only€when€both€the€facts€and€theÏconclusions€to€be€drawn€from€them€permit€a€reasonable€person€to€reach€but€one€conclusion.€Ïòòò òByrdóóó ó,€847€S.W.2d€208.ÌÌà@ àò òISSUESó óà àÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€parties€have€raised€the€following€issues:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àI.€€Does€Tennessee€recognize€a€cause€of€action€forÏtermination€of€a€marriage?ÌÌà8 àà àII.€€Whether€the€trial€court€correctly€granted€summaryÏjudgment€on€the€basis€that€Plaintiffððs€cause€of€action€for€loss€ofÏconsortium€resulting€from€his€wifeððs€addiction€to€prescription€drugsÏwas€time€barred€by€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations€codified€atÏT.C.A.€ðð€29„20„116.€€€€ÌÌà8 àà àIII.€€Whether€the€statute€of€limitations€begins€to€run€uponÏdiscovery€of€the€addiction€or€upon€discovery€of€the€cause€of€action.ÌÌÌÌà àAppellee€Rite„Aid€of€Tennessee,€Inc.,€has€raised€the€following€issues:ÌÌÌÌÌà8 àà àIV.€€Whether€Rite„Aid€of€Tennessee,€Inc.,€was€ever€namedÏas€a€defendant€in€either€the€original€or€any€amended€complaint.ÌÌà8 àà àV.€€Whether€Plaintiff€commenced€the€action€against€Rite„AidÏof€Tennessee,€Inc.,€within€the€one€year€statute€of€limitations€periodÍafter€Plaintiff€admits€that€he€had€full€knowledge€of€his€claims€againstÏall€defendants.ÌÌÌÌà8 àAppellees€Bourne€and€Vitualla€have€raised€the€following€issue:ÌÌÌÌà8 àà àVI.€€Did€the€trial€court€correctly€grant€summary€judgment€asÏto€Drs.€Bourne€and€Vitualla€because€the€undisputed€expert€testimonyÏshows€that€Drs.€Bourne€and€Vitualla€met€the€recognized€standard€ofÏacceptable€professional€practice€required€of€them€and€did€not€causeÏany€injury€to€Plaintiff?ÌÌÌÌà àAppellee€Robert€L.€Horton,€D.D.S.€has€raised€the€following€issue:ÌÌÌÌà8 àà àVII.€€Whether€Plaintiffððs€appeal€is€frivolous€and€warrantsÏimposition€of€an€award€of€damages.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà0 àà àà@ àò òSTANDARD€OF€CAREó óÌÌà àWe€will€address€first€the€issue€as€presented€by€Doctors€and€Vitualla.€€They€assertÏthat€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€its€holding€because€the€undisputed€expert€evidence€established€thatÏthey€had€met€the€recognized€standard€of€acceptable€professional€practice€required€of€them.ÌÌà àIn€medical€malpractice€actions,€there€is€no€presumption€of€negligence€on€the€part€ofÏthe€defendant.€€T.C.A.€ðð€29„26„115(c)€(1980)€provides€in€relevant€part:ÌÌÓÓà8 àIn€a€malpractice€action€as€described€in€subsection€(a)€of€this€sectionÏthere€shall€be€no€presumption€of€negligence€on€the€part€of€theÏdefendant.ÌÌÌÌÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€29„26„115(a)€sets€forth€the€burden€of€proof€which€the€plaintiff€must€establish€to€maintainÏa€medical€malpractice€claim.€That€section€states:ÌÌÓÓà8 à(a)€In€a€malpractice€action,€the€claimant€shall€have€the€burden€ofÏproving€by€evidence€as€provided€in€subsection€(b):Ìà8 àà à(1)€The€recognized€standard€of€acceptable€professionalÏpractice€in€the€profession€and€the€specialty€thereof,€if€any,€that€theÏdefendant€practices€in€the€community€in€which€he€practices€or€in€aÏsimilar€community€at€the€time€the€alleged€injury€or€wrongful€actionÏoccurred;Ìà8 àà à(2)€That€the€defendant€acted€with€less€than€or€failed€to€actÏwith€ordinary€and€reasonable€care€in€accordance€with€such€standard;ÏandÌà8 àà à(3)€As€a€proximate€result€of€the€defendantððs€negligent€act€orÏomission,€the€plaintiff€suffered€injuries€which€would€not€otherwiseÏhave€occurred.ÌÌÌÌÓÓAs€provided€by€T.C.A.€ðð€29„26„115(d),€the€burden€of€proof€in€a€medical€malpractice€action€restsÏwith€the€plaintiff.ÌÌà àThis€Court€has€held€that€negligence€and€causation€in€medical€malpractice€actionsÏmust€be€proved€by€competent€expert€medical€testimony.€€òòò òStokes€v.€Leungóóó ó,€651€S.W.2d€704,Ï706€(Tenn.€App.€1982).€€In€fact,€T.C.A.€ðð€29„26„115(b)€states:ÌÌÓÓà8 àNo€person€in€a€health€care€profession€requiring€licensure€under€theÏlaws€of€this€state€shall€be€competent€to€testify€in€any€court€of€law€toÏestablish€the€facts€required€to€be€established€by€subsection€(a)€unlessÏhe€was€licensed€to€practice€in€the€state€or€a€contiguous€borderingÏstate€€a€profession€or€specialty€which€would€make€his€expertÏtestimony€relevant€to€the€issues€in€the€case€and€had€practiced€thisÏprofession€or€specialty€in€one€of€these€states€during€the€yearÏpreceding€the€date€that€the€alleged€injury€or€wrongful€act€occurred.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€support€of€their€motions€for€summary€judgment,€both€Dr.€Bourne€and€Dr.ÏVitualla€testified€by€affidavit€that€they€fully€complied€with€the€recognized€standard€of€acceptableÏprofessional€practice€required€of€them€in€all€of€their€care€and€treatment€of€Ms.€Cary.€€In€addition,ÏDr.€Bourne€and€Dr.€Vitualla€each€stated€in€their€affidavits€that€they€did€not€cause€or€contribute€toÏany€injury€to€either€Mr.€Cary€or€Ms.€Cary.€€A€defendant€physician€may€rely€upon€his€affidavit€inÏsupport€of€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€òòò òSmith€v.€Gravesóóó ó,€672€S.W.2d€787,€790€(Tenn.ÍApp.€1984).€€In€òòò òBowman€v.€Henardóóó ó,€547€S.W.2d€527€(Tenn.€1977),€our€supreme€court€held:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àIn€summary€we€hold€that,€in€those€malpractice€actionsÏwherein€expert€medical€testimony€is€required€to€establish€negligenceÏand€proximate€cause,€affidavits€by€medical€doctors€which€clearlyÏand€completely€refute€plaintiffððs€contention€afford€a€proper€basis€forÏdismissal€of€the€action€on€summary€judgment,€in€the€absence€ofÏproper€responsive€proof€by€affidavit€or€otherwise.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òBowmanóóó ó,€547€S.W.2d€at€531.€€In€the€instant€case,€Cary€presented€no€evidence€to€rebut€theÏmotion€for€summary€judgment€filed€by€Drs.€Bourne€and€Vitualla.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÏin€òòò òByrd€v.€Hallóóó ó,€847€S.W.2d€208€(Tenn.€1993),€held€that€summary€judgment€is€appropriate€inÏthe€following€circumstance:ÌÌÓÓà8 àOnce€it€is€shown€by€the€moving€party€that€there€is€no€genuine€issueÏof€material€fact,€the€nonmoving€party€must€then€demonstrate,€byÏaffidavits€or€discovery€materials,€that€there€is€a€genuine,€material€factÏdispute€to€warrant€a€trial.€.€.€.€€In€this€regard,€Rule€56.05€providesÏthat€the€nonmoving€party€cannot€simply€rely€upon€his€pleadings€butÏmust€set€forth€òòò òspecific€factsóóó ó€showing€that€there€is€a€genuine€issueÏof€material€fact€for€trial.€€ð ðIf€he€does€not€so€respond,€summaryÏjudgment€.€.€.€shall€be€entered€against€him.ðð€€Rule€56.05.ÌÌÌÌÓÓò òòòByrdóóó ó,€847€S.W.2d€at€211€(emphasis€in€original).ÌÌà àCary€failed€to€present€any€competent€expert€testimony€whatsoever€to€controvert€Dr.ÏBourneððs€and€Dr.€Vituallaððs€testimony€concerning€the€recognized€standard€of€professional€practiceÏand€causation€required€by€T.C.A.€ðð€29„26„115(a).€€Therefore,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€properlyÏgranted€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€Dr.€Bourne€and€Dr.€Vitualla,€and€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððsÏdecision€in€this€regard.ÌÌà@ àò òSTATUTE€OF€LIMITATIONSó óÌÌà àSince€the€alleged€negligence€underlying€this€cause€of€action€is€for€medicalÏmalpractice,€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations€is€one€year.€€T.C.A.€ðð€29„26„116(a)(1)€provides:Ïð ðThe€statute€of€limitations€in€malpractice€actions€shall€be€one€(1)€year€as€set€forth€in€ðð€28„3„104.ðð€ÏCary€filed€a€complaint€in€this€cause€on€May€3,€1995;€however,€such€action,€by€itself,€is€insufficientÏto€commence€a€cause€of€action€under€Rule€3,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€€The€rule€previously€provided€thatÏð ð[a]ll€civil€actions€are€commenced€by€filing€a€complaint€with€the€Court.ðð€€In€òòò òHine€v.ÏCommercial€Carriers,€Inc.óóó ó,€802€S.W.2d€218€(Tenn.€1990),€a€complaint€was€filed€on€MarchÏ15,€1989,€within€the€period€prescribed€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€However,€a€summons€was€notÏissued€until€more€than€two€months€after€the€statute€had€expired.€€In€reversing€the€trial€courtððsÏdismissal,€the€supreme€court€noted€that€Rule€4.01€T.R.C.P.€provided€that€ð ðupon€the€filing€of€theÏcomplaint€the€clerk€of€the€court€wherein€the€complaint€is€filed€shall€forthwith€issue€the€requiredÏsummons€.€.€.€.ðð€€The€court€went€on€to€state€that:ÌÌÓÓà8 àFirst,€Rule€3€clearly€states€that€ð ð[a]n€action€is€commenced€within€theÏmeaning€of€any€statute€of€limitations€upon€such€òòò òfiling€of€aÏcomplaintóóó ó,€whether€process€be€returned€served€or€unserved.ðð€Ï(emphasis€added).€€If€the€drafters€of€the€rule€intended€a€complaintÏòòò òandóóó ó€summons€to€commence€an€action€for€statute€of€limitationÏpurposes,€the€rule€could€have€easily€been€drafted€to€so€indicate.€€AsÏit€is,€however,€Rule€3€speaks€in€terms€of€a€complaint€and€the€statuteÏof€limitations,€regardless€of€process.€€It€adds€no€other€requirementÏfor€commencing€an€action.€€Rule€4.01,€dealing€with€the€issuance€ofÏa€summons,€says€nothing€about€the€statute€of€limitations.€€It€shouldÏbe€noted,€however,€that€the€language€in€Rule€3€indicative€of€timeÏconstraints€speaks€to€keeping€process€in€an€active€mode,€but€is€notÏinstructive€on€when€a€summons€must€be€issued€relative€to€the€filingÏof€the€complaint.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òHineóóó ó,€802€S.W.2d€at€219„20.€€The€court€held€that€a€summons€need€not€necessarily€be€issuedÏsimultaneously€with€the€filing€of€a€complaint€in€order€for€the€complaint€to€toll€the€statute€ofÏlimitations.€€Rather,€the€summons€must€be€issued€ð ðforthwith,ðð€which€the€court€construed€to€meanÏwithin€a€reasonable€time€after€the€complaint€is€filed.€€The€case€was€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€aÏdetermination€of€whether€or€not€the€complaint€was€issued€within€a€reasonable€time.€€However,ÏRule€3€was€subsequently€amended€and€at€all€times€here€pertinent€states:ÌÌÓÓà8 àòòò òAll€civil€actions€are€commenced€by€filing€a€complaintÏand€summons€with€the€clerk€of€the€courtóóó ó.€€An€action€isÏcommenced€within€the€meaning€of€any€statute€of€limitations€uponÏsuch€filing€of€a€complaint€and€summons,€whether€process€be€issuedÏor€not€issued€and€whether€process€be€returned€served€or€unserved.€ÏIf€process€remains€unissued€for€30€days€or€is€not€served€or€is€notÏreturned€within€30€days€from€issuance,€regardless€of€the€reason,€theÏplaintiff€cannot€rely€upon€the€original€commencement€to€toll€theÏrunning€of€a€statute€of€limitations€.€.€.€.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€(Emphasis€added.)ÌÌÌÌÓÓWhile€Cary€filed€the€original€complaint€on€May€3,€1995,€he€did€not€file€at€that€time€a€summons€asÏrequired€by€Rule€3.€€The€record€reveals€that€it€was€not€until€May€30,€1995,€when€Cary€filed€theÏamended€complaint,€that€all€summons€were€filed.€€The€trial€court€clerk€issued€summons€as€to€allÏdefendants€except€Rite„Aid€Pharmacy€on€May€30,€1995.€€The€summons€as€to€Rite„Aid€Pharmacy,Ïwhile€filed€with€the€5/30/95€amended€complaint,€was€not€issued€by€the€trial€court€clerk€until€JulyÏ19,€1995.€€It€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€action€was€commenced€on€May€30,€1995,€the€date€theÏamended€complaint€and€summons€were€filed€and€the€date€the€summons€were€issued.€€Therefore,Ïthe€action€is€barred€by€the€one€year€statute€of€limitations€applicable€to€medical€malpractice€claims.€ÌÌà àAppellant€asserts€that€he€should€not€be€required€to€file€a€lawsuit€prior€to€hisÏknowledge€of€his€injury.€€In€support€of€this€assertion,€Appellant€cites€Tennessee€case€law€whichÏholds€that€the€statute€of€limitations€does€not€start€to€run€until€the€cause€of€the€injury€is€discovered€orÏshould€have€been€discovered€and€the€identity€of€the€tort„feasor€is€known€or€should€have€beenÏknown.€€òòò òSee€McCrosky€v.€Bryant€Air€Conditioning€Co.óóó ó,€524€S.W.2d€487€(Tenn.€1974);Ïòòò òTeeters€v.€Curreyóóó ó,€518€S.W.2d€512€(Tenn.€1974).€€However,€these€cases€address€situations€inÏwhich€the€plaintiffs€could€not€have€discovered€the€causes€of€action€within€adequate€time€to€bring€aÏtimely€action.€€Cary€relies€upon€òòò òGilbert€v.€Jonesóóó ó,€523€S.W.2d€211€(Tenn.€1974),€for€theÏproposition€that€the€discovery€rule€should€apply€to€toll€the€statute€of€limitations€until€such€time€asÍthe€defendants€are€identified.€€However,€as€noted€by€òòò òWebber€v.€Union€Carbide€Corpóóó ó.,€653ÏS.W.2d€409,€412€(Tenn.€App.€1983),ÌÌÓÓà8 àThere€is€nothing€in€òòò òGilbertóóó ó€to€suggest,€however,€that€the€statuteÏshould€have€been€tolled€until€the€plaintiff€could€identify€asÏdefendants€the€manufacturers€of€specific€ingredients€or€substancesÏcontained€in€the€contraceptives.€€Once€the€contraceptives€wereÏrecognized€as€the€cause€of€the€illness,€the€cause€of€action€accrued.Ìà àÌÌÌòòò òÓÓWebberóóó ó,€653€S.W.2d€at€412.€€€€€€ÌÌà àThe€discovery€rule€codified€at€T.C.A.€ðð€29„26„116(a)(2)€states:€ð ðIn€the€event€theÏalleged€injury€is€not€discovered€within€the€said€one€(1)€year€period,€the€period€of€limitation€shall€beÏone€(1)€year€from€the€date€of€such€discovery.ðð€€As€held€by€our€supreme€court€in€òòò òRoe€v.ÏJeffersonóóó ó,€875€S.W.2d€653€(Tenn.€1994),€the€discovery€rules€applies:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[O]nly€in€cases€where€plaintiff€does€not€discover€and€reasonablyÏcould€not€be€expected€to€discover€that€he€has€a€right€of€action.€.€.€.Ïthe€statute€is€tolled€only€during€the€period€when€the€plaintiff€has€noÏknowledge€at€all€that€a€wrong€has€occurred,€and,€as€a€reasonableÏperson€is€not€put€on€inquiry.€€ÌÌÌÌòòò òÓÓRoeóóó ó,€875€S.W.2d€at€656„57€(quoting€òòò òHoffman€v.€Hospital€Affiliates,€Inc.,€óóó ó652€S.W.2dÏ341,€344€(Tenn.€1983)).€€The€òòò òRoeóóó ó€court€noted€that€a€plaintiff€need€not€actually€know€that€theÏinjury€constitutes€a€breach€of€the€appropriate€legal€standard€in€order€to€discover€that€he€has€a€rightÏof€action.€€Instead,€the€plaintiff€is€deemed€to€have€discovered€the€right€of€action€if€he€is€aware€ofÏfacts€sufficient€to€put€a€reasonable€person€on€notice€that€he€has€suffered€an€injury€as€a€result€ofÏwrongful€conduct.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€at€657.€€Furthermore,€the€supreme€court€held€in€òòò òCarvell€v.€Bottomsóóó ó,Ï900€S.W.2d€23,€29€(Tenn.€1995),€that€a€plaintiff€need€not€have€the€advice€of€a€professionalÏregarding€a€possible€cause€of€action€in€order€for€the€statute€of€limitations€to€accrue.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòò òRoberts€v.€Berryóóó ó,€541€F.2d€602€(6th€Cir.€1976),€the€Sixth€Circuit,€applyingÏTennessee€law€to€a€loss€of€consortium€claim,€held€that€the€statute€of€limitations€begins€to€run€whenÏthe€consortium€is€lost€and€not€when€the€tortious€conduct€is€discovered.€€òòò òRobertsóóó ó,€541€F.2d€atÏ610.€€The€Supreme€Court€noted€that€loss€of€consortium€is€a€gradual€injury€and€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€begins€to€run€when€the€husband€knows€or€should€have€known€of€the€errant€conduct€byÏhis€wife.€€òòò òBroidioi€v.€Hallóóó ó,€€218€S.W.2d€737,€738€(Tenn€1949).€€In€the€instant€case,€it€is€notÏknown€when€the€consortium€was€lost,€but€it€is€clear€it€was€sometime€before€May€26,€1994.€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àExamination€of€the€record€filed€in€this€Court€leads€to€the€conclusion€that€AppellantÏknew€of€the€existence€of€a€cause€of€action€no€later€than€May€26,€1994.€€The€amended€complaintÏfiled€May€30,€1995,€stated€that€Cary€ð ðlearned€of€these€acts€of€malpractice€in€the€latter€part€of€May,Ï1994.ðð€€In€a€subsequent€affidavit€filed€August€30,€1995,€Cary€stated€that€he€discovered€the€allegedÏmalpractice€on€May€26,€1994,€when€he€met€with€Dr.€Bourne.€€After€that€meeting,€Cary€began€anÏinvestigation€into€Mrs.€Caryððs€prescription€records.€€In€the€separate€divorce€proceeding,€Cary€filedÏa€counterclaim€on€September€30,€1994,€in€which€he€stated€under€oath€that€the€Carysðð€finalÏseparation€occurred€on€May€24,€1994.€€In€that€pleading,€Cary€stated€that€Ms.€Cary€had€denied€himÏhis€conjugal€rights€ð ðfor€a€long€period€of€time€prior€to€the€final€separation.ðð€€Furthermore,€it€isÏevident€from€Dr.€Bourneððs€affidavit€filed€August€23,€1995,€that€the€Carys€had€been€having€maritalÏdifficulties€before€May€24,€1994.€€Mr.€Cary€had€informed€Bourne€of€the€situation€as€early€asÏNovember,€1991,€and€Bourne€was€aware€that€the€Caryððs€had€taken€separate€vacations€andÏmaintained€separate€checking€accounts€prior€to€their€separation.ÌÌà àOn€October€16,€1995,€Cary€filed€a€supplemental€affidavit€in€which€he€stated€that€heÏknew€about€his€wifeðð€drug€addiction€by€May€26,€1994,€when€Dr.€Bourne€met€with€Cary€andÏshowed€him€the€prescriptions€that€Ms.€Cary€had€altered,€but€Cary€stated€he€did€not€know€about€theÏdoctorsðð€and€pharmaciesðð€alleged€malpractice€until€June€20,€1994,€when€he€had€completed€hisÏinvestigation€into€his€wifeððs€prescription€records.€€It€is€undeniable€that€Cary€had€stated€in€previousÍaffidavits€and€pleadings€that€he€knew€about€the€alleged€malpractice€as€of€May€26,€1994.€ÏTherefore,€the€Court€questions€the€probative€value€of€Caryððs€inconsistent€statements.€€òòò òSee€PriceÏv.€Beckeróóó ó,€812€S.W.2d€597,€598€(Tenn.€App.€1991)€(two€sworn€inconsistent€statements€by€aÏparty€are€of€no€probative€value€in€establishing€a€disputed€issue€of€material€fact).€€In€spite€of€theseÏinconsistencies,€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€before€this€Court€points€to€May€26,€1994,€asÏthe€date€on€which€the€statute€of€limitations€began€to€run.€€€ÌÌà àOn€May€26,€1994,€Cary€knew€that€he€and€his€wife€had€separated€two€days€earlierÏon€May€24,€and€he€admitted€that€they€had€not€had€conjugal€relations€for€a€long€period€of€timeÏbefore€the€separation.€€He€knew€from€the€meeting€with€Dr.€Bourne€that€Ms.€Cary€was€addicted€toÏdrugs€as€evidenced€by€the€fact€that€she€had€altered€prescriptions€in€order€to€obtain€them.€ÏFurthermore,€Cary€had€admitted€that€the€couple€had€been€having€extreme€difficulties€as€early€asÏNovember,€1991,€that€they€took€separate€vacations€and€maintained€separate€checking€accounts.€ÏCary€even€stated€in€a€pleading€filed€in€this€cause€that€he€knew€about€the€alleged€wrongful€acts€ofÏthe€defendants€by€May€26,€1994,€and€it€is€undisputed€that€as€a€result€of€the€May€26,€1994,€meetingÏbetween€Dr.€Bourne€and€Mr.€Cary€that€Cary€immediately€began€an€investigation€into€his€wifeððsÏprescription€records.ÌÌà àContrary€to€the€argument€advanced€in€Caryððs€brief,€we€do€not€find€that€by€adoptingÏthe€appelleesðð€position€regarding€the€accrual€of€the€statute€of€limitations€period,€that€Cary€wouldÏhave€been€required€to€file€suit€on€May€26,€1994.€€Nonetheless,€we€conclude€that€the€one€yearÏstatute€of€limitations€provided€by€T.C.A.€ðð€29„26„116(a)(1)€(1996)€began€to€run€on€May€26,€1994.€ÏAs€our€supreme€court€stated€in€òòò òRoe€v.€Jeffersonóóó ó,€875€S.W.2d€653€(Tenn.€1994):ÌÌÓÓà8 àIt€is€not€required€that€the€plaintiff€actually€know€that€the€injuryÏconstitutes€a€breach€of€the€appropriate€legal€standard€in€order€toÏdiscover€that€he€has€a€ð ðright€of€actionðð;€the€plaintiff€is€deemed€toÏhave€discovered€the€right€of€action€if€he€is€aware€of€facts€sufficientÏto€put€a€reasonable€person€on€notice€that€he€has€suffered€an€injury€asÏa€result€of€wrongful€conduct.€€à àÌà àÌÌÌòòò òÓÓRoeóóó ó,€875€S.W.2d€at€657.€€ÌÌà àIt€is€evident€that€the€cause€of€action€accrued€on€or€before€May€26,€1994,€and€theÏstatute€of€limitations€expired€on€May€26,€1995.€€Cary€admitted€that€he€knew€of€his€wifeððs€allegedÏdrug€addiction€by€May€26,€1994,€and€that€he€and€his€wife€had€been€separated€on€May€24,€1994.€ÏCary€was€on€inquiry€notice€on€or€before€May€26,€1994,€and€his€failure€to€properly€commence€aÏlawsuit€within€one€year€of€that€date€bars€the€instant€action.€€Therefore,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððsÏdismissal€of€the€cause€on€the€basis€that€the€statute€of€limitations€had€expired€before€CaryÏcommenced€the€proceedings€on€May€30,€1995,€when€he€filed€the€summons€and€amendedÏcomplaint.ÌÌà@ àò òTERMINATION€OF€MARRIAGEó óÌÌà àCary€alleges€that€the€defendants€caused€his€wife€to€become€addicted€to€prescriptionÏdrugs,€which€in€turn€led€to€the€termination€of€the€marriage.€€Linda€Cary€is€not€a€party€to€the€instantÏproceeding.€ò ò€ó óInstead,€Caryððs€claims€arise€solely€from€the€termination€of€his€marriage.€€ÌÌà àTennessee€does€not€recognize€a€cause€of€action€for€termination€of€a€marriage.€ÏFormerly,€Tennessee€recognized€two€causes€of€action€related€to€interference€with€the€maritalÏrelationship:€(1)€criminal€conversation€and€(2)€alienation€of€affections.€€òòò òLentz€v.€Bakeróóó ó,€792ÏS.W.2d€71,€73€(Tenn.€App.€1989).€€All€causes€of€action€for€termination€of€a€marriage€have€beenÏabolished€in€Tennessee.€€ÌÌà àIn€1989,€the€Tennessee€General€Assembly€abolished€the€tort€of€alienation€ofÏaffections.€€Specifically,€T.C.A.€ðð€36„3„701€(1996)€states:€€ð ðThe€common€law€tort€action€ofÏalienation€of€affections€is€hereby€abolished.ðð€€Alienation€of€affections€has€been€defined€as€ð ðwillfulÍand€malicious€interference€with€the€marriage€relation€by€a€third€party,€without€justification€orÏexcuse.ðð€€òòò òDupuis€v.€Handóóó ó,€814€S.W.2d€340,€343€(Tenn.€1991)€(quoting€òòò òDonnell€v.ÏDonnellóóó ó,€415€S.W.2d€127,€132€(Tenn.€1967)).€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòò òDupuisóóó óÏabolished€the€common€law€tort€for€alienation€of€affections.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€at€346.€€ÌÌà àSimilarly,€the€Tennessee€General€Assembly€and€Supreme€Court€also€have€abolishedÏthe€tort€of€criminal€conversation.€€In€1990,€the€general€assembly€enacted€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„508(a)Ï(1991)€which€states€in€relevant€part:€ð ðOn€or€after€January€1,€1991,€no€cause€of€action€shall€beÏmaintained€that€is€based€upon€the€common€law€torts€of€seduction€or€criminal€conversation,€andÏsuch€torts€are€hereby€abolished.ðð€€In€òòò òHanover€v.€Ruchóóó ó,€809€S.W.2d€893€(Tenn.€1991),€theÏsupreme€court€abolished€the€common€law€tort€of€criminal€conversation.€€òòò òHanoveróóó ó,€809€S.W.2d€atÏ898.€€ÌÌà àIn€his€complaint,€Cary€alleged€the€following:ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€actions€and€conduct€of€herein€listed€Defendants€constituted€aÏnegligent,€gross,€wilful,€wanton€and€total€disregard€for€Linda€KayÏCaryððs€health€and€welfare.€€As€a€direct€and€proximate€result€of€theÏactions€of€the€Defendants,€Wesley€Caryððs€marriage€has€becomeÏirreconcilably€broken.€€Until€the€drug€addiction,€Plaintiff,€WesleyÏCary,€and€Linda€Kay€Cary€had€had€a€completely€normal,Ïproductive,€harmonious€relationship€as€husband€and€wife,€and€butÏfor€this€breach€of€the€acceptable€standards€of€professional€care,Ïwould€have€been€able€to€continue€these€relationships.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àExamination€of€Caryððs€complaint€reveals€that€it€is€based€on€the€tort€of€alienation€ofÏaffections.€€Tennessee€does€not€recognize€this€cause€of€action€for€interference€with€a€marriage,Ïregardless€of€whether€the€interference€is€intentional€or€negligent.€€Accordingly,€Cary€has€failed€toÏstate€a€claim€upon€which€relief€may€be€granted.€€ÌÌà àCary€asserts€that€his€claim€constitutes€loss€of€consortium€with€his€wife.€€RegardlessÍof€the€name€appended€to€the€claim,€it€is€still€a€claim€for€alienation€of€affections.€€The€supreme€courtÏnoted€in€òòò òDupuisóóó ó,€ð ð[t]he€gist€of€the€alienation€of€affections€tort€is€the€loss€of€consortium€.€.€.€.ðð€Ïòòò òDupuisóóó ó,€814€S.W.2d€at€343€(quoting€òòò òKelley€v.€Jonesóóó ó,€675€S.W.2d€189,€190€(Tenn.€App.Ï1984)).€€Recently,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€addressed€the€comparative€fault€aspects€of€a€claimÏfor€loss€of€consortium€in€òòò òTuggle€v.€Allright€Parking€Systems,€Inc.óóó ó,€€922€S.W.2d€105Ï(Tenn.€1996).€€In€that€case,€the€court€noted€that,€while€the€claim€for€loss€of€consortium€is€a€claimÏindependent€from€that€of€the€injured€spouse€for€other€damages,€it€is€also€a€derivative€claim€in€thatÏthe€physical€injuries€or€incapacities€of€oneððs€spouse€give€rise€to€and€establish€the€claim.€€òòò òTuggleóóó ó,Ï922€S.W.2d€at€108,€òòò òsee€also,€Jackson€v.€Milleróóó ó,€776€S.W.2d€115,€117€(Tenn.€App.€1979);Ïòòò òSwafford€v.€City€of€Chattanoogaóóó ó,€743€S.W.2d€174,€178€(Tenn.€App.€1987).€€ÌÌà àIn€òòò òTuggleóóó ó,€€the€supreme€court€held€that€Tennessee€was€not€one€of€€the€minority€ofÏjurisdictions€that€recognize€a€different€and€independent€cause€of€action€for€loss€of€consortium.€€TheÏcourt€held:ÌÌÓÓà8 àòòò òIn€contrast€to€the€Tennessee€approach,€ó óóóa€small€number€ofÏjurisdictions€view€a€claim€for€loss€of€consortium€as€an€essentiallyÏdifferent€and€independent€cause€of€action€from€the€physically€injuredÏspouse.€€ÌÌÌÌòòò òTuggleóóó ó,€922€S.W.2d€at€108.€€(Emphasis€added.)€€ÓÓThe€supreme€court€further€held€that,€in€statesÏsuch€as€Tennessee€which€follow€the€majority€approach,€a€claim€for€loss€of€consortium€is€regardedÏas€derivative€of€the€principal€claim€for€injuries.€€Relying€on€the€Hawaii€Supreme€Courtððs€decisionÏin€òòò òMist€v.€Westin€Hotels,€Inc.óóó ó,€€738€P.2d€85,€90,€(Haw.€1987),€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[T]here€must€be€a€tort€which€gives€rise€to€a€cause€of€action€that€mustÏbe€maintained€by€the€[physically]€injured€spouse€in€order€for€theÏnon„injured€spouse€to€claim€a€loss€of€consortium.€€In€other€words,Ïthe€loss€of€consortium€claim€is€dependent€upon€the€negligent€injuryÏof€the€other€spouse€who€has€the€primary€tort€cause€of€action.€€ÌÌÌÌòòò òId.€óóó óat€109.€€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àOther€jurisdictions€which€have€addressed€this€situation€have€declined€to€permit€aÏparty€to€circumvent€an€abolished€tort€by€artful€drafting.€€In€òòò òKoestler€v.€Pollandóóó ó,€471€N.W.2d€7Ï(Wis.€1991),€the€plaintiff€filed€a€suit€for€intentional€infliction€of€emotional€distress€arising€from€theÏdefendantððs€adulterous€affair€with€and€impregnation€of€the€plaintiffððs€wife.€€Under€Wisconsin€law,Ïa€cause€of€action€for€intentional€infliction€of€emotional€distress€is€an€independently€viable€claim€forÏwhich€recovery€may€be€had.€€However,€in€addressing€the€case,€the€Wisconsin€Supreme€CourtÏobserved€that€plaintiffððs€claim€was€really€one€for€criminal€conversation€which€had€been€abolished.€Ïòòò òKoestleróóó ó,€471€N.W.2d€at€9.€€Therefore,€the€court€did€not€permit€the€defendant€to€recover€for€anÏotherwise€viable€claim€because€to€do€so€would€undermine€the€state€statute€abolishing€criminalÏconversation.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€at€10.€€Similarly,€in€òòò òSchieffer€v.€Catholic€Archdiocese€of€Omahaóóó ó,€508ÏN.W.2d€907€(Neb.€1993),€the€Nebraska€Supreme€Court€affirmed€the€dismissal€of€a€loss€ofÏconsortium€claim€because€it€was€essentially€a€claim€for€criminal€conversation€and€alienation€ofÏaffections.€€Those€torts€had€been€abolished€by€state€statute;€therefore,€a€cause€of€action€did€notÏexist.€€òòò òSchiefferóóó ó,€508€N.W.2d€at€912.€€òòò òSee€also,€Speer€v.€Dealyóóó ó,€495€N.W.2d€911,€913Ï(Neb.€1993).€€ÌÌà àIn€the€instant€proceeding,€Cary€cannot€label€as€loss€of€consortium€what€is€really€aÏclaim€for€alienation€of€affections€because€that€tort€has€been€abolished€in€Tennessee€by€both€theÏgeneral€assembly€and€the€supreme€court.€€Cary€has€failed€to€state€a€cause€of€action€upon€whichÏrelief€may€be€granted.€€€€ÌÌà àAs€noted,€òòò òTuggleóóó ó€cited€the€holding€in€òòò òMistóóó ó.€€We€have€not€addressed€the€questionÏof€whether€the€injured€spouse€must€maintain€their€cause€of€action€in€order€for€the€non„injuredÏspouse€to€claim€a€loss€of€consortium€as€that€issue€is€not€before€us.ÌÌà àà@ àò òCLAIMS€AGAINST€RITE„AIDó ó€€€ÌÌà àRite„Aid€of€Tennessee,€Inc.€asserts€that€it€was€never€properly€named€as€a€party€toÏthis€action.€€The€complaint€names€Rite„Aid€Pharmacy€#1402€as€a€defendant,€but€that€entity€was€notÏserved€with€process.€€Instead,€the€registered€agent€for€Rite„Aid€of€Tennessee,€Inc.,€the€correctÏcorporate€party,€was€served€with€process€on€August€1,€1995.€€Simply€stated,€the€named€defendant,ÏRite„Aid€Pharmacy€#1402,€was€never€served€in€this€matter,€and€the€correct€corporate€party,€Rite„Aid€of€Tennessee,€Inc.,€was€served€but€never€named€as€a€party€in€either€the€original€or€amendedÏcomplaints.€€Therefore,€no€action€was€commenced€against€Rite„Aid€of€Tennessee,€Inc.€€ÌÌà àEven€if€the€Court€were€to€ignore€the€procedural€irregularities€as€to€the€namedÏdefendant,€it€is€apparent€from€the€foregoing€analysis€that€the€cause€of€action€was€not€commencedÏtimely€as€to€any€defendants,€including€Rite„Aid.€€Rite„Aid€asserts€that€its€summons€was€not€filedÏuntil€July€19,€1995,€which€was€also€the€date€it€was€issued€by€the€trial€court€clerk.€€That€propositionÏis€not€supported€by€the€record€on€appeal,€and€Rite„Aid€does€not€offer€any€contrary€proof.€€While€itÏis€undeniable€that€the€trial€court€clerk€issued€the€summons€as€to€Rite„Aid€on€July€19,€1995,€theÏrecord€on€appeal€indicates€that€all€summons,€including€Rite„Aidððs,€were€filed€with€the€amendedÏcomplaint€on€May€30,€1995.€€Nonetheless,€regardless€of€whether€the€Rite„Aid€summons€was€filedÏon€May€30€or€July€19,€the€cause€of€action€was€not€commenced€timely€as€to€Rite„Aid€or€to€any€otherÏdefendant.€€€For€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€find€that€in€spite€of€the€procedural€irregularitiesÏconcerning€the€proper€named€party,€the€cause€of€action€as€to€Rite„Aid€was€not€timely€commencedÏwithin€one€year€of€the€accrual€of€the€cause€of€action.€€Accordingly,€said€claim€is€time„barred€by€theÏstatute€of€limitations.€€The€trial€courtððs€May€2,€1996,€order€granting€summary€judgment€in€favor€ofÏRite„Aid€is€affirmed.€€Ìà@ àò òFRIVOLOUS€APPEALó óà àÌÌà àIn€his€brief,€Robert€L.€Horton,€D.D.S.,€requested€imposition€of€damages€againstÏCary€on€the€basis€that€the€appeal€is€frivolous.€€After€due€consideration€of€this€issue,€the€Court€findsÏthat€the€issue€is€not€well„taken,€and€the€Court€declines€to€award€said€damages.ÌÌà@ àò òCONCLUSIONó ó€€ÌÌà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€the€orders€of€the€trialÏcourt€dismissing€Mr.€Caryððs€claims€against€the€defendants€should€be€and€are€affirmed.€€Costs€areÏtaxed€to€the€plaintiff,€Wesley€Cary,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌLILLARD,€J.€(Concurs)›