ÿWPCA œÍÕn€ÕOÊ q'ã­s' àÉme€ÄOgßöeË0ö¶Æ8”û…?š@ŸÿHƒ|MÝ×î#¤tº ê¿ÖΛð+Å'»¤­ÄËîß¿/«Ð„‰ôÅ£âTëŽS !šaµ€©[*Û±PÏ]?™ ÒÜÝ1G­fi$Ú,îuÒ$)À<ärœa¶>2o¦-%5.¹QH> Žì5ž|&U¥¶ÚHiÊSâ~ºDèKÆE,Ï›µÅwF[î’É×å…ì‘â­#ØòýÁÍÁéÕŠ'C¸K d{à3æ?E§œCç%‹LX¤¦¡«†³QΚ÷7 É«Îàã[·g.{@!Ð|ŒYD  u ¸ÌÇ£ q'…î¥#¸3pkz‘e#¹Xx·Î¹æiœO×÷'¯‘»e¤“Û ÿw$Q=gp"9ಣ˜’»P†¦P—[Ý¡tõL4Aý› ÐË‘ŸkÒGü|û·Ôø él¯“%?R¸ß*Ç*ø*}g—(•ûšS× âÜ ÜêpÍå¾o2  ärþ¤}­"-Ç/X»Ø¾>Ø !58þ–ög‹übò/ú/Éœ§áÜtužð\MZ|ÂÙ‡½¦Ïnü º´­b#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 U(N¿ w 4 z+ Ò¥ w † mˆ UNŸ Æí Ƴ ÆyÆ?òN÷÷ù 0DðE444444444444444444444444b666666666666666666666666666666666666 0ë>>>> B)) 0¤F D3ê D- 0KJJ AS•Æè 0¤® 0DR A«–˜\\IB01S04\CLERKKNOXÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»e¦Þ.Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular=ƒ.ê:i¢Ø+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|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 STOHLER COAarthroplastynonsuitedSwiney HaunarthrotomyCowdenSovranDownenMcCarley OmerCarvell CBLAssocsHenarddispositiveMcLeodChern t]hepretermitsaffiantChamblissSheppardsmovant íÝ ƒR-($ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô÷)ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔShepardððs€states€that€òòHarris€v.€Chernóó€overruled€òòBradley€v.€McLeodóó€in€part.€€We€disagree.€€In€òòHarris€v.€Chernóó,Ð ° Ðour€Supreme€Court€specifically€states€that€ð ð[t]he€question€of€what€standard€to€apply€in€ruling€on€a€Rule€59.04€motion€toÐ tÄ Ðalter€or€amend,€presented€in€òòSchaeferóó€and€òòBradleyóó,€is€not€directly€at€issue€in€[òòHarrisóó]€and€is€thus€beyond€our€reach.ðð€Ð 8ˆ ÐòòHarris€v.€Chernóó,€33€S.W.3d€741,€746€n.4€(Tenn.€2000).€€òòHarrisóó,€which€dealt€with€a€Rule€54.02€motion,€does€state€thatÐ üL Ðð ðmany€of€the€same€considerations€discussed€[in€òòHarrisóó]€would€be€applicable€when€a€litigant€submits€additional€evidenceÐ À Ðas€part€of€a€Rule€59.04€motion€to€alter€or€amend€a€summary€judgment€[as€was€the€case€in€òòBradleyóó]ðð.€€òòIdóó.€€òòóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2G¢$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€C…»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôûùò»»Ô d(|3‡$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€C…»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€C…»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€C…»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼C…»»»ÔÑ8€=XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îJðC…ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼C…»îîJð #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓMay€12,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X=X»¼C…ÔÌÌÌò òÔ#†¼C…»XX=ñ#ÔGLORIA€JEAN€CHAMBLISS,€òòet€al.óó€v.€DENNIS€L.€STOHLER,€M.D.,€P.C.,Ð Ò " Ðòòet€alóó.Ô‡X=X»¼C…Ôó óÐ æ 6 ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÐ æ 6  Ðà@@øøìàNo.€01C313€€€€€€W.€Neil€Thomas,€III,€JudgeÐ Ò"  ÐÌññFILED€JUNE€30,€Ô_Ô2003ññÔ_ÔÐ ªú  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` AßÐ –æ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2002„02413„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CVÐ ‘á  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹ Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓGloria€Jean€Chambliss€saw€Dennis€L.€Stohler,€M.D.€(ð ðDefendantðð)€for€medical€care€and€treatmentÐ P  Ðfor€problems€related€to€her€right€knee.€€Ms.€Chambliss€was€dissatisfied€with€the€results€ofÐ <Œ ÐDefendantððs€treatment.€€Ms.€Chambliss€and€her€husband,€Willie€Chambliss€(ð ðPlaintiffsðð)€suedÐ (x ÐDefendant€for€medical€malpractice.ò ò€ó ó€Defendant€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€which€theÐ d ÐTrial€Court€granted.€€Plaintiffs€filed€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion€to€alter€or€amend€the€judgmentÐ T Ðand€also€a€motion€to€allow€the€filing€of€an€amended€affidavit€of€Plaintiffsðð€expert.€€The€Trial€CourtÐ ð@ Ðdenied€the€motions€to€alter€or€amend.€€Plaintiffs€appeal.€€We€affirm.€€Ð Ü, ÐÓéÓÌÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ  ð ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼C…»àX=Ÿ#ÔÔ‡X=X.¼C…ÔD.€Michael€Swiney,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.,óó€andÐ d!´  ÐòòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€joined.Ð P" ! ÐÌÌKenneth€O.€Fritz,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellants,€Gloria€Jean€Chambliss€and€WillieÐ %d $ ÐChambliss.Ð &P!% ÐÌH.€Dean€Clements€and€Robert€L.€Haun,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee,€Dennis€L.€Stohler,Ð Ø'(#' ÐM.D.,€P.C.Ð Ä($( ÐÌÌÌÌÐ `-°(-ý ÐÔ_ÔÓ¡Óò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼C…»XX=Ð#ÔÔ‡X=X»¼C…ÔÐ ° ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼EQ»XXýò #ÔÔ‡XýX»¼EQÔÓÓò òòòBackgroundóóó óÐ ˆØ ÐÓ  ÓÌÓÓà  àà ` àMs.€Chambliss€sought€medical€treatment€from€Defendant€for€problems€with€her€rightÐ 8 ˆ Ðknee.€€In€1999,€Defendant€performed€a€total€right€knee€arthroplasty€on€Ms.€Chambliss.€€Ms.Ð $ t ÐChambliss€complained€of€pain€following€the€surgery€and€approximately€one€month€post„surgery,Ð  ` ÐDefendant€performed€a€closed€manipulation€on€Ms.€Ô_ÔChamblissÔ_Ôððs€right€knee.€€Ms.€ChamblissÐ ü L  Ðcontinued€to€complain€of€pain€after€the€closed€manipulation.€€In€2000,€Defendant€performed€anÐ è 8  Ðarthrotomy€on€Ms.€Ô_ÔChamblissÔ_Ôððs€right€knee.€€Ms.€Chambliss€continued€to€experience€pain€and€soughtÐ Ô$  Ðan€opinion€from€another€physician.€€Ms.€Chambliss€then€had€a€third€right€knee€surgery,€which€wasÐ À  Ðperformed€by€another€physician.€€Plaintiffs,€Gloria€Jean€Chambliss€and€her€husband,€WillieÐ ¬ü  ÐChambliss,€sued€Defendant€and€Memorial€Hospital,€but€later€nonsuited€Memorial€Hospital.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àDefendant€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€supported€by€Defendantððs€expertÐ pÀ Ðaffidavit€opining€that€he€knows€the€recognized€standard€of€acceptable€professional€practice€for€aÐ \¬ Ðmedical€doctor€practicing€his€speciality€in€the€Chattanooga/Hamilton€County€community€at€theÐ H˜ Ðapplicable€time,€and€that€he€did€not€fall€below€the€applicable€standard€of€care€in€his€treatment€of€Ms.Ð 4„ ÐChambliss.€€Plaintiffs€filed€an€expert€affidavit€from€Dr.€G.€Lee€Cross€III€along€with€affidavits€of€Ms.Ð  p ÐChambliss€and€Mr.€Chambliss€in€opposition€to€the€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€The€Trial€CourtÐ  \ Ðheld€that€Dr.€Crossððs€affidavit€did€not€create€a€genuine€issue€of€fact€as€to€proximate€cause,€anÐ øH Ðessential€element€of€Plaintiffsðð€claim.€€The€Trial€Court€granted€Defendant€summary€judgment.€Ð ä4 ÐPlaintiffs€filed€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion€to€alter€or€amend€the€judgment€and€also€a€motion€toÐ Ð  Ðallow€the€filing€of€Dr.€Crossððs€amended€affidavit€and,€in€effect,€for€a€reconsideration€of€DefendantððsÐ ¼  Ðmotion€for€summary€judgment€in€light€of€this€amended€affidavit.€€The€Trial€Court€denied€PlaintiffsððÐ ¨ø Ðmotions.€€Plaintiffs€appeal.€€€€Ð ”ä ÐÓ  Óò òòòDiscussionóóó óÐ €Ð ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àà ` àAlthough€not€stated€exactly€as€such,€Plaintiffs€raise€two€main€issues€on€appeal:€1)Ð X ¨ Ðwhether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€finding€there€is€no€genuine€issue€as€to€any€material€fact€such€thatÐ D!” ÐDefendant€was€entitled€to€summary€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law;€and€2)€whether€the€Trial€Court€erredÐ 0"€  Ðin€denying€Plaintiffsðð€motion€to€amend€Dr.€Crossððs€affidavit€and€Plaintiffsðð€motion€to€alter€or€amendÐ #l! Ðthe€judgment.€€Ô#†¼EQ»XXýP #ÔÔ‡XýX»¼EQÔDefendant€raises€a€third€issue€which€we€restate€as:€whether€Dr.€Crossððs€amended€Ð $X" Ðaffidavit,€even€if€considered,€creates€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€on€the€issue€of€standard€of€careÐ ô$D # Ðand€proximate€cause.€€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€our€Supreme€Court€has€instructed:Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€standards€governing€an€appellate€courtððs€review€of€a€motion€for€summaryÐ )à$( Ðjudgment€are€well€settled.€€Since€our€inquiry€involves€purely€a€question€of€law,€noÐ |*Ì%) Ðpresumption€of€correctness€attaches€to€the€lower€courtððs€judgment,€and€our€task€isÐ h+¸&* Ðconfined€to€reviewing€the€record€to€determine€whether€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€R.Ð ° ÐCiv.€P.€56€have€been€met.€€òòSee€Hunter€v.€Brown,€óó955€S.W.2d€49,€50„51€(Tenn.€1997);Ð œì ÐòòCowden€v.€Sovran€Bank/Central€South,€óó816€S.W.2d€741,€744€(Tenn.€1991).€Ð ˆØ ÐTennessee€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€56.04€provides€that€summary€judgment€isÐ tÄ Ðappropriate€where:€(1)€there€is€no€genuine€issue€with€regard€to€the€material€factsÐ `° Ðrelevant€to€the€claim€or€defense€contained€in€the€motion,€òòsee€Byrd€v.€Hall,€óó847Ð L œ ÐS.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993);€and€(2)€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€asÐ 8 ˆ Ða€matter€of€law€on€the€undisputed€facts.€€òòSee€Anderson€v.€Standard€Register€Co.,€óó857Ð $ t ÐS.W.2d€555,€559€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€moving€party€has€the€burden€of€proving€that€itsÐ  ` Ðmotion€satisfies€these€requirements.€€òòSee€Downen€v.€Allstate€Ins.€Co.,€óó811€S.W.2dÐ ü L  Ð523,€524€(Tenn.€1991).€€When€the€party€seeking€summary€judgment€makes€a€properlyÐ è 8  Ðsupported€motion,€the€burden€shifts€to€the€nonmoving€party€to€set€forth€specific€factsÐ Ô$  Ðestablishing€the€existence€of€disputed,€material€facts€which€must€be€resolved€by€theÐ À  Ðtrier€of€fact.€€òòSee€Byrd€v.€Hall,€óó847€S.W.2d€at€215.Ьü Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àTo€properly€support€its€motion,€the€moving€party€must€either€affirmativelyÐ „Ô  Ðnegate€an€essential€element€of€the€non„moving€partyððs€claim€or€conclusively€establishÐ pÀ Ðan€affirmative€defense.€€òòSee€McCarley€v.€West€Quality€Food€Serv.,€óó960€S.W.2d€585,Ð \¬ Ð588€(Tenn.€1998);€òòRobinson€v.€Omer,€óó952€S.W.2d€423,€426€(Tenn.€1997).€€If€theÐ H˜ Ðmoving€party€fails€to€negate€a€claimed€basis€for€the€suit,€the€non„moving€partyððsÐ 4„ Ðburden€to€produce€evidence€establishing€the€existence€of€a€genuine€issue€for€trial€isÐ  p Ðnot€triggered€and€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€must€fail.€€òòSee€McCarley€v.€WestÐ  \ ÐQuality€Food€Serv.,€óó960€S.W.2d€at€588;€òòRobinson€v.€Omer,€óó952€S.W.2d€at€426.€€If€theÐ øH Ðmoving€party€successfully€negates€a€claimed€basis€for€the€action,€the€non„movingÐ ä4 Ðparty€may€not€simply€rest€upon€the€pleadings,€but€must€offer€proof€to€establish€theÐ Ð  Ðexistence€of€the€essential€elements€of€the€claim.м Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€standards€governing€the€assessment€of€evidence€in€the€summaryÐ ”ä Ðjudgment€context€are€also€well€established.€€Courts€must€view€the€evidence€in€theÐ €Ð Ðlight€most€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€party€and€must€also€draw€all€reasonableÐ l¼ Ðinferences€in€the€nonmoving€partyððs€favor.€€òòSee€Robinson€v.€Omer,€óó952€S.W.2d€atÐ X ¨ Ð426;€òòByrd€v.€Hall,€óó847€S.W.2d€at€210„11.€€Courts€should€grant€a€summary€judgmentÐ D!” Ðonly€when€both€the€facts€and€the€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€the€facts€permit€aÐ 0"€  Ðreasonable€person€to€reach€only€one€conclusion.€òòSee€McCall€v.€Wilder,€óó913€S.W.2dÐ #l! Ð150,€153€(Tenn.€1995);€òòCarvell€v.€Bottoms,€óó900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995).Ð$X"Ð Ð  ÐòòÌStaples€v.€CBL€&€Assocs.,€Inc.,€óó15€S.W.3d€83,€88„89€(Tenn.€2000)€(footnote€omitted).Ð à%0!$ ÐÌÔ#†¼EQ»XXýå#ÔÔ‡XýX»¼EQÔà  àà ` àIn€a€medical€malpractice€action,€a€plaintiff€has€the€burden€of€proving:Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà8  à(1)€The€recognized€standard€of€acceptable€professional€practice€in€the€profession€andÐ )à$( Ðâ âthe€speciality€thereof,€if€any,€that€the€defendant€practices€in€the€community€in€whichÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€defendant€practices€or€in€a€similar€community€at€the€time€the€alleged€injury€orÐ ° Ðwrongful€action€occurred;МìÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌà8  à(2)€That€the€defendant€acted€with€less€than€or€failed€to€act€with€ordinary€andÐ tÄ Ðreasonable€care€in€accordance€with€such€standard;€andÐ`°Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(3)€As€a€proximate€result€of€the€defendantððs€negligent€act€or€omission,€the€plaintiffÐ 8 ˆ Ðsuffered€injuries€which€would€not€otherwise€have€occurred.Ð$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115€(a)€(2003).€€ð ðIn€a€òòmalpractice€caseóó,€.€.€.€the€negligence€of€theÐ ü L  Ðdefendant€physician€usually€òòmust€be€proved€by€expert€testimonyóó.ðð€€òòBowman€v.€Henardóó,€547€S.W.2dÐ è 8  Ð527,€530€(Tenn.€1977)€(emphasis€in€original)€(citation€omitted).€€Affidavits€ð ðmust€rest€upon€[€theÐ Ô$  ÐÔ_ÔaffiantÔ_Ôððs]€personal€knowledge€in€an€area€in€which€he€is€competent€to€testify.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€531.€€€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àDefendant€submitted€an€expert€affidavit€signed€by€Defendant€himself€that€negated€anÐ ˜è  Ðessential€element€of€Plaintiffsðð€claim.€€Specifically,€Defendant€opined€both€that€he€was€familiar€withÐ „Ô  Ðthe€acceptable€standard€of€care€and€that€he€did€not€act€with€less€than€or€fail€to€act€with€ordinary€andÐ pÀ Ðreasonable€care€in€accordance€with€the€applicable€standard€of€care.€€Since€Defendant€negated€anÐ \¬ Ðessential€element€of€Plaintiffsðð€claim,€Plaintiffs€were€required€to€offer€proof€to€establish€the€existenceÐ H˜ Ðof€the€element€negated€by€Defendant€and€could€not€simply€rest€on€the€pleadings.€€òòSee€Staples€v.€CBLÐ 4„ Ð&€Assocs.,€Inc.óó,€15€S.W.3d€at€89.Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€opposition€to€Defendantððs€motion€for€summary€judgment,€Plaintiffs€filed€Dr.Ð øH ÐCrossððs€affidavit,€an€affidavit€signed€by€Ms.€Chambliss,€and€one€signed€by€Mr.€Chambliss.€€NeitherÐ ä4 ÐMs.€Chambliss,€nor€her€husband,€are€physicians.€€Thus,€the€affidavits€of€Ms.€Chambliss€and€herÐ Ð  Ðhusband€are€insufficient€to€establish€the€existence€of€the€essential€elements€of€Plaintiffsðð€claim.€€WeÐ ¼  Ðagree€with€the€Trial€Court€that€Dr.€Crossððs€affidavit€fails€to€establish€proximate€cause,€one€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðessential€elements€of€Plaintiffsðð€claim.€€While€Dr.€Cross€does€state€his€opinion€in€his€affidavit€thatÐ ”ä ÐDefendant€departed€from€and€fell€below€the€acceptable€standard€of€medical€care€in€his€treatment€ofÐ €Ð ÐMs.€Chambliss,€Dr.€Cross€never€states€in€his€affidavit€that€any€claimed€departure€by€Defendant€fromÐ l¼ Ðthe€acceptable€standard€of€medical€care€was€the€proximate€cause€of€Ms.€Ô_ÔChamblissÔ_Ôððs€injuries.€€SinceÐ X ¨ ÐDefendants€successfully€negated€the€essential€element€of€proximate€cause,€Plaintiffsðð€claims€fail.€Ð D!” ÐDefendant€was€entitled€to€summary€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€We€therefore,€affirm€the€TrialÐ 0"€  ÐCourtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€to€Defendant.€€Ð #l! ÐÔ#†¼EQ»XXý»(#ÔÔ‡XýX»¼EQÔ€€€€Ð $X" Ðà  àà ` àHowever,€this€does€not€end€our€review€as€we€next€must€consider€whether€the€TrialÐ ô$D # ÐCourt€erred€in€denying€Plaintiffsðð€motion€to€allow€the€filing€of€and€consideration€by€the€Trial€CourtÐ à%0!$ Ðâ âof€Dr.€Crossððs€amended€affidavit€and€Plaintiffsðð€Rule€59.04€motion€to€alter€or€amend€the€judgment.€Ð Ì&"% ÐWe€review€a€trial€courtððs€denial€of€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion€to€alter€or€amend€a€judgment€forÐ ° Ðabuse€of€discretion.€€òòE.g.,€Bradley€v.€McLeodóó,€984€S.W.2d€929,€933€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998)׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àDefendant€argues€Dr.€Crossððs€amended€affidavit€should€not€be€considered€becauseÐ tÄ ÐPlaintiffs€did€not€comply€with€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.03€because€they€did€not€file€the€amended€affidavitÐ `° Ðwith€the€motion€to€alter€or€amend.€€While€Rule€59.03€does€require€that€affidavits€be€filed€and€servedÐ L œ Ðwith€a€motion€for€new€trial,€Plaintiffs€did€not€file€a€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€Rather,€Plaintiffs€filedÐ 8 ˆ Ða€motion€to€alter€or€amend€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04,€which€contains€no€specific€requirement€thatÐ $ t Ðthe€affidavit€be€filed€with€the€motion.€€Thus,€Plaintiffs€were€not€required€to€file€the€proposedÐ  ` Ðamended€affidavit€with€the€motion€to€alter€or€amend.€€Therefore,€the€fact€that€Plaintiffs€filed€theÐ ü L  Ðproposed€amended€affidavit€after€filing€the€motion€to€alter€or€amend€the€judgment€is€not€dispositiveÐ è 8  Ðof€this€issue.€€€€€Ð Ô$  ÐÔ#†¼EQ»XXýƒ7#ÔÔ‡XýX»¼EQÔÌ€à  àà ` àIn€òòSchaefer€v.€Larsenóó,€this€Court€stated:Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àwhen€a€summary€judgment€has€been€granted€because€the€case€at€that€point€presentsÐ „Ô  Ðno€facts€upon€which€a€plaintiff€can€recover,€but€prior€to€that€judgment€becomingÐ pÀ Ðfinal,€the€plaintiff€is€able€to€produce€by€motion€facts€which€are€material€and€are€inÐ \¬ Ðdispute,€the€motion€to€alter€or€amend€the€judgment€should€be€looked€upon€with€favor,Ð H˜ Ðas€the€purpose€of€the€summary€judgment€procedure€is€not€to€abate€the€trial€docket€ofÐ 4„ Ðthe€Trial€Court,€but€only€to€weed€out€cases€for€trial€in€which€there€is€no€genuine€issueÐ  p Ðof€fact.€€òòÐ \Ð Ð  ÐÌSchaefer€v.€Larsenóó,€688€S.W.2d€430,€433„34€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985).€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àThirteen€years€later,€this€Court€further€explained€that€although€òòÐ ¼  ÐÌà8  àSchaefer€v.€Larsenóó€expressed€some€inclination€to€relax€the€strict€requirementsÐ ”ä Ðassociated€with€motions€for€new€trial€based€on€newly€discovered€evidence,€no€courtÐ €Ð Ðhas€held€that€the€issues€of€diligence€and€availability€cannot€or€should€not€beÐ l¼ Ðconsidered€when€a€party€seeks€to€alter€or€amend€a€summary€judgment€using€newÐ X ¨ Ðevidence.€€ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐòòÌBradleyóó,€984€S.W.2d€at€933.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€we€discussed€in€òòBradleyóó:Ð ô$D # ÐÐ à%0!$ Ðà8  àOftentimes,€lawyers€seeking€to€overturn€a€summary€judgment€after€it€has€beenÐ ° Ðgranted€overlook€the€fact€that€the€trial€courts€may€deny€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04Ð œì Ðmotion€seeking€to€introduce€new€evidence€if€there€is€no€particularized€showing€ofÐ ˆØ Ðdue€diligence€or€of€the€reasons€why€the€new€evidence€could€not€have€been€discoveredÐ tÄ Ðand€presented€prior€to€the€initial€consideration€of€the€summary€judgment€motion.Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐòòÌId.€€óóThe€standard€expressed€in€òòSchaeferóó€was€not€intended€to€provide€a€second€bite€at€the€apple€forÐ 8 ˆ Ða€party€who€did€not€take€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€seriously€until€the€motion€was€granted.€Ð $ t ÐSummary€judgment€standards€are€both€well€settled,€as€discussed€above,€and€difficult€for€the€movingÐ  ` Ðparty€to€meet.€€Parties€on€both€sides€of€a€summary€judgment€motion€must€heed€those€standards.€€TheÐ ü L  Ðnon„moving€party€must€fully€oppose€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€before€it€is€granted€rather€thanÐ è 8  Ðrely€on€Rule€59.04€to€overturn€a€summary€judgment€after€only€weakly€opposing€the€motion.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€òòHarris€v.€ChernóóÔ#†¼EQ»XXý¥>#ÔÔ‡XýX»¼EQÔ,€our€Supreme€Court€in€dealing€with€a€revision€under€Rule€54.02Ð ¬ü  Ðof€a€partial€summary€judgment€discussed€òòSchaeferóó€and€òòBradleyóó,€but€noted€that€ð ð[t]he€question€ofÐ ˜è  Ðwhat€standard€to€apply€in€ruling€on€a€Rule€59.04€motion€to€alter€or€amend,€presented€in€òòSchaeferóó€andÐ „Ô  ÐòòBradleyóó,€is€not€directly€at€issue€in€[òòHarrisóó]€and€is€thus€beyond€our€reach.ðð€€òòHarris€v.€Chernóó,€33Ð pÀ ÐS.W.3d€741,€746€n.4€(Tenn.€2000).€€The€òòHarrisóó€Court€did,€however,€note€that€ð ðmany€of€the€sameÐ \¬ Ðconsiderations€discussed€[in€òòHarrisóó]€would€be€applicable€when€a€litigant€submits€additional€evidenceÐ H˜ Ðas€part€of€a€Rule€59.04€motion€to€alter€or€amend€a€summary€judgment.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€The€òòHarrisóóÐ 4„ Ðconsiderations€require€a€trial€court€dealing€with€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€54.02€motion€to€revise€a€grant€ofÐ  p Ðpartial€summary€judgment€to€consider:Ð  \ ÐÌà8  à1)€the€Ô_ÔmovantÔ_Ôððs€efforts€to€obtain€evidence€to€respond€to€the€motion€for€summaryÐ ä4 Ðjudgment;€2)€the€importance€of€the€newly€submitted€evidence€to€the€Ô_ÔmovantÔ_Ôððs€case;€ÐÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à3)€the€explanation€offered€by€the€movant€for€its€failure€to€offer€the€newly€submittedÐ ¼  Ðevidence€in€its€initial€response€to€the€motion€for€summary€judgment;€4)€the€likelihoodÐ ¨ø Ðthat€the€nonmoving€party€will€suffer€unfair€prejudice;€and€5)€any€other€relevantÐ ”ä Ðfactor.ЀÐÐ Ð  Ðà8  àòòÐ Ð Ð  ÐIdóó.€at€742.€€The€òòóóstandard€set€out€in€òòBradleyóó€requiring,€in€a€Rule€59.04€motion,€a€particularizedÐ X ¨ Ðshowing€of€due€diligence€or€of€the€reasons€why€the€new€evidence€could€not€have€been€discoveredÐ D!” Ðand€presented€prior€to€the€initial€hearing€on€the€summary€judgment€motionÔ#†¼EQ»XXý,J#ÔÔ‡XýX»¼EQÔ€takes€into€account€severalÐ 0"€  Ðof€the€same€factors€considered€in€òòHarrisóó.€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€instant€case,€we€believe€the€two€most€important€considerations€are€theÐ ô$D # ÐPlaintiffsðð€efforts€to€obtain€the€evidence€to€respond€initially€to€the€summary€judgment€motion€andÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€Plaintiffsðð€explanation€for€the€failure€to€offer€the€newly€submitted€evidence€in€their€initialÐ Ì&"% Ðresponse€to€the€summary€judgment€motion.€€Plaintiffs€filed€a€motion€to€alter€or€amend€the€judgmentÐ ¸'#& Ðand€a€motion€to€allow€the€filing€of€Dr.€Crossððs€amended€affidavit€and€a€reconsideration€by€the€TrialÐ ¤(ô#' ÐCourt€of€Defendantððs€summary€judgment€motion€in€light€of€this€amended€affidavit€in€an€attempt€toÐ )à$( Ðcorrect€the€deficiency€of€Dr.€Crossððs€first€affidavit.€€Plaintiffsðð€motions,€however,€give€no€explanationÐ |*Ì%) Ðas€to€why€Plaintiffs€did€not€submit€the€evidence€contained€in€Dr.€Crossððs€amended€affidavit€inÐ h+¸&* ÐPlaintiffsðð€initial€response€to€the€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€Plaintiffsðð€brief€states€that€Dr.€CrossÐ ° Ðhad€not€reviewed€some€of€Plaintiffððs€x„rays€prior€to€the€filing€of€his€original€affidavit€because€the€x„Ð œì Ðrays€were€not€available.€€However,€there€is€no€explanation€anywhere€in€the€record€why€Plaintiffððs€x„Ð ˆØ Ðrays,€taken€by€a€physician€not€involved€in€this€suit,€were€not€available€to€Plaintiffs€and€their€expertÐ tÄ Ðprior€to€the€filing€of€Dr.€Crossððs€original€affidavit.€€There€is€no€showing€whatsoever€that€the€newlyÐ `° Ðsubmitted€evidence€contained€in€Dr.€Crossððs€amended€affidavit€was€not€available€to€Plaintiffs€priorÐ L œ Ðto€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€Plaintiffs€have€made€no€showing€of€due€diligence€and€offered€no€explanation€asÐ  ` Ðto€why€the€newly€submitted€evidence€could€not€have€been€submitted€earlier,€we€find€the€Trial€CourtÐ ü L  Ðdid€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€refusing€to€consider€Dr.€Crossððs€amended€affidavit.€€To€hold€otherwiseÐ è 8  Ðwould€allow€a€party€opposing€a€motion€for€full€summary€judgment€to€defend€against€it€piecemealÐ Ô$  Ðby€first€offering€some€small€portion€of€its€available€proof€in€an€attempt€to€establish€the€existence€ofÐ À  Ðthe€essential€elements€of€his€claim€and€asking€the€trial€court€if€that€is€enough€to€defeat€the€motion.€Ð ¬ü  ÐIf€the€trial€court€answers,€ð ðno,€itððs€notðð,€the€non„moving€party€then€could€add€a€little€more€of€itsÐ ˜è  Ðavailable€proof€and€ask€the€same€question€of€the€trial€court€yet€again.€€If€ð ðnoðð€still€was€the€answer,Ð „Ô  Ðthe€non„moving€party€could€continue€to€add€bits€and€pieces€of€its€available€proof€in€an€attempt€toÐ pÀ Ðestablish€the€existence€of€the€essential€element€of€the€claim.€€We€believe€such€a€process€neither€isÐ \¬ Ðappropriate€under€Rule€56€nor€required€or€allowed€by€case€law.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€the€Trial€Court€properly€granted€summary€judgment€and€properly€deniedÐ  p ÐPlaintiffsðð€motion€to€allow€the€filing€of€and€consideration€by€the€Trial€Court€of€Dr.€Crossððs€amendedÐ  \ Ðaffidavit,€we€find€no€error€by€the€Trial€Court€in€its€denial€of€Plaintiffsðð€Rule€59.04€motion€to€alterÐ øH Ðor€amend€the€judgment.€€We,€therefore,€affirm.€€€Ô#†¼EQ»XXýrR#ÔÔ‡XýX»¼EQÔÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àDefendant€also€raised€an€additional€issue.€€Our€decision€as€to€the€issues€raised€byÐ ¼  ÐPlaintiffs€makes€it€unnecessary€to€address€Defendantððs€additional€issue.€€Ð ¨ø Ðà  àà ` à¹Ó  Óò òòòConclusionóóó óÐ €Ð ÐÓ  ÓÔ‡ XýXXXýÔÌà  àÔ#†XýXX Xýyb#Ôà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed,€and€this€cause€is€remanded€to€the€TrialÐ X ¨ ÐCourt€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€be€required,€if€any,€consistent€with€this€Opinion€and€forÐ D!” Ðcollection€of€the€costs€below.€€The€costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€Appellants,€Gloria€JeanÐ 0"€  ÐChambliss€and€Willie€Chambliss,€and€their€surety.€€Ð #l! ÐÔ#†¼EQ»XXýa#ÔÔ‡XýX»¼EQÔÌÌÔ#†¼EQ»XXý™d#ÔÔ€XýX»¼EQÔÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGE