WPC<\ %ިKV`yŴq~s8iΚHGTle_PCu/}Y+J5U{CD lmOx\:Ehȿ}'aO/R\A'V"oZU>y 9l ⅏Yڍ ]|zY|tSE.[B(_o[KKnDoz8u{R< ?*p8SE4I$_ 0~F 0x 0k< 0k 0 0~ 0* 0 0 0 0 | 0 01 0C 0V 0n 0= 0 0 0H 0 0 0 0;UB %  0z& 0 1y 0~ b 0=s 0F 0P 1F 0 ! 0O%Ec% 0}e% 0x% 0Z& 0j& 0eQ' 0W' 0W ( 0d( 0j( 0R) 0 * 0* 0g+ 0H, 0<- 0C. 0-]/ 0@0 01 02 03 03 0N4 04 05 0\6 06 1x7/8n?8 048 B 94=9 0 Q9^9 0JL::;# a=Nl>n> mp>^>UF?U>+@w@i@UN@ @ 0DB 0PHBBAHDE D3xFFUB[HU>HAHUBJ^JUBO 1`O 1mO 0cTPPU:wUwUwUwUwUwUwUwUwUwUwU 0wU 0(V 0V 0RW 0X 0X 0YYYYY AOZZZ 0D[ D/[ B\V& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S !"($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper % z &(  &XXXXX6G''*d66G''*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+('2$ FT!   p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|xi <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   dw#%$(G.2a$ FT!   5XX     0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS($   0   VANNLASLEYPINCHAKMcDONALDLUFKINFRIERSONROSENBALMDannenholdBellomyVanderbiltGeldmeier  Ia$  XX     2    _ ` TTheoriginalcomplaintalsoincludedasDefendantsMs.Geldmeier `  andFortSandersRegionalMedicalCenter,Inc.AnonsuitwastakenastoMs.GeldmeierandtheclaimagainstFortSanderswassettled.#T#HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL^ U DANNENHOLDHENSLEYROSENBALMBELLOMYDannenholdBellomyGeldmeier$cytotechnologist&cytotechnologistsprimetimeRussomTenn.Ct.App CLIAHOLLARS<09Z .Courier New Regular<( 9Z &Courier Regular V W X Y DZ [ U\ e] E^ _ Ӏ(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular  Ia$  XX     1    _ ` Ms.Dannenholddiedaftersuitwasfiledandasubstitute `  complaintwasfiledbyherExecutrix.(3$ F!  ((3$ FT!     I$  XX     3    _T ` Dr.Cooperwasnotamemberofthepathologygroupwhenthe `  readingsweremadein1991and1993.Hedid,however,examinetheslidesin1994afteraquestionastotheiraccuracywasraised.#T# 7 I$  XX     5    _ ` Mrs.DannenholddidinfactdieinAugustof1997,andher `  substitutedcomplainthasbeenfiledtoallowherExecutrixtoproceedwiththisaction. iX2XXXiv XiX2 Ad   FILEDi  iv   November17,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk GGGG'dxd  I$  _XX     3    _` ` Dr.Cooperwasnotamemberofthepathologygroupwhenthe `  readingsweremadein1991and1993.Hedid,however,examinetheslidesin1994afteraquestionastotheiraccuracywasraised.#_T#<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi<( 9Z &Courier Regular 7 I$  bXX     5    _ ` Mrs.DannenholddidinfactdieinAugustof1997,andher `  substitutedcomplainthasbeenfiledtoallowherExecutrixtoproceedwiththisaction.<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi  I$  dXX     4    _d ` The3yearreposeprovisionof_Tenn.Code_ԀAnn.2926116(a)had `  alreadypassedonthe1991slidebeforeMrs.Dannenholdlearnedthatshehadcancer,whichultimatelyledtoherdiscoveryofthedefendantsnegligenceinreportingherpreviouspapsmearsasnegative.Thecytotechnologistwhoreadthe1991slideandthepathologistwhoissuedthenegativereportonthe1991slideswerenotnamedasdefendantstothisaction,andnoattempthasbeenmadebytheplaintifftoassertaclaimforrecoveryofdamagesforthenegligencethattookplacein1991.Theeventsof1991arestillrelevantevidence,however,inconnectionwithplaintiffsallegationsregardingtheindependentnegligenceofthedefendantsintheoperationandmanagementofthislaboratory,andthefailuretoidentifyandremedyanobviousdeficiencyintheproficiencyofthetechnicianstowhomthesedefendantseredelegatingthetaskofreadingslides.#d#<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.gtuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;s$2,  0  .3  0    I$  XX     4    _ ` The3yearreposeprovisionof_Tenn.Code_ԀAnn.2926116(a)had `  alreadypassedonthe1991slidebeforeMrs.Dannenholdlearnedthatshehadcancer,whichultimatelyledtoherdiscoveryofthedefendantsnegligenceinreportingherpreviouspapsmearsasnegative.Thecytotechnologistwhoreadthe1991slideandthepathologistwhoissuedthenegativereportonthe1991slideswerenotnamedasdefendantstothisaction,andnoattempthasbeenmadebytheplaintifftoassertaclaimforrecoveryofdamagesforthenegligencethattookplacein1991.Theeventsof1991arestillrelevantevidence,however,inconnectionwithplaintiffsallegationsregardingtheindependentnegligenceofthedefendantsintheoperationandmanagementofthislaboratory,andthefailuretoidentifyandremedyanobviousdeficiencyintheproficiencyofthetechnicianstowhomthesedefendantseredelegatingthetaskofreadingslides.##,cAZ"Arial Regular(O{$0  2,  a  .3  0` (#(#(bD$0  0` (#(#2,   .3  0 ` (#` (#(x$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2,(  0  )3  0 (# (#(Ƃ$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2,(  a  )3  0h(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2,(   )3  0h(#h(#(4$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2,  0  )3  0(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2,  a  )3  0p(#(#XC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd FT!   _  7/XXdd7`   XTX/XXXTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T_ l\]6&"h 8 `Ef tt06H` l HH(#(#_ 0  @ |H(#INTHECOURTOFAPPEALS `  @ |ATKNOXVILLE@||#|   ` ESTATEOFSHIRLEYJ.DANNENHOLD,@@@#|@@*)  KNOXCOUNTY   x byherExecutrix,MARGARET  )  03A019710CV @  (#(#HH00443HENSLEY@*) 0    @*)  PlaintiffAppellant@*) `  @*)   (    v. `  @*)  HON.WHEELERROSENBALM,  P      @*)  JUDGE   KNOXVILLEPATHOLOGYGROUP,P.C.,@*)   CARTERMILLER,JR.,M.D.and@*) H  BRUCEBELLOMY,M.D.@*)   p @*)0  AFFIRMEDINPART;VACATED8(#(#   DefendantsAppellees@*)0  INPARTandREMANDED(#(# DONNAKEENEHOLTOFKNOXVILLEFORAPPELLANTEDWARDG.WHITE,II,andAMYV.HOLLARSOFKNOXVILLEFORAPPELLEES   `    OPINION #"    `     h      p   Goddard,P.J. 'x'    ` InthiscauseShirleyJ.DannenholdW K   1      ׀suesKnoxville +`", PathologyGroup,CarterMiller,Jr.,M.D.,andBruceBellomy,M.D.,formedicalmalpracticeincidenttothemisreadingofa1993papsmearbyLouiseGeldmeier,whoinaccuratelyissuedanegativereportratherthanapositiveone.M  K   2       2(4   30*6    ` ThecomplaintastotheDefendantsinthisappealwas predicatedupontwotheories.First,thedoctrineofloanedservant,itbeingthecontentionofthePlaintiffthatMs.Geldmeier,althoughemployedbyFortSanders,wasloanedtotheDefendants.ThesecondwastheindependentnegligenceoftheDefendantsinfailingtoadequatelytrainandsupervisethoseinterpretingthespecimenssubmittedforexamination.   ` TheTrialJudgesgrantofsummaryjudgmentwaspredicateduponhisdetermination"thattherecordfailstodemonstrateagenuineissueofmaterialfactregardingadeviationfromrecognizedstandardsofacceptableprofessionalpracticeonthepartofthemovingDefendantsoragenuineissueofmaterialfactregardingcausationofaninjurythatwouldnothaveotherwiseoccurredasaresultoftheactionsofthemovingDefendants."ThePlaintifffiledamotiontoalterandamend,specificallycallingtotheTrialCourtsattentionitsloanedservanttheory.TheTrialCourtdeniedthismotionwithoutcommentastothattheory.̀   ` Asalreadynoted,theTrialCourtsustainedtheDefendants'motionforsummaryjudgment,resultinginthisappealwhereinthreeissuesareraised:I. ` Woulditbeadenialofdueprocessifthetrial .%0 courtrefusedtoapplytherecognizedstandardofreviewforamotionforsummaryjudgmentinanevenhandedmanner.II.Weretheredisputedissuesoffactpresentedastothedefendants'responsibilityforthenegligenceofanagentandtheindependentnegligenceofthesedefendants.A. @ Wasthecytotechnologistwhomisreadthe 6P-: papsmearslidesubmittedonShirleyDannenholdtheagentand/orborrowedservantofDefendantCarterMiller,thepathologistwhoissuedthenegativereportashisdiagnosiswhenitisundisputedthatthereportofpapsmearresults :81? isamedicalopinionthatmustbeissuedbythepathologist,andfurtherevidencedemonstratesthatthecytotechnologistwasengagedinthebusinessofandwasunderthesupervisionofthepathologistatthetimesheperformedtheprescreenreadingoftheslide.B. @ Wasthereagenuineissueofmaterialfact p& presentedastotheindependentnegligenceofthedefendantswhenplaintiffpresentedaffidavitsfromaqualifiedpathologistthatdisputedthedefendants'interpretationoftheirdutyintheoperationofthislaboratoryandparticularizedseveralspecificdeviationsfromthestandardsofacceptableprofessionalpracticebythedefendants.III.WasthereagenuineissueofmaterialfactpresentedastowhetherthenegligenceofthedefendantscausedinjurytoShirleyDannenholdwhenplaintiffofferedexperttestimonyastohowthespecificdeviationsfromthestandardsofacceptablepracticecausedtheerroneousreporttobeissuedwithoutapathologists'sreview,anditisundisputedthatifapathologisthadreviewedtheslidethecancerwouldhavebeenreported,anditisfurtherundisputedthatthedelayindiagnosiscausedahighlycurable, noninvasivecancertoprogresstoaninvasive,terminal 09/3 cancerthathassinceclaimedthelifeofShirleyDannenhold.    ` ThefirstissueisdependentuponamotioninthisCourttosupplementtherecordwithproceedingsinanothercase.AmotiontomakethematerialapartoftherecordonappealwasdeniedbytheTrialCourt.ThemotionwaspredicateduponanunrelatedcasethatthePlaintiffperceivestobeaninconsistentrulingbythesametrialjudgeasinthiscase,whichfavoredthedefendantsinasummaryjudgmentmotionbytheplaintiffs,asdistinguishedfromgrantingtheDefendantsmotioninthiscase.   ` Inlightofourdispositionofthefirstpointunderissuetwoandourindependentreviewoftheremainingissues,wealsodenythemotion.   ` OurstandardforreviewofsummaryjudgmentissetoutinByrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,214(Tenn.1993),theleading P(! casebytheSupremeCourtonthesubject: 0* #    `  ` Rule56comesintoplayonlywhenthereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactandthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Thus,theissuesthatlieattheheartofevaluatingasummaryjudgmentmotionare:(1)whetherafactual 1P(+ disputeexists;(2)whetherthedisputedfactismaterialtotheoutcomeofthecase;and(3)whether 30*- thedisputedfactcreatesagenuineissuefortrial. 4 +.    ` Theforegoingauthoritymandatesthatnotwithstanding @8.2 thecontraryproofplacedintherecordbytheDefendants,we  :04 adoptasthefactsnecessaryfordispositionofthisappealthefactscontainedintherecordandsetoutinthePlaintiff'sbrief,whichwehavecheckedforaccuracy.Wehave,however,editedthePlaintiffsstatementsofthefactsslightly,todeleteassertionsofundisputedproofastovariousfacts,andtodeletereferencetohearsaytestimonyofDr.GaryCooper,whichwedonotbelievewouldbeadmissibleastoasubstantiveissueattrial.T ZT T ^T K   3      ׀Footnotesintheportionofthebriefwequoteare   includedinthistext:   ` KnoxvillePathologyGroup,P.C.hasanexclusivecontractwithFortSandersRegionalMedicalCenter(hereinafterreferredtoas Hospital)toprovidemanagementservicesandphysiciancoverageforthepathologyandlaboratorydepartmentsofthehospital.Atalltimesmaterialtothisaction,Dr.BruceBellomyservedasthemedicaldirectorofthehospitalsonsitelaboratory.Thecytologydepartmentisthedepartmentofthelaboratorythatprocessespapsmearssubmittedtothehospitallaboratoryforexaminationanddiagnosis. ` TherewerethreecytotechnologistsemployedinthecytologydepartmentandthepathologistswhoweremembersofKnoxvillePathologyGroup,P.C.rotatedonadailybasisthedutyofthetechnicalsupervisorforcytology,whichisthemanagementpositionthatdirectlysupervisedthecytotechnologists,andthispathologistwouldalsorendertheopinionsonthediagnosticresultsofallpapsmearspecimenssubmittedforexaminationthatday.ThecytotechnologistswerepaidemployeesoftheHospital,butalargeportionoftheirtimewasspenteachdayperformingprescreenreadingsonslides,thereportsforwhichwouldbeissuedbymembersoftheKnoxvillePathologyGroup,P.C.astheirdiagnosticopinionsfortheslidessubmitted. p5,/  ` In1991andin1993papsmearslidesonShirleyDannenholdweresubmittedbyhergynecologisttothedefendantsforinterpretationinconnectionwithherroutinephysicalexaminations.Onbothoccasionstheslideswerereportedasnegativeforanycancercells.Subsequentreviewoftheseslidesdemonstratedthatbothslidesinfactdidshowadenocarcinomainsituthatshouldhavebeendetectedandreported. ` Mrs.Dannenholdsoughttreatmentfromadifferentphysicianinearly1994andherpapsmearsamplewassubmittedtoadifferentlaboratory,andhercancerdiagnosiswasreportedinJanuary1994.Treatmentensued,butatthetimeofdiagnosisthecancerhadalreadybecomeinvasive.InMayof1994Mrs.Dannenholdsawasegmentonthetelevisionnewsshow Primetimethatreportedlaboratorypracticesthathadcausedpositivepapsmearstobereportedasnegative.Shecontactedherformergynecologistandaskedwhetherherpreviousslidescouldbereviewedandherphysicianmadetherequesttodefendantsthatthisbedone.AtthetimeofthisrequestDr.GaryCooperhadjoinedthedefendantpathologygroupandafterhepulledMrs.Dannenholdsslidesfrom1991and1993heissuedasupplementalreportoftheamendeddiagnosistotheeffectthatboththe1991and1993slideswerepositiveforadenocarcinomainsituofthecervix. ` Thepathologistswhoissuedthe1991and1993reportsdidnotactuallyvieweitheroftheslides,butonbothoccasionsissuedthenegativediagnosisbyrelyingontheprescreenreadinggiventheslidesbyacytotechnologist.L L T hT T cT K   4      ׀Thediagnosisofthepapsmearis `'  issuedonlyinthenameofthepathologistandthepatientischargedthesameforthepapsmeardiagnosis,regardlessofwhethertheslidewasactuallyreadbythepathologistorreportedbasedonlyontheprescreenreadinggivenbythecytotechnologist.Thecytotechnologistsshouldhaverecognizedtheslidestobeabnormalin1991andin1993andshouldhave -$' identifiedthemforfurtherreviewbythesupervisingpathologistwhowouldbeissuingthereportsforthatday.IfLouiseGeldmeierhadsimplynotedthepresenceof reactivechangeontheslide,theslideshouldhavebeendesignatedforreviewbyapathologist.Ifapathologisthadreadtheslidesoneitheroccasion,thediagnosisshouldhavebeenmadeandreportedtoMrs.Dannenholdsgynecologist.Ifthediagnosishadbeenmadeevenaslateas1993,whilethecancerwasstillastage1adenocarcinomaofthecervix,Mrs.Dannenholdwouldhaveexpectedacurerateof8590percent.Thedelayindiagnosisthatresultedfromtheerroneouspapsmearreportof1993causedMrs.Dannenholdshighlycurablecancertoprogresstoaninvasiveandterminalcancerthatwasexpectedtoclaimherlife.T [T T aT K   5            ` Astotheissueofloanedservantpresentedinthefirstpartofissuetwo,wefindthatofallthecasescitedbytheparties,thecaseofParkerv.VanderbiltUniversity,767  S.W.2d412,416(Tenn.App.1988),isthecasemorenearlyinpointfactuallytothecaseatbar.Inthatcase,atthetimeoftheallegednegligence,thesurgicalstaffatNashvilleGeneralHospital wasfurnishedbyVanderbiltUniversityunderacontractwithMetropolitanGovernmentofNashvilleandDavidsonCounty.OurCourtspecificallyaddressedtheloanedservantquestionasfollows: ` Anemployeeofoneemployermaybecometheservantofanotherandshifttheliabilityforhisnegligentactstothesecondemployer.SeeRichardsonv.Russom 0`'* CraneRentalCo.,543S.W.2d590(Tenn.Ct.App.1975). 1P(+ ThetesttodeterminewhetheranemployeeisaloanedservantofanotheremployerhasbeensetoutinGaston 30*- v.Sharpe,179Tenn.609,168S.W.2d784(1943).In 4 +. Gaston,thecourtsaid: p5,/  `6-0 Ҁ[A]servantataparticulartimemayremainunderthecontrolofhisgeneralemployerforsomepurposesandyetbeunderthecontrolofaspecialemployerforothers.Likewiseitsometimeshappensthataparticularworkinwhichtheservantisengagedmaybeproperlyconsideredastheworkorbusinessofboththegeneralemployerandthespecialemployer. Thequestionisdifficult.ItisconsideredatsomelengthinRestatementofAgency,!V X XXTX!#TXX XVX:#Ԁ227.Wetake p  thefollowingfromRestatementasasatisfactoryrule: Sincethequestionofliabilityisalwaysraisedbecauseofsomespecificactdone,theimportantquestionisnotwhetherornotheremainstheservantofthegeneralemployerastomattersgenerally,butwhetherornot,astotheactinquestion,thedirectionofoneortheother.Itisnotconclusivethatinpracticehewouldbelikelytoobeythedirectionsofthegeneralemployerincaseofconflictoforders.Thequestionisastowhetheritisunderstoodbetweenhimandhisemployersthatheistoremainintheallegianceofthefirstastoaspecificact,oristobeemployedinthebusinessofandsubjecttothedirectionofthetemporaryemployerastothedetailsofsuchact.Thisisaquestionoffactineachcase.179Tenn.at614,168S.W.2dat786.   ` InthatcasetheCourtconcludedthat,althoughthequestionwhetheraservantofoneemployerhasbecometheservantofanotherisgenerallyaquestionoffactforthejury,theunambiguousagreementbetweenthepartiesmadeitaquestionoflaw,andthereafteropinedasfollows(atpage417): ` TheagreementbetweenVanderbiltandGeneralprovidesthattheresidents,asmembersofthemedicalstaff,wereaccountablesolelytoGeneral;GeneralhadtherighttoapprovetheassignmentofallmedicalstaffpersonnelandallresidentsweretobesupervisedbyandaccountabletoGeneral. ` ....  D9/3  ` Inlightoftheundisputedtermsofthewritten agreement,weholdthattheVanderbiltdoctorsweretheloanedservantsofGeneralatthetimeoftheoperationonMr.Parker.Therefore,anynegligenceonthepartofthesurgicalteamcouldnotbeimputedtoVanderbilt.   ` InthecaseatbarthecontractbetweenFortSandersandtheRadiologyGroupcontainednosuchspecificlanguage.   ` WealsonotethattheDefendantsweretheonesthatprovidedtheinstructionstothosetestingthepapsmearsastohowtheyweretobepreparedandweretoberead.   ` WeconcludeinlightofthefactthatthecontractbetweenFortSandersandKnoxvilleRadiologyGroupdidnotcontaintheunambiguousprovisionsaswerepresentinParker, "P U that "P tU V tV hiscaseisdistinguishableandaquestionoffactispresentedastowhetherMs.GeldmeierwasaservantloanedbyFortSanderstotheDefendants.   ` Finallyastothisquestion,wepointoutthatundercertaincircumstancesanemployeemaybetheservantofageneralemployerandalsoaspecialemployer.Parker,supra. /p&)    ` Astothesecondpartofthesecondissue,itisundisputedthattheDefendantscompliedwiththeFederalClinicalLaboratoryImprovementAct,whichthePlaintiffsexperttestifiedwasmerelyacodificationofpriorlaw,andalthough 09/3 thisexpertalsotestifiedastoadeviationfromacceptedpracticeregardingreviewbyapathologist,hewaspredicatinghistestimonyonaninferencehedrewfromafactheassumed(cytotechnologistsmarkingsmadebythecytotechnologistwhenthe1993slidewasexamined),whichtherecordshowswithoutdisputewasnottrue.   ` Astothesecondsubsectionofissuetwo,theproofshowsthatunderregulationspromulgatedundertheCLIA,theDefendantshadadutytoadequatelysupervisethecytotechnologists,andtothisendtheregulationsrequirethatapathologistreviewarandomselectionoftenpercentofallslidesfoundbythetechnicianstobenegative.TheundisputedproofsupportstheDefendants'contentionthatthisrequirementwashonored.   ` ThePlaintiffsexpertalsofoundfaultwiththemethodusedbytheDefendantsinselectingthosenegativeslideswhichweretobereviewedbythepathologist.Theproofshowedthatthosethathadsomeindicationofabnormalitywereusedinthe10percentselectedratherthanthosethatunquestionablyappearednegative.TheexpertapparentlyreasonsthatMrs.Dannenhold'spapsmearwouldhavebeendrawnhadthemethodhesuggestedbeenemployed.WefindthatsuchaconclusionwouldbepurespeculationandW thatW theTrialCourtwascorrectinsustainingtheDefendantsmotionforsummaryjudgmentastothispoint.  :04    ` ThethirdissueattacksthefindingoftheCourtthatthereisno genuineissueofmaterialfactregardingcausationofaninjurythatwouldnothaveotherwiseoccurredasaresultoftheactionsofthemovingDefendants.ThetestimonyofDr.MatthewKohler,oneofthePlaintiffsexpertwitnesses,establishesthathadaproperdiagnosisbeenmadeasX toX Y aY Z theZ 1993papsmear,Mrs.Dannenholdhadanexcellentchanceofrecoveryandthathercureratewasintherangeof85to90percent.   ` FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisvacatedinsofarasitaddressestheloanedservanttheoryandremandedtotheTrialCourtforfurtherproceedingsnotinconsistentwiththisopinion.ThejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmedastoothertheoriesadvanced.CostsofappealareadjudgedonehalfagainstthePlaintiffandonehalfagainsttheDefendants.   `     h   _______________________________   `     h   HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.CONCUR:________________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.________________________________DonT.McMurray,J.SX?j XXTX `6-0 #TXX XSX?jR#^ [ [ ^ ] \ November\ \ 10,\ \ 1998\ ]