WPCR xl"٢Nk$HݷmKʵҢUYB0{?ݞy֏ܸqkPѸ)B^J-=ɕ XIggfw0dLSzUu2wJч7{y]=nRЏ46&-nN[ۮgӼ7AAC!hj:ԎU!BqGXfź1hsހ6FXa.  "s&?54x]@>|ΓbBedIl/n!msdBB8雒}@@M& Y1+Ci~7%.#`"+i(N8KEBɎS ; /.h\M2<5&< 0݊lhvzQs]BP9gl=J kj{aL܊/"L w:?ob#\ %% ^ + 07 U5N w 4 z%  q  m 0D   i/U NNCUNE-EbGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG 0OOOO B:: 0W D3 D-. 0K[[ AS 0 0Dc A\\IB01S02\CLERKJAC,,,,09]/ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularlk.01s02 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|xU(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular # R@$      1    _ThisfinalsentenceofRule32.01(3),insertedin1984,wasrecommendedbydistinguishedMemphisattorney  Leo_Bearman_ԀwhenhewasamemberoftheRulesCommission.Henceitlivesonas the_Bearman_ԀRule.DonaldF. q Paine,The_Bearman_ԀRule,39Tenn.B.J.33(April2003). { R@$      2    _InBowen,thisCourtfoundthatalthoughthedeposedwasnotamedicalprofessional,hewasanexpertwith  regardtotheproperoperationofcertainmedicalequipment.Bowenv._Defranco_#D#,No.02A019107CV00139,1992WL q 12129,at*4(Tenn.Ct.App.Jan.29,1992)(noperm.app.filed)#ܺ#.- -(|G2@$ !.8ydd8         0   d(|3$ !.8ydd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8ydd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8ydd8     _  y8OXXdd8  @ sNyINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#ysN #Ԉ #   September17,2003Session F XOXy #yXXO#JAMESDIAL,etal.v.ROBERTL.HARRINGTON,M.D.,etal.XOXy  ? @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforDyerCounty  9 @@No.0133J.StevenStafford,ChancellorbyInterchange  # @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200203053_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober29,_2003_   AV) ` dE<]` A ^     XtBXXXOThisisanappealofthetrialcourtsawardofsummaryjudgmenttodefendantsinamedical V  malpracticeaction.ThetrialcourtheldthatRule32.01(3)oftheTennesseeRulesofCivil ? ProcedureprohibitsuseofanexpertdiscoverydepositiontakeninaccordancewithRule26.02(4) (x toshowtheexistenceofagenuineissueofmaterialfactinoppositiontoamotionforsummary a judgment.Wereverse. J #XOXXXtB##yXXO#XOXy Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtReversed;and  Remanded     #yXOB#XOX.yDavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE._Highers_,J.andHolly r M.Kirby,J.,joined. [ Timothy_Boxx_,_Dyersburg_,Tennessee,fortheappellants,JamesDialandwife,RachelDial. -} HubertB.JonesandGaryH._Nichols_,_Dyersburg_,Tennessee,fortheappellees,RobertL. O Harrington,M.D.,JacksonClinic,P.A.andWomensClinicof_Dyersburg_.  8   OPINION #yXXO0#XOXy " " #yXXO8 #XOXyXtBXXXO     InFebruary2001,JamesDialandwife,RachelDial(collectively, theDials)fileda x% % complaintagainstDefendantsRobertL.Harrington,M.D.,JacksonClinic,P.A.,andWomens a&!& Clinicof_Dyersburg_,Inc.,allegingmedicalmalpractice.Intheircomplaint,theDialsallege J'"' DefendantRobertL.Harrington,M.D.(Dr.Harrington)wasnegligentanddeviatedfromthe 3(#( standardofcareinhisdiagnosisandtreatmentofMs.Dial.Theyfurtherallegevicarious )l$) liabilityofDefendantClinicsbasedonthedoctrineof_respondeat_Ԁsuperior. *U%*   Bothpartiessubsequentlyconducteddiscovery.InOctober2001,Defendantstookthe +'',  discoverydepositionoftheDialsexpert,JoelS._Engle_,M.D.(Dr._Engle_)inaccordancewith ,(- _Rule26.02(4)oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.Inhisdeposition,Dr.Engletestified  thatDr.Harringtonhadbreachedtherequisitestandardofcare.     DefendantsmovedforsummaryjudgmentinFebruary2002,assertingnodisputedissue k ofmaterialfact.DefendantssupportedtheirmotionwithanaffidavitofDefendantDr. T Harrington.Inhisaffidavit,Dr.Harringtonstatedthathehadcompliedwiththestandardof =  care. & v Ѐ   TheDialsopposedDefendantsmotion,assertingthatagenuineissueofmaterialfact  _ existedregardingwhetherDr.Harringtonhadbreachedthestandardofcare.TheDialsfiledDr.  H Englesdiscoverydepositioninsupportoftheirposition.TheDialsdidnotfileanexpert  1  affidavittosupporttheirposition.      DefendantsfiledamotioninliminetoexcludethediscoverydepositionofDr.Engle.In   theirmotion,DefendantsarguedthatTennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure32.01(3)prohibitsthe   useofadiscoverydepositionofanexperttakeninaccordancewithRule26foranyuseother n  thantoimpeachthedeponent. W    ThetrialcourtdeterminedthatthediscoverydepositionofDr.Englecouldnotbeusedto )y opposeDefendantsmotionforsummaryjudgment,andaccordinglygrantedthemotion.The b DialsnowappealtothisCourt,assertingitwaserrorforthetrialcourttoexcludetheirexperts K discoverydepositioninthesummaryjudgmentproceeding. 4   IssuesPresented   c  TheissueraisedforreviewbythisCourtiswhetherTennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure  32.01(3)prohibitstheuseofadepositionofanexperttakenpursuanttoRule26.02(4)tooppose s amotionforsummaryjudgment. \   StandardofReview  .~   Theauthoritytopromulgateruleswhichcontrolthepracticeandprocedureofthecourts  Q ofthisStateisaninherentpoweroftheTennesseeSupremeCourt.Corumv.HolstonHealth  : andRehab.Ctr.,104S.W.3d451,454(Tenn.2003).Theinterpretationoftheserulesisa !#  questionoflaw.Greenv.Moore,101S.W.3d415,418(Tenn.2003).Ourreviewofatrial " ! courtsdeterminationonissuesoflawisdenovo,withnopresumptionofcorrectness.#XOXXXtB #XtBXXXOId.#XOXXXtBp#XtBXXXOԀ #"  XX  Wealsoreviewatrialcourt'sawardofsummaryjudgmentdenovo,withnopresumption w% $ ofcorrectness.Guyv.Mut.ofOmahaIns.Co.,79S.W.3d528,534(Tenn.2002).Summary `&!% judgmentshouldbeawardedonlywhenthemovingpartycandemonstratethatthereareno I'"& genuineissuesregardingmaterialfacts,andthatitisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw. 2(#' Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04;McCarleyv.WestQualityFoodServ.,960S.W.2d585,588(Tenn. )k$( 1998);Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,214(Tenn.1993).Therefore,mereassertionsthatthe *T%) nonmovingpartyhasnoevidencedoesnotsufficetoentitlethemovanttosummaryjudgment. *=&* McCarley,960S.W.2dat588.Rather,themovingpartymusteitherconclusivelydemonstrate +&'+ anaffirmativedefenseoraffirmativelynegateanessentialelementofthenonmovingparty's  claim.Id.Ifthemovingpartycandemonstratethatthenonmovingpartywillbeunabletocarry  itsburdenofproofonanessentialelement,summaryjudgmentisappropriate.Id.    Further,whenapartymakesamotionforsummaryjudgmentinaccordancewith R TennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure56,theburdenshiftstothenonmovingpartytoestablishthe ;  existenceofdisputedmaterialfactsorthatthemovingpartyisnotentitledtojudgmentasa $ t matteroflaw.McCarley,960S.W.2dat588;SeealsoStaplesv.CBL&Assocs.,15S.W.3d83,  ] 89(Tenn.2000).Thusthenonmovingpartycannotmerelyrelyonthepleadings,butmust  F demonstrateessentialelementsofaclaimby:1)pointingtoevidencethatcreatesafactual  /  dispute;2)re-enforcingevidencechallengedbythemovingparty;3)offeringadditional    evidencewhichestablishesamaterialdispute;4)submittingaTenn.R.Civ.P.56.06affidavit   explainingtheneedforadditionaltimefordiscovery.McCarley,960S.W.2dat588.     Analysis  l  %  TennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure32.01isprimarilyaruleofevidence.Wilkesv. ? Freds,Inc.,No.W200102393COAR3CV,2002WL31305202,at*4(Tenn.Ct.App.Aug. (x 20,2002)(noperm.app.filed)(citingRobertBanks,Jr.&JuneE.Entman,TennesseeCivil a Procedure87(b)(1999)).Itappliestotheuseofdepositiontestimonyforcrossexamination J andimpeachment,isaruleofcompleteness,andprovidesahearsayexceptionforformer 3 testimony.Wilkes,2002WL31305202,at*4.Section32.01(3)governswhenadepositionmay  beusedassubstantiveproofundertheformertestimonyexceptiontohearsay.Tenn.R.Civ.P.  32advisorycommissioncomments.    Rule32.01provides: p 8  UseofDepositions.! Atthetrialoruponthehearingofamotionoran B interlocutoryproceeding,anypartorallofadeposition,sofarasadmissible .~ undertherulesofevidenceappliedasthoughthewitnesswerethenpresentand g testifying,maybeusedagainstthepartywhowaspresentorrepresentedatthe  P takingofthedepositionorwhohadreasonablenoticethereof,inaccordancewith  9 anyofthefollowingprovisions[.]!"    Tenn.R.Civ.P.32.01.Rule32.01(3)providesthatthedepositionofawitnesswhois $# unavailableasdefinedbytheRulemaybeused byanypartyforanypurposeunless it v% $ appearsthattheabsenceofthewitnesswasprocuredbythepartyofferingthedeposition. _&!% Tenn.R.Civ.P.32.01(3)(emphasisadded). H'"&   Thehearsayexceptionprovidedbythisrule,however,containsanexceptiontothe )j$( exception.ThefinalsentenceofRule32.01(3)reads: *S%)   *<&* 8  Notwithstandingtheforegoingprovisions,depositionsofexpertstakenpursuant   totheprovisionsofRule26.02(4)maynotbeusedatthetrialexcepttoimpeach  inaccordancewiththeprovisionsofRule32.01(1)(emphasisadded).   Commonlycalled theBearmanRule,  #  1      ׀thissentenceprohibitstheintroduction,assubstantive T proof,ofdiscoverydepositionsofexpertstakeninaccordancewithRule26.02(4).  =     TheBearmanRulewasincludedtoaddressthedilemmafacedbyalawyertakinga  ` discoverydepositionofahostileexpertwhoisorbecomesunavailableundertherule,which  I includeswitnessesexemptfromsubpoenaunderTenn.CodeAnn.249101.Tenn.R.Civ.P.  2  32advisorycommissioncomments.Essentially,itisaruleoffairnesswhichpermitsdiscovery    ofahostileexpertwithoutthethreatofunfavorableresponsesbeingintroducedassubstantive   proofunderwhatis,inessence,ahearsayexception.#XOXXXtB#XtBXXXOId.#XOXXXtB2#XtBXXXOԀThepartywhohiredtheexpertmay   stilltakeadepositionforproofbynoticeoragreement.#XOXXXtB3#XtBXXXOId.#XOXXXtB3#XtBXXXOԀ     InthecasenowbeforethisCourt,theBearmanRuleclearlywouldproscribetheuseof X  Dr.Englesdiscoverydepositionassubstantiveproofattrial.Wemustheredetermine, A however,whetheranexpertdiscoverydepositionmaybeusedbythetrialcourtnotas *z substantiveproofattrial,i.e.toprovethetruthofthematterasserted,butatthesummary c judgmentstagetodeterminetheexistenceofadisputedmaterialfact.WeholdthattheBearman L Ruledoesnotprohibittheuseofexpertdepositionstopointtodisputedissuesofmaterialfactin 5 oppositiontoamotionforsummaryjudgment.    ThisholdingisconsistentwithboththespiritandlanguageofRule32.01,includingthe  BearmanRule.ItisalsoconsistentwiththisCourtsholdingsonrelatedissuespertainingto  evidenceadmissibleatthesummaryjudgmentstage.Moreover,wearriveatthisdetermination r inlightofthepurposeandlimitationsofsummaryjudgmentproceedings. [   Webeginouranalysiswiththepropositionthatforthepurposesofsummaryjudgment,a -} depositionisaswornstatementwhichdiffersfromanaffidavitonlyinform.Roddyv.Hardison, f No.01A019011CH00394,1991WL53427,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.Apr.12,1991)(noperm. O app.filed).Thusdepositionsmaybeusedwhereveraffidavitsareadmissibleundertherules.#XOXXXtB4#XtBXXXOId.#XOXXXtB:#XtBXXXOԀ  8 (quoting3TennesseePractice2ed.32.2).ThisisconsistentwiththelanguageofRule56of !!  theTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedurewhichprovides,inpertinentpart: " ! 8  [T]hejudgmentsoughtshallberenderedforthwithifthepleadings,depositions, $# answerstointerrogatories,andadmissionsonfile,togetherwiththeaffidavits,if u% $ any,showthatthereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactandthatthe ^&!% movingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.G'"&    0(#' ЇTenn.R.Civ.P.56.04.InRoddy,weaccordinglyheldthatdepositionsfiledinsupportof,orin  oppositionto,summaryjudgmentmotionsshouldbetreatedasaffidavitsforthepurposeof  determiningwhethersummaryjudgmentiswarranted.Roddy,1991WL53427,at*2.#XOXXXtBB;#XtBXXXO    ThisCourthashadpreviousoccasiontoconsiderthispropositioninthecontextofexpert R depositions.InBowenv.Defranco,alsoamedicalmalpracticecauseofaction,defendant ;  objectedtoplaintiffsrelianceonanexpertdepositionintheirresponsetodefendantsmotionfor $ t summaryjudgment.  #  2      ׀Bowenv.Defranco#XOXXXtB_?#XtBXXXO,No.02A019107CV00139,1992WL12129,at*1  ] (Tenn.Ct.App.Jan.29,1992)(noperm.app.filed).Asinthepresentcase,#XOXXXtBA#XtBXXXOdefendantinBowen  F arguedthatuseofthedepositiontoopposesummaryjudgmentwasprohibitedbyRule32.01of  /  theTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.#XOXXXtBB#XtBXXXOId.#XOXXXtBC#XtBXXXOԀ#XOXXXtBC#XtBXXXOԀInBowen,weheldthattheexpertdepositionwas    admissibletoopposesummaryjudgmentinsofarasanaffidavitwouldbeadmissible.#XOXXXtBD#XtBXXXOId.#XOXXXtBE#XtBXXXOԀat*2.   Wefurthernotedthatuseofanexpertsstatementindepositionformdoesnotdeprivethe   objectingpartyofanyrighthewouldhaveifthestatementhadbeensubmittedintheformofan   affidavit.#XOXXXtBHE#XtBXXXOSee#XOXXXtBF#XtBXXXOid.#XOXXXtBF#XtBXXXOԀ l    UnderlyingourholdinginBowenisthefactthatthefairnessconsiderationsgivingriseto > theBearmanRulesimplyarenotpresentinthesummaryjudgmentcontext.#XOXXXtB(G#XtBXXXOԀSummaryjudgment 'w isnotasubstituteforatrialofissuesoffact.Fergusonv.Tomerlin,656S.W.2d378,382(Tenn. ` Ct.App.1983)(perm.app.denied)#XOXXXtBOH#XtBXXXO.#XOXXXtB_I#XtBXXXOSummaryjudgmentisappropriateonlyinthoseinstances I wherethemovingpartycandemonstratethattherearenodisputedissuesofmaterialfactand 2 thatitshouldbeawardedjudgmentasamatteroflaw.#XOXXXtBI#XtBXXXOTenn.R.Civ.P.56.04;Byrdv.Hall,847  S.W.2d208,214(Tenn.1993).Accordingly,apartyopposingsummaryjudgmentmust  demonstratetheexistenceofadisputedmaterialfact.Staplesv.CBLAssocs.,15S.W.3d83,89  (Tenn.2000).Thiscanbeaccomplishedthroughanaffidavitwhich,althoughnotadmissibleas  substantiveproofattrial,isadmissibleinasummaryjudgmentproceeding. o   AswornRule26depositionofanexpertislikewiseadmissibleatasummaryjudgment A proceeding.Bowen,#XOXXXtBJ#XtBXXXO1992WL12129,at*2.Atthesummaryjudgmentstage,considerationofa *z Rule26depositionpresentsnomoreunfairnessthanadmissionofanaffidavit.Inbothinstances, c theswornstatementisreviewedbythetrialcourtonlytodeterminewhetheradisputedissueof L materialfactexists.Oncethecourthasdeterminedsuchadisputeexists,itislefttothetrierof  5 facttoweightheadmissibleevidence.TheBearmanRuleprohibitsthetrialcourtfrom !  admittingaRule26depositionassubstantiveproofatthetrial,althoughitmightotherwisebe "! admissibleunderthehearsayexceptionsprovidedbyRule32. #"   Inadditiontobeingconsistentwiththe#XOXXXtBM#XtBXXXOpurposesandlimitationsofasummaryjudgment r% $ determination,thisholdingisconsistentwiththelanguageoftheruleitself.Rule32providesa [&!% hearsayexceptionfortheuse byanypartyforanypurposeofadepositionofawitnessdefined D'"& bytheruleasunavailable.Tenn.R.Civ.P.32.01(3).Thefinalsentence,theBearmanRule, -(}#' however,partiallynegatesthisexceptionfordepositionstakenofexperts.Thesentenceprovides  thatwheresuchdepositionsaretakeninaccordancewithRule26.02(4), theymaynotbeused  atthetrialexcepttoimpeachinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofRule32.01(1).Tenn.R.Civ.  P.32.01(3)(emphasisadded).TheBearmanRuledoesnotaddressuseofadiscoverydeposition k ofanexpertforanypurposeotherthanattrial.ItsimplylimitstheapplicationofRule32.01(3), T whichmakeswhatisotherwisehearsayadmissibleassubstantiveproofattrial. =  Ѐ & v   Inlightoftheforegoing,itwaserrorforthetrialcourttoprohibitPlaintiffsfromrelying  _ uponthediscoverydepositionofDr.Engletoopposesummaryjudgment.Thedeposition  H demonstratestheexistenceofgenuineissuesofmaterialfactthatmustbedeterminedbyatrial  1  onthemerits.WeaccordinglyreversetheawardofsummaryjudgmenttoDefendants.       Conclusion  @`    W  AdepositionofanexperttakeninaccordancewithRule26oftheTennesseeRulesof o  CivilProceduremaybeofferedbyapartytoopposesummaryjudgmenttothesameextentthat X  anaffidavitmaybesoused.Suchdepositionsdifferfromaffidavitsinformonly.Rule32.01(3) A oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureprovidesaformertestimonyexceptiontohearsayfor *z witnessesdefinedbytheRuleasunavailable.TheBearmanRulefoundinthefinalsentenceof c Rule32.01(3)providesanexceptiontotheexception.TheBearmanRuleprohibitsthe L admissionattrialofdepositionsofexpertstakeninaccordancewithRule26,althoughsuch 5 depositionsmightotherwisebeadmissibleunderRule32.01(3).Itdoesnotprohibittheuseof  expertdepositionsbyapartytoopposesummaryjudgment.    TheawardofsummaryjudgmenttoDefendantsisreversed.Thiscauseisremandedfor  furtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.CostsofthisappealaretaxedtotheAppellees, r   RobertL.Harrington,M.D.,JacksonClinic,P.A.,andWomensClinicofDyersburg,Inc. [ #XOXXXtB!Q#   `     h     ___________________________________ O    `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE