’WPCÉ Ē…ĮŌR/į­©#T¹ĒÅ¢ś Ńn;ńNSk`‡>]KYįĻ ūĖVĢ"Ę8hpßīņ½ĖĶLĖ}>-צw¢å±*芥wą,Ö7F焪cŅž^¶> Ü<•*”ČM’£•„s$ ŽKX¹®Ž™Ža&æßob„ć’VųJ’)l‹ŚRƒžźŖPŃEIžGJū;±eąćĶF^MŚ30Ļ »]³tŌcI<„ż×?Ŗ;£nį2%­D‘ %[½ģö꾒[fʁ7%¦MµšĶĘdMåÆŌu,R§īė¦Ōy Öó*ٟ¤›łµėš‡-ÅĶ:6{}$ FŌ ŸŖ/aŖ®8¬ü Øņ#;h„ÕaP@źbEēEU!”z`±üۃćŚ*‰NĒĆč”PįŲY8 ±e˜éĖKH39»†¼U`÷eži]m Šoe¼¦£f¶ń@^‹Ā”NYs”äajæ2*ś.ŚØwĀ"Č»m“ ßøŒ!B±Œ/”Œ¹¦·õ µ@„ŽēÆõƵ—;Ó5 EĘ%ßG [ Ū9N¾²:’Ė)iŅuņ<įŁ~[CŽĮį܅jCd’›¶•_ĮåøÅēŃįiņ8Mb#Į\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ U N· w 4 z Ņ— i x mz ‘ ʙ Ę_ Ę% Ęė 1±N> 72@ 1urEē 72é 0 cU @~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~b¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾ 0ėĘĘĘĘ B±± 0¤Ī D3r D-„ 0KŅŅ ASĘp 0¤6 0DŚ A«˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eČČ,,,,ČČ0»ˆu&+s (`£Ŗ$””Ń€.ŃŃ8€½­»»d»»d8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  Ó(ķ€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularŃB+bk1” ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x’U‹’ĄĄĄ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(¦ŁCEMU]emu}AutoList1(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$““Ō2#ŌŚ  Ś0Ś  Ś.Ō3  Ōą0  ą(ĘśI Z‹(Times New Roman - ł-(|G2ž”$¤¤Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€C-»»dXXdģ8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą  ąņņŚ  Ś0Ś  ŚóóŌ€ōļņ»»Ō d(|3ÉO$££Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€C-»»dXXdģ8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻVVVV'’’dxd)!ČČČČdxdx( ±ž$’’ņ ņFigure€Ś  Ś1Ś  Śó ó^_X`YEž’<<C’’ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÉO$¢¢Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€C-»»dXXdģ8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Ż($$””ņ ņŚ  Ś1Ś  Śó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8’’’’’’’’’’C’’ HKKKKŻ ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€C-»»ddČ8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻŌ_ŌŃ  ŃŌ€¼C-»»»ŌŃ8€ŃXXdģ»»d8ŃŃ  ŃŌ€¼C-»»¼C-Ōą@ü ü ģąŌ‡īÅsC-ŌIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆŠ ° Šą@kk$ģąAT€NASHVILLEŌ#†¼C-»īīÅs+#ԈŠ Ö& ŠÓ  ÓApril€3,€2001€SessionŠ üL ŠŌ‡XŃX»¼C-ŌĢņ ņŌ#†¼C-»XXŃ#ŌJULIE€AMANDA€DURBIN,€ņņet€vir.óó€v.€SUMNER€COUNTY€REGIONALŠ śJ ŠHEALTH€SYSTEMS,€INC.,€ņņet€alóó.Ō‡XŃX»¼C-Ōó óŠ  ^ ŠĢą@@½½ģąņ ņ€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Sumner€CountyŠ  ^ Šą@@ųųģąNo.€15711„C€€€€€€Arthur€McClellan,€JudgeŠ ś J ŠĢĢą@@ģģ*ģąßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` Aߊ ¾  ŠĢą@@TTģąNo.€M2000„02109„Ō_ŌCOAŌ_Ō„R3„CV€„€Filed€September€6,€Ō_Ō2001Ō_ŌŠ ¹  ŠĢßA€V) °°` dE<` Aߊ ‘į  Šó óĢÓ  ÓThe€appellants€sued€the€appellees€for€claims€connected€with€the€death€of€the€appellantsšš€twin€fetuses.€Š ŒÜ ŠThe€jury€found€in€favor€of€the€appellees,€and,€in€addition,€after€the€jury€verdict,€the€trial€court€grantedŠ xČ Šappellee€Dr.€Caldwellššs€motion€to€dismiss€on€the€ground€that€the€statute€of€limitations€had€run€beforeŠ d“ Šhe€was€sued.€€The€appellants€argue€that€this€court€should€reverse€the€trial€courtššs€order€dismissingŠ P  ŠDr.€Caldwell€and€overturn€the€juryššs€verdict.€€We€reverse€the€trial€courtššs€order€dismissing€Dr.Š <Œ ŠCaldwell,€but€affirm€the€jury€verdict€in€his€favor€and€in€favor€of€the€other€appellee.Š (x ŠÓ ÓĢņ ņTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Š P ŠAffirmed€in€Part€and€Reversed€in€Partó óŠ ģ< ŠĢņņÓ  ÓŌ#†¼C-»ąXŃŹ#ŌŌ‡XŃX.¼C-ŌBen€H.€Cantrell,€P.J.,€M.S.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€ņņWilliam€B.€Cain,€óóJ.€andŠ Ä ŠņņJ.€S.€Daniel,€Sp.€J.óó,€joined.Š ° ŠĢGary€K.€Smith€and€Sherry€S.€Fernandez,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€Julie€AmandaŠ ˆŲ ŠDurbin€and€James€M.€Durbin.Š t Ä ŠĢRobert€L.€Trentham€and€G.€Brian€Jackson,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Sumner€CountyŠ L"œ! ŠRegional€Health€Systems,€Inc.Š 8#ˆ" ŠĢPhillip€North,€Michael€F.€Jameson,€and€Tom€Shumate,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,Š %` $ ŠWilliam€R.€Caldwell,€M.D.Š ü%L!% ŠÓ„ÓĢņ ņOPINIONó óŌ#†¼C-»XXŃŌ#ŌŌ‡XŃX»¼C-ŌŠ Ō'$#' Šą @ ąĢņ ņI.ó óŠ ¬)ü$) ŠĢņņóóŌ#†¼C-»XXŃŃ #ŌÓ  ÓŌ€XŃX»¼C-Ōą  ąAppellant,€Julie€Amanda€Ō_ŌDurbinŌ_Ō,€was€pregnant€with€twins€in€1995.€€On€July€20,1995,€in€theŠ „+Ō&+ Šā ātwenty„ninth€week€of€her€pregnancy,€Mrs.€Ō_ŌDurbinŌ_Ō€came€to€the€Sumner€Regional€Medical€Center€(theŠ p,Ą',ż Šš šHospitalšš)€complaining€of€a€backache€and€irregular€contractions.€€After€being€tested€with€a€fetalŠ ° Šmonitor,€she€was€discharged€and€sent€home.Š œģ Šā āĢą  ąOn€July€22,€1995€at€1:00€a.m.,€Mrs.€Ō_ŌDurbinŌ_Ō€again€arrived€at€the€Hospital€complaining€of€backŠ tÄ Špain,€abdominal€pain€and€regular€contractions.€€The€Hospital€admitted€her€for€obstetric€emergencyŠ `° Šout„patient€observation.€€She€was€again€hooked€up€to€a€fetal€heart€monitor.€€The€nurses€monitoredŠ L œ Šthe€fetal€heartbeats€and€did€not€report€any€evidence€of€distress€to€Dr.€Caldwell,€Mrs.€Ō_ŌDurbinŌ_ŌššsŠ 8 ˆ Šphysician.€€However,€because€of€his€concern€over€Mrs.€Ō_ŌDurbinŌ_Ōššs€back€pain,€Dr.€Caldwell€admittedŠ $ t Šher€to€the€postpartum€unit€and€ordered€routine€checking€of€the€fetal€heartbeats.Š  ` ŠĢą  ąDr.€Caldwell€suspected€that€her€back€pain€might€be€due€to€kidney€stones.€€He€ordered€a€renalŠ č 8  Šultrasound.€€During€this€ultrasound,€Mrs.€Ō_ŌDurbinŌ_Ō€asked€the€technician€if€she€could€look€at€the€twinsŠ Ō$  Što€ascertain€their€sex.€€The€ultrasound€showed€that€there€were€no€kidney€stones€present,€but€thereŠ Ą  Šwere€other€complications€with€the€tubes€leading€from€her€kidneys€to€her€bladder,€the€Ō_ŌuretersŌ_Ō,€€andŠ ¬ü  ŠDr.€Caldwell€concluded€that€could€be€the€cause€of€her€back€pain.€€She€was€given€medication€for€herŠ ˜č  Špain,€and€discharged€from€the€Hospital.€€Her€instructions€upon€discharge€included€that€she€was€putŠ „Ō  Šon€bed€rest€with€bathroom€privileges.Š pĄ ŠĢą  ąOn€July€26,€1995,€Mrs.€Durbin€had€a€scheduled€appointment€with€Dr.€Caldwell.€€After€beingŠ H˜ Šunable€to€find€a€fetal€heartbeat,€Dr.€Caldwell€checked€Mrs.€Durbin€with€an€ultrasound.€€TheŠ 4„ Šultrasound€confirmed€that€the€twins€were€dead.€€The€doctor€also€noticed€an€extraordinarily€largeŠ  p Špocket€of€fluid.€€He€believed€that€the€twins€had€died€as€a€result€of€a€placental€abruption€due€to€theŠ  \ Šlarge€amount€of€fluid.€€Dr.€Caldwell€delivered€the€twins€the€next€day.€€When€Mrs.€Durbin€returnedŠ ųH Šfor€her€six„week€follow„up€visit€on€September€11,€Dr.€Caldwell€told€her€that€the€twins€had€insteadŠ ä4 Šdied€as€a€result€of€Twin€to€Twin€Transfusion€Syndrome€(š šTTSšš).Š Š  ŠĢą  ąThe€twins€shared€one€placenta,€but€each€twin€had€their€own€amniotic€sac.€€When€twin€fetusesŠ Øų Šshare€a€placenta€they€are€susceptible€to€TTS.€€TTS€occurs€when€blood€passes€disproportionately€fromŠ ”ä Šone€fetus€to€the€other€through€connecting€blood€vessels€within€the€shared€placenta.€€One€fetus€getsŠ €Š Štoo€much€blood,€which€overloads€the€cardiovascular€system,€and€may€cause€heart€failure.€€The€otherŠ l¼ Šfetus€does€not€get€enough€blood€and€may€die€from€anemia.€€The€fetus€that€receives€the€extra€bloodŠ X Ø Šurinates€more,€therefore,€increasing€the€fluid€in€the€amniotic€sac.€€TTS€can€trigger€symptoms€in€theŠ D!” Šmother€such€as€pain,€pre„term€labor,€and€abdominal€distension.Š 0"€  ŠĢą  ąOn€July€12,€1996,€the€appellants€filed€suit€against€the€Hospital€and€several€individual€nurses.€Š $X" ŠDr.€Caldwell€was€not€included€as€a€defendant€with€the€initial€filing.€€The€Hospital€reserved€the€rightŠ ō$D # Što€rely€on€comparative€fault€when€it€filed€its€answers,€and€subsequent€amended€answers.€€TheŠ ą%0!$ Šappellants€and€the€Hospital€deposed€Dr.€Caldwell€on€July€28,€1997.€€On€December€4,€1997,€theŠ Ģ&"% ŠHospital€amended€its€answer€to€š šinvoke€the€defense€of€comparative€faultšš€citing€the€actions€of€Dr.Š ø'#& ŠCaldwell.€€This€motion€was€granted€by€agreed€order.€€On€February€11,€1998,€appellants€moved€toŠ ¤(ō#' Šname€Dr.€Caldwell€as€a€party€to€their€complaint.€€Dr.€Caldwell€filed€an€answer€which€denied€theŠ )ą$( Šallegations€included€in€the€amended€complaint,€and€also€argued€that€the€appellantsšš€amendmentŠ |*Ģ%) Šadding€him€as€a€party€was€time„barred.€€On€June€4,€1999,€Dr.€Caldwell€moved€to€dismiss€theŠ h+ø&* Šappellantsšš€action€against€him€because€it€was€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€The€motion€wasŠ ° Šcontinued€indefinitely€due€to€the€death€of€the€trial€judge.€€On€March€22,€2000,€the€appellants€and€theŠ œģ ŠHospital€opposed€Dr.€Caldwellššs€motion€to€dismiss.€€The€trial€judge€heard€the€motion€on€April€4,Š ˆŲ Š2000,€and€reserved€the€right€to€issue€a€ruling€after€the€hearing€of€the€proof€at€trial.€€The€Hospital€andŠ tÄ ŠDr.€Caldwell€both€filed€motions€in€Ō_ŌlimineŌ_Ō€to€exclude€evidence€on€several€issues.€€At€the€pretrialŠ `° Šconference€held€April€14,€2000,€the€appellants€dismissed€their€claims€against€the€individual€nurses.€Š L œ ŠThe€trial€began€April€18,€2000.€€The€trial€court€granted€both€the€Hospitalššs€and€Dr.€CaldwellššsŠ 8 ˆ Šmotions€in€Ō_ŌlimineŌ_Ō.€€On€May€2,€2000,€the€jury€returned€a€verdict€in€favor€of€the€Hospital€and€Dr.Š $ t ŠCaldwell.€€The€trial€court€then€held€that€the€appellantsšš€claims€against€Dr.€Caldwell€were€barred€byŠ  ` Šthe€statute€of€limitations€and€entered€an€order€to€that€effect€on€May€15,€2000.€€The€appellants€filedŠ ü L  Ša€motion€for€judgment€notwithstanding€the€verdict€and€new€trial€on€May€25,€2000.€€The€Hospital€andŠ č 8  ŠDr.€Caldwell€filed€motions€for€discretionary€costs.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€appellantsšš€motion€andŠ Ō$  Šgranted€the€Hospital€and€Dr.€Caldwell€discretionary€costs.Š Ą  Šą  ąņ ņó óĢÓ  Óņ ņII.ó óŠ ˜č  ŠÓµ%Óņ ņņņÓ  ÓDr.€Caldwellššs€Motion€to€Dismissó óóóŠ „Ō  ŠÓõ%ÓĢą  ąThe€appellants€challenge€the€trial€courtššs€post„trial€dismissal€of€Dr.€Caldwell.Š \¬ ŠĢą  ąBecause€the€notice€of€appeal€did€not€specify€the€May€15,€2000€order,€Dr.€Caldwell€firstŠ 4„ Šargues€that€appellants€failed€to€timely€appeal€from€the€trial€courtššs€order€granting€the€motion€toŠ  p Šdismiss.€€The€appellants€did,€however,€include€the€granting€of€the€motion€to€dismiss€in€their€motionŠ  \ Šfor€a€new€trial.€€Therefore,€the€issue€was€preserved.€€The€trial€court€filed€an€order€denying€theŠ ųH Šappellantsšš€motion€for€a€new€trial€on€July€27,€2000.€€This€order€is€the€beginning€of€the€time€for€theŠ ä4 Šappellants€to€file€their€appeal.€€The€appellantsšš€notice€of€appeal€on€August€17,€2000€was€within€theŠ Š  Šthirty€day€time€limit.€€Therefore,€we€hold€that€the€appeal€includes€the€order€dismissing€Dr.€CaldwellŠ ¼  Šon€statute€of€limitations€grounds.Š Øų ŠĢą  ąTurning€to€the€merits€of€this€issue,€we€note€initially€that€there€has€been€some€confusion€in€theŠ €Š Šbriefs€submitted€as€to€whether€the€motion€should€have€been€treated€as€a€motion€for€summaryŠ l¼ Šjudgment€or€a€motion€to€dismiss.€€A€motion€to€dismiss€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02(6),€failure€toŠ X Ø Šstate€a€claim€upon€which€relief€can€be€granted,€is€converted€to€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€if€theŠ D!” Štrial€judge€considers€matters€outside€the€pleadings.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02.€€This€motion€to€dismissŠ 0"€  Šis€based€on€the€expiration€of€the€statute€of€limitations,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03.€€The€motion€has€notŠ #l! Šbeen€converted€to€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€and€we€address€it€as€a€motion€to€dismiss.Š $X" ŠĢą  ąThe€trial€court€stated€š šBased€upon€the€record€as€a€whole,€the€Court€finds€that€there€is€noŠ ą%0!$ Šgenuine€issue€of€material€fact€as€to€whether€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ššŠ Ģ&"% Š29„26„116€has€run.€€The€Court€holds€that€it€has€run€prior€to€Dr.€Caldwell€being€named€as€a€party€toŠ ø'#& Šthis€suit.šš€€The€trial€court€based€this€decision€on€several€factors:(1)€the€cause€of€action€accrued€inŠ ¤(ō#' ŠJuly€or€September€of€1995€and€Dr.€Caldwell€was€not€sued€until€February€11,€1998;€(2)€the€statuteŠ )ą$( Šof€limitations€for€medical€malpractice€is€one€year,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€29„26„116(a)(1);€and€(3)€Tenn.Š |*Ģ%) ŠCode€Ann.€šš€20„1„119,€which€in€some€cases€allows€a€new€defendant€to€be€added€after€the€statute€ofŠ h+ø&* Šlimitations€has€run€does€not€apply€when€the€plaintiff€was€aware€of€the€potential€liability€of€the€newŠ ° Šdefendant.Š œģ ŠĢą  ąThe€appellants€argue€on€appeal€that€there€is€an€exception€to€the€one€year€statute€of€limitationsŠ tÄ Šthat€applies€in€their€case.€€They€rely€on€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€29„26„116(3),€which€states€that€the€statuteŠ `° Šof€limitations€will€not€apply€if€there€is€š šfraudulent€concealment€on€the€part€of€the€defendant.šš€€Š L œ ŠĢą  ąThe€appellants€specifically€argue€that€Dr.€Caldwell€fraudulently€concealed€the€timing€of€theŠ $ t Šfetal€monitoring€strips.€€They€allege€that€Dr.€Caldwell€stated€in€an€interview€prior€to€the€filing€of€theirŠ  ` Šinitial€complaint€and€his€deposition€that€the€fetal€monitoring€strip€on€July€22,€1995€was€taken€afterŠ ü L  Šhe€examined€Mrs.€Ō_ŌDurbinŌ_Ō€and€he€would€not€know€the€results€of€the€strip€unless€the€nurses€called€him.€Š č 8  ŠThe€appellants€relied€upon€this€contention€when€they€did€not€include€Dr.€Caldwell€in€their€initial€orŠ Ō$  Šamended€complaint€filed€in€July€and€November€of€1996,€respectively.€€Š Ą  ŠĢą  ąDr.€Caldwell€replies€to€the€fraudulent€concealment€issue€by€pointing€out€that€the€appellantsŠ ˜č  Šdid€not€plead€the€issue€in€the€court€below.€€ņņSee€City€State€Bank€v.€Dean€Ō_ŌWitterŌ_Ō€Reynolds,€Inc.óó,€948Š „Ō  ŠS.W.2d€729€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€We€agree€that€they€did€not€raise€the€statutory€exception€to€theŠ pĄ Šone€year€statute€of€limitations€in€any€of€their€pleadings,€but€they€did€raise€the€issue€in€their€variousŠ \¬ Šresponses€to€Dr.€Caldwellššs€motion€to€dismiss,€and€the€trial€judge€considered€the€claim€beforeŠ H˜ Šgranting€the€motion.€€We€will€therefore€consider€it€here.Š 4„ ŠĢą  ąThe€trial€judge€found€as€a€fact€that€the€appellants€were€not€misled€by€Dr.€Caldwell€and€thatŠ  \ Šthey€had€all€the€necessary€facts€by€September€1995€to€determine€Dr.€Caldwellššs€involvement,€if€any.€Š ųH ŠOur€review€of€these€findings€is€de€novo€on€the€record€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctnessŠ ä4 Šunless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€findings.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€We€have€reviewedŠ Š  Šthe€evidence€on€which€the€appellants€rely€and€we€concur€in€the€trial€judgeššs€findings.€€Therefore,€theŠ ¼  Šstatute€of€limitations€was€not€extended€by€Dr.€Caldwellššs€concealment.Š Øų ŠĢą  ąThe€appellants€then€argue€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€20„1„119€applies€to€their€situation.€€Tenn.Š €Š ŠCode€Ann.€šš€20„1„119€allows€plaintiffs€to€amend€their€complaint€within€ninety€days€of€a€defendantššsŠ l¼ Šanswer€or€amended€answer€that€alleges€a€third€party€caused€or€contributed€to€the€plaintiffššs€injuryŠ X Ø Ševen€if€the€statute€of€limitations€has€run.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€20„1„119(a)(1)€provides:Š D!” ŠĢҰŅҰŅ(a)€In€civil€actions€where€comparative€fault€is€or€becomes€an€issue,€if€a€defendantŠ #l! Šnamed€in€an€original€complaint€initiating€a€suit€filed€within€the€applicable€statute€ofŠ $X" Šlimitations,€or€named€in€an€amended€complaint€filed€within€the€applicable€statute€ofŠ ō$D # Šlimitations,€alleges€in€an€answer€or€amended€answer€to€the€original€or€amendedŠ ą%0!$ Šcomplaint€that€a€person€not€a€party€to€the€suit€caused€or€contributed€to€the€injury€orŠ Ģ&"% Šdamage€for€which€the€plaintiff€seeks€recovery,€and€if€the€plaintiff's€cause€or€causesŠ ø'#& Šof€action€against€such€person€would€be€barred€by€any€applicable€statute€of€limitationsŠ ¤(ō#' Šbut€for€the€operation€of€this€section,€the€plaintiff€may,€within€ninety€(90)€days€of€theŠ )ą$( Šfiling€of€the€first€answer€or€first€amended€answer€alleging€such€person's€fault,€either:Š |*Ģ%) ŠŠ h+ø&* Šą ` ą(1)€Amend€the€complaint€to€add€such€person€as€a€defendant€pursuant€to€RuleŠ ° Š15€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€and€cause€process€to€be€issued€for€thatŠ œģ Šperson;Š ˆŲ ŠŅ°y=ŅҰk=ŅĢThis€is€the€procedure€the€appellants€relied€upon€in€their€motion€to€amend€complaint€to€include€Dr.Š `° ŠCaldwell€as€a€defendant€without€regard€to€the€statute€of€limitations.€Š L œ ŠĢą  ąThe€trial€court€based€its€order€with€regard€to€the€application€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€20„1„119Š $ t Šon€ņņŌ_ŌWittleseyŌ_Ō€v.€Coleóó,€142€F.3d€340€(6ņņthóó€Cir.€1998)€and€ņņŌ_ŌLipscombŌ_Ō€v.€Doeóó,€No.€02A01„9711„CV„00293,Š  ` Š1998€WL€886601€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998),€ņņŌ_ŌrevššdŌ_Ō€on€other€groundsóó,€ņņóó32€S.W.2d€840€(Tenn.€2000).€€TheŠ ü L  Šcourt€stated,€š šTENN.€CODE€ANN.€šš€20„1„119€is€not€applicable€to€this€case€because€clearly€plaintiffsŠ č 8  Šknew€or€should€have€known€that€Dr.€Caldwell€may€have€been€at€fault€many€months€and€perhapsŠ Ō$  Šyears€prior€to€the€Hospitalššs€amended€answer.ššŠ Ą  ŠĢą  ąThe€interpretations€between€two€sections€of€this€court€differ€as€to€whether€this€statute€appliesŠ ˜č  Što€all€third€parties€who€are€named€in€a€defendantššs€answer€or€amended€answer€or€solely€to€unknownŠ „Ō  Šor€š šphantomšš€third€parties.€€A€panel€of€the€middle€section€of€this€court€in€ņņŌ_ŌTownesŌ_Ō€v.€Sunbeam€Ō_ŌOsterŌ_ŌŠ pĄ ŠCo.,€Inc.óó,€No.€M1997„00245„COA„R3„CV,€2001€WL€92057€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001)€held€that€it€wouldŠ \¬ Šnot€follow€the€analysis€of€ņņŌ_ŌWittleseyŌ_Ōóó€and€ņņŌ_ŌLipscombŌ_Ōóó€in€its€interpretation€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€20„1„Š H˜ Š119.€€This€panel€held€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€20„1„119(a)€applies€to€ņņanyóó€third€party€named€in€anŠ 4„ Šanswer€or€amended€answer,€not€just€to€heretofore€unknown€parties.€€ņņŌ_ŌTownesŌ_Ōóó,€2001€WL€92057,€*4„5.€Š  p ŠTherefore,€we€will€follow€this€precedent.€€Š  \ ŠĢą  ąFollowing€the€interpretation€of€this€court€in€ņņŌ_ŌTownesŌ_Ōóó,€the€appellants€would€be€able€to€file€anŠ ä4 Šamended€complaint€including€Dr.€Caldwell€within€ninety€days€of€the€Hospitalššs€filing€of€its€amendedŠ Š  Šanswer.€€The€fact€that€the€appellants€knew€of€Dr.€Caldwellššs€potential€liability€does€not€nullify€theŠ ¼  Šapplication€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€20„1„119(a).Š Øų ŠĢą  ąThe€appellants€filed€a€motion€to€amend€the€complaint€on€February€11,€1998€to€add€Dr.Š €Š ŠCaldwell€as€a€defendant€which€was€granted€the€same€day.€€The€appellantsšš€filed€their€SecondŠ l¼ ŠAmended€Complaint€on€February€13,€1998.€€This€complaint€was€clearly€filed€within€ninety€days€ofŠ X Ø Šthe€order€granting€Hospitalššs€motion€to€amend€its€answer.€€Therefore,€the€suit€against€Dr.€CaldwellŠ D!” Šwas€timely.Š 0"€  ŠĢą  ąThe€appellants€also€argue€that€they€should€be€able€to€rely€on€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03,€TheŠ $X" ŠRelation€Back€of€Amendments,€to€amend€their€complaint.€€Because€we€have€found€that€their€actionŠ ō$D # Šis€saved€from€the€statute€of€limitations€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€20„1„119,€we€do€not€need€to€addressŠ ą%0!$ Šthis€issue.€Š Ģ&"% ŠĢą  ąFor€this€reason,€we€reverse€the€post„trial€order€dismissing€Dr.€Caldwell€on€statute€ofŠ ¤(ō#' Šlimitations€grounds.Š )ą$( ŠĢÓ  Óņ ņŠ h+ø&* ŠIII.ó óŠ ° Šņņņ ņJury€Verdictó óóóŠ œģ ŠÓ°PÓĢą  ąThe€case€went€to€the€jury€and€the€jury€returned€a€verdict€in€favor€of€the€defendants.€€TheŠ tÄ Šappellants€assert€that€the€verdict€is€contrary€to€the€weight€of€the€evidence.€€Our€€role€in€an€appealŠ `° Šfrom€a€jury€verdict€does€not€allow€us€to€Ō_ŌreweighŌ_Ō€the€evidence€or€consider€where€the€preponderanceŠ L œ Šlies.€€Instead,€we€must€determine€whether€there€is€any€material€evidence€to€support€the€verdict.€€€IfŠ 8 ˆ Šthere€is,€we€must€affirm€it.ņņ€€See€Reynolds€v.€Ozark€Motor€Lines,€Inc.óó,€887€S.W.2d€822,€823Š $ t Š(Tenn.1994);€ņņŌ_ŌPullenŌ_Ō€v.€Textron,€Inc.óó,€845€S.W.2d€777,€780€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1992).€€We€are€requiredŠ  ` Što€take€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€verdict,€assume€the€truth€of€theŠ ü L  Ševidence€in€support€thereof,€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€to€sustain€the€verdict€and€disregard€allŠ č 8  Što€the€contrary.€€€ņņHobson€v.€First€State€Bankóó,€777€S.W.2d€24€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1989).Š Ō$  ŠĢą  ąThis€trial€lasted€for€two€weeks.€€The€jury€heard€the€evidence€and€determined€that€neither€theŠ ¬ü  ŠHospital€nor€Dr.€Caldwell€were€at€fault€for€the€death€of€the€twins€or€the€injuries€to€the€appellants.€Š ˜č  ŠAfter€reviewing€the€evidence,€we€find€that€there€is€ample€material€evidence€to€support€the€juryššsŠ „Ō  Šverdict.Š pĄ ŠĢą  ąDr.€Caldwell€testified€that€Ms.€Ō_ŌDurbinŌ_Ō€arrived€at€the€Hospital€on€both€July€20€and€July€22Š H˜ Šcomplaining€of€back€pain€and€having€contractions.€€On€July€20,€he€ordered€medication€to€stop€herŠ 4„ Šcontractions.€€The€nurse€informed€Dr.€Caldwell€that€the€contractions€had€stopped,€and€Ms.€Ō_ŌDurbinŌ_ŌŠ  p Šwas€sent€home.€€Her€back€pain€lessened€after€the€contractions€stopped,€and€Dr.€Caldwell€assumedŠ  \ Šthey€were€the€cause€of€her€back€pain.€€When€she€came€to€the€Hospital€on€July€22,€the€doctor€orderedŠ ųH Šan€ultrasound€to€see€if€she€was€having€a€problem€with€her€kidneys.€€The€ultrasound€revealed€that€sheŠ ä4 Šwas€indeed€having€a€problem€with€her€ureter€on€the€side€where€she€complained€about€the€back€pain.€Š Š  ŠDr.€Caldwell€determined€that€this€was€the€cause€of€her€back€pain.€€Ms.€Ō_ŌDurbinŌ_Ō€was€also€put€on€theŠ ¼  Šfetal€heart€monitor.€€The€nurses€testified€that€they€did€not€find€any€evidence€of€distress,€so€they€didŠ Øų Šnot€call€Dr.€Caldwell.€Ms.€Ō_ŌDurbinŌ_Ō€was€then€discharged€€with€instructions€for€bed€rest€and€to€callŠ ”ä Šabout€any€complications.€€There€was€testimony€that€Ms.€Ō_ŌDurbinŌ_Ō€did€not€call€€to€report€any€problemsŠ €Š Šexcept€for€nausea.€€Ms.€Ō_ŌDurbinŌ_Ō€testified€that€she€never€filled€the€prescription€for€medicine€prescribedŠ l¼ Šfor€her€nausea.€€The€expert€witnesses€of€both€appellees€testified€that€all€these€actions€were€within€theŠ X Ø Šstandard€of€care.Š D!” ŠĢą  ąThe€jury€also€heard€testimony€from€Dr.€Caldwell€and€two€expert€witnesses€for€the€appellees,Š #l! ŠDr.€Stephen€Ō_ŌFortunatoŌ_Ō€and€Dr.€Joseph€P.€Ō_ŌBrunerŌ_Ō,€that€the€TTS€could€have€developed€in€the€timeŠ $X" Šperiod€between€Ms.€Ō_ŌDurbinŌ_Ōššs€discharge€on€July€22€and€her€visit€to€Dr.€Caldwell€on€July€26.€€BothŠ ō$D # Šof€appelleesšš€expert€witnesses€testified€extensively€to€the€occurrence€of€acute€TTS.€€They€bothŠ ą%0!$ Štestified€from€their€personal€experiences€that€the€amount€of€fluid€found€in€this€case€could€beŠ Ģ&"% Šproduced€in€less€than€four€days,€maybe€even€within€twenty„four€hours.Š ø'#& ŠĢą  ąFrom€the€evidence€presented€the€jury€could€have€come€to€several€conclusions€that€wouldŠ )ą$( Šrequire€them€to€render€a€verdict€in€favor€of€the€appellees.€€The€jury€could€have€concluded€that€TTSŠ |*Ģ%) Šhad€not€occurred€when€Ms.€Ō_ŌDurbinŌ_Ō€came€to€the€Hospital€on€July€22.€€They€could€have€concluded€thatŠ h+ø&* Šit€occurred€in€the€days€between€July€22€and€July€26.€€The€jury€could€have€concluded€that€the€TTSŠ ° Šmay€have€been€present,€but€that€Dr.€Caldwell€and€the€Hospital€all€acted€within€the€standard€of€careŠ œģ Šin€the€treatment€of€Mrs.€Ō_ŌDurbinŌ_Ō.Š ˆŲ ŠĢą  ąAs€we€have€stated€above,€our€role€is€not€to€Ō_ŌreweighŌ_Ō€the€evidence.€€Because€we€have€foundŠ `° Šample€evidence€to€support€the€juryššs€decision,€we€cannot€overturn€the€verdict.Š L œ ŠĢÓ  Óņ ņIV.ó óŠ $ t ŠÓ eÓĢą  ąSince€the€jury€returned€a€verdict€for€the€defendants€and€we€have€determined€that€there€isŠ ü L  Šmaterial€evidence€to€support€it,€the€appellants€must€show€that€something€went€wrong€at€the€trial€orŠ č 8  Šleading€up€to€the€trial€that€prevented€them€from€getting€a€fair€hearing.€€They€have€raised€severalŠ Ō$  Šissues€that€they€claim€did€amount€to€such€prejudice.€€When€the€appellants€first€filed€their€complaint,Š Ą  Šthey€did€not€include€Dr.€Caldwell€as€a€defendant.€€Š ¬ü  ŠĢą@Ł Ł ģąņ ņņņA.€€Reference€to€the€Hospitalššs€Amended€Answeró óóóˆŠ „Ō  ŠĢą  ąOn€October€15,€1997,€the€Hospital€filed€its€amended€answer€regarding€comparative€fault.€Š \¬ ŠOn€December€1,€1997,€the€Hospital€filed€a€motion€further€amending€its€answer€to€point€the€fingerŠ H˜ Šat€Dr.€Caldwell.€€This€amendment€read€as€follows:Š 4„ ŠĢą  ą32(a)ą0 ` ąThe€plaintiff€and€her€twin€fetuses€were€under€the€care€and€treatment€of€WilliamŠ  \ ŠCaldwell,€M.D.€€In€the€event€that€a€jury€determines€that€the€plaintiffššs€alleged€injuriesŠ ųH Šwere€the€result€of€negligence,€these€defendants€aver€that€the€acts€and€omissions€of€Dr.Š ä4 ŠCaldwell,€in€violation€of€the€recognized€standard€of€acceptable€professional€practice,Š Š  Šcaused€or€contributed€to€the€plaintiffššs€injuries.€€Specifically,€these€defendants€averŠ ¼  Šthat€Dr.€Caldwell€may€be€found€to€have€been€negligent€for:ŠØų` (#` (# ŠĢӁ€ (¦Ł83ÓŻ"‚3£"ŻŻ  Żą  ąą ` ąŻ‚3£lŻŌ2¦ŁŌ(Ś  Ś1Ś  Ś)Ō3  Ōą0 ø ąŻ  ŻFailing€to€monitor€Ms.€Durbin€with€sufficient€frequency€between€May€30€andŠ €Š ŠJune€28,€1995;Żƒ3£ldl݌Šl¼ø (#ø (# ŠŒŻ  Żą  ąą ` ąĢŻ"‚3£"ŻŻ  Żą  ąą ` ąŻ‚3£‡mŻŌ2¦ŁŌ(Ś  Ś2Ś  Ś)Ō3  Ōą0 ø ąŻ  ŻFailing€to€refer€Ms.€Durbin€to€an€obstetrician€specializing€in€high„riskŠ D!” Šmonochromatic€twin€pregnancies;€andŻƒ3£‡mĢm݌Š0"€ ø (#ø (# ŠŒŻ  Żą  ąą ` ąĢŻ"‚3£"ŻŻ  Żą  ąą ` ąŻ‚3£oŻŌ2¦ŁŌ(Ś  Ś3Ś  Ś)Ō3  Ōą0 ø ąŻ  ŻFailing€to€order€continuous€external€fetal€monitoring€for€Ms.€Durbin€by€aŠ $X" Štrained€labor€and€delivery€nurse€and€by€failing€to€ascertain€fetal€well„beingŠ ō$D # Šprior€to€discharging€Ms.€Durbin€from€the€Hospital€on€July€22,1995;Żƒ3£oGo݌Šą%0!$ø (#ø (# ŠŒŻ  Żą  ąą ` ąĢŻ"‚3£"ŻŻ  Żą  ąą ` ąŻ‚3£’pŻŌ2¦ŁŌ(Ś  Ś4Ś  Ś)Ō3  Ōą0 ø ąŻ  ŻFailing€to€order€an€ultrasound,€biophysical€profile€and€a€repeated€non„stressŠ ø'#& Štest€or€a€contraction€stress€test€with€Pitocin€within€24€hours€of€the€July€22Š ¤(ō#' Šfetal€monitoring€strip,€which€did€not€document€reactivity€of€the€fetus.Żƒ3£’pDq݌А)ą$(ø (#ø (# Šā āŒŻ  Żą  ąą ` ąŠ |*Ģ%) Šą0  ąą0` (#(#ąThese€defendants€deny€that€any€act€or€omission€on€their€own€part,€or€any€act€orŠ ° Šā āomission€of€Dr.€Caldwell,€caused€the€plaintiffs€to€suffer€any€injury€they€otherwiseŠ œģ Šwould€not€have€suffered.€€However,€in€the€event€a€jury€concludes€otherwise,€theseŠ ˆŲ Šdefendants€invoke€the€defense€of€comparative€fault.ŠtÄ` (#` (# ŠĢImmediately€before€trial,€the€trial€court€granted€the€Hospitalššs€motion€to€withdraw€this€defenseŠ L œ Šwithout€objection€from€the€appellants.€€At€trial,€the€appellants€attempted€to€question€the€HospitalššsŠ 8 ˆ Šexpert€witness,€Dr.€Ō_ŌBrunerŌ_Ō,€regarding€this€amended€answer.€€The€appellant€wished€to€prove€at€trialŠ $ t Šthat€the€Hospital€believed€that€Dr.€Caldwell€was€at€fault.€The€trial€court€denied€the€appellantsššŠ  ` Šrequest€because,€in€the€courtššs€opinion,€the€probative€value€of€the€questions€did€not€outweigh€theŠ ü L  Šadverse€affect.€€Tenn.€R.€Ō_ŌEvidŌ_Ō.€403.€€The€trial€court€did€state€that€the€appellants€could€ask€Dr.€BrunerŠ č 8  Šquestions€regarding€the€same€issue€as€to€Dr.€Caldwellššs€culpability,€but€that€the€amended€answerŠ Ō$  Šcould€not€be€brought€into€the€examination.Š Ą  ŠĢą  ąWe€agree€with€the€trial€court€š!š€and€for€an€additional€reason.€€Allegations€in€pleadings€mayŠ ˜č  Šbe€introduced€but€only€as€admissions€against€the€pleader.€€ņņŌ_ŌPankowŌ_Ō€v.€Mitchellóó,€737€S.W.2d€293Š „Ō  Š(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987);€ņņGoodman€v.€Ō_ŌBalthropŌ_Ō€Construction€Co.óó,€626€S.W.2d€21€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Š pĄ Š1981).€€In€this€case,€the€plaintiffs€sought€to€use€the€allegations€in€the€amended€answer€against€Dr.Š \¬ ŠCaldwell€and€to€cross„examine€Dr.€Ō_ŌBrunerŌ_Ō€about€his€belief€that€Dr.€Caldwell€was€partially€at€fault.€Š H˜ ŠNeither€the€hospital€nor€Dr.€Ō_ŌBrunerŌ_Ō€can€admit€liability€on€the€part€of€Dr.€Caldwell.€€Therefore,€theŠ 4„ Šamended€answer€was€not€admissible.ą Ą ąŠ  p ŠÓ  Óņ ņĢņņB.€€Dr.€Ō_ŌStuberŌ_Ōššs€Depositionó óóóŠ ųH ŠÓ@|ÓĢą  ąAppellants€also€contend€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€did€not€allow€them€to€use€theŠ Š  Šdeposition€of€Dr.€Caldwellššs€proposed€expert€witness,€Dr.€Harry€L.€Stuber,€in€their€examinations€ofŠ ¼  Šappelleesšš€expert€witnesses€Dr.€Bruner€and€Dr.€Fortunato.€€When€Dr.€Caldwell€submitted€his€RuleŠ Øų Š26€disclosures€on€May€20,€1999,€he€included€as€expert€witnesses,€Dr.€Stuber€and€Dr.€Fortunato.€€TheŠ ”ä ŠRule€26€disclosure€included€a€summary€as€to€what€Dr.€Stuber€would€testify€to€at€trial.€€The€appellantsŠ €Š Šthen€deposed€Dr.€Ō_ŌStuberŌ_Ō€on€April€5,€2000,€about€two€weeks€before€trial.€€At€this€deposition,€Dr.Š l¼ ŠŌ_ŌStuberŌ_Ōššs€testimony€€was€not€consistent€with€the€Rule€26€disclosure.€€On€April€7,€2000,€Dr.€CaldwellŠ X Ø Šsent€certified€copies€of€a€Revised€Rule€26€Disclosure€to€the€court€and€counsel€involved€in€theŠ D!” Šlitigation.€€This€Revised€Rule€26€Disclosure€only€included€Dr.€Fortunato€as€an€expert€witness€for€Dr.Š 0"€  ŠCaldwell.€€In€the€cover€letter,€Dr.€Caldwell€specifically€stated€that€Dr.€Stuber€was€no€longer€goingŠ #l! Što€be€called€as€a€witness€at€trial,€but€rather€had€been€re„designated€as€a€consulting€expert.€€At€trial,Š $X" ŠDr.€Caldwell€filed€a€motion€in€limine€to€prevent€the€appellants€from€using€Dr.€Stuberššs€depositionŠ ō$D # Šat€trial.€€Š ą%0!$ ŠĢą  ąThe€appellants€state€in€their€brief€that€they€should€have€been€allowed€to€use€Dr.€StuberššsŠ ø'#& Šdeposition€in€their€cross„examination€of€Dr.€Caldwell€and€the€appelleesšš€expert€witnesses,€Dr.€BrunerŠ ¤(ō#' Šand€Dr.€Fortunato.€€The€use€of€expert€depositions€in€the€cross„examination€of€the€other€partyššs€Š )ą$( Šexperts€has€been€allowed€when€the€expert€on€the€stand€has€š šread€and€consideredšš€the€deposition€ofŠ |*Ģ%) Šthe€other€expert.€€ņņSteele€v.€Fort€Sanders€Anesthesia€Groupóó,€ņņP.C.óó,€897€S.W.2d€270,€278„79€(Tenn.Š h+ø&* ŠCt.€App.€1994).€€We€based€this€decision€on€the€fact€that€the€expert€witness€had€based€his€conclusionsŠ ° Šon€all€the€material€he€had€been€given,€which€included€the€other€expertššs€deposition.€€This€is€not€theŠ œģ Šsituation€in€the€present€case.€€Neither€Dr.€Bruner€nor€Dr.€Fortunato€had€read€the€deposition€of€Dr.Š ˆŲ ŠStuber€before€trial.Š tÄ ŠĢą  ąTennessee€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€Rule€32.01(3)€states€that€depositions€may€be€used€at€trialŠ L œ Šfor€any€purpose€if€the€court€finds€that€certain€criteria€are€met.€€However,€the€final€sentence€of€RuleŠ 8 ˆ Š32.01(3)€states€that€š šdepositions€of€experts€€.€.€.€may€not€be€used€at€the€trial€except€to€impeachšš€theŠ $ t Šdeponent.€€The€Advisory€Commission€Comment€states€that€this€rule€applies€only€to€discoveryŠ  ` Šdepositions€of€an€adversaryššs€expert.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€32.01,€Advisory€Commission€Comment€toŠ ü L  Š1986€Amendment;€ņņsee€alsoóó,€ņņWhite€v.€Vanderbiltóó,€21€S.W.3d€215,€226€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€Dr.Š č 8  ŠStuberššs€deposition€was€a€discovery€deposition€taken€by€the€appellantsšš€attorney.€€Therefore,€the€onlyŠ Ō$  Šuse€of€Dr.€Stuberššs€deposition€can€be€to€impeach€his€own€testimony.€€Š Ą  ŠĢą  ąTherefore,€under€the€current€rules€and€case€law,€Dr.€Stuberššs€deposition€should€not€have€beenŠ ˜č  Šused€to€cross„examine€either€Dr.€Caldwell€or€the€expert€witnesses.€€Š „Ō  ŠĢÓ  Óņ ņC.€€ņņDr.€Caldwellššs€Motion€in€Limine€Excluding€Dr.€Shaverššs€Testimonyó óóóŠ \¬ ŠÓg‹ÓĢą  ąWhen€Mrs.€Durbin€came€in€for€an€appointment€on€July€26,€1997,€Dr.€Caldwell€discoveredŠ 4„ Šthat€the€twins€were€dead.€€He€then€told€the€appellants€that€Mrs.€Durbin€had€suffered€a€placentalŠ  p Šabruption.€€He€delivered€the€twins€the€next€day.€€When€Mrs.€Durbin€returned€for€her€six„weekŠ  \ Šfollow„up€visit,€Dr.€Caldwell€informed€her€that€the€twins€had€died€from€TTS.Š ųH ŠĢą  ąPrior€to€trial,€appellants€filed€an€expert€disclosure€from€their€expert€witness,€Dr.€Shaver,Š Š  Šstating€that€Dr.€Shaver€intended€to€testify€that€Dr.€Caldwell€deviated€from€the€standard€of€care€whenŠ ¼  Šhe€diagnosed€a€placental€abruption€upon€the€death€of€the€twins.€€Dr.€Caldwell€filed€a€motion€inŠ Øų Šlimine€prior€to€trial€to€prevent€this€testimony.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€motion€because€it€was€notŠ ”ä Šrelevant€to€the€issues€raised€for€the€courtššs€consideration.Š €Š ŠĢą  ąThe€appellants€argue€that€this€testimony€should€have€been€allowed€at€trial€to€prove€that€Dr.Š X Ø ŠCaldwell€deviated€from€the€standard€of€care€because€he€failed€to€diagnose€the€hydramnios€on€JulyŠ D!” Š26€and€instead€diagnosed€the€problem€as€placental€abruption.€€In€addition,€Dr.€Caldwell€sent€Mrs.Š 0"€  ŠDurbin€home€with€what€he€thought€was€placental€abruption,€which€according€to€the€appellants,€wasŠ #l! Ša€potentially€life„threatening€condition.€€The€appellants€state€that€this€further€shows€a€deviation€fromŠ $X" Šthe€standard€of€care.€€Appellants€also€assert€that€Dr.€Caldwellššs€š šdeviation€is€so€stark€as€to€suggestŠ ō$D # ŠDr.€Caldwell€knew€there€was€a€mishandling€of€TTS€and€deflected€attention€from€the€issue€longŠ ą%0!$ Šenough€to€investigate€what€needed€to€be€said€to€defend€the€case.ššŠ Ģ&"% ŠĢą  ąAppellants€did€not€include€the€Ō_ŌmisdiagnosisŌ_Ō€after€the€babiesšš€deaths€as€a€negligent€act€by€Dr.Š ¤(ō#' ŠCaldwell€in€their€Second€Amended€Complaint.€€Even€though€the€appellants€alleged€the€infliction€ofŠ )ą$( Šemotional€distress,€there€is€no€statement€in€the€expert€disclosure€that€states€this€Ō_ŌmisdiagnosisŌ_Ō€on€JulyŠ |*Ģ%) Š26€caused€emotional€distress.€€Therefore,€evidence€of€the€misdiagnosis€is€outside€the€scope€of€theŠ h+ø&* Šappellantsšš€complaint.€€In€addition,€the€doctorššs€misdiagnosis€after€the€death€of€the€twins€is€notŠ ° Šrelevant€to€Dr.€Caldwellššs€care€of€Mrs.€Durbinššs€pregnancy.€€Evidence€is€relevant€if€it€š šŌ_Ōha[sŌ_Ō]€anyŠ œģ Štendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€actionŠ ˆŲ Šmore€probably€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€the€evidence.šš€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€Š tÄ ŠĢą  ąWe€also€note€that€appellantsšš€conjecture€that€Dr.€Caldwell€purposefully€misdiagnosed€Mrs.Š L œ ŠDurbinššs€condition€to€š šbuy€himself€more€timešš€is€completely€without€support€in€the€record.€€ThisŠ 8 ˆ Šunsupported€allegation€does€not€make€this€testimony€suddenly€relevant.Š $ t ŠĢą@¾¾ ģąņ ņD.€€ņņTestimony€Regarding€Dr.€Caldwellššs€Care€of€Another€Set€of€Twinsó óóóˆŠ ü L  ŠĢą  ąAt€trial,€Mrs.€Durbin€attempted€to€testify€regarding€another€set€of€twins€that€Dr.€CaldwellŠ Ō$  Šdelivered€after€the€delivery€of€her€twins.€€She€stated€that€Dr.€Caldwell€had€a€conversation€with€herŠ Ą  Šconcerning€that€delivery.€€At€that€point,€Dr.€Caldwell€objected€to€the€testimony.€€The€trial€courtŠ ¬ü  Šresponded€to€the€objection€by€stating€that€the€appellants€needed€to€lay€the€foundation€as€to€theŠ ˜č  Šrelevance€of€the€other€set€of€twins€to€the€issues€at€trial.€€Mrs.€Durbin€again€testified€that€she€had€aŠ „Ō  Šconversation€with€Dr.€Caldwell,€and€he€told€her€that€he€had€delivered€a€set€of€twins€who€lived.€€Dr.Š pĄ ŠCaldwell€objected€again.€€The€appellantsšš€attorney,€Ms.€Fernandez,€responded€that€she€was€tryingŠ \¬ Što€lay€a€foundation€for€a€later€action.€€She€then€stated€that€she€would€move€directly€to€that€action.Š H˜ ŠĢą  ąThe€appellants€now€argue€that€the€trial€court€should€have€allowed€Mrs.€Durbinššs€testimonyŠ  p Šregarding€the€other€set€of€twins.€€The€trial€court€gave€appellants€the€opportunity€to€lay€a€foundationŠ  \ Šin€order€to€bring€in€the€testimony,€but€appellants€chose€not€to€do€so.€€Appellants€clearly€did€not€makeŠ ųH Šan€offer€of€proof€regarding€this€testimony€and€moved€on€with€their€direct€examination€of€Mrs.Š ä4 ŠDurbin.€€Relief€shall€not€be€granted€š što€a€party€responsible€for€an€error€or€who€failed€to€takeŠ Š  Šwhatever€action€was€reasonably€available€to€prevent€or€nullify€the€harmful€effect€of€an€error.šš€€Tenn.Š ¼  ŠR.€App.€P.€36(a).€€Clearly,€the€appellants€were€given€ample€opportunity€by€the€trial€court€to€introduceŠ Øų Šthe€testimony.€€Because€they€did€not€attempt€to€lay€a€foundation,€the€testimony€was€not€relevant.Š ”ä ŠĢÓ  Óņ ņE.€€ņņPecuniary€Value€of€the€Lives€of€the€Twinsó óóóŠ l¼ ŠÓ0”ÓĢą  ąThe€appellants€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€did€not€allow€them€to€enter€evidenceŠ D!” Šof€their€earnings€history,€present€earnings,€future€earnings€and€future€education€of€the€appellants,€asŠ 0"€  Šwell€as€their€plans,€hopes€and€dreams€for€the€twins.€€The€appellants€state€in€their€argument€to€thisŠ #l! Šcourt€that€such€evidence€š šhas€historically€formed€the€basis€for€a€calculation€of€the€pecuniary€valueŠ $X" Šof€the€life€of€a€minor€.€.€.€.šš€€They€cite€no€authority€for€this€proposition.€€The€cases€concerningŠ ō$D # Špecuniary€value€of€the€life€of€a€minor€state€that€the€pecuniary€value€should€š šbe€measured€by€theŠ ą%0!$ Šexperience€and€judgment€of€the€jury,€enlightened€by€a€knowledge€of€the€ņņage,€sex€and€physical€andŠ Ģ&"% Šmental€characteristics€of€the€childóó.šš€€ņņStrother€v.€Laneóó,€554€S.W.2d€631,€636€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1976);Š ø'#& ŠņņCrowe€v.€Provostóó,€52€Tenn.€App.€397,€417,€374€S.W.2d€645,€654€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1963)€(emphasisŠ ¤(ō#' Šadded).€€The€trial€courtššs€ruling€excluding€the€parentsšš€earnings€past,€present€and€future,€as€well€asŠ )ą$( Štheir€hopes,€dreams€and€plans€for€the€twins,€was€proper.Š |*Ģ%) ŠŠ h+ø&* Їņ ņÓ  ÓF.€€ņņAppelleesšš€Motions€in€Limineó óóóŠ ° ŠĢņņņ ņ1.€€Emotional€Distress,€Mental€and€Emotional€Damages€Š ˆŲ Šand€Loss€of€ConsortiumóóŠ tÄ Šó óĢÓצÓą  ąAppellants,€Julie€and€James€Durbin,€sued€the€appellees€for€negligent€infliction€of€emotionalŠ L œ Šdistress€and€loss€of€consortium.€€James€Durbin,€alone,€also€sued€for€mental€and€emotional€distress;Š 8 ˆ Šand€Julie€Durbin,€alone,€sued€for€personal€injury€and€the€resulting€pain€and€suffering€and€mental€andŠ $ t Šemotional€distress.Š  ` ŠĢą  ąBefore€trial,€appellees€each€filed€various€motions€in€limine.€€The€Hospital€filed€a€motion€inŠ č 8  Šlimine€š što€exclude€any€and€all€evidence€of€the€plaintiffsšš€alleged€emotional€injuries.šš€€Dr.€CaldwellŠ Ō$  Šfiled€a€motion€in€limine€š što€exclude€Plaintiffsšš€allegations€of€intentional€and/or€negligent€inflictionŠ Ą  Šof€emotional€distress€and€all€related€evidence€.€.€.€.šš€€The€trial€court€then€filed€an€order€on€April€20,Š ¬ü  Š2000€granting€Dr.€Caldwellššs€motion.€€On€April€24,€2000,€the€trial€court€granted€the€HospitalššsŠ ˜č  Šmotion€following€an€offer€of€proof.€€In€addition,€at€the€end€of€the€appellantsšš€proof,€the€HospitalŠ „Ō  Šmoved€for€a€directed€verdict€as€to€the€claims€for€negligent€infliction€of€emotional€distress.€€The€trialŠ pĄ Šcourt€dismissed€these€claims€with€prejudice€on€the€grounds€that€the€appellants€had€failed€to€establishŠ \¬ Ša€cause€of€action€by€competent€proof.Š H˜ ŠĢą  ąOur€supreme€court€set€out€the€standards€for€proof€of€negligent€infliction€of€emotional€distressŠ  p Šin€ņņCamper€v.€Minoróó,€915€S.W.2d€437€(Tenn.€1996).€€One€of€the€requirements€to€prove€this€cause€ofŠ  \ Šaction€is€the€presentation€of€expert€medical€or€scientific€proof€to€support€the€injury€claim.€€ņņCamper,óóŠ ųH Š915€S.W.2d€at€446.€€The€appellants€did€not€present€any€expert€medical€or€scientific€proof€of€theirŠ ä4 Šemotional€injury€at€any€time€before€or€during€the€trial.€€Therefore,€since€the€plaintiffs€had€notŠ Š  Šdesignated€any€experts€to€verify€their€claims€of€emotional€distress,€the€trial€judge€acted€properly€inŠ ¼  Šgranting€the€motions€in€Ō_ŌlimineŌ_Ō€and€in€dismissing€the€claims€against€the€hospital€at€the€trial.€€Š Øų ŠĢą  ąThe€appellants€argue€Julie€Durbinššs€emotional€distress€claim€does€not€require€expert€medicalŠ €Š Šor€scientific€proof,€because€she€alleged€she€was€physically€injured.€€The€court€in€ņņCamperóó€specificallyŠ l¼ Šstated,€š šwe€conclude€that€the€[physical€manifestation€or€injury]€rule€shall€no€longer€be€used€to€testŠ X Ø Šthe€validity€of€a€prima€facie€case€of€negligent€infliction€of€emotional€distress.šš€€ņņId.óó€€Therefore,€theŠ D!” Šcourt€abolished€the€physical€injury€rule€as€a€limiting€factor€in€a€claim€for€emotional€distress,€and€weŠ 0"€  Šdo€not€think€the€presence€of€a€physical€injury€dispenses€with€the€requirement€of€expert€proof€toŠ #l! Šestablish€the€claim.Š $X" ŠĢą  ąThe€appellees€also€filed€motions€in€limine€to€exclude€appellantsšš€evidence€for€their€loss€ofŠ ą%0!$ Šconsortium€claims.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€motions€and€based€its€decision€on€the€belief€thatŠ Ģ&"% ŠņņJordan€v.€Baptist€Three€Rivers€Hospitalóó,€984€S.W.2d€593€(Tenn.€1999),€should€not€be€appliedŠ ø'#& Šretroactively.€€Š ¤(ō#' ŠĢą  ąThe€ņņJordanóó€case€allowed€for€consortium€damages€in€connection€with€a€wrongful€death€claim.€Š |*Ģ%) ŠImmediately€after€ņņJordanóó,€this€court€declined€to€retroactively€apply€ņņJordanóó€absent€the€supremeŠ h+ø&* Šcourtššs€intent€to€do€so.€€ņņE.g.,€McCracken€v.€City€of€Ō_ŌMillingtonŌ_Ōóó,€No.€02A01„9707„CV„00165,€1999Š ° ŠWL€142391,€*14„17€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999);€ņņHill€v.€City€of€Germantown,€óóNo.€02A01„9803„CV„Š œģ Š00078,ņņ€óó1999€WL€142386,€*8„11€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€The€supreme€court€later€decided€that€ņņJordanóóŠ ˆŲ Šshould€indeed€be€applied€retroactively.€€ņņHill€v.€City€of€Germantownóó,€31€S.W.3d€234€(Tenn.€2000).€Š tÄ ŠThe€supreme€court€stated:€We€hold€that€ņņJordanóó€applies€retroactively€to:€(1)€all€cases€tried€or€retriedŠ `° Šafter€the€date€of€our€decision€in€ņņJordanóó;€and€(2)€to€all€cases€pending€on€appeal€in€which€the€issueŠ L œ Šdecided€in€ņņJordanóó€was€raised€at€an€appropriate€time.€€ņņHillóó,€31€S.W.3d€atņņ€óó240.€€Š 8 ˆ ŠĢą  ąThis€trial€was€held€in€April€of€2000.€€Therefore,€the€ņņJordanóó€decision€should€have€beenŠ  ` Šapplied€in€this€case.€€The€trial€court€erred€in€not€applying€ņņJordan€óóin€its€decision.€€However,€we€thinkŠ ü L  Šthis€error€was€harmless.€€This€issue€goes€to€the€question€of€damages,€and€the€jury€was€instructed€notŠ č 8  Što€consider€damage€issues€until€finding€one€or€both€of€the€appellees€liable.€€Because€the€jury€foundŠ Ō$  Šfor€the€appellees,€the€issue€of€damages€would€not€have€been€considered€in€the€deliberations.€€Š Ą  ŠĢņ ņņņÓ  Ó2.€€Photographs€of€Appellants€Holding€the€Twinsó óóóŠ ˜č  ŠÓ’¼ÓĢą  ąOne€of€the€motions€in€limine€filed€by€the€appellees€concerned€the€admissibility€of€threeŠ pĄ Šphotographs€of€the€twins€and€the€appellants€after€the€twins€were€delivered.€€After€arguments€on€theŠ \¬ Šissue€the€trial€court€found€that€the€š šprejudicial€impact€of€the€photographs€Ō_Ōoutweigh[edŌ_Ō]€the€probativeŠ H˜ Švalue€.€.€.€.šš€€The€trial€court€based€this€ruling€on€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€Rule€403.Š 4„ ŠĢą  ąIn€a€recent€case€concerning€the€admissibility€of€evidence€under€Rule€403,€this€court€hasŠ  \ Šstated:Š ųH ŠĢҰŅŅ°Ņą ` ąThe€admissibility€of€evidence€is€a€matter€which€rests€within€the€soundŠ Š  Šdiscretion€of€the€trial€court.€€ņņState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€562€(Tenn.1993);€Š ¼  ŠņņState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€411-12€(Tenn.1983);€€ņņMurray€v.€Stateóó,€214€Tenn.Š Øų Š51,€377€S.W.2d€918,€920€(1964);€€ņņWright€v.€Quillenóó,€909€S.W.2d€804,€809Š ”ä Š(Tenn.App.1995);€€ņņState€v.€Rhodenóó,€739€S.W.2d€6,€13€(Tenn.Crim.App.1987).€€ThisŠ €Š ŠCourt€will€not€interfere€with€the€trial€court's€exercise€of€its€discretion€absent€clearŠ l¼ Šabuse.€€ņņWilliamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€at€411-12;€€ņņMurray€v.€Stateóó,€377€S.W.2d€at€920;€Š X Ø ŠņņRhodenóó,€739€S.W.2d€at€13.Š D!” ŠŅ°ŸæŅҰ‘æŅĢņņRoy€v.€Diamondóó,€16€S.W.3d€783,€791€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).Š #l! ŠĢą  ąWe€do€not€find€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€excluding€the€photographs.€€TheŠ ō$D # Šappellants€wished€to€enter€the€photographs€to€prove€that€the€twins€died€at€different€times.€€TheŠ ą%0!$ Šappellants€also€wished€to€enter€the€photographs€to€counteract€the€appellees€characterization€of€theŠ Ģ&"% Štwins€as€š šfetuses.šš€€They€wanted€to€show€that€the€twins€were€š šsmall,€human€babies.šš€€The€appellantsŠ ø'#& Šalso€argue€that€the€photographs€show€that€the€appellants€were€already€involved€in€the€lives€of€theŠ ¤(ō#' Štwins.€€Š )ą$( Šā āŠ |*Ģ%) Šą  ąWhile€the€photographs€are€relevant€as€to€the€condition€of€the€twins,€we€believe€that€theŠ ° Šā āappellantsšš€expert€witness€testimony€was€more€reliable€as€to€the€difference€in€times€of€death€of€theŠ œģ Štwins.€€We€do€not€believe€that€a€lay€person€could€make€a€conclusion€as€to€the€time€difference€fromŠ ˆŲ Šviewing€the€photographs.€€The€appellantsšš€expert€witness€did€not€even€rely€on€the€photographs€asŠ tÄ Šbasis€for€his€testimony.€€We€therefore€believe€that€the€probative€value€of€the€photographs€is€limitedŠ `° Šand€the€other€evidence€presented€by€the€appellantsšš€expert€witness€was€more€probative€evidence€onŠ L œ Šthe€same€question.€€The€use€of€the€photographs€for€the€other€two€stated€reasons€would€clearly€haveŠ 8 ˆ Šan€emotional€impact€on€the€jurors€viewing€the€photographs.€€Š $ t ŠĢą  ąBecause€the€admission€of€the€photographs€would€be€more€prejudicial€than€probative,€we€findŠ ü L  Šthat€the€trial€court€correctly€excluded€the€photographs.Š č 8  ŠĢÓ  Óņ ņG.€€ņņTrial€Courtššs€Comments€on€the€Chargeó óóóŠ Ą  ŠÓ]ŹÓĢą  ąThe€appellants€argue€that€the€trial€court€made€impermissible€comments€when€it€was€readingŠ ˜č  Šthe€jury€instructions€to€the€jury.€€The€language€in€question€is€as€follows:Š „Ō  ŠĢҰŅŅ°Ņą ` ąAs€nurses,€the€employer,€Sumner€Regional€Medical€Center€is€responsible€forŠ \¬ Šthe€nursesšš€negligence.€In€addition,€you€may€also€conclude€that€fault€with€or€againstŠ H˜ ŠSumner€Regional€Medical€Center€if€you€find€that€Sumner€Regional€Medical€CenterŠ 4„ Šwas€at€fault€separate€and€apart€from€the€fault€of€the€nurses.Š  p ŠĢą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ą*ą0 Ą ą*ą0ĄŠ ĄŠ ą*ą@ģģ*ģŠ Š ąˆąHģģ*ģąˆŠ ųH ŠĢą ` ąLadies€and€Gentleman€[sic],€what€Mr.€Trentham€was€properly€pointing€outŠ Š  Šin€reading€the€jury€charge,€one€of€the€charges€I€read€was€with€regards€toš!š€I€wonšštŠ ¼  Šrepeat€the€deleted€term€but€itššs€actually€an€agency€relationship.€€And€what€I€read€wasŠ Øų Šthat€Sumner€Countyš!š€or€Regional€Medical€Center,€as€an€employer,€is€responsible€forŠ ”ä Šthe€employeeššs€negligence.€€What€I€should€have€done€is€stop€right€there€because€inŠ €Š Šthis€case€there€is€no€independent€evidence€that€the€Hospital€did€any€negligence€of€itsŠ l¼ Šown€apart€from€the€actions€of€the€agents,€i.e.,€the€nurses.Š X Ø ŠĢą ` ąBut,€disregard€that€next€sentence€that€I€read€which€said,€š šIn€addition,€you€mayŠ 0"€  Šalso€attribute€fault€directly€against€the€Hospital€if€your€find€that€the€Hospital€was€atŠ #l! Šfault€apart€and€separate€from€the€fault€of€the€nurses.šš€€The€Hospital€did€nothing.€Š $X" ŠThereššs€no€evidence€the€Hospital€did€anything€so€just€simply€disregard€that€secondŠ ō$D # Šsentence€of€that€charge.Š ą%0!$ ŠĢą ` ąDo€yššall€understand?€€Okay,€thereššs€one€no„head€shaking.€€All€right.€€WeššveŠ ø'#& Šbeen€here€for€two€weeks€listening€to€proof.€€All€the€proof€against€the€Hospital€is€thatŠ ¤(ō#' Šthe€nurses€did€things€wrong.€€If€you€give€it€its€best€shot,€if€you€give€it€š!š€thereššs€noŠ )ą$( Ševidence€independent€of€the€nurses€that€the€Hospital€itself€did€anything€wrong.€€TheŠ |*Ģ%) Šinstructions€I€read€had€a€sentence€in€it€that€said,€š šIn€addition,€you€could€consider€theŠ h+ø&* Šindependent€negligence€of€the€Hospital.šš€€And,€Iššm€telling€you€the€Hospital€didnššt€doŠ ° Šanything€independent€of€their€nurses.€€If€you€find€the€nurses€did€something€wrong,Š œģ Šthen€there€are€other€jury€instructions€where€itššs€a€vicarious€liability€they€would€beŠ ˆŲ Šresponsible€for€the€negligence€of€their€nurses.€€But,€disregard€the€instruction€that€saidŠ tÄ Šthat€the€Hospital€itself€was€negligent.€€Okay?Š `° ŠŅ°ÆĖŅҰ”ĖŅĢThe€appellant€argues€that€this€excerpt€unduly€influenced€the€jury€in€their€deliberations€with€fiveŠ 8 ˆ Šstatements€that€the€Hospital€was€not€negligent.Š $ t ŠĢą  ąWe€disagree.€€The€trial€court€was€merely€correcting€a€mistake€made€in€reading€theŠ ü L  Šinstructions€to€the€jury.€€The€trial€court€adequately€explained€the€difference€between€the€HospitalŠ č 8  Šbeing€negligent€and€the€Hospital€being€held€liable€because€of€the€nurses,€negligence.€€We€believe€thatŠ Ō$  Šthe€jury€could€easily€understand€the€judgeššs€comments.€€In€addition,€there€was€no€evidence€at€trialŠ Ą  Šof€the€Hospitalššs€negligence,€independent€of€the€nurses.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€did€not€make€anyŠ ¬ü  Šimpermissible€comments€on€a€question€presented€to€the€jury.€€Š ˜č  ŠĢą  ąInņņ€Grandstaff€v.€Hawksóó,€36€S.W.3d€482€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000),€we€stated€š šwe€should€not€setŠ pĄ Šaside€a€juryššs€verdict€because€of€an€erroneous€instruction€unless€it€affirmatively€appears€that€theŠ \¬ Šerroneous€instruction€actually€misled€the€jury.€€ņņId.óó€at€497€(citing€ņņCarney€v.€Coca„Cola€BottlingŠ H˜ ŠWorksóó,€856€S.W.2d€147,€150€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993)€and€ņņHelms€v.€Weaveróó,€770€S.W.2d€552,€553Š 4„ Š(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989)).€€We€do€not€believe€that€the€trial€courtššs€mistake€misled€the€jury.€€The€trialŠ  p Šcourt€made€every€effort€to€clearly€explain€the€instruction.Š  \ ŠÓ  Óņ ņņņĢH.€€Jury€Chargeóóó óŠ ä4 ŠÓ ŻÓĢą  ąThe€appellants€argue€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€on€several€occasions€when€chargingŠ ¼  Šthe€jury.€€For€a€judgment€to€be€overturned€on€appeal€based€on€the€jury€instructions,€the€instructionŠ Øų Šmust€be€shown€to€have€more€likely€than€not€affected€the€outcome.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€WhenŠ ”ä Šreviewed€on€appeal,€jury€instructions€are€considered€as€a€whole€when€determining€whether€the€trialŠ €Š Šcourt€erred€in€the€instructions.€€ņņEstate€of€Elam€v.€Oakleyóó,€738€S.W.2d€169,€174€(Tenn.€1987).€€EvenŠ l¼ Šif€a€portion€of€the€jury€instruction€is€objectionable,€if€the€trial€court€explains€it€and€corrects€it€in€otherŠ X Ø Šparts€of€the€jury€charge€so€that€the€instructions€as€a€whole€are€not€misleading,€then€the€juryŠ D!” Šinstructions€will€not€be€considered€prejudicial.€€ņņId.óóŠ 0"€  ŠĢÓ  Óņņņ ņ1.€Comparative€Faultó óóóŠ $X" ŠÓįÓĢą  ąThe€appellants€first€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€instruction€of€Tennessee€PatternŠ ą%0!$ ŠInstructions€3„€Civil€3.50€(hereinafter€š šT.P.I.€3„Civilšš)€€This€instruction€is€the€instruction€onŠ Ģ&"% Šcomparative€fault.€€The€appellants€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€did€not€substitute€the€wordŠ ø'#& Šš šdefendantsšš€for€the€word€š šparty.šš€€The€appellants€argue€that€the€instruction€indicated€that€theŠ ¤(ō#' Šappellants€themselves€were€to€blame€for€some€part€of€the€fault.Š )ą$( Šā āŠ |*Ģ%) Šą  ąIn€other€parts€of€the€instructions,€the€trial€court€clearly€stated€that€the€jury€was€to€consider€theŠ ° Šā āliability€of€only€the€appellees€€š šIn€deciding€this€case,€you€must€determine€the€fault€of€each€of€theŠ œģ Šdefendants.šš€€The€instructions€as€a€whole€are€not€misleading€so€that€the€jury€would€consider€anyŠ ˆŲ Špotential€fault€of€the€appellants.€€In€addition,€the€verdict€form€did€not€contain€a€space€for€the€faultŠ tÄ Šof€the€appellants.€€Therefore,€this€mistake€in€the€jury€instruction€is€not€a€basis€for€overturning€theŠ `° Šverdict.€€ņņSee€Estate€of€Elamóó,€738€S.W.2d€at€174.€Š L œ ŠĢÓ  Óņņņ ņ2.€Duty€to€Follow€Instructionsó óóóŠ $ t ŠÓ„ęÓĢą  ąThe€appellants€then€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€instruction€of€T.P.I.€3„€Civil€6.21Š ü L  Šwhich€concerns€a€patientššs€duty€to€follow€instructions.€€The€appellants€argue€that€there€was€errorŠ č 8  Šbecause€there€was€no€evidence€presented€by€the€appellees€that€Mrs.€Durbinššs€failure€to€followŠ Ō$  Šinstructions€caused€her€injury.€€The€appellants€argue€that€the€inclusion€of€this€instruction€implied€thatŠ Ą  Šthe€appellants€were€at€fault.Š ¬ü  ŠĢą  ąOnce€again,€the€trial€court€made€clear€in€other€parts€of€the€jury€instruction€that€the€fault€ofŠ „Ō  Šonly€the€appellees€was€to€be€considered.€€When€looking€at€the€jury€instructions€as€a€whole,€the€trialŠ pĄ Šcourt€did€not€mislead€the€jury€into€considering€the€fault€of€the€appellants.€€Š \¬ ŠĢÓ  Óņņņ ņ3.€€Adverse€Inferenceó óóóŠ 4„ ŠÓ^źÓĢą  ąThe€appellants€also€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€their€request€for€a€juryŠ  \ Šinstruction€on€adverse€inference€because€of€the€Hospitalššs€failure€to€produce€the€electronic€fetalŠ ųH Šmonitoring€strip€generated€on€July€20,€1995.€€After€an€electronic€fetal€monitoring€strip€has€beenŠ ä4 Šgenerated€on€a€patient€the€Hospital€procedure€testified€to€at€trial€is€that€the€strip€is€reviewed€by€theŠ Š  Šattending€physician€and€then€placed€in€a€bankerššs€box€with€other€strips€generated€on€other€patients.€Š ¼  ŠIn€this€case,€the€Hospital€was€unable€to€locate€the€strip€generated€on€July€20,€1995.€€The€appellantsŠ Øų Šargued€at€trial€that€the€trial€court€should€have€instructed€the€jury€that€they€could€infer€that€theŠ ”ä Šmonitoring€strip€would€show€that€both€twins€were€in€distress.Š €Š ŠĢą  ąThe€appellants€submitted€a€modified€version€of€T.P.I.€3„€Civil€2.04€Absence€of€Witness€orŠ X Ø ŠEvidence€that€specifically€addressed€the€missing€July€20,€1995€fetal€monitoring€strip.€€ThisŠ D!” Šinstruction€allows€the€jury€to€determine€that€a€partyššs€failure€to€supply€certain€pieces€of€evidence€castŠ 0"€  Ša€negative€reflection€on€their€potential€liability.€€The€trial€court€denied€both€the€modified€instructionŠ #l! Šand€the€pattern€instruction.€€The€reasons€as€stated€in€the€record€are€because€July€22€was€the€pivotalŠ $X" Šday€not€July€20ņņóó.€€The€trial€judge€went€on€to€state€that€he€did€not€believe,€š šthe€absence€of€theŠ ō$D # Šmonitoring€strip€rises€to€the€level€that€a€Jury€can€infer€wrongdoing€or€there€should€be€a€presumption.ššŠ ą%0!$ ŠĢą  ąThis€court€recently€addressed€this€issue€in€ņņRichardson€v.€Milleróó,€44€S.W.3d€1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Š ø'#& Š2000).€€In€ņņRichardsonóó,€a€prenatal€patient€was€put€on€an€infusion€pump€to€deliver€medication€to€stopŠ ¤(ō#' Šher€contractions.€€The€medicine€delivered€by€the€infusion€pump€caused€the€patient€to€suffer€a€heartŠ )ą$( Šattack.€€The€patient€later€sued€both€the€doctor€and€the€supplier€of€the€pump€alleging€that€theirŠ |*Ģ%) Šnegligence€had€caused€her€heart€attack.€€Before€being€put€on€the€infusion€pump,€the€supplier€of€theŠ h+ø&* Špump€sent€a€nurse€to€assess€the€patientššs€condition€by€reviewing€medical€records€and€speaking€withŠ ° Šthe€patient.€€This€nurse€was€to€determine€whether€the€patient€met€the€preconditions€for€the€use€of€theŠ œģ Špump.€€After€this€session,€the€supplierššs€nurse€instructed€both€the€patient€and€nursing€staff€on€the€useŠ ˆŲ Šof€the€pump.€€The€missing€document€in€ņņRichardsonóó,€was€the€nursing€assessment€form€in€which€theŠ tÄ Šsupplierššs€nurse€should€have€recorded€her€findings.€€The€document€was€not€produced€and€allegedlyŠ `° Šhad€been€lost€in€transit€from€the€nurse€to€the€company.Š L œ ŠĢą  ąIn€ņņRichardsonóó,€this€court€stated,€š šIn€Tennessee,€as€in€other€jurisdictions,€a€partyššs€failure€toŠ $ t Šproduce€a€document€capable€of€shedding€light€on€a€material€contested€issue€can€give€rise€to€aŠ  ` Špermissive€inference€that€the€missing€document€would€have€been€unfavorable€to€the€party€possessingŠ ü L  Šit.šš€€ņņRichardson€v.€Milleróó,€44€S.W.3d€1,€27„28€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000)€(citing€Tennessee€Law€ofŠ č 8  ŠEvidence€šš€401.9,€at€99).€€Clearly,€the€nurses€assessment€of€the€patientššs€medical€condition€š šshed[s]Š Ō$  Šlight€on€a€material€contested€issuešš€in€ņņRichardsonóó.€€Š Ą  ŠĢą  ąHowever,€the€missing€fetal€monitor€strip€is€not€as€closely€connected€with€the€material€issuesŠ ˜č  Šin€this€case.€€As€the€trial€court€stated€the€important€date€according€to€the€parties€in€this€case€ņņóówas€JulyŠ „Ō  Š22€not€July€20.€€The€appellants€definitely€thought€this€was€the€case.€€Their€Complaint€references€onlyŠ pĄ Šthe€events€on€July€22.€€Although€it€is€clear€that€the€fetal€monitoring€strips€demonstrate€the€well„beingŠ \¬ Šof€the€twins,€their€well„being€is€not€at€issue€until€July€22.€€For€this€reason,€the€trial€courtššs€denial€ofŠ H˜ Šthe€negative€inference€instruction€is€not€a€ground€for€reversal.Š 4„ ŠĢÓ  Óņņņ ņ4.€€Twinsšš€Living€Expensesó óóóŠ  \ ŠÓpüÓĢą  ąFinally,€the€appellants€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€instructing€the€jury€with€T.P.I.€3„Š ä4 ŠCivil€14.30€to€deduct€the€twinsšš€living€expenses€had€the€twins€lived€from€any€damages€awarded.€€TheŠ Š  Šargument€is€based€on€the€fact€that€there€was€no€proof€of€the€projected€living€expenses.€€The€sameŠ ¼  Šargument€was€made€in€ņņWallace€v.€Couchóó,€642€S.W.2d€141€(Tenn.€1982),€the€case€that€establishedŠ Øų Šthe€rule€that€living€expenses€should€be€taken€into€account€in€arriving€at€the€pecuniary€value€of€theŠ ”ä Šdecedentššs€life.€€The€court€refused€to€reverse€the€jury€verdict€despite€the€lack€of€evidence€of€livingŠ €Š Šexpenses€in€the€record.€€The€court€recognized€that€in€general€the€jury€must€act€only€upon€what€isŠ l¼ Špresented€to€them€at€the€trial,€but€held€that€in€exceptional€circumstances€the€jury€could€draw€uponŠ X Ø Šits€own€experience€and€knowledge.€€Š D!” ŠĢą  ąWe€do€not€wish€to€minimize€the€obligation€to€establish€facts€with€competent€proof,€but€in€theŠ #l! Šcircumstances€of€this€case,€we€do€not€think€the€court€erred€in€charging€the€jury€on€the€rule€laid€downŠ $X" Šin€ņņWallace€v.€Couch.óóŠ ō$D # Šņ ņó óĢÓ  Óņ ņV.Š Ģ&"% ŠņņDiscretionary€Costsó óóóŠ ø'#& ŠÓÓĢą  ąThe€trial€court€awarded€Dr.€Caldwell€$7,878.00€and€the€Hospital€$8,444.00€in€discretionaryŠ )ą$( Šcosts.€€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€provide€for€a€trial€court€to€award€š šreasonable€andŠ |*Ģ%) Šnecessary€court€reporter€expenses€for€depositions€or€trials€[and]€reasonable€and€necessary€expertŠ h+ø&* Šwitness€fees€for€depositions€or€trials€.€.€.€.šš€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€54.04(2).€€The€awarding€of€discretionaryŠ ° Šcosts€is€in€the€trial€courtššs€discretion,€and€the€trial€courtššs€decision€will€not€be€overturned€absent€anŠ œģ Šabuse€of€discretion.€€ņņŌ_ŌOsterŌ_Ō,€Div.€of€Sunbeam€Corp.€v.€Ō_ŌYatesŌ_Ōóó,€845€S.W.2d€215,€217„18€(Tenn.€1992);Š ˆŲ ŠņņLock€v.€National€Union€Fire€Ins.€Co.€of€Pittsburgh,€Paóó,€809€S.W.2d€483,€490€(Tenn.€1991).Š tÄ ŠĢą  ąWe€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€trial€courtššs€decision.€€Both€appellees€filed€post„trialŠ L œ Šmotions€with€accompanying€affidavits€outlining€the€costs€they€sought.€€Dr.€Caldwell€asked€for€a€totalŠ 8 ˆ Šof€$11,681.31,€and€the€Hospital€asked€for€a€total€of€$12,549.96.€€The€trial€court€awarded€less€thanŠ $ t Šthe€requested€amounts.€€Š  ` ŠĢą  ąTherefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Š č 8  ŠĢą  ąWe€reverse€in€part€and€affirm€in€part€the€proceedings€in€the€trial€court.€€Tax€the€costs€onŠ Ą  Šappeal€to€the€appellants,€Julie€Amanda€Ō_ŌDurbinŌ_Ō€and€James€M.€Ō_ŌDurbinŌ_Ō.Š ¬ü  ŠĢĢĢĢĢą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ą_________________________________________€Š 4„ Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.