ÿWPC z|tYüÊ®$<Ƽ…Ææo¯|n”,ͨX»™égÁq(IOBsg’=Ê’¼¼€Å,ƒª#JFMÉýëð:ª=î5”À–±*+Jk@Zµnçkõ kŦ#]PXJr¦œßõ|°’C†i$Ùq_×cýb‚¶ïl÷Ï/yP)_éM[Ï€µ¥Ç°f|{˜Õ-3û !¿‘N‡üÉL¡;Ljt×A%9阩LEÂ)hJ­ MèPé¾î÷4u¤|é.’W9 {Ù(™Ëð‹‚ÒpŽ Zà{uOÇÒÚ› t0PضiêE-¹dz°ÍÕò÷dgnÅØ‘`~*ßÌ2Æ×X"‹Nó-oxôE§û£Ñ XsT8Ø;ø' »ÇÔ—°†Þ<6LKÊHMãV¾µÂÍJÍz±t4â3ÕpžUoÉfr ºaYš4!;D†I¢óÑÖðócîU„ Ñ…­ïp¸¾sWÿK’m¸-…c,z•xÒj®Š½®–7õ"¹žgO­ç„<Ƒ˪«”³J*\×E•p ŠÖ.;åA|Ï‚5³qsµG1=§Úþ$ßñ°¾ºEi‰¾…b€tl;]‹s:CÝL®¦ÓFaBùòZ°ª¦‘9VŠb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë UN±NÿÿÿEb 0ë     Böö 0¤ D3· D-ê 0K ASbƵ 0¤{ 0D A«c»à‰:)â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular9?Æ(¢Ø+003|x ˜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.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4Si,ü,,,,,ü0 Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regular- ù-(|G2b$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€é»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô‹|ò»»Ô d(|3ù$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€é»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ù$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€é»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€é»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼é»»»ÔÑ8€øCXXdð»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î·÷éÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼é»îî·÷ #ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  ÓAugust€2000€SessionÐ X ÐÔ‡XøCX»¼éÔÌò òÔ#†¼é»XXøCð#ÔCLARA€FRAZIER€v.€EAST€TENNESSEE€BAPTIST€HOSPITAL,€òòINC.,€€€€€€Ð  ` Ðet€alóó.Ô‡XøCX»¼éÔó óÐ ( x ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ 0 € Ðà@@øøìàNo.€1„299„98€€€€€€Dale€C.€Workman,€JudgeÐ  p ÐÌFILED€September€26,€2000Ð P  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<ï` AßÐ ð@  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2000„00686„COA„R3„CVÐ ï?  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Î` AßÐ Ï Ðó óÌÓ  ÓIn€this€medical€malpractice€case€brought€by€Clara€Frazier,€as€Administratrix€of€the€Estate€of€JosieÐ Î ÐMae€Blalock€Pickens€against€East€Tennessee€Baptist€Hospital,€Inc.,€and€Mark€W.€Jackson,€M.D.,€theÐ ¾ ÐTrial€Court€sustained€the€motion€of€Baptist€Hospital€for€summary€judgment€because€the€orderÐ ®þ Ðgranting€an€amendment€to€add€Baptist€Hospital€as€a€party€defendant€after€a€non„suit€had€earlier€beenÐ žî Ðtaken,€was€not€timely€and€exceeded€the€one€year€mandated€in€T.C.A.€28„1„105(a).€€Ms.€FrazierÐ ŽÞ Ðappeals,€insisting€that€Rule€15.03€of€the€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€is€applicable€and€that€the€amendmentÐ ~Î Ðrelated€back€to€the€date€of€the€initial€filing.€€We€find€the€Trial€Court€acted€properly€and€affirm.Ô#†¼é»XXøC”#ÔÔ‡XøCX»¼éÔÐ n¾ ÐÓ«ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ Nž ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼é»àXøCù#ÔÔ‡XøCX.¼éÔHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franksóó€andÐ .~ ÐòòD.€Michael€Swineyóó,€joined.Ð n ÐÌDonna€Keene€Holt€and€David€E.€Waite,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Clara€FrazierÐ þN ÐÌR.€Franklin€Norton,€Gary€G.€Spangler€and€Jeffrey€A.€Woods,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€AppelleeÐ Þ!.  ÐBaptist€Hospital€of€East€Tennessee,€Inc.Ð Î"! ÐÓªÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼é»XXøCÙ#ÔÔ‡XøCX»¼éÔÐ ®$þ# ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àòòóóÔ#†¼é»XXøC #ÔÔ‡XøCX»¼éÔ¹Ó  Óà  àà ` àThis€is€a€medical€malpractice€suit€by€Clara€Frazier,€as€Administratrix€of€the€EstateÐ ~'Î"& Ðof€Josie€Mae€Blalock€Pickens€against€East€Tennessee€Baptist€Hospital,€Inc.,€and€Mark€W.€Jackson,Ð n(¾#' ÐM.€D.€€The€Trial€Court€sustained€Baptist€Hospitalððs€motion€to€dismiss€on€the€ground€that€theÐ ^)®$( Ðamended€complaint,€which€added€Baptist€Hospital€as€a€party€defendant€after€having€taken€a€non„suitÐ N*ž%) Ðas€to€the€original€complaint,€was€time„barred€because€it€was€not€filed€within€one€year€of€the€non„suitÐ >+Ž&* Ðâ âas€required€by€T.C.A.€28„1„105(a).€€(See€appendix).€€The€Administratrix€appeals,€contending€theÐ .,~'+ý Ðamended€complaint€adding€Baptist€Hospital€met€requirements€of€15.03€of€the€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.(seeÐ ° Ðappendix),€which€sets€out€the€relation„back€doctrine.€€Ð  ð Ðâ âÔ#†¼é»XXøC„ #ÔÔ€XøCX»¼éÔÌà  àà ` àBecause€the€question€presented€is€one€purely€of€law,€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó€withoutÐ €Ð Ðany€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòNash€v.€Mulleóó,€846€S.W.2d€803,€804€(Tenn.1993).Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àWe€now€list€chronologically€the€pleadings€and€orders€necessary€for€a€resolution€of€thisÐ P   Ðappeal:Ð @  ÐÌ1.€€May€8,€1998.€€Complaint€filed€by€Ms.€Frazier€against€East€Tennessee€Baptist€Hospital,€Inc.,€andÐ  p  ÐMark€W.€Jackson,€M.D.Ð `  ÐÌ2.€€June€2,€1998.€€Answer€filed€by€Baptist€Hospital€of€East€Tennessee,€Inc.Ð ð@  ÐÌ3.€€August€7,€1998.€€Plaintiffsðð€notice€of€voluntary€dismissal€as€to€Baptist€Hospital.Ð Ð  ÐÌ4.€€August€7,€1998.€€Order€dismissing€suit€against€Baptist€Hospital€without€prejudice.Ð ° ÐÌ5.€€August€5,€1999.€€Motion€to€amend€complaint€to€name€Baptist€Hospital€as€a€party€defendant€again.Ð à ÐÌ6.€€August€10,€1999.€€Order€granting€the€foregoing€amendment€and€directing€summons€to€issue€asÐ pÀ Ðto€the€amended€complaint.Ð `° ÐÌ7.€€September€20,€1999.€€Motion€of€Baptist€Hospital€to€dismiss€complaint€as€to€it.Ð @ ÐÌ8.€€December€16,€1999.€€Plaintiffsðð€motion€to€amend€to€name€Baptist€Hospital€of€East€Tennessee,Ð  p ÐInc.,€as€defendant€rather€than€East€Tennessee€Baptist€Hospital,€Inc.Ð ` ÐÌ9.€€January€11,€2000.€€Order€granting€motion€to€dismiss€and€entering€judgment€in€favor€of€BaptistÐ ð@ ÐHospital,€which€was€made€final€pursuant€to€Rule€54.02€of€the€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€Ð à0 ЀÌà  àà ` àThe€Administratrix€relies€upon€the€case€of€òòFloyd€€v.€Rentropóó,€675€S.W.2d€165Ð À! Ð(Tenn.1984).€€In€that€case€the€complaint€was€originally€filed€against€John€M.€Reisser,€M.D.,€and€St.Ð °"  ÐFrancis€Hospital.€€Before€Dr.€Reisser€filed€an€answer€or€otherwise€pleaded,€a€non„suit€was€taken€asÐ  #ð! Ðto€him€and€an€amended€complaint€filed€naming€William€E.€Rentrop,€M.D.,€as€a€party€defendant.€Ð $à" ÐVarious€medical€records€in€the€record€disclosed€that€there€was€a€conflict€as€to€who€in€fact€performedÐ €%Ð # Ðthe€surgery,€giving€rise€to€the€malpractice€action.Ð p&À!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€denied€the€motion€to€amend€and€an€interlocutory€appeal€was€grantedÐ P( #& Ðby€the€Trial€Judge€and€the€Court€of€Appeals€and,€ultimately,€the€case€was€accepted€by€the€SupremeÐ @)$' ÐCourt,€which€stated€the€following€(at€page€167):Ð 0*€%( Ðâ âÐ  +p&) ÐÒ€°ÒÒ€°ÒÔ‡X9ô XXXøCÔà Ø àThe€Court€of€Appeals,€with€Judge€Nearn€dissenting,€held€that€since€Dr.Ð ° Ðâ âReisser€had€been€sued€and€non-suit€then€taken€against€him,€T.C.A.€ðð€28-1-105,Ð œì Ðcommonly€known€as€the€saving€statute,€barred€the€amendment€as€so€to€add€Dr.Ð ˆØ ÐReisser,€and€that€any€new€action€taken€by€the€plaintiffs€against€Dr.€Reisser€mustÐ tÄ Ðhave€been€commenced€within€one€year€from€the€taking€of€the€voluntary€non-suitÐ `° Ðon€April€6,€1981,€citing€òòTurner€v.€N.C.€&€St.€L.€Railwayóó,€199€Tenn.€137,€285Ð L œ ÐS.W.2d€122€(1955);€and€òòBalsinger€v.€Gassóó,€214€Tenn.€343,€379€S.W.2d€800Ð 8 ˆ Ð(1964).€We€think€it€evident€that€a€majority€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€were€of€theÐ $ t Ðopinion€that€since€a€suit€was€brought€against€Dr.€Reisser,€the€filing€of€the€non-suitÐ  ` Ðwith€respect€to€him€automatically€triggered€the€savings€statute.€The€majorityÐ ü L  Ðspecifically€held€that€Rule€15.03€had€no€application€to€the€case€at€bar.€If€RuleÐ è 8  Ð15.03€is€applicable,€the€fact€that€Dr.€Reisser€had€once€been€a€party€to€the€suit€hasÐ Ô$  Ðno€significance€to€its€application€in€this€case,€except€to€show€notice€of€theÐ À  Ðinstitution€of€the€suit€within€the€time€provided€by€law.€€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà Ø àWe€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€Court€of€Appeals€erred,€that€Rule€15.03Ð „Ô  ÐT.R.C.P.€is€applicable€to€the€facts€of€the€case,€that€the€Trial€Judge€erred€in€denyingÐ pÀ Ðthe€amendment€adding€Dr.€Reisser€as€a€party€defendant,€and€that€T.C.A.€ððÐ \¬ Ð28-1-105€has€no€application€to€the€case.€€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà Ø àT.R.C.P.€15.03€provides€that€an€amended€complaint€changing€the€name€ofÐ  p Ða€party€relates€back€to€the€date€of€the€original€pleading€if€three€requirements€areÐ  \ Ðmet:€"(1)€the€claim€or€defense€asserted€in€the€amended€pleading€arose€out€of€theÐ øH Ðconduct,€transaction€or€occurrence€set€forth€or€attempted€to€be€set€forth€in€theÐ ä4 Ðoriginal€pleading€.€.€.€if,€within€the€period€provided€by€law€for€commencing€theÐ Ð  Ðaction€against€him,€the€party€to€be€brought€in€by€amendment€(2)€has€received€suchÐ ¼  Ðnotice€of€the€institution€of€the€action€that€he€will€not€be€prejudiced€in€maintainingÐ ¨ø Ðhis€defense€on€the€merits,€and€(3)€knew€or€should€have€known€that,€but€for€aÐ ”ä Ðmisnomer€or€other€similar€mistake€concerning€the€identity€of€the€proper€party,€theÐ €Ð Ðaction€would€have€been€brought€against€him."€€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà Ø àOther€language€of€the€Rule€makes€it€clear€that€if€the€preceding€conditionsÐ D!” Ðare€met,€the€effect€of€Rule€15.03€is€to€avoid€the€impact€of€the€statute€ofÐ 0"€  Ðlimitations.€€Ð #l! ÐÌà Ø àIn€òòKarash€v.€Pigottóó,€530€S.W.2d€775€(Tenn.€1975),€this€court€recognizedÐ ô$D # Ðthis€effect,€pointing€out€"[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€great€liberality€of€this€Rule."€òòIdóó.€at€777.€In€òòOsborneÐ à%0!$ ÐEnterprises€v.€City€of€Chattanoogaóó,€561€S.W.2d€160€(Tenn.App.€1977),€the€CourtÐ Ì&"% Ðof€Appeals€in€interpreting€the€Rule€said:€€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà Ø à"Rule€15.03€should€be€liberally€construed€and€applied.€It€was€designed€soÐ )à$( Ðcases€would€be€determined€on€their€merits€and€not€on€rigid€technicalities."€òòIdóó.€atÐ |*Ì%) Ð163.€€Ð h+¸&* Їà Ø àThe€court€then€went€on€to€state€that:€€Ð ° ÐÌà Ø à"Although€the€defendant€must€now€defend€a€claim€which€was€thought€theÐ ˆØ Ðmere€passage€of€time€had€barred,€statutes€of€limitations€do€not€afford€such€anÐ tÄ Ðautomatic€insulation€from€suit€by€such€a€mechanical€procedure."€òòIdóó.€at€164.€€Ð `° ÐÌà Ø àDefendants€insist€that€the€outside€limits€of€the€statute€of€limitationsÐ 8 ˆ Ðapplicable€to€this€action€would€be€April€7,€1981,€which€is€one€year€from€the€timeÐ $ t ÐMrs.€Floyd€learned€of€the€cause€of€her€injury.€Assuming€this€to€be€true,€weÐ  ` Ðproceed€to€apply€the€three€tests€of€Rule€15.03€to€the€facts€in€the€record€andÐ ü L  Ðadmitted€facts€in€the€brief€of€appellees.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà Ø àThe€amended€complaint€filed€merely€adds€the€name€of€Dr.€Reisser,€whoÐ À  Ðhad€previously€been€a€defendant,€and€therefore€the€first€condition€has€been€met.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà Ø àNotice€is€the€critical€element€involved€in€determining€whetherÐ „Ô  Ðamendments€to€pleadings€relate€back.€The€complaint€pending€and€to€whichÐ pÀ Ðamendment€is€sought€is€that€complaint€which€was€filed€against€Dr.€John€M.Ð \¬ ÐReisser€and€St.€Francis€Hospital,€Inc.€on€March€26,€1981.€Dr.€Reisser,€having€beenÐ H˜ Ðserved,€had€actual€notice€of€the€institution€of€the€action€prior€to€April€7,€1981.€WeÐ 4„ Ðare€not€unmindful€that€a€non-suit€had€been€taken€against€Dr.€Reisser€on€April€6,Ð  p Ð1981;€nevertheless,€he€had€notice€of€the€transaction€or€occurrence€set€forth€in€theÐ  \ Ðoriginal€pleading€within€the€time€provided€by€law€for€commencing€the€action.€HeÐ øH Ðand€Dr.€Rentrop€have€been€represented€by€the€same€counsel€in€the€case.€UnderÐ ä4 Ðsuch€circumstances,€he€would€not€be€prejudiced€in€maintaining€his€defense€on€theÐ Ð  Ðmerits€and€he€knew,€or€should€have€known€that,€but€for€mistake€concerning€theÐ ¼  Ðidentity€of€the€proper€party,€the€action€would€not€have€been€dismissed€as€to€himÐ ¨ø Ðand€instituted€against€his€partner,€who€he€knew€did€not€perform€the€surgery€onÐ ”ä ÐMrs.€Floyd€as€set€forth€in€the€original€complaint€served€upon€him.€€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà Ø àAs€to€his€knowledge€of€the€action€instituted€against€Dr.€Rentrop,€suchÐ X ¨ Ðknowledge€will€be€imputed€to€him€since€it€is€conceded€that€Dr.€Reisser€and€Dr.Ð D!” ÐRentrop€are€partners.€T.C.A.€ðð€61-1-111.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà Ø àRule€15.03€being€applicable€and€the€effect€of€the€Rule€being€to€avoid€theÐ $X" Ðimpact€of€the€statute€of€limitations€by€letting€the€amendment€relate€back€to€theÐ ô$D # Ðoriginal€filing,€the€cause€of€action€against€Dr.€Reisser€is€not€barred€by€the€statuteÐ à%0!$ Ðof€limitations,€and€therefore€T.C.A.€ðð€28-1-105€(the€saving€statute)€is€inapplicableÐ Ì&"% Ðfor€the€reason€that€no€statutory€bar€exists€as€to€the€amendment.€òòDushan€v.Ð ¸'#& ÐMetropolitan€Life€Insurance€Companyóó,€14€Tenn.App.€422€(1931);€òòÔ_ÔBalsingerÔ_Ô€v.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐGassóó,€òòsupraóó.€€€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÔ#†XøCX XX9ôI#ÔÐ |*Ì%) ÐÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àà ` àThe€case€relied€upon€by€Baptist€Hospital€is€a€Court€of€Appeals€case,€òòBennett€v.€TownÐ ° Ðâ â&€Country€Ford,€Inc.óó,€816€S.W.2d€52€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€In€that€case€suit€was€brought€againstÐ  ð ÐTown€&€Country€Ford€and€two€other€defendants.€€Thereafter,€the€plaintiff€voluntarily€dismissed€theÐ à Ðclaim€against€Town€&€Country€Ford€because€the€other€two€defendants€had€stipulated€that€they€wereÐ €Ð Ðnegligent€and€that€their€negligence€was€the€proximate€cause€of€the€injuries€to€the€plaintiff.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àStill€later,€the€plaintiff€moved€to€increase€the€ad€Ô_ÔdamnumÔ_Ô€clause€and€the€Trial€CourtÐ P   Ðpermitted€the€remaining€defendants€to€withdraw€their€stipulation.€€Whereupon,€a€motion€was€madeÐ @  Ðto€again€add€Town€&€Country€Ford€as€a€party€defendant.Ð 0 € ÐÌà  àà ` àThis€Court€found€that€T.C.A.€28„1„105,€rather€than€Rule€15.03,€controlled€the€Ô_Ôresult,Ô_ÔÐ `  Ðand€in€doing€so,€employed€the€following€language€(at€page€53):Ð P  ÐÌÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°Òà Ø àRule€15.03€governs€the€"relation€back"€of€amended€pleadings,€providingÐ Ð  Ða€way€to€sue€a€defendant€after€the€statute€of€limitations€has€run.€The€savingsÐ À Ðstatute,€on€the€other€hand,€allows€a€plaintiff€to€refile€against€a€defendant€after€theÐ ° Ðstatute€{S.W.2d€54}€of€limitations€has€run€when€the€original€suit€ends€for€someÐ  ð Ðreason€not€going€to€the€merits€--€provided€the€action€that€came€to€an€inconclusiveÐ à Ðend€began€within€the€original€limitation€period.€òòTurner€v.€Nash.€C.€&€St.€L.€R.R.óó,Ð €Ð Ð199€Tenn.€137,€285€S.W.2d€122€(1955).€The€relation€back€holding€is€necessary€toÐ pÀ Ðsave€the€plaintiff's€cause€of€action€because€the€savings€statute€only€applies€to€casesÐ `° Ðbrought€"within€the€time€limited€by€a€rule€or€statute€of€limitations,"€Tenn.€CodeÐ P  ÐAnn.€ðð€28-1-105(a);€it€cannot€be€extended€by€successive€voluntary€dismissals.Ð @ ÐòòTurneróó,€òòsupraóó€at€141,€285€S.W.2d€122;€€òòReed€v.€Cin.,€N.€O.€and€T.€Railroad€Co.óó,Ð 0€ Ð136€Tenn.€499,€190€S.W.€458€(1916);€òòMemphis€&€C.€R.R.€v.€Pillowóó,€56€Tenn.€248Ð  p Ð(1872).€€€€€Ð ` ÐÌà Ø àThus,€the€case€turns€on€whether€the€amendment€on€September€29,€1989Ð ð@ Ðrelated€back€to€the€filing€of€the€original€complaint.€Rule€15.03€provides€thatÐ à0 Ðamendments€adding€a€claim€or€defense€arising€out€of€the€conduct,€transaction,€orÐ Ð  Ðoccurrence€described€in€the€original€complaint€automatically€relate€back€to€theÐ À! Ðoriginal€filing.€Where,€however,€the€amendment€changes€the€party€against€whomÐ °"  Ða€claim€is€asserted,€the€amendment€relates€back€only€if€the€party€added€byÐ  #ð! Ðamendment€had€notice€of€the€claim€within€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations€andÐ $à" Ðknew€or€should€have€known€that€but€for€a€misnomer€or€other€similar€mistake€theÐ €%Ð # Ðaction€would€have€been€brought€against€him.€€Ð p&À!$ ÐÌà Ø àTherefore,€to€relate€back€the€amendment€adding€Town€&€Country€Ford€asÐ P( #& Ða€party€in€September€of€1989€must€show€a€misnomer€or€other€similar€mistake.€InÐ @)$' Ðour€examination€of€the€record,€we€cannot€find€any€element€of€misnomer€orÐ 0*€%( Ðmistake€in€this€case.€The€dismissal€of€Town€&€Country€Ford€was€taken€freely€andÐ  +p&) Ðvoluntarily€because€the€plaintiff€had€a€stipulation€that€the€other€two€defendantsÐ ,`'* Ðwere€negligent.€Only€when€the€plaintiff€lost€that€stipulation€by€moving€to€increaseÐ ° Ðthe€ad€damnum€did€the€plaintiff€reinstitute€the€action€against€Town€&€CountryÐ  ð ÐFord.€We€do€not€think€Rule€15.03€applies€to€these€facts.€€€Ð à ÐÌà Ø àThe€absence€of€a€mistake€is€what€distinguishes€this€case€from€òòFloyd€v.Ð pÀ ÐRentropóó,€675€S.W.2d€165€(1984),€the€case€relied€upon€by€the€trial€court.€In€òòFloydóó,Ð ` ° Ðthe€plaintiffs€sued€the€right€defendant€but,€because€they€mistakenly€believed€theÐ P   Ðharm€was€caused€by€another€defendant,€they€voluntarily€dismissed€the€first.€MoreÐ @  Ðthan€a€year€later€they€discovered€the€mistake€and€amended€the€complaint€to€nameÐ 0 € Ðthe€original€defendant.€The€Supreme€Court€held€that€Rule€15.03€made€theÐ  p  Ðamendment€relate€back€because€the€defendant€obviously€had€notice€within€theÐ `  Ðoriginal€statute€of€limitations€and€he€knew€that€he€had€been€dismissed€because€ofÐ P  Ðthe€plaintiffs'€mistake.€The€Court€also€held€that€even€though€the€amendment€wasÐ ð@  Ðmore€than€one€year€from€the€original€dismissal€and€the€saving€statute€would€notÐ à0  Ðaid€the€plaintiffs,€it€was€not€necessary€to€rely€on€the€saving€statute€since€theÐ Ð  Ðamendment€would€relate€back€under€Rule€15.03.€€Ð À ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àà ` àAnother€case€by€this€Court,€òòRainey€Bros.€v.€Memphis€&€€Shelby€Countyóó,€821€S.W.2d€Ð  ð Ð938,€941€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991),€decided€by€this€Court,€is€helpful€in€resolving€this€appeal:€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÐ à ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°Òà Ø àRule€15.03€sets€forth€two€requirements€which€must€be€met€in€order€for€anÐ pÀ Ðamendment€to€change€the€parties€against€whom€the€claim€is€asserted.€First,€theÐ `° Ðnew€parties€must€have€received€such€notice€of€the€action€that€they€will€not€beÐ P  Ðprejudiced€in€maintaining€their€defense.€See€òòGoss€v.€Hutchinsóó,€751€S.W.2d€821,Ð @ Ð824€(Tenn.€1988);€òòLease€v.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ôóó€722€S.W.2d€379,€380€(Tenn.€1986).€It€isÐ 0€ Ðreasonable€to€assume€that€the€members€of€the€Board€were€aware€of€both€actionsÐ  p Ðbrought€by€Rainey€Brothers€before€they€were€made€parties€to€the€actions€pursuantÐ ` Ðto€the€second€amended€complaints.€However,€Rule€15.03€requires€more€thanÐ P Ðmerely€that€a€potential€new€defendant€be€aware€of€the€existence€of€the€action€priorÐ ð@ Ðto€being€made€a€party.€The€second€requirement€is€that€each€potential€new€partyÐ à0 Ðmust€have€known€that€but€for€a€misnomer€or€mistake€concerning€his€or€herÐ Ð  Ðidentity,€the€action€would€have€been€brought€against€him€or€her.€òòLease€v.€Tiptonóó,Ð À! Ðòòsupraóó.€Furthermore,€it€has€been€held€that€the€plaintiff€has€the€burden€of€showingÐ °"  Ðthat€the€failure€to€name€the€new€defendants€in€the€original€complaint€resulted€fromÐ  #ð! Ða€mistake€concerning€the€identity€of€the€proper€parties.€òòSmith€v.€SoutheasternÐ $à" ÐPropertiesóó,€776€S.W.2d€106€(Tenn.€App.€1989).€A€mistake€within€the€meaning€ofÐ €%Ð # ÐRule€15.03€does€not€exist€simply€because€the€party€who€may€be€liable€for€conductÐ p&À!$ Ðalleged€in€the€original€complaint€was€omitted€as€a€party€defendant.€òòIdóó.€at€109.€TheÐ `'°"% Ðcircumstances€of€the€case€before€us€do€not€satisfy€the€second€requirement.€RaineyÐ P( #& ÐBrothers€has€failed€to€show€that€the€Board€and€its€individual€members€knew€thatÐ @)$' Ðbut€for€Rainey€Brothers'€mistake,€they€would€have€been€named€as€parties€to€theÐ 0*€%( Ðactions€to€which€they€were€later€added€by€the€second€amended€complaints.Ð  +p&) ÐFurthermore,€Rainey€Brothers€has€failed€to€show€that€the€failure€to€name€theseÐ ,`'* Ðdefendants€in€the€original€complaints€resulted€from€a€mistake€concerning€theirÐ ° Ðidentity.€The€defendants€must€remain€those€named€in€the€original€pleadings.€€€€Ð  ð ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àà ` àOur€review€of€the€Rule€in€question€and€the€foregoing€authority€addressing€it,Ð €Ð Ðconvinces€us€that€there€are€two€types€of€amendments€that€may€relate€back.€€The€first€is€one€whereÐ pÀ Ðthe€claim€asserted€is€not€a€new€cause€of€action,€but€rather€arose€out€of€the€occurrence€set€forth€orÐ ` ° Ðattempted€to€be€set€forth€in€the€original€pleading.€€The€second,€which€Ms.€Frazier€asserts€isÐ P   Ðcontrolling,€addresses€changing€of€a€party€defendant.€€It€is€clear€to€us€that€in€the€case€at€bar€there€wasÐ @  Ðno€ð ðmisnomer€or€other€similar€mistake.ðð€€Ð 0 € ÐÌà  àà ` à€While€it€is€true€that€the€original€complaint€transposed€some€words€in€the€proper€nameÐ `  Ðof€Baptist€Hospital,€no€objection€was€made€as€to€this€in€the€answer€filed€by€the€Hospital,€whichÐ P  Ðspecifically€states€in€the€caption€the€correct€name„„Baptist€Hospital€of€East€Tennessee,€Inc.€€Thus,Ð ð@  Ðthe€Hospital€made€a€general€appearance€using€its€correct€name.€€Moreover,€the€amended€complaintÐ à0  Ðagain€used€the€incorrect€name€for€the€Hospital,€but€the€motion€to€dismiss€again€uses€the€correctÐ Ð  Ðname.€€Accordingly,€we€find€no€ð ðmisnomer€or€mistake€concerningðð€identity,€which€would€enableÐ À ÐMs.€Frazier€to€claim€the€benefits€of€the€Rule€15.03.Ð ° ÐÌà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed€and€the€case€remandedÐ à Ðfor€collection€of€costs€below.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€adjudged€against€Ms.€Frazier,€as€Administratrix,Ð €Ð Ðand€her€surety.Ð pÀ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à_________________________________________Ð 0€ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àHOUSTON€M.€GODDARD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÐ  p ÐÐ  ` ÐÑ  Ñà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àò òAPPENDIXó óÐ ° ÐÌÌÌÔ‡X9ô XXXøCÔà  àò ò28-1-105.€New€action€after€adverse€decision€-€Contractual€limitations€periodsó ó.„„(a)€€IfÐ pÀ Ðthe€action€is€commenced€within€the€time€limited€by€a€rule€or€statute€of€limitation,€but€the€judgmentÐ ` ° Ðor€decree€is€rendered€against€the€plaintiff€upon€any€ground€not€concluding€the€plaintiff's€right€ofÐ L œ Ðaction,€or€where€the€judgment€or€decree€is€rendered€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff,€and€is€arrested,€orÐ 8 ˆ Ðreversed€on€appeal,€the€plaintiff,€or€the€plaintiff's€representatives€and€privies,€as€the€case€may€be,Ð $ t Ðmay,€from€time€to€time,€commence€a€new€action€within€one€(1)€year€after€the€reversal€or€arrest.Ð  `  ÐActions€originally€commenced€in€general€sessions€court€and€subsequently€recommenced€pursuantÐ ü L  Ðto€this€section€in€circuit€or€chancery€court€shall€not€be€subject€to€the€monetary€jurisdictional€limitÐ è8  Ðoriginally€imposed€in€the€general€sessions€court.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌÌÌà  àò ò15.03€Relation€Back€of€Amendments.ó ó„„Whenever€the€claim€or€defense€asserted€in€theÐ „Ô Ðamended€pleadings€arose€out€of€the€conduct,€transaction€or€occurrence€set€forth€or€attempted€to€beÐ tÄ Ðset€forth€in€the€original€pleading,€the€amendment€relates€back€to€the€date€of€the€original€pleading.€AnÐ `° Ðamendment€changing€the€party€or€the€naming€of€the€party€by€or€against€whom€a€claim€is€assertedÐ Lœ Ðrelates€back€if€the€foregoing€provision€is€satisfied€and€if,€within€the€period€provided€by€law€forÐ 8ˆ Ðcommencing€an€action€or€within€120€days€after€commencement€of€the€action,€the€party€to€be€broughtÐ $t Ðin€by€amendment€(1)€has€received€such€notice€of€the€institution€of€the€action€that€the€party€will€notÐ ` Ðbe€prejudiced€in€maintaining€a€defense€on€the€merits,€and€(2)€knew€or€should€have€known€that,€butÐ üL Ðfor€a€mistake€concerning€the€identity€of€the€proper€party,€the€action€would€have€been€brought€againstÐ è8 Ðthe€party.Ð Ô$ Ѐ€Ô#†XøCX XX9ôq_#ÔÔ‡X9ô XXXøCÔÐ À ÐÔ#†XøCX XX9ôh#Ô