ÿWPCà  :#!<UN] %« 0ñ±UN¢w@ð40D 0dS 0X· {X 05g 0Dœ 0 à 0Jí 0T7 0^‹ Æé N¯± m³ 0hÊ 0r2¤ 0|¬ 0†( AQ®Æÿ BÅ 0@â 0D" 0f D/ö 1u% Bš D3· 0dêU>NB)ŒDCµ AMøU*E°oSv~rvÓð˜Tech HP4si,ü,,,,,ü0(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(Ɇ$¡¡Ñ°°ÑѰ°ÑÒ°°ÒÒ°°ÒÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓÔ€X”XXXÔ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular   U U V V U U Ó€  uYf#úÿÿú, ú3|x (Wf|$ÄÄò òòòà@ìì*ìàÔ  ÔÔ AÔó óóó(_¸Ç$ÈÈà0  àòòÔ  ÔÔ 8Ôóó(_¸Ç$ÈÈà0  àòòÔ  ÔÔ 8Ôóó(å(3èY$¤¤Ý ƒ†!ÝѰ°ÑѰ°ÑÒ°°ÒÒ°°ÒÓ  ÓÑTR[¨ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÔ€XáqXXXÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(å3FÛ$¢¢Ý ƒ†!ÝѰ°ÑѰ°ÑÒ°°ÒÒ°°ÒÓ  ÓÑTR[¨ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÔ€XáqXXXÔÝ  Ý2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô!#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(('÷ÿ dxd% ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)üÿP Pd""""'ÿÿdxdP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d22227Border 1dd!#3Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ¦Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€1ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€5ÔÔ€5ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔÓÓFILEDÔ€5XÔÌÌNovemberÏ19,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.ÏÔ_ÔCrowsonÔ_ÔÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó IÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓAmong€other€things,€Geraldo€told€the€Honor€Council€that€she€could€not€have€copied€pagesÏto€substitute€on€her€tests€because€she€has€ð ða€big€fear€of€copy€machines.€.€.€.ðð€€She€explained€thatÏher€ð ðhand€got€stuck€in€oneðð€and€that€ð ðphysically,€there€was€no€wayðð€she€could€have€done€it.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€1ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÙ€!ÙÓÓò òÔ_ÔßR€463A1-j|êÿ ` ä `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌò òà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóÌNANCY€CATHERINE€GERALDO,à à)à àÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àPlaintiff/Appellant,ò òà àà àà à)à àó óDavidson€Chancery€No.€96„307„IIÌò òà àà àà àà àà àà à)ó óà àà àÌò òv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óAppeal€No.€01A01„9610„CH„00467ò òÌVANDERBILT€UNIVERSITY,€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óDefendant/Appellee,ò òà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€ELLEN€Ô_ÔHOBBSÔ_Ô€LYLE,€CHANCELLORÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiff/Appellant:à àà àà àFor€the€Defendant/Appellee:ÌóóÌDavid€E.€Ô_ÔDannerÔ_Ô€€€€€à àà àà àà àWilliam€N.€Ô_ÔOzierÔ_Ô€€€€€€€€€ÌNashville,€Tennessee€à àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Nashville,€TennesseeÌÌÌò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAFFIRMED€ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€Ô_ÔLILLARDÔ_Ô,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCURS:ÌòòÌóóALAN€E.€Ô_ÔHIGHERSÔ_Ô,€J.€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€€J.ÌÌÌÌÌÇØØÙ  ÙÓÓÔ_ÔÑ8€ìÑXXdðXXdì8ÑÑ  Ñà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌà àThis€case€involves€a€challenge€to€a€student€disciplinary€board€proceeding€at€a€privateÏuniversity.€€The€student€alleges,€among€other€things,€€that€the€university€breached€its€contract€withÏher€and€violated€her€rights€to€due€process€and€fundamental€fairness.€€The€trial€court€grantedÏsummary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€university.€€We€affirm.Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant€Nancy€Catherine€Geraldo€(ð ðGeraldoðð)€was€a€sophomore€attending€ÏDefendant/Appellee€Vanderbilt€University€(ð ðVanderbiltðð).€€In€November€1995,€Geraldo€wasÏenrolled€in€a€class€taught€by€Adjunct€Assistant€Professor€Lori€Troxel€(ð ðTroxelðð).€Troxel€posted€aÏgrade€sheet€for€her€class,€indicating€her€studentsðð€grades€for€all€tests€and€assignments€through€thatÏdate.€€Shortly€after€the€grade€sheet€was€posted,€Geraldo€confronted€Troxel€with€two€tests€on€which€ÏGeraldo€alleged€she€scored€a€grade€higher€than€the€grade€indicated€on€the€posted€grade€sheet.€AfterÏexamining€the€tests,€Troxel€became€suspicious€that€the€tests€had€been€altered.€€These€allegedÏalterations€included€the€change€of€a€grade€from€a€ð ð57"€to€an€ð ð87,ðð€the€appearance€that€the€quality€ofÏpaper€of€some€pages€of€the€tests€were€different€than€others,€and€notations€made€by€a€marker€thatÏthe€professor€did€not€use.Ìà àTroxel€reported€the€incident€to€the€Honor€Council.€€Two€student€members€of€the€HonorÏCouncil€issued€a€report€(ð ðinvestigatorsðð€reportðð)€based€on€a€conversation€with€Troxel.€€The€HonorÏCouncil€then€held€a€formal€hearing€on€December€5,€1995.€€The€hearing€and€the€related€proceedingsÏwere€governed€by€the€procedures€set€forth€in€the€òòVanderbilt€University€Student€HandbookóóÏ(ð ðhandbookðð).€Ìà àGeraldo€attended€the€Honor€Council€hearing.€€The€record€does€not€indicate€that€she€wasÏrepresented€by€an€attorney€at€this€point.€€She€was€shown€the€test€papers€and€questioned€about€theÏalterations€appearing€on€the€tests€and€the€difference€in€the€quality€of€paper€used€for€some€pages€ofÏthe€tests.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€After€the€hearing,€the€Honor€Council€unanimously€concluded€that€Geraldo€was€guilty€ofÍfalsifying€her€test€scores.€€After€considering€the€flagrancy,€premeditation,€and€dishonesty€of€theÏoffense,€€the€Honor€Council€recommended€Geraldoððs€expulsion€by€a€vote€of€€11„1.Ìà àOn€December€14,€1995,€Geraldo€appealed€the€Honor€Councilððs€action€to€the€VanderbiltÏAppellate€Review€Board€(ð ðARBðð),€in€accordance€with€guidelines€in€the€handbook.€€Geraldo€wasÏrepresented€by€counsel€during€the€appellate€process.€€Geraldo€argues€that€her€attorney€wasÏwrongfully€denied€access€to€the€original€test€papers.€Ìà à€On€January€17,€1996,€the€ARB€met€to€consider€Geraldoððs€appeal.€€Geraldoððs€counsel€wasÏnot€present€at€the€meeting.€€The€ARB€advised€Geraldo€the€next€day€that€it€had€unanimously€votedÏto€uphold€the€Honor€Councilððs€decision.€€Geraldo€was€then€expelled€from€the€university.Ìà àGeraldo€filed€a€complaint€in€Davidson€County€Chancery€Court€on€January€29,€1996.€ÏGeraldoððs€Amended€Complaint€sought€to€enjoin€Vanderbilt€from€expelling€Geraldo€and€soughtÏdamages€from€Vanderbilt€for€breach€of€contract,€conversion,€and€outrageous€conduct.Ìà àIn€June€1996,€both€parties€moved€for€summary€judgment.€€Geraldo€also€filed€a€motion€toÏamend€her€complaint€a€second€time.€€Geraldo€filed€objections€to€affidavits€proffered€by€VanderbiltÏin€support€of€its€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€After€hearing€these€motions,€the€ChancellorÏgranted€Vanderbiltððs€motion€for€summary€judgment,€denied€Geraldoððs€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment,€and€denied€Geraldoððs€motion€to€amend€her€complaint.Ìà àOn€appeal,€Geraldo€raises€a€host€of€issues.€€The€issues€raised€include€GeraldoððsÏcontentions€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€Vanderbilt€sinceÏVanderbilt€breached€its€contract€with€Geraldo,€violated€Geraldoððs€rights€to€due€process€andÏfundamental€fairness€and€because€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€existed.€€Geraldo€also€argues€thatÏthe€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€rule€on€Geraldoððs€objections€to€the€entry€into€evidence€of€affidavitsÏfiled€by€Vanderbilt€in€support€of€its€motion.€€In€addition,€Geraldo€maintains€that€the€trial€court€erredÏin€denying€Geraldoððs€motion€to€amend€her€complaint.Ìà àA€motion€for€summary€judgment€should€be€granted€when€the€movant€demonstrates€thatÏthere€are€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€aÍmatter€of€law.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.03.€€The€party€moving€for€summary€judgment€bears€theÏburden€of€demonstrating€that€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists.€€ò òòòByrd€v.€Hallóóó ó,€847ÏS.W.2d€208,€211€(Tenn.€1993).€€On€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€court€must€take€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,€allow€all€reasonableÏinferences€in€favor€of€that€party,€and€discard€all€countervailing€evidence.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€210„11.€€SummaryÏjudgment€is€only€appropriate€when€the€facts€and€the€legal€conclusions€drawn€from€the€factsÏreasonably€permit€only€one€conclusion.€€ò òòòCarvell€v.€Bottomsó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.Ï1995).€€Since€only€questions€of€law€œÌÌÌare›€involved,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€regarding€a€trial€court's€grant€of€summaryÏjudgment.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€Therefore,€our€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€is€ò òòòde€novoó óóóÏon€the€record€before€this€Court.€€ò òòòId.óóó óÌà àGeraldo€argues€first€that€Vanderbilt€breached€its€contract€with€Geraldo.€€Geraldo€assertsÏthat€the€student€handbook€created€a€contract€between€Geraldo€and€Vanderbilt,€and€that€VanderbiltÏbreached€this€contract€by:€denying€her€access€to€her€test€papers,€denying€her€a€right€to€counselÏduring€the€appellate€process,€denying€her€a€presumption€of€innocence€during€the€Honor€CouncilÏhearings,€ignoring€an€inaccurate€statement€in€the€investigatorsðð€report,€violating€the€impliedÏcovenant€of€good€faith€and€fair€dealing,€and€conducting€the€appeals€process€in€an€ð ðatmosphere€ofÏinstitutional€hostility.ðð€€Geraldo€also€maintains€that€her€expulsion€was€counter€to€the€punishmentÏmeted€out€by€€Vanderbilt€in€previous€instances.Ìà àEven€assuming,€without€deciding,€that€a€contract€existed€between€Geraldo€and€VanderbiltÏwith€respect€to€the€disciplinary€proceedings,€Geraldoððs€contentions€can€only€be€characterized€asÏinsubstantial€and€without€merit.€Ìà àGeraldo€first€alleges€that€Vanderbilt€breached€the€contract€since€the€ARB€denied€her€accessÏto€the€Honor€Council€records,€including€her€original€tests.€€Geraldo€argues€that€the€handbookÍincorporates€by€reference€the€federal€Family€Educational€Rights€and€Privacy€Act€(ð ðFERPAðð),€andÏthat€FERPA€requires€Vanderbilt€to€provide€her€with€access€to€her€academic€work.€€20€U.S.C.A.€ððÏ1232g€(Supp.€1997).€€However,€FERPA€does€not€create€a€private€cause€of€action.€€ò òòòSee,€e.g,ÏTarka€v.€Cunningham,ó óóó€891€F.2d€102,€104€(5th€Cir.€1989);€ò òòòFay€v.€South€ColonieÏCentral€School€Dist.ó óóó,€802€F.2d€21,€33€(2nd€Cir.€1986).€€Second,€Geraldo€was€admittedlyÏgiven€access€to€her€original€tests€during€the€Honor€Council€proceedings.€€In€addition,€theÏhandbook€enumerates€the€ð ðgrounds€for€reviewðð€that€the€ARB€may€consider.€€Examples€listedÏinclude€the€determination€of€whether€the€Honor€Council€adhered€to€its€procedures,€the€evidenceÏwas€sufficient€to€support€the€Honor€Councilððs€ruling,€and€the€penalty€was€justified.€€The€handbookÏalso€states€that,€ð ð[o]nly€in€extraordinary€circumstances€would€the€board€reconsider€the€entire€case.ðð€ÏConsideration€of€Geraldoððs€appeal€did€not€constitute€an€ð ðextraordinary€circumstanceðð€which€wouldÏnecessitate€a€review€of€the€original€test€papers€in€the€ARB€proceeding.€€This€argument€is€withoutÏmerit.€ÌœÇ›à àGeraldo€next€contends€that€Vanderbilt€breached€the€contract€by€denying€her€a€right€to€beÏrepresented€by€counsel€during€the€ARB€hearing.€€The€handbook€states:à8 àÌÓÓà8 àAn€accused€may€obtain€professional€legal€representation,€advice,€and€counsel.€ÏHowever,€an€attorney€may€not€participate€in€or€be€present€during€an€Honor€CouncilÏhearing.€.€.€An€attorney€representing€an€accused€is€encouraged€to€contact€the€OfficeÏof€General€Counsel€and€to€work€directly€with€that€office.€€Ìò òÌÓÓó óThe€handbook€does€not€grant€the€student€the€right€to€have€counsel€present€during€the€ARB€hearing.€ÏIn€fact,€the€handbook€does€not€grant€the€student€òòherselfóó€the€right€to€be€present€during€thisÏproceeding.€€Therefore,€the€handbook€did€not€create€a€contractual€right€for€Geraldoððs€attorney€to€beÏpresent€during€her€ARB€hearing.Ìà àGeraldo€next€asserts€that€the€Honor€Council€denied€Geraldo€her€contractual€right€to€aÏpresumption€of€innocence,€citing€the€handbookððs€statement€that€an€accused€is€presumed€innocentÏuntil€proven€guilty.€€Geraldo€argues€that€the€Honor€Council€breached€this€provision€by€asking€herÏto€explain€the€discrepancies€evident€in€the€tests.€€Geraldo€contends€that€since€she€was€ð ðunder€theÏgunðð€to€provide€an€innocent€justification€for€the€alterations,€she€was€presumed€guilty.Ìà àObviously,€the€original€tests€and€Troxelððs€statements€were€evidence€that€Geraldo€was€guiltyÏof€altering€the€tests.€€It€is€not€difficult€to€imagine€Geraldoððs€argument€had€she€òònotóó€been€given€theÏopportunity€to€explain€the€apparent€alterations.€€This€argument€is€without€merit.€à àÌà àGeraldo€next€contends€that,€in€light€of€the€ð ðusages€of€Vanderbilt,ðð€the€university€violatedÏthe€contract€by€expelling€her€based€on€a€first€offense.€€Citing€various€statistics,€€Geraldo€argues€thatÏsince€it€has€been€extremely€rare€in€the€past€for€a€student€to€be€expelled,€Vanderbilt€breached€itsÏcontract€by€expelling€her.Ìà àGeraldo€cites€no€authority€for€her€argument.€€The€handbook€states€that€a€student€may€beÏexpelled€for€an€honor€code€violation.€€The€Honor€Council€hears€each€case€individually€andÏdetermines€punishment€based€on€the€flagrancy€of€the€violation,€premeditation,€and€the€accusedððsÏtruthfulness€throughout€the€process.€€In€this€case,€the€Honor€Council€apparently€found€thatÏGeraldo€was€not€credible,€that€the€test€alteration€was€flagrant€and€premeditated,€and€that€even€afterÍit€was€detected€Geraldo€continued€to€maintain€an€untruthful€stance.€€The€Honor€Council€was€fullyÏwarranted€in€determining€that€expulsion€was€the€appropriate€discipline.Ìà àGeraldo€further€alleges€that€Vanderbilt€breached€the€contract€because€the€investigatorsððÏreport€contained€a€factual€error.€€According€to€Geraldo,€the€Honor€Council€relied€on€the€reportððsÏstatement€that€the€tests€œcontained€marks€from›€two€different€types€of€red€writing€utensils€utilized€toÏgrade€the€tests,€as€well€as€the€reportððs€ð ðincorrectðð€statement€that€Professor€Troxel€never€used€aÏmarker€to€grade€the€exams.€€Because€the€Honor€Council€relied€on€the€investigatorsðð€report,€GeraldoÏargues€that€Vanderbilt€breached€its€contract€by€overlooking€the€reportððs€inaccuracy.Ìà àTroxel€testified€that€she€used€a€red€ð ðflair€tip€penðð€to€grade€tests,€but€never€used€a€redÏð ðmarker.ðð€€The€altered€tests€included€marks€made€with€a€ð ðmarker.ðð€€There€is€no€indication€that€theÏreport€is€inaccurate.€€€€Geraldoððs€argument€is€wholly€without€merit.€Ìà àGeraldo€further€contends€that€a€letter€sent€from€Honor€Council€President€Cory€HartquistÏ(ð ðHartquistðð)€to€the€ARB€concerning€Geraldoððs€appeal€violated€the€ð ðimplied€covenant€of€good€faithÏin€contract.ðð€€This€claim€is€based€on€the€letterððs€statement€that€ð ðProfessor€Troxel€testified€[at€theÏHonor€Council€hearing]€that€she€never€used€marker€in€grading€anything.ðð€€Geraldo€argues€that€thisÏalleged€inaccuracy€constitutes€a€ð ðbad€faith€pronouncementðð€and€a€breach€of€contract.Ìà àGeraldo€again€attempts€to€manufacture€an€argument€based€on€use€of€the€term€ð ðmarker,ðð€asÏopposed€to€ð ðflair€tip€pen.ðð€€Troxelððs€testimony€can€only€be€interpreted€to€mean€that€the€altered€testsÏcontained€marks€from€a€writing€instrument€that€she€did€not€use€in€grading€tests.ò ò€€ó óThere€is€noÏindication€that€the€Hartquist€letter€is€inaccurate.€€This€argument€is€completely€without€merit.€Ìà àGeraldo€next€argues€that€the€ARBððs€consideration€of€her€appeal€was€ð ðconducted€in€anÏatmosphere€of€institutional€hostility€to€her€contractual€right€to€appeal.ðð€€According€to€Geraldo,€theÏARB€acted€in€an€ð ðarbitrary€and€hostile€mannerðð€by€denying€her€access€to€her€original€test€papers.ÌAs€noted€above,€Geraldo€admittedly€was€given€access€to€the€original€test€papers€in€the€HonorÏCouncil€proceeding€and€had€no€right€to€them€in€the€ARB€proceeding.€€This€argument€is€withoutÏmerit.€Ìà àGeraldoððs€brief€on€appeal€repeats€the€identical€litany€of€arguments,€alleging€they€constituted€Ïviolation€of€Geraldoððs€right€to€ð ðfundamental€fairness.ðð€€Geraldo€cites€cases€in€other€jurisdictionsÏwhich€recognize€this€cause€of€action€independent€of€an€action€for€breach€of€contract.€€The€essenceÏof€her€contention€is€that€a€university€has€a€duty€to€refrain€from€expelling€a€student€in€an€arbitrary€orÏcapricious€manner.Ìà àAs€discussed€above,€Geraldoððs€arguments€are€without€merit.€€Indeed,€the€record€establishesÏthat€the€proceedings€against€Geraldo€were€conducted€in€a€fair€manner€and€that€the€discipline€wasÏappropriate€to€the€offense.€€Geraldoððs€argument€on€this€legal€theory€is€without€merit.€ÌœÌÌ›à àGeraldo€also€asserts€on€appeal€that€summary€judgment€was€inappropriate€because€newÏaffidavits€filed€before€the€hearing€created€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact.€€Geraldo€maintains€that€Ïher€filing€of€an€affidavit€by€Nancy€Geraldo,€stating€that€she€did€not€alter€the€tests,€was€sufficient€toÏcreate€a€general€issue€of€material€fact.Ìà àHowever,€the€issues€before€the€trial€court,€and€this€Court,€do€not€concern€whether€GeraldoÏactually€committed€the€offense.€€Rather,€the€trial€court€was€to€examine€whether€the€proceedingsÏagainst€Geraldo€were€handled€in€accordance€with€her€legal€rights.€€Geraldoððs€affidavit,€denying€thatÏshe€altered€the€tests,€do€not€create€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€as€to€the€issues€before€the€trialÏcourt.€€This€argument€is€without€merit.€Ìà àGeraldo€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€granting€summary€judgment€withoutÏruling€on€Geraldoððs€objections€to€the€affidavits€submitted€by€Vanderbilt€in€support€of€its€motionÏsummary€judgment.€€Geraldo€argues€that€these€affidavits€violate€Rules€402,€403,€and€801€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Evidenceòò,€óóbecause€they€are€irrelevant,€prejudicial,€œand€contain›€hearsay.Ìà àð ðRulings€on€the€introduction€of€evidence€are€usually€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judgeÏand€will€not€be€reversed€except€for€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.ððòò€€ò òDockery€v.€Board€of€Prof.ÏResponsibility,ó óóó€937€S.W.2d€863,€866€(Tenn.€1996).€€In€granting€Vanderbiltððs€motion€summaryÍjudgment,€€the€trial€court€implicitly€overruled€Geraldoððs€objections€to€the€supporting€affidavits.€ÏOur€review€of€the€affidavits€indicate€no€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€trial€court.€€This€argument€isÏwithout€merit.€€€Ìà àFinally,€Geraldo€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€her€motion€to€amend€herÏcomplaint.€€Geraldo€sought€to€amend€her€complaint€ð ðto€conform€to€the€issues€developed€inÏdiscovery€and€contained€in€her€memorandum€in€support€of€her€motion€for€summary€judgment.ðð€Ìà àA€trial€courtððs€denial€of€a€Rule€15€motion€to€amend€is€discretionary€and,€on€appeal,€€anÏabuse€of€that€discretion€must€be€shown.€€ò òòòWilson€v.€Ricciardi,ó óóó€778€S.W.2d€450,€453€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1989).€€Geraldo€does€not€explain€how€granting€her€motion€to€amend€would€have€preventedÏsummary€judgment€from€being€entered€against€her.€€We€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€trialÏcourt.€ÌœÇ›€ÔT€ Ôà àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€against€the€Appellant,Ïfor€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóALAN€E.€HIGHERSÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€€J.ó ó