ÿWPC& gH’ZßïUy\aÁeëxšØ«ôc©TÖüð}Éø{^ù5{Ò¡µº}£‘üÞÈJE úC×­—I*L±Kn2|Y=ºU¸cÔ_Š•Ë¼#‡G˜½}ß{fëL¾í-0ãÀ^6nýd/ÂB(ž l0Iì œ“Y^Înàq—aÕ^/ënFÊ«°‰ÍýÔ6‡Sî)è_ ùæø|[¾‘YçJoß$­µ`Ø÷ÝO¢Pg=ogº›b€ o¸Q…v žQïO©fæ×À©• ØCâŽ=àÉzh}ÄûC tÁ…g½"|µ"bYœ0¥–ä’S—%qPyÊÑQª$€ÍYŠy Rvôõ;žu•n'ˆ Qÿ‡‚:i¾6¹ïÑÔúaI¯a2Ž0ä-uGY|•ðHSøÓ40Q#W`ÅÑZ ;×™Ø,´àìK»¨@•Š™Õk1 :‡ºRУ`8I‚ÞÀs;¸ÓôjyÖ*F/Ò¬§º`}^ë©áŒo’¼ÎÚº™Û¡Eœ¦´ÿ«HŸXÛ;í˜=Ž1¥3]ãÝͳ§šäá,üK‘#Ù‰’Ê>4f`×Enã&BgÔƒ·²Â%¾ {w ˆû dÉdVwbUN\ %ª 0ˆ°^ 8wD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ Ð #ÁØ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë U N±NÿEb 0ë#### B 0¤+ D3Ï D- 0K// ASzÆÍ 0¤“ 0D7 A«{(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ól:+â òK+t)t€Wpdocs3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ѰHÑ- ù-(|G2íä$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ Í»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô^1ò»»Ô d(|3o$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ Í»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3o$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ Í»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑH°ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Í»»»ÔÑ8€_ XXdê»»d 8ÑÑ  ÑÑ€wˆÑà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îÉñÍÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ H Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼Í»îîÉñ+#ԈРn& ÐÓ  ÓJuly€13,€2001€SessionÐ ”L ÐÔ‡X‹ìX»¼ÍÔÌò òÔ#†¼Í»XX‹ì#ÔJERRY€ALLEN€GRACE,€òòet€al.óó€v.€MOUNTAIN€STATES€HEALTHÐ ’J ÐALLIANCE,€d/b/a/€JOHNSON€CITY€MEDICAL€CENTER€HOSPITAL,€òòetÐ ¦^ Ðalóó.Ô‡X‹ìX»¼ÍÔó óÐ º r ÐÌà@@  ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Law€Court€for€Washington€CountyÐ º r Ðà@@õ õ ìàNo.€20423€€€€€€Thomas€J.€Seeley,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ ¦ ^  ÐÌFILED€SEPTEMBER€25,€2001Ð ~6  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<i` AßÐ j"  ÐÌà@@ÏÏìàNo.€E2000„03031„COA„R3„CVÐ e  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<<` AßÐ =õ Ðó óÌÓ  ÓIn€this€medical€malpractice€suit€the€Trial€Court€granted€a€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€Ô#†¼Í»XX‹ìü#ÔÔ‡X‹ìX»¼ÍÔMountainÐ 8ð ÐStates€Health€Alliance,€d/b/a/€Johnson€City€Medical€Center€Hospital€and€five€Doctors.€€The€TrialÐ $Ü ÐCourt€overruled€the€Plaintiffsðð€motion€to€alter€or€amend€his€determination€that€all€Defendants€wereÐ È Ðentitled€to€summary€judgment.€As€to€the€Doctors,€the€determination€was€predicated€upon€the€motionÐ ü´ Ðto€alter€or€amend€not€being€timely€filed,€and€as€to€the€Medical€Center€on€the€grounds€that€the€delayÐ è  Ðin€submitting€materials€accompanying€the€motion€to€alter€or€amend€was€not€justified.€€We€affirm.Ð ÔŒ ÐÌò òà@22ìàTenn.R.App.P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmed;ˆÐ ¬d Ðà@#ìàCause€Remandedó óˆÐ ˜P ÐÌòòÔ#†¼Í»àX‹ì™#ÔÔ‡X‹ìX.¼ÍÔHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,óóÐ p( Ðand€òòD.€Michael€Swiney,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð \ ÐÌBob€McD€Green,€Johnson€City,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellants,€Jerry€Allen€Grace€and€wife,€WandaÐ 4ì ÐGraceÐ  Ø  ÐÌM.€Stanley€Givens€and€Frank€H.€Anderson,€Jr.,€Johnson€City,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee,€MountainÐ ø!°" ÐStates€Health€Alliance,€d/b/a€Johnson€City€Medical€Center€HospitalÐ ä"œ# ÐÌJeffrey€M.€Ward,€Greeneville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee,€Rachel€Monderer,€M.D.Ð ¼$t!% ÐÌRichard€M.€Currie,€Jr.,€Kingsport,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee,€Claude€C.€Haws,€M.D.Ð ”&L#' ÐÌCharles€T.€Herndon,€Johnson€City,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee,€Steven€C.€Hamel,€M.D.Ð l($%) ÐÌJimmie€C.€Miller,€Kingsport,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee,€Kenneth€Turner,€M.D.Ð D*ü&+ ÐÌNo€Brief€was€filed€for€the€Appellee,€James€L.€Davenport,€M.D.Ð ,Ô(- ÐÌÐ ô-¬*/ý ÐÑwˆÑâ âѰHÑâ âÑ  Ñò òà@66'ìàOPINIONˆÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÌó óÓ  Óà  àThis€is€a€medical€malpractice€suit€brought€by€Jerry€Allen€Grace€and€his€wife,€Wanda€Grace,Ð ˆØ Ðagainst€Mountain€States€Health€Alliance,€d/b/a€Johnson€City€Medical€Center€Hospital,€and€Drs.Ð tÄ ÐRachael€Monderer,€Steven€C.€Hamel,€Claude€C.€Haws,€Kenneth€Turner,€and€James€L.€Davenport.€Ð `° ÐMrs.€Grace€seeks€damages€for€injuries€she€received€which€she€alleges€were€caused€by€the€negligenceÐ L œ Ðof€the€Defendants,€and€Mr.€Grace€seeks€damages€for€loss€of€consortium.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àWe€first€note€that€during€oral€argument€counsel€for€the€Plaintiffs€announced€that€they€wereÐ  ` Ðabandoning€their€appeal€as€to€Drs.€Hamel€and€Haws.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àAs€to€all€Defendants€except€the€Hospital,€the€Trial€Court€found€that€the€motion€of€theÐ Ô$  ÐPlaintiffs€to€alter€or€amend€a€summary€judgment€granted€to€them€was€not€timely€filed€and€overruledÐ À  Ðthe€Plaintiffs'€motion.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€Plaintiffs€insist€that€under€the€provisions€of€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€6.05€they€are€entitled€to€addÐ „Ô  Ðthree€days€to€the€time€specified,€which€would€make€their€motion€timely.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€Johnson€City€Medical€Center,€although€the€motion€to€alter€or€amend€wasÐ H˜ Ðtimely,€the€Trial€Court€nevertheless€found€that€counsel€was€not€entitled€to€supplement€the€evidenceÐ 4„ Ðpreviously€filed€bearing€on€the€liability€of€the€Medical€Center.Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€Plaintiffs€appeal€and,€as€already€noted,€contend€as€to€the€Doctors€that€their€motion€toÐ øH Ðalter€or€amend€was€timely,€and€as€to€the€Medical€Center€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€refusing€to€entertainÐ ä4 Ðthe€affidavits€filed€with€the€motion.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àUnlike€most€appeals€from€grants€of€summary€judgment,€this€appeal€as€to€the€Doctors€doesÐ ¨ø Ðnot€turn€on€whether€there€is€a€dispute€of€material€fact,€but,€rather,€is€a€question€of€law€respecting€theÐ ”ä Ðapplicability€of€the€Rule€hereinbefore€referenced€to€time€limitation€vis„a„vis€motions€to€alter€orÐ €Ð Ðamend.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àRule€6.05€provides€the€following:Ð D!” ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°Òò ò6.05.€€Additional€Time€after€Service€by€Mail.„„ó ó€Whenever€a€party€has€the€rightÐ #l! Ðor€is€required€to€do€some€act€or€take€some€proceedings€within€a€prescribed€periodÐ  $\" Ðafter€the€service€of€a€notice€or€other€paper€upon€such€party€and€the€notice€or€paperÐ ø$H # Ðis€served€upon€such€party€by€mail€three€(3)€days€shall€be€added€to€the€prescribedÐ ä%4!$ Ðperiod.Ð Ð& "% ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àThe€limitation€of€the€period€to€alter€or€amend€is€30€days.€€In€the€present€case€the€orderÐ ¨(ø#' Ðgranting€summary€judgment€to€the€Defendant€Doctors€was€entered€on€August€23,€and€the€motion€toÐ ”)ä$( Ðalter€or€amend€was€not€filed€until€September€25,€which€would€be€three€days€beyond€the€deadline€ofÐ €*Ð%) ÐSeptember€22.Ð l+¼&* Їà  àThe€Plaintiffs€cite€a€treatise€titled,€ð ðWeissenbergerððs€Tennessee€Civil€Practice€Manual,ððÐ ° Ðwhich€supports€their€insistence€relative€to€the€applicability€of€Rule€6.05.€€However,€there€are€severalÐ œì ÐTennessee€cases„„which€we€believe€are€controlling„„that€hold€to€the€contrary.€€In€òòHouseal€v.€Robertsóó,Ð ˆØ Ð709€S.W.2d€580€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984),€this€Court,€in€addressing€Rule€6.05,€the€context€of€an€appealÐ tÄ Ðfrom€a€ruling€of€the€Commissioner€of€the€Department€of€Safety€ordering€the€forfeiture€of€certainÐ `° Ðmoney€received,€which€appeal€is€initiated€by€filing€a€petition€of€review€within€60€days€after€the€entryÐ L œ Ðof€the€adverse€administrative€ruling,€found€that€the€Rule€in€question€was€not€applicable,€using€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðfollowing€language:Ð $ t ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°Òà Ø àThe€appellants€argue€that€because€they€were€apprised€Ô#†¼Í»XX‹ìþ#ÔÔ€X‹ìX»¼ÍÔof€the€decision€of€theÐ ü L  ÐDepartment€of€Safety€through€the€mail€they€should€have€been€allowed€three€extraÐ è 8  Ðdays€to€file€the€petition€as€Rule€6.05€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€ProcedureÐ Ô$  Ðprovides.€€However,€we€note€that€the€three€day€extension€is€applicable€only€toÐ À  Ðthose€situations€where€a€party€"is€required€to€do€some€act€or€take€someÐ ¬ü  Ðproceedings€within€a€prescribed€period€òòafter€the€service€of€a€notice€or€other€paperÐ ˜è  Ðupon€him.óó"€€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€6.05€(Emphasis€supplied).€€The€statute€which€imposesÐ „Ô  Ðthe€sixty€day€limitation€on€the€appellants€in€this€case€provides€that€the€period€runsÐ pÀ Ðfrom€the€date€of€the€entry€of€the€agency's€final€order.€€T.C.A.€ðð€4-5-322€(1982).€Ð \¬ ÐNotice€is€not€mentioned€in€the€statute.€€òòIdóó.€€Therefore,€we€believe€Rule€6.05€isÐ H˜ Ðinapposite.Ð 4„ ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àTwo€later€cases,€òòCheairs€v.€Lawsonóó,€815€S.W.2d€533€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991),€€(also€involvingÐ  \ Ðthe€petition€of€review€for€a€forfeiture€order€of€the€Department€of€Safety)€and€òòBegley€LumberÐ øH ÐCompany,€Inc.€v.€Trammellóó,€15€S.W.3d€455€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999),€(a€Rule€3€appeal)€construed€theÐ ä4 ÐRule,€as€did€the€òòHousealóó€Court.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€accordance€with€the€foregoing€authority,€we€find€the€motions€as€to€the€Defendant€DoctorsÐ ¨ø Ðwas€not€timely€and€that€the€Trial€Courtððs€action€in€denying€the€motion€was€appropriate.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àAs€to€the€motion€insofar€as€it€concerns€the€Medical€Center,€the€Trial€Court€made€theÐ l¼ Ðfollowing€finding:Ð X ¨ ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°ÒAs€to€defendant,€Mountain€States€Health€Alliance,€d/b/a€Johnson€City€MedicalÐ 0"€  ÐCenter,€the€Court€found€that€there€was€no€evidence€of€justification€for€the€delayÐ #l! Ðof€submission€of€an€expert€affidavit€by€plaintiffs€and€that€the€plaintiffs€were€awareÐ $X" Ðof€the€alleged€wrong€medication€being€administered€since€the€filing€of€the€firstÐ ô$D # ÐComplaint€and€should€have,€with€due€diligence,€earlier€obtained€an€expertÐ à%0!$ Ðaffidavit€relative€to€this€issue.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€ÒÌÌà  àIn€òòHarris€v.€Chernóó,€33€S.W.3d€741€(Tenn.€2000),€released€on€December€8,€2000,€the€SupremeÐ |*Ì%) ÐCourt€in€addressing€a€Rule€54.02€motion€said€the€following:Ð h+¸&* ЇÒ€°ÒÒ€°Òà Ø àWe€granted€this€appeal€to€determine€the€standard€to€be€applied€in€rulingÐ ° Ðupon€a€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€54.02€motion€to€revise€a€grant€of€partial€summary€judgmentÐ œì Ðbased€upon€evidence€beyond€that€which€was€before€the€court€when€the€motion€wasÐ ˆØ Ðinitially€granted.€€For€the€reasons€stated€below,€we€reject€the€newly€discoveredÐ tÄ Ðevidence€rule€applied€by€the€trial€court€and€set€forth€in€òòBradley€v.€McLeodóó,€984Ð `° ÐS.W.2d€929€(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).€€We€adopt€a€test€requiring€the€trial€court€toÐ L œ Ðconsider,€when€applicable:€1)€the€movant's€efforts€to€obtain€evidence€to€respondÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€the€motion€for€summary€judgment;€2)€the€importance€of€the€newly€submittedÐ $ t Ðevidence€to€the€movant's€case;€3)€the€explanation€offered€by€the€movant€for€itsÐ  ` Ðfailure€to€offer€the€newly€submitted€evidence€in€its€initial€response€to€the€motionÐ ü L  Ðfor€summary€judgment;€4)€the€likelihood€that€the€nonmoving€party€will€sufferÐ è 8  Ðunfair€prejudice;€and€5)€any€other€relevant€factor.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€theÐ Ô$  Ðjudgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€and€remand€to€the€trial€court€for€application€ofÐ À  Ðthis€standard.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àAlthough€òòHarrisóó€by€its€very€language€applies€to€Rule€54.02€motions,€this€Court€has€twiceÐ „Ô  Ðused€the€factors€set€forth€in€òòHarrisóó€when€considering€a€Rule€59.04€motion€to€alter€or€amend.€€SeeÐ pÀ ÐòòKing€v.€City€of€Gatlinburgóó,€E2000„00734„COA„R3„CV,€2001€WL€483419€at€*3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð \¬ ÐMay€8,€2001)€(ð ðThis€Section€of€this€Court€recently€adopted€the€reasoning€applied€in€the€SupremeÐ H˜ ÐCourt€decision€of€òòHarris€v.€Chernóó€.€.€.€in€reviewing€the€denial€of€a€Rule€59.04€motion.€€See€òòSmith€v.Ð 4„ ÐHaleyóó,€2001€WL€208515€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€March€2,€2001).Ð  p ÐÌà  àIn€light€of€the€Trial€Judgeððs€finding€of€fact€relative€to€delay€in€submitting€an€affidavit,€we€Ð øH Ðcannot€find€that€he€abused€its€discretion€in€so€doing.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed€and€the€cause€remandedÐ ¼  Ðfor€collection€of€costs€below.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€adjudged€against€Jerry€Allen€Grace€and€his€wife,Ð ¨ø ÐWanda€Grace,€and€their€surety.Ð ”ä ÐÌò òÌó óÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à_________________________________________Ð D!” Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àHOUSTON€M.€GODDARD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÐ 0"€  ÐÌÌ