ÿWPCR ÍZî¿/s©¥ÑDþ¤ ÁÔ£<‹¹4ªa®cà–‰eVL¾«ŠˆëâŸö·[–Ö¼`ÕÄÈ—Xªñ}Ü“#†Ç5>@F·žÕ“í/™PÊ»8$?Æym¸Tg}ƒFS¶£Q’ï ž© ïuÀ4ŒËÄô¾ÚgÎ 3>KRîw‹«(‚´:Ó¼Ò–§ÑùÎŒÒWñÚÔÒUrfìNQ-øvþüsË3"äIe.¦nýtá½è;pµ%ÁþNWM 4‰!œ†–¼Àä$Èï²ÏU,Ñ"…¢WLðÈÈg}À1()I€¨T÷š»>OÖú™~òæW4íÆ|ÅPWí~>߃Y3> !•œnòŸ±ÖpGûÍ}”VƉ‰½i— 0öŸ´¦ß"’ÁpQ©­µq¾ qòÌÆÓØÊ ö<{¤iõCh"*ÊÇÚY” Ñü òåÕóµ>R!ajÙÐ8õ¥Ðe¯µC úgôo¦BÅZ€#øçJ›näÁÜ3@–Éíj2Í W5wϬš~®°‘zŸ@UÖd뺿`-<;=b&V£dM©‡„ZŽƒ´â`Ó¦Ò|g û¥ÌÍz¶à¢eκ;ÊÊ®=žÀÅ’2š˜FÄÍŒYjÌŒb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ Ð #ÁØ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë UN±Nÿ 0DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEbGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG 0ëOOOO B:: 0¤W D3û D-. 0K[[ AS¦Æù 0¤¿ 0Dc A«§»+¥ƒ+s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÝ^p+hv Ì•œÀt 3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2›$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€D»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôxò»»Ô d(|3é$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€D»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3é$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€D»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ô»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼ÊÈ»»»ÔÑ8€}dXXdê»»d 8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îÁ)ÊÈÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼ÊÈ»îîÁ)#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAugust€29,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X‹tX»¼ÊÈÔÌò òÔ#†¼ÊÈ»XX‹t#ÔLINDA€F.€GREENEòòóó€v.€DR.€WOODY€Ô_ÔSTINSONÔ_Ô,€D.D.S.Ô‡X‹tX»¼ÊÈÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Jefferson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€16,369„I€€€€€€William€M.€Ô_ÔDenderÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌFILED€DECEMBER€3,€2001Ð ¾   Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„00628„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CVÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€plaintiff€was€under€the€care€of€the€defendant€dentist€for€the€crowning€of€six€teeth.€€As€a€part€ofÐ xÈ  Ðthis€procedure,€the€defendant€placed€a€ð ðtrayðð€filled€with€impression€material€in€her€mouth.€€TheÐ d´ Ðplaintiff€claims€that€she€swallowed€some€of€the€impression€material€which,€according€to€her,€laterÐ P  Ðhad€to€be€surgically€removed€from€her€intestines.€€She€sued€the€dentist,€alleging€that€he€violated€theÐ <Œ Ðapplicable€standard€of€care€in€a€number€of€ways.€€The€court€below€granted€the€defendant€summaryÐ (x Ðjudgment€based,€in€part,€on€its€finding€that€the€defendant€did€not€know€the€plaintiff€had€swallowedÐ d Ðimpression€material.€€The€trial€court€also€held€that€the€plaintiffððs€expert€was€not€qualified€to€offer€anÐ P Ðopinion€as€to€the€applicable€standard€of€care€in€Jefferson€County.€€The€plaintiff€appeals,€arguing€thatÐ ì< Ðthe€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€summary€judgment€because,€she€argues:€1)€the€record€containsÐ Ø( Ðevidence€that€the€defendant€was€aware€that€the€plaintiff€had€swallowed€the€impression€material;€andÐ Ä Ð2)€her€expert€was€qualified€to€offer€his€opinion€as€to€the€standard€of€care.€€We€affirm.Ð ° ÐÓòÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€CourtÐ ˆØ ÐAffirmed;€Case€Remandedó óÐ tÄ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.,€Ô#†¼ÊÈ»àX‹tœ#ÔÔ‡X‹tX.¼ÊÈÔóódelivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.,Ð L œ Ðóójoinedòò.€€Houston€M.€Ô_ÔGoddardÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óó€filed€a€dissenting€opinion.òòóóÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÌKenneth€K.€Kennedy,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Linda€F.€Greene.Ð #`" ÐÌDarryl€G.€Lowe,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Dr.€Woody€Ô_ÔStinsonÔ_Ô,€D.D.S.Ð è$8 $ ÐÓÆ ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ÊÈ»XX‹t #ÔÔ‡X‹tX»¼ÊÈÔÐ À&"& ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼ÊÈ»XX‹t\ #ÔÔ‡X‹tX»¼ÊÈÔÓ  Óà@´´)ìàI.Ô#†¼ÊÈ»XX‹tº #ԈР˜(è#( ÐÌÔ‡X‹tX»¼ÊÈÔà  àLinda€F.€Greene€went€to€the€office€of€her€dentist,€Dr.€Woody€Ô_ÔStinsonÔ_Ô,€for€the€purpose€ofÐ –*æ%* Ðhaving€an€impression€made€of€her€mouth€as€part€of€a€procedure€to€crown€six€of€her€teeth.€€Ô_ÔStinsonÔ_ÔÐ ‚+Ò&+ Ðplaced€a€tray€containing€impression€material€into€Greene's€mouth.€€According€to€Greene,€aÐ n,¾', Ðsubstantial€amount€of€the€material€went€into€her€throat,€causing€her€to€gag€and€to€swallow€part€of€theÐ Z-ª(-ý ÐÔ_Ômaterial.€€Greene€testified€that€after€swallowing€the€material,€she€told€Stinson,€"a€big€bunch€of€thatÐ ° Ðstuff€went€down€my€throat.ðð€€However,€because€Stinson€did€not€respond,€Greene€testified€that€sheÐ œì Ðdid€not€know€whether€he€heard€what€she€had€said.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àFor€several€days€after€the€impression€was€made,€Greene€suffered€extreme€pain€in€her€lowerÐ `° Ðabdominal€area.€€Five€days€after€she€had€seen€Dr.€Stinson,€she€was€admitted€to€Lakeway€RegionalÐ L œ ÐHospital€where€she€underwent€abdominal€surgery.€€During€the€surgery,€two€ð ðforeign€objects,ðð€eachÐ 8 ˆ Ðapproximately€seven€centimeters€in€length,€were€removed€from€her€intestines.€€These€objects€hadÐ $ t Ðperforated€the€wall€of€Greeneððs€intestines,€resulting€in€an€abscess.€€There€is€no€evidence€in€the€recordÐ  ` Ðthat€the€ð ðforeign€objectsðð€were€the€remnants€of€the€impression€material.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àGreene€filed€a€complaint€in€the€trial€court,€alleging€that€Stinson€acted€negligently€in€his€careÐ Ô$  Ðand€treatment€of€her.€€Green€alleged€that€Stinson€was€negligent€in€failing€to€properly€treat€andÐ À  Ðevaluate€her€condition€after€she€told€him€that€she€had€swallowed€an€excessive€amount€of€impressionÐ ¬ü  Ðmaterial.€€She€alleged€that€he€deviated€from€the€recognized€standard€of€acceptable€dental€care€inÐ ˜è  ÐJefferson€County.€€Specifically,€she€alleged€that€Stinson€failed€to€properly€warn€her€of€the€risk€ofÐ „Ô  Ðswallowing€impression€material,€failed€to€obtain€her€informed€consent,€and€failed€to€take€sufficientÐ pÀ Ðaction€to€treat€her€after€learning€that€she€had€swallowed€impression€material.Ð \¬ Ðà  àÌà  àStinson€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€In€support€of€his€motion,€he€provided€his€ownÐ 4„ Ðaffidavit€plus€the€affidavits€of€two€other€dentists,€Dr.€Richard€J.€Miller€and€Dr.€Larry€Colin.€€TheÐ  p Ðaffidavits€assert€that€Stinson€did€not€deviate€from€the€applicable€standard€of€care€in€his€treatment€ofÐ  \ ÐGreene.Ð øH ÐÌà  àIn€response€to€Stinsonððs€motion,€Greene€submitted€the€affidavit€of€Dr.€Thomas€J.€David,€aÐ Ð  Ðdentist€from€Atlanta,€Georgia.€€In€his€affidavit,€David€opined€that€Stinson€deviated€from€theÐ ¼  Ðappropriate€standard€of€care,€thereby€causing€Greeneððs€injuries€which€required€her€to€undergoÐ ¨ø Ðsurgery.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€ruled€that€Greene's€claims€of€failure€to€warn€and€failure€to€obtain€informedÐ l¼ Ðconsent€were€negated€by€Stinsonððs€proof.€€Greene€has€not€appealed€these€two€rulings.€€As€to€Greene'sÐ X ¨ Ðclaim€that€Stinson€failed€to€properly€treat€her€following€her€ingestion€of€impression€material,€the€trialÐ D!” Ðcourt€delayed€its€ruling€to€permit€the€defendant€to€take€the€deposition€of€Dr.€David.€€After€Dr.Ð 0"€  ÐDavidððs€deposition€was€taken,€Greene€submitted€Davidððs€supplemental€affidavit,€in€which€he€recitesÐ #l! Ðstatistical€data€with€respect€to€dental€practice€and€hospitals€in€Jefferson€County€and€asserts€that€heÐ $X" Ðis€familiar€with€many€counties€similar€to€Jefferson€County.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àAfter€reviewing€Davidððs€deposition€and€supplemental€affidavit,€the€trial€court€granted€StinsonÐ Ì&"% Ðsummary€judgment.€€In€its€judgment,€the€trial€court€opined€as€follows:€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà8 ` àthe€court€is€of€the€opinion€that€the€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€isÐ )à$( Ðwell€taken€due€to€the€fact€that€€Dr.€David€had€not€been€demonstratedÐ |*Ì%) Ðto€be€a€competent€witness€qualified€to€testify€as€to€the€standard€ofÐ h+¸&* Ðcare€in€the€case.€€€The€Court€further€finds€that€there€is€no€evidence€onÐ ° Ðthe€record...that€Dr.€Stinson€knew€that€Plaintiff€Linda€GreeneÐ œì Ðswallowed€impression€material€and€without€proof€that€he€had€suchÐ ˆØ Ðknowledge,€the€standard€of€care€that€Plaintiff's€expert€reliesÐ tÄ Ðupon...would€not€be€applicable,€and€therefore€the€Court€finds€thatÐ `° Ðeven€if€Plaintiff's€expert€was€competent€and€qualified€to€state€theÐ L œ Ðapplicable€standard€of€care,€that€standard€of€care€is€not€applicable€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€undisputed€facts€in€this€case€and€Defendant€would€be€entitled€toÐ $ t Ðsummary€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.Ð `` x` x ÐÌÓÓà  àGreene€appeals,€raising€the€following€issues:€Ð è 8  ÐÓ#Óà  àà8 ` àDoes€the€record€reflect€a€genuine€dispute€as€to€whether€Stinson€wasÐ À  Ðaware€that€Greene€swallowed€impression€material?Ьü ` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àDid€the€trial€court€err€in€determining€that€Dr.€Thomas€David,€D.D.S.,Ð „Ô  Ðof€DeKalb€County,€Georgia,€was€not€a€competent€witness€underÐ pÀ ÐT.C.A.€ðð€29„26„115€to€testify€as€to€the€standard€of€care€in€this€case?Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌà@••)ìàII.ˆÐ 4„ ÐÌà  àIn€deciding€whether€a€grant€of€summary€judgment€is€appropriate,€courts€are€to€determine€ð ðifÐ  \ Ðthe€pleadings,€depositions,€answers€to€interrogatories,€and€admissions€on€file,€together€with€theÐ øH Ðaffidavits,€if€any,€show€that€there€is€no€genuine€issue€as€to€any€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€partyÐ ä4 Ðis€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.ðð€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.04.€€When€presented€with€aÐ Ð  Ðsummary€judgment€motion,€the€trial€court€ð ðmust€take€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidenceÐ ¼  Ðin€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€that€party,€and€discardÐ ¨ø Ðall€countervailing€evidence.ðð€òòò òByrd€v.€Hallóóó ó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210„11€(Tenn.€1993).€€If€there€is€aÐ ”ä Ðdispute€as€to€any€material€fact,€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€must€be€denied.€€òòò òId.óóó ó€at€211.€€AÐ €Ð Ðmaterial€fact€is€one€that€must€be€decided€in€order€to€resolve€the€claim€or€defense€at€which€the€motionÐ l¼ Ðis€aimed.€òòò òId.óóó óÐ X ¨ ÐÌà  àThe€party€seeking€summary€judgment€has€the€initial€burden€of€demonstrating€that€there€is€noÐ 0"€  Ðgenuine€issue€of€material€fact€and€that€it€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€òòò òId.óó€ó óat€215.€Ð #l! ÐGenerally€speaking,€this€burden€may€be€met€by€either€affirmatively€negating€an€essential€element€ofÐ  $\" Ðthe€non„moving€partyððs€claim€or€by€conclusively€establishing€an€affirmative€defense.€€òòò òId.óóó ó€at€215€n.5.€Ð ø$H # ÐOnce€the€moving€party€satisfies€its€burden,€the€burden€then€shifts€to€the€nonmoving€party€to€establishÐ ä%4!$ Ðthat€there€are€disputed€material€facts€creating€genuine€issues€that€must€be€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€Ð Ð& "% Ðòòò òId.€óóó óat€215.Ð ¼' #& ÐÌà  àSince€summary€judgment€presents€a€pure€question€of€law,€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó€with€noÐ ”)ä$( Ðpresumption€of€correctness€as€to€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.òòò ò€€Hembree€v.€Stateóóó ó,€925€S.W.2d€513,€515Ð €*Ð%) Ð(Tenn.€1996).Ð l+¼&* Їà@vv(ìàIII.ˆÐ ° ÐÌà@rr)ìàA.€ˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€that€ð ðthere€is€no€evidence€on€the€record€presented€to€the€Court€that€Dr.Ð `° ÐStinson€knew€that€Plaintiff€Linda€Greene€swallowed€impression€material.ðð€€Greene€argues€that€theÐ L œ Ðtrial€court€erred€in€making€this€finding€because,€so€the€argument€goes,€the€record€contains€evidenceÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€Stinson€knew€that€Greene€swallowed€some€of€the€impression€material.€€In€support€of€thisÐ $ t Ðargument,€Greene€relies€upon€Stinsonððs€affidavit€in€which€he€states€that€he€knew€Greene€was€gaggingÐ  ` Ðsomewhat€when€he€placed€the€impression€tray€in€her€mouth.€€Greene€also€relies€upon€her€ownÐ ü L  Ðdeposition€testimony€in€which€she€states€that€she€told€Stinson,€ð ð[a]€big€bunch€of€that€stuff€went€downÐ è 8  Ðmy€throat.ðð€€However,€Greene€also€testified,€ð ðI€donððt€know€if€he€heard€me€or€what,€but€he€didnððt€sayÐ Ô$  Ðanything.ðð€€Greene€argues€that€taking€all€of€this€information€together,€it€is€clear€that€Stinson€knewÐ À  Ðthat€she€swallowed€the€impression€material.€€We€disagree.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àWe€find€that€based€upon€the€record€before€us,€Stinson€did€not€know€that€Greene€swallowedÐ „Ô  Ðthe€impression€material.€€According€to€Greeneððs€deposition€testimony,€Stinson€made€no€response€toÐ pÀ Ðher€after€she€remarked€that€she€had€swallowed€the€material.€€Even€though€Stinson€acknowledges€inÐ \¬ Ðhis€affidavit€that€Greene€had€gagged€during€the€procedure,€he€indicates€that€he€did€not€know€thatÐ H˜ ÐGreene€swallowed€impression€material.€€Furthermore,€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€establishing€thatÐ 4„ Ðgagging€under€these€circumstances€would€indicate€that€a€patient€has€swallowed€impression€material.€Ð  p ÐIn€his€response€to€interrogatories,€Stinson€states€that€because€Greene€appeared€to€gag€during€theÐ  \ Ðprocedure,€he€asked€her€if€she€swallowed€any€of€the€material,€and€she€responded€that€she€did€notÐ øH Ðbelieve€that€she€had.€€The€record€reveals€that€Greene€does€not€refute€that€she€made€this€response.€Ð ä4 ÐFinally,€Stinson€stated€in€his€affidavit€that€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà8 ` àI€complied€with€the€standard€of€care€by€carefully€checking€theÐ ¨ø Ðimpression€tray€and€Plaintiffððs€mouth,€and€there€was€no€evidence€orÐ ”ä Ðindication€of€extrusion€of€impression€material€from€the€tray€whichÐ €Ð Ðcould€have€been€swallowed.€Ðl¼` x` x ÐÌà  àBased€on€his€affidavit,€Stinsonððs€testimony€is€that€he€did€not€know€that€Greene€swallowedÐ D!” Ðany€impression€material.€€Greene€has€failed€to€rebut€that.€€Therefore,€we€are€left€with€the€establishedÐ 0"€  Ðfact€that€Stinson€did€not€know€that€Greene€swallowed€impression€material.€€The€portion€of€theÐ #l! Ðplaintiffððs€complaint€that€is€still€viable€on€this€appeal€is€based€on€her€theory€that€the€defendant€failedÐ $X" Ðto€take€appropriate€action€after€learning€that€his€patient€had€swallowed€impression€material.€€SinceÐ ô$D # Ðthe€predicate€for€his€alleged€negligence€is€negated€on€the€record€before€us,€we€do€not€reach€the€issueÐ à%0!$ Ðof€what€is€required,€if€anything,€in€the€event€a€dentist€determines€that€his€or€her€patient€hasÐ Ì&"% Ðswallowed€impression€material.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌÐ  )à$( Ðà@‘‘)ìàB.ˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€also€found€that€summary€judgment€was€appropriate€because€ð ðDr.€David€hasÐ ˆØ Ðnot€been€demonstrated€to€be€a€competent€witness€qualified€to€testify€as€to€the€standard€of€care€in€thisÐ tÄ Ðcase.ðð€€Furthermore,€the€court€found€that€without€proof€that€Stinson€knew€that€Greene€swallowedÐ `° Ðthe€impression€material,€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà8 ` àthe€standard€of€care€that€Plaintiffððs€expert€relies€upon...would€not€beÐ $ t Ðapplicable,€and€therefore€the€Court€finds€that€even€if€Plaintiffððs€expertÐ  ` Ðwas€competent€and€qualified€to€state€the€applicable€standard€of€care,Ð ü L  Ðthe€standard€is€not€applicable€to€the€undisputed€facts€in€this€case€andÐ è 8  ÐDefendant€would€be€entitled€to€summary€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌà  àWe€agree€with€the€trial€court.€€Because€Davidððs€testimony€is€directed€to€the€appropriateÐ ¬ü  Ðstandard€of€care€for€dentists€who€discover€that€a€patient€has€swallowed€a€ð ðforeign€body,ðð€hisÐ ˜è  Ðtestimony€is€predicated€on€the€fact€that€Stinson€was€aware€that€Greene€swallowed€the€impressionÐ „Ô  Ðmaterial.€€Given€the€established€fact€that€Stinson€did€not€know€Greene€swallowed€impressionÐ pÀ Ðmaterial,€Davidððs€opinion€addresses€a€factual€pattern€that€is€not€before€us.€€Hence,€his€opinion€is€notÐ \¬ Ðmaterial.€€Therefore,€it€is€not€necessary€for€us€to€determine€whether€the€trial€court€correctlyÐ H˜ Ðconcluded€that€David€was€not€a€competent€witness€to€testify€as€to€the€standard€of€care€in€this€case.Ð 4„ ÐÌà@ll)ìàIV.ˆÐ  \ ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€granting€Stinson€summary€judgment€is€affirmed.€€This€caseÐ ä4 Ðis€remanded€for€collection€of€costs€assessed€in€the€trial€court.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€theÐ Ð  Ðappellant,€Linda€F.€Greene.Ð ¼  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_______________________________Ð l¼ ÐÔ#†¼ÊÈ»XX‹t3#Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÔ‡X‹tX»¼ÊÈÔCHARLES€D.€SUSANO,€JR.,€JUDGEÔ#†¼ÊÈ»XX‹tF#Ô