WPCO J/bmhl)g rU&Q)̷aYF0hGjXdSZ%y%@cS󏛅?述}^syj~vMTs7*]se 8zw-&`'l۞Z{6]X1/aC'1pU31F%;ԇ3T`'WZn|ID /` >ծCPxΏ\J'?.% 'քiױ}\tP]ݯb#\ % U@# 0c U N n9 N z b UN4 4 4 4  H  0DN^ Ew4+ m-------------------bDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD 0LLLL B77 0T D3 D-+ 0KXX AS 0 0D` AHP LaserJet 4Si,,,,,,0(I Z(Times New Roman (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@ C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(I Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    R$      1  ȴ  _ uf ȴԀAppellantdidcitetothetrialcourtthisCourtsopinioninthecaseof_Blankenship_Ԁv._Bain_,No.01A019709  CV00492(Tenn.Ct.App.atNashville,filedJuly29,1998),whichwassubsequentlyreversedbytheTennessee | SupremeCourt.See_Blankenship_Ԁv.Estateof_Bain_,5S.W.3d647(Tenn.1999).Wediscussedthemadewholedoctrine @ extensivelyinthe_Blankenship_case,butappellantciteditsolelyforthepropositionthatthestates_subrogation_Ԁclaimwas T subjecttoreasonableandordinaryattorneyfees.Thetrialcourtfoundthistobeasoundproposition,butrightly  observedthatthe_Blankenship_casedidnotresolvethequestionofwhichattorneycanrecoverthefees,andunderwhat  circumstances.#ȴ  uf~#(L ~(.bk13|xU- -(|G2$ !.8dd8         0  ȴ d(|3$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8XXdd8   @  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE# +#Ԉ &   May2000Session L XX  # XX #FAYEL.GREENv.INNOVATIVERECOVERYSERVICES,INC.XX   J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.991560IICarolL.McCoy,Chancellor  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M199902227_COA_ԄR3CVFiledJuly28,_2000_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Theattorneyforawomanwhohadbeeninjuredinanautoaccidentclaimedthathisservicesentitled x  himtoaportionofthe_subrogation_Ԁinterestassertedby_TennCare_Ԁagainstthesettlementproceeds. d Thetrialcourtdismissedhisclaim.Weaffirmthetrialcourt. P  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt (x AffirmedandRemanded  d   # X#XX. BenH.Cantrell,P.J.,M.S.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamC.Koch,Jr. < andPatriciaJ.Cottrell,JJ.,joined. ( RobertL.Whitaker,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,FayeL.Green.  RhondaM._Whitted_,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,InnovativeRecoveryServices,Inc.    OPINION # XX8#XX  ` # XXI #XX   @) I.  8!    FayeGreenwasinjuredinanautoaccident.Hermedicalexpenses,intheamountof #`" $23,059,werepaidbyAccess_MedPLUS_,a_TennCare_Ԁcontractor.Ms.GreenhiredRobertL. #L# Whitaker,anattorneywithBartDurhamandAssociates,torepresentherinasuitagainsttheother $8 $ driver,EdwardT.Shear,Jr.Mr.WhitakerfiledsuitonMs.Greensbehalf,askingfordamagesof %$!% $340,000,buteventuallysettlingforpolicylimitsof$50,000. &"&   Duringthelitigation,defendantInnovativeRecoveryServices,Inc(_IRSI_)informedMr. (#( Whitakerthatithandledall_subrogation_ԀmattersforAccess_MedPLUS_,thatitexpectedtobe )$) reimbursedformedicalexpensesoutofanypaymentsmadetoMs.Green,andthatitdidnotwish p*%* toenlisthishelptoprotectthe_subrogation_ԀinterestofAccess_MedPLUS_. \+&+   H,',   Afterthesettlementwaspaid,Ms.Fayesattorneyputthe_subrogation_Ԁamountintoatrust   account,andfiledsuitforadeclaratoryjudgmentagainst_IRSI_,askingforanorderthatwouldreduce  the_subrogation_Ԁclaimbyonethird,forreasonableandnecessaryattorneyfees.Thetrialcourtfound  thattherewasnocontractbetween_IRSI_ԀandMr.Whitakerandgrantedsummaryjudgmentto_IRSI_. t Thisappealfollowed. ` @) II.  8    Mr.WhitakerssoleargumentonappealisthatAccess_MedPLUS_Ԁwasnotentitledto  ` _subrogation_ԀbecauseMs.Greenwasnot madewholebythesettlementwiththe_tortfeasor_s  L  _insuror_.Foritspart,_IRSI_Ԁnotesthattheappellantneversubmitteditsmadewholeargumentforthe  8  trialcourtsconsideration,andthatthetrialcourtwasthereforeneveraffordedtheopportunityto $  determinewhetherornotMs.Greenhadbeenmadewholebythesettlement,nortoconsiderwhether   themadewholedoctrinewasapplicabletothefactsofthecase. #  1      ׀     ThejurisdictionoftheCourtofAppealsisappellateonly.Tenn.Code.Ann.164108.   ThisCourtisnotrequiredtoconsiderargumentsonappealthatwerenotpresentedtothecourt p below.SeeWilliamsonCountyBroadcastingCo.v.IntermediaPartners,987S.W.2d550(Tenn. \ Ct.App.1998);Sweeneyv.StateDept.ofTransportation,744S.W.2d905(Tenn.Ct.App.1987). H Itfollows,therefore,thatweneednotaddressthequestionofwhetherthemadewholedoctrine 4 precludestheappelleefromcollectinganyportionofits_subrogation_Ԁclaim.  p   Thebasisofthetrialcourtsdecisionwasthelackofacontractualrelationshipbetweenthe H appelleeandMr.Whitaker.Tenn.Code.Ann.715117establishestheStatesrightof_subrogation_ 4 wherea_TennCare_Ԁrecipienthasreceivedreimbursementforthecostsoftreatmentpaidbythe   _TennCare_Ԁprogram.Section(a)ofthatstatutereadsinpart:   8  Totheextentofpaymentsofmedicalassistance,thestateshallbe_subrogated_Ԁtoall  rightsofrecovery,forthecostofcareortreatmentfortheinjuryorillnessforwhich  medicalassistanceisprovided,contractualorotherwise,oftherecipientsagainstany l person.X    Section(c)ofthestatutereads: 0"  8  Therightof_subrogation_Ԁbythestatetotherecipients'righttorecoveryshallbe $X" subjecttoordinaryandreasonableattorneyfees;provided,thatfurther,wherea $D # recipienthasretainedanattorney,theattorneyshallnotbeconsideredliableunless  theattorneyhasnoticefromthestateofthestate'sclaimof_subrogation_Ԁpriorto  disbursementofthefundstotherecipient.     Inthepresentcase,Ms.GreenengagedMr.Whitakertoprosecuteherpersonalinjury ` lawsuit,aswasherright.Hefiledthecomplaintonherbehalf,withoutfirstnotifying_TennCare_Ԁor L  _IRSI_.Whenitlearnedofthelawsuit,theappelleegaveMr.Whitakertimelynotificationthatthe 8  States_subrogation_Ԁinterestwasprotectedby_IRSI_,andthatitdidnotdesirehisrepresentationorthat $ t ofhisfirm.  `   Theappellantarguesthat_she_Ԁisentitledtorecoveronethirdofthemedicalexpensespaid  8  by_TennCare_Ԁbecause_IRSI_ԀdidnotinterveneinthecaseagainstMr.Shear,anditdidnotassistMr. $  Whitakerin investigating,evaluating,prosecuting,negotiatingorsettlingplaintiffsclaim.     Therightofanattorneytoshareina_subrogation_Ԁwherethe_subrogee_Ԁdidnotaskforthe   attorneysassistanceinprotectingitsinterestwasdiscussedatlengthinthecaseofTravelers   InsuranceCo.v.Williams,541S.W.2d587(Tenn.1976).Whilenotingthatotherjurisdictionshave p adopteddifferentapproaches,ourSupremeCourtheldthateachcasemustbedecidedbyapplying \ generalfundamentalprinciplesofcontractlawtoitsparticularfacts,andthat, H  ...whetherornotanattorneyisentitledtocollectfromtheinsurerafeewith  p respecttoa_subrogation_Ԁclaimdependsuponwhetheranexpressorimpliedcontract  \ orquasicontractualrelationshipexistsbetweenthem. H 541S.W.2dat590.     TheWilliamsCourtexaminedthefactsofthatcase,andfoundtheretobenoexpressor  impliedcontractbetweentheinsurerandtheinsuredsattorney.Thecourtalsofoundtheretobeno  unjustenrichment,andthereforenoquasicontractualrelationshipbetweenthem,despitethefactthat  theinsuredsattorneyhadsecuredtheplaintiffinsurancecompanys_subrogation_Ԁclaimbyreaching l asettlementwiththe_tortfeasor_sinsurancecompany.TheCourtreasonedthat X   ...oneisnotunjustlyenrichedbyabenefit forceduponhimastheresultof 0"  servicesvoluntarilyandofficiouslyperformedbyanotherwhohasbeenexpressly #l! informedbythealleged_promisor_Ԁthathisservicesarenotdesired. $X" 541S.W.2dat590. %0!$   LikeMr.Williamsattorney,Mr.Whitakerhadbeenexpresslyinformedthatthe_insuror_Ԁdid '#& notdesirehisservices,andthatitwaspreparedtoprotectitsown_subrogation_Ԁinterest.Underthe (#' circumstances,therewasnocontractualrelationshipbetweenMr.Whitakerand_TennCare_Ԁthatwould )$( entitlehimtocollecttheattorneyfeesherequests. |*%)  h+&* @^^( III.     Theorderofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.RemandthiscausetotheChanceryCourtof  DavidsonCountyforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.Taxthecostsonappealto t theappellant,FayeL.Green. ` # XX #XX    `     h   ________________________________________  L     `     h   BENH.CANTRELL,PRESIDINGJUDGE,_M.S._