WPC m \Nbp#X-*\|:TЃY$N5]#2ҎDaNVD`=]K8iRWZZ?)vbۤOroҸc%HtrL_1_F1e2.S9r,7f@}-J9%Zyv"R)Y]Ey}t%g8u j%` 檭9Um|vdH؆?ji*Vu, yDω 9.-X F N V ^ ffff  n  xxxxxxxb 0 Buu 0 D56 D-k 0K AS6 0 0D A("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\CUSTOM~1\OPINION3.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\Custom WP Templates\opinion3.wpt|pC-s  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.wptULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5,-s  RJ$      1  \   _ԀPlaintifflateramendedhisComplainttoaddGaryD._Niblack_ԀasaDefendant.NeitherMr._Niblack_Ԁnorthe  otherDefendant,LaboratoryInvestments,Inc.,arepartiestothisappeal.  RJ$      2  \   _ԀSincethecomplaintwasfiledwellwithinthree(3)yearsaftertheallegederroneousresultswerefirst  published,itisnotnecessaryforustoaddressPlaintiff'sargumentsthatthecauseofactionaccruedonadatesubsequent t topublication.3|x(|3Gi$ !.8O<dd8     (#$  0  12345671112- -(|G2J$ !.8O<dd8         0  T d(|3Gi$ !.8O<dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Gi$ !.8O<dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Ztdd8     _  ZtZtZt8HXXdd8  @ #ZtZt#IeZtINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$AT_NASHVILLE#ZtIeN#ZtZt_Ԉ & _@__September6,2002Session L #ZtZt#XHXZt_ #ZtXXH#ZtZt%    _STANLEYA.GUNTER%F_Ԁ_v._Ԁ_%  LABORATORYCORPORATIONOF J AMERICA,d/b/a_LABCORP_%,_Ԁet_al.#ZtZt'#XHXZt _  ^ S@6 6 _ %  %+__Appeal_Ԁfromthe_%  CircuitCourt_Ԁ%for_%  Davidson% County_Ԉ  ^ @ No._% ! 01C2890%!b_Ԁ_% " ThomasW.Brothers,_Ԁ_CircuitCourtJudge%"_Ԉ  J @*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @ No._M200200600_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober3,_2002_Ԉ   _AV) ` dE<` A    ___ThisappealrisesfromtheactionoftheJuvenileCourtofMontgomeryCountywhichgranteda  Default_Judgment_Ԁin1998forretroactiveandcurrentchildsupportagainstthePlaintiff.Plaintiff x attemptedtohavethesupportobligationsetasideintheJuvenileCourtbutfollowingasubmission d ofpaternitybloodtests,oneofwhichwasconductedbytheDefendant,thePlaintiffwasdenied P furtherrelief.ThePlaintifffiledsuitintheCircuitCourtofDavidsonCountyallegingthatthe < paternitytestswerenegligentlyperformedwhichresultedinerroneousresultswhichinturncaused (x himtobeunabletosetasidethejudgmentoftheJuvenileCourt.TheCircuitCourt,uponmotion, d dismissedtheDefendanttestinglaboratory,holdingthatthecasewas"governed"bytheone(1)year P statutesoflimitationsformedicalmalpracticeandinjurytotheperson.PlaintiffappealedtheCircuit < Court'sruling,arguingthatthiswasnotaninjurytothepersonbuttopersonalpropertyandinthe ( alternativeabreachofcontractaction.Finally,thePlaintiffallegedthatevenifthiswereanaction  forpersonalinjury,theone(1)yearstatutehadnotrun.WeagreewiththePlaintiffthatthisisnot  amedicalmalpracticeactionoranactionforpersonalinjury,butratheranactionforinjuryto  personalpropertywhichiscontrolledbythethree(3)yearstatutesetforthat_T.C.A._Ԁ283105.We  thereforereversetheCircuitCourtandremandthecaseforfurtherproceedings. t  ____ @::Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt 8#" @ ReversedandRemanded _Ԉ $$t# ___#ZtXH#XHX.ZtThomasW.Graham,_Ԁ_SP.J.,_Ԁdeliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhich_% & BenH._Cantrell_Ԁ__________%&4and_ &8"& _% ' William_B._ԀCain%'`,_Ԁjoined. '$#' ___AugustC.Winter,Brentwood,Tennessee,fortheappellant,StanleyA.Gunter. )$) WilliamE._Godbold_,III,andCherieD._Jewell_,Chattanooga,Tennessee,andThomasJ._Dement_,III, +&+ Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,_LabCorp_. p,',  \-(- ___ԇ_@66' OPINION   @%Background    OnSeptember21,2001,Plaintiff,StanleyA.Gunter,filedanactionintheCircuitCourtof ` DavidsonCountyagainstDefendant,LaboratoryCorporationofAmerica,d/b/a_LabCorp_,and L  anothertestinglaboratory. #  1      ׀TheComplaintallegedthataDefaultJudgmentandanOrderofSupport 8  wereenteredagainstMr.GunterinAugustof1998intheJuvenileCourtofMontgomeryCounty $ t requiringthePlaintifftopaycurrentandretroactivechildsupportforJeremy_Clinard_.Inaneffort  ` tostaytheOrder,thePlaintiffsubmittedbloodsamplesfortestingtotheCoDefendant,Laboratory  L  Investments,Inc.LaboratoryInvestments,Inc.thenanalyzedthebloodsamplesandissuedthe  8  resultsofitspaternitytestonSeptember25,1998,atwhichtimeitwasreportedthattherewasa $  99.99%probabilitythatthePlaintiffwasthebiologicalfatherofJeremy_Clinard_.InOctoberof   1998,attherequestofthePlaintiff,theJuvenileCourtorderedastaypendingtheresultsofasecond   paternitytesttobepaidforbythePlaintiff.ThesecondbloodtestwasperformedbytheDefendant   whichannounceditsresultsonMay25,1999,indicatinga99.94%probabilitythatthePlaintiffwas   thefatherofJeremy_Clinard_.Thereafter,theComplaintallegesPlaintiffsrequestforathird p paternitytestwasdeniedbytheJuvenileCourt.PlaintiffsComplaintallegesthat asadirectand \ proximateresultoftheDefendant,LabCorps,negligenceinfailingtoprovideanaccuratestatement H oftheprobabilityofpaternity,theDefaultJudgmentagainstMr.Gunterhasnotbeensetaside... 4 ThePlaintifffurtherallegedinhisComplaintthatLabCorpsfailuretoperform appropriatetesting  p alsoconstitutedabreachofcontract.InresponsetotheComplaint,theDefendantfiledaRule  \ 12.02(6)MotiontoDismissforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcouldbegranted,same H beingtimebarredbytheexpirationoftheoneyearstatuteoflimitationssetforthatT.C.A.283 4 104.Thereafter,onFebruary15,2002,theCircuitCourtofDavidsonCountyenteredaFinalOrder   ofDismissalastoLaboratoryCorporationofAmerica,d/b/aLabCorp,holdingthattheactionwas   controlledbytheoneyearstatutesoflimitationssetforthatT.C.A.283104andT.C.A.2926  116.TheFinalOrderastotheDefendantwasenteredpursuanttoRule54.02,anditisfromthis  rulingthatthePlaintiffnowpresentstheissuestobedeterminedbythisCourt.  @55%Discussion X    InholdingthattheComplaintshouldbedismissed,theCircuitCourtfoundtheactionwas 0"   governedby_T.C.A._Ԁ2926116,theoneyearmedicalmalpracticestatuteoflimitations.The #l! pertinentportionoftheaforesaidsectionstates: $X"    ` ...Thestatuteoflimitationsinmalpracticeactionsshallbeone(1)year $D #    ` assetforthin283104.... %0!$ 663(#_T.C.A._Ԁ2926116(a)(1) &"%   Ourfirstinquiryistodeterminetheapplicabilityofthemedicalmalpracticestatuteof '#& limitationstoanactionallegingdamageresultingfromanegligentlyconductedpaternitytest.The (#' statute,_T.C.A._Ԁ2926116wasenactedaspartoftheMedicalMalpracticeReviewBoardand  ClaimsActof1975.In1985thelegislaturedecidedtoabolishtheMedicalMalpracticeReview  Boardbyrepealinganumberofthesectionsoftheoriginalactwhileleavinginplacethestatuteof  limitationsandcertainotherpartsoftheactnotdealingwiththeBoard.(SeeActsof1985,Chapter t 184,Section4.)TheaforesaidActalsorepealedthedefinitionsfor medicalmalpracticeactionand ` theincludedterm healthcareprovider.Therepealeddefinitionsprovidedinpertinentpartas L  follows: 8    8 ` (4) Healthcareproviderincludesbutisnotlimitedtophysicians  ` (includingosteopaths),dentists,clinicalpsychologists,pharmacists,  L  optometrists,podiatrists,registerednurses,physiciansassistants,  8  chiropractors,physicaltherapists,nurseanesthetists,anesthetists, $  emergencymedicaltechnicians,hospitals,nursinghomesand   extendedcarefacilities... ` x` x   8 ` (6) Medicalmalpracticeactionmeansanactionfordamagesfor   personalinjuryordeathasaresultofanymedicalmalpracticebya   healthcareprovider,whetherbasedupontortorcontractlaw.The p termshallnotincludeanyactionfordamagesasaresultofnegligence \ ofahealthcareproviderwhenmedicalcarebysuchproviderisnot H involvedinsuchaction....4` x` x vv (#_T.C.A._Ԁ2926102(4)(6),@%(#RepealedbyActsof1985,Ch.184,4  p   0 `  ZZ:(#` (#` (#(Emphasisadded.)  \ Theserepealedsectionsmustbelookedtoinordertodeterminethelegislativeintentbehindthe 4 passageofthe_unrepealed_ԀsectionsoftheAct.See EstateofDoev.VanderbiltUniversity,Inc. ,   824_F.Supp_.746,748(_M.D.Tenn_.1993)and _Burris_Ԁv.HospitalCorporationofAmerica ,773  S.W.2d932,934(Tenn.App.1989).Acriticallimitationtotheapplicationofthemedical  malpracticeoneyearstatuteoflimitationsistherequirementthattheallegedinjurymustresultfrom  negligentmedicalcare.Ourreviewofthepleadingsfindsnoallegationorallegedfactwhichwould  supportaholdingthatapaternitybloodtestforthepurposeofestablishingachildsupportobligation t shouldbeconsidered medicalcare.Wealsohavegravedoubtsthattheallegationsinthiscase `  wouldsupportafindingthattheDefendantlaboratoryisevena healthcareprovider.However, L! sincewehavefoundthelackofmedicalcareremovesthiscasefromthedefinitionofamedical 8"  malpracticeaction,itisnotnecessaryforustoresolvethisadditionalquestion.Inmakingthis $#t! ruling,wearefullyawareofthecaseof Terryv._Niblack_ ,979S.W.2d583(Tenn.1998)which $`" appliedthisstatutetopaternitytesting.However,thedefinitionofmedicalmalpracticeactionwas %P # notacontestedissueinthatcase.Thelitigatedissuewasthedatethecauseofactionarose.Id.at %