ÿWPC•  …# VUHa %© 0³¯w@b 4¢ ¶  Å 0÷e 0D\ n­  M 0JM 0T— 0^ë 0hI 0r± 0|# 0†Ÿ 0% 1uµ 0d*U6ŽB)ÄDCí AM0U*}‹§ D32Ýev~B 0@À BvÓ AOðÆ? 0D D/I Bx ˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLdÒ<à09Z 0Courier (W1) RegularX(‹Ó$¡¡Ô€Xì^XXXÔÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑTRY3Ø' Letter3Ø'3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑ ðñDòEóôõö÷øùÓ€Úƒç"x3|x03A01ROSENBALMKingsportS.W.2d App2dT.R.Civ.P.Herschel(§(3nx$¤¤Ý ƒÓ!ÝÔ€X˜XXXÔÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑTRY3Ø' Letter3Ø'3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó«<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiXXxþ6X@É“8Ç;X@2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òJanuary€6,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó....'ÿÿdxd ÓÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòThe€motion€to€disqualify€defendants'€counsel€was€denied€by€the€trialÏcourt.€€No€issue€regarding€disqualification€of€counsel€is€properly€presentedÏin€this€appeal€and€accordingly,€we€will€not€address€it.óóÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò dStyl{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 Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ ` ÑÑ 4 ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€˜XXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÙ€€ÙßR€')&A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌGERRY€SUE€HASEK,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àKNOX€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)€€C.€A.€NO.€03A01„9706„CV„00210Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€à àPlaintiff„Appellant€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€WHEELER€ROSENBALMÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àJUDGEÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌDONNA€œKEENE›€HOLT€and€œGILREATH›€€€)à àÌAND€ASSOCIATES,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€AFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendants„Appellees€€)ÌÌÌÌÌDAVID€W.€œBLANKENSHIP›,€Kingsport,€for€Appellant.ÌÌÌR.€FRANKLIN€NORTON,€GEOFFREY€D.€œKRESSIN›,€and€W.€MITCHELL€CRAMER,ÏNorton€&€œLuhn›,€P.C.,€for€Appellees.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌà€ àÌà€ àMcMurray,€J.ÌÌà àThis€is€a€legal€malpractice€action.€€The€Plaintiff€allegesÏthat€she€employed€the€defendants€to€represent€her€in€a€medicalÏmalpractice€claim€against€Baptist€Hospital€of€East€Tennessee,€Dr.ÏRobert€Hall€or€the€proper€party€to€be€sued.€€Suit€was€broughtÏagainst€Baptist€Hospital€of€East€Tennessee€and€was,€afterÏmediation,€eventually€settled.€€Dr.€Hall€was€not€sued.€€TheÏfailure€to€bring€an€action€against€Dr.€Hall€is€the€basis€of€thisÏaction.ÌÌà àOn€January€22,€1997,€the€defendants€filed€a€motion€to€dismissÏand/or€for€summary€judgment.€€Supporting€affidavits€were€filedÏwith€the€motion,€therefore,€pursuant€to€Rule€12.03,€TennesseeÏRules€of€Civil€Procedure,€the€motion€will€be€treated€as€a€motionÏfor€summary€judgment.€€The€motion€for€summary€judgment€wasÏsustained€and€this€appeal€resulted.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court.ÌÌà àThe€plaintiff's€only€issue,€on€appeal,€is€that€summaryÏjudgment€was€inappropriate.ÌÌà àOur€standard€of€review€on€the€granting€of€a€motion€for€aÏsummary€judgment€is€so€well„settled€that€we€do€not€find€itÏnecessary€to€state€it€here.ÌÌà àIn€their€motion,€the€defendants€asserted€that€they€were€notÏguilty€of€malpractice€because:€(1)€they€did€not€deviate€from€theÏrecognized€standard€of€professional€practice€for€attorneysÏpracticing€medical€malpractice€litigation€in€Knox€County,ÏTennessee€and€similar€communities;€(2)€that€there€was€no€basis€forÏa€medical€malpractice€action€against€Dr.€Hall€in€the€underlyingÏcase€and€(3)€the€plaintiff€did€not€timely€file€her€complaint€inÏthis€case.ÌÌà àTwo€affidavits€from€expert€witnesses€were€filed€on€behalf€ofÏthe€defendants,€i.e.€the€affidavit€of€the€defendant€Donna€KeeneÏHolt€and€Dr.€Paul€Kaufman.€€Dr.€Kaufman€is€both€a€physicianÍlicensed€to€practice€medicine€in€Tennessee€and€an€attorneyÏlicensed€to€practice€œlaw›€in€the€State€of€Tennessee.ÌÌà àThe€defendant,€Donna€Keene€Holt,€deposed€among€other€thingsÏthat€she€did€not€fall€below€the€standard€of€acceptableÏprofessional€practice€for€attorneys€practicing€medical€malpracticeÏlitigation€in€Knox€County,€Tennessee,€or€similar€communities.€€SheÏfurther€testified€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àIt€is€my€professional€opinion€with€a€reasonableÏdegree€of€legal€certainty,€that€all€legals€œ[sic]›Ïservices,€investigation€of€claims,€and€advice€providedÏto€Ms.€Hasek€œwas€[sic]›€given€in€accordance€with€theÏappropriate€judgment€based€upon€the€material€factsÏavailable€at€material€times€and€with€the€degree€ofÏskill,€care,€diligence,€learning€and€experience,Ïordinarily€used,€possessed,€and€practiced€by€otherÏattorneys€practicing€medical€malpractice€litigation€inÏKnox€County,€Tennessee€on€or€about€the€times€materialÏherein;€that€based€upon€the€relevant€available€factsÏthat€there€was€no€negligence€on€the€part€of€Dr.€Hall€andÏtherefore€no€basis€to€bring€suit€against€Dr.€Hall,€orÏany€other€physicians€who€rendered€treatment€to€Ms.€HasekÏin€the€underlying€case.ÌÌÓÓÌà àDr.€Paul€Kaufman€testified€in€œa›€dual€capacity€as€an€attorneyÏand€physician.€€He€stated€in€his€affidavit€that€he€was€familiarÍwith€the€standard€of€acceptable€professional€practice€forÏphysicians€and€surgeons€in€Knox€County,€Tennessee,€at€all€timesÏœmaterial.›€€He€further€stated€that€he€had€reviewed€œall€of›€Gerry€SueÏHasek's€medical€records€from€Baptist€Hospital€of€East€TennesseeÏrelative€to€her€medical€malpractice€claim€in€the€underlying€suit;Ïthat€he€had€researched€the€medical€literature€regarding€Ms.ÏHasek's€condition€and€consulted€with€other€physicians.€€Based€uponÏhis€investigation€and€professional€expertise€he€was€of€the€opinionÏthat€€the€surgery€and€professional€medical€care€and€treatment€thatÏDr.€Hall€provided€to€the€plaintiff€was€at€all€times€performed€inÏaccordance€with€the€recognized€standards€of€professional€practiceÏfor€physicians€and€surgeons€in€Knoxville,€œTennessee,›€and€similarÏcommunities€at€material€times€to€the€underlying€suit.ÌÌà àDr.€Kaufman,€in€his€capacity€as€a€licensed€attorney,€deposedÏthat€he€was€familiar€with€the€recognized€standard€of€acceptableÏprofessional€practice€applicable€to€attorneys€practicing€medicalÏmalpractice€litigation€in€Knox€County,€Tennessee€and€similarÏcommunities;€that€he€had€reviewed€the€medical€malpracticeÍlitigation€files€of€Gerry€Sue€Hasek€and€was€familiar€with€herÏmedical€malpractice€case.€€He€concluded:ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àà àIt€is€my€opinion,€based€upon€a€reasonable€degree€ofÏlegal€certainty,€that€proper€legal€services,€investiga…tion,€and€advice€were€provided€to€Gerry€Sue€Hasek€andÏthat€Defendants€sued€as€Donna€Keene€Holt€and€GilreathÏand€associates€did€not€deviate€from€or€fall€below€theÏrecognized€standard€of€acceptable€practice€for€attorneysÏpracticing€medical€malpractice€litigation€in€Knox€Coun…ty,€Tennessee,€and€similar€communities,€at€times€materi…al€herein,€in€œregard›€to€any€attorney€services€providedÏto€Gerry€Sue€Hasek€in€the€underlying€suit.ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€plaintiff€filed€a€response€captioned€"Response€to€MotionÏto€œDismisss›€and/or€for€Summary€Judgment€and€Motion€to€DisqualifyÏCounsel."× ƒ+ ××  ×€€In€opposition€to€the€defendants'€motion,€the€plaintiffÏalso€filed€her€affidavit.€The€plaintiff€is€neither€a€licensedÏattorney€nor€a€licensed€physician€and€is€not€competent€to€testifyÏas€to€matters€falling€within€the€peculiar€knowledge€of€eitherÏprofession.€€There€is€no€competent€evidence€in€the€plaintiff'sÏaffidavit€to€refute€the€evidence€presented€by€the€defendants.ÌÌà àIt€is€well„settled€that€in€medical€malpractice€cases€€whereinÏthe€acts€complained€of€are€not€within€the€ken€of€the€common€lay…man,€€the€affidavit€of€a€medical€expert€or€experts€is€required€toÏrebut€affidavits€by€medical€experts€filed€in€support€of€a€motionÏfor€summary€judgment€in€order€to€create€a€genuine€issue€of€aÏmaterial€fact.€€In€òòBowman€v.€œHenard›óó,€547€S.W.2d€527€(Tenn.€1977)Ïthe€Supreme€court€noted:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àœ...›€[œW]e›€hold€that,€in€those€malpractice€actionsÏwherein€expert€medical€testimony€is€required€to€estab…lish€€negligence€and€proximate€cause,€affidavits€byÏmedical€doctors€which€clearly€and€completely€refuteÏplaintiff's€contentions€afford€a€proper€basis€for€dis…missal€of€the€action€on€summary€judgment,€in€the€absenceÏof€proper€Ô&  Ôresponsive€proof€by€affidavit€or€otherwise.ÌÌòòBowmanóó,€at€page€551.Ô'  ÔÌÌÓÓÌà àIn€the€underlying€case,€the€plaintiff€went€to€the€emergencyÏroom€of€Baptist€Hospital€of€East€Tennessee.€€She€had€gastro‚intes…tinal€bleeding€which€was€treated€and€appeared€to€have€been€re…solved€but€had€left€her€in€a€state€wherein€a€blood€transfusion€wasÏœrequired.€The›€hospital€employees€erroneously€caused€the€plaintiffÍto€be€given€the€wrong€type€of€blood.€€As€a€result,€Ms.€HasekÏreceived€a€substantial€amount€of€blood€that€caused€her€to€developÏœdisminated›€intravascular€œcoagulopathy›€further€resulting€in€aÏgastrointestinal€hemorrhage€that€required€œsurgery.€€Dr.€Hall€wasÏan€attending€physician.›ÌÌà àWe€find€and€hold€that€the€underlying€case,€òòi.eóó.,€the€claimÏwhich€plaintiff€would€allegedly€have€had€against€Dr.€Hall€is€aÏcase€wherein€medical€proof€would€be€required€to€establish€negli…gence,€proximate€cause€or€legal€cause.€€Therefore,€the€rule€statedÏin€òòBowmanóó,€applied€to€the€underlying€facts€of€this€case,€rendersÏsummary€judgment€appropriate.ÌÌà àFurther,€there€was€no€countervailing€evidence€to€establish€aÏgenuine€issue€of€a€material€fact€relating€to€the€alleged€legalÏmalpractice€of€the€defendants.€€As€in€medical€malpractice€cases,Ïexpert€evidence€is€required€to€demonstrate€negligence€in€legalÏmalpractice€cases.€€In€a€suit€against€an€attorney€for€professionalÏnegligence,€the€plaintiff€must€prove€three€things€in€order€toÏrecover:€(1)€the€employment€of€the€attorney;€(2)€neglect€by€theÍattorney€of€a€reasonable€duty€and€(3)€damages€resulting€from€suchÏneglect.€€òòœSammons›€v.€œRotroff›óó,€653€S.W.2d€œ740›€(Tenn.€App.€1983),Ïciting€òòMaryland€Casualty€Co.€v.€Priceóó,€231€F.€397,€401€(œ4th›ÏCir.1916);€òòDaugherty€v.€œRunneróó,€581€S.W.2d€12,€16›€(œKy.App›.1978);Ïand€òòœHerston›€v.€œWhitesell›óó,€348€So.2d€1054,€1057€(Ala.€1977).ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à...€the€cases€make€clear€that€the€party€seekingÏsummary€judgment€must€carry€the€burden€of€persuading€theÏcourt€that€no€genuine€and€material€factual€issues€existÏand€that€it€is,€therefore,€entitled€to€judgment€as€aÏmatter€of€law.€(Citations€omitted)€...€€Once€it€is€shownÏby€the€moving€party€that€there€is€no€genuine€issue€ofÏmaterial€fact,€the€nonmoving€party€must€then€demon…strate,€by€affidavits€or€discovery€materials,€that€thereÏis€a€genuine,€material€fact€dispute€to€warrant€a€trial.Ï(Citations€omitted).€In€this€regard,€Rule€56.05€[T.R.Civ.P.]€provides€that€the€nonmoving€party€cannotÏsimply€rely€upon€his€pleadings€but€must€set€forth€spe…cific€facts€showing€that€there€is€a€genuine€issue€ofÏmaterial€fact€for€trial.€"If€he€does€not€so€respond,Ïsummary€judgment€...€shall€be€entered€against€him."€RuleÏ56.05.ÌÌòòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌÓÓÌà àIn€this€case,€the€defendants€have€met€the€burden€of€estabƒlishing€that€they€are€entitled€to€summary€judgment€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw,€absent€countervailing€evidence€by€the€plaintiff,€demonstrat…ing€that€there€was€a€genuine€issue€of€a€material€fact.€€The€plain…tiff€must€fail€on€two€grounds:€€1.€The€plaintiff€failed€to€refuteÏthe€evidence€by€an€expert€witness€that€Dr.€Hall€was€not€guilty€ofÏnegligence€in€the€underlying€suit,€hence€no€damages€can€be€estab…lished;€and€2.€The€plaintiff€failed€to€refute€the€affidavits€ofÏthe€expert€witnesses€that€the€defendants€were€not€guilty€of€anyÏprofessional€negligence.ÌÌà àWhile€not€presented€as€an€issue€in€her€brief,€the€plaintiffÏduring€oral€argument€asserted€that€the€trial€court€was€in€errorÏfor€failing€to€grant€a€continuance€to€allow€the€plaintiff€toÏobtain€expert€proof.€€We€find€no€merit€in€this€argument.€€There€isÏno€formal€motion€in€the€record€asking€the€court€to€grant€a€contin…uance€and€it€was€conceded€that€the€issue€was€not€addressed€by€theÏtrial€court.€€The€only€reference€to€a€continuance€is€in€the€re…sponse€to€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€wherein€it€is€statedÏ"[œa]t›€a€minimum,€the€court€should€grant€a€continuance€to€permitÏMs.€Hasek€to€obtain€the€information€necessary€to€fully€and€fairlyÏcontest€the€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment."€€For€the€purposes€ofÏthis€case€and€in€the€interests€of€fairness,€we€will€treat€plain…tiff's€statement€as€a€motion€for€continuance.ÌÌà àThe€complaint€was€filed€on€December€18,€1996.€€The€motion€forÏsummary€judgment€was€filed€on€January€22,€1997.€€Plaintiff'sÏresponse€was€filed€on€March€20,€1997.€€The€hearing€on€the€motionÏwas€held€on€March€21,€1997.ÌÌà à"We€well€recognize€that€a€trial€court€ordinarily€has€a€broadÏdiscretion€in€the€grant€or€the€denial€of€a€continuance€and€thatÏthe€trial€judge's€decision€will€not€be€set€aside€unless€there€is€aÏclear€showing€of€abuse.€òòœTipton›€v.€Smithóó,€593€S.W.2d€298,€301Ï(Tenn.€App.€1979)."€€òòœBarish›€v.€Metropolitan€œGov't›óó,€627€S.W.2d€953Ï(Tenn.€App.€1981).€€There€is€no€explanation€in€the€record€as€toÏwhy€the€plaintiff€was€unable€to€obtain€the€necessary€evidenceÏbetween€January€22,€1997€and€March€21,€1997.ÌÌà àThere€is€nothing€in€the€record€in€this€case€to€remotelyÏsuggest€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€failing€toÏgrant€a€continuance.€€Indeed,€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€toÏsuggest€that€the€matter€of€a€continuance€was€called€to€the€atten…tion€of€the€trial€court,€other€than€the€nebulous€reference€to€aÍcontinuance€in€the€plaintiff's€response€to€the€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment€which€is€above€quoted.€€There€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€Ïshow€that€the€court€considered€or€ruled€on€the€question€of€aÏcontinuance.ÌÌà àWe€find€no€merit€in€the€plaintiff's€appeal.€€The€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€all€respects.€€Costs€are€taxed€toÏthe€appellant€and€this€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court.ÌÓÓÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Don€T.€McMurray,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌ___________________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€JudgeÌÇÑ  Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌGERRY€SUE€HASEK,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àKNOX€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)€€C.€A.€NO.€03A01„9706„CV„00210Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€à àPlaintiff„Appellant€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€WHEELER€ROSENBALMÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àJUDGEÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌDONNA€œKEENE›€HOLT€and€GILREATH€œ›€€)à àÌAND€ASSOCIATES,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€AFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendants„Appellees€€)ÌÌÌ€Ìà@ àò òòòJUDGMENTóóó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€appeal€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€from€theÏCircuit€Court€of€Knox€County,€briefs€and€argument€of€counsel.€ÏUpon€consideration€thereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€thatÏthere€was€no€reversible€error€in€the€trial€court.Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€all€respects.€ÏCosts€are€taxed€to€the€appellant€and€this€case€is€remanded€to€theÏtrial€court.ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€PER€CURIAMÌ