ÿWPCÍ" xÉžì­lõ§£FêS CW ¢¦ÿϬi&)ÍÁÈLáˆùÔ(ŒE»ìrùEë#%N¢b¤CI¯Þ†f!;vɇ÷€¯µ¶Ô“Ê1uëûer¾ZdñÛ…#aý—™þËN¸«3jº°‚¬qÛÉ ~æÜôã„’Lïüz­Ú&~'#¤cK¥ÔkÞ1g?ÌÁ´UÛ MÐ9× Wå]#ŸH£º†lªˆÙÌ$!·8xŒ±RÃ÷ÌX‡ø’¿0Ö¿4¬žxö€fÞÌOJ:ëX,­g ›CÝéW‘vB°7K8æ;Ó’j§rk£2+Uµb°‚¸yO˜¬wV¸]çÙž¬&†kGÀÃu‰—­By”^Ñé1ødr]ׇ&î]¼å]³Ô¿©D¤x7é‘éŠeY"m ˆ^ç½ü‚˜ 15þ¢FÁV+X¦Y€\ÆA.>ž52ÆF<' æã¹õ5!ÝÚøPS“Ï¥«¾ |¼hi¯m™6~_¨’Eգ䥭³"ò¾Wö÷ÅUZß^e¨F)£á‘ª¡A„Tû»Ñ­æå:ãkªp~b‰1 )®Qr7k›{ˆ$ÿ+’XÂ]‡˜h#ô Ö5=!ÌÍ«½ÍÇ=XLz«»ðãa~6b %\U@b 0ˆ¢ 0D*UNn 1‡¼ 0 cC z¦ Ò 72ò 0 Š$ 0 Ç® ^ u Æ ÆG Æ ÆÓ 0 w™N 0   0 ´²Ef 0 Ûh 0 ïC 0 D2 1uv 72ë 1‡ 72¤ 1‡Ö 72] 1‡ 72 1‡H 72Ï 1‡ 72ˆº£Ðws4w‹š mœ#Á³btUN||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 0ëÊÊÊÊ Bµµ 0¤Ò D3v D-© 0KÖÖ AS! Æt 0¤:! 0DÞ! A«""/»(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular  hàÈCEIMQUY]aAutoList1""""""""i)1)a)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt"(b·¤$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(ŸF$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#àswh+â Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(xir$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÜ$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(³Àô$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(ǵ{$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à(F$ïïà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#àÔ2#ÔÙ ÙÚ  ÚÚ  ÚÙ Ù)Ô3  Ôà0Èp(#p(#àÙ Ù3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)  hðÈCEIMQUY]aAutoList2""""""""i)1)a)"  hÉCEIMQUY]aAutoList3""""""""i)1)a)"  hÉCEIMQUY]aAutoList4""""""""i)1)a) "  h ÉCEIMQUY]aAutoList5""""""""i)1)a)""  h0ÉCEIMQUY]aAutoList6""""""""i)1)a)$" Ñ e Ñ ™Ý ƒR™N$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€/ô=ç ò»/»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔEdward€Ô_ÔMabryÔ_Ô,€M.D.,€was€also€originally€sued,€but€the€suit€against€him€was€voluntarily€dismissed€by€theÐ ° Ðplaintiff.€€Defendants,€Memphis€Radiological€Professional€Corporation€and€Methodist€Hospitals€of€Memphis,€are€suedÐ tÄ Ðfor€their€responsibility€for€the€actions€of€defendant,€Dale€E.€Hansen,€M.D.,€on€the€theory€of€òòÔ_ÔrespondeatÔ_Ô€superioróó.€Ð 8ˆ ÐHowever,€we€will€refer€to€them€collectively€with€Dr.€Hansen€as€defendants.m~g+䆩 ¢«Hª©3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0- ù-(ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(|G2™N$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€G¬»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô0Øò»»Ô d(|3M$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€G¬»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3M$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€G¬»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€GD»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€/¼‚/»»/»ÔÑ8€)ÔXXdê»»d 8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡/îþî»/¼‚/ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†/¼‚/»î/îþ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAugust€30,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡/XØsX»/¼‚/ÔÌò òÔ#†/¼‚/»X/XØsò#ÔLISA€HEATHòòóó€v.€MEMPHIS€RADIOLOGICAL€PROFESSIONALÐ úJ ÐCORPORATION,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡/XØsX»/¼‚/Ôó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òA€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€75928„9€T.D.€€€€€€The€Honorable€Robert€L.€Childers,€JudgeÐ ú J ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2000„02770„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€November€6,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XØsXX/XØsÔà  àThis€is€a€medical€malpractice€case.€€Plaintiff€sued€physician,€radiological€group€and€hospital,Ð ŒÜ Ðalleging€failure€to€discover€and€diagnose€her€malady€resulting€in€permanent€physical€impairment.€Ð xÈ ÐThe€trial€court€entered€judgment€for€the€defendants€on€a€jury€verdict,€and€plaintiff€appealed€assertingÐ d´ Ðevidentiary€errors€and€the€failure€of€the€trial€judge€to€perform€his€duty€as€the€thirteenth€juror.€€We€Ð P  ÐaffirmÔ#†/XØsXXXØs#ÔÔ#†/¼‚/»X/XØs›#ÔÔ‡/XØsX»/¼‚/ÔÐ <Œ ÐÓøÓÌò òÔ_ÔTenn.R.App.P.Ô_Ô€3;€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed€andÐ d ÐRemandedó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†/¼‚/»à/XØs]#ÔÔ‡/XØsX./¼‚/ÔW.€Frank€Crawford,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€Ô_ÔW.S.Ô_Ôóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòAlan€E.€Ô_ÔHighersÔ_Ô,Ð Ø( ÐJ.óó€and€òòDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.óó,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌJoel€Porter€and€Nathan€A.€Ô_ÔBicksÔ_Ô,€Memphis;€Todd€A.€Rose,€Paris,€For€Appellant,€Lisa€HeathÐ œì ÐÌJerry€E.€Mitchell,€John€H.€Ô_ÔDotsonÔ_Ô,€and€Andrea€N.€Ô_ÔMalkinÔ_Ô,€Memphis,€For€Appellees,€Dale€E.€Hansen,Ð t Ä ÐM.D.€and€Memphis€Radiological€Professional€CorporationÐ `!°  ÐÓMÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†/¼‚/»X/XØs|#ÔÔ‡/XØsX»/¼‚/ÔÐ 8#ˆ" ÐÌòòóóÔ#†/¼‚/»X/XØsƒ #ÔÔ‡/XØsX»/¼‚/ÔÓ  ÓÑ€&ïO Ñà  àPlaintiff,€Lisa€Heath,€sued€Memphis€Radiological€Professional€Corporation,€Dale€E.€Hansen,Ð %` $ ÐM.D.,€and€Methodist€Hospitals€of€MemphisÔ_Ô׃'×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€for€medical€malpractice€by€deviating€and€notÐ ü%L!% Ðconforming€to€the€standard€of€care€in€failing€to€diagnose€a€brain€tumor€which€directly€andÐ è&8"& Ðâ âproximately€caused€severe€injuries€and€disabilities€to€the€plaintiff.Ð Ô'$#'ý> Ðà  àDefendantsðð€answer€denies€the€material€allegations€of€negligence€against€them€and€joins€issueÐ ° Ðâ âthereon.€€The€answer€also€avers€that€the€defendants€conformed€to€the€established€standard€of€care,Ð œì Ðand€they€used€reasonable€care€and€diligence€in€their€medical€practice€and€procedure€and€were€guiltyÐ ˆØ Ðof€no€negligence€or€malpractice€of€any€nature.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€case€was€tried€before€a€jury€and€submitted€to€the€jury€on€a€special€verdict€form.€€The€firstÐ L œ Ðquestion€and€answer€of€the€verdict€form€resolved€the€case:€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWe,€the€jury,€unanimously€answer€the€questions€submitted€by€theÐ  ` ÐCourt€as€follows:Ðü L ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à1.€€Do€you€find€that€the€defendant,€Dr.€Dale€E.€Hansen,€deviated€fromÐ Ô$  Ðthe€recognized€standard€of€acceptable€professional€practice€withÐ À  Ðrespect€to€the€MRI€studies€on€plaintiff,€Lisa€Heath?€€(The€plaintiff€hasÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€burden€of€proof.)Иè ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àYes______________________à0  àNo€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€X€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐpÀ(#(# ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIf€your€answer€is€ð ðNo,ðð€stop€here,€sign€the€Verdict€Form€and€returnÐ H˜ Ðto€the€Court.€€If€you€answered€ð ðYes,ðð€proceed€to€Question€2.Ð4„` x` x ÐÓ€   (àÈx3Óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  à*à0 h àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#à*à0p(#(#àà0Èp(#p(#àà0 È(#È(#à*Ð p (# (# ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€entered€judgment€for€the€defendants€on€the€jury€verdict,€and€plaintiffÐ øH Ðsubsequently€filed€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€which€was€denied€by€the€trial€court.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àPlaintiffððs€appeal€presents€three€issues€for€review:Ð ¼  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à1.€€Whether€the€trial€court,€as€thirteenth€juror,€afforded€too€muchÐ ”ä Ðdeference€to€the€juryððs€verdict€and€thereby€applied€an€incorrectÐ €Ð Ðstandard€in€its€evaluation€of€the€evidence?Ðl¼` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à2.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€excluding€evidence€of€bias€arisingÐ D!” Ðfrom€the€fact€that€defendant€Dale€Hansen,€M.D.€and€the€physiciansÐ 0"€  Ðwho€testified€on€his€behalf€had€a€financial€interest€in€the€outcome€ofÐ #l! Ðthe€case€through€their€ownership€interest€in€State€Volunteer€MutualÐ $X" ÐInsurance€Company?Ðô$D #` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à3.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€defendants€to€introduceÐ Ì&"% Ðany€testimony€by€Ô_ÔFereidoonÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔParsioonÔ_Ô,€M.D.€because€of€defendantsððÐ ¸'#& Ðfailure,€during€pretrial€discovery,€to€disclose€Dr.€Ô_ÔParsioonÔ_Ô€as€a€personÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwith€knowledge€or€as€an€expert€witness?Ð)à$(` x` x Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àSince€all€of€plaintiffððs€issues€present€questions€of€law,€we€will€deal€only€briefly€with€the€facts,Ð ° Ðâ âexcept€as€necessary€in€considering€the€specific€issues.Ð œì ÐÌà  àIn€early€1993,€plaintiff€began€experiencing€hearing€loss€in€her€left€ear€and€was€referred€by€herÐ tÄ Ðprimary€care€physician€to€Dr.€Allan€Ô_ÔRulemanÔ_Ô,€an€ear,€nose,€and€throat€physician.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔRulemanÔ_ÔÐ `° Ðconducted€various€tests€and€then€referred€plaintiff€to€the€radiology€department€at€Methodist€NorthÐ L œ ÐHospital€for€an€MRI€study€of€her€brain,€which€was€performed€on€March€12,€1993.€€MemphisÐ 8 ˆ ÐRadiological€Professional€Corporation€had€a€contract€with€Methodist€Hospitals€of€Memphis€wherebyÐ $ t Ðthe€corporation€agreed€to€provide€radiological€services€to€Methodistððs€patients.€€Defendant,€Dale€E.Ð  ` ÐHansen,€M.D.,€was€a€member€of€the€Memphis€Radiological€Professional€Corporation€and,€being€onÐ ü L  Ðduty€on€March€12,€1993,€was€responsible€for€interpreting€plaintiffððs€MRI.€€Plaintiffððs€theory€andÐ è 8  Ðcontention€is€that€the€March€12,€1993€MRI€revealed€a€brain€tumor€and€that€Dr.€Hansen€was€negligentÐ Ô$  Ðin€failing€to€discover€and€diagnose€that€condition,€because€he€did€not€conform€to€the€standard€ofÐ À  Ðacceptable€practice€for€radiologists€in€the€community.€€As€the€evidence€revealed,€plaintiffððs€conditionÐ ¬ü  Ðdeteriorated€over€a€period€of€approximately€two€years,€during€which€time€she€had€variousÐ ˜è  Ðexaminations€and€treatment€from€a€variety€of€physicians,€including€numerous€MRI€procedures.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€defendantsðð€theory€and€proof€is€that,€although€in€retrospect€plaintiffððs€tumor€might€haveÐ \¬ Ðbeen€discernable€on€the€March€12,€1993€MRI,€Dr.€Hansen€was€not€negligent€in€failing€to€see€it.€€OverÐ H˜ Ðthe€approximate€two€year€period€subsequent€to€the€March€12,€1993€MRI,€plaintiff€had€several€otherÐ 4„ ÐMRI€procedures,€all€of€which€were€reviewed€by€several€different€radiologists€without€finding€thatÐ  p Ðthe€affected€area€of€the€brain€was€abnormal,€having€an€identifiable€tumor.€€Defendantsðð€proof€is€toÐ  \ Ðthe€effect€that€it€was€only€after€obtaining€a€highly€detailed€image€of€plaintiffððs€brain€and€a€personalÐ øH Ðview€of€the€patient,€could€the€radiologist€determine€that€there€was€in€fact€a€tumor.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àWe€will€now€discuss€plaintiffððs€first€issue€for€review:€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à1.€€Whether€the€trial€court,€as€thirteenth€juror,€afforded€too€muchÐ ”ä Ðdeference€to€the€juryððs€verdict€and€thereby€applied€an€incorrectÐ €Ð Ðstandard€in€its€evaluation€of€the€evidence?Ðl¼` x` x ÐÌà  àWhen€the€trial€court€is€called€upon€to€act€as€the€thirteenth€juror€upon€the€filing€of€a€motionÐ D!” Ðfor€a€new€trial,€the€trial€court€must€be€independently€satisfied€with€the€verdict€of€the€jury.€Ð 0"€  Ðò òòòCumberland€Telephone€and€Telegraph€Co.€v.€Ô_ÔSmithwickÔ_Ôó óóó,€79€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€803€(Tenn.1904).€€The€SupremeÐ #l! ÐCourtððs€opinion€reads€in€part:Ð $X" ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€rule€in€civil€cases€is€that,€if€the€circuit€judge€is€dissatisfiedÐ à%0!$ Ðwith€the€verdict€of€the€jury,€it€is€his€duty€to€set€it€aside€and€grant€aÐ Ì&"% Ðnew€trial,€and€that€upon€its€being€made€to€appear€to€this€court,€fromÐ ¸'#& Ðstatements€made€by€the€circuit€judge€in€passing€upon€the€motion€forÐ ¤(ô#' Ðnew€trial,€that€he€was€really€not€satisfied€with€the€verdict,€it€becomesÐ )à$( Ðthe€duty€of€this€court,€when€it€has€acquired€jurisdiction€of€the€cause,Ð |*Ì%) Ðto€do€what€the€circuit€judge€should€have€done;€that€is,€to€grant€a€newÐ h+¸&* Ðtrial€on€the€ground€of€the€dissatisfaction€of€that€judicial€officer€withÐ ° Ðthe€verdict.€[Citations€omitted.]Мì` x` x ÐÌÓ€   (Éxx  Óà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xàà  à*à0h¸ ¸ àà0Àh h à*à0À À àà0p  à*ÐtÄp p  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€reasons€given€for€the€rule€are,€in€substance,€that€theÐ L œ Ðcircuit€judge€hears€the€testimony,€just€as€the€jury€does,€sees€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðwitnesses,€and€observes€their€demeanor€upon€the€witness€stand;€that,Ð $ t Ðby€his€training€and€experience€in€the€weighing€of€testimony,€and€theÐ  ` Ðapplication€of€legal€rules€thereto,€he€is€especially€qualified€for€theÐ ü L  Ðcorrection€of€any€errors€into€which€the€jury€by€inexperience€may€haveÐ è 8  Ðfallen,€whereby€they€have€failed,€in€their€verdict,€to€reach€the€justiceÐ Ô$  Ðand€right€of€the€case,€under€the€testimony€and€the€charge€of€the€court;Ð À  Ðthat,€in€our€system,€this€is€one€of€the€functions€the€circuit€judgeÐ ¬ü  Ðpossesses€and€should€exercise€ð!ð€as€it€were,€that€of€a€thirteenth€juror.€Ð ˜è  ÐSo€it€is€said€that€he€must€be€satisfied,€as€well€as€the€jury;€that€it€is€hisÐ „Ô  Ðduty€to€weigh€the€evidence,€and,€if€he€is€dissatisfied€with€the€verdictÐ pÀ Ðof€the€jury,€he€should€set€it€aside.€.€.€.Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€804„05.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àIf€the€trial€judge,€when€acting€as€the€thirteenth€juror,€simply€approves€the€verdict€without€anyÐ  \ Ðcomment,€it€is€presumed€by€an€appellate€court€that€he€has€performed€his€function€adequately.€€ò òòòMillerÐ øH Ðv.€Doeó óóó,€873€S.W.2d€346€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€Where€the€trial€court€makes€comments€in€the€courseÐ ä4 Ðof€reviewing€a€motion€for€a€new€trial,€we€will€review€those€comments,€but€we€do€not€review€thoseÐ Ð  Ðcomments€to€see€if€we€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€reasoning€but€rather€to€determine€whether€the€trialÐ ¼  Ðcourt€properly€reviewed€the€evidence€and€was€satisfied€or€dissatisfied€with€the€verdict.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€347.€Ð ¨ø ÐIf€the€trial€judge€makes€comments€which€indicate€that€he€has€misconceived€his€duty€or€clearly€hasÐ ”ä Ðnot€followed€it,€this€Court€must€reverse€and€remand€the€case€for€a€new€trial.€€ò òòòId.€€ó óóóÐ €Ð ÐÌà  àFollowing€these€principles,€it€now€becomes€our€responsibility€to€examine€the€comments€madeÐ X ¨ Ðby€the€trial€judge€when€he€overruled€plaintiffððs€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€We€quote€from€the€transcript:€Ð D!” ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAnd€.€.€.€regarding€the€weight€of€the€evidence€in€this€case,€thisÐ #l! Ðwas€a€very€well€tried,€very€hard€fought€case.€€You€know,€I€wasÐ $X" Ðcertainly€sympathetic€and€I€donððt€know€how€the€jury€could€help€butÐ ô$D # Ðbe€sympathetic€to€the€plaintiff€in€this€case.€€But€it€is€a€case,€as€Mr.Ð à%0!$ ÐMitchell€has€suggested,€that€could€have€gone€either€way.ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àYou€know,€as€a€trial€judge€I€sit€up€here€and€listen€to€all€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðevidence€and€then€instruct€the€jury€and€the€jury€comes€back,€and€inÐ )à$( Ðalmost€every€case,€I€would€say€90€to€95€percent€of€the€cases,€I€donððtÐ |*Ì%) Ðhave€any€problems€with€what€the€jury€does.€€In€five€percent€or€less€ofÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€cases€the€jury€comes€back€with€a€verdict€and€I€think€to€myself€howÐ ° Ðin€the€world€did€they€come€to€that€verdict€based€on€the€evidence€thatÐ œì ÐI€heard€in€this€case.ЈØ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAnd€in€those€cases€if€the€party,€the€aggrieved€party,€comesÐ `° Ðback€and€asks€for€a€new€trial,€generally€I€grant€it.€€But€this€is€not€oneÐ L œ Ðof€those€cases.€€Again€if€the€jury€had€come€back€for€the€plaintiff,€IÐ 8 ˆ Ðwould€have€said€thereððs€evidence€ð!ð€ample€evidence€in€the€record.€Ð $ t ÐAnd€I€canððt€remember€the€plaintiffððs€expertððs€witness€Doctor€Bat€ð!ðÐ `` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÔ_ÔMRÔ_Ô.€ROSE:€Ô_ÔBatnitskyÔ_Ô.Ðè 8 ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTHE€COURT:€Thank€you.€€I€couldnððt€remember€his€last€name.€€MadeÐ À  Ða€good€credible€witness,€I€thought,€even€though€he€was€lambasted€forÐ ¬ü  Ðtestifying€in€other€cases.€€Made€a€credible€witness.€€And€if€the€juryÐ ˜è  Ðhad€come€back€for€the€plaintiff,€I€would€have€said€the€evidenceÐ „Ô  Ðpreponderates€in€favor€of€the€verdict€of€the€jury.€€And€likewise€basedÐ pÀ Ðon€the€verdict€for€the€defendant,€I€have€got€to€say€after€an€independentÐ \¬ Ðreview€of€the€evidence€that€the€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€theÐ H˜ Ðverdict€of€the€jury€in€this€case€and€not€against.Ð4„` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAgain,€it€was€a€tough€case€and€Iððm€certainly€empathetic€withÐ  \ Ðthe€plaintiff,€but€you€had€your€jury€trial.€€I€think€it€was€a€fair€trial,€andÐ øH ÐI€will€deny€you€motion.Ðä4` x` x ÐÌÓ€ "  ( Éxx   Óà  àSubsequently,€on€October€13,€2000,€the€trial€court€entered€an€ð ðOrder€Denying€PlaintiffððsÐ ¼  ÐMotion€for€a€New€Trial,ðð€which€states:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThis€cause€came€to€be€heard€on€plaintiffððs€motion€for€a€newÐ €Ð Ðtrial,€memoranda,€and€statements€of€counsel,€and€the€entire€record€inÐ l¼ Ðthe€case,€from€all€of€which€it€appears€that€the€motion€is€not€well€takenÐ X ¨ Ðand€should€be€denied.€€As€thirteenth€juror,€the€Court€agrees€with€theÐ D!” Ðjury€verdict€and€agrees€that€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€inÐ 0"€  Ðfavor€of€the€defendants.Ð#l!` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àWHEREFORE,€IT€IS€CONSIDERED€AND€ORDERED€BYÐ ô$D # ÐTHE€COURT€that€plaintiffððs€motion€for€new€trial€be,€and€the€same€isÐ à%0!$ Ðhereby,€denied.ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌà  àPlaintiff€asserts€that€ð ðthe€trial€courtððs€candor,€in€its€ruling€as€the€thirteenth€juror,€shows€anÐ ¤(ô#' Ðimpermissible€degree€of€deference€to€the€juryððs€verdict.ðð€€Plaintiff€primarily€relies€upon€the€SupremeÐ )à$( ÐCourtððs€holding€in€ò òòòHolden€v.€Ô_ÔRannickÔ_Ôó óóó,€682€S.W.2d€903€(Tenn.€1984).Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àIn€ò òòòHoldenó óóó,€also€a€medical€malpractice€case,€the€Supreme€Court€commented:€Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAlthough€the€trial€judge€said€that€he€agreed€with€the€verdict€for€theÐ ˆØ Ðdefendant,€he€indicated€that€he€would€also€have€agreed€with€theÐ tÄ Ðverdict€for€the€plaintiff.€€That€position€is€inconsistent€with€his€duty€toÐ `° Ðweigh€the€evidence€and€pass€on€the€issues.€€If€a€trial€judge€properlyÐ L œ Ðweighs€the€evidence€and€passes€on€the€issues,€he€will€not€find€that€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðevidence€does€not€preponderate€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff€because€theÐ $ t Ðverdict€is€for€the€defendant,€but€would€preponderate€in€favor€of€theÐ  ` Ðplaintiff€if€the€verdict€had€been€for€the€plaintiff.Ðü L ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€trial€judge€stated€that€he€expressly€approved€the€verdict.€Ð Ô$  ÐIt€appears€from€the€context€of€that€statement,€however,€that€heÐ À  Ðapproved€the€verdict€because€he€felt€that€the€case€was€fairly€presentedÐ ¬ü  Ðand€he€was€not€shocked€by€the€verdict,€rather€than€because€he€reachedÐ ˜è  Ðthe€same€verdict€as€the€jury€after€independently€weighing€theÐ „Ô  Ðevidence€and€passing€upon€the€issues.€€Twice€the€trial€judge€statedÐ pÀ Ðthat€the€court€does€not€substitute€its€judgment€for€that€of€the€jury.€Ð \¬ ÐThose€statements€reveal€a€mistaken€belief€on€his€part€that€he€wasÐ H˜ Ðunder€no€duty€to€pass€upon€the€issues.Ð4„` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àBecause€the€trial€judge€stopped€short€of€making€anÐ  \ Ðindependent€decision€on€the€issues€presented€by€the€case,€and€deferredÐ øH Ðto€the€judgment€of€the€jury,€he€failed€to€perform€his€duty€as€aÐ ä4 Ðthirteenth€juror.€€ÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€905„06.Ð ¨ø ÐÌIn€determining€whether€the€trial€court€misconceived€its€duty€as€a€thirteenth€juror,€the€Supreme€CourtÐ €Ð Ðmade€it€clear€that€the€comments€of€the€trial€judge€should€be€considered€as€a€whole.€€ò òòòId.ó óóóÐ l¼ ÐÌà  àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€trial€judge€recognized€his€duty€to€make€an€independent€review€of€theÐ D!” Ðevidence€and€stated€that€his€experience€has€been€that€in€90€to€95€percent€of€the€cases€the€jury€comesÐ 0"€  Ðback€with€the€proper€decision;€that€in€the€other€percentage€of€the€cases,€he€generally€grants€a€newÐ #l! Ðtrial.€€He€stated€ð ðbut€this€is€not€one€of€those€cases.ðð€€Although€the€trial€judge€stated€that€if€the€juryÐ $X" Ðhad€come€back€for€the€plaintiff,€he€would€have€said€that€the€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€theÐ ô$D # Ðverdict€of€the€jury,€it€appears€that€he€did€that€in€the€context€of€his€expressed€sympathy€for€theÐ à%0!$ Ðplaintiff.€€He€did€specifically€state€that€he€considered€the€verdict€for€the€defendant€on€an€independentÐ Ì&"% Ðreview€of€the€evidence€and€found€that€the€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€the€verdict.€€No€whereÐ ¸'#& Ðdoes€the€trial€judge€indicate€that€he€is€not€at€liberty€to€substitute€his€judgment€for€that€of€the€jury,€asÐ ¤(ô#' Ðin€ò òòòHoldenó óóó.€€It€appears€that€the€judgeððs€remarks€concerning€a€jury€verdict€for€the€plaintiff€is€merelyÐ )à$( Ðpointing€out€that€there€was€material€evidence€to€sustain€a€verdict€for€the€plaintiff€on€that€standard€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðreview€and€not€that€the€weight€of€the€evidence€was€placed€with€plaintiff.€€Considering€his€remarksÐ h+¸&* Ðas€a€whole,€we€find€that€the€trial€judge€did€not€misconceive€his€duty€as€the€thirteenth€juror€and€madeÐ ° Ðan€independent€review€of€the€evidence€from€which€he€found€that€the€evidence€did€not€preponderateÐ œì Ðagainst€the€juryððs€verdict€in€favor€of€the€defendant.€€Moreover,€a€court€speaks€through€its€writtenÐ ˆØ Ðorders.€€ò òòòLadd€v.€Honda€Motor€Co.ó óóó,€939€S.W.2d€83€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996),€and€the€trial€courtððs€orderÐ tÄ Ðdenying€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€explicitly€provides€that€the€decision€was€made€only€after€anÐ `° Ðindependent€review€of€the€evidence.€There€is€no€reversible€error€by€the€trial€court€on€this€issue.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€second€issue€for€review€is:Ð $ t ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à2.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€excluding€evidence€of€bias€arisingÐ ü L  Ðfrom€the€fact€that€defendant€Dale€Hansen,€M.D.€and€the€physiciansÐ è 8  Ðwho€testified€on€his€behalf€had€a€financial€interest€in€the€outcome€ofÐ Ô$  Ðthe€case€through€their€ownership€interest€in€State€Volunteer€MutualÐ À  ÐInsurance€Company?Ьü ` x` x ÐÌÓÓà  àDefendant€filed€a€motion€òòin€Ô_ÔlimineÔ_Ôóó€stating€in€part:Ð „Ô  ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð à1.€€That€counsel€for€plaintiff€and€plaintiffððs€witnesses€shall€not€adduceÐ \¬ Ðtestimony€or€comments€with€respect€to€whether€the€defendants€or€anyÐ H˜ Ðof€the€witnesses€called€by€the€defendants€are€insured€by€any€liabilityÐ 4„ Ðinsurance€or€by€State€Volunteer€Mutual€Insurance€Company€inÐ  p Ðparticular.Ð \` x` x ÐÌÓ€ $  (0Éxx"  Óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  à*à0 h àà0Àh(#h(#à*à0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#à*Ðä4p(#p(# ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€granted€the€motion,€and€plaintiff€was€allowed€to€make€an€offer€of€proof€asÐ ¼  Ðfollows:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àòòÔ_ÔFereidoonÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔParsioonÔ_Ô,€M.D.óóЀÐ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€(BY€Ô_ÔMRÔ_Ô.€PORTER:)€Dr.€Ô_ÔParsioonÔ_Ô,€are€you€insured€by€the€StateÐ X ¨ ÐVolunteer€Mutual€Insurance€Company?ÐD!”` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€Yes,€sir.Ð#l!` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€What€group€are€you€a€part€of?Ðô$D #` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€I€am€a€solo€practitioner.ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Solo€practitioner?Ф(ô#'` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€Yes,€sir.Ð|*Ì%)` x` x ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€When€you€were€with€the€Ô_ÔSemmesÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔMurpheyÔ_Ô€Clinic,€were€theyÐ ° Ðinsured€by€the€Ô_ÔSVMICÔ_Ô,€as€well?Мì` x` x ÐÔ_ÔÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€I€believe€so.ÐtÄ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€And€do€you€understand€that€the€physicians€who€were€insured€areÐ L œ Ðthe€people€who€own€the€company.Ð8 ˆ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€Yes,€sir.Ð `` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€A€doctor€owned€insurance€company;€is€that€correct?Ðè 8 ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€I€believe€so.ÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Thanks.€€Thatððs€all.Иè ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àòòJames€Wolfe,€M.D.óóÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€(BY€MR.€ROSE:)€The€other€thing€I€want€to€ask€you€is,€in€yourÐ H˜ Ðpractice,€are€you€insured€by€State€Volunteer€Mutual€InsuranceÐ 4„ ÐCompany?Ð p` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€Yes,€sir.€€Everybody€in€that€group€is.ÐøH` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€And€you€understand€that€you€are€an€owner€in€part€in€thatÐ Ð  Ðinsurance€company?м ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€I€saw€one€of€the€depositions€that€question€was€asked€and€afterÐ ”ä Ðthat,€I€gave€it€some€thought.€€And€I€finally€realized€why€they€sent€meÐ €Ð Ðthe€proxies€every€year.€€I€think€I€must€be.Ðl¼` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€You€have€an€ownership€interest€in€the€company,€in€the€insuranceÐ D!” Ðcompany,€you€understand€that?Ð0"€ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€I€am€not€for€certain€of€that,€no,€Iððm€not.€€But€I€have€an€idea€IÐ $X" Ðprobably€am.€€I€am€a€shareholder€of€some€sort.Ðô$D #` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Thatððs€all.€€Thank€you.ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àMR.€MITCHELL:€Dr.€Wolfe,€do€you€know€whether€or€not€Dr.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐHansen€has€any€insurance€of€any€kind?Ð)à$(` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€No,€I€donððt.Ðh+¸&*` x` x Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àMR.€MITCHELL:€Thatððs€all€I€have.а` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àòòGale€Gardner,€M.D.óóЈØ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€(BY€MR.€PORTER:)€Dr.€Gardner,€are€you€insured€by€the€SVMICÐ `° ÐInsurance€Company?ÐL œ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€Yes,€sir.Ð$ t` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Is€that€a€physician€owned€company€that€operates€within€the€StateÐ ü L  Ðof€Tennessee?Ðè 8 ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€I€believe€that€it€is.ÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€And€are€you,€by€virtue€of€being€a€policyholder,€also€an€owner€ofÐ ˜è  Ðthat€company?Ð„Ô ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€I€donððt€know€the€answer€to€that.Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Are€you€aware€of€anyone€else€who€owns€it,€other€than€the€doctorÐ 4„ Ðmembers€who€are€insured€by€it?Ð p` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€I€donððt€know€enough€about€it€to€be€able€to€answer€that€question,Ð øH ÐMr.€Porter.€€Iððm€sorry.Ðä4` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€And€do€you€know,€of€your€own€knowledge,€whether€theÐ ¼  Ðdefendant,€Dr.€Hansen€and€his€group,€are€insured€by€that€company?Шø` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€I€donððt€specifically€know.ЀÐ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Thatððs€all,€Doctor.€€Thank€you.ÐX ¨` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€(BY€MR.€DOTSON):€Dr.€Gardner,€do€you€know€Dr.€Hansen?Ð0"€ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€Very€casually.€€I€know€who€he€is.Ð$X"` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Did€you€see€him€this€morning€before€trial?Ðà%0!$` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€I€did€see€him€this€morning.и'#&` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€First€time€you€saw€him,€did€you€recognize€him?Ð)à$(` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€No,€I€did€not.Ðh+¸&*` x` x Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Thatððs€all€I€have.€€And€would€you€just€leave€your€CV€there€on€theÐ ° Ðstand,€please?€€Iððm€going€to€make€that€as€an€exhibit€later.€€Thank€you,Ð œì ÐDoctor.ЈØ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àòòStipulation€as€to€MRPC,€which€includes€Drs.€Hansen,€Mabry,€andÐ `° ÐHalfordóóÐL œ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àMR.€PORTER:€Your€Honor,€we€have€one€additional€matter.€Ð $ t ÐItððs€not€rebuttal,€but€we€would€like€ð!ð€we€would€move€to€recall€Dr.Ð  ` ÐHansen€for€purposes€of€completing€our€offer€of€proof€because€weÐ ü L  Ðoverlooked€asking€him€the€question€about€the€SVMIC.Ðè 8 ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àTHE€COURT:€Any€objection?ÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àMR.€MITCHELL:€Your€Honor,€we€will€stipulate€that€Dr.Ð ˜è  ÐHansen€is€insured€by€State€Volunteer,€if€that€is€all€they€want€to€putÐ „Ô  Ðhim€on€for.ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àMR.€PORTER:€You€stipulate€that€Dr.€Hansen€and€his€groupÐ H˜ Ðare€insured€by€SVMIC?Ð4„` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àMR.€MITCHELL:€Yes.Ð \` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àMR.€PORTER:€Thatððs€satisfactory.Ðä4` x` x ÐÌÓÓà  àThe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€as€pertinent€to€our€inquiry€on€this€issue,€are€as€follows:Ð ¼  ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àò òRule€402.€€Relevant€evidence€generally€admissible;€irrelevantÐ ”ä Ðevidence€inadmissible.ó 󀄀All€relevant€evidence€is€admissible€exceptÐ €Ð Ðas€provided€by€the€Constitution€of€the€United€States,€the€ConstitutionÐ pÀ Ðof€Tennessee,€these€rules,€or€other€rules€of€€laws€of€generalÐ \ ¬ Ðapplication€in€the€courts€of€Tennessee.€€Evidence€which€is€notÐ H!˜ Ðrelevant€is€not€admissible.Ð4"„ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àò òRule€403.€€Exclusion€of€relevant€evidence€on€grounds€ofÐ  $\" Ðprejudice,€confusion,€or€waste€of€timeó ó.€€„€Although€relevant,Ð ø$H # Ðevidence€may€be€excluded€if€its€probative€value€is€substantiallyÐ è%8!$ Ðoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,Ð Ô&$"% Ðor€misleading€the€jury,€or€by€considerations€of€undue€delay,€waste€ofÐ À'#& Ðtime,€or€needless€presentation€of€cumulative€evidence.Ь(ü#'` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àò òRule€411.€€Liability€insurance.ó 󀄀Evidence€that€a€person€was€or€wasÐ „*Ô%) Ðnot€insured€against€liability€is€not€admissible€upon€issues€Ô_ÔofÐ t+Ä&* Ðnegligence€or€other€wrongful€conduct.€€This€rule€does€not€require€theÐ ° Ðexclusion€of€evidence€of€insurance€against€liability€when€offered€forÐ œì Ðanother€purpose,€such€as€proof€of€agency,€ownership,€or€control,€orÐ ˆØ Ðbias€or€prejudice€of€a€witness.ÐtÄ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àò òRule€616.€€Impeachment€by€bias€or€prejudiceó ó.€„€A€party€may€offerÐ L œ Ðevidence€by€cross„examination,€extrinsic€evidence,€or€both,€that€aÐ < Œ Ðwitness€is€biased€in€favor€of€or€prejudiced€against€a€party€or€anotherÐ ( x Ðwitness.Ð d` x` x ÐÌà  àA€review€of€the€offer€of€proof€made€by€the€plaintiff€indicates€that€the€witnesses,€while€beingÐ ì <  Ðinsured€by€Ô_ÔSVMICÔ_Ô,€were€not€aware€of€Dr.€Hansenððs€liability€insurance,€if€any.€€In€ò òòòÔ_ÔRobersonÔ_Ô€v.Ð Ø(  ÐÔ_ÔNethertonÔ_Ôó óóó,€€No.01A01„9310„CV„00470,€1994€WL€164153,€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€May€4,€1994),€a€medicalÐ Ä  Ðmalpractice€case,€plaintiffs€made€the€same€assertion€as€in€the€case€at€bar€„€that€the€potential€bias€ofÐ °  Ðthe€defendantððs€experts€was€relevant€in€the€case.€€The€Court€noted:Ð œì  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€plaintiffs€merely€concluded€that€because€these€experts€wereÐ tÄ Ðpolicy€holders€with€Ô_ÔSVMICÔ_Ô,€and€because€they€were€not€compensatedÐ `° Ðfor€their€testimony€in€this€case€they€were€biased€in€favor€of€theÐ Lœ Ðdefendant.€€The€introduction€of€evidence€to€show€bias€on€the€part€ofÐ 8ˆ Ða€witness€is€in€the€proper€circumstances,€admissible€under€Rule€411Ð $t Ðand€€616.€€However,€that€evidence€is€not€admissible€without€a€properÐ ` Ðfoundation.€.€.€.ÐüL` x` x ÐÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€*2.€€Ð Ô$ ÐÌÓÓAfter€reviewing€the€testimony,€the€Court€stated:Ð ¬ü ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àIn€this€case€the€plaintiffsðð€attorney€did€not€lay€a€properÐ „Ô Ðfoundation€for€the€evidence€that€he€wanted€to€introduce€before€theÐ pÀ Ðjury.€€Neither€Dr.€Arnold€nor€Dr.€Nesbitt€stated€that€they€understoodÐ \ ¬ Ðhow€a€mutual€insurance€company€operated€or€that€the€amount€ofÐ H!˜ Ðclaims€paid€by€Ô_ÔSVMICÔ_Ô€could€potentially€affect€their€premiums.€Ð 4"„  ÐAbsent€any€evidence€in€the€record€to€support€the€inference€that€theseÐ  #p! Ðexperts€would€be€untruthful€in€order€to€prevent€a€possible€increase€inÐ  $\" Ðtheir€premiums,€the€evidence€offered€by€the€plaintiffsðð€attorney€wasÐ ø$H # Ðnot€admissible€under€either€Rule€411€or€Rule€616.Ðä%4!$` x` x ÐÌò òòòIdó óóó.€at€*3;ò òòò€see€also€Patton€v.€Roseó óóó,€892€S.W.2d€410,€414„15€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1994).Ð ¼' #& ÐÌà  àThe€admissibility€of€evidence€is€a€matter€which€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€Ð ”)ä$( Ðcourt.€€ò òòòState€v.€Ô_ÔBallardÔ_Ôó óóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€562€(Tenn.€1993);€ò òòòWright€v.€Ô_ÔQuillenÔ_Ôó óóó,€909€S.W.2d€804,€809Ð €*Ð%) Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€The€appellate€court€will€not€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€decision€on€theÐ l+¼&* Ðadmissibility€of€evidence€absent€clear€abuse.€€ò òòòState€v.€Ô_ÔRodenÔ_Ôó óóó,€739€S.W.2d€6€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.Ð ° Ð1987).Ð œì ÐÌà  àUnder€the€record€in€this€case,€we€cannot€say€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€inÐ tÄ Ðgranting€the€motion€òòin€Ô_ÔlimineÔ_Ôóó€and€excluding€the€proffered€testimony.Ð `° ÐÌà  àThe€last€issue€for€review€is:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à3.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€defendants€to€introduceÐ  ` Ðany€testimony€by€Ô_ÔFereidoonÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔParsioonÔ_Ô,€M.D.€because€of€defendantsððÐ ü L  Ðfailure,€during€pretrial€discovery,€to€disclose€Dr.€Ô_ÔParsioonÔ_Ô€as€a€personÐ è 8  Ðwith€knowledge€or€as€an€expert€witness?ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌà  àBy€letter€from€defendants€dated€May€4,€2000,€and€received€by€the€plaintiff€May€11,€2000,Ð ¬ü  Ðeleven€days€before€the€trial€began€on€May€22,€2000,€defendants€listed,€among€others,€Dr.€Ô_ÔFereidoonÔ_ÔÐ ˜è  ÐÔ_ÔParsioonÔ_Ô€as€a€ð ðmay€callðð€witness.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔParsioonÔ_Ô€had€not€previously€been€identified€by€defendants€inÐ „Ô  Ðresponse€to€discovery€as€an€expert€witness€nor€as€a€witness€with€knowledge€of€facts.€€The€subjectÐ pÀ Ðwitness€was€listed€by€defendants€in€the€pretrial€order,€and€plaintiff€filed€a€motion€prior€to€trial€toÐ \¬ Ðstrike€this€witness,€among€others,€from€the€pretrial€order€and€to€exclude€him€as€a€witness€in€the€case.€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€record€reflects€that€Dr.€Ô_ÔParsioonÔ_Ô€was€one€of€plaintiffððs€treating€physicians€who€hadÐ  p Ðpreviously€been€listed€by€the€plaintiff€as€a€person€with€knowledge€of€the€facts.€€Plaintiff€contends€thatÐ  \ Ðdefendants€violated€Ô_ÔTenn.R.Civ.P.Ô_Ô€26.05€by€failing€to€seasonably€supplement€the€response€to€theÐ øH Ðpreviously€answered€interrogatories.€€Ô_ÔTenn.R.Civ.P.Ô_Ô€26.05€provides€in€part:Ð ä4 ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€A€party€is€under€a€duty€seasonably€to€supplement€the€partyððsÐ ¼  Ðresponse€with€respect€to€any€question€directly€addressed€to€(A)€theÐ ¨ø Ðidentity€and€location€of€persons€having€knowledge€of€discoverableÐ ”ä Ðmatters;€and€(B)€the€identity€of€each€person€expected€to€be€called€asÐ €Ð Ðan€expert€witness€at€trial,€the€subject€matter€on€which€the€person€isÐ l¼ Ðexpected€to€testify,€and€the€substance€of€that€testimony.ÐX ¨` x` x ÐÌà  àBasically,€plaintiff€asserts€that€defendants€should€have€listed€the€doctor€as€an€expert€witnessÐ 0"€  Ðand€be€required€to€show€ð ðthe€subject€matter€on€which€[he]€is€expected€to€testify,€and€the€substanceÐ #l! Ðof€that€testimony.ððÐ $X" ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€delayed€its€ruling€on€the€admissibility€of€testimony€of€this€witness€until€he€wasÐ à%0!$ Ðcalled€to€testify€and,€at€the€trial,€sustained€an€objection€to€the€doctorððs€testimony€relating€to€expertÐ Ì&"% Ðopinions€and€activities€of€other€actors€in€the€case.€€The€doctor€was€allowed€to€testify€about€his€careÐ ¸'#& Ðand€treatment€of€the€plaintiff€and€his€opinion€concerning€his€preoperative€and€post„operative€actions.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThe€precise€issue€presented€is€whether€the€doctor€should€have€been€excluded€as€a€witnessÐ |*Ì%) Ðbecause€he€was€not€listed€as€an€expert€witness€by€the€defendants.Ð h+¸&* ÐÑ&ïO Ñâ &âÑe°Ñâ &âÑ  Ñà  àWe€believe€the€case€is€controlled€by€the€decision€of€this€Court€in€ò òòòÔ_ÔAlessioÔ_Ô€v.€Crookó óóó,€633Ð e ÐS.W.2d€770€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1982),€where€the€Court€held:Ð Qì ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAn€expert€whose€information€was€not€acquired€in€preparationÐ )Ä Ðfor€trial€but€rather€because€he€was€an€actor€or€viewer€in€regard€to€theÐ ° Ðoccurrence€should€be€treated€as€an€ordinary€witness€and€not€as€anÐ  œ Ðexpert€as€contemplated€by€Rule€26,€Ô_ÔTRCPÔ_Ô.Ðí ˆ` x` x ÐÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€779.Ð Å ` ÐÌà  àIn€the€instant€case,€it€is€clear€that€Dr.€Ô_ÔParsioonÔ_Ô€was€one€of€plaintiffððs€treating€physicians€andÐ  8  Ðtestified€concerning€the€knowledge€that€he€acquired€thereby.€€We€find€no€error€by€the€trial€court€inÐ ‰$  Ðallowing€this€testimony.Ð u  ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€on€the€jury€verdict€for€defendants€is€affirmed,Ð Mè  Ðand€the€case€is€remanded€for€the€trial€court€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€be€necessary.€€CostsÐ 9Ô  Ðof€the€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€appellant,€Lisa€Heath,€and€her€surety.Ð %À ÐÔ#†/¼‚/»X/XØsá #ÔÔ€/XØsX»/¼‚/ÔÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à__________________________________________Ð Á\ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€Ô_ÔW.S.Ô_Ô