WPC B܎u3#Y{+"ʽh5ҭ! &a@oG3EafZ2*ЬaZyȯBߐ; '*'GOs<#UQǜtq|@^YXIKD]ވKlPm->ٕ1SV6eyƼl<0ڈET/d"ɀB*YwL[3JB <^_X}!)lKI$d9Q n _g:'*1("M%:221l Q- QF`SINZt UۘddWjS1oC%~z&fyaJ`\rRઉjF2QcaBA#8)_M=R!U,G,QL ؅x TVo[5w~ <|O!VۭU<ݱ^{b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 0D   a 'UNN;i=Eb 0 B 0 D3w D- 0K AS"u 0; 0D A#HP LaserJet 4 Plus,,,,,,0{-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular[-:i+00 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.wpt3|xU(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular _ Rz$      1  <  _Mr.Hunterfiledthecomplaintinthepresentaction,aswellastheworkerscompensationaction, prose.   AnoticeofappearancebyhisattorneywasfiledinthiscauseNovember13,2001.  Rz$      2  <  _TheissueaspresentedbytheAppellantis whetherthetrialcourterredingrantingDefendantsmotionto  suppress.- -(|G2z$ !.8dd8         0  < 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  @ OINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#O #Ԉ ,   AssignedonBriefOctober31,2002 X XX #XX#JERRYHUNTERv._MTD_ԀPRODUCTS,INC.XX   ` @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtfor_Haywood_ԀCounty  h @@No.3527_Clayburn_ԀL._Peeples_,Judge  X @@*AV) ` dE<` A (  @@TTNo.W200200005_COA_ԄR3CVFiledDecember20,2002 '  AV) ` dE<` A      XXXXPlaintiffsuedDefendantallegingaconspiracy.TheDefendantfiledamotionforsummaryjudgment  whichthetrialcourtgranted.Plaintiffappealsandweaffirm.  #XXXX&##XX#XX Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed;and ~ Remanded  n   #XW#XX.DavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,_P.J._,_W.S._, N andHollyK._Lillard_,J.,joined. > MarcusM.Reaves,Jackson,Tennessee,fortheappellant,JerryHunter. n C.ThomasHooper,III,Brownsville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,_MTD_ԀProducts,Inc. N  OPINION #XXD#XX . #XX #  XXXXXX  Theplaintiff,JerryHunter,suedhisformeremployer,_MTD_ԀProducts,Inc.followinghis   unsuccessfulsuittorecoverworkerscompensationbenefitsfromtheDefendant.Thegistofthe !  complaintisthattheDefendantwasinvolvedinaconspiracywithitsphysicianstodenythatPlaintiff "! wasinjuredonthejoband,becauseoftheconspiracy,Plaintiffsworkerscompensationactionwas #" dismissed. n$#   Mr.Huntersued_MTD_ԀProducts,Inc.(_MTD_)onJuly6,1999,allegingthathewasinjured F&!% onoraboutNovember18,1993,andNovember8,1994whileinthecourseandscopeofhis 2'"& employmentwith_MTD_.ThisactionwasfiledintheChanceryCourtof_Fayette_ԀCounty,Tennessee. (n#' OnOctober29,1999,anorderofdismissalwithprejudicewasenteredinthatcauseonthebasisthat  )Z$( theclaimwasbarredbytheapplicablestatuteoflimitations. See Tenn.CodeAnn.506203. )F%)   *2&*   Subsequenttothefilingofthecomplaintinthepresentcase,  #  1      ׀_MTD_Ԁfiledamotionfor   summaryjudgmentonthebasisthatthecomplaintfailedtostateacauseofactionforconspiracyand  thatthecasewasbarredbythestatuteoflimitationsandthedoctrineof resjudicata .Mr.Hunter  filedanunswornresponsetothemotion.Themotionforsummaryjudgmentcametobeheard t beforethetrialcourtonDecember10,2001.Themorningofthathearing,Mr.Hunterfiledamotion ` toamendhisresponsetothesummaryjudgmentmotion. L    Thetrialcourtgranted_MTD_smotionforsummaryjudgmentanddeniedMr.Hunters $ t motiontoamendhisresponsetothesummaryjudgmentmotiononthebasisthathehadfailedto  ` complywithrule56.04oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedurewhichprovidesthat [_t]he_Ԁadverse  L  partymayserveandfileopposingaffidavitsnotlaterthanfivedaysbeforethehearing.The  8  advisorycommentnotesthatthissentencewasamendedtorequireopposingaffidavitstobeserved $  five(5)days,notone(1)day,beforemotionday,thusenablingcounseltobebetterpreparedfororal   argument.     Weperceivetheissuetobewhetherthetrialcourterredingrantingthedefendant_MTD_s   motionforsummaryjudgment.   #  2      ׀ p   ThisCourtsreviewofamotionforsummaryjudgmentisaquestionoflawwithno H presumptionofcorrectnessattachedtothelowercourtsjudgment.Wearetoreviewtherecordto 4 determinewhethertherequirementsofTenn.R.Civ.P.56havebeenmet.Summaryjudgmentis  p appropriatewhenthereisnogenuineissueofmaterialfactsandthemovingpartyisentitledto  \ judgmentasamatteroflawontheundisputedfacts. SeeStaplesv._CBL_Ԁ&_Assocs_.,Inc. ,15S.W.3d H 83,88(Tenn.2000). 4   ThepresentactionwasbegunbythefilingofacomplaintonOctober1,2001,allegingthat   theDefendantwasinvolvedinaconspiracywith itsphysicianswhichresultedinadismissalof  thePlaintiffsworkerscompensationactionwhichwasdismissedonOctober29,1999,onthebasis  thatitwasbarredbytheapplicablestatuteoflimitations.Subsequenttothefilingofthecomplaint,  theDefendantfiledamotionfordismissalunderRule10.03Tenn.R.Civ.P.allegingthatthe l complaintmadereferencetodocumentswhichwerenotattachedtothecomplaint.Theplaintiffthen X  filedamotiontosupplementthecomplaintbyaddingtheattachmentswhichconsistedoftwo D! affidavits,presumablycoworkersofMr.Hunter,andapparentlygiventosupportthefactthatMr. 0"  Hunterhadsufferedanonthejobinjury.Mr.Huntersworkerscompensationactionwasdismissed #l! becauseofthebarofthestatuteoflimitations.Theotherattachmentwasanunswornhandwritten $X" statementofMr.DavidL.SmithdatedApril15,2000,whereinhestatesthathehadknowledgethat $D # Mr.Hunterreportedaworkinjury,thatsometimeafterthatMr.HunteraskedMr.Smithifhecould %0!$ obtainacopyoftheaccidentreport.ThestatementfurtherstatesthatMr.Smithwasinformedthat  Mr.Hunterwouldnotgetacopyofthereportunlesshislawyerrequestedit.Uponexplainingthis  toMr.Hunter,Mr.SmithstatesthathelaterlearnedthatMr.Hunterslawyerhadrequestedthe  reportandtoldthattherewasnotone.Therecordbeforeusdoesnotindicatethatthetrialcourt t actedonthismotion.However,apartymayamendpleadingsonceasamatterofcourseatanytime ` beforearesponsivepleadingisserved,otherwiseonlybywrittenconsentoftheadversepartyorby L  leaveofcourt.Tenn.R.Civ.P.15.01.OurSupremeCourthasheldthatamotionisnota 8  responsivepleading. SeeAdamsv.CarterCountyMem.Hosp. ,548S.W.2d307,309(1977). $ t However, [_w]hen_Ԁapartyseeksleavetoamend,hewaivestheabsoluteright,grantedbyTenn.R.  ` Civ.P.15,toamend. _Gribble_Ԁv._Buckner_ ,730S.W.2d630,633(Tenn.Ct.App.1986).  L      DefendantassertsthatsummaryjudgmentwasproperbecausethePlaintiffscasewasbarred   bythedoctrineof resjudicata andthatthepresentactionismerelyanattempttoresurrectthefailed   suittorecoverworkerscompensationbenefits.Wedisagree.Whilethesuitforworkers   compensationbenefitsgaverisetothepresentcase,thePlaintiffhaspresentedanentirelydifferent   issueinthecasebeforeus. p   WenextaddresswhetherornotthePlaintiffhasstatedaclaimagainsttheDefendantupon H whichreliefcanbegranted. See Rule12.02Tenn.R.Civ.P.Assumingtheseallegationstobetrue, 4 thePlaintiffhasfailedtodemonstratehowsuchactiononthepartofDefendantcausedthePlaintiff  p towaituntil1999tofilehisclaimforworkerscompensationbenefitstocompensatehimforinjuries  \ allegedtohaveoccurredin1993and1994.Wehavedeterminedfromtherecordbeforeusthatthe H complaint,evenifweconsidertheattemptedamendment,failstostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcan 4 begrantedandaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourtdismissingthePlaintiffscauseofaction.   Havingsodetermined,wedonotfinditnecessarytoaddressthequestionofthestatuteof   limitations.Thecostsofthisappealaretaxedtotheappellant,JerryHunter,andhissurety.  #XXXX& #   `     h     ___________________________________ \     `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE