ÿWPC\ ## úUN %S 0(Yw@4ÁÕä 0lì 0DX 0Jœ 0Tæ 0^: 0h˜ 0r 0|r 0†î 0t 1u 0dyU>Ý| W— Bîv~ vÓ‰˜HP LaserJet 5/5M - StandardHPPCL5G,,,,0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ · ¸ ¹PºE»I¼½ e¾g¿Àáh¨" 4¨d483|xÂ((3þÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó(%Ã$òòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó2 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`(&Times New Roman rÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýò òRule€10€(Court€of€Appeals).€€òòMemorandum€Opinionóóó ó.€€„„€(b)€The€Court,€withÏconcurrence€of€all€judges€participating€in€the€case,€may€affirm,€reverse€or€modify€the€actions€of€theÏtrial€court€by€memorandum€opinion€when€a€formal€opinion€would€have€no€precedential€value.€ÏWhen€a€case€is€decided€by€memorandum€opinion€it€shall€be€designated€ð ðMEMORANDUMÏOPINION,ðð€shall€not€be€published,€and€shall€not€be€cited€or€relied€on€for€any€reason€in€aÏsubsequent€unrelated€case.Ì MÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý(a)€In€a€malpractice€action,€the€claimant€shall€have€the€burden€of€proving€by€evidence€asÏprovided€by€subsection€(b):Ìà à(1)€The€recognized€standard€of€acceptable€professional€practice€in€the€profession€and€theÏspecialty€thereof,€if€any,€that€the€defendant€practices€in€the€community€in€which€he€practices€or€in€aÏsimilar€community€at€the€time€the€alleged€injury€or€wrongful€action€occurred;Ìà à(2)€That€the€defendant€acted€with€less€than€or€failed€to€act€with€ordinary€and€reasonable€careÏin€accordance€with€such€standard;€andÌà à(3)€As€a€proximate€result€of€the€defendantððs€negligent€act€or€omission,€the€plaintiff€sufferedÏinjuries€which€would€not€otherwise€have€occurred.Ì dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›ò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€®“XdðdÈ7ÑÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€WESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEó óÌÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌà à)à àC.€A.€No.€01A01„9701„CV„00028Ìò òROBERT€T.€IRVINó ó,à à)à àMontgomery€Circuit€Court€No.€C11„371Ìà à)à àÌ€€€€€Plaintiff/Appellant.à à)à àHON.€JAMES€E.€WALTON,€JUDGEÌà à)à àÌVS.à à)à àò òAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌà à)Ìò òTHE€PLASMA€CENTER,€et€aló ó,à à)Ìà à)à àOPINION€œFILED:›Ì€€€€€Defendants/Appellees.à à)Ìà à)ÌÌò òRobert€T.€Irvinó ó,€Pro€SeÌÌò òJohn€T.€Hortonó ó,€BREWER,€KRAUSE,€BROOKS€&€MILLS,€Nashville,€forÏDefendants/Appellees.ÌÌ______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àò òMEMORANDUM€OPINIONó óœ× ƒ ××  ×›Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓà àà àà àò òà àà àà àFARMER,€J.ó óÌÌà àRobert€T.€Irvin€sued€the€defendants€for€refusal€to€continue€to€accept€his€donation€ofÏplasma€to€The€Plasma€Center.€€Defendants€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€The€trial€courtÏentered€an€order€stating€that€the€complaint€failed€to€state€a€cause€of€action€and,€that€if€Mr.€IrvinððsÏcause€of€action€lies€in€medical€malpractice,€he€failed€to€meet€his€requisite€burden€in€responding€toÏthe€defendantsðð€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€The€motion€for€summary€judgment€was€grantedÍand€Mr.€Irvin€appeals.€€€ÌÌà àThe€complaint€alleges€that€the€plaintiff€was€verbally€informed€by€the€manager€ofÏThe€Plasma€Center€that€he€could€no€longer€donate€plasma€to€the€center€due€to€his€elevated€liverÏenzymes.€€It€is€further€alleged€that€the€plaintiff€contacted€the€Center€in€January,€1996€and€informedÏð ðFaye,ðð€who€he€describes€as€the€manager,€that€he€had€been€tested€by€a€doctor€for€elevated€liverÏenzymes€and€was€found€to€be€normal€and/or€without€increased€liver€enzymes.€€It€further€allegesÏthat€the€defendants€were€guilty€of€medical€malpractice.ÌÌà àMr.€Irvin€first€argues€on€appeal€that€he€was€denied€due€process€in€that,€acting€òòò òproÏseóóó ó,€the€trial€court€was€required€to€liberally€construe€his€complaint.€€His€status€as€a€òòò òpro€seóóó ó€litigantÏnotwithstanding,€in€reviewing€a€motion€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€state€a€claim,€the€court€shouldÏconstrue€the€complaint€liberally€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff,€taking€all€allegations€of€fact€as€true,€andÏshould€not€dismiss€the€complaint€unless€it€appears€that€the€plaintiff€can€prove€no€set€of€facts€inÏsupport€of€his€claim€that€would€entitle€him€to€relief.€€òòò òFletcher€v.€Board€of€ProfessionalÏResponsibilityóóó ó,€915€S.W.2d€448€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€òòò òSee€alsoóóó ó€rules€8.05€and€8.06€T.R.C.P.€ÏWe€do€not€find€from€review€of€this€record€that€€the€plaintiff€has€been€deprived€of€due€process.ÌÌà àGiving€a€liberal€construction€to€the€complaint,€it€could€be€interpreted€as€alleging€thatÏMr.€Irvin€was€given€an€incorrect€diagnosis€when€he€was€advised€that€he€had€elevated€liverÏenzymes.€€Blood€banks,€such€as€the€enterprise€operated€by€the€defendants€in€this€case,€have€beenÏheld€to€fall€within€the€definition€of€ð ðhealth€care€providersðð€and€therefore€subject€to€the€sameÏburdens€and€receive€the€same€protection€as€other€health€care€providers€under€T.C.A.€ðð€29„26„115.× ƒ ××  ×€Íòòò òEstate€of€Doe€v.€Vanderbilt€Univ.,€Inc.óóó ó,€824€F.€Supp.€746€(M.D.€Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà àAlthough€ðððð€29„26„101€through€114€of€the€T.C.A.€were€repealed€in€1985,€theÏrepealed€sections€must€be€looked€to€for€definitions€and€understanding€of€those€unrepealed€sections.€Ïòòò òDoe€v.€Vanderbiltóóó ó,€842€F.€Supp.€at€748.€€In€ðð€29„26„102(6),€a€medical€malpractice€action€wasÏdefined€as€ð ðan€action€for€damages€for€personal€injury€or€death€as€a€result€of€any€medicalÏmalpractice€by€a€health€care€provider,€whether€based€upon€tort€or€contract€law.€€The€term€shall€notÏinclude€any€action€for€damages€as€a€result€of€negligence€of€a€health€care€provider€when€medicalÏcare€by€such€provider€is€not€involved€in€such€action.ðð€€The€court€stated€in€òòò òDoe€v.€Vanderbilt€óóó óÏthat€ð ðthe€determination€of€what€questions€to€ask€a€potential€blood€donor,€the€screening€proceduresÏfor€identification€of€appropriate€donors,€the€test€that€should€be€applied€to€blood€samples,€are€allÏquestions€involving€the€exercise€of€medical€judgment.ðð€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€at€749.ÌÌà àIn€support€of€the€motion€for€summary€judgment,€defendants€presented€the€affidavitÏof€Virginia€Louise€Watson,€R.N.€€Her€affidavit€states:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à1.€€I€am€over€twenty„one€years€of€age,€competent€to€testify,Ïand€not€laboring€under€any€disabilities;ÌÌà8 àà à2.€€I€am€a€registered€nurse€licensed€to€practice€nursing€in€the€ÏState€of€Tennessee.€€I€have€been€licensed€as€a€nurse€since€1981.€€IÏhave€been€licensed€to€practice€nursing€in€the€State€of€TennesseeÏsince€1991.€€I€received€my€nursing€degree€from€East€TennesseeÏBaptist€Hospital€School€of€Nursing€in€1981.€€Thereafter,€IÏimmediately€sat€for€my€boards€and€passed€the€examination€in€1981.€ÏI€am€an€employee€of€The€Plasma€Center€and€have€been€employed€byÏThe€Plasma€Center€since€September€30,€1994.ÌÌà8 àà à3.€€A€copy€of€my€resume€is€attached€hereto€as€Exhibit€A.€€ByÏmy€education,€training,€and€experience,€I€am€familiar€with€theÏrecognized€standards€of€acceptable€professional€practice€inÏMontgomery€County,€Tennessee,€for€the€treatment€and€care€ofÏplasma€donors€such€as€Robert€T.€Irvin.ÌÌà8 àà à4.€€I€have€reviewed€the€complete€file€for€Robert€T.€IrvinÏmaintained€by€The€Plasma€Center,€a€copy€of€which€is€attachedÏhereto€as€collective€Exhibit€B,€and€the€complaint€and€affidavit€ofÏRobert€T.€Irvin€filed€in€civil€docket€number€C11„371.€€Based€uponÏmy€review€of€that€information€and€by€my€education,€training,€andÏexperience,€it€is€my€opinion€that€the€care€and€treatment€provided€toÏRobert€T.€Irvin€by€The€Plasma€Center€was€at€all€times€appropriateÏand€in€keeping€with€the€recognized€standards€of€acceptableÏprofessional€practice€for€the€care€and€treatment€of€plasma€donors€inÏMontgomery€County,€Tennessee,€under€the€same€or€similarÏcircumstances.ÌÌà8 àà à5.€€€The€medical€records€attached€hereto€as€collective€ExhibitÏB€show€that€on€or€before€August€of€1995€Robert€T.€IrvinÏapproached€the€defendant€Plasma€Center€regarding€donating€plasma.€ÏAs€part€of€the€standard€procedure€at€The€Plasma€Center,€Mr.€IrvinÏwas€pre„screened€for€eligibility.€€This€pre„screening€involvesÏquestioning€the€applicant€regarding€recent€blood€or€plasmaÏdonations,€alcohol€or€chemical€usage,€sexual€activity,€and€medicalÏhistory.€€Blood€testing€is€performed€to€verify€the€applicants€medicalÏcondition€and€a€basic€physical€examination€of€the€applicant€occurs€atÏthe€time€as€well.€€Specifically,€the€weight,€temperature,€and€bloodÏpressure€of€the€applicant€is€taken.€€Blood€work€is€performed€fromÏthe€samples€taken.€€This€blood€work€involves€testing€hematocrit€andÏprotein€levels.€€Blood€samples€are€sent€to€an€off„premises€laboratoryÏfor€processing.€€Additionally,€the€applicant€is€advised€that€they€mayÏbe€rejected€by€the€Center€if€their€blood€tests€turn€positive€orÏabnormal.ÌÌà8 àà à6.€€Mr.€Irvin€went€through€the€above€pre„screening€processÏand€was€allowed€to€donate€plasma.€€Thereafter,€on€several€occasionsÏas€evidenced€by€the€medical€records,€Mr.€Irvin€returned€betweenÏAugust€and€November€of€1995€to€make€additional€donations.€€OnÏNovember€27,€1995,€Mr.€Irvin€presented€to€donate€plasma.€€TheÏabove€described€physical€examination€was€performed€and€bloodÏsamples€taken.€€A€plasma€specimen€was€taken€and€held€pendingÏreceipt€of€the€results€from€Mr.€Irvinððs€blood€work.€€On€December€5,Ï1995,€the€results€of€Mr.€Irvinððs€blood€work€were€received€byÏtelephone.€€The€results€indicated€an€elevated€ALT€level€for€hisÏNovember€27,€1995,€donation.€€On€December€5,€1995,€I€personallyÏmailed€a€notice€to€Mr.€Irvin€requesting€he€come€to€the€Center€toÏdiscuss€his€laboratory€results.€€On€December€7,€1995,€Mr.€IrvinÏreturned€to€the€Center.€€On€that€date€he€was€informed€of€the€elevatedÏALT€levels€and€informed€that€this€required€his€permanent€rejectionÏas€a€plasma€donor€by€The€Plasma€Center.€€At€the€time€of€the€meetingÍwith€Mr.€Irvin€on€December€7,€1995,€written€results€of€the€bloodÏtests€were€not€available;€however,€a€telephone€report€had€beenÏreceived€from€the€laboratory€indicating€the€elevated€ALTs.ÌÌà8 àà à7.€€ALTs€measure€the€level€of€liver€enzymes€in€the€blood.€ÏElevated€ALTs€are€detrimental€to€the€usability€of€plasma€products.€ÏThe€Plasma€Center€is€engaged€in€the€business€of€acquiring€plasmaÏproducts€for€processing€and€use€in€the€medical€treatment€of€otherÏpersons.€€As€such,€The€Plasma€Center€cannot€use€plasma€productsÏfrom€donors€with€elevated€ALTs€because€elevated€ALT€levels€inÏplasma€products€represent€a€danger€and€can€cause€medical€problemsÏin€subsequent€recipients.€€Simply€put,€plasma€from€a€donor€with€anÏelevated€ALT€level€presents€a€risk€of€harm€to€any€subsequentÏrecipient.€€As€such,€it€is€appropriate€to€reject€plasma€donation€byÏindividuals€with€elevated€ALT€levels.ÌÌà8 àà à8.€€Based€upon€the€test€results€received€by€The€PlasmaÏCenter€for€Robert€T.€Irvin,€Mr.€Irvin€was€referred€to€his€personalÏphysician€for€further€testing€with€regard€to€his€medical€condition.ÌÌà8 àà àFurther€affiant€sayeth€not.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àSummary€judgment€is€appropriate€only€when€there€are€no€genuine€issues€ofÏmaterial€fact.€€The€trial€court€must€take€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€theÏnonmoving€party,€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€that€party,€and€discard€allÏcountervailing€evidence.€€If€there€is€such€a€dispute,€the€motion€must€be€denied.€€It€is€not€theÏprovince€of€the€court€to€weigh€the€evidence.€€However,€once€it€is€shown€by€the€movant€that€there€isÏno€genuine€issue€of€material€fact,€the€nonmoving€party€must€then€demonstrate,€by€affidavits€orÏdiscovery€materials,€that€there€is€a€genuine€material€fact€dispute.€€The€respondent€cannot€simplyÏrely€upon€his€pleadings€but€must€set€forth€specific€facts€by€using€affidavits€or€other€discoveryÏmaterial.€€Rule€56.03€T.R.C.P.;€òòò òByrd€v.€Hallóóó ó,€847€S.W.2d€208€(Tenn.€1993).€€No€presumptionÏof€correctness€attaches€to€decisions€granting€summary€judgment€as€they€involve€only€questions€ofÏlaw.€€On€appeal,€we€must€make€a€fresh€determination€as€to€whether€the€requirements€of€Rule€56ÏT.R.C.P.€have€been€met.€€òòò òCowden€v.€Sovran€Bank/Central€Southóóó ó,€816€S.W.2d€741,€744Ï(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àThe€affidavit€of€nurse€Watson€establishes€that€she€is€familiar€with€the€recognizedÏstandard€of€acceptable€professional€practice€in€the€community€for€the€treatment€and€care€of€plasmaÏdonors€such€as€Mr.€Irvin€and€that€the€care€and€treatment€provided€was€at€all€times€appropriate€andÏin€keeping€with€the€recognized€standards.€€No€countervailing€expert€affidavit€or€other€evidence€wasÏsubmitted€by€the€plaintiff.€€The€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€on€the€allegation€ofÏmedical€malpractice€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellant,€Robert€T.€Irvin.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌLILLARD,€J.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌLEWIS,€J.€(Concurs)