WPC hZfeMSyBB4ǽg##ـ6Yx;Qh+dwYpSp`F]#ba@%+G h>kON:{o6J| U!3/P:p/n_P&xq{K}0>u^MѱT';>޽͞x{"qn=*ɯhG˻*9ϥx8'|-Q?LDt,<% .7rBxB+.}+@q5 9".#̞z>Vk f#NX" MAGxW"hzgN4/^H}=&G#xrTRudQo7~L݂. _O\(R^|-EAt~L~FDtp#kكn񨗀{HD W#UN % 0:^  w 4! 5 D mF 1] 72 1u 72 0"c 1 72 1 72` 1 72 1K 72 1 72 1 72D 1v 72 1/ 72 1 72o 1 72(U NZ  b    E  &     "  , b6 ^N BHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,mt,s 9,w3|xU(CEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. A.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(CEKQW]cioAutoList3A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(CEKQW]cioAutoList4A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(ʽCEKQW]cioAutoList5A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(ڽCEKQW]cioAutoList6A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(CEKQW]cioAutoList7A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(CEKQW]cioAutoList8A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.( CEKQW]cioAutoList9A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(*EGMSY_ekqAutoList10A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. A.(:EGMSY_ekqAutoList11A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A."A.("  Z6Times New Roman Regular12- -45678\Opinion Summary9101112?\Appellants Attorney Name & Appellant's Name.?\Appellees Attorney Name & Appellee's Name. d !USUS.,  _    $XXXX$X$X'8XXdd8@@ #$XX$t#$X$XINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @@jjATNASHVILLE#$XX$#$X$X & January7,2002Session L #$XX$# $X$X% % I  JAMESH.KELLEY%%N,etal.v.% & JOHNCAGE,M.D.%&,etal.#$XX$/#  J k   Appealfromthe% ( CircuitCourt%(Ofor% ) Davidson%)ԀCounty  J 3@ No.% * _OOC_Ԅ1559%*Ԁ% + BarbaraHaynes,Judge%+3Ԉ  6 @*AV,) ` dE<` A߈   @+ + No.% - M200100702_COA_ԄR3CVFiledJune18,_2002%-_Ԉ   AV,) ` dE<|` A }   % . #XXX$XU#  Thisappealinvolvesthegrantingofasummaryjudgmentmotioninamedicalmalpractice x  case.Theissueiswhetherthetrialcourtproperlygrantedsummaryjudgmentonthebasisthatthere d wasneveraphysician/patientrelationshipbetweenthedecedent,_Lillie_Ԁ_Donnette_ԀKelley,andDr. P JohnCage,acardiologist,andanemployeeofMidStateCardiologyAssociates,P.C.. < %.$XXXX % /   Tenn.R.App.3AppealasofRight%/o;Judgmentofthe% 0 CircuitCourtReversed%0  P |JaneW._Wheatcraft_,Sp.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhich% 1 BenH._Cantrell_,P.J., ( M.S.and%1 #XXX$XK#$XXXXWilliamB.Cain,J.% 2 %2m ,joined.  % 3 StevenR.Walker,Memphis,Tennessee,andDanielL.Clayton,Nashville,Tennessee,forthe  appellants,JamesH.Kelley,etal.%3   % 4 %4s BrianD.Cummings,Nashville,Tennessee,andClarenceJamesGideon,Nashville,Tennessee,for ` theappellee,JohnCage,M.D.andMidStateCardiologyAssociates,P.C. L     OPINION  $"t! e #XXX$X6 #  _Lillie_ԀKelleyhadanacutemyocardialinfarctiononApril18,1999.Shewashospitalizedand #L# treatedbyDr.WilliamFleet,acardiologistemployedbyMidStateCardiologyAssociates,P.C.She $8 $ wasdischargedafterfourdays.OnJune10,1999,Mrs.KelleyreturnedtotheEmergencyRoomat %$!% BaptistHospitalandwastreatedbyDr.JohnAnderson.Shedescribedhersymptomsasbeing &"& identicaltotheonesshehadduringherpreviousheartattack.Dr.Andersontelephonedthe '"' cardiologist,Dr.WilliamFleet,butwasunabletoreachhimandspokeinsteadtoDr.JohnCage, (#( acardiologist,alsoemployedbyMidStateCardiologyAssociates,P.C.Aftertheconversationwith )$) Dr.Cage,Mrs.Kelleywasreleasedfromthehospitalemergencyroom.OnJune17,1999,she p*%* sufferedacutecardiopulmonaryarrestanddied.BetweenMrs.Kelleysreleasefromthehospitaland \+&+ herdemise,therewascontactwithseveralotherprofessionalsbutthoseinteractionsarenotrelevant  totheissuehereforreview.    Suitwasfiledbythesurvivingspouseandchildrenagainstmultipleparties.DefendantsJohn t Cage,M.D.andMidStateCardiologyAssociates,P.C.filedaMotionforSummaryJudgment.The ` twoissuesraisedbythesummaryjudgmentmotionwere(1)whetheraphysician/patientrelationship L  existedbetweenDr.Cageand_Lillie_ԀKelleyandifso,(2)whetherDr.Cagedeviatedfromthe 8  recognizedstandardofacceptableprofessionalpracticeforcardiologists.Thetrialcourtfoundas $ t amatteroflawthattherewasnotaphysician/patientrelationshipand,therefore,didnotdiscussthe  ` meritsofissuetwo:standardofcare.Thetrialcourtheldthattoestablishaphysician/patient  L  relationship thepatientmustknowinglyseektheassistanceofaparticularphysicianandthe  8  physicianmustknowinglyaccepttheindividualaspatient.Jenningsv.Case,10SW3625,628 $  (Tenn)App.1999.SummaryjudgmentwasgrantedpursuanttoRule54.02oftheTennesseeRules   ofCivilProcedureandtheCourtdirectedentryoftheOrderasafinaljudgmentonFebruary23,   2001.Theplaintiffsappealed.     ThiscourtistoconductadenovoreviewofthetrialcourtsgrantingoftheMotionfor p SummaryJudgment.Sincetheinquiryinvolvespurelyaquestionoflaw,nopresumptionof \ correctnessattachestothetrialcourtsjudgment,andourtaskisconfinedtoreviewingtherecord H todeterminewhethertherequirementsofTenn.R.CivilProc56havebeenmet._Carvell_Ԁv.Bottom, 4 900SW223,26(Tenn.1995).Wemusttakethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceinfavor  p ofthenonmovingparty,allowallreasonableinferencesintheirfavoranddiscardallcountervailing  \ evidence.Cliftonv.Bass908SW2205,205(Tenn.App.1995).Ifthemindofthecourtentertains H anydoubtwhetherornotagenuineissueexistsastoanymaterialfact,itisthedutytooverrulethe 4 motion.TheCourtisnotto weightheevidencewhenevaluatingaMotionforSummaryjudgment.   Byrdv.Hall847SW2208,210(Tenn1993).       ThepositionoftheappellantsisthatwhenDr.CagedecidedtoreviewMrs.Kelleyscase  andmaketreatmentrecommendations,heacceptedherasapatient.Secondly,sinceDr.Cagewas l anassociate/partnerofDr.Fleet,itcanbereasonablyinferredthathewasactingastheagentofDr. X  Fleet.Dr.Anderson,theemergencyroomdoctor,testifiedinhisdepositionthathecalledthe D! cardiologistforinputonwhetherornotMrs.Kelleyshouldbeadmittedtothehospitalforfurther 0"  testingorinterventions.Dr.AndersontestifiedthathecalledthecardiologistbecauseAndersons #l! reviewofthepatientspriormedicalrecordrevealedapartiallyoccludedleftanteriordescending $X" artery.Hetestifiedhereadthereport verbatimtoDr.Cagetolethimmakethedeterminationof $D # thesignificanceofthatinformation.ThefollowingexcerptsfromDr.Andersonsdeposition %0!$ indicatedthathereliedontheadviceofDr.Cageindeterminingatreatmentplan: &"%  (83 ! !"3"    3G!2  Q  .3  0 `    DidyourelyuponDr.Cagesadviceindeterminingyourplanoftreatmentfor (#' Ms.Kelley?3G!!݌)$(` (#` (# Ќ  ! ! (88 "3"     3;#2  A  .3  0 `    Yes. 3;##݌l+&*` (#` (# Ќ  __ (88! !"3"    3$2  Q  .3  0 `   Tellmeeachandeverywaythatyourelieduponhisadviceindeterminingyourplan  oftreatmentforMs.Kelley.3$(%݌` (#` (# Ќ  ! ! (88"3"    3&2  A  .3  0 `    WhenIcallthe_subspecialist_,Irelyontheirexpertiseinreviewingthecardiac ` _catheterization_,herprevioushistory,andwhetheritisinsyncwithhercurrent P  medicaltherapyorwhethertheresotheracuteinterventionsthatneededtobe <  doneatthetime.3&$'݌( x` (#` (# Ќ   (ʽ88! !"3"    3)2ʽ  Q  .3  0 `   DidyouexplaintoDr.CagethatMs.KelleyhadbeenapatientofDr.Fleets?3)+*݌ P ` (#` (# Ќ  ! ! (ڽ88"3"    3+2ڽ  A  .3  0 `   Yes,Idid.3++݌( ` (#` (# Ќ    ...    ! ! (88"3"    3l-2  A  .3  0 `   ...Ididntknowtheiroutpatientstatus.Iknewthatshehad_had_ԀanMI[myocardial   infarction]andwastreatedbyDr.Fleetwithintwomonths. Ifeltitwasimperative t tocallthecardiologist. 3l--݌d` (#` (# Ќ    ... <   (88! !"3"    3/02  Q  .3  0 `    IfDr.CagewouldhavesuggestedtoyouthatinhisopinionMs.Kelleyneeded d admitted,whatwouldyouhavedone?3/0h0݌T` (#` (# Ќ  ! ! ( 88"3"    3822   A  .3  0 `    Idhaveadmittedher. 382q2݌,` (#` (# Ќ   (*88! !"3"    332*  Q  .3  0 `    IfDr.Cagehadsuggestedtoyouthatperhapssomeothertestsshouldbe  performed,whatwouldyouhavedone?334݌` (#` (# Ќ  ! ! "(:88 "3"    352:  A  .3  0 `   Idhavesaid, Letsputherinthehospitalanddothem. 356݌` (#` (# Ќ    (Andersondep.,pg.29,1.14pg.30,1.22)(emphasisadded). \!     AppellantsfurtherstatethatwhileitisundisputedthatDr.CagenevermetMrs.Kelley  $p" personally,Dr.AndersonactedonherbehalfwhenhecalledDr.CageandacceptedDr.Cages  %\ # treatmentrecommendation. ItisnotnecessaryunderOsborneforthephysicianandpatienttohave %H!$ afacetofacemeetingorthattheyknoweachothersname.Therequirementisthattherelationship &4"% ofphysicianandpatientbecontractualandthatmayariseoutofaconsultationbythepatients ' #& primaryphysicianwithanotherphysicianwhenthatconsultationisforthetreatmentofthepatient., ( $'  Bassv._Barksdale_,671SW2476,486487(Tenn.App.1984). Appellantsaverthatitisthe )$( treatmentrecommendationthatissignificantintheformationofthephysician/patientrelationship. *%)  +&*   AppelleespositionisthatthetrialcourtproperlyreliedontheJenningscasewhereinitwas  statedthat thepatientmustknowinglyseektheassistanceofaparticularphysicianandthephysician  mustknowinglyaccepttheindividualasapatient.    ThetrialcourtsgrantingofsummaryjudgmenttoDr.CageandtoMidStateCardiology ` Associates,P.C.waspremisedonthefactthatdutyisanindispensableelementofamedical L  malpracticeclaimandthattheexistenceofaphysician/patientrelationshipistheessentialduty 8  elementoftheinstantmalpracticeaction,EstateofDoev.Vanderbilt,958SW2117,122(Tenn. $ t App.1977),citingBradshawv.Daniels,854SW2865,870(Tenn1993)andPitmanv.UpjohnCo.,  ` 890SW2425,431(Tenn.1994).ThecourtwentontoholdthatPlaintiffsdidnotprovethe  L  necessaryphysician/patientrelationshipasamatteroflaw,thatDr.CagehadnodutytoMrs.Kelley,  8  and,therefore,summaryjudgmentwaswarranted.Whetherthereisadutyowedbyonepersonto $  anotherisaquestionoflawtobedecidedbytheCourt.Dooleyv.Everett,805SW2380.     ThisCourtrespectfullydisagreeswiththetrialcourtsfindingthatPlaintiffsfailedto   establishthenecessaryphysical/patientrelationshiptoovercomeamotionforsummaryjudgment.   ThefactsinthiscaseareverydifferentfromthoseinJennings.InJennings,thepatientsprimary p carephysicianreferredthepatienttoanotherphysicianwithacertainspeciality.Thatphysician \ acceptedthereferralandsawthepatient,orderedtestingandmadeasubsequentappointmenttosee H thepatientagain. 4   Inthecaseatbar,_Lillie_Ԁ_Donnette_ԀKelleysufferedaheartattackinApril,1999.Dr.William  \ FleetwithMidStateCardiologyAssociates,P.C.washercardiologist.Onthe10thdayofJune, H 1999,Mrs.KelleysufferedchestpainsandwenttoBaptistHospitalemergencyroom.Dr.JohnL. 4 Anderson,emergencyroomphysician,attemptedtocallDr.Fleet.UnabletoreachDr.Fleet,Dr.   AndersoncalledDr.JohnCagewithMiddleTennesseeCardiologyAssociates,P.C.Dr.Cage   acceptedthecall,andalthoughpriortothisphonecallwasunawareofthispatient,heconferredwith  theemergencyroomphysicianconcerningMrs.Kelleystreatmentandfollowup.Dr.Cagewasan  agentofMidStateCardiologyAssociates,P.C.ItisimpliedhewasactingforDr.Fleet.    Dr.AndersonhadorderedanelectrocardiogramonMrs.Kelleyanditdidnotshowanyacute X  changes.Her_cardio_Ԁenzymeswerenormal,butDr.Andersonfeltitnecessarytoconsultwithher D! cardiologist.HeexplainedtoDr.CagethatMr.KelleyhadbeenapatientofDr.Fleet.Dr.Anderson 0"  reliedupontheadviceofDr.Cage,particularlyastowhetherDr.Cagethoughtthatthepatientcould #l! besymptomaticallytreatedwithfollowupwithDr.W.ThomasPatten,herprimarycarephysician $X" orDr.Fleetthefollowingdayorso.Dr.Cagestatedthathethoughtthiswasreasonablebasedupon $D # theclinicalscenariohewasprovided. %0!$   Therealityofmedicalpracticetodayisthatphysiciansareoftenpartofalargeprofessional '#& organizationandcoverforeachotheronaregularbasis.Inthiscasebothdoctors,FleetandCage, (#' areshareholdersandemployeesofMidStateCardiologyAssociates,P.C.Thereisnoquestionthat )$( Mrs.KelleyknowinglysoughttheservicesofDr.Fleet,thatshewashispatient,anditfollowsthat |*%) Mrs.KelleyhadacontractualrelationshipwithMidStateCardiologyAssociates,P.C. h+&* Ї  Underthecommonlawofcontracts,Mrs.KelleywasresponsibletoMidStateCardiology  Associates,P.C.fortheservicesrenderedtoheronthe10thdayofJune,1999byDr.Cage. Inthis  dayofspecialization,doctorseverydayreadxraysforpatientswithwhomtheyhavenevermet.  Bassi.d.Patientspayphysicianstheyhavenevermetbutwhohaveperformedsomeservicesatthe t requestofthetreatingphysicians.Therelationshipofphysician/patient,whilecontractual,canalso ` beimplied. L    Inthiscase,Dr.AndersonreliedontherecommendationandopinionofDr.Cageto $ t determineMrs.Kelleystreatment.Thecourtfindsfromalloftheabove,thattherearegenuine  ` issuesofmaterialfactconcerningthetreatmentrecommendationsandreliancethereon.Thereare  L  factualissuesregardingstandardofcarewhichmaywellbedecidedinDr.Cagesfavor,butwere  8  neveraddressedbythetrialcourtbecauseofitsrulingonthe_physican_/patientissue.Thegranting $  theMotionforSummaryJudgmentwaserrorandshallbereversed.     Costsoftheappealareassessedtoappelleeforwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.$XXXX      `     h     ___________________________________ H    `     h     JANEW._WHEATCRAFT_,SP.JUDGE#XXX$XR# 4