ÿWPC, …lPî ß3Óˆ2‹†ì½ýyùþcµ>±ör+E=-9&-IŠü$G‚§”Vìhp\i€»™'õë*åùlð'þ -=,Y!ÀŒ!"Ý@ª´ ÷ÅS7tÖÙÂa@Õ{ZÝÔ}•­™ˆž½:2þ ínîAÏ´‚8YžM@ÒdRA'ªßÖü›»éab´#õyï·×©QŸ'aÆnÍ;Õì“Ë^Ì@ÀßÒ˜v9D„‹y-SFññ©’Mi‡ûåÛDt99»ù¸¾B,"˜Ð/Úà_UšsÝñ…’ÖÝwˆõó 5E˜"ú)Gqí™Ê™LÕixV[ u g^7ÊÛÿç£aö¤ÄC·¦E€vу²§ä7€¡‰šFC‹ç ¯¼ &uw/ªöy¯ éã;ÙoöŸRq{š¸–ZG‚wÀ^TRß„)*'Ùú±ÆQØÐah“ÄlVZÄúåûRÈ4,tÚcµy'”Gº¡žŽåF4‘8õ‚Eä.wxgÄÏWQÌüããÚùÀ2Ü =Æ«p½Ã—)êÇ´+JsTèZŠ,‚’ŠÇÇ> ×j9 <Ég³y\XÙ@~Ýn’B¤¾,AÐèdÜõ1µ4Dlb#Á\ %  0ˆ# U N« 1‡ù 1u€ zõ Òo 72A Ws ^ Ê 0DÖ ÆÆàƦÆl 0 c2N•w—4›E¯±À mÂÙU@áááááááááááááááááááb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 0ë)))) B 0¤1 D3Õ D- 0K55 AS€ÆÓ 0¤™ 0D= A«˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) ˜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.wpti) MÝ ƒRŸ±$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô<  ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€We€note€that€Plaintiff€previously€settled€with€all€parties€except€Dr.€Moore€and€Dr.€Lawrence.€€Dr.Ð ° ÐWashington,€however,€was€never€served€with€process€and€made€no€appearance€in€the€case.Ìu$+â (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àòK+Œa°£3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ (ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman - ù-(|G2Ÿ±$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[Ü»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô ò»»Ô d(|3N$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[Ü»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3N$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[Ü»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Nô»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ‡»‹’»»»ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼‹’»»»‹’ÔÑ8€3´XXdê»»d 8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î“‹’ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼‹’»îî“#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJUNE€20,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XÚ¾X»¼‹’ÔÌò òÔ#†¼‹’»XXÚ¾ÿ#ÔEMANUEL€LEWIS,€A€Minor,€by€his€Mother€and€Next€Friend,€LONNIEÐ úJ ÐDAVIS€LEWIS,€and€LONNIE€DAVIS€LEWIS,€Individuallyòòóó€v.€DR.€TODDÐ  ^ ÐBROOKS,€DR.€MICHAEL€WASHINGTON,€METHODIST€HOSPITALS€OFÐ " r ÐMEMPHIS€and€METHODIST€HEALTH€SYSTEMS,€INC.òòóó€v.€DR.€DWIGHTÐ 6 † ÐMOORE€AND€DR.€J.€K.€LAWRENCEÔ‡XÚ¾X»¼‹’Ôó óÐ J š ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ Jš  Ðà@@øøìàNo.€75409€T.D.;€The€Honorable€Robert€L.€Childers,€JudgeÐ 6†  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<ù` AßÐ úJ ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2000„02682„COA„R3„CV€„€Filed€August€29,€2001Ð õE ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Ì` AßÐ Í Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€appeal€involves€a€claim€of€medical€malpractice.€€The€plaintiffððs€minor€child€suffered€brainÐ È Ðdamage€during€delivery.€€€The€only€remaining€defendants,€Dr.€Moore€and€Dr.€Lawrence,€moved€forÐ ´ Ðsummary€judgment,€which€the€trial€court€granted.€€Plaintiff€appeals.€€For€the€following€reasons,€weÐ  ð Ðaffirm€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€to€defendants.Ð ŒÜ ÐÔ#†¼‹’»XXÚ¾©#ÔÔ‡XÚ¾X»¼‹’ÔÌÓ½ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ P  ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼‹’»àXÚ¾¨#ÔÔ‡XÚ¾X.¼‹’ÔAlan€E.€Highers,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòW.€Frank€Crawford,€P.J.,€W.S.,óóÐ (x Ðand€òòDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.óó,€joined.Ð d ÐÌL.€Anthony€Deal,€Memphis,€for€AppellantÐ ì < ÐÌJerry€E.€Mitchell,€John€H.€Dotson,€Memphis,€for€AppelleesÐ Ä"! ÐÓFÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼‹’»XXÚ¾u#ÔÔ‡XÚ¾X»¼‹’ÔÐ œ$ì# ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼‹’»XXÚ¾ #ÔÔ‡XÚ¾X»¼‹’ÔÓ  Óò òà@ÿÿìàFacts€and€Procedural€HistoryòòˆÐ t&Ä!% ÐÌÓ °X°œXÓó óóóà  àThis€is€a€medical€malpractice€action.€€Lonnie€Davis€Lewis€(Ms.€Lewis)€was€pregnant€and€hadÐ L(œ#' Ðreceived€prenatal€care€from€Dr.€Moore€and€Dr.€Lawrence.€€Ms.€Lewis€was€a€high€risk€patient€due€toÐ 8)ˆ$( Ðher€age,€hypertension,€and€obesity.€Ð $*t%) ÐÌà  àMs.€Lewis€visited€Methodist€Hospital€on€March€3,€1995,€for€a€prenatal€evaluation€called€aÐ ü+L'+ Ðnonstress€test.€€At€the€time€of€the€evaluation,€Dr.€Lawrence€was€on€duty.€€Dr.€Lawrence€left€theÐ è,8(, Ðhospital€without€having€discharged€Ms.€Lewis.€Beginning€at€5:00€p.m.€on€March€3,€1995,€Dr.€BrooksÐ Ô-$)-ý Ðhad€begun€covering€for€Dr.€Moore€and€Dr.€Lawrence.€€Dr.€Brooks€was€not€advised€about€Ms.€LewisððÐ ° Ðpresence€in€the€hospital€nor€did€he€see€Ms.€Lewis.€€€Ms.€Lewis€was€discharged€at€approximately€6:00Ð œì Ðp.m.€on€March€3,€1995,€by€another€doctor€not€associated€with€the€defendants.€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àMs.€Lewis€came€back€to€the€hospital€on€the€evening€of€March€5,€1995,€at€approximately€8:00Ð `° Ðp.m.€€€Dr.€Moore€and€Dr.€Lawrence€were€not€on€duty€at€this€time.€€Due€to€a€previous€arrangement,Ð L œ ÐDr.€Brooks€was€covering€for€them.€€€When€Ms.€Lewis€arrived€at€the€hospital€on€March€5,€Dr.€BrooksÐ 8 ˆ Ðwas€at€home.€€€Dr.€Brooks€was€advised€by€telephone€sometime€in€the€late€evening€that€Ms.€LewisÐ $ t Ðwas€at€the€hospital.€€€At€10:00€p.m.,€Dr.€Brooks€ordered€that€the€plaintiff€be€admitted€to€the€hospital.€Ð  ` ÐThere€were€several€calls€between€Dr.€Brooks€and€the€hospital,€and€Dr.€Brooks€was€advised€that€thereÐ ü L  Ðwere€indications€that€Ms.€Lewisðð€baby€was€in€distress.€€At€2:46€a.m.€on€March€6,€1995,€Dr.€BrooksÐ è 8  Ðordered€that€Ms.€Lewis€be€prepared€for€a€c„section,€and€he€left€for€the€hospital.€€At€3:09€a.m.,€beforeÐ Ô$  ÐDr.€Brooks€had€arrived,€an€emergency€call€known€as€a€ð ðDr.€Storkðð€page€was€put€out€at€the€hospitalÐ À  Ðindicating€that€there€was€an€emergency€and€directing€physicians€to€come€to€the€delivery€room.€€Dr.Ð ¬ü  ÐWashington€responded€to€the€call,€but€he€did€not€deliver€the€child.€€€When€Dr.€Brooks€arrived€at€3:17Ð ˜è  Ða.m.,€Ms.€Lewis€was€not€prepared€for€a€c„section€as€he€had€ordered.€€€Dr.€Brooks€then€performed€aÐ „Ô  Ðvaginal€delivery.€€€Unfortunately,€the€child€suffered€brain€damage.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiffs€filed€a€complaint€and€amended€complaint€asserting€medical€malpractice.€€TheÐ H˜ Ðcomplaint€asserted€three€theories€of€liability:€1)€that€Dr.€Moore€and€Dr.€Lawrence€were€negligent€inÐ 4„ Ðthe€prenatal€care€of€Ms.€Lewis;€2)€that€Dr.€Moore€and€Dr.€Lawrence€were€negligent€in€selecting€Dr.Ð  p ÐBrooks€to€cover€for€them€when€they€were€not€on€duty;€and€3)€that€Dr.€Brooks€and€Methodist€HospitalÐ  \ Ðwere€guilty€of€negligence€during€the€delivery€of€Ms.€Lewisðð€child.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РøH ÐÌà  àOn€February€18,€2000,€Dr.€Moore€and€Dr.€Lawrence€moved€for€summary€judgment.€€Ms.Ð Ð  ÐLewis€responded,€and€the€parties€argued€the€motion€on€May€5,€2000.€€The€court€denied€theÐ ¼  Ðdefendantsðð€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€However,€no€order€was€entered.€€€The€case€was€set€forÐ ¨ø Ðtrial€on€September€18,€2000.€€Sometime€shortly€before€trial,€the€defendants€served€the€plaintiffs€withÐ ”ä Ða€supplemental€memorandum€in€support€of€its€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€The€motion€wasÐ €Ð Ðargued€the€morning€of€trial,€and€the€judge€granted€the€defendantsðð€motion€for€summary€judgment.€Ð l¼ ÐMs.€Lewis€appeals€the€ruling€from€the€court€below,€and€raises€the€following€issues,€as€we€perceiveÐ X ¨ Ðthem,€for€our€review:Ð D!” ÐÌÓ€ (5h83ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£cÝÔ25hÔÚ  ÚIÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€summary€judgment€to€Dr.€Moore€and€Dr.€Lawrence.݃3£cÝŒÐ#l!(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£…ÝÔ25hÔÚ  ÚIIÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€limiting€discovery€as€to€the€opinions€of€Dr.€Moore€and€Dr.Ð $X" ÐLawrence.݃3£…²ÝŒÐô$D #(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£ÈÝÔ25hÔÚ  ÚIIIÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€grant€Plaintiff€a€partial€summary€judgment€as€toÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€reasonableness€and€necessity€of€medical€expenses.݃3£ÈõÝŒÐÌ&"%(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌWe€will€address€each€issue€in€turn.Ð ¤(ô#' Ðà  àÌò òòòÓ  ÓóóStandard€of€ReviewòòÐ œì ÐÌó óóóÓ  Óà  àSummary€judgment€is€appropriate€if€the€movant€demonstrates€that€no€genuine€issues€ofÐ tÄ Ðmaterial€fact€exist€and€that€he€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€òòòòóóSeeóó€òòTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.óóÐ `° Ð56.03.€€We€must€take€the€strongest€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,€allowingÐ L œ Ðall€reasonable€inferences€in€his€favor€and€discarding€all€countervailing€evidence.€òò€See€Shadrick€v.Ð 8 ˆ ÐCokeróó,€963€S.W.2d€726,€731€(Tenn.€1998)€(citing€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210-11€(Tenn.Ð $ t Ð1993)).€€Since€our€review€concerns€only€questions€of€law,€the€trial€court's€judgment€is€not€presumedÐ  ` Ðcorrect,€and€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó€on€the€record€before€this€Court.€€òòSee€Warren€v.€Estate€of€Kirkóó,€954Ð ü L  ÐS.W.2d€722,€723€(Tenn.€1997);€òòBain€v.€Wellsóó,€936€S.W.2d€618,€622€(Tenn.€1997).Ð è 8  ÐÌÓ  Óà @ àò òLaw€and€AnalysisòòÐ À  ÐÌó óóóÓ  Óà  àMs.€Lewis€argues€that€it€was€error€for€the€trial€court€to€grant€a€summary€judgment€to€Dr.Ð ˜è  ÐMoore€and€Dr.€Lawrence.€€Dr.€Moore€and€Dr.€Lawrence€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€onÐ „Ô  ÐFebruary€18,€2000.€€The€motion€was€heard€by€the€trial€court€on€May€5,€2000,€and€the€motion€wasÐ pÀ Ðdenied.€€However,€no€order€was€entered€memorializing€the€trial€courtððs€denial.€€The€case€was€set€forÐ \¬ Ðtrial€on€September€18,€2000.€€On€the€morning€of€trial,€Defendantððs€counsel€faxed€Plaintiffððs€counselÐ H˜ Ða€supplemental€memorandum€and€advised€that€he€would€be€seeking€summary€judgment.€€At€trial,Ð 4„ Ðcounsel€for€Moore€and€Lawrence€argued€for€a€summary€judgment.€€Plaintiffððs€counsel€objected€thatÐ  p Ðproper€notice€had€not€been€given.€€The€court€excluded€Ms.€Lewisðð€expert€witness,€Dr.€Heath,€basedÐ  \ Ðupon€its€decision€that€Ms.€Lewis€had€not€properly€identified€Dr.€Heath€as€an€expert€in€herÐ øH Ðinterrogatories.€€The€court€then€granted€Defendantsðð€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€The€courtÐ ä4 Ðentered€an€order€granting€Defendantsðð€motion€for€summary€judgment€on€September€20,€2000.€€OnÐ Ð  Ðthe€same€day,€an€order€was€entered€memorializing€the€May€5,€2000,€denial€of€summary€judgment.€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àFirst,€we€address€Plaintiffððs€contention€that€it€was€error€for€the€trial€court€to€exclude€herÐ ”ä Ðexpert,€Dr.€Heath.€€The€trial€court€excluded€Dr.€Heath€as€an€expert€witness€based€upon€Rule€26.05Ð €Ð Ðof€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€which€provides:Ð l¼ ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓA€party€who€has€responded€to€a€request€for€discovery€with€a€responseÐ D!” Ðthat€was€complete€when€made€is€under€no€duty€to€supplement€theÐ 0"€  Ðresponse€to€include€information€thereafter€acquired,€except€asÐ #l! Ðfollows:Ð $X" ÐÌ(1)€A€party€is€under€a€duty€seasonably€to€supplement€the€partyððsÐ à%0!$ Ðresponse€with€respect€to€any€question€addressed€to€.€.€.€(B)€the€identityÐ Ì&"% Ðof€each€person€expected€to€be€called€as€an€expert€witness€at€trial,€theÐ ¸'#& Ðsubject€matter€on€which€the€person€is€expected€to€testify,€and€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsubstance€of€that€testimony.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) ÐÓ °ÓÓ °ÓòòTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€óó26.05.€€Upon€a€review€of€the€record,€it€is€apparent€that€Plaintiff€did€not€list€Dr.Ð ° Ðâ âHeath€as€an€expert€in€her€answers€to€Defendantsðð€interrogatories.€€ð ðThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€inÐ œì Ðdiscovery€matters€will€not€be€reversed€on€appeal€unless€a€clear€abuse€of€discretion€is€demonstrated.ðð€Ð ˆØ ÐòòBenton€v.€Snyderóó,€825€S.W.2d€409,€416€(Tenn.€1992).ò ò€€ó óIn€the€instant€case,€we€find€that€the€trial€courtÐ tÄ Ðdid€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€disallowing€Plaintiffððs€expert€for€failure€to€comply€with€discoveryÐ d´ Ðrules.Ð P   ÐÌà  àNow,€we€turn€to€the€notice€issue.€€Ms.€Lewis€argues€that€she€was€not€given€proper€notice€ofÐ ( x Ðthe€September€18,€2000,€summary€judgment€proceedings.€€She€cites€Rule€56.04€of€the€TennesseeÐ  d ÐRules€of€Civil€Procedure€for€the€proposition€that€ð ð[t]he€[summary€judgment]€motion€shall€be€servedÐ  P  Ðat€least€thirty€(30)€days€before€the€time€fixed€for€the€hearing.ðð€€Ms.€Lewis€also€argues€that€Rule€6.04Ð ì <  Ðof€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€provides€that€in€the€case€of€any€motion,€other€than€an€exÐ Ø(  Ðparte€motion,€notice€of€the€hearing€must€be€given€at€least€five€days€in€advance.Ð Ä  ÐÌà  àAs€noted€above,€although€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€heard€on€May€5,€2000,€wasÐ œì  Ðtechnically€denied,€no€order€was€entered€memorializing€the€denial.€€We€note€the€well„settled€rule€thatÐ ˆØ  Ðð ð[a]€court€speaks€only€through€its€written€judgments,€duly€entered€upon€its€minutes.€€Therefore,€noÐ tÄ Ðoral€pronouncement€is€of€any€effect€unless€and€until€made€a€part€of€a€written€judgment€duly€entered.ðð€Ð `° ÐòòEnvironmental€Abatement,€Inc.€v.€Astrum€R.E.€Corp.óó,€27€S.W.3d€530,€536€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000)Ð Lœ Ð(citations€omitted).€€Since€there€was€no€order€denying€the€courtððs€May€5,€2000,€decision€regardingÐ 8ˆ Ðsummary€judgment,€the€May€5,€2000,€motion€was€still€pending€and€the€court€was€free€to€revisit€theÐ $t Ðmotion.Ð ` ÐÌà  àWe€note€the€case€of€òòJarred€v.€Hendrixóó,€No.€W1998„00550„COA„R3„CV,€1999€WL€1336084,Ð è8 Ðat€*1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Dec.€15,€1999).€€In€òòJarredóó,€the€plaintiff€filed€a€complaint€alleging€dentalÐ Ô$ Ðmalpractice€on€August€16,€1994.€€òòSee€id.óó€€On€September€5,€1997,€three€years€after€the€originalÐ À Ðcomplaint€was€filed,€the€defendant€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€arguing€that€the€plaintiffÐ ¬ü Ðhad€failed€to€satisfy€the€requirements€for€a€claim€of€medical€malpractice.€€òòSee€id.óó€€Three€weeks€later,Ð ˜è Ðthe€plaintiff€responded€by€filing€the€affidavit€of€a€Memphis€dentist.€€òòSee€id.óó€€At€the€expertððsÐ „Ô Ðdeposition€on€April€9,€1998,€however,€the€dentistððs€testimony€was€vastly€different€from€theÐ pÀ Ðconclusions€in€his€affidavit.€€òòSee€id.óó€€At€the€deposition,€the€dentist€testified€that€he€was€not€able€toÐ \ ¬ Ðconclude€that€the€defendantððs€conduct€fell€below€the€standard€of€care.€€òòSee€id.óó€€As€a€result€of€theÐ H!˜ Ðdentistððs€testimony,€defendant€immediately€renewed€his€motion€for€summary€judgment€and€filed€aÐ 4"„  Ðsupplemental€memorandum€in€support€of€the€motion.€€òòSee€id.óó€€A€hearing€on€the€motion€was€set€forÐ  #p! ÐMay€8,€1998.€€òòSee€id.óóÐ  $\" ÐÌà  àAs€noted€above,€the€plaintiffððs€expert€was€deposed€on€April€9,€1998,€and€defendant€set€theÐ ä%4!$ Ðsummary€judgment€motion€to€be€heard€on€May€8,€1998,€which€was€less€than€thirty€days€after€theÐ Ð& "% Ðmotion€was€renewed.€€On€appeal,€the€plaintiff€complained€that€she€had€not€been€given€the€requiredÐ ¼' #& Ðthirty€day€notice.€€òòSee€id.óó€at€*3.€€This€court€rejected€plaintiffððs€notice€argument,€stating€that:Ð ¨(ø#' ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓFrom€September€1997€forward,€the€basis€for€[defendantððs]€motionÐ €*Ð%) Ðremained€the€insufficiency€of€[plaintiffððs]€expert€medical€proof€underÐ l+¼&* ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€29„26„115.€€The€requirements€ofÐ ° ÐSection€29„26„115€remained€unchanged,€and€[plaintiff]€was€not€facedÐ œì Ðwith€new€facts€from€[defendant]€to€which€[plaintiff]€was€required€toÐ ˆØ Ðreact.€€At€the€hearing€on€[defendantððs]€motion,€[plaintiff]€encounteredÐ tÄ Ðonly€the€application€of€Section€29„26„115€to€the€medical€proof€sheÐ `° Ðsubmitted.€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€do€not€conclude€that€theÐ L œ Ðtrial€court€erred€in€deciding€[defendantððs]€summary€judgment€motionÐ 8 ˆ Ðon€the€scheduled€hearing€date.Ð $ t ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓòòId.óó€at€*4.€€In€the€instant€case,€as€in€òòJarredóó,€Ms.€Lewis€was€not€faced€with€any€new€facts€to€which€sheÐ ü L  Ðhad€to€react.€€The€defendants€once€again€challenged€Ms.€Lewisðð€medical€proof€to€see€if€it€met€theÐ è 8  Ðrequirements€of€section€29„26„115€of€the€Tennessee€Code.€€The€court€found€that€Ms.€Lewis€did€notÐ Ô$  Ðhave€the€necessary€medical€proof€and€granted€summary€judgment€to€the€defendants.€€Accordingly,Ð À  Ðunder€the€unique€facts€of€the€instant€caseòòóó,€Ms.€Lewisðð€argument€that€she€lacked€sufficient€notice€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€September€18,€2000,€summary€judgment€proceedings€is€without€merit.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àMs.€Lewis€also€argues€in€her€brief€that€she€should€have€been€allowed€to€take€a€nonsuit€whenÐ pÀ Ðthe€court€excluded€her€expert€witness,€Dr.€Heath.€€Rule€41.01€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CivilÐ \¬ ÐProcedure€states€in€relevant€part€that€ð ð[s]ubject€to€the€provisions€of€òòóóRule€23.05€or€Rule€66€or€anyÐ H˜ Ðstatute,€and€ò òexcept€when€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€made€by€an€adverse€party€is€pendingó ó,Ð 4„ Ðthe€plaintiff€shall€have€the€right€to€take€a€voluntary€nonsuit€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€óó41.01(1)Ð $t Ð(emphasis€added).€€In€the€instant€case,€Defendantsðð€motion€for€summary€judgment€was€pending€whenÐ ` ÐPlaintiff€attempted€to€take€a€nonsuit.€€As€a€result,€the€trial€judge€properly€refused€to€grant€PlaintiffððsÐ üL Ðrequest€for€a€nonsuit.Ð è8 ÐÌà  àNext,€Ms.€Lewis€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€limiting€discovery€as€to€the€opinions€ofÐ À ÐDr.€Moore€and€Dr.€Lawrence.€€Sometime€before€the€depositions€of€Dr.€Moore€and€Dr.€LawrenceÐ ¬ü Ðwere€to€be€taken,€Ms.€Lewisðð€counsel€was€advised€that€the€defendant€doctors€would€refuse€to€answerÐ ˜è Ðquestions€calling€for€opinions€as€to€the€treatment€of€Ms.€Lewis€by€other€defendant€doctors€andÐ „Ô Ðnurses.€€Ms.€Lewis€filed€a€Motion€to€Compel.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion,€ruling€thatÐ pÀ ÐDefendants€Moore€and€Lawrence€would€only€be€required€to€testify€as€to€opinions€expected€to€beÐ \ ¬ Ðrendered€at€trial€or€opinions€relating€to€their€own€actions.Ð H!˜ ÐÌà  àCounsel€have€not€cited,€nor€have€we€been€able€to€find,€any€Tennessee€cases€specificallyÐ  #p! Ðdealing€with€this€point.€€However,€an€unpublished€opinion€from€this€court€is€instructive.€€InÐ  $\" ÐòòChambers€v.€Wilsonóó,€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€May€23,€1984)€(Crawford,€J.),€the€issue€was€whether€an€expertÐ ø$H # Ðspecifically€hired€for€litigation€could€be€compelled€to€testify€against€his€will.€€In€holding€that€anÐ ä%4!$ Ðexpert€could€not€be€compelled€to€testify€against€his€will,€we€stated€that€ð ðthe€private€litigant€has€noÐ Ð& "% Ðmore€right€to€compel€a€citizen€to€give€up€the€product€of€his€brain,€than€he€has€to€compel€the€givingÐ ¼' #& Ðup€of€material€things.€€In€each€case€it€is€a€matter€of€bargain,€which,€as€ever,€it€takes€two€to€make,€andÐ ¨(ø#' Ðto€make€unconstrained.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€6€(quoting€òòPennsylvania€Co.€v.€City€of€Philadelphiaóó,€262€Pa.€439Ð ”)ä$( Ð(1918)).€€Ð €*Ð%) ÐÐ l+¼&* Ðà  àIn€the€instant€case,€we€note€that€Dr.€Moore€and€Dr.€Lawrence€were€not€listed€as€expertÐ ° Ðwitnesses€by€either€party.€€They€were€simply€party€defendants€who€are€ð ðexpertsðð€by€nature€of€theirÐ œì Ðchosen€field.€€Under€the€facts€of€the€instant€case,€we€do€not€find€that€their€expertise€is€subject€toÐ ˆØ Ðcompulsion.€€As€a€result,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€when€it€refused€to€compel€Dr.€MooreÐ tÄ Ðand€Dr.€Lawrence€to€answer€questions€outside€the€realm€of€their€own€actions€and€opinions€that€theyÐ `° Ðexpected€to€render€at€trial.€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àBecause€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€in€this€case,€we€pretermit€Ms.Ð $ t ÐLewisðð€third€issue€relating€to€the€reasonableness€and€necessity€of€medical€expenses.Ð  ` Ðò òòòÓ  ÓóóÌÌConclusionòòÐ Ô$  ÐÌó óóóÓ  Óà  àAccordingly,€for€the€aforementioned€reasons,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€CostsÐ ¬ü  Ðon€appeal€are€taxed€to€Appellant,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð ˜è  Ðà  àÌÌÌÔ#†¼‹’»XXÚ¾x #ÔÔ€XÚ¾X»¼‹’ÔÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð øH Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÔ#†X3´XXXÚ¾{#ÔÔ_Ô