WPC "S?o7l<"§Wml`ib20rӌ~-Hazp0Ǹ`dpsN[f0u֍l K'R@ ^[fTu&vG Ǹ7mJuE")OB3MԊW;?/' 8]cj[9q=`-$y2v(IG7.`ۆ9~ DɎK6w'N  Et$lDQ"p8hd66 U5sGN >f@`Yi XdlpLKĥ>bЎ,G,~ֶM}w6 &MK)?.WomW4؜_/ 5d)% Qu!f]Jo+Um/^X?ʎ3( &ph('!C)"=R9n[ =^gT~>l]4ۄ5 ros/wb-b %\^ b 0nU#NwD4H\ zk m UN   >    0DV N  #Ewyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyb}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} 0 Bpp 0 D31 D-d 0K AS/ 0 0D A}-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular9,t2 ~13|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptU(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular DinwiddieLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    R)$      1    _LewisdiscoveredthatDinwiddiewasnotDr.CampbellwhenshewastoldthatDr.Campbellisablackman.  Dinwiddieiswhite.HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0  R)$      2    _ThoughitappearsthataoneyearstatuteoflimitationwouldalsoapplytoLewissclaimofmisrepresentation,  seeTennesseeCodeAnnotated283204,Lewisdoesnotfocusthattheoryofrecoveryinthisappeal.Therefore,we t willaddressthestatuteoflimitationsissueonlyasitrelatestoLewissmedicalmalpracticeclaim.- -(|G2)$ !.8 dXXd8         0   d(|39$ !.8 dXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|39$ !.8 dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8 dd8     _   8QXXdd8  @  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#  #Ԉ &   NOVEMBER5,2001Session L XQX  # XXQ#VICKIELEWIS J v.  ^ OTISCAMPBELLandROBERTM.DINWIDDIE,JR.XQX   " r @@ AnAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforWarrenCounty " r @@No.464CharlesHaston,Judge ^  @@*AV) ` dE<` A "  @@TTNo.M200003092_COA_ԄR3CVFiledAugust7,_2002_   AV) ` dE<` A     Thiscaseinvolvesallegationsofmedicalmalpracticeandmisrepresentation.InSeptember1998,  theplaintiffpatientbeganvisitingtheofficeofthedefendantphysicianformedicaltreatment.In  FebruaryorMarch1999,thepatientdiscoveredthatthepersontreatingherwasnotthedefendant x physician.InJune1999,thepatientdiscoveredthatthepersontreatingherwasapharmacist.In d April2000,theplaintiffpatientfiledalawsuitagainstthephysicianandthepharmacist,asserting P medicalmalpracticeandmisrepresentation.Thetrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmenttothe < defendantsbasedontheoneyearstatuteoflimitations.Theplaintiffnowappeals.Weaffirm, (x findingthatplaintiffhadsufficientknowledgeinFebruaryorMarch1999toputheronnoticeofher d causeofaction,and,consequently,herApril2000lawsuitwasbarredbythestatuteoflimitations. P  Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtisAffirmed  (   # XQ#XQX. HollyKirbyLillard,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,_P.J._,  _W.S._,andDavidR.Farmer,J.,joined.   AubreyHarperandBillyK.Tollison,III,_McMinnville_,Tennessee,fortheappellant,VickieLewis. t"! DanielH.Rader,III,_Cookeville_,Tennessee,fortheappellee,OtisCampbell. L$# HenryHine,Franklin,Tennessee,fortheappellee,RobertM.Dinwiddie,Jr. $&t!%   OPINION # XXQ #XQX  'L#' # XXQ #XQX      XQXXXQOnSeptember22,1998,Plaintiff/AppellantVickieLewis( Lewis)madeherfirstvisitto )$%) theofficeofDefendant/AppelleeOtisCampbell,M.D.( Dr.Campbell),formedicaltreatment. *&* Fromthebeginning,LewiswastreatedbyDefendant/AppelleeRobertDinwiddie( Dinwiddie), +&+  whomLewisbelievedtobeDr.Campbell.SometimeafteraFebruary9,1999officevisit,Lewis ,', learnedthatDinwiddiewasnotDr.CampbellandfoundoutthathewasDr.Campbellsassistant. #  1      ׀   LewisvisitedDr.CampbellsmedicalofficeagainonMarch2andMarch24,1999,andsheagain  sawDinwiddie.TheMarch24visitwasherlast.InJune1999,LewiswenttoDr.Campbellsoffice  andapproachedDinwiddieandaskedtoseehislicense.Atthattime,Dinwiddietoldherthathewas t notadoctor,nurse,ornursepractitioner,butthathewasalicensedpharmacist. `   OnApril5,2000,LewissuedDr.CampbellandDinwiddieformedicalnegligenceand 8  misrepresentation.AfterLewissdepositionwastakenonAugust15,2000,bothDr.Campbelland $ t Dinwiddiefiledmotions forsummaryjudgment,basedontheapplicableoneyearstatuteof  ` limitations. See Tenn.CodeAnn.283104,2926116.ThemotionswerepremisedonLewiss  L  admissioninherdepositionthatshediscoveredinFebruary1999thatshewasnotbeingtreatedby  8  Dr.Campbell.Lewisacknowledgedthat,afterthisdiscovery,shevisitedDinwiddietwomoretimes, $  knowingthathewasnotDr.Campbell.Fromthis,thedefendantsarguethatinFebruaryorMarch   1999,Lewiskneworshouldhaveknown,throughtheexerciseofreasonablediligence,aboutthe   basisforherclaimsofmalpracticeandmisrepresentation.Thiswasmorethan#XQXX XQ, # XQXXXQ#  X XQ # XQX  oneyearpriorto   April5,2000,thedateonwhichshefiledsuit.OnNovember3,2000,thetrialcourtenteredan   ordergrantingthedefendantsmotionsforsummaryjudgmentonthebasisofthestatuteof p limitations.Lewisnowappeals.#XQXX XQ## XXQJ#XQX  XQXXXQԀ \   Onappeal,Lewisarguesthatthetrialcourtimproperlydeterminedasamatteroffactthatshe 4 shouldhaveknownthatDinwiddiewasnotaphysicianasearlyasFebruaryorMarchof1999.She  p arguesthattheissueofwhethersheexercisedreasonablediligenceindeterminingDinwiddiestrue  \ statusasalicensedpharmacistisaquestionthatshouldhavebeenlefttothejury.Lewisalsoargues H thatthetrialcourterredinviewingtheevidenceinalightmostfavorabletothedefendants,rather 4 thaninalightmostfavorabletoher.Sheclaimsthatifthetrialcourthadconstruedthefactsinher   favor,itwouldhaveconcludedthatshedidnotdiscoverthatDinwiddiewasnotamedicaldoctor   untilJune1999.     Wereviewthetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentdenovowithnopresumptionof  correctness. Warrenv.EstateofKirk ,954S.W.2d722,723(Tenn.1997); Bainv.Wells ,936 l S.W.2d618,622(Tenn.1997).Summaryjudgmentisappropriatewhen thepleadings,depositions, X  answerstointerrogatories,andadmissionsonfile,togetherwiththeaffidavits,ifany,showthatthere D! isnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasa 0"  matteroflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04.#XQXX XQ# XQXXXQ#  X XQ# XQX   #l!   Itisundisputedthatthestatuteoflimitationsinamedicalmalpracticeactionisoneyear. #  2      ׀ $D # Tenn.CodeAnn.2926116(a)(1).Thecauseofactionaccrues,andthelimitationsperiodbegins %0!$ torun,whentheplaintiffdiscoverstheinjuryorwhentheplaintiff,throughreasonablediligence,  shouldhavediscovered(1)theoccasion,manner,andmeansbywhichthebreachofdutyoccurred,  and(2)theidentityofthedefendantthatbreachedtheduty. SeeStanburyv.Bacardi ,953S.W.2d  671,67677(Tenn.1997).In Stanbury ,theTennesseeSupremeCourtexplained: t 8  Weemphasizethatunderthediscoveryrule,thestatutebeginstorunwhenthe L  plaintiffknowsorintheexerciseofreasonablecareanddiligenceshouldknow,that 8  aninjuryhasbeensustained.Itisknowledgeoffactssufficienttoputaplaintiffon $ t noticethataninjuryhasbeensustainedwhichiscrucial.Again,aplaintiffneednot  `  actuallyknowthattheinjuryconstitutesabreachoftheappropriatelegalstandard  L  inordertodiscoverthathehasarightofaction. 8     Id. at678(quoting Roev.Jefferson ,875S.W.2d653,657(Tenn.1994))#XQXX XQ# XQXXXQ#  X XQ# XQX  .Thus,the plaintiffis   deemedtohavediscoveredtherightofactionifheisawareoffactssufficienttoputareasonable   persononnoticethathehassufferedaninjuryasaresultofwrongfulconduct. Id. at677(quoting    Roe ,875S.W.2dat657).     Lewisfirstarguesthatsummaryjudgmentwasinappropriatebecausetherewasadisputed \ issueofmaterialfactwithrespecttowhethersheshouldhavediscoveredthatDinwiddiewasnota H physicianinFebruaryorMarch1999.Sheacknowledgesthat,inFebruaryorMarch1999,sheknew 4 thatDinwiddiewasnotDr.Campbell.However,sheclaimsthatsheassumedthatDinwiddiewas  p anurseoranursepractitioneranddidnotknowthathewasapharmacistuntilJune1999whenshe  \ confrontedhimdirectly. H   Inresponse,thedefendantsmaintain#XQXX XQ#%# XQXXXQ#  X XQe%# XQX  thattheundisputedfactscompeltheconclusionthat   Lewiswasawareoffactssufficienttoputareasonablepersononnoticethatshewasbeingtreated   byanonphysician.TheycitetoLewissdeposition,inwhichshetestifiedthatshebecame  suspiciousthatDinwiddiewasnotaphysicianinFebruary1999:  Ѐ#  X XQ*# XQX  #XQXX XQ)# XQXXXQԀ8  Q.WhatmadeyoufirstsuspiciousthatMr.Dinwiddiewasnotamedicaldoctor?l   8  A.WhenIfoundoutthattheywerecallinghimRob.D!   8  Q.Whenwasthat!ithadtobeinMarchof99orFebruary?#l!   8  A.Itwassomewherearoundthere.Andhebegantoactlikehedidntknowwhat $D # hewasdoing.%0!$   8  Q.IsthatwhenhetookyouoffProzacin[sic]February9th?'#&    8  A.February9th.)$(   Lewistestifiedthatshewas shockedtolearninFebruary1999thatthepersonwhohadbeen   treatingherwasnotDr.Campbell.Basedonthistestimony,thedefendantsargue,Lewisscauseof  actionbegantoaccrueinFebruaryorMarch1999.#XQXX XQ,# XQXXXQ#  X XQ+# XQX      LewisscomplaintallegesthatDinwiddiecommittedmalpracticeby exceedingthescope ` ofhisprofessionallicenseandbreachinghisdutytoMs.Lewisbynotinformingherthathecould L  nottreatherandprescribemedicationbutcouldonlyfillprescriptions.AstoDr.Campbell,the 8  complaintallegesthathe breachedthedutyofcareheowedtoMs.LewisbyemployingDefendant $ t Dinwiddie,apharmacist,totreatandprescribemedicationforMs.Lewis.Therefore,Lewisscause  ` ofactionaccruedwhensheknew,orintheexerciseofreasonablecareanddiligenceshouldhave  L  known,thatshewasbeingtreatedbyanonphysician.Asin Stanbury , [i]tisknowledgeoffacts  8  sufficienttoputaplaintiffonnoticethataninjuryhasbeensustainedwhichiscrucial. Stanbury , $  953S.W.2dat678.Inherdepositiontestimony,Lewisassertsthat,inFebruary1999,shewas    shockedtolearnthatDinwiddiewasnotDr.CampbellandwassuspiciousthatDinwiddiewasnot   aphysician.Atthattime,Lewiswasonnoticeoffactsthatwouldhavepromptedareasonable   persontodeterminewhetherDinwiddiewasaphysician.Indeed,shehadadequateopportunityto   makesuchinquiriesatherlasttwoofficevisitsinMarch1999.Underthesecircumstances,wemust p concludethatLewisscauseofactionagainstDinwiddieandDr.Campbellaccruednolaterthan \ March1999.Therefore,herlawsuit,filedinApril2000,wasbarredbytheoneyearstatuteof H limitations.Consequently,thetrialcourtdidnoterringrantingthedefendantsmotionforsummary 4 judgment.  p #  X XQj0# XQX  #XQXX XQ(0# XQXXXQ  Thedecisionofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsaretobetaxedtotheappellant,Vickie H Lewis,andhersurety,forwhichexecutionmayissue,ifnecessary.#  X XQ8# XQX  #XQXX XQ8# XQXXXQ 4 #XQXX XQ:#    `     h     ___________________________________ l    `     h     HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,JUDGE# XXQ9#