ÿWPC¡ ßNrvìPYRÚžOPMX•®¨•€ÅNö ¶Þv¦`÷ÀåR#»:[§¤Ú:„iÏÒÈ:“JEtSJ¬úwóц*¨ò¯òïGýoôð„°xT׶Ýmÿ^Dx 0¿öùâ3è~K£ b„]:ý¡Dšõä7‰ ½õ®×þé*túç|WƒÒò*Q9ÃÛ=ucü&š°õ¾Wœ&oe£ýúÒ<ýËÌ}NŸ‰jKDQ¨ËYœ¿Ç_ûA0a ÏÀH®¦N×½"€GÑŸÙå)òë6 ”Ùê.ÜæÕi­·„Eæê%ƒO_V(s‚É¢y€Q£Ÿ«5’æ®áÌ=MCEÆ’ëÜQ)G­t-¶ßMj”ÖPB@ÕÆÀy+µ 7ØøÆÍçkÞË;ë~Wáû7¼UçuÀ6G0Õ˃¤_ŒzVCú%Ñc9ŒŽ±u?S,x)$¼ùÏšÚ*“²qàƒÌ”Ç“D×KÑÍçÙ–oÌ<ó$]ȇ8¯CGÆŸ5 'ÿìI²üeœ#ÂìŒëÄÉ Ë~Û ì.SÇÙŸÛTî)ߣp«ßZ+­‘£ÀzA¯êÔã,aI¨â@œ}A™[쪦hnÝÄêO/FÌjéÛ^Bñ 7`# @U NK %™ 0(Ÿw@Ç4  * D bL :T T 0PŽ Ž Ž Þ U:á á á á á á á á á á á á á á á AQ Æl 0D2 2 0Dv v D/º Bé B D3# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 0DV V V V V V V V V Aš D? BGZ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ UDVWXDYDZ[Ó€ef!gìu[%tttttt3|xgwaiver- ù- 0Ñ#€O@Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € Ñ((3/Q$««Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ d Ô ùÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€Xf?XXXÔÔ€ù#XXf?ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€Xf?Xù#ÔÐ  ÐÌDecember€8,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"T$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝT^yúÿ  <<= 8ÀÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ____3 TripledxdCTriple 1+| d d dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ݛҀ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ‡¼L}¼XXÔÓ'€Ð‡Xè“X°œX'ÓÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ  ÑÑ€ foÑœñgññ[ñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô±` 8ttxP,°ð  rßñ[ññgññgññgññfññfññgññgññfññfññgññgññfññfññgññgññfñ0ñfñROBERT€E.€MAYERS,à 8 àà  àà è à)Ð ° Ðñgññgñà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)ÌÓ6€ü(‚X˜‘X€Ð‡Xè“X6Óñgñßt€ )>.*jx¬Ï` `€€@E Ÿ` 8ttxPØ×ð È tßñgñà Ø àPlaintiff/Appellant,à  à)à  àAppeal€No.Ð Ð  Ðà Ø àà  à)à  à01„A„01„9802„CV„00101Ð à0 Ðv.à Ø àà  à)Ð ð@ Ðà Ø àà  à)à  àDavidson€CircuitÐ  P ÐMILLER€MEDICAL€GROUP,€à  à)à  àNo.€97C„1914Ð  ` ÐMILLER€MEDICAL€GROUP,à  à)Ð  p ÐAn€Affiliate€of€Baptist€Healthcareà  à)Ð 0 € ÐGroup;€RUSSELL€D.€WARD,€M.D.à  à)Ð @  Ðand€MICHEL€KUZUR,€M.D.,à  à)Ð P   Ðà Ø àà  à)Ìà Ø àDefendants/Appellees.à  à)Ð pÀ  Ðà Ø àà  à)ÌÌÌÔ#†Xf4X¼¼L}8#ÔÔ‡»Ì~»XXf4ÔÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€MARIETTA€M.€SHIPLEY,€JUDGEÌÓ9°,X‚Xì“X€ü(‚X˜‘X9ÓÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓROBERT€E.€MAYERS,€Pro€SeÌ1525€Naples€AvenueÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37207ÌÔ#†Xf4X»»Ì~#ÔÔ‡¼L}¼XXf4ÔÌÌÌÌROBERT€E.€PARKERÌRICHARD€F.€RUSSELLÌ200€Fourth€Avenue€North,€5th€FloorÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37219Ìà Ø àATTORNEYS€FOR€DEFENDANTS/APPELLEESÌÌÓ  ÓÌ̛̜AFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌñ[ñÑ foÑÑ7€f4XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑÑ foÑÑ#€O@Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € ÑÑ  Ññ[ñ›Ìñ[ñÑ foÑÑ7€f4XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  Ññ[ñÓ  Óà @ àà @ì àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ à:063w ÐÑ foÑÑ7€f4XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  Ññ[ñÑ foÑÑ7€VXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  Ññ[ñÓÓÓ  ÓœòòÔ#†Xf4X¼¼L}ê#ÔÔ‡° °XXf4ÔOPINIONóó›Ð ° ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†Xf4X°° e #ÔÔ‡¼L}¼XXf4ÔÓ€ÓÓ9°,X°4ì“X°,X‚Xì“X9Óœà  àPlaintiff,€Robert€E.€Mayers,€acting€pro€se€in€this€medical€malpracticeÐ T¤ Ðaction,€appeals€the€decision€of€the€Circuit€Court€of€Davidson€County€denying€hisÏapplication€for€relief€under€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€60.02€from€a€finalÏsummary€judgment€rendered€in€favor€of€the€defendants.ÌÌà  àOn€June€16,€1997,€Robert€E.€Mayers€filed€suit€against€Miller€MedicalÏGroup€and€Drs.€Russell€D.€Ward€and€Michel€Kuzur,€former€physician€membersÏof€Miller€Medical€Group.€€In€the€complaint€it€is€alleged€that€on€July€28,€1980,Ïwhile€plaintiff€was€employed€by€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Corrections€atÏSpencer€Youth€Center,€he€sustained€a€work€related€injury€to€his€mid€and€upperÏchest€when€kicked€by€a€juvenile€inmate.ÌÌà  àHe€was€first€treated€at€Miller€Medical€Group€on€June€18,€1981,€by€Dr.ÏRussell€D.€Ward,€presenting€with€a€complaint€of€constant€pain€in€his€chest.€€Dr.ÏWard€prescribed€medications€for€him€in€1981€and€then€retired€from€the€practiceÏof€medicine€in€1982.€€Plaintiff€was€then€treated€by€the€defendant,€Michael€E.ÏKuzur,€from€1983€until€his€last€treatment€by€Dr.€Kuzur€on€April€25,€1989.€€DuringÏthe€course€of€his€treatment,€Dr.€Kuzur€prescribed€Naprosyn,€375€milligrams,€withÏthe€prescription€issued€in€1989€and€continually€renewed€until€a€last€prescriptionÏtherefor€on€February€19,€1991.›à ¼ àœÔ#†Xf4X¼¼L}Ó #ÔÐ œ&ì!( ÐÌà  àÔ€¼L}¼XXf4ÔFollowing€the€last€treatment€by€any€of€the€defendants€in€February€ofÐ –)æ$, Ð1991,€Mr.€Mayers,€on€December€18,€1991,€was€first€treated€by€Dr.€Winston€GrinerÏat€the€Vanderbilt€Pain€Clinic,€still€suffering€from€pain€in€his€chest€which€hadÏcontinued€since€his€original€injury€in€1980.ÌÌà  àOn€June€18,€1996,€plaintiff€was€first€seen€by€Dr.€Richard€N.€Pearson,€III,Ïwho€diagnosed€his€problem€as€chronic€sternal€nonunion€requiring€surgery.€€In€hisÏreport€to€the€pain€control€center€of€June€18,€1996,€Dr.€Pearson€stated€in€part:ÌÓ€Óà8  à.€.€.€As€you€well€know,€he€is€a€44€year€old€gentleman€whoÏincurred€a€fractured€sterno€manubrial€junction€inÏapproximately€1980,€when€kicked€in€the€chest€by€an€inmateÏduring€his€work€as€a€corrections€officer.€€Although€he€wasÐ †9Ö4? Ðable€to€manage€this€discomfort€with€high€doses€of€non„¼steroidal€anti„inflammatories,€a€combination€of€bleedingÏhemorrhoids€and€persistent€anemia€due€to€GI€blood€lossÏnecessitated€discontinuation€of€these€medications.€€Since€thatÏtime,€approximately€3€years€ago,€he€has€been€managed€byÏrepeat€alcohol€injections€in€the€peristernal€area,€which€haveÏbeen€effective€for€up€to€2€months€at€a€time.€€He€remainsÏemployed€as€a€counselor€at€the€Department€of€Corrections,Ïand€is€no€longer€involved€in€active€physical€activity.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ<€ü(€ ä è“X°,X°4ì“X<Óà8  àà ä àOn€physical€examination,€Mr.€Mayers€has€clear€evidenceÏof€a€step„off€at€a€sterno€manubrial€junction.€€A€sternal€click€isÏreadily€palpable€at€this€point.€€It€is€my€clinical€impresion,Ïwhich€is€supported€by€his€bone€scan€data,€that€he€has€chronicÏinflammation€around€the€pseudo€capsule€associated€with€hisÏunhealed€chronic€sterno€manubrial€dislocation.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ä àMr.€Mayers€seems€like€a€responsible€individual€who€isÏtruly€plagued€by€chronic€pain€related€to€a€specific€physicalÏdisorder€which€I€believe€can€be€corrected€at€relative€low€risk.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ€ÓÌà  àDr.€Pearson€performed€the€surgery€on€July€17,€1996,€with€apparentlyÏsatisfactory€results.ÌÌà  àThe€defendants€filed€a€joint€answer€denying€all€allegations€of€negligenceÏand€all€allegations€of€fraudulent€concealment.€€Coupled€with€the€answer,€Dr.ÏKuzur€filed€his€affidavit€asserting€familiarity€with€the€acceptable€standard€ofÏmedical€practice€in€Nashville€and€further€asserting€his€compliance€with€theÏstandard€of€care.€€As€affirmative€defenses,€all€defendants€pleaded€the€one€yearÏstatute€of€limitations€provided€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€29„26„¼116(a)(1)€and€the€three€year€statute€of€repose€provided€by€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€29„26„116(3).ÌÌà  àOn€August€25,€1997,€all€defendants€filed€a€motion€for€judgment€on€theÏpleadings€or€summary€judgment€pursuant€to€Rules€12€and€56€of€the€TennesseeÏRules€of€Civil€Procedure,€together€with€a€statement€of€material€facts€pursuant€to€ÏRule€56.03.ÌÌà  àOn€September€23,€1997,€plaintiff€filed€pro€se€a€motion€for€an€extensionÏof€time€to€answer€which€was€granted€and€the€Rule€12€and€Rule€56€motions€resetÐ H9˜4; Ðfor€November€7,€1997.ÌÌà  àOn€October€16,€1997,€plaintiff€responded€to€the€Rule€12€and€Rule€56Ïmotion€including€in€his€response€a€copy€of€the€letter€from€Dr.€Pearson€of€June€18,Ï1996.ÌÌ€€à  àThe€Rule€12€and€Rule€56€motions€were€heard€on€November€7,€1997,€andÐ @  Ðby€order€dated€November€13,€1997,€the€trial€court€held€that€the€summary€judgmentÏmotion€of€the€defendatns€was€well€taken€in€all€respects€and€was€granted.ÌÌà  àNo€appeal€was€taken€from€this€judgment€within€thirty€days€afterÏNovember€13,€1997,€and€it€thus€became€final.€ÌÌà  àOn€January€9,€1998,€the€plaintiff€filed€pro€se€his€motion€for€relief€fromÏthe€November€13,€1997€judgment€pursuant€to€Rule€60.02€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Civil€Procedure.€€This€motion€was€accompanied€by€an€affidavit€of€Dr.€PearsonÏstating,€in€pertinent€part:ÌÓ€Óà8  à2.à ä àBased€on€my€examination,€it€is€my€medical€judgmentÐ È" Ðthat€Robert€Mayers€suffered€from€chronic€sternal€nonunionÏrequiring€surgery.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  à3.à ä àI€believe€if€a€medical€diagnosis€of€chronic€sternalÐ ø"H% Ðnonunion€had€been€rendered€earlier,€Robert€Mayers€medicalÏcondition€could€have€been€resolved€more€quickly.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ€ÓÌà  àThe€Rule€60.02€motion€of€the€plaintiff€was€heard€on€February€13,€1998Ïand€denied€by€the€trial€court€by€an€order€entered€on€February€17,€1998.ÌÌà  àPlaintiff€pro€se€appealed€the€February€13,€1998€order€by€filing€notice€ofÏappeal€on€February€19,€1998.ÌÌI.à  àTHE€RULE€60.02€MOTIONÐ `2°-7 Ðà  àThis€appeal€is€not€from€the€grant€of€summary€judgment€of€November€13,Ï1997.€€This€judgment€had€become€final€thirty€days€thereafter€and€the€Rule€60.02Ïmotion€for€relief€therefrom€was€not€filed€until€January€9,€1998.ÌÐ À84? Ðà  àThe€only€grounds€for€relief€set€forth€in€the€Rule€60.02€motion€is€theÏassertion€by€the€plaintiff€that€the€affidavit€of€Dr.€Pearson€is€newly€discoveredÏevidence.€€Clearly€it€is€not.€€When€Mr.€Mayers€attempted€to€use€the€June€18,€1996Ïletter€from€Dr.€Pearson€at€the€November€9,€1997€hearing€on€the€defendants'€RuleÏ12€and€Rule€56€motion,€the€trial€court€correctly€pointed€out,€according€toÏappellant,€that€same€was€not€in€affidavit€form€and€could€not€be€considered€inÏdetermining€the€Rule€56€motion.€€Mr.€Mayers€did€not€present€Dr.€Pearson'sÏaffidavit€until€well€after€appeal€time€had€expired€on€the€November€13€grant€ofÏsummary€judgment.€€Even€if€the€affidavit€of€Dr.€Pearson€might€be€characterizedÏas€newly€discovered€evidence,€no€relief€is€available€under€Rule€60.02€since€theÏevidence€could€clearly€have€been€discovered€prior€to€the€summary€judgmentÏhearing€by€the€exercise€of€reasonable€diligence.€€ò òòòSpence€v.€AllState€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€883Ð 8ˆ ÐS.W.2d€586,€596€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà  àThe€supreme€court€has€held:ÌÓ€Óà8  àTo€set€aside€a€judgment€under€rule€60.02€the€burden€is€uponÏthe€movant€to€prove€that€he€is€entitled€to€relief,€and€there€mustÏbe€proof€of€the€basis€on€which€relief€is€sought.€€òòBrumlow€v.Ð »   ÐBrumlow,€óó729€S.W.2d€103,€106€(Tenn.Ct.App.1986)òò;Ð Ë! ÐJefferson€v.€Pneumo€Services€Corp.,óó€699€S.W.2d€181,€186Ð Û +" Ð(Tenn.Ct.App.1985).€€A€motion€for€relief€from€a€judgmentÏpursuant€to€Rule€60.02€addresses€the€sound€discretion€of€theÏtrial€judge;€the€scope€of€review€on€appeal€is€limited€to€whetherÏthe€trial€judge€abused€his€discretion.€€òòToney€v.€Mueller€Co.óó,Ð %k & Ð810€S.W.2d€145€(Tenn.1991);€òòTravis€v.€City€of€Murfreesboroóó,Ð +&{!' Ð686€S.W.2d€68,€70€(Tenn.1985).Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ä àRule€60.02€"was€designed€to€strike€a€proper€balanceÏbetween€the€competing€principles€of€finality€and€justice."€ÏòòJenkins€v.€McKinneyóó,€533€S.W.2d€275,€280€(Tenn.1976).€Ð {+Ë&, ÐWith€regard€to€the€purpose€of€the€rule,€this€Court€recentlyÏstated,Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà8ä  Ð  Ð à"Rule€60.02€acts€as€an€escape€valve€from€possibleÏinequity€that€might€otherwise€arise€from€theÏunrelenting€imposition€of€the€principle€of€finalityÏimbedded€in€our€procedural€rules."€€òòThompson€v.Ð Û1+-2 ÐFireman's€Fund€Ins.€Co.ò òóó,€ó ó798€S.W.2d€235,€238Ð ë2;.3 Ð(Tenn.1990).€€Because€of€the€importance€of€thisÏ"principle€of€finality,"€the€"escape€valve"€shouldÏnot€be€easily€opened.Ð ä ðä ð Ѐòò€óó€à  à€€òòToney€v.€Mueller€Co.óó,€810€S.W.2d€at€146.Ð /727 ÐÌÓ€ÓÐ O9Ÿ49 Ðò òòòBanks€v.€Dement€Constr.€Co.,€Inc.ó óóó,€817€S.W.2d€16,€18€(Tenn.€ñPñ______).ñPññQñ1991).ñQñÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€action€of€the€trial€court€in€overruling€the€Rule€60.02€motion€filed€byÏMr.€Mayers€was€clearly€not€an€abuse€of€the€discretion€vested€in€the€trial€court€andÏis€therefore€affirmed.ÌÌII.à  àTHE€SUMMARY€JUDGMENTÐ C“  Ðà  àAlthough€the€affirmation€of€the€Rule€60.02€denial€by€the€trial€court€isÏdeterminative€of€this€appeal,€it€is€equally€clear€that€the€action€of€the€trial€judge€inÏgranting€summary€judgment€to€the€defendants€was€a€correct€action.ÌÌà  àFirst,€the€plaintiff€must€prove€malpractice€by€expert€testimony€underÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€29„26„115.€€Such€expert€testimony€mustÏestablish:ÌÓ€Óà8  à(1)à ä àThe€recognized€standard€of€acceptable€professionalÐ S Ðpractice€in€the€profession€and€the€speciality€thereof,€if€any,Ïthat€the€defendant€practices€in€the€community€in€which€heÏpractices€or€in€a€similar€community€at€the€time€the€allegedÏinjury€or€wrongful€action€occurred;€Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌà8  à(2)à ä àThat€the€defendant€acted€with€less€than€or€failed€to€actÐ c!³" Ðwith€ordinary€and€reasonable€care€in€accordance€with€suchÏstandard;€.€.€.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115(a)(1)(2).ÌÌÓ€ÓÌà  àThe€affidavit€tendered€by€Dr.€Pearson€in€no€way€meets€the€standardsÏrequired€by€the€statute.ÌÌà  àThe€record€before€the€court€is€likewise€devoid€of€any€proof€that€any€ofÏthe€defendants€ever€knew€that€plaintiff€suffered€from€"chronic€sternal€nonunion".ÌÌà  àThe€supreme€court€has€held:ÌÓ€Óà8  àà ä à[5,6]€€In€order€to€meet€the€burden,€a€plaintiff€who€seeksÏto€toll€a€statute€of€limitations€on€the€ground€of€fraudulentÏconcealment€must€prove€that€the€cause€of€action€was€knownÏto€and€fraudulently€concealed€by€the€defendant.€€òòRay€v.Ð ³73; ÐScheibertóó,€224€Tenn.€(2€Pack)€99,€104,€450,€S.W.2d€578,€580Ð Ã84< Ð(1969).€€Knowledge€on€the€part€of€the€physician€of€the€factsÐ Ó9#5= Ðgiving€rise€to€a€cause€of€action€is€an€essential€element€ofÏfraudulent€concealment.€€òòRay€v.€Scheibertóó,€484€S.W.2d€63,€72Ð À Ð(Tenn.App.1972).Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌò òòòBenton€v.€Snyderó óóó,€825€S.W.2d€409,€414€(Tenn.€ñRñ______).ñRññSñ1992).ñSñÐ ð@ ÐÌÓ€ÓÌà  àThus,€even€if€the€defendants€failed€to€diagnosñWñeñWññXñisñXñ€the€condition€of€theÏplaintiff€and€such€failure€to€diagnosñYñisñYññZñeñZñ€the€true€condition€fell€below€the€applicableÏstandard€of€care,€it€could€not€also€consititute€fraudulent€concealment.€€Under€theÏstandards€set€forth€in€ò òòòBenton€v.€Snyderó óóó,€and€ò òòòRay€v.€Scheibertó óóó,€how€can€oneÐ r  Ðfraudulently€conceal€that€which€one€does€not€know?ÌÌà  àThus,€in€this€case€regardless€of€the€discovery€rule€question€under€the€oneÏyear€statute€of€limitations,€the€action€is€barred€by€the€three€year€statute€of€reposeÏ(T.C.A.€ðð€29„26„116(a)(3))€and€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€granting€the€motionÏfor€summary€judgment.€€ÌÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€and€costs€of€the€appealÏassessed€against€the€appellant.€ÌÌÌÓ€Óà  àà ä àà è à____________________________Ìà  àà ä àà è àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌJERRY€ñVñL.€ñVñSMITH,€SPECIAL€JUDGEà è àÐ U1¥,2 ÐÌÌÌÌÌ›€à  àà ä àà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H! àà  # àœÐ µ738 ÐÌñUñÐ Õ9%5: ÐÐ Õ9%5: ÐñUñ›