WPCS ?#9^QڦWaxt8fܝ#ܞ-OvF dѧ໶t8ΡÚ # z]]){PV$QK E-% e?ci_TE% o>gR/e#vkjsY$ $)ծ*-oH#;dʺ/[)!3#Xd )F4ԶZqI >Yz6pm7sOQ\Og)`G}&o΂Is.O4ֵi8t}ŝʫ-$GrCGjk!w3ƛ]8"wxՏ3F^CʷuPL6kcL<جn w_ȹJU_uo }3AW=ֳ;U\9b.Ij #6fLaꖍZR!nz?f1p#  % ^ 0 U[N{ w 4 z [ - < m> 0UU  p 6 0N 0 0lE+ 0- 0 0 0F 0 0 0S 0$ 0 0 0+ 0 0g 0 0 0K 0 0 0s 0 0 0M 0 bi! 0q! 0#" 0" 0># 0# 0$ 0% 0& 0{' 0]( 0?) 0) 02* 0* 0:+ 0Y3, 0_, 0 , 0- 0w/ B*}1 D/1 01 D/3 0 4 064 05 0:6 0^Q6 0<6 1e6 0NP7U67U>7U*8 0<8P'9 0Dw; 1u; B0< 72M< 0< D3#= D-V= 0K== AS>#? 0? 0D@ A@|AU N~ByBkEEEEFGGGGGGG&OHP LaserJet 40500v-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular|&-:i+00 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.wpt3|x U*+ (_2623  ..Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   - -0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKO<6X9`(Courier NewKSP\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KO<6X9`(Courier NewKSP\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KO<6X9`(Courier NewKSP\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7D(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?Q%2A`Arial?  SP\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dC)1dxd<:zTop of For7F(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?Q%2A`Arial?  SP\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  C)2dxd0KS.SampleKO<6X9`(Courier NewKSP\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKO<6X9`(Courier NewKSP\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"# 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(O$<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial(|G2 $ !.8Ddd8         0   F R $      4    _Wenote,althoughourSupremeCourtdeniedtheapplicationforpermissiontoappealinTownesv.Sunbeam  Oster,Co.,itsubsequentlygrantedtheapplicationfiledinMcClendonv.Bunick,andremandedMcClendontothisCourt t forreconsiderationinlightoftheTownesdecision.McClendonv.Bunick,E199902761SCR11CV,2001Tenn. 8 LEXIS748(Tenn.Sept.24,2001).(#$  0  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) dUi)(|3ǂ$ !.8Ddd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  /research/buttonTFLink?_m=7b1e7f879e37414d86d3fcd2852aa1a9&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b79%20S.W.3d%204^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ǂ$ !.8Ddd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK/research/buttonTFLink?_m=7b1e7f879e37414d86d3fcd2852aa1a9&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b79%20S.W.3d%204(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular o R $      3    _TherecordindicatesadisputeregardingwhetherDr.WychewasMr.McCulloughsprimarycarephysician  ( PCP).Theevidenceindicatesatonepoint,Dr.WychebelievedhewasMr.McCulloughsPCP.Dr.Wychetestified, t however,heheldthisbeliefpriortolearningMr.McCulloughwasbeingseenonalongtermandregularbasisbydoctors 8 attheVeteransAdministration,whowereprescribingmonthlysuppliesofmedication. a R $      1    _ԀOralargumentwasheardinthiscaseonNovember15,2002,atKnoxvilleFultonHighSchool,aspartofthe  CourtsC.A.S.E.( C ourtofAppeals A ffecting S tudent E ducation)project. R $      2    _Mr.McCulloughhadcomplainedofabdominalpainduringhishospitaladmissionforthemyocardial  infarction.  R $      5    _Wenote,AppellantsreplybriefarguesthestatuteofreposedoesnotbarreaddingCardiologyConsultants  becauseAppellantscaninvokeTenn.CodeAnn.281105,thesavingsstatute,totollthestatuteofrepose.Appellants t arguetheirmotiontofilethethirdamendedcomplaintwasmadewithinoneyearofthedismissalofCardiology 8 Consultantsfromthesuit,andtherefore,theycanutilizethesavingsstatutetorefilesuitagainstCardiologyConsultants. L Thisargumentisfallacious.Thesavingsstatutedoesallowaplaintifftorefilesuitwithinoneyearofadismissalif  certainconditionsaremet.Thoseconditionswerenotmetinthiscase.OurSupremeCourthasheld: aplaintiffwho  initiallyfilesamedicalmalpracticeactionwithintheoneyearstatuteoflimitationsandthethreeyearstatuteofrepose H  canrelyuponthesavingsstatuteandrefiletheactionwithinoneyearofavoluntarydismissal,eventhoughthevoluntary  \ dismissalandrefilingoccurbeyondthethreeyearmedicalmalpracticestatuteofrepose.Sharpv.Richardson,937   S.W.2d846,848(Tenn.1996)(discussingtheholdinginCroninv.Howe,906S.W.2d910,91415(Tenn.1995)).Thus,    theoriginalcomplaintagainstthatdefendantmusthavebeenfiledwithintheoneyearstatuteoflimitationsinorderfor X   thesavingsstatutetoapply.WehavealreadydeterminedPlaintiffssecondamendedcomplaint,theirfirstattemptto  l  sueCardiologyConsultants,wasnotfiledwithintheoneyearstatuteoflimitations,andtherefore,Appellantscannotuse  0  thesavingsstatutetotollthestatuteofrepose.  COABlackyMonteithWycheC.A.S.E.SwineyGoddard P.J.JimmieEastridgeGreenevilleTiclidCoumadinprothrombinprotimesAugmentinLortab(gastroenterologistNorthsidenonsuitrespondeatCurreyShadrickCokerStanburyBacarditortiousTownesOsterMcClendonBunickfeasor A]nMerrimanDellingerinvolv[eCowdenSovranDownenMcCarley OmerCarvell CBLAssocsNatlresult[edrefileCronintortfeasorKmartManahanMcCullough !.8Ddd8     _  D8XXdd8  @ JlDINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#DJl #Ԉ &   November15,2002Session L XXD #DXX#JOSEPHMCCULLOUGH,etux.v.JOHNSONCITYEMERGENCY  6 PHYSICIANS,P.C.,etal.XXD   J @@ AppealfromtheLawCourtforWashingtonCounty  J @@No.19339G.RichardJohnson,Chancellor  6  FILEDDECEMBER19,_2002_   @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200102899COAR3CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }    JosephMcCullough( Mr.McCullough)sufferedanacuteanteriormyocardialinfarctionon d September1,1997.HewastreatedinthehospitalbyAlbertR.Blacky,M.D.( Dr.Blacky)of P CardiologyConsultantsofJohnsonCity,P.C.( CardiologyConsultants)andplacedon < anticoagulationtherapy.Laterthesamemonth,Mr.McCulloughwastreatedbyLindaMonteith, (x M.D.( Dr.Monteith)ofJohnsonCityEmergencyPhysicians,P.C.( JohnsonCityEmergency d Physicians)andBrettWyche,M.D.( Dr.Wyche)ofWycheandWyche,M.D.,P.C.( Wyche& P Wyche),forvariouscomplaints.AroundSeptember27,1997,Mr.McCulloughsufferedamassive < cerebellarhemorrhageresultinginpermanentimpairment.Mr.McCulloughandhiswife ( ( Plaintiffsor Appellants)suedJohnsonCityMedicalCenterHospital,Inc.( theHospital);Dr.  Monteith;JohnsonCityEmergencyPhysicians;Dr.Wyche;andWyche&Wyche.Plaintiffslater  filedasecondamendedcomplaintaddingCardiologyConsultantsandKmartCorporation( Kmart)  asdefendants.Thevariousdefendantsansweredthesecondamendedcomplaintalleging  comparativefaultagainstCardiologyConsultants.CardiologyConsultantsandKmartweregranted t  summaryjudgment.Severaldaysintotrial,Plaintiffsmovedforleavetofileathirdamended `!  complaintreaddingCardiologyConsultantsasadefendantrelyingonTenn.CodeAnn.201119. L"! TheTrialCourtdeniedthismotionaswellasPlaintiffsmotionforamistrial.Thejuryrendereda 8#" defenseverdict.Plaintiffsappeal.Weaffirm.e T#  1      ׀ $$t#  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheLawCourt %L!% Affirmed;CaseRemanded  &8"&   #DXѩ#XX.DD.MichaelSwiney,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM.Goddard,P.J., ($( andCharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,joined. )$)  *%* _DavidC.Lee,J.D.Lee,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheAppellants,JosephMcCullough,et.ux.  JimmieC.Miller,NancyC.Eastridge,Kingsport,Tennessee,fortheAppellees,JohnsonCity  EmergencyPhysicians,P.C.andLindaMonteith,M.D. t JeffreyM.Ward,Greeneville,Tennessee,fortheAppellee,CardiologyConsultantsofJohnsonCity, L  P.C. 8  CharlesT.Herndon,IV,JohnsonCity,Tennessee,fortheAppellees,BrettWyche,M.D.andWyche  ` andWyche,M.D.,P.C.  L    OPINION #DXXѯ #XXD    Background      @*   ` OnSeptember1,1997,Mr.McCulloughhadanacuteanteriormyocardialinfarction. \ HewastreatedinthehospitalbyDr.BlackyofCardiologyConsultants.Mr.McCulloughwas H dischargedfromthehospitalonSeptember7,1997,afterbeingplacedonseveralmedications 4 includingaspirin,Ticlid,andCoumadin,ananticoagulant.PatientsonCoumadingenerallyare  p instructedtohaveregulartestingofthelevelofanticoagulationoftheblood.Thesetestsarereferred  \ toasprothrombintimesorprotimes.CardiologyConsultantstestedMr.McCulloughsprotimeson H September9,1997,andagainonSeptember10,1997,anddeterminedtheprotimesweretherapeutic. 4 Mr.McCulloughdidnotreturntoCardiologyConsultantstohavehisprotimescheckedagain.      ` OnSeptember13,1997,Mr.McCulloughpresentedtotheemergencyroomat  JohnsonCityMedicalCenterwherehewasseenbyDr.Monteithforcomplaintsofabdominalpaing T#  2      .  Dr.Monteithprescribedanantibiotic,Augmentin,foradiagnosisofpresumeddiverticulitis.Dr.  MonteithdidnotcheckMr.McCulloughsprotimes,butnotedinthechartMr.McCulloughwasto l followupwithhisregulardoctorearlyintheweek. X     ` OnSeptember17,18,or19,1997,aprescriptionforLortabwascalledintothe 0"  KmartpharmacybysomeoneatCardiologyConsultants.Mr.McCulloughdidnotvisittheoffices #l! ofCardiologyConsultantsduringthistimeperiodanditisunclearfromtherecordwhetherMr. $X" McCulloughcalledCardiologyConsultantsandrequestedaprescription.Mr.McCulloughwas $D # determinednotcompetenttotestifyandanAgreedOrderwasenteredexcludinghistestimonyat %0!$ trial.Mrs.McCulloughtestifiedduringdepositionthatherhusbandaskedhertopickuptheLortab &"%  prescriptionfromtheKmartpharmacy.Mrs.McCulloughdidnotknowandwasunabletotestify '#& regardingwhetherherhusbandcalledCardiologyConsultantstorequestaprescription,andifso,  whomhespokewith.      ` TheLortabprescriptionfromtheKmartpharmacyborethenameofDr.Blacky.Dr. t BlackytestifiedduringhisdepositioninMarchof2000,hedidnotrecallcallingintheprescription ` forLortab,hadnonotationinthechartregardingcallinginthisprescription,andwas astoundedto L  seehisnameattachedtotheLortabprescriptionbytheKmartpharmacy.Dr.Blackytestifiedhe 8  normallywouldnotcallinaprescriptionforanarcotic,likeLortab,withoutseeingthepatientfirst. $ t Dr.BlackyalsotestifiedathisdepositionthathisofficemanagercheckedwiththeKmartpharmacy  ` anddiscoveredallofMr.McCulloughsprescriptionswhichoriginatedfromCardiology  L  Consultants,withoneexception,hadhisnameonthem,despitethefacthispartner,Dr.Chang,had  8  actuallywrittentheprescriptionsforthemedications.#DXXP#XXDԀ $     ` Mr.McCulloughwasseenonSeptember23,1997,byhisfamilyphysician,d T#  3      ׀Dr.   Wyche,atWyche&Wyche,complainingofabdominalpain.Dr.Wychescheduledanultrasound   ofMr.McCulloughsabdomenforSeptember25,andreferredMr.McCulloughtoa   gastroenterologist.Dr.WychedidnotcheckMr.McCulloughsprotimes,buttestifiedhebelieved p CardiologyConsultantswasmonitoringtheprotimes. \    ` Dr.WychenextsawMr.McCulloughonSeptember26,1997,forcomplaintsof 4 severeheadache.Dr.WychearrangedforanemergencyCTscantobedonethatdayatNorthside  p Hospital,whereMr.McCulloughwasadmittedwithacerebellarhemorrhage.Mr.McCulloughwas  \ transferredonthe27thofSeptembertoJohnsonCityMedicalCenterwherehesufferedamassive H cerebellarhemorrhageresultinginsomepermanentimpairment. 4 Ѐ   ` PlaintiffsfiledsuitonAugust28,1998,namingtheHospital,Dr.Monteith,Johnson   CityEmergencyPhysicians,Dr.Wyche,andWyche&Wycheasdefendants.Plaintiffstooka  voluntarynonsuitastotheHospitalonlyinanOrderofNonsuitfiledonOctober6,1998.     ` InMarchof2000,thediscoverydepositionofDr.Blackywastaken.Dr.Blacky l testifiedhedidnotcallintheprescriptionforLortab.Plaintiffsmovedforleavetoamendtheir X  complaintandonMarch30,2000,theTrialCourtenteredanorderallowingPlaintiffstofilea D! SecondAmendedComplaintaddingCardiologyConsultantsandKmartasdefendants. 0"  Ѐ #l!    ` CardiologyConsultantswasthefirstdefendanttoanswertheSecondAmended $X" Complaint,filingitsansweronMay16,2000.KmartfileditsanswertotheSecond Amended  $D #  ComplaintonMay23,2000,andinthisanswerallegedthecomparativefaultofitscodefendants. %4!$ CardiologyConsultantsandKmartsubsequentlyfiledmotionsforsummaryjudgment.On & "% December18,2000,theTrialCourtenteredanorderdenyingKmartsmotionforsummaryjudgment  andgrantingCardiologyConsultantsmotionforsummaryjudgmenttotheextentofclaimsunder  thedoctrineofrespondeatsuperiorbaseduponactsoromissionsofDr.Blacky,butdenying  CardiologyConsultantsmotionastoclaimsbaseduponactsoromissionsofallotheremployees. t TheTrialCourtOrderalsoallowedKmartandCardiologyConsultantstoappealimmediatelythe ` denialofthemotionsforsummaryjudgment.KmartandCardiologyConsultantsmadeapplication L  foraninterlocutoryappealtothisCourt,whichwasdenied. 8     ` Dr.MonteithandJohnsonCityEmergencyPhysiciansfiledtheiranswertothe  ` SecondAmendedComplaintonJanuary22,2001.Thisanswerdidnotcontainallegationsof  L  comparativefaultagainstanycodefendants.  8     ` ByorderenteredJune11,2001,theTrialCourtgrantedKmartleavetofileitsSecond   AmendedAnswer,whichaddedanaffirmativedefensetoassertthecomparativefaultofDr.Blacky,   anonparty.PlaintiffsfiledaMotiontoAmendComplainttoaddnewallegationsagainst   CardiologyConsultantsastheemployerofDr.Blacky.OnJune28,2001,Dr.WycheandWyche   &WychefiledtheiranswertotheSecondAmendedComplaintandpledmodifiedcomparativefault p relativetoKmartandCardiologyConsultants. TheTrialCourtenteredanagreedorderonJuly5, \ 2001,grantingDr.MonteithandJohnsonCityEmergencyPhysiciansleavetoamendtheiranswer L toallegethecomparativefaultofDr.Blacky. 8 Ѐ $t    ` KmartandCardiologyConsultantsbothrenewedtheirmotionsforsummary ` judgment.ByorderenteredJuly17,2001,theTrialCourtgrantedsummaryjudgmenttoKmartand L CardiologyConsultantsonthegroundtheactionwasbarredbythestatuteoflimitations,andfurther, 8 astoKmart,thatitdidnotdeviatefromtherecognizedstandardofcare. $    ` TrialbeganonJuly25,2001.OnJuly31,2001,Plaintiffsfiledtheirmotionforleave  tofileathirdamendedcomplaintreaddingCardiologyConsultantsasadefendantrelyingonTenn.  CodeAnn.201119.Plaintiffsmotionstateditwasmadewithin90daysofthefirstanswerto  allegefaultagainstCardiologyConsultants,namelytheanswerfiledbyDr.WycheandWyche& p Wyche. \     ` TheTrialCourtdeniedPlaintiffsmotionforleavetofileathirdamendedcomplaint 4"  duringtrialandalsodeniedPlaintiffsmotionforamistrial.TheTrialCourtplacedCardiology  #p! Consultantsnameontheverdictformforallocationoffault.Thejuryreturnedadefenseverdict,  $\" neverreachingthequestionregardingallocationoffault.PlaintiffsappealedtothisCourt. $H #    ` InanattempttomakethisOpinionmoreunderstandable,wesetforthbelowinbrief & "% formatimelineoftherelevantdates. ' #& Sept.1,19970 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#Mr.McCulloughsuffersheartattacktreatedbyDr.Blacky)$((#(# Sept.9&10,19970 0 (# (#Mr.McCulloughsprotimeswerecheckedbyCardiologyConsultantsl+&*(#(# ЇSept.13,19970 0 (# (#Mr.McCulloughvisitedemergencyroomtreatedbyDr.Monteith(#(# Sept.17,18or19,19970  PrescriptionforLortabcalledintoKmartpharmacybysomeoneat  CardiologyConsultantst(#(# Sept.23,19970 0 (# (#Mr.McCulloughsawDr.WychewithcomplaintsofabdominalpainL (#(# Sept.26,19970 0 (# (#Mr.McCulloughsawDr.Wychewithcomplaintsofheadache$ t(#(# Sept.27,19970 0 (# (#Mr.McCulloughtransferredtoJohnsonCityMedicalCenter,where  L  hesufferedamassivecerebellarhemorrhage#DXX: #XXDԀ 8 (#(# Aug.28,19980 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#SuitfiledagainstDr.Monteith,JohnsonCityEmergencyPhysicians,   Dr.Wyche,andWyche&Wyche (#(# March30,20000 0 (# (#OrderallowingPlaintiffstofileSecondAmendedComplaintadding   CardiologyConsultantsandKmartasdefendantsp(#(# May16,20000 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#CardiologyConsultantsanswersSecondAmendedComplaintH(#(# May23,20000 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#KmartanswersSecondAmendedComplaintallegesfaultagainstall  p codefendants \(#(# Dec.18,20000 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#OrderdenyingCardiologyConsultantsandKmartsummaryjudgment4(#(# Jan.22,20010 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#Dr.MonteithandJohnsonCityEmergencyPhysiciansanswerSecond   AmendedComplaintbutdonotallegefaultagainstcodefendants(#(# June28,20010 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#Dr.WycheandWyche&WycheanswerSecondAmendedComplaint  ЄpleadmodifiedcomparativefaultastoCardiologyConsultantsl(#(# July17,20010 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#KmartandCardiologyConsultantsgrantedsummaryjudgmentD!(#(# July25,20010 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#Trialbegins#l!(#(# July31,20010 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#PlaintiffsmoveforleavetofileThirdAmendedComplaint$D #(#(# #DXX<#XXD   Discussion  &"% D   ` Whilenotstatedexactlyassuch,Appellantsraisethefollowingissuesonappeal:(1) (#' whethertheTrialCourterredwhenitgrantedCardiologyConsultantssummaryjudgmentbased )$( uponthestatuteoflimitations#DXXfD#XXD;#DXXF#XXDԀ(2)whethertheTrialCourterredindenyingPlaintiffsmotionto |*%) amendtheircomplaintduringtrialtoreaddCardiologyConsultantsasadefendant,underTenn. h+&* CodeAnn.201119;(3)whethertheTrialCourterredindenyingPlaintiffsmotionforamistrial  aftertheTrialCourtrefusedtoallowPlaintiffstoamendtheircomplaintduringtrialtoreadd  CardiologyConsultants;and(4)whethertheTrialCourterredbyincludingCardiologyConsultants  ontheverdictform. t    ` WebeginbyconsideringwhethertheTrialCourterredwhenitgrantedCardiology L  Consultantssummaryjudgmentbaseduponthestatuteoflimitations.CardiologyConsultantsfirst 8  arguesPlaintiffsdidnottimelyappealthegrantofsummaryjudgment.TheOrdergrantingsummary $ t judgmenttoCardiologyConsultantswasappealablewhenfiledonJuly17,2001,astheOrder  ` containedtheappropriatelanguagerequiredunderTenn.R.Civ.P.54.02stating: Therebeingno  L  justreasonfordelaythisisafinalJudgmentastoCardiologyConsultants....Plaintiffs,however,  8  filedamotiontoreconsiderthegrantofsummaryjudgmentonJuly31,2001,whichinsubstance $  wasamotiontoalteroramendunderTenn.R.Civ.P.59.04.ThistimelyfiledRule59motiontolled   thetimeinwhichtoappealafinaljudgmentsuchthatPlaintiffshad30daysaftertheentryofthe   orderontheRule59motioninwhichtofileanappeal.AsPlaintiffsnoticeofappealwasfiledin   November,2001,priortotheentryoftheTrialCourtsDecember17,2001,orderonPlaintiffs   motiontoreconsider,weholdPlaintiffstimelyappealedthegrantofsummaryjudgmentto p CardiologyConsultants.We,therefore,mustconsiderwhethertheTrialCourterredingranting \ summaryjudgmenttoCardiologyConsultants. H    ` OurSupremeCourtinstructs:  p 8   ` Thestandardsgoverninganappellatecourtsreviewofamotionforsummary H judgmentarewellsettled.Sinceourinquiryinvolvespurelyaquestionoflaw,no 4 presumptionofcorrectnessattachestothelowercourtsjudgment,andourtaskis   confinedtoreviewingtherecordtodeterminewhethertherequirementsofTenn.R.   Civ.P.56havebeenmet.SeeHunterv.Brown,955S.W.2d49,5051(Tenn.1997);  Cowdenv.SovranBank/CentralSouth,816S.W.2d741,744(Tenn.1991).  TennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure56.04providesthatsummaryjudgmentis  appropriatewhere:(1)thereisnogenuineissuewithregardtothematerialfacts l relevanttotheclaimordefensecontainedinthemotion,seeByrdv.Hall,847 X  S.W.2d208,210(Tenn.1993);and(2)themovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentas D! amatteroflawontheundisputedfacts.SeeAndersonv.StandardRegisterCo.,857 0"  S.W.2d555,559(Tenn.1993).Themovingpartyhastheburdenofprovingthatits #l! motionsatisfiestheserequirements.SeeDownenv.AllstateIns.Co.,811S.W.2d $X" 523,524(Tenn.1991).Whenthepartyseekingsummaryjudgmentmakesaproperly $D # supportedmotion,theburdenshiftstothenonmovingpartytosetforthspecificfacts %0!$ establishingtheexistenceofdisputed,materialfactswhichmustberesolvedbythe &"% trieroffact.SeeByrdv.Hall,847S.W.2dat215.'#&   8   ` Toproperlysupportitsmotion,themovingpartymusteitheraffirmatively )$( negateanessentialelementofthenonmovingpartysclaimorconclusivelyestablish |*%) anaffirmativedefense.SeeMcCarleyv.WestQualityFoodServ.,960S.W.2d585, h+&* 588(Tenn.1998);Robinsonv.Omer,952S.W.2d423.426(Tenn.1997).Ifthe  movingpartyfailstonegateaclaimedbasisforthesuit,thenonmovingpartys  burdentoproduceevidenceestablishingtheexistenceofagenuineissuefortrialis  nottriggeredandthemotionforsummaryjudgmentmustfail.SeeMcCarleyv.West t QualityFoodServ.,960S.W.2dat588;Robinsonv.Omer,952S.W.2dat426.Ifthe ` movingpartysuccessfullynegatesaclaimedbasisfortheaction,thenonmoving L  partymaynotsimplyrestuponthepleadings,butmustofferprooftoestablishthe 8  existenceoftheessentialelementsoftheclaim.$ t   8   ` Thestandardsgoverningtheassessmentofevidenceinthesummary  L  judgmentcontextarealsowellestablished.Courtsmustviewtheevidenceinthe  8  lightmostfavorabletothenonmovingpartyandmustalsodrawallreasonable $  inferencesinthenonmovingpartysfavor.SeeRobinsonv.Omer,952S.W.2dat   426;Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2dat21011.Courtsshouldgrantasummaryjudgment   onlywhenboththefactsandtheinferencestobedrawnfromthefactspermita   reasonablepersontoreachonlyoneconclusion.SeeMcCallv.Wilder,913S.W.2d   150,153(Tenn.1995);Carvellv.Bottoms,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995).p   Staplesv.CBL&Assocs.,Inc.,15S.W.3d83,8889(Tenn.2000)(footnoteomitted). H cXXXX   ` Wefind#XXXcXљ^#thereisnogenuineissuewithregardtothematerialfactsrelevantto  p CardiologyConsultantsdefenseascontainedinitsmotionforsummaryjudgment.Areviewofthe  \ recorddisclosesPlaintiffsfailedtocomplywiththeprovisionsofTenn.R.Civ.P.56.03withregard H torespondingtoCardiologyConsultantsstatementofundisputedmaterialfacts.TheTrialCourt 4 notedthisfailureinitsOrdergrantingsummaryjudgment.#DXXFF#XXDԀcXXXX#cDXcX.a#cXXcD   #XXXcXNa##DXXѐa#  XXD     ` #DXXb#XXDTheapplicablestatuteoflimitationsisfoundinTenn.CodeAnn.2926116(a),  which#DXX}b#XXDprovides: (1)Thestatuteoflimitationsinmalpracticeactionsshallbeone(1)year....(2)  Intheeventtheallegedinjuryisnotdiscoveredwithinsuchone(1)yearperiod,theperiodof  limitationshallbeone(1)yearfromthedateofsuchdiscovery.Tenn.CodeAnn.2926116(a) l (2002).#DXX.c#XXD X     ` Appellantsarguesection(2)ofTenn.CodeAnn.2926116(a),whichsetsoutthe 0"  discoveryrule,shouldbeappliedtodeterminethestatuteoflimitationsinthiscase.Thediscovery #l! rule,firstadoptedbyourSupremeCourtinTeetersv.Currey,wascodifiedin1975,inTenn.Code $X" Ann.2926116.Shadrickv.Coker,963S.W.2d726,733(Tenn.1998)(citingTeetersv.Currey, $D # 518S.W.2d512(Tenn.1974)).#DXXd#XXDOurSupremeCourtstatedthatcreationofadiscoveryrulewas %0!$ necessaryto alleviatetheintolerableresultofbarringacauseofactionbyholdingthatitaccrued &"% beforethediscoveryoftheinjuryorthewrong.Fosterv.Harris,633S.W.2d304,305(Tenn. '#& 1982).Withoutthediscoveryrule,aplaintiffwouldberequiredtofilesuitwhentheinjurywas (#'  unknownandunknowable.Stanburyv.Bacardi,953S.W.2d671,675(Tenn.1997)(quoting )$( Teeters,518S.W.2dat515). |*%)  h+&*    ` OurSupremeCourt hasinterpretedTenn.CodeAnn.2926116(a)(2)tomeanthat  thestatuteoflimitationscommencestorunwhenthepatientdiscovered,orreasonablyshouldhave  discovered,(1)theoccasion,themanner,andthemeansbywhichabreachofdutyoccurredthat  produced[thepatients]injuries;and(2)theidentityofthedefendantwhobreachedtheduty. t Shadrick,963S.W.2dat733(citingStanbury,953S.W.2dat677(quotingFoster,633S.W.2dat ` 305)).TheShadrickCourtstated: L  8  aswehaverecentlyemphasized,thestatuteoflimitationsbeginstorunwhenthe $ t plaintiffknowsorintheexerciseofreasonablecareanddiligenceshouldknowthat  ` aninjuryhasbeensustainedasaresultofwrongfulortortiousconductbythe  L  defendant.Itisknowledgeoffactssufficienttoputaplaintiffonnoticethatan  8  injuryhasbeensustainedwhichiscrucial.Suchknowledgeincludesnotonlyan $  awarenessoftheinjury,butalsothetortiousoriginorwrongfulnatureofthatinjury.    Shadrick,963S.W.2dat73334(quotingStanbury,953S.W.2dat678)(citationsomitted). Advice   fromanotherhealthcareprofessionalthataclaimexistsisnotaprerequisitetoaccrualofamedical   malpracticecauseofaction.Infact,[ourSupremeCourthas]specificallyrejectedsucha p requirementinthecontextofmedicalandlegalmalpracticeactions.Stanbury,953S.W.2dat678. \    ` AppellantsarguetheircauseofactionagainstCardiologyConsultantsdidnotaccrue 4 untiltheyknew,orshouldhaveknown,CardiologyConsultantsemployedanunknownmedical  p providerwho,ratherthanDr.Blacky,calledtheprescriptionforLortabintotheKmartpharmacy.  \ AppellantsclaimthisinformationdidnotcometolightuntilDr.BlackywasdeposedinMarchof H 2000.Wefindthisargumentunconvincing.AppellantsknewsomeoneatCardiologyConsultants 4 calledintheprescriptionforLortablongbeforeDr.Blackywasdeposed.Whetherthepersonwho   calledtheprescriptionforLortabintotheKmartpharmacywasDr.Blackyoranotheremployeeof   CardiologyConsultantsisimmaterialsinceAppellantsknewtheprescriptionoriginatedfrom  CardiologyConsultants.AsfoundbytheTrialCourt,Plaintiffskneworshouldhaveknownmore  thanoneyearbeforethefilingoftheircomplaintthataninjuryhadbeensustainedasaresultofthe  allegedwrongfulortortiousconductofCardiologyConsultants. l    ` Mr.McCulloughsinjuryoccurredinSeptemberof1997.Appellants,however,did D! notaddCardiologyConsultantstothesuitasadefendantuntilMarchof2000,longaftertheone 0"  yearstatuteoflimitationshadrun.Wehold,therefore,theTrialCourtproperlygrantedsummary #l! judgmenttoCardiologyConsultantsbaseduponthefactthestatuteoflimitationshadrun,andwe $X" affirmonthisissue. $D # #DXXZg#XXD   ` WenextconsiderwhethertheTrialCourterredindenyingAppellantsmotionto &"% amendtheircomplaintduringtrialtoreaddCardiologyConsultants,underTenn.CodeAnn.201 '#& 119.cXXXXԀ Thedenialofamotiontoamendthepleadingslieswithinthesounddiscretionofthetrial (#' courtandwillnotbereversedabsentashowingofabuseofdiscretion.Hawkinsv.Hart,86S.W.3d )$( 522,532(Tenn.Ct.App.2001).  |*%) #XXXcXѓy##DXXtx#XXD h+&*    ` Tenn.CodeAnn.201119provides:  8  (a)Incivilactionswherecomparativefaultisorbecomesanissue,ifadefendant  namedinanoriginalcomplaintinitiatingasuitfiledwithintheapplicablestatuteof t limitations,ornamedinanamendedcomplaintfiledwithintheapplicablestatuteof ` limitations,allegesinanansweroramendedanswertotheoriginaloramended L  complaintthatapersonnotapartytothesuitcausedorcontributedtotheinjuryor 8  damageforwhichtheplaintiffseeksrecovery,andiftheplaintiffscauseorcauses $ t ofactionagainstsuchpersonwouldbebarredbyanyapplicablestatuteoflimitations  ` butfortheoperationofthissection,theplaintiffmay,withinninety(90)daysofthe  L  filingofthefirstanswerorfirstamendedanswerallegingsuchpersonsfault,either: 8    8  (1)Amendthecomplainttoaddsuchpersonasadefendant...;or    8  (2)Instituteaseparateactionagainstthatpersonbyfilingasummonsandcomplaint   ....#DXX+{#XXD    8  (b)Acauseofactionbroughtwithinninety(90)dayspursuanttosubsection(a)shall \ notbebarredbyanystatuteoflimitations.Thissectionshallnotextendany H applicablestatuteofrepose,norshallthissectionpermittheplaintifftomaintainan 4 actionagainstapersonwhensuchanactionisbarredbyanapplicablestatuteof  p repose. \   Tenn.CodeAnn.201119(2002). 4    ` ThisCourtdealtwithasituationstrikinglysimilartothecaseathandinTownesv.   SunbeamOsterCo.,50S.W.3d446(Tenn.Ct.App.2001)S T#  4      .Townesinvolvedaproductsliability  actionstemmingfromtheexplosionofapropanegrill,whereintheplaintiffsoriginallysuedseveral  entities,includingthegrillmanufacturer.Id.at448.Plaintiffstookavoluntarynonsuitagainstthe  grillmanufacturerandlaterfiledasecondamendedcomplaintreaddingthegrillmanufactureras l adefendant.Id.Intheiranswertothesecondamendedcomplaint,anotherdefendantassertedthe X  grillmanufacturerwasapartywhocausedorcontributedtotheinjuries.Id.at451.TheTrialCourt D! grantedthegrillmanufacturersummaryjudgmentbaseduponthefacttheamendedcomplaintwas 0"  barredbythestatuteoflimitations.Id.at448.PlaintiffsthenattemptedtoinvokeTenn.CodeAnn. #l! 201119andsoughtleavetofileathirdamendedcomplaintreaddingthegrillmanufactureras $X" adefendant.Id.TheTrialCourtrefusedtoallowplaintiffstofiletheirthirdamendedcomplaintand $D # plaintiffsappealed.Id.ThisCourtreversedtheTrialCourtsdenialofplaintiffsmotiontofiletheir %0!$ thirdamendedcomplaintandheldplaintiffshadmetalloftheconditionssetoutinTenn.CodeAnn. &"% 201119,andshouldbeallowedtoinvokethestatutetoreaddthegrillmanufacturerasa  defendant.Id.at447,454.     ` Tenn.CodeAnn.201119allowsaplaintiffninetydaysinwhichtoassertaclaim t againstanallegedcomparativetortfeasoriftwoconditionsaremet.Townes,50S.W.3dat452. ` First,thecomparativetortfeasormusthavebeennamedbyadefendantsuedwithintheapplicable L  statuteoflimitationsinitsansweroramendedanswerasonewho causedorcontributedtothe 8  injuryordamageforwhichtheplaintiffseeksrecovery.Tenn.CodeAnn.201119(a)(2002). $ t Second,thecomparativetortfeasormustnotbe apartytothesuit.Id.Ifbothconditionsaremet,  ` theplaintiffhasninetydaysinwhichtoaddthecomparativetortfeasortothesuitortofilea  L  separateactionagainstthecomparativetortfeasor,evenifthestatuteoflimitationshasexpired.Id.  8     ` TheTownesCourtheld:   8  [A]naddeddefendantsstatusasapartyshouldbedetermined,notwhentheoriginal   defendantnamestheaddeddefendantasanadditionalcomparativetortfeasorinits p answeroramendedanswer,butratherwhentheplaintiffeitherseekstoamendits \ complainttonametheadditionalcomparativetortfeasorasanadditionaldefendant H ortofileaseparatecomplaintagainsttheadditionalcomparativetortfeasor.4   Townes,50S.W.3dat454.  \    ` #DXXў#DԀ#D#XXDKmartwasthefirstdefendanttoallegefaultagainstitscodefendants,including 4 CardiologyConsultants,initsanswertotheSecondAmendedComplaintfiledMay23,2000.Tenn.   CodeAnn.201119,however,specificallyprovidesthedefendantallegingcomparativefault   againstthenonpartymusthavebeensuedwithintheapplicablestatuteoflimitations.Tenn.Code  Ann.201119(a)(2002).TheTrialCourtgrantedKmartsummaryjudgmentbecausePlaintiffs  didnotsueKmartwithintheapplicablestatuteoflimitations.PlaintiffshavenotappealedtheTrial  CourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmenttoKmart.Therefore,wedisregardKmartsanswersfor l purposesofour201119analysis.#DXX`#XXD X     ` Dr.WycheandWyche&WychewerethenextdefendantstoidentifyCardiology 0"  ConsultantsasapartywhocausedorcontributedtoPlaintiffsinjuriesintheiranswertotheSecond #l! AmendedComplaint,whichwasfiledonJune28,2001.Atthattime,however,Cardiology $X" Consultantswasapartytothesuit,andtherefore,bothconditionsofTenn.CodeAnn.201119 $D # #DXX#XXDwerenotsatisfiedandthestatutecouldnotbeinvoked.Thesecondconditionof#DXX,#XXD201119wasnot %0!$ metuntilthe#DXXŗ#XXDTrialCourtgrantedCardiologyConsultantssummaryjudgmentonJuly17,2001, &"% makingCardiologyConsultantsanonparty.#DXX;#XXDThus,whenPlaintiffsmovedforleavetofileaThird '#& AmendedComplainttoreaddCardiologyConsultantsasadefendant,onJuly31,2001,both (#' conditionsofTenn.CodeAnn.201119weremet.Inaddition,Plaintiffsmadethemotionto )$( amendtheircomplaintwellwithintheninetydayperiodallowedbythestatute. |*%)  h+&*    ` PlaintiffsarguethatsinceCardiologyConsultantswasalreadyaDefendantwhen  KmartfileditsansweronMay23,2000,Tenn.CodeAnn.201119wastriggeredthensoasto  allowPlaintiffsJuly2001,filingagainstCardiologyConsultantssomehowtohavebeentimely.  Thisargumentoverlookstheclearlanguageofthisstatute.Asdiscussed,Kmartsanswercouldnot t triggerTenn.CodeAnn.201119becausePlaintiffsdidnotsueKmartwithintheapplicable ` statuteoflimitationsandCardiologyConsultantswasapartytothesuituntilJuly17,2001. L     ` ItistheresponsibilityoftheLegislaturetoenactstatutesitdeemsappropriate.Itis $ t theresponsibilityandobligationofthecourtstogiveeffecttothestatutesaswritten,subjectto  ` constitutionallimitations.OurLegislaturechoseinTenn.CodeAnn.201119(a)toincludethe  L  tworequirementsthatthedefendantwhoseanswerallegesthatsomeotherpersonorentitycaused  8  orcontributedtotheinjuryordamagesmusthavebeensuedwithintheapplicablestatuteof $  limitations,andthatthepersonorentitytobeaddedbyaplaintiffasadefendantpursuanttothis   statutebe apersonnotapartytothesuit....Tenn.CodeAnn.201119(a)(2002).This   unambiguouslanguageisclearandlendsitselftonointerpretationotherthantheentityorpersonto   beaddedasadefendant,inthiscaseCardiologyConsultants,mustnotbeapartytothesuitforTenn.   CodeAnn.201119tobeapplicable.Likewise,thedefendantallegingfaultbythenonpartymust p havebeentimelysued.Itisnotforthecourtstoalteroramendthisstatute.E.g.,TownofMount \ Carmelv.CityofKingsport,397S.W.2d379,382(Tenn.1965);Manahanv.State,219S.W.2d900, H 901(Tenn.1949).Asthelanguageofthisstatuteisunambiguous,thelegislativeintentmustbe 4 derivedfromtheplainandordinarymeaningofthestatutorylanguageitself.E.g.,Kitev.Kite,22  p S.W.3d803,805(Tenn.1997).Wehavenoalternativebuttoconstruethisstatuteasitiswritten.  \ #DXX#XXDԀ H    ` AlthoughTenn.CodeAnn.201119#DXX#XXDtollsthestatuteoflimitations,itdoesnottoll 4 thestatuteofrepose.Tenn.CodeAnn.201119(b)(2002).Tenn.CodeAnn.2926116setsout   thereposeperiodformedicalmalpracticeactionsandstates: Innoeventshallanysuchactionbe   broughtmorethanthree(3)yearsafterthedateonwhichthenegligentactoromissionoccurred  exceptwherethereisfraudulentconcealmentonthepartofthedefendant,...Tenn.CodeAnn.  2926116(a)(3)(2002).     ` Afterathoroughreviewoftherecord,wefindnoevidenceoffraudulentconcealment X  oftheallegednegligentactoromissiononthepartofCardiologyConsultants.Cardiology D! ConsultantsneitherattemptedtoconcealthefactthatsomeoneatCardiologyConsultantscalledin 0"  theprescriptionforLortab,norattemptedtoconcealthedatesuponwhichMr.McCulloughs #l! protimesweretestedandtheresultsofthosetests. $X"    ` TheallegednegligentactoromissionofCardiologyConsultantsoccurredin %0!$ Septemberof1997.Plaintiffs,however,didnot,andcouldnot,#DXXј#XXDԀattempttoinvokeTenn.CodeAnn. &"% 201119untilafterDr.WycheandWyche&WychefiledtheiranswerinJuneof2001,and '#& CardiologyConsultantsbecameanonpartytothesuitinJulyof2001.TheWycheanswerfiled (#' June28,2001,wasthefirstanswerfiledthatcouldhavetriggeredTenn.CodeAnn.201119.The )$( WycheanswerwasfiledmorethanthreeyearsafterthedateonwhichCardiologyConsultants |*%) allegednegligentactoromissionoccurred.Tenn.CodeAnn.201119doesnotextentthethree h+&* yearstatuteofrepose.Therefore,thestatuteofreposehadexpiredandPlaintiffscouldnotutilize  Tenn.CodeAnn.201119toreaddCardiologyConsultantsasadefendant.AlthoughPlaintiffs  hadmetthetwoconditionsofTenn.CodeAnn.201119onJuly31,2001,andfiledtheirmotion  withintheninetydaysallowedbythestatute,adecisiontoallowtheamendmenttothecomplaint t wouldhavebeenanexerciseinfutilityasthestatuteofreposehadexpired.Althoughleaveto ` amendpleadingsistobefreelygivenunderTenn.R.Civ.P.15,trialcourtsarenotrequiredtogrant L  suchmotionsif theamendmentwouldhavebeenfutile.HuntingtonNatlBankv.Hooker,840 8  S.W.2d916,923(Tenn.Ct.App.1991);Merrimanv.Smith,599S.W.2d548,559(Tenn.Ct.App. $ t 1979).Wetherefore,holdtheTrialCourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretion,andaffirmtheTrialCourts  ` denialofPlaintiffsmotiontoamendtheircomplaintduringtrialtoreaddCardiologyConsultants,  L  underTenn.CodeAnn.201119.h T#  5      ׀#DXX#XXDԀ  8     ` WenextconsiderwhethertheTrialCourterredindenyingPlaintiffsmotionfora   mistrialaftertheTrialCourtrefusedtoallowPlaintiffstoamendtheircomplaintduringtrialtore   addCardiologyConsultants.PXXXX#PDXPX"#PXXPD Thedecisionofwhethertograntamistrialiswithinthesound   discretionofthetrialcourt.4\ 4 5  #PDXPXѷ##DPDu# S>  6LNO  7 4 `PDDPXXPDԀ[The]Courtwillnotdisturbthatdecisionabsentafindingofanabuse   ofdiscretion.4b k 5  #PDXPXw##DPDX#>  6NO  7 k PDDPXXPDStatev.Dellinger,79S.W.3d458,494(Tenn.2002)(citationsomitted).#XXXPX#cXXXXWeshould p notreverseforabuseofdiscretionadiscretionaryjudgmentofaTrialCourtunlessitaffirmatively \ appearsthattheTrialCourtsdecisionwasagainstlogicorreasoning,andcausedaninjusticeor H injurytothepartycomplaining.Marcusv.Marcus,993S.W.2d596(Tenn.1999). 4    ` WefindnoevidencetheTrialCourtsdecisiontodenyPlaintiffsamistrialwas  againstlogicorreasoning,orthatsuchdecisioncausedaninjusticeorinjurytoPlaintiffs.Plaintiffs  hadmissedboththestatuteoflimitationsandthestatuteofreposeandcouldnotreaddCardiology  Consultantsasadefendanttothesuitwhetheramistrialwasgrantedornot.Plaintiffsweregiven v afullandfairopportunitytotrytheircaseagainstthenameddefendants,andtheydidso.Wehold b theTrialCourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionindenyingthemotionformistrial. N       ` #XXXcXѮ#WenextturntowhethertheTrialCourterredbyincludingCardiologyConsultants   ontheverdictform.AlthoughtheTrialCourtincludedCardiologyConsultantsontheverdictform,  thejuryneverreachedthequestionofwhetherCardiologyConsultantswaspartiallyresponsible  becauseitfoundthedefendantswerenotliable.WhilePlaintiffsstatethisasoneoftheissuesin t theirBrief,theyneverdiscussitnorstateanyreasonsormakeanyargumentastowhyitwaserror ` fortheTrialCourttoincludeCardiologyConsultantsontheverdictform.#DXX#XXDWealsoneednotdecide L  whetherornotitwaserrortoincludeCardiologyConsultantsontheverdictformasitdidnot 8   involv[e]asubstantialright[that]moreprobablythannotaffectedthejudgmentor[]result[ed]in $ t prejudicetothejudicialprocess.Tenn.R.App.P.36(b).Asaresult,weaffirmtheTrialCourts  ` decisiontoincludeCardiologyConsultantsontheverdictform.cXXXX#cDXcXC#cXXcD  L  #XXXcXF##DXXш# SPDDPXXPD  Conclusion  ;       ` #XXXPX#ThejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmed,andthiscauseisremandedtotheTrial c  Courtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmayberequired,ifany,consistentwiththisOpinionandfor O  collectionofthecostsbelow.ThecostsonappealareassessedagainsttheAppellants,Joseph ;  McCullough,et.ux.,andtheirsurety. ' #DXX7#XXDPXXXX#PDXPXъ#PXXPD   `     h     ________________________________ 7    `     h     D.MICHAELSWINEY,JUDGE#XXXPXѩ##DXX#XXD #DXXM#>  >   #s    `     h      p