WPC /a72&SWi̮SL{ClH]>p*R]zCa`|=Q`,1eϱ$9 AzGNm:Y^f;;~Q>ZVF'k ʩ\TBAV12U5w=l19vj6Ovg7Z$Q4i >iPX͐V[, 3c)YכD uz#YP?R츻y;*(݈qcU'M_e46;Iot^cdc.{RG`V_$8<; q=m5PR3}JXg~7]z) ێ- 5,|j(&Mi@W2Qgtx=̻5J: 䭒pS XJ$I2/tO5F4!-`Y vD#2ASoD^eIŐfuSU)ŤhM u^ Wwb#\ %% ^ + 07 U*N w 4 z%  q  m 0D   i/UNNCUNEUEb 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K ASO 0h 0D  AP\\IB01S02\CLERKJAC,,,,0u/ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularlk.01s02 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular K R0$      1  \  _ԀThecauseofactionagainstDanielS.Boyd,M.D.,individually,andtheotherclinicswhereheworkedwas  dismissedbythetrialcourtpriortothisappeal.ThecauseofactionagainstLuisL.Wong,M.D.waspreviously q dismissedbythisCourtsreversalofthetrialcourtsdenialofhismotiontodismissforimpropervenue.Millsv.Wong, 2 39S.W.3d188,190(Tenn.Ct.App.2000).  R0$      2  \  _ԀMr.Millsassertsinhisbriefthattheapplicablestatuteoflimitations,Tenn.CodeAnn.4030202(a)  (1997),forpostconvictionreliefshouldinsteadbecharacterizedasastatuteofrepose.ThisCourtdeclinestoundertake q suchacharacterizationbecauseofits_mootness_Ԁinlightofourdecision.- -(|G20$ !.8ydd8         0  \ d(|3$ !.8ydd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8ydd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8ydd8     _  y8XXdd8  @ dyINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#yd #Ԉ #   October15,2003Session F XXy #yXX#FRANK_FETZER_ԀMILLS,JR.,etal.v.LUISL.WONG,M.D.,etal.XXy  ? @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty  9 @@No.300304T.D.0 @ 0 @ RobertA.Lanier,Judge  # @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200202353_COA_ԄR3CVFiledNovember21,_2003_   AV) ` dE<]` A ^     Xy2XXXThiscaseinvolvesanappealfromthetrialcourtsgrantofdefendantsmotionforsummary V  judgment.Thetrialcourtdismissedtheplaintiffscomplaintforfailuretobringtheirmedical ? malpracticeclaimwithintheapplicablethreeyearstatuteofrepose.Weaffirm. (x #XXXXy2 ##yXX#XXy Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed;and J Remanded  4   #yX#XX.yDavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,_P.J._,_W.S._,  andHollyM.Kirby,J.,joined.  RichardJ.Myers,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellants,Frank_Fetzer_ԀMills,Jr.andRebecca r SmithMills. [ WilliamH._Haltom_,Jr.,andJosephM.Clark,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellee,Charter -} LakesideBehavioralHealthSystem,Inc. f RobertB.C.Hale,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellees,JanetK.Johnson,M.D.,YvetteMarion  8  andMiriamJohnson,CoExecutorsoftheEstateofJanetK.Johnson,M.D.andKennethF._Tullis_, !!! M.D. " " MichaelL.RobbandKevin_Baskette_,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellee,JohnF.OConnell, $$ M.D. u% %  OPINION #yXX#XXy G'"' #yXX[ #XXyXy2XXX    #XXXXy2 #Xy2XXXAsallegedinthecomplaint,Plaintiff/Appellant,Frank_Fetzer_ԀMills,Jr.(Mr.Mills),went )j$) toDefendant/Appellee,CharterLakesideBehavioralHealthSystems,Inc.(Charter)on *S%* November17,1994.#XXXXy28 #Xy2XXXԀMr.Millssoughtdiagnosisandcarefordepression,insomnia,andother *<&+ mentalandphysicalproblemshewasexperiencing.AtthetimeofMr.Millsadmittance,the +%', followingDefendantsprovidedhiscare:psychiatrist,Dr.Kenneth_Tullis_;pediatrician,andnow ,(- deceased,JanetK.Johnson;andinternist,John.F.OConnell.Mr.Millswashospitalizedforten -(.e _daysatCharteranddiagnosedonly#XXXXy2#Xy2XXXԀwithalcoholismanddrugaddiction.OnNovember27,1994,  ChartertransferredMr.Millstoitsownrehabilitationcenterwherehestayedforanadditional  thirtydays.     OnFebruary7,1997,Dr.Stein conductedan ophthalmologicexam#XXXXy2#Xy2XXXonMr.Millsand U diagnosedhimwithWilsonsDisease,which,ifnottreated,#XXXXy2e#Xy2XXXԀ#XXXXy2 #Xy2XXXisafatal#XXXXy2M#Xy2XXXgeneticdisorder.Thiswas A  thefirsttimethatMr.Millslearnedofthisdiagnosis.OnJanuary21,1998,Mr.Millsandhis * z wife,RebeccaSmithMills(Mrs.Mills),filedacomplaintagainsttheDefendantsinthecircuit  c courtofShelbyCounty.  #  1      Mr.andMrs.MillsnonsuitedtheircomplaintonFebruary11,1998,  L andrefiledonJanuary19,1999.Subsequently,Charter,onbehalfofitselfanditsemployees,  8  filedamotiontodismissbasedontheMillsfailuretobringtheirmedicalmalpracticeclaim  !  withinthethreeyearstatuteofreposeenumeratedinTenn.CodeAnn.2926116 (2000).In   theMillsresponsetoChartersmotion,theyfiledaffidavitsfrommedicalprofessionalsopining   thatMr.MillswasmentallyincompetentatthetimeoftheDecember1994treatment.TheMills   arguedthatthelegaldisabilitystatute,Tenn.CodeAnn.281106(2000),tolledthethreeyear x  statuteofrepose. a    OnAugust28,2002,thetrialcourtenteredanordergrantingChartersmotionby 3 characterizingitasamotionforsummaryjudgmentratherthanamotiontodismiss.Thetrial l courtstatedinitsorderthatPenleyv.Honda,31S.W.3d181,188(Tenn.2000),#XXXXy2#Xy2XXXԀheldthatthe U legaldi#XXXXy2#Xy2XXXsabilitystatute,281106,doesnottollthestatuteofreposeandtherebyoverrulesany > contrary#XXXXy2b#Xy2XXXԀdictacontainedinBowersbyBowersv.Hammond,#XXXXy2#Xy2XXX954S.W.2d752,758(Tenn.Ct. ' App.1997)#XXXXy2#Xy2XXX.#XXXXy2#Xy2XXXԀ  #XXXXy2`#Xy2XXX  IssuesPresented     0  Mr.andMrs.Millsappealandraisethefollowingissues,aswerestatethem,forreview|(#(# bythisCourt: `  e 8  1.0`   Whethermentalincompetencytollsthemedicalmalpracticestatuteof 7 repose,Tenn.CodeAnn.#XXXXy2#Xy2XXX2926116 (2000#XXXXy2#Xy2XXX). p` `  8  0`     2. ` Whetherdueprocessrequirestolling2926116duringMr.Mills  E incompetency.!. ` `    0 @  StandardofReview k&!%   U'"&   ThisCourtmustdecidewhetheritwaserrorforthetrialcourttoawardsummary  judgmenttotheDefendants.Summaryjudgmentshouldbeawardedwhenthemovingpartycan  demonstratethattherearenogenuineissuesregardingmaterialfactsandthatitisentitledto  judgmentasamatteroflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04;McCarleyv.W.QualityFoodServ.,960 k S.W.2d585,588(Tenn.1998);Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,214(Tenn.1993).Mere T assertionsthatthenonmovingpartyhasnoevidencedoesnotsufficetoentitlethemovingparty =  tosummaryjudgment.McCarley,960S.W.2dat588.Themovingpartymusteither & v conclusivelydemonstrateanaffirmativedefenseoraffirmativelynegateanelementwhichis  _ essentialtothenonmovingpartysclaim.Id.Ifthemovingpartycandemonstratethatthenon  H movingpartywillnotbeabletocarryitsburdenofproofattrialonanessentialelement,  1  summaryjudgmentisappropriate.Id.      ThisCourtreviewsanawardofsummaryjudgmentdenovo,withnopresumptionof   correctnessaffordedtothetrialcourt.Guyv.Mut.ofOmahaIns.Co.,79S.W.3d528,534   (Tenn.2002).Indeterminingwhethertoawardsummaryjudgment,wemustviewtheevidence n  inthelightmostfavorabletothenonmovingparty,drawingallreasonableinferencesinfavorof W  thenonmovingparty.Staplesv.CBL&Assocs.,15S.W.3d83,89(Tenn.2000).Summary @ judgmentshouldbeawardedonlywhenareasonablepersoncouldreachonlyoneconclusion )y basedonthefactsandinferencesdrawnfromthosefacts.Id.Ifthereisanydoubtaboutwhether b agenuineissueofmaterialfactexists,summaryjudgmentshouldnotbeawarded.McCarley, K 960S.W.2dat588. 4   Whethermentalincompetencytollsthemedicalmalpracticestatuteofrepose     0  Tenn.CodeAnn.2926116(a)(2000)providesinpertinentpart:(#(# 8  (a)(1)Thestatuteoflimitationsinmalpracticeactionsshallbeone(1)yearasset [ forthin283104.D      ` .... f 8   ` (3)Innoeventshallanysuchactionbebroughtmorethanthree(3)years  8 afterthedateonwhichthenegligentactoromissionoccurredexceptwherethere !!  isfraudulentconcealmentonthepartofthedefendant,inwhichcasetheaction " ! shallbecommencedwithinone(1)yearafterdiscoverythatthecauseofaction #" exists. $#    Thepurposeofsubsection(3) istoaddresstheperceivedmedicalmalpracticeinsurancecrisis _&!% byplacinganabsolutethreeyearlimituponthetimewithinwhichamedicalmalpracticeaction H'"& maybebrought.Greenv.Sacks,56S.W.3d513,518(Tenn.Ct.App.2001)(citingCroninv. 1(#' Howe,906S.W.2d910,913(Tenn.1995);Harrisonv.Schrader,569S.W.2d822,826(Tenn. )j$( 1978)).Theonlybasisfortollingthestatuteisthatfoundinthestatuteitself,thefraudulent *S%)  concealmentexception,oranyothercontainedinthecodespecificallyreferencingthestatuteof *<&* repose.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.2926116(a)(3);Penleyv.HondaMotorCo.,31S.W.3d181,  18485(Tenn.2000);Green,56S.W.3dat518.      Mr.Millscontendsthathewaspreventedfrombringingatimelyclaimbecausehewas l sufferingfromamentaldisabilityand,asaresult,thestatuteofreposeshouldbetolled.While U Tenn.CodeAnn.281106(2000)tollstheapplicablestatuteoflimitationformental >  incompetency,nosuchstatutoryexceptionexistsforthestatuteofrepose. ' w   Tennesseecaselawhasevolvedtoeliminateanypossibletollingofthestatuteofrepose  I formentalincompetency.InPenleyv.HondaMotorCo.,31S.W.3d181(Tenn.2000),the  2  TennesseeSupremeCourtheldthattheTennesseeProductsLiabilityActsapplicablestatuteof    reposeisnottolledduetoaplaintiffsmentalincompetency.Penley,31S.W.3dat188.The   courtwentontoaddressthemedicalmalpracticestatuteofreposebyaddressingthisCourts   decisioninBowersbyBowersv.Hammond,954S.W.2d752(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).InBowers,   thisCourtheldthattheplaintiffsstatusasaminortolledthemedicalmalpracticestatuteof o  reposeuntiltheplaintiffreachedtheageofmajority.Bowers,954S.W.2dat758.Indicta,this X  Courtwentontosaythat  aplaintiffsmentalincompetencywouldalsotollthemedical A malpracticestatuteofrepose.Seeid . at754,75859(citingAdkinsv.Martin,slipop.at69 *z (Tenn.Ct.App.Mar.28,1993)).InPenley,theTennesseeSupremeCourtdisagreedwiththe d rationaleusedinBowersbystating [t]heBowersholdingisinstarkcontrasttotheplain M languageofthestatute,whichadmitsofnotollingotherthanforfraudulentconcealment,andthe 6 holdingfailstorecognizethepoliciesunderlyingthestatuteofreposeitself.Penley,31S.W.3d  at188.Further,thecourtruledthat [t]otheextentthattheBowersdictacanbereadtotollany  statuteofreposeformentalincompetencyunderTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection281106,  however,itisoverruled.Penley,31S.W.3dat188.Asaresult,thisCourtwillfollowthe  rationaleandholdingasenumeratedinthePenleydecision. s    `  \ @  WhetherDueProcessrequirestollingtheStatuteofRepose E    Mr.Millsalsocontendsthatdueprocessrequirestollingthemedicalmalpracticestatute h ofreposeduetohissufferingfrommentalincompetency.Mr.Millsfindssupportforhis  Q argumentintheTennesseeSupremeCourtsdecisionofSealsv.StateofTenn.,23S.W.3d272  : (Tenn.2000).InSeals,thepetitionerpledguiltytofirstdegreemurderandwassentencedtolife !#  imprisonment.Id.at274.Overayearafterhisconviction,thepetitionerfiledforpost " ! convictionreliefcontendingineffectiveassistanceofcounselandthathisguiltypleawasnotof #" hisownvolition.Id.Thetrialcourtdismissedthepostconvictionreliefpetitionbecauseitwas $# filedoutsidethepostconvictionreliefoneyearstatuteoflimitation.  #  2      ׀Id.Thepetitioner w% $ appealedthetrialcourtsdecisionandtheTennesseeSupremeCourtultimatelyheldthatdue `&!% processdoesrequiretollingthepostconvictionreliefstatuteoflimitationwhenapetitioner I'"& suffersfrommentalincompetency.Seeid.at27480.Inthedueprocessanalysis,thecourt 2(#' lookedtothepetitionersprivateinterestsatstakewhichitdeterminedtobethe opportunitiesto  attacktheconvictionsandsentencesofincarcerationonthegroundthatthepetitioner[][was]  deprived[ofhis]constitutionalrightsduringtheconvictionprocess.Id.at277.Whilepost  convictionreliefmaybecharacterizedasacivilaction,allthesubstantiverightsinvolvedare k thosestemmingfromacriminalactionandprotectedbyrulesofcriminalprocedure.ThisCourt T isnotwillingtoextendthedueprocessanalysisusedinSealstoacaseinvolvingthecivil =  medicalmalpracticestatuteofrepose. & v    Conclusion   H     Inlightoftheforegoing,weholdthatmentalincompetencydoesnotrequiretollingof    themedicalmalpracticestatuteofrepose.Accordingly,thetrialcourtsgrantofDefendants   motionforsummaryjudgmentisaffirmed.Costsofthisappealaretaxedtotheappellants,   FrankFetzerMillsandRebeccaSmithMills,andtheirsurety,forwhichexecutionmayissueif   necessary.#XXXXy2# o     `     h     ___________________________________ *z    `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE