WPCi 4Vj 0(yw@ 0J 0T3 0^ 0h 0rM 0| 0; 0 1uQ 0d UB* %l U6r U> B) DC AMR U*  v~ Bav~ D3Q 0@ AO 0D D/ BLڃ"3|x\($ HUIUJUKDLMENOӀPӀQӀ2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX<  9p`(Courier New<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd- C << G<  9p`(Arial  !  #d#  ""   YYY FILED"X December9,1997CecilCrowson,Jr."AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'` dStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva %%%%'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .         \RA'\7 XXdd7R!# A1-j|`  `@R ̛@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTION ̛̜ROBERTL.MUSGROVEAND  )C/ANO.03A019707CV00301JEWELLMUSGROVE,   )      )SCOTTCIRCUIT PlaintiffsAppellants,  )      )HON.CONRADTROUTMAN,v.      )JUDGE      )DAVIDB.COFFEY,M.D.,AND )OAKGROVEPRIMARYCLINIC, )INC.,      )AFFIRMED      )AND DefendantsAppellees.  )REMANDED̛̜JAMESL.MILLIGAN,JR.,Knoxville,forPlaintiffsAppellants.R.FRANKLINNORTONandGARYG.SPANGLER,Knoxville,forDefendantsAppellees.@ OPINION         Franks,J.  InthismedicalmalpracticeactiontheTrialJudgegranteddefendantssummaryjudgmentanddismissedtheactionwithprejudice,pursuanttoT.R.C.P.Rule41.PlaintiffsissueonappealisthatTrialCourterredinholdingthattheyhadnotcompliedwithhisordersandinrefusingtograntrelieffromhisorder.  BywayofbackgroundthisactionwenttotrialonSeptember17,1996,beforeajury.Attrial,plaintiffsofferedthedepositionofDr.JosephMetcalfasanexpertwitnesstoestablishstandardofcareandmedicalcausation.Uponobjectionbydefendant,theCourtfoundthedoctorwasnotcompetentorqualifiedasanexpert,asrequiredbyT.C.A.2926115,andsinceplaintiffhadnootherexpertwitness,theCourtdischargedthejuryandruled:0 0 thatplaintiffsaregivenacontinuanceforaperiodofninety(90)daysfromandafterSeptember17,1996toidentifybywayofexpertwitnessinterrogatoryresponse,expertwitness(es)andalsoshallmakeanysuchdesignatedexpert(s)witness(es)availableforDefendantsdiscoverydepositionwithsaidninety(90)dayperiodorotherwisetheCourtwillentertainDefendantsMotiontoDismissorforSummaryJudgment.Plaintiffsattorneysubsequentlymovedtowithdraw,andonSeptember30,1996,thedefendantrenewedhismotionforsummaryjudgment.TheTrialCourtpermittedplaintiffsattorneytowithdraw,andorderedthatplaintiffswouldhavethroughNovember15toemploynewcounselandreiteratedthatthedeadlinespreviouslyorderedwouldremainineffectandunchanged.AfurtherhearingwasheldonDecember19,1996,andtheCourtordered:0 0 ItappearingfromtherecordinthiscausethatthePlaintiffshavenotcompliedwiththeOrderandDirectiveofthisCourtenteredonSeptember25,1996,ITISORDEREDthatthiscauseshallbedismissedpursuanttoT.R.C.P.41.02andtheDefendantspendingMotionforSummaryJudgmentshallbegrantedwithouttherequirementoffurtherhearingorargumentunlessthePlaintiffsidentifytheirexpertwitnessbywayofexpertwitnessresponseandalsomakesuchdesignatedexpertwitnessavailablefordiscoverywithinfive(5)daysoftheentryofthisOrder.TheOrderwasenteredonthatdate.OnDecember24,1996,plaintiffsattorney handdeliveredalettertodefendantsattorneystating: IanticipatethatDr.N.M.TajenwillbeavailableasanexpertwitnessonbehalfoftheplaintiffsandgavetheKnoxvilleaddressofthedoctor,andconcludedbysayingmoredetailswouldbegivenon hisexpectedtestimonyonDecember26,1996.Healsostatedhewouldalso attempttomakehimavailableforadepositiononthatdate.  OnMay6,1997,theTrialCourtgranteddefendantssummaryjudgmentanddismissedtheactionwithprejudice.Inhisjudgment,theTrialCourtincorporatedhismemorandumopinionofApril10,1997,whereinhesaid:0 0 Onthe19thdayofOctober1996,bothattorneysappearedbeforetheCourtalongwithbothplaintiffs,atwhichtimeplaintiffsattorneyannouncedthathisserviceshadbeenterminatedandaskingthathebeallowedtowithdrawfromthecase.TheCourtgrantedsaidmotiontowithdrawsubjecttothedeadlinesandconditionspreviouslyset.0 0 Onthe18thdayofNovember,1996,thefirmofMilligan&Associatesbecametheattorneyofrecordfortheplaintiffs.TheOrderofSeptember17,1996regardingnamingofanexpertwitnesswasnotcompliedwithwithinninety(90)days.0 0 TheCourtisawarethatsustainingofthepresentMotionisaratherseriousdecision,buttheCourthasbentoverbackwardstobefairtoallpartiesinthiscase,buttheCourthasbeenplacedinthispositionbytheactionsoftheplaintiffindischarginghisattorneyandnotgettinganotherattorneyuntilthirty(30)dayspriortothedeadlinespreviouslyset.TheCourtfeelsthatitisimperativetoadheretothedeadlinespreviouslyset.ItwasinthediscretionoftheTrialJudgeunderthecircumstancesofthiscasetoordertheinvoluntarydismissaloftheaction.Thispower,however,mustbeusedsparingly,andwithgreatcare.Harrisv.BaptistMemorialHospital,574S.W.2d730(Tenn.1978).  Essentially,plaintiffsarguethat theircounseltookallnecessarystepstosecurethenecessarymedicalcausationtestimonypriortothedeadlinesimposedbytheTrialCourt.Therecorddoesnotsupportthisassertion.Plaintiffswerefacedwitharenewedsummaryjudgmentmotionwhichrequiredanexpertsaffidavittoraiseadisputedissueoffact.ThiswasnotdonewithinthetimeframeestablishedbytheTrialJudge,norwasitatanytimetenderedbeforethecasewasfinallydismissedseveralmonthslater.TheplaintiffsonthisrecorddonotestablishthattheTrialJudgeabusedhisdiscretionindismissingthisaction.Clearly,summaryjudgmentwasappropriateintheabsenceofcountervailingevidenceestablishingadisputedissueϜofmaterialfactontheissueofmedicalmalpractice.SeeBraswellv.Carothers,863S.W.2d722(Ct.App.1993).  WeaffirmthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtandremandatappellantscost.@        __________________________      HerschelP.Franks,J.CONCUR:___________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.___________________________Hon.WilliamH.Inman,J.