WPC  ][r^G BvƂ(\10p=KˍsXpp}͵]iJלd>G[n~;O4p)H(W12y{KxqTnђŘX=\-8,`_dA`N?ϗbh`PC Ǔy,b$()Mtcg=S19Z?dBO-E@dR` '208(9K9ۆ*u5Y VLM'mDJ1-l^JGpȌہyh=ocY v [ 6l۰*ǎ)Be 47#7:xqǮ]wgO^ؠTg#ކ h޿SbghB3[n bW%b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz j   M 0DNWYaEb 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K ASO 0h 0D  APHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0Bu+s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular8n_+ k8 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 ` ROY$      1    _ ` Passengers_Johnetta_ԀandWilliamNelsonalsohadclaimsagainst_Hann_,butonlytheclaimofRuby  Nelsonisinvolvedinthisappeal.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0     ROY$      2    _ ` Intheinterpleadercomplaintmedicalexpensesof$28,500areasserted.Therecorddoesnotshow  thatshepaidanymedicalexpensesasonlythe$6,226.75paidby_TCCN_Ԁissupportedbytheevidence.- -(|G2OY$ !.8Kdd8         0   d(|3$ !.8Kdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Kdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Kdd8     _  K8MXXdd8  @ GKINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#KG #Ԉ &   September7,2001Session L XMXK #KXXM#_JOHNETTA_Ԁ_PATRICE_ԀNELSON,etal.v. J INNOVATIVERECOVERYSERVICES,INC.XMXK   ^ @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  ^ @@No.982690IIIEllen_Hobbs_ԀLyle,Chancellor  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200003109_COA_ԄR3CVFiledNovember21,_2001_Ԁ   AV) ` dE<` A      ThisisadeclaratoryjudgmentactionbyRubyNelsonagainstInnovativeRecoveryServices,Inc.  ( _IRSI_),_subrogation_ԀrecoveryagentforTennesseeCoordinatedCareNetwork,d/b/aAccess x .._MedPLUS_Ԁ( _TCCN_),ahealthmaintenanceorganizationunder_TennCare_._TCCN_Ԁpaid$6,266.75 d inmedicalexpensesforRubyNelsonand,under_TennCare_Ԁstatutes,hadasubrogationinterestinthis P amountastoanythirdpartyrecoverybyMs.Nelson.TheComplaintassertsthat_TCCN_Ԁisliableto < attorneysforRubyNelsonforattorneysfeesintheamountofonethirdofthesubrogationinterest. (x TheChancellorheld_TCCN_ԀnotliableforattorneysfeestotheattorneysrepresentingRubyNelson, d andweaffirmthejudgmentoftheChancellor. P J Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed  (   #KXM#XMX.KWilliamB.Cain,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichPatriciaJ.Cottrell,J.and  FrankG.Clement,Jr.,SP.J.,joined.  RobertL.Whitaker,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellants,_Johnetta_Ԁ_Patrice_ԀNelsonandRuby t  Nelson. `!  RhondaM._Whitted_,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,InnovativeRecoveryServices,Inc. 8#" {  OPINION #KXXM #XMXK %` $ #KXXM0 #  XMXK  OnNovember23,1996,RubyNelsonwasinjuredinanautomobilecollisionwithavehicle &8"& drivenbyScottM._Hann_.  #  1      ׀_TCCN_Ԁpaidatotalof$6,266.75inmedicalexpensesforMs.Nelsonas '$#' aresultofthecollision.Under_TennCare_Ԁstatutes,_TCCN_Ԁwasentitledtosubrogationinclaims ($( againstthirdpartiesforitspaymentsofmedicalexpenses. )$)  *%*E   Ms.NelsonemployedtheLawOfficeofBartDurhamtorepresentherinherclaimagainst  ScottM._Hann_Ԁunderacontingentfeeagreement,whichprovidedforanattorneysfeeofonethird  oftheamountofanyrecovery.    _IRSI_Ԁhadbeen,sinceAugust25,1997,designatedby_TCCN_Ԁasitsagentforsubrogation ` recoveryservices,andtheLawOfficeofBartDurhamwassoadvisedbyletterofAugust28,1997. L  OnFebruary9,1998,withoutnotifying_TCCN_Ԁor_IRSI_,RubyNelsonandherattorneys,theLaw 8  OfficeofBartDurham,enteredintoavoluntary,fullandfinalsettlementwithScottM._Hann_Ԁinthe $ t amountof$25,000.00.OnFebruary11,1998,counselforRubyNelsoninformed_IRSI_Ԁforthefirst  ` time,bytelephone,thatMs.Nelsonhadbeeninjuredinanautomobilecollisionandrequestedthe  L  amountoftheStates_TennCare_Ԁsubrogationinterest._IRSI_ԀinformedtheLawOfficeofBartDurham  8  thattheywerenotauthorizedtorepresent_TennCare_ssubrogationinterestinsuchthirdparty $  litigationsinceallsuchsubrogationmattersweretobehandledby_IRSI_.TheLawOfficeofBart   Durhamthendeducteditsattorneysfees(intheamountofonethirdofthetotal$25,000.00recovery   realizedinthesettlementwith_Hann_),deposited_TCCN_s$6,266.75ofthesettlementproceedsina   trustaccount,disbursedtheremainderoftherecoverytoRubyNelsonandfiledthissuitfor   declaratoryjudgmentastowhetherornotMs.Nelsonwasentitledtorecoveronethirdofthe p $6,266.75heldintrustasreimbursementforattorneysfeesshepaidtotheLawOfficeofBart \ Durhamforrecoveryofthismoneybelongingto_TCCN_. H   Ingrantingsummaryjudgmentto_IRSI_,thetrialcourtheld:  p 8  1. ` TherearegenuineissuesofmaterialfactwhetherRubyNelsonwasmade @v  H wholebythesettlementwiththethirdpartytortfeasor.4   8  2. ` However,becausetheDefendantinstructedthePlaintiffsattorneynotto @    representtheDefendantssubrogationlien,andgaveadequatenoticethattherewas   noagreementforrepresentationbythePlaintiffsattorneyandthatnoexpressor  impliedcontractexistedbetweentheDefendantandthePlaintiffsattorney,the  subrogationinterestshallnotbereducedbyattorneyfeesorcosts.   8  3. ` Further,inlightoftherecentamendmentto_T.C.A._Ԁ715117,andbecausethe l actionwassettledbetweenthePlaintiffandthethirdpartytort_feasor_Ԁwithout @X  X  notificationorconsentoftheDefendant,thesubrogationinterestisnotsubjecttothe D! makewholedoctrine.0"      RubyNelsonappealedassertingtheissuestobe: $X"   1.8 ` Doesthe madewholedoctrineapplytoa_TennCare_Ԁsubrogation %0!$ claimarisingpriortotheTennesseeSupremeCourtsopinionin &"% _Blankenship_Ԁv.Estateof_Bain_?'#&` x` x   2.8 ` Ifthe madewholedoctrinedoesnotapplytoa_TennCare_ (#' subrogationclaimarisingpriortotheSupremeCourtsopinionin )$( _Blankenship_Ԁv.Estateof_Bain_,does_TCA_Ԁ715117apply?|*%)` x` x  h+&*   Appellee,_IRSI_,raisesadditionalissuesbyquestions:    1.8 ` Understate_TennCare_Ԁstatutes,doestheequitable makewhole  doctrineapplytotheStatessubrogationinterestinthirdparty t recoveriesinpersonalinjuryactionspriorto_Blankenship_Ԁv.Estateof ` _Bain_ԀwhentheStatedoesnotconsenttoorparticipateinthe L  settlementbetweentheplaintiffandthe_tortfeasor_?8 ` x` x   2.8 ` DoestheMay24,2000amendmenttothe_TennCare_Ԁstatutesetforth $ t inTenn.CodeAnn.Sec.715117providethatapersonalinjury  ` plaintiffsattorneyfeesandcostsaretobedeductedfromtheStates  L  subrogationinterestwhentherecordestablishesthattheStateelected  8  torepresentitsowninterestandexpresslyrejectedrepresentationby $  plaintiffsattorneyinthematter? ` x` x THE MAKEWHOLEDOCTRINE     The makewholedoctrineinTennesseeisprogressivelydevelopedby_Wimberly_Ԁv. p AmericanCasualtyCompanyofRedding,Pennsylvania,584S.W.2d200(Tenn.1979);_Eastwood_ \ v.GlennFallsIns.Co.,646S.W.2d156(Tenn.1983);Yorkv._Sevier_ԀCountyAmbulanceAuthority, H 8S.W.3d616(Tenn.1999);and_Blankenship_Ԁv.Estateof_Bain_,5S.W.2d647(Tenn.1999). 4   Indiscussingthe madewholedoctrineadoptedinWimberly,theSupremeCourtheldin  \ Blankenship: H 8   ` Arightofsubrogationmayarisebycontract( conventionalsubrogation),   byapplicationofequitableprinciplesoflaw( legalsubrogation),orbyapplication   ofastatute( statutorysubrogation).Itisbasedontwofundamentalpremises:1)  thataninsuredshouldnotbepermittedrecoverytwiceforthesameloss,which  wouldbethepotentialresultiftheinsuredrecoversfrombothitsinsureranda  _tortfeasor_;and2)thatthe_tortfeasor_Ԁshouldcompensatetheinsurerforpaymentsthe l insurermadetotheinsured.Yorkv._Sevier_ԀCountyAmbulanceAuth.,1999WL X  1051166(Tenn.1999).D!   8   ` The_Blankenships_,relyingonourdecisionin_Wimberly_,havemaintained #l! throughouttheseproceedingsthataninsurermustreceivefullcompensationforhis $X" orherloss,i.e.,be madewhole,beforeaninsuredisentitledtoassertaclaimfor $D # subrogation.In_Wimberly_,theinsuredsufferedpropertydamageof$44,619dueto %0!$ a_tortfeasor_smisconduct.Theinsuredrecovered$25,000fromthe_tortfeasor_s &"% insurancepolicyand$15,000underitsowninsurancepolicy.Theinsurance '#& companiesenforcedcontractualsubrogationrightsandreceivedproratasharesfrom (#' the$25,000theinsuredhadreceivedfromthe_tortfeasor_spolicy.)$(     |*%) 8   ` Weheldthattheinsurancecompanieswerenotentitledtosubrogation   becausetheinsuredhadnotbeen madewholeforhisloss._Wimberly_,584S.W.2d  at202.Ourholdingwasguidedby generalprinciplesofequity:     8 ` Thedoctrineofsubrogationininsurancedoesnotarisefrom,noris ` itdependentupon,statuteorcustomoranyofthetermsofthe L  contract;ithasitsoriginingeneralprinciplesofequityandinthe 8  natureoftheinsurancecontractasoneofindemnity.Therightof $ t subrogationrestsnotuponacontract,butupontheprinciplesof  ` naturaljustice. L ` x` x 8  Id.at203(quoting_Castleman_,432S.W.2dat675).Applyingtheseprinciples,we $  determinedthatthereisnoequitablebasisforallowingsubrogationwhereaninsured   hasnotbeenmadewholebecausetheresimplyisnoriskthattheinsuredmayrecover   twiceforthesameloss.Moreover,weconcludedthatapotentiallossincurredbythe   insurerwhoisnotreimbursedbywayofsubrogationisarisktheinsurerhasbeen   paidtoassume.Id.at203.p   _Blankenship_,5S.W.3dat65051. H   Ifthe_Wimberly_Ԅ_Eastwood_ԄYork_Blankenship_ madewholedoctrinewereotherwise  p applicableinthiscase,itwouldfaceafatalflawinthattherecordbeforethisCourtdoesnot  \ establishwhetherornotRubyNelsonwas madewhole. H   In_Wimberly_,itwasundisputedthatthetotalrecoveryfromthe_tortfeasor_Ԁandtheinsureds   fireinsurancepolicieswaslessthanthetotalcasualtyloss.Thus,theproofconclusivelyestablished   thattheinsuredhadnotbeen madewhole,andtheinsurerssubrogationinterestcouldnotbe  enforced.    InYork,anagreedsettlementof$130,000toeachoftwoplaintiffswasmade,withBlue l Crossassertinga$19,149.97medicalpaymentsubrogationinterestrelativetooneofthesettling X  plaintiffs,BrianYork.Thesupremecourtobservedinfootnote: Thetrialcourtspecificallyfound D! thatBrianYorksdamagesfromtheinjuriessustainedintheaccidentexceededthe$130,000 0"  settlementandjudgment.York,8S.W.3dat618n.2.BrianYork,thusnothavingbeen made #l! wholeinhisrecovery,wasnotsubjecttotheBlueCrosssubrogationinterest. $X"   Likewise,in_Blankenship_,thesupremecourtobserved: _Bain_Ԁhadliabilityinsurancecoverage %0!$ intheamountof$125,000,buthisestatewasotherwiseinsolvent.Althoughthesuitwassettledfor &"% thelimitof_Bain_spolicy,thetrialcourtfoundthatthe_Blankenships_Ԁwouldhavebeenentitledto '#& recoverdamageswellinexcessof$125,000._Blankenship_,5S.W.3dat649.Thus,the$20,713.83 (#' medicalexpensepaymentsubrogationinterestofBlueCrossBlueShieldwasnotrecoverable )$( becausethe_Blankenships_Ԁhadnotbeen madewhole. |*%)  h+&*   IntheunderlyingtortcasebetweenRubyNelsonandScott_Hann_,nofindingoffactismade  astowhetherornotRubyNelsonis madewholebythe$25,000settlement.Indeed,inthis  declaratoryjudgmentact,theChancellorheld, therearegenuineissuesofmaterialfactwhether  RubyNelsonwasmadewholebythesettlementwiththethirdparty_tortfeasor_.Whatevermaybe t theruleelsewhere,persuasiveauthorityinTennesseeestablishesthattheburdenofproofrestsupon ` theinsuredtoprovethatshehasnotbeenmadewhole.InTennesseeFarmersMutualInsuranceCo. L  v.Farmer,No.03A019610CH00327,1998WL695637(Tenn.Ct.App.Aug.20,1998),itisheld: 8  8   ` TheChancellorheldthattheinsurerhadtheburdenofprooftoestablishthat  ` itsinsuredhadbeenmadewhole,inordertorecoveritssubrogationclaim,andthat  L  ithadnotsustainedthatburden.Werespectfullydisagree.Innoneofthecases  8  discussingthe fullrecoverydoctrineitissuggestedthattheinsurerhastheburden $  ofproof.Thepolicyprovisions,togetherwiththecontractualagreementsexecuted   uponadvancementofmedicalexpenses,establishaprimafaciecase.Todefeatthe   rightofsubrogation,theinsuredmustthenaffirmativelyshow[ifthedoctrineis   applicable]thatshewasnotmadewhole.    Id.at*3;SeeTenn._S.Ct_.R.4. \   TherecordbeforetheChancellorisrepletewithassertionsbyMs.Nelsonthatthe$25,000 4 settlementrepresentedthepolicylimitsofScott_Hann_Ԁandthathewasotherwiseinsolvent.No  p proof,however,existstosupporttheseassertions.Inaddition,allthatisshownbytherecordasto  \ Ms.Nelsonslossarelostwagesinanapproximateamountof$3,040.00andthepaymentsby_TCCN_ H totaling$6,266.75,payingallmedicalexpenses. #  2       4     PriortotheFebruary9,1998settlementbetweenRubyNelsonandScott_Hann_,negotiated   bytheBartDurhamLawOffices,_TCCN_Ԁwasnotevenawarethatanautomobileaccidenthad  occurredtriggeringapotentialsubrogationclaim.Ithadsimplypaidthemedicalbillsof$6,266.75.  _TCCN_ԀwasnotgiventheopportunityofinvestigatingthesolvencyofScott_Hann_Ԁor,indeed,the  solvencyoftheownerofthecardrivenbyScott_Hann_,oneKevinP._Bursk_,whowasdismissedfrom l liabilityasapartofthesettlement.Generally,ifaninsurerclaimingsubrogationdidnotparticipate X  inthesettlementnegotiationsbetweentheinsuredandthethirdparty_tortfeasor_Ԁandwaivednorights, D! itssubrogationclaimmustbehonored.Aetna_Cas_.&Sur.Co.v.TennesseeFarmersMut.Ins.Co., 0"  867S.W.2d321,323(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).Thesubrogationinterest,however,canbedefeatedby #l! the madewholedoctrineprovidedthattheinsurerandtheinsuredhaveagreedthattheinsuredwas $X" notmadewholebythetortrecoveryortheunderlyingfactsareclearthattherecoverydidnotmake $D # theinsuredwhole.TennesseeFarmersMut.Ins.Co.,1998WL695637.Obviously,noagreement %0!$ existsbetweenMs.Nelsonand_TCCN_Ԁthatshewasnotmadewhole,andtheevidencebeforethe &"% Courtdoesnotaffirmativelyshowthatshewasnotmadewhole. '#&  (#'   In_Wimberly_,theTennesseeSupremeCourtadoptedtherulelaiddownin_Garrity_Ԁv.Rural  MutualInsuranceCo.,253N.W.2d512(Wis.1977).While_Garrity_representedtheplurality  approachamongjurisdictionstothe madewholedoctrine,itspawnedanimmediatedilemmain  WisconsinevidencedbyRimesv.StateFarmMutualAutomobileInsuranceCo.,316N.W.2d348 t (Wis.1982). `   Rimesandhiswifewereinjuredinanautomobileaccidentinvolvingseveralvehicles.One 8  defendantwasinsuredfor$300,000,andaseconddefendantwasinsuredfor$50,000.Rimeswas $ t insuredbyStateFarm.Medicalexpensesinthetotalamountof$9,649.90weresuppliedbyState  ` Farmwithsubrogationrightsastothethirdparties.Anagreedsettlementwiththe_tortfeasors_  L  resultedina$125,000paymenttoMr.andMrs.Rimes.StateFarmassertedits$9,649.90  8  subrogationinterest,andRimesdefendedonthebasisthatthe$125,000settlementhadnotmade $  themwhole.     Havingnoreadyanswertothisdilemma,thetrialcourtconductedatwoday,nonjurytrial   astotheamountofdamagessufferedbytheRimes.ThecourtheldthattheRimeshadsuffered   $300,433.54indamagesanddeniedtheStateFarmsubrogationinterestonthebasisthattheRimes p hadnotbeen madewholeunderthe_Garrity_doctrine.AdeeplydividedWisconsinsupremecourt \ affirmedthejudgment.Themajorityaccepted,assoundlaw,abifurcatedprocedureinanaccident H casewhereliabilityanddegreesofliabilityweredisputed. 4   Theplaintiffs,facingthepossibilityofasuccessfulcontributorynegligencedefense,accepted  \ the$125,000settlement.Then,becauseoftheirdisputeovertheStateFarmsubrogationinterest, H theywereallowedtotrytheirtotaldamagesnonjury,shieldedfromallliabilityperils.Thetrial 4 judgefoundtheirdamagestobeover$300,000,andsincethe$125,000settlementwaslessthanthe   amountoftheirdamages,theStateFarmsubrogationinterestwasforeclosed.Themajorityofthe   Rimescourtreasoned:  8   ` StateFarmalsoarguesthat,hadthecasegonetoaverdictbeforethejuryand  hadthetotaldamagesreturnedbeen$125,000,whichsumincludedthe$9,649.90for l medicalexpensesincurredinthefirstyearaftertheaccident,StateFarmwould X  clearlyhavebeenentitledtorecoverthelatteramountasitsclaiminsubrogation. D! Whilethatisundoubtedlytrue,thatfactisirrelevant,because,hadsuchbeenthe 0"  resultofthetrial,wewouldbeobligedtoconcludethatthedamagesfoundbythe #l! jurymadetheplaintiffwhole.Rimes,unlesshepaidovertheamountofStateFarms $X" claim,wouldhavereapedadoublerecovery.Themedicalpaymentsweremadelong $D # beforetrial;andwereRimestokeepalltheproceedsofthejudgmentplusthe %0!$ medicalpayments,hewouldhavebeenmadewholeplusthemedicalpayments &"% previouslyreceived.Thishemaynotdoundertheequitableprinciplesof '#& subrogation.Theverdict,underthefactshypothesizedbyStateFarm,wouldhave (#' advisedthetrialcourtthatthesumof$125,000madetheplaintiffwhole.Theparties )$( here,however,bytheirstipulationdeterminedtoforegoajuryverdictasthetestof |*%) wholeness.Itisclearthenthatapaymentof$125,000,unlessthatsumhadbeen h+&* arrivedatbyajurywhoseintentwastomaketheplaintiffwhole,wasirrelevant.  Underthefactsofthiscase,thepaymentof$125,000wasthepricethatthedefendant  _tortfeasors_Ԁwerewillingtopaytoavoidtheriskofgreaterexposure;anditwasthe  sumthatRimeswaswillingtoaccept.Ithasnothingtodowiththedeterminationof t whetherRimeswasmadewhole.`   Rimes,316N.W.2dat35455. L    JusticesCoffeyand_Steinmetz_,indissent,decriedtheresultsofthisminitrialasbarringa $ t subrogationinterestinallsettlementswherethesubrogationinterestwasnotcontemplatedbythe  ` partiestothesettlement,evenincaseswherequestionableliabilityimpelledthesubrogorplaintiff  L  toacceptdiscretionasthebetterpartofvalor.SaidJudge_Steinmetz_:  8  8   ` A_spector_Ԁarisesfromthecourtsrulingthattheinsuredmustbemadewhole   beforeasubrogorhasanyrightofrecovery.Theissuebecomeswhenistheinsured   madewhole?Isitwhenthejurymakesanaward?Iwouldassumeso.Themajority   impliesthatneverinasettlementisapersonmadewholesinceitisrecognizedpurely   asacompromiseandisnottheequivalentofbeingmadewhole.Therefore,all p settlementsinthefuturemustdeterminewithinthemanadmissionofwholenessor \ besubjecttoadditionalminitrials.H   Id.at362.  p   Inthecaseatbar,_TCCN_Ԁneverhadthechancetonegotiatewiththeinsuredrelativetoits H subrogationclaimbecausetheclaiminitsentiretywassettledbyMs.Nelsonbefore_TCCN_Ԁever 4 knewthataclaimexisted.     Therecordinthiscasedisclosesonlythe$25,000settlementandisdevoidofanyproof,or  anyfindingoffact,bythetrialcourtacceptingthesettlementastowhetherornotMs.Nelsonwas   madewholethereby.Thisburdenofproofrestsupontheplaintiff.Therequirementsofthe made  wholedoctrineof_Wimberly_,Yorkand_Blankenship_havenotbeenestablished,andMs.Nelsons l appealmustfail.SeeTennesseeFarmersMut.Ins.Co.,1998WL695637. X    Sincethe madewhole_Blankenship_ruleisinapplicableunderthefactsofthiscase,itstands 0"  inexactlythesamepositionasGreenv.InnovativeRecoveryServices,Inc.,42S.W.3d917(Tenn. #l! Ct.App.2000). $X"   IthaslongbeensettledbyTravelersInsuranceCo.v.Williams,541S.W.2d587(Tenn. %0!$ 1976),thatanattorneyrepresentingaplaintiff,whoseowninsurancecompanyhasasubrogation &"% interestagainstthirdparties,isnotentitledtoanattorneysfeefromthesubrogationinterestunless '#& theinsurancecompanyhasexpresslyorimpliedlyemployedhimtopursuethesubrogationinterest. (#' SeealsoBoston,Bates&Holtv.TennesseeFarmersMut.Ins.Co.,857S.W.2d32(Tenn.1993). )$( Therecordinthecaseatbarnegatesanysuchexpressorimpliedagreement,and,infact,likethe |*%) situationinGreen,Plaintiffsattorney hadbeenexpresslyinformedthattheinsurerdidnotdesire h+&* hisservices,andthatitwaspreparedtoprotectitsownsubrogationinterest.Underthe  circumstances,therewasnocontractualrelationshipbetween[Plaintiffsattorney]and_TennCare_Ԁthat  wouldentitlehimtocollecttheattorneysfeesherequests.Green,42S.W.3dat920.    Inviewofourholdingastothe madewholedoctrine,itisnotnecessarytoconsiderthe ` impact,orthepossibleretroactivity,ofChapter807ofthe2000PublicActsoftheStateof L  Tennessee,effectiveMay24,2000,wherebyTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection715117was 8  amendedinamannerthatexpandedtheprotectionof_TennCare_Ԁsubrogationinterest,apparentlyin $ t responseto_Blankenship_,whichhadbeendecidedbythesupremecourtonNovember29,1999.  `   ThejudgmentoftheChancellorisinallrespectsaffirmed,andthecaseisremandedforsuch  8  furtherproceedingsasmaybenecessary. $    CostsofthiscauseareassessedagainstAppellant,forwhichexecutionmayissue.   Ѐ   p ̀   H    `     h     ___________________________________  p    `     h     WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE