ÿWPC; /# ¢U:­ %ç 0(íb w@!4aun­„1 0J9 0Tƒ 0^× 0h5 0r 0| 0†‹ 0 1u¡ 0d U *z AQ¤ Æõ 0D» 0@ÿ 0D? B)ƒ D/¬ BÛ Bø D3 DCH AM‹ Ø v~ê vÓh˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù - DDDDDÓ€ ê‚_#3|x"«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó% Line 7 d(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd%%%%7Border 1dd!#*Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌJune€12,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€O‚XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñò òÔ€¼ÔÓ  Ó›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€!ÙœßR€+,*A1-j|ÁÿF` ç `€€@ÿRß›à@ àAT€NASHVILLEó óÔ€XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌRUTH€œPHARES›,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9709„CV„00485ÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€œ96C›„3072ÌœKITTIE›€œMYATT›,€ED.D.,à àà àà à)à àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€MARIETTA€M.€œSHIPLEY›,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌJAMES€L.€HARRISÌ2400€œCrestmoor›€RoadÌNashville,€Tennessee€37215Ìà àAttorney€for€Plaintiff/AppellantÌÌNOEL€F.€œSTAHL›ÌE.€TODD€œPRESNELL›ÌSuite€2700,€Nashville€City€CenterÌ511€Union€StreetÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219Ìà àAttorney€for€Defendant/AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌTODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌKOCH,€J.ÌÌÓÓò òÔ€„Ôòòà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÔ€XÔÌÌà àà àA€licensed€practical€nurse€filed€suit€against€a€psychologicalÏexaminer€who€evaluated€her€after€the€nurseððs€license€was€suspended€forÏprofessional€misconduct.€€The€plaintiff€claimed€that€as€a€result€of€a€negligentÏreport€by€the€examiner,€her€license€reinstatement€was€conditioned€on€theÏcompletion€of€unnecessary€treatment€for€drug€and€alcohol€abuse,€leading€her€toÏsuffer€severe€emotional€distress.€€The€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€forÏthe€defendant€psychological€examiner.€€We€affirm.ÌÌà@ àò òI.€€The€Factsó óÌÌà àà àPlaintiff€Ruth€œPhares›€is€a€licensed€practical€nurse.€€She€worked€as€aÏnursing€shift€supervisor€at€œVanco›€Manor€Nursing€Home€in€œGoodlettsville›,€whereÏshe€supervised€the€work€of€four€nursesðð€aides€in€the€care€of€64€patients,€andÏdispensed€medication€pursuant€to€doctorsðð€orders.€€In€March€of€1994,€she€wasÏfired€by€the€homeððs€Director€of€Nursing€for€making€various€charting€errors,€failingÏto€follow€protocols,€and€failing€to€administer€medication€properly.ÌÌà àà àThe€Tennessee€Board€of€Nursing€subsequently€brought€chargesÏagainst€Ms.€œPhares›€for€unprofessional€conduct€and€unfitness€to€engage€in€theÏpractice€of€nursing.€€She€obtained€legal€counsel,€who€advised€her€to€waive€herÏrights€to€a€formal€hearing€and€sign€an€Agreed€Order€of€Suspension.ÌÌà àà àThe€terms€of€the€Agreed€Order,€which€was€signed€in€June€of€1995,Ïwere€that€Ms.€œPhares›€would€accept€the€allegations€against€her€as€true,€and€herÏlicense€would€be€suspended€for€six€months,€during€which€time€she€was€to€submitÏto€a€psychological€examination€and€drug€evaluation,€conducted€by€theÏTennessee€Nursing€Foundationððs€Peer€Assistance€Program€(PAP).€€If€thoseÏrequirements€were€met,€she€could€appear€before€the€Board€in€December€andÏrequest€the€lifting€of€her€suspension.€ÌÌà àà àMs.€œPhares›€contacted€PAP,€which€referred€her€to€defendant€œKittie›ÏœMyatt›,€Ed.D.,€for€evaluation.€€After€filling€out€a€five„page€intake€questionnaire€andÍsigning€a€release€form,€Ms.€œPhares›€took€two€standardized€written€tests,€andÏsubmitted€to€two€interviews€conducted€by€Dr.€Myatt:€€a€clinical€interview€designedÏto€elicit€information€about€substance€abuse€or€dependence,€and€a€psychosocialÏinterview.€ÌÌà àà àDuring€the€interviews,€Ms.€Phares€advised€Dr.€Myatt€that€she€was€anÏinsulin„dependent€diabetic,€and€suggested€that€her€employment€problems€mayÏhave€stemmed,€at€least€in€part,€from€her€condition.€€Dr.€Myatt€graded€the€tests€andÏevaluated€the€interviews€with€the€participation€of€her€supervisor,€a€licensedÏpsychologist.€€Dr.€Myatt€then€prepared€the€report€which€is€the€source€of€contentionÏin€the€present€action.ÌÌà àà àDr.€Myattððs€report€discussed€in€detail€the€results€and€implications€ofÏthe€various€tests€and€interviews€she€conducted,€and€ended€with€three€conclusionsÏand€four€recommendations.€€Ms.€Pharesðð€grievance€stems€from€the€conclusionÏthat€ð ðthe€possibility€of€alcohol€abuse€as€a€contributing€factor€in€her€performanceÏproblems€cannot€be€ruled€out,ðð€and€from€recommendations€that€she€undergoÏrandom€breath€tests€for€alcohol€abuse,€and€random€drug€screening€ð ðto€confirmÏher€self„reported€information€that€she€is€negative€for€substance€abuse.ðð€€OtherÏrecommendations€included€outpatient€psychotherapy€and€proper€medical€careÏand€monitoring€of€her€diabetes.ÌÌà àà àDr.€Myattððs€report€was€submitted€to€PAP.€€The€director€of€PAPÏsummarized€Dr.€Myattððs€concerns€and€recommendations€for€the€Department€of€œ›ÏHealth,€but€did€not€send€a€copy€of€the€report€to€the€Department€or€to€the€Board€ofÏNursing,€since€it€contained€private€information€about€Ms.€Phares€that€was€notÏrelevant€to€the€matter€at€hand.ÌÌà àà àOn€December€8,€1995,€the€Board€of€Nursing€met€and€agreed€toÏreinstate€Ms.€Pharesðð€nursing€license€on€a€probationary€basis,€as€long€as€she€metÏseven€requirements,€which€included€maintaining€a€contract€with€PAP,€andÏsubmitting€quarterly€reports€of€urine€drug€screens.€€A€contract€with€PAP€impliesÏattendance€at€two€12„step€meetings€weekly.€ÌÌà àà àOn€August€22,€1996,€Ms.€Phares€filed€a€complaint€alleging€that€sheÏdoes€not€have€and€that€she€has€never€had€an€alcohol€or€substance€abuseÏproblem,€that€the€tests€she€took€did€not€indicate€any€such€problem,€and€that€inÏevaluating€her€and€in€reporting€her€findings€to€Ms.€Pharesðð€detriment,€Dr.€MyattÏfailed€to€meet€the€standard€of€care€for€her€profession.€€Damages€alleged€includedÏsevere€emotional€distress€and€having€to€undergo€unnecessary€treatment€for€drugÏand€alcohol€abuse.€€Ms.€Phares€asked€for€$300,000€in€compensatory€damages.€ÏThe€defendant€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€which€the€court€granted€onÏApril€15,€1997.€€This€appeal€followed.€ÌÌà@ àò òII.€€Summary€Judgmentó óÌÌà àà àSummary€judgment€is€ð ðan€important€vehicle€for€concluding€casesÏthat€should€be€resolved€on€legal€issues€alone.€òò€Byrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210Ï(Tenn.€1992).€€It€may€only€be€granted€where€the€proof€shows€ð ðthat€there€is€noÏgenuine€issue€as€to€any€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€aÏjudgment€as€a€matter€of€law.ðð€€œTenn.R.Civ.P.›€56.04;òò€Taylor€v.€Nashville€BannerÏPublishing€Co.,óó€573€S.W.2d€476€(Tenn.€App.€1978).ÌÌà àà àA€ð ðmaterial€factðð€is,€for€the€purposes€of€a€summary€judgment€motion,Ïone€that€relates€directly€to€the€claim€or€defense€embodied€in€the€motion.€€To€beÏmaterial,€a€fact€at€issue€must€be€essential€to€the€legal€questions€that€will€ultimatelyÏdecide€the€case.òò€€œRollins›€v.€œWinn›„Dixie,óó€780€S.W.2d€765€(Tenn.€App.€1989).€€Thus,Ïa€fact€that€may€be€of€surpassing€importance€to€one€of€the€parties€will€not€beÏmaterial€if€€raising€that€fact€does€not€alter€the€partiesðð€legal€positions.ÌÌà àà àTo€proceed€on€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€moving€partyÏusually€supports€her€contention€that€there€are€no€genuine€issues€of€material€factÏwith€sworn€affidavits.€€Such€affidavits€must€be€made€on€personal€knowledge,Ïsetting€forth€facts€that€would€be€admissible€in€evidence.€€Sworn€or€certified€copiesÏof€all€papers€referred€to€in€an€affidavit€should€be€attached€or€served€with€it.€ÏœTenn.R.Civ.P.›€56.06.€€The€opponent€of€the€motion€may€then€respond€with€counter„affidavits€or€other€competent€proof€to€demonstrate€that€there€are€indeed€genuineÏdisputes€as€to€material€facts.€ÌÌà àà àIn€considering€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€trial€court€mustÏview€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€opponent€of€the€motion,€andÏmust€draw€from€it€all€the€legitimate€conclusions€of€fact€that€favor€the€opponent.€òòÏNational€œMfg›.€Co.€v.€Washingtonóó,€744€œS.W›€œ2d›,€574€(Tenn.€App.€1987);€òòGray€v.ÏAmosóó,€869€S.W.2d€834€(Tenn.€App.1993).€€No€presumption€of€correctnessÏattaches€on€appeal€to€decisions€granting€summary€judgment,€because€suchÏjudgments€involve€only€questions€of€law.€òòRoberts€v.€Robertsóó,€845€S.W.2d€225Ï(Tenn.€App.1992);€òòœHembree›€v.€Stateóó,€925€S.W.2d€513€(Tenn.€1996).€ÌÌÌà@ àò òIII.€€Professional€Malpracticeó óÌÌà àà àIn€her€complaint,€Ms.€Phares€asserted€that€although€she€does€notÏhave€any€alcohol€or€substance€abuse€problems,€Dr.€Myattððs€conclusions€andÏrecommendations,€which€were€premised€on€the€possible€existence€of€suchÏproblems,€were€negligent€and€ð ðdid€fall€short€of€the€standard€of€care€forÏprofessionals€in€this€area.ðð€She€further€claimed€that€Dr.€Myatt€ð ðdid€not€exercise€theÏdegree€of€care€or€skill€or€possess€€the€degree€of€€knowledge€ordinarily€€exercised€Ïby€others€€of€€this€€œprofes›„Ìœsion›€.€.€.€.ððÌÌà àà àMs.€Pharesðð€claim€is€thus€one€for€professional€€malpractice.€€ToÏestablish€such€a€claim,€the€plaintiff€must€be€prepared€to€offer€competent€testimonyÏas€to€the€recognized€standard€of€acceptable€practice€in€the€profession,€and€thatÏthe€defendant€failed€to€act€with€ordinary€and€reasonable€care€in€accordance€withÏthat€standard.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115(a).ÌÌà àà àSuch€testimony€must€come€from€one€who€is€familiar€with€theÏrecognized€standard€of€practice€for€the€profession€in€question.€€In€the€case€of€aÏclaim€against€a€person€who€practices€in€a€health€care€profession€requiringÏlicensure€under€the€laws€of€this€state€(such€as€a€psychological€examiner,€seeÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€63„11„207),€this€means€a€person€licensed€in€the€same€or€aÏsimilar€specialty,€who€practiced€his€profession€in€Tennessee€or€a€contiguous€stateÏin€the€year€preceding€the€injury€or€wrongful€act€complained€of.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ29„26„115(b).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€requirement€of€expert€testimony€can€be€dispensed€with€inÏsituations€where€the€matter€in€dispute€is€within€the€common€knowledge€of€theÏordinary€layman.€See€òòBaldwin€v.€Knightóó,€569€S.W.2d€450€(Tenn.€1978).€This€so„called€ð ðcommon€knowledge€exceptionðð€only€applies€to€the€most€obvious€forms€ofÏnegligence,€acts€ð ðso€blatant€that€all€mankind€knows€such€things€are€not€doneÍabsent€negligence.ðð€€òòMurphy€v.€œSchwartz›óó,€739€S.W.2d€777€(Tenn.€App.€1986).€ÏWe€do€not€believe€that€the€common€knowledge€exception€applies€to€this€case.€€ÌÌà àà àDr.€Myatt€submitted€an€affidavit€which€set€out€in€great€detail€herÏinteractions€with€Ms.€Phares,€including€the€results€of€the€written€tests€and€theÏcontent€of€the€interviews.€She€also€discussed€the€reasoning€process€she€followedÏin€reaching€the€disputed€conclusions€and€recommendations.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€acknowledged€in€her€affidavit€(as€she€did€in€herÏreport)€that€Ms.€Pharesðð€profile€on€the€test€called€the€ð ðSubstance€Use€DisordersÏDiagnostic€Scheduleðð€was€negative€for€substance€abuse€but€high€onÏdefensiveness.€€Dr.€Myatt€noted€that€the€high€defensiveness€score€had€the€effectÏof€casting€doubt€on€the€validity€of€the€rest€of€the€test.€€The€œMCMI›„III€test€was€alsoÏnegative€for€alcohol€or€drug€dependence,€but€Ms.€Pharesðð€score€on€that€test€wasÏhigh€enough€to€indicate€ð ðfeaturesðð€consistent€with€alcohol€dependence,€ratherÏthan€ð ðtraitsðð€of€such€a€problem,€or€a€full„blown€ð ðdisorder,ðð€which€would€requireÏhigher€scores.€€€ÌÌà àà àDr.€Myatt€observed€that€Ms.€Phares€appeared€to€slur€her€speechÏduring€œthe€interview,›€had€poor€memory€ability,€was€unable€to€give€a€consistentÏchronological€history,€and€denied€the€seriousness€of€her€patient€care€problems.€ÏThe€defendant€stated€that€the€test€results€and€her€observations€were€sufficient€toÍsupport€the€conclusion€that€ð ðthe€possibility€of€alcohol€abuse€as€a€contributingÏfactor€in€her€performance€problems€cannot€be€ruled€œout.ð𛀀We€note€that€theÏaffidavit€of€the€director€of€PAP,€the€organization€which€ordered€the€evaluation,Ïstates€that€the€primary€goal€of€PAP€is€to€protect€the€public€from€impairedÏpractitioners,€and€secondarily€to€assist€impaired€practitioners€œin›€œovercoming›Ïpsychological€or€physical€problems,€or€problems€of€substance€abuse.ÌÌà àà àDr.€Myatt€affirmed€that€in€dealing€with€Ms.€Phares,€she€fully€compliedÏwith€the€applicable€standard€of€practice.€€Dr.€Myattððs€testimony€as€to€her€œownÏcompliance›€with€that€standard€was€certainly€competent€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ29„25„115(b),€as€she€was€a€licensed€psychological€examiner€who€had€beenÏpracticing€œthat›€profession€in€Tennessee€for€at€least€ten€years.Ì€€€Ìà àà àMs.€Phares€responded€with€the€affidavit€of€William€D.€œKenner›,€M.D.,Ïwho€first€saw€her€on€August€7,€1996,€fifteen€days€before€she€filed€her€complaint.€ÏDr.€œKenner›€stated€that€he€was€a€psychiatrist€familiar€with€the€recognized€standardÏof€acceptable€professional€practice€for€Mental€Health€Professionals,€and€that€heÏinterviewed€Ms.€Phares€and€referred€her€to€Pam€œAuble›,€Ph.D.,€a€clinicalÏpsychologist,€for€an€evaluation.ÌÌà àà àDr.€œKenner›€noted€that€Dr.€Myatt€did€not€evaluate€Mrs.€PharesððÏdiabetic€status,€and€did€not€consult€with€a€licensed€physician€about€the€impact€ofÍher€diabetes€on€her€professional€conduct.€€He€stated€that€in€his€professionalÏopinion,€the€most€likely€cause€for€Ms.€Pharesðð€problems€at€œVanco›€Manor€were€thatÏthe€enormous€responsibilities€of€her€position€left€her€no€time€to€monitor€her€ownÏglucose€levels,€leading€to€physical€symptoms€that€rendered€her€unable€toÏdischarge€her€duties€correctly.€€Significantly€however,€Dr.€œKenner›€did€not€stateÏthat€Dr.€Myattððs€conduct€violated€the€standard€of€practice€for€psychologicalÏexaminers.€ÌÌà àà àThe€Forensic€Psychological€Evaluation€that€was€prepared€by€Dr.ÏœAuble›€was€attached€as€an€exhibit€to€Dr.€œKenner›ððs€affidavit.€€The€evaluation€wasÏbased€upon€six€tests,€which€included€a€clinical€interview.€€Dr.€œAuble›€concludedÏfrom€those€tests€that€Ms.€Phares€was€a€woman€with€strong€dependency€needs,Ïwho€felt€overwhelmed€by€stress€and€by€continuing€grief€over€the€death€of€herÏparents.€€She€also€found€that€Ms.€Phares€was€very€defensive€about€admitting€toÏfaults€or€weaknesses,€but€found€no€evidence€of€alcohol€or€drug€abuse.ÌÌà àà àDr.€œAuble›ððs€evaluation€did€not€deal€at€all€with€the€question€of€whatÏconstituted€the€standard€of€practice€for€psychological€examiners,€or€whether€Dr.ÏMyatt€had€violated€that€standard€in€preparing€her€own€report.€€Further,€theÏevaluation€was€not€a€sworn€statement,€and€was€not€certified,€as€is€required€byÏTenn.€R.€œCiv›.€P.€56.06.€The€defendant€argues€that€it€was€thus€incompetentÏevidence€as€a€matter€of€law.€ÌÌà àà àPutting€aside€the€question€of€the€competence€of€Dr.€œAuble›ððsÏevaluation€for€the€moment,€it€is€clear€that€either€the€evaluation€or€the€affidavit€ofÏDr.€œKenner›€would€have€been€sufficient€to€raise€a€genuine€issue€of€fact€as€toÏwhether€drug€or€alcohol€abuse€played€a€rule€in€Ms.€Pharesðð€conduct€at€œVanco›ÏManor,€even€if€that€issue€had€not€already€been€raised€by€the€tentative€nature€ofÏDr.€Myattððs€conclusion.€ÌÌà àà àBut€although€that€issue€may€be€of€surpassing€importance€to€Ms.ÏPhares,€it€is€not€material€to€her€claim€against€Dr.€Myatt,€absent€some€proof€that€Dr.ÏMyatt€violated€the€standard€of€practice.€€The€fact€that€Dr.€Myatt€came€to€a€differentÏconclusion€than€did€œanother›€practitioner€is€not€sufficient€to€raise€a€question€ofÏprofessional€malpractice,€so€long€as€Dr.€Myatt€exercised€the€degree€of€careÏnormally€exercised€by€psychological€examiners€in€the€practice€of€their€œprofession.›ÏœòòSeóóe›€òòMethodist€Hospital€v.€Ballóó,€362€S.W.2d€475€(Tenn.€App.€1961);€òò€Lewis€v.€Hillóó,Ï770€S.W.2d€751€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€€There€appears€to€be€no€proof€in€the€recordÏthat€Dr.€Myattððs€actions€deviated€in€any€way€from€the€standards€established€by€herÏprofession.€€ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òIV.€Other€Issuesó óÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€has€asserted€several€other€grounds€for€summaryÏjudgment.€€These€include€the€immunity€from€suit€extended€to€medical€reviewÏcommittees€and€peer€review€committees€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€63„6„219€forÏactions€taken€in€good€faith€and€without€malice;€a€purported€waiver€of€liabilityÏcontained€in€the€release€that€Ms.€Phares€signed€prior€to€being€evaluated€by€Dr.ÏMyatt;€and€the€fact€that€Dr.€Myattððs€report€was€not€actually€furnished€to€the€NursingÏBoard,€and€thus€(defendant€argued)€could€not€be€considered€a€cause€in€fact€ofÏany€injury€suffered€by€Ms.€Phares€as€a€result€of€the€Nursing€Boardððs€action.ÌÌà àà àWe€pretermit€all€these€arguments,€as€they€are€not€necessary€forÏresolution€of€this€case,€once€we€have€determined€that€Ms.€Phares€had€failed€toÏovercome€her€burden€on€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€to€bring€forth€proofÏthat€the€actions€of€Dr.€Myatt€constituted€a€deviation€from€the€standard€of€practiceÏfor€psychological€examiners.€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€has€also€asked€this€court€to€impose€sanctions€on€theÏplaintiff€for€frivolous€appeal€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„1„122.€€After€a€thoroughÏexamination€of€the€record,€we€have€determined€that€this€is€not€an€appropriateÏcase€for€the€imposition€of€such€sanctions.€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òV.ó óÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Remand€this€cause€to€theÏCircuit€Court€of€Davidson€County€for€any€further€proceedings€consistent€with€thisÏopinion.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellant.€€ÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÑ  ÑÔ€¼Ôœ›œ›œ›