ÿWPC ‹„ÓßêÆhÐèN E ”—™r–a »iI`èô@XóÑ5Úßɬ!‡AÙ·î‘K“Ö‘&ÎÕù]µv©N%°ÍQ£õúYŒÙÞ©¸õàcL\†ÎéÄöó$t‹Ã` +{W‚¥Gø63§j\?ÀOY¶ã™\0Ìë±2ßZ· òƒ¾Y;Û{£A¨yýRÑAP>:R´î8Þ«ØF²H!´ÊëÚg–Ó»v.N5ž2ò-h‡Kýreö$ü䀆mÁ³å¹ ¨Dã[m)­›²tÁúœ£h]/¬£p[xJgm^sÇéTCÿ•Êò;’u™÷ãŠí(V˜³òY.Ì£­´©ºŸYWêŠÿ‹)²$N ¯5Ùþ¥HvÅXˆ 6%/,áÔú!h$æDKÝÁ#Få&~”åßãw"¥í¾¯Q<[Èt¶×ºRå:œ0„Ž%÷5±y¡Éº““íAÑÄa6Ñiü×tˆtP$é•ãƒo3t£¾o¹+'äæ:ð×#K%H§Æÿߤýþ¢2”WÅÊè@ߊµ&bó⨈P?K_Á˜bkÃq‡óù4^çt>ut…,µþüÂt”_£ùøVJ#`†ÉïRˆ”Kï¶uØFib#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz 1‡‘ Æ ÆÞ Ƥ Æj 0D0Ntv 0c~Eá 1‡ã 1‡j 1‡ñU%Nx 72Æ 1‡ø 1u 0wô 72kŸL< 0 Šˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆb 0ë B 0¤" D3Æ D-ù 0K&& ASqÆÄ 0¤Š 0D. A«r˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0»³n+â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularm~g+ê:i¢Ø+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|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó (;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(EhCEKQW]cioAutoList2I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.(ehCEKQW]cioAutoList41.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.0ʽCEKQW]cioAutoList51)1)1)1)1)1)1)1)(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(…hCEKQW]cioAutoList6a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#ài) •Ý ƒRkL$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€Xû.X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€The€letter€which€plaintiff€relies€upon€to€create€an€employment€contract€speaks€for€itself,Ð ° Ðand€there€is€no€dispute€that€this€letter€was€signed€by€the€plaintiff,€or€that€there€is€no€dispute€of€factÐ œì Ðas€to€the€contents€of€the€letter€itself. BÝ ƒRkL$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€Xû.X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWilder€was€employed€by€Huffacre€&€Associates,€an€independent€insurance€agency,€whoÐ ° Ðserved€as€an€intermediary€between€PHP„Cariten€and€its€potential€clients.Ð œì Ð(b·¤$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à- ù-(|G2kL$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@4»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X)ÄX»»Ô d(|3ö$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@4»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ö$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@4»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€S<»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼µ¢»»»ÔÑ8€5¬XXdê»»d 8Ñà@¦ ¦ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@””$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ  Ðà@ZZìàAugust€28,€2001€SessionˆÐ Ô$ ÐÔ‡Xû.X»¼µ¢ÔÌò òÔ#†¼µ¢»XXû.¡#ÔÓ  ÓPATRICK€B.€REINSHAGEN,€v.€PHP€COMPANIES,€INC.,€d/b/a€CARITENÐ Ò" ÐHEALTH€PLANS,€CHATTANOOGA„HAMILTON€COUNTY€HOSPITALÐ æ 6 ÐAUTHORITY,€d/b/a€BARONESS€ERLANGER€HOSPITAL,€and€JANETÐ ú J ÐSHOOKòòóóÔ‡Xû.X»¼µ¢Ôó óÐ  ^ ÐÓçÓÌà@tt ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Hamilton€County,€Part€IˆÐ ^  Ðà@ç ç ìàNo.€98„0405€€€€€€Hon.€W.€Frank€Brown,€III,€ChancellorˆÐ úJ  ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àFILED€NOVEMBER€14,€2001Ð Ò"  Ðà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` A߈Ð ¾  ÐÌà@¶¶ìàNo.€E2001„00025„COA„R3„CV€ˆÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á Ðó óÌÌIn€this€action€for€breach€of€employment€contract€and€defamation,€the€Trial€Court€granted€summaryÐ xÈ Ðjudgment€to€defendants.€€Plaintiff€appealed.€€We€affirm.Ð d´ ÐÔ#†¼µ¢»XXû.á#ÔÔ‡Xû.X»¼µ¢ÔÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ <Œ ÐÌòòHerschel€Pickens€FranksÔ#†¼µ¢»àXû.H#ÔÔ‡Xû.X.¼µ¢Ô,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò€Ô#†¼µ¢»àXû.#ÔÔ‡Xû.X.¼µ¢ÔCharles€D.€Susano,Ð d ÐJr.,€J.,óó€andòò€D.€Michael€Swiney,Ô#†¼µ¢»àXû.Š#ÔÔ‡Xû.X.¼µ¢Ô€J.óó,€joined.Ð P ÐÌJohn€P.€Konvalinka€and€J.€Scott€McDearman,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€Appellant,€Patrick€B.Ð Ø( ÐReinshagen.Ð Ä ÐÌDan€D.€Rhea,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€Appellees,€PHP€Companies,€Inc.,€and€Janet€Shook.Ð œ ì ÐÌCarlos€C.€Smith,€J.€Robin€Rogers,€and€Mark€W.€Smith,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€Appellee,Ð t"Ä! ÐChattanooga„Hamilton€County€Hospital€Authority.Ð `#°" ÐÌÌÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼µ¢»XXû.#ÔÔ‡Xû.X»¼µ¢ÔˆÐ '`"& ÐòòÌÌà  àà ` àóóIn€this€action€for€breach€of€employment€contract€and€libel€and€slander,€the€Trial€JudgeÐ Ô)$%) Ðgranted€defendant€summary€judgment.€€Plaintiff€has€appealed.Ð À*&* ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€sued€PHP€Companies,€Inc.€d/b/a€Cariten€Health€Plans€(ð ðCaritenðð),Ð ˜,è', ÐChattanooga„Hamilton€County€Hospital€Authority€d/b/a€Baroness€Erlanger€Hospital€(ð ðErlangerðð),Ð „-Ô(-ý Ðand€Janet€Shook,€and€alleged€that€he€was€employed€by€Cariten€in€December€of€1996€as€a€salesperson,Ð ° Ðand€that€Cariten€was€affiliated€with€Erlanger€ð ðin€either€a€partnership€or€joint€ventureðð.€He€allegedÐ œì Ðhe€was€provided€an€employment€contract,€which€was€breached,€and€that€his€co„workers€underminedÐ ˆØ Ðhis€efforts,€i.e.,€Ms.€Shook€falsely€accused€him€of€unprofessional€behavior,€and€published€these€falseÐ tÄ Ðaccusations€to€Cariten€executives,€all€of€which€resulted€in€his€termination.Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àDefendants€essentially€denied€all€of€plaintiffððs€allegations€(except€that€he€had€beenÐ 8 ˆ Ðterminated).€Erlanger€admitted€that€it€owned€stock€in€PHP,€but€otherwise€denied€or€stated€that€it€hadÐ $ t Ðno€knowledge€regarding€plaintiffððs€allegations.€The€letter€which€plaintiff€alleged€created€anÐ  ` Ðemployment€contract€was€made€a€part€of€the€record€by€Agreed€Order.€€The€letter€is€written€on€theÐ ü L  Ðletterhead€of€LifeForce€Health€Plans,€Inc.,€and€states€that€its€purpose€is€to€spell€out€the€ð ðbasicsðð€ofÐ è 8  Ðplaintiffððs€relationship€with€Cariten€Health€Plans.€€The€letter€is€dated€December€16,€1996,€and€states€Ð Ô$  Ðplaintiff€will€be€an€employee€of€Cariten,€in€the€division€known€as€LifeForce.€€The€letter€further€statesÐ À  Ðthat€plaintiff€would€be€responsible€for€selling€ð ðCompForceðð€products,€and€that€plaintiff€would€reportÐ ¬ü  Ðto€the€lead€marketing€person€when€one€was€in€place.€€€The€letter€states€plaintiffððs€salary€for€the€firstÐ ˜è  Ðyear€would€be€$42,000.00,€and€for€the€second€year€it€would€be€$40,000.00,€which€would€be€reviewedÐ „Ô  Ðannually€thereafter.€€The€letter€further€states€that€plaintiff€would€be€paid€incentive€compensation€forÐ pÀ Ðeach€new€customer,€as€well€as€for€the€sale€of€ð ðnon€workersðð€compensation€clinical€servicesðð,€and€thatÐ \¬ Ðsuch€incentive€compensation€would€be€paid€quarterly.€€Cariten€would€retain€the€right€to€change€theÐ H˜ Ðð ðarrangementsðð€at€any€time.€€The€letter€was€signed€by€John€Barnes,€Chief€Operating€Officer€ofÐ 4„ ÐLifeForce,€the€Chattanooga€Division€of€Cariten€Health€Plans.€€The€letter€also€bears€the€signature€ofÐ  p Ðthe€plaintiff.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€exhibits€to€defendantsðð€Motions€for€Summary€Judgment,€one€exhibit€was€aÐ ä4 Ðstatement€signed€by€plaintiff,€dated€December€16,€1996,€acknowledging€receipt€of€the€PHP€employeeÐ Ð  Ðhandbook,€which€recites€plaintiff€understands€that€his€employment€is€terminable€at€will€and€that€thereÐ ¼  Ðis€no€employment€contract.€€The€Acknowledgment€also€states€that€no€contract€other€than€ð ðat„willððÐ ¨ø Ðhas€been€expressed€or€implied,€and€nothing€will€alter€the€at„will€relationship.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` à€Also€filed€was€the€Affidavit€of€Janet€Shook,€which€states€that€she€was€Director€ofÐ l¼ ÐCommercial€Business€Development,€and€was€plaintiffððs€supervisor.€€She€stated€that€plaintiffððs€jobÐ X ¨ Ðwas€to€sell€workersðð€compensation€claims€management€services,€and€that€she€wrote€a€ð ðseries€ofÐ D!” Ðmemorandaðð€to€plaintiff€criticizing€various€aspects€of€his€job€performance€from€September€30,€1997Ð 0"€  Ðto€October€29,€1997,€and€that€she€gave€copies€of€these€to€her€supervisor,€Lance€Marshall,€and€theÐ #l! Ðpersonnel€manager.€€She€further€stated€that€she€received€a€complaint€in€January€of€1998€fromÐ $X" ÐFederated€Insurance€Company€regarding€the€plaintiff,€and€that€she€and€Mr.€Marshall€jointlyÐ ô$D # Ðrecommended€to€PHP„Caritenððs€home€office€that€the€plaintiff€be€terminated.€€€Lance€MarshallððsÐ à%0!$ ÐAffidavit€states€that€he€was€the€President€of€the€Chattanooga€Division€of€PHP„Cariten,€and€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðplaintiff€was€terminated€in€January€1998€on€his€recommendation€because€of€performance€and€workÐ ¸'#& Ðbehavior€issues.€€He€also€stated€that€PHP€never€received€any€revenue€from€the€sale€of€ð ðnon€workersððÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcompensation€clinical€services.ðð€€Erlanger,€in€its€Motion,€attached€depositions€of€its€officials,€whichÐ )à$( Ðexplained€the€relationship€between€Erlanger€and€Cariten.€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àPlaintiff€filed€a€Response€to€these€Motions,€including€documents€and€excerpts€fromÐ ° Ðdepositions.Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court,€responding€to€the€motions,€issued€a€Memorandum€Opinion€findingÐ tÄ Ðthat€plaintiff€was€an€employee€of€PHP,€which€had€been€asserted€by€affiants€Shook€and€Marshall.€Ð `° ÐFurther,€the€Court€held€that€plaintiff€had€filed€no€affidavit€in€response,€and€since€his€complaint€statedÐ L œ Ðhe€was€an€employee€of€Cariten,€he€was€estopped€from€taking€an€inconsistent€position€at€that€stageÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€the€litigation.€€The€Court€then€held€that€plaintiff€was€an€employee,€terminable€at€will,€and€grantedÐ $ t Ðdefendants€summary€judgment.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àRegarding€the€claim€of€unpaid€commission,€the€Court€denied€summary€judgment,Ð è 8  Ðfinding€that€the€defendants€had€failed€to€prove€that€no€genuine€issue€of€fact€existed.€€The€Court€alsoÐ Ô$  Ðsustained€Shookððs€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment,€finding€that€Shookððs€statements€were€true,€andÐ À  Ðfurther€there€was€no€publication€because€the€statements€were€only€communicated€to€ShookððsÐ ¬ü  Ðsuperiors€with€the€company.€€In€so€finding,€the€Court€recognized€that€plaintiff€had€raised€otherÐ ˜è  Ðinstances€of€alleged€defamation,€but€found€that€they€had€not€been€plead€in€the€complaint,€and€furtherÐ „Ô  Ðthat€the€statements€were€also€true.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àSubsequently,€plaintiff€€filed€a€Motion€to€Alter€or€Amend,€or€for€Interlocutory€Appeal,Ð H˜ Ðand€attached€an€Affidavit€which€states€that€Barnes€told€him€he€was€an€Erlanger€employee€evenÐ 4„ Ðthough€the€documents€said€Cariten,€and€further€that€the€documents€plaintiff€signed€were€supposedÐ  p Ðto€be€for€insurance€purposes€only.€€He€also€attached€an€affidavit€of€Michael€Mahn,€which€states€thatÐ  \ Ðhe€had€been€the€vice€president€of€Erlanger€during€the€time€plaintiff€was€hired€by€Erlanger€to€sellÐ øH ÐErlanger€products€through€an€Erlanger„controlled€company€called€LifeForce.€€Mahn€stated€thatÐ ä4 ÐErlanger€had€a€90%€equity€interest€in€Cariten,€and€that€plaintiff€was€always€professional€andÐ Ð  Ðcourteous€in€his€job.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àErlanger€filed€a€Motion€to€Strike€the€affidavits,€and€attached€excerpts€from€plaintiffððsÐ ”ä Ðdeposition€which€contradicted€plaintiffððs€affidavit,€i.e.,€plaintiff€had€testified€in€his€deposition€thatÐ €Ð Ðhe€was€an€employee€of€Cariten,€and€was€never€employed€by€Erlanger.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€then€entered€a€Memorandum€Opinion€and€Order€reaffirming€its€priorÐ D!” Ðdecision,€and€making€the€grant€of€the€partial€summary€judgment€a€final€order,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.Ð 0"€  ÐCiv.€P.€Rule€54.02.€€The€Court,€in€denying€the€Motion€to€Strike€the€affidavits,€determined€that€theyÐ #l! Ðwere€not€part€of€the€Courtððs€record.€€Plaintiff€thereafter€filed€the€affidavits,€and€filed€a€Notice€ofÐ $X" ÐAppeal.€€Approximately€one€month€after€plaintiff€filed€his€Notice€of€Appeal,€the€Court€entered€aÐ ô$D # ÐMemorandum€Opinion€(but€not€an€Order)€discussing€the€then€recent€Supreme€Court€opinion€ofÐ à%0!$ ÐòòHarris€v.€Chernóó,€33€S.W.3d€741€(Tenn.€2000),€and€stating€that€the€opinion€would€not€change€theÐ Ì&"% Ðresult€reached€by€the€court.€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€the€outset,€we€are€required€to€determine€whether€the€affidavits€attached€toÐ )à$( Ðplaintiffððs€Motion€to€Alter€or€Reconsider€were€properly€before€the€Trial€Court.€€Local€Rule€7.01€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€ò òó óHamilton€County€Chancery€Court€states€that€documents€which€are€ð ðlodged,€such€as€briefs,€areÐ h+¸&* Ðstamped€ð ðReceivedðð€and€are€placed€in€the€court€file€but€do€not€become€part€of€the€record.ðð€€The€briefÐ ° Ðto€which€these€affidavits€were€attached€is€stamped€ð ðlodged.ðð€€Ð œì Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àWe€believe€the€Supreme€Courtððs€opinion€in€òòHarrisóó€controls€whether€the€evidenceÐ tÄ Ðcontained€in€the€affidavits€should€have€been€considered€by€the€Trial€Court.Ô#†¼µ¢»XXû.S #ÔÔ‡Xû.X»¼µ¢Ôò òÐ `° ÐÌà  àà ` àó óIn€òòHarrisóó,€the€Supreme€Court€was€asked€to€determine€the€standard€to€be€applied€whenÐ 8 ˆ Ðruling€on€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€Rule€54.02€motion€to€amend€a€grant€of€partial€summary€judgment,€basedÐ $ t Ðupon€evidence€other€than€that€which€the€court€had€before€it€when€the€summary€judgment€wasÐ  ` Ðgranted.€òòóóThe€òòHarrisóó€Court€adopted€a€test€which€asked€the€court€to€consider€the€following€factors:Ð ü L  ÐÌÓ€ (ʽ83Óà0  àà0` (#(#à1)à0¸ ` (#` (#àthe€movantððs€efforts€to€obtain€evidence€to€respond€to€the€motion€for€summaryÐ Ô$  Ðjudgment;ÐÀ ¸ (#¸ (# ÐØ! !ØÝ"‚"·¤"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚"·¤¿3Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2ʽÔÚ  Ú2Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  Ýthe€importance€of€the€newly€submitted€evidence€to€the€movantððs€case;݃"·¤¿3ì3݌Ьü ¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚"·¤"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚"·¤÷4Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2ʽÔÚ  Ú3Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  Ýthe€explanation€offered€by€the€movant€for€its€failure€to€offer€the€newlyÐ ˜è  Ðsubmitted€evidence€in€its€initial€response€to€the€motion€for€summaryÐ „Ô  Ðjudgment;݃"·¤÷4$5ÝŒÐpÀ¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚"·¤"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚"·¤§6Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2ʽÔÚ  Ú4Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  Ýthe€likelihood€that€the€nonmoving€party€will€suffer€unfair€prejudice;€and݃"·¤§6Ô6ÝŒÐ\¬¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚"·¤"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚"·¤á7Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2ʽÔÚ  Ú5Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  Ýany€other€relevant€factor.€€Ýƒ"·¤á78ÝŒÐH˜¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝòòóóÌà  àà ` àThus,€the€Court€ruled€the€evidence€did€not€have€to€be€ð ðnewly€discoveredðð€as€had€beenÐ  p Ðrequired€in€the€past.€€òòIdóó.€€The€Court€also€stated€that€the€standard€of€review€of€a€trial€courtððs€ruling€onÐ  \ Ðthese€issues€was€an€abuse€of€discretion€standard.€Ð øH ÐÌà  àà ` àUnder€this€standard,€we€believe€the€Trial€Court€was€correct€in€refusing€to€alter€itsÐ Ð  Ðgrant€of€partial€summary€judgment.€€€Plaintiff€had€responded€to€the€summary€judgment€motions€filedÐ ¼  Ðby€the€defendants€by€attaching€some€deposition€excerpts€and€other€documents€as€evidence€in€supportÐ ¨ø Ðof€his€response,€but€did€not€file€any€affidavits€with€his€response.€€Also,€he€has€not€provided€anyÐ ”ä Ðexplanation€of€the€efforts€he€made€in€order€to€obtain€the€evidence€needed€to€respond€to€the€summaryÐ €Ð Ðjudgment€motion,€nor€does€he€explain€why€he€did€not€offer€the€newly€submitted€information€in€hisÐ l¼ Ðinitial€response.€€Obviously,€the€plaintiff€could€have€filed€his€own€affidavit€at€any€time,€and€he€didÐ X ¨ Ðnot€show€that€Mahn€was€unavailable€to€give€his€affidavit€previously.€€These€affidavits€raise€factsÐ D!” Ðwhich€could€have€and€should€have€been€provided€earlier,€and€attempt€to€create€new€factual€issuesÐ 0"€  Ðin€order€to€avoid€summary€judgment.€€We€hold€that€the€Trial€Court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€inÐ #l! Ðfailing€to€alter€its€previous€partial€summary€judgment€based€upon€the€late„tendered€affidavits.€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€parties€moving€for€a€summary€judgment€have€the€burden€of€establishing€thereÐ à%0!$ Ðis€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact,€and€that€they€are€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€òòByrd€Ð Ì&"% Ðv.€Hall,óó€847€S.W.2d€208,€211(Tenn.€1993).€€This€may€be€accomplished€by€either€negating€a€criticalÐ ¸'#& Ðelement€of€the€other€partyððs€case,€or€by€establishing€an€affirmative€defense.€€òòId.€€óóThe€burden€thenÐ ¤(ô#' Ðshifts€to€the€non„moving€party€to€show€there€is€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€for€trial,€by€affidavitÐ )à$( Ðor€otherwise.€òòIdóó.€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€Rule€56.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àOur€review€of€the€evidence€submitted€on€the€Summary€Judgment€Motions€revealsÐ ° Ðthere€is€arguably€some€dispute€as€to€who€employed€plaintiff,€whether€it€be€Erlanger,€Cariten,€or€someÐ œì Ðcombination€of€the€two.€€The€issue€thus€becomes€whether€this€disputed€fact,€is€material.€€InÐ ˆØ Ðdetermining€whether€disputed€facts€are€material,€the€Supreme€Court€has€mandated€that€ð ðthe€courtÐ tÄ Ðmust€examine€the€elements€of€the€claim€or€defense€at€issue€in€the€motion€to€determine€whether€theÐ `° Ðresolution€of€that€fact€will€effect€the€disposition€of€any€of€those€claims€or€defenses.ðð€€ò òó óòòByrdóó€at€215Ð L œ Ð(Tenn.€1993).€€Plaintiff€claimed€that€his€termination€constituted€a€breach€of€the€employment€contractÐ 8 ˆ Ðhe€had€with€defendants.€€The€defendants€claim€that€there€was€no€employment€contract.€€Thus,€theÐ $ t Ðissue€of€which€defendant€was€actually€plaintiffððs€employer€is€not€material€to€the€ultimate€issue,€i.e.Ð  ` Ðwhether€the€plaintiff€had€an€employment€contract€which€was€breached,€or€whether€his€employmentÐ ü L  Ðwas€terminable€at€will.€€This€issue,€is€not€an€issue€of€fact,€but€rather€a€question€of€law.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð è 8  Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àIn€this€jurisdiction,€there€is€a€presumption€that€an€employment€relationship€is€at€will,Ð À  Ðunless€proven€otherwise.€€òòRose€v.€Tipton€Countyóó,€953€S.W.2d€690€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€€In€orderÐ ¬ü  Ðto€show€there€is€an€employment€contract,€the€employer€must€use€specific€language€which€guaranteesÐ ˜è  Ðemployment€for€a€definite€term.€€òòLoeffler€v.€Kjellgrenóó,€884€S.W.2d€463€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994).€€ThisÐ „Ô  ÐCourt€has€previously€said€that€ð ðan€enforceable€contract€must€result€from€a€meeting€of€the€minds€ofÐ pÀ Ðthe€parties€and€must€be€sufficiently€definite€to€be€enforced.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€468.Ð \¬ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àIn€òòLoeffler,óó€we€found€that€a€letter€similar€to€the€one€relied€upon€by€plaintiff,€did€notÐ 4„ Ðcreate€an€employment€contract.€€In€that€case,€the€letter€stated:€€Ð  p ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àThis€letter€will€confirm€my€interest€in€employing€your€services€to€establish€and€runÐ øH Ða€plastic€company€(splash€guards).€€Ðä4` (#` (# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àAs€you€requested,€I€have€outlined€your€expectations€for€compensation:ÐÐ ` (#` (# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#à€1)€€First€year€salary€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€$45,000.00м ` (#` (# Ѐà0  àà0` (#(#à2)€€Second€year€salary€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€$50,000.00Шø` (#` (# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#à€3)€€Participation€in€group€insurance€plan€provided€by€Fleetline.€€Ð”ä` (#` (# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#à€4)€€Reimbursement€for€relocation€to€Tennessee.€€Ð€Ð` (#` (# Ѐà0  àà0` (#(#à5)€€After€working€for€four€(4)€years,€you€will€be€provided€a€$25,000.00€perÐl¼` (#` (# Ѐ€€€€€€à0  àà0` (#(#àyear€for€four€(4)€years€for€consulting€fees.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÐX ¨` (#` (# ÐÔ#†¼µ¢»XXû.20#ÔÔ‡Xû.X»¼µ¢ÔÌThanking€you,€in€advance,€and€hoping€to€hear€from€you€in€the€very€near€future,€I€remain,Ð 0"€  ÐÌYours€very€truly,Ð $X" ÐFred€M.€KjellgrenÐ ô$D # ÐPresidentÐ à%0!$ ÐÌòòà  àà ` àóóThis€Court€stated€that€the€ð ðletter€simply€set€forth€what€plaintiff€could€expect€to€earnÐ ¸'#& Ðby€way€of€compensation€if€he€continued€to€work€for€Fleetline;€€there€is€no€guarantee€of€employmentÐ ° Ðfor€a€definite€term.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€Ð œì Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àSimilarly,€in€this€case,€the€letter€which€plaintiff€relies€upon€simply€sets€forth€his€salaryÐ tÄ Ðfor€the€first€year,€and€that€it€would€be€reduced€in€the€second€year,€and€outlines€other€benefits.€€TheÐ `° Ðletter€does€not€contain€specific€and€definite€language€such€as€to€create€an€enforceable€contract€forÐ L œ Ða€definite€term.€€Moreover,€the€acknowledgment€signed€by€the€plaintiff€contemporaneously€with€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðletter€he€relies€upon€clearly€states€that€plaintiffððs€employment€was€at€will.€€€Since€plaintiffððsÐ $ t Ðemployment€was€at€will,€he€could€be€terminated€at€any€time€by€any€party€for€any€cause€or€no€cause,Ð  ` Ðand€we€affirm€the€Trial€Judgeððs€holding€on€this€issue.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€also€takes€issue€with€the€Trial€Courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€on€hisÐ Ô$  Ðdefamation€claims,€arguing€that€there€was€publication,€and€that€the€statements€were€not€true.€€Ð À  Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àà ` àThe€only€facts€pertaining€to€this€issue€which€the€court€had€before€it€when€making€itsÐ ˜è  Ðdetermination€on€summary€judgment€were€those€contained€in€the€Affidavit€of€Ms.€Shook,€the€memosÐ „Ô  Ðfrom€Ms.€Shook€regarding€plaintiffððs€performance€and€other€job€issues,€and€the€transcript€of€theÐ pÀ Ðtelephone€call€Ms.€Shook€and€Mr.€Marshall€made€to€Bill€Wilder.׃!×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€This€evidence€establishes€thatÐ \¬ Ðthe€only€statements€Ms.€Shook€made€to€anyone€outside€PHP€were€those€made€to€Bill€Wilder€in€aÐ H˜ Ðtelephone€call€regarding€the€videotape€interview.€€The€dissemination€of€job€performance€reviews€toÐ 4„ Ðsupervisors€is€not€publication€for€purposes€of€defamation.€€òòSee€Woods€v.€Helmióó,€758€S.W.2d€219Ð  p Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988).Ð  \ ÐÌÔ#†¼µ¢»XXû.÷O#ÔÔ‡Xû.X»¼µ¢Ôà  àà ` àIn€that€phone€call,€Ms.€Shook€told€Mr.€Wilder€that€if€plaintiff€made€the€anonymousÐ ä4 Ðphone€call€to€Wilder,€he€was€acting€totally€inappropriately,€and€when€Wilder€suggested€that€theyÐ Ð  Ðconfront€plaintiff€about€it,€Ms.€Shook€replied€that€she€did€not€think€plaintiff€would€admit€it.€€ThereÐ ¼  Ðis€no€dispute€regarding€these€facts.€€Further,€a€communication€is€capable€of€conveying€a€defamatoryÐ ¨ø Ðmeaning€is€a€question€of€law.€€However,€a€review€of€the€Trial€Courtððs€determination€of€this€is€òòdeÐ ”ä Ðnovoóó.€€òòPate€v.€Service€Merchandise€Co.,€Inc.óó,€959€S.W.2d€569€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1996).€Ð €Ð Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àòòóóMs.€Shookððs€statement€that€plaintiff€acted€inappropriately€if€he€made€the€complainingÐ X ¨ Ðphone€call€to€Wilder€was€not€defamatory,€because€it€was€true.€€The€record€establishes€that€plaintiffÐ D!” Ðsigned€a€confidentiality€agreement€with€PHP€when€he€was€hired,€and€in€that€agreement,€which€isÐ 0"€  Ðquite€broadly€written,€plaintiff€agreed€to€hold€any€information€regarding€PHP€in€confidence.€€Thus,Ð #l! Ðplaintiffððs€act€of€calling€Wilder€and€discussing€information€pertaining€to€PHP€operations€in€any€wayÐ $X" Ðwould€violate€his€agreement,€and€could€€be€viewed€as€inappropriate€behavior.€€The€Trial€CourtððsÐ ô$D # Ðruling€that€this€statement€was€true€is€correct.Ð à%0!$ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àMs.€Shookððs€statement€regarding€whether€plaintiff€would€tell€the€truth€if€confrontedÐ ¸'#& Ðis€also€not€defamatory€because€it€is€clearly€a€statement€of€Ms.€Shookððs€opinion,€and€not€expressedÐ ° Ðas€a€fact.€€This€statement€is€similar€to€the€one€made€in€òòRevisóó,€wherein€this€Court€made€clear€that€mereÐ œì Ðstatements€of€opinion,€with€nothing€more,€cannot€constitute€slander.€€As€òòRevisóó€notes,€such€opinionÐ ˆØ Ðstatements€do€not€ð ðseriously€threatenðð€the€plaintiff's€reputation€or€ð ðhold€him€up€to€public€hatred,Ð tÄ Ðcontempt,€or€ridicule.ðð€There€are€no€other€issues€of€alleged€defamatory€statements€in€the€record€asÐ `° Ðit€existed€prior€to€the€Trial€Courtððs€making€its€decision€on€granting€summary€judgment.€€We€hold€thatÐ L œ Ðthe€plaintiff€failed€to€make€a€prima€facie€showing€of€defamation€in€this€case,€and€defendants€wereÐ 8 ˆ Ðentitled€to€summary€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.Ô#†¼µ¢»XXû.dZ#ÔÔ‡Xû.X»¼µ¢ÔÐ $ t ÐÌÔ#†¼µ¢»XXû.×d#ÔÔ‡Xû.X»¼µ¢Ôà  àà ` àWe€affirm€the€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€and€remand,€with€the€cost€of€the€appealÐ ü L  Ðassessed€to€Patrick€Reinshagen.Ð è 8  ÐÌÌÌÔ#†¼µ¢»XXû./e#ÔÔ‡Xû.X»¼µ¢ÔÌÔ#†¼µ¢»XXû.&f#ÔÔ‡Xû.X»¼µ¢ÔÌÔ#†¼µ¢»XXû.if#ÔÔ‡Xû.X»¼µ¢Ôòòà  àÌà  àà ` àóóÔ#†¼µ¢»XXû.¬f#ÔÔ‡Xû.X»¼µ¢Ôà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_________________________Ð \¬ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àòòHerschel€Pickens€Franks,€J.Ð H˜ ÐÔ#†¼µ¢»àXû.g#ÔÔ‡Xû.X.¼µ¢Ôóó