ÿWPCþ ÛÀ"l‚9åWÆ4I@ö²V¶´áÛß^¶å80Ý—˜±Áó––7|Áy`’u¼)l‹†á•6‚…å’×ÇÙ–åGÎÓNYu'½Bû†xA3f¦ÎDq Û…€ È„MÏ1ÞºkHáõ‡@9ê.&lú¥v5æÛ]6x’OS8ý1£Uì[Âùhà€×µ8;Úý ´;%fzÿ©¢S¦[O?â·œ%— ©ÇÕC9¬“¤ûº¦jXyôc<ãþê.‡qÑêR€Ñ\.´4O¯8 I4'`ºöEi:\Fnd¦òçò u¹§ËÔS&ÃÀ´¨«$3ÇüyŠ(¬ú}ñ¡o)¥ å•8éÓ³‰ßòeÖM_ÛÓ£‘Àj¬Zà$?þ*12B ¢i l‰lpM…χd|5·EÖîzXN `Ñ‹§8}«Ñ’ŒB„îµ4ã¥|/Y5ÚÛþ»p.Ú%åÔÓ"fœÙTt L€*n17Üz̉AXŠk©ªÒ2<œ&h—ÄО~‹Áã¢!H-ÇúAÆÅñ¬û[h1²~‰·€%¥ý Ù=¤Ì Ïà’:9'ý5Y€ó»k¥hM‰Xù°ýDÍUU^²$FL'‘ôb %\U@b 0ˆ¢ 0D*U2Nn 1‡¼ 1uC z¸ Ò2 € ì„ Kp U<»Æ÷ƽƃÆIU NN]U:_ 72™EË 72Í 0cÿ 1‡b 72é 1‡ 72¢ 1‡Ô 72[ 0w 0ŠUNŽ^ ÜwèNì4î m*#Á2222bóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó 0ëûûûû Bææ 0¤ D3§ D-Ú 0K ASRÆ¥ 0¤k 0D A«S»(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(нCEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt vÝ ƒRfš$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô×ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôð ðCryoablationðð€of€the€prostate€is€a€procedure€in€which€a€patient€is€placed€under€general€anesthesia€and€a€probeÐ ° Ðfilled€with€liquid€nitrogen€is€inserted€into€the€patientððs€prostate€to€freeze€and€kill€the€prostate€tissue. âÝ ƒRfš$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô×ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔDr.€Roberts€has€died€since€filing€this€appeal,€and€his€wife,€Rosemary€Roberts,€has€been€substituted. AÝ ƒRfš$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô×ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Mrs.€Robertsððs€suit€is€derivative€for€loss€of€consortium,€companionship,€and€services.€€For€ease€of€reference,Ð ° Ðwe€will€refer€to€the€Plaintiffs€as€Plaintiff€or€Dr.€Roberts.-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT RomanLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularA.i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(š½CEKQW]cioAutoList2A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:(ª½CEKQW]cioAutoList3A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:0нCEKQW]cioAutoList4A:A:A.A:A:A:A:A:A:(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b·¤$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regulart€+L ˜L-(˜C œk2У3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0- ù-(|G2fš$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¤Ô»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô×ò»»Ô d(|3À¡$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¤Ô»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3À¡$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¤Ô»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¤Ô»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼¤Ô»»»ÔÑ8€¾cXXdð»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îï·î»¼¤ÔÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼¤Ô»îîï· #ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  ÓJune€19,€2001€SessionÐ X ÐÔ‡X¾cX»¼¤ÔÔÌò òÔ#†¼¤Ô»XX¾cð#ÔWILLIAM€H.€ROBERTS,€M.D.,€òòet€al.óó€v.€S.€LANE€BICKNELL,€M.D.,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡X¾cX»¼¤ÔÔó óÐ  ` ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òA€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Madison€CountyÐ  h Ðà@@øøìàNo.€C„96„141€€€€€€The€Honorable€Roy€B.€Morgan,€JudgeÐ  X ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<×` AßÐ Ø(  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2000„02514„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€August€16,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ×'  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¶` AßÐ ·  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XãXXX¾cÔà  àIn€this€medical€malpractice€case,€patient€and€wife€sued€physicians€and€their€professionalÐ ¶ Ðassociation€for€damages€resulting€from€defendantsðð€negligence,€deviation€from€applicable€standardÐ ¢ò Ðof€care,€and€lack€of€informed€consent.€€The€trial€court€granted€defendants€a€partial€summaryÐ ŽÞ Ðjudgment€for€all€claims€concerning€incidents€that€occurred€more€than€one€year€prior€to€the€date€suitÐ zÊ Ðwas€filed,€as€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€Subsequently,€the€trial€court€granted€summaryÐ f¶ Ðjudgment€on€the€merits€as€to€all€remaining€claims.€€Plaintiff€appeals.€€We€affirm.Ð R¢ ÐÔ#†X¾cXXXãÞ#ÔÔ#†¼¤Ô»XX¾c„#ÔÔ‡X¾cX»¼¤ÔÔÓÒÓÌò òTenn.R.App.P.€3;€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed€andÐ .~ ÐRemandedó óÐ n ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼¤Ô»àX¾cþ#ÔÔ‡X¾cX.¼¤ÔÔW.€Frank€Crawford,€P.J.,€W.S.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHolly€KirbyÐ þN ÐLillard,€J.óó€and€òòJohn€Franklin€Murchison,€Sp.J.óó,€joined.Ð î> ÐÌOscar€C.€Carr,€III,€Memphis,€For€Appellant,€Rosemary€RobertsÐ Î ÐÌThomas€H.€Rainey,€Marty€R.€Phillips;€Jackson,€For€Appellees,€S.€Lane€Bicknell,€M.D.,€Harvey€C.Ð ® þ ÐHarmon,€M.D.,€Roy€Appleton,€M.D.€and€The€Jackson€Clinic€Professional€AssociationÐ ž!î  ÐÓ¹ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼¤Ô»XX¾cè#ÔÔ‡X¾cX»¼¤ÔÔÐ ~#Î" ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼¤Ô»XX¾c: #ÔÔ‡X¾cX»¼¤ÔÔÓ  Óà  àPlaintiffs,€William€H.€Roberts,€M.D.€and€wife,€Rosemary€Roberts€(hereinafter€Plaintiff€orÐ ^%® $ ÐDr.€Roberts)׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€sued€Defendants,€S.€Lane€Bicknell,€M.D.,€Harvey€C.€Harmon,€M.D.,€Roy€Appleton,Ð N&ž!% ÐM.D.,€and€the€Jackson€Clinic,€Professional€Association€(hereinafter€Dr.€Bicknell,€Dr.€Harmon,€Dr.Ð >'Ž"& ÐAppleton,€and€the€Clinic,€respectively),€for€damages€resulting€from€the€Defendantsðð€negligence€inÐ .(~#' Ðdeviating€from€the€applicable€standard€of€care€in€their€treatment€of€Dr.€Roberts,€and€their€failure€toÐ )n$( Ðhave€Dr.€Robertsððs€informed€consent€to€perform€certain€procedures.€€Defendantsðð€answer€denied€theÐ *^%)ý Ðmaterial€allegations€of€the€complaint€concerning€negligence€and€lack€of€informed€consent€and€furtherÐ ° Ðspecifically€pleaded€Plaintiffððs€action€was€barred€by€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations.Ð  ð ÐÌà  àDr.€Robertsððs€claim€has€its€origin€in€a€procedure€known€as€ð ðcryoablationðð€for€treatment€ofÐ €Ð Ðprostate€cancer׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×.€€In€December€of€1994,€Dr.€Roberts,׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€an€ophthalmologist,€was€diagnosed€withÐ pÀ Ðprostate€cancer.€€After€the€diagnosis,€Dr.€Bicknell€recommended€that€Dr.€Roberts€considerÐ ` ° Ðcryosurgery€as€a€treatment€option.€€Dr.Bicknell€explained€that€Dr.€Roberts€would€be€a€goodÐ P   Ðcandidate€for€the€procedure,€and€that€the€procedure€would€give€Dr.€Roberts€a€chance€for€aÐ @  Ðð ðrelativelyðð€normal€life.€€When€Dr.€Roberts€asked€Dr.€Bicknell€what€the€disadvantages€of€theÐ 0 € Ðprocedure€were,€Dr.€Bicknell€responded€that,€since€the€procedure€was€considered€experimental,€Dr.Ð  p  ÐRobertsðð€insurance€might€not€cover€the€cost.€€However,€Dr.€Bicknell€indicated€that€he€expectedÐ `  Ðinsurance€providers€would€soon€approve€coverage€for€the€procedure.Ð P  ÐÌà  àFollowing€his€diagnosis,€Dr.€Roberts€decided€to€have€his€cancer€treated€by€cryoablation.€€TheÐ à0  Ðrecord€indicates€that€Dr.€Roberts€did€little€or€no€research€on€the€efficacy€of€the€cryoablationÐ Ð  Ðprocedure,€relying€instead€upon€Dr.€Bicknellððs€recommendation€and€informal€conversations€withÐ À Ðother€physicians€with€whom€Dr.€Roberts€had€contact.€€On€December€27,€1994,€Dr.€Bicknell€and€hisÐ ° Ðcolleague,€Dr.€Appleton,€performed€the€procedure€on€Dr.Roberts€at€The€Jackson„Madison€CountyÐ  ð ÐGeneral€Hospital.€€On€December€30,€1994,€Dr.€Roberts€was€discharged€from€the€hospital.Ð à ÐÌà  àThe€day€after€his€hospital€discharge,€Dr.€Roberts€began€to€experience€severe€pain€in€his€rightÐ pÀ Ðthigh.€€Dr.€Bicknell€was€not€available€that€day,€so€Dr.€Roberts€spoke€with€another€urologist€at€theÐ `° ÐJackson€Clinic,€who€prescribed€some€medication.€€On€January€5,€1995,€Dr.€Roberts€began€to€noticeÐ P  Ðair€coming€out€of€his€penis,€and€he€called€Dr.€Bicknell€and€told€him€about€his€problem.€€He€met€Dr.Ð @ ÐBicknell€at€the€Clinic€and,€after€some€tests,€Dr.€Bicknell€told€him€that€there€appeared€to€be€someÐ 0€ Ðrectal€damage.€€Dr.€Bicknell€re„admitted€Dr.€Roberts€to€the€hospital€on€January€6,€1995,€and€referredÐ  p Ðhim€to€a€surgeon,€Defendant,€Dr.€Harmon,€for€further€tests.€€During€the€hospital€stay€and€prior€to€anÐ ` Ðoperation€on€January€9,€1995,€he€started€passing€feces€through€his€penis€and€urine€through€hisÐ P Ðrectum.Ð ð@ ÐÌà  àAt€some€point€during€Dr.€Robertððs€second€hospitalization,€it€became€clear€that€he€hadÐ Ð  Ðdeveloped€a€ð ðurethrorectal€fistulaðð:€a€hole€between€his€urethra€and€rectum.€€Dr.€HarmonÐ À! Ðrecommended€a€temporary€colostomy€to€bypass€the€fistula€and€allow€it€to€heal€on€its€own.€€TheÐ °"  Ðrecord€indicates€that€Drs.€Bicknell€and€Appleton€approved€of€this€course€of€treatment€and€assuredÐ  #ð! ÐDr.€Roberts€that€the€fistula€would€heal€without€surgery.€€Following€the€colostomy€surgery,€Dr.Ð $à" ÐRoberts€was€re„admitted€to€the€hospital€in€February€of€1995,€and€again€in€June€of€1995.€€Dr.€RobertsÐ €%Ð # Ðâ âalso€suffered€numerous€complications,€including€recurring€urinary€tract€infections,€yeast€infections,Ð p&À!$ Ðbleeding€into€the€suprapubic€tube€and€catheter€which€were€left€in€his€body€following€surgery,€andÐ ° Ða€deep€vein€thrombosis€in€his€left€leg.Ð  ð Ðâ âÌà  àDuring€his€June€hospital€stay,€Dr.€Harmon€advised€Dr.€Roberts€that€he€believed€the€fistulaÐ €Ð Ðhad€healed,€and€that€the€colostomy€should€be€reversed.€€At€that€time,€Dr.€Roberts€told€Dr.€HarmonÐ pÀ Ðthat€if€the€fistula€had€not€healed,€he€ð ðwould€prefer€to€have€another€physician€deal€with€[his]€medicalÐ ` ° Ðproblems€because€[he]€had€lost€confidence€in€the€urology€department€at€The€Jackson€Clinic.ðð€€InÐ P   Ðspite€of€this€request,€on€June€23,€1995,€Dr.€Harmon€attempted€to€repair€the€fistula€and€reversed€theÐ @  Ðcolostomy.€€Within€two€days€of€the€operation,€Dr.€Roberts€again€noticed€fecal€material€in€his€urineÐ 0 € Ðand€urine€coming€through€his€rectum.€€Dr.€Harmon€was€forced€to€perform€an€emergency€colostomyÐ  p  Ðon€Dr.€Roberts.€€At€his€familyððs€insistence,€Dr.€Roberts€was€transferred€to€Vanderbilt€UniversityÐ `  ÐHospital€in€Nashville,€where€Dr.€Joseph€Smith€surgically€repaired€the€urethrorectal€fistula.€€Later,Ð P  Ðthe€second€colostomy€was€reversed,€Dr.€Roberts€had€to€have€14€ðð€inches€of€his€colon€removed,€andÐ ð@  Ðseveral€hernias€at€the€site€of€the€colostomies€repaired.Ð à0  ÐÌà  àOn€April€22,€1996,€Dr.€Roberts€and€his€wife€filed€this€action€for€damages€in€Madison€CountyÐ À ÐCircuit€Court,€alleging€negligence,€failure€to€give€or€obtain€informed€consent,€and€deviation€fromÐ ° Ðthe€applicable€standard€of€care€against€Drs.€Bicknell,€Appleton,€Harmon,€and€The€Jackson€Clinic.€Ð  ð ÐOn€January€12,€1998,€the€trial€court€granted€a€Motion€for€Protective€Order€filed€by€non„partyÐ à ÐJackson„Madison€County€General€Hospital€District€which€prevented€Plaintiff€from€discoveringÐ €Ð Ðcertain€documents€deemed€privileged€information€under€T.C.A.€ðð€63„6„219.€Defendants€filed€aÐ pÀ ÐMotion€for€Partial€Summary€Judgment,€alleging€that€the€statute€of€limitations€for€medicalÐ `° Ðmalpractice,€codified€at€T.C.A.€ðð€29„26„116(a)(1),€barred€Plaintiffððs€claims€occurring€before€AprilÐ P  Ð22,€1995.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€motion€on€July€14,€1998€and€Plaintiffððs€motion€to€alter€orÐ @ Ðamend€the€judgment€was€denied.€€This€Court€also€denied€Plaintiffððs€application€for€interlocutoryÐ 0€ Ðappeal.Ð  p ÐÌà  àOn€September€15,€2000,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€granting€Defendantsðð€motion€forÐ P Ðsummary€judgment€filed€on€February€29,€1997,€but€which€was€deferred€pending€DefendantsððÐ ð@ Ðdepositions.€€In€the€Order,€the€trial€court€found€that€Plaintiffððs€only€expert€witness,€Dr.€David€NigelÐ à0 ÐArmstrong€(ð ðDr.€Armstrongðð),€was€not€competent€to€testify€as€to€the€applicable€standard€of€care,€andÐ Ð  Ðdismissed€all€Plaintiffððs€remaining€claims.€€Ð À! ÐÌà  àPlaintiff€has€appealed€and€presents€three€issues€for€review:€€(1)€Whether€the€trial€court€erredÐ  #ð! Ðin€finding€the€statute€of€limitations€barred€Plaintiffððs€claims€occurring€before€April€22,€1995;Ð $à" Ð(2)Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€summary€judgment€to€Dr.€Harmon€because€of€the€trialÐ €%Ð # Ðcourtððs€disqualification€of€Plaintiffððs€expert,€Dr.€Armstrong;€and€(3)€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ p&À!$ Ðgranting€Jackson„Madison€County€General€Hospitalððs€Motion€for€a€Protective€Order€barringÐ `'°"% Ðdiscovery€of€documents€from€the€Institutional€Review€Board.€€Ð P( #& ÐÌò òòòó óóóÔ‡ X¾cXXX¾cÔà  àÔ#†X¾cXX X¾c¶-#ÔÔ‡XãXXX¾cÔA€motion€for€summary€judgment€should€be€granted€when€the€movant€demonstrates€that€thereÐ 0*€%( Ðare€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matterÐ +l&) Ðof€law.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.04.€€The€party€moving€for€summary€judgment€bears€the€burden€ofÐ ,X'* Ðdemonstrating€that€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists.€€ò òòòSee€Bain€v.€Wellsó óóó,€936€S.W.2d€618,€622Ð ° Ð(Tenn.€1997).€€On€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€court€must€take€the€strongest€legitimate€viewÐ œì Ðof€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€thatÐ ˆØ Ðparty,€and€discard€all€countervailing€evidence.€€ò òòòSee€id.ó óóó€€In€ò òòòByrd€v.€Halló óóó,€847€S.W.2d€208€(Tenn.Ð tÄ Ð1993),€our€Supreme€Court€stated:Ð `° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àOnce€it€is€shown€by€the€moving€party€that€there€is€no€genuine€issueÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€material€fact,€the€nonmoving€party€must€then€demonstrate,€byÐ $ t Ðaffidavits€or€discovery€materials,€that€there€is€a€genuine,€material€factÐ  ` Ðdispute€to€warrant€a€trial.€€In€this€regard,€Rule€56.05€[now€Rule€56.06]Ð ü L  Ðprovides€that€the€nonmoving€party€cannot€simply€rely€upon€hisÐ è 8  Ðpleadings€but€must€set€forth€òòspecific€factsóó€showing€that€there€is€aÐ Ô$  Ðgenuine€issue€of€material€fact€for€trial.ÐÀ ` x` x Ðò òòòÌÓÓId.ó óóó€at€211€(citations€omitted)€(emphasis€in€original).Ð ”ä  ÐÓÓà  àSummary€judgment€is€only€appropriate€when€the€facts€and€the€legal€conclusions€drawn€fromÐ l¼ Ðthe€facts€reasonably€permit€only€one€conclusion.€€ò òòòSee€Carvell€v.€Bottomsó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.Ð X¨ Ð1995).€€Since€only€questions€of€law€are€involved,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€regardingÐ D” Ða€trial€court's€grant€of€summary€judgment.€€ò òòòSee€Bainó óóó,€936€S.W.2d€at€622.€€Therefore,€our€review€ofÐ 0€ Ðthe€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€is€ò òòòde€novoó óóó€on€the€record€before€this€Court.€€ò òòòSee€WarrenÐ l Ðv.€Estate€of€Kirkó óóó,€954€S.W.2d€722,€723€(Tenn.€1997).Ô#†X¾cXXXã.#ÔÔ‡ X¾cXXX¾cÔòòò òÐ X ÐÌÔ#†X¾cXX X¾cš7#Ôóóó óÔ‡XãXXX¾cÔà  àPlaintiffððs€first€issue€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€summary€judgment€for€all€Ð ä4 Ðclaims€occurring€prior€to€April€22,€1995.€€Dr.€Robertsððs€suit€was€filed€April€22,€1996,€and€his€claimsÐ Ð  Ðaffected€by€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€include€his€action€against€Drs.€Bicknell€and€Appleton€based€onÐ ¼  Ðlack€of€informed€consent€and€negligence€in€rendering€medical€services.€€Both€of€these€causes€ofÐ ¨ø Ðaction€are€subject€to€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations€in€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€Ô#†X¾cXXXãþ7#ÔÔ‡XF‡XXX¾cÔððÔ#†X¾cXXXF‡“:#ÔÔ‡XãXXX¾cÔ€29„26„116€(2000),€which€statesÐ ”ä Ðin€pertinent€part:€Ð €Ð ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(a)(1)€The€statute€of€limitations€in€malpractice€actions€shall€be€one€(1)Ð X ¨ Ðyear€as€set€forth€in€Ô#†X¾cXXXãÙ:#ÔÔ‡XF‡XXX¾cÔððÔ#†X¾cXXXF‡ <#ÔÔ‡XãXXX¾cÔ€28„3„104.ÐD!”` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)€In€the€event€the€alleged€injury€is€not€discovered€within€such€oneÐ #l! Ð(1)€year€period,€the€period€of€limitation€shall€be€one€(1)€year€from€theÐ $X" Ðdate€of€such€discovery.Ðô$D #` x` x ÐÌUnder€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€Ô#†X¾cXXXãQ<#ÔÔ‡XF‡XXX¾cÔððÔ#†X¾cXXXF‡ø=#ÔÔ‡XãXXX¾cÔ€29„26„116€(a)(2),€the€statute€of€limitations€commences€to€run€when€the€patientÐ Ì&"% Ðð ðdiscovered,€or€reasonably€should€have€discovered€(1)€the€occasion,€the€manner,€and€the€means€byÐ ¸'#& Ðwhich€a€breach€of€duty€occurred€that€produced€injuries€and€(2)€the€identity€of€the€defendant€whoÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbreached€the€duty.ðð€€òòò òFoster€v.€Harrisó óóó,€633€S.W.2d€304,€305€(Tenn.€1982)Ô#†X¾cXXXã>>#ÔÔ‡XãXXX¾cÔ;€ò òòòseeóóó ó€ò òòòStanbury€v.€Bacardió óóó,Ð )à$( Ð953€S.W.2d€671,€677€(Tenn.€1997)ò òòòó óóó.€€In€ò òòòShadrick€v.€Cokeró óóó,€963€S.W.2d€726€(Tenn.€1998),€the€CourtÐ |*Ì%) Ðsaid:€Ð h+¸&* Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€plaintiff€may€not,€however,€delay€filing€suit€until€all€theÐ ° Ðinjurious€effects€and€consequences€of€the€alleged€wrong€are€actuallyÐ œì Ðknown€to€the€plaintiff.€€ò òòòWyatt€v.€A„Best€Companyó óóó,€910€S.W.2d€851,Ð ˆØ Ð855€(Tenn.€1995).€€Similarly,€the€statute€of€limitations€is€not€tolledÐ tÄ Ðuntil€the€plaintiff€actually€knows€the€ð ðspecific€type€of€legal€claim€heÐ `° Ðor€she€has,ðð€ò òòòStanburyó óóó,€at€672,€or€that€ð ðthe€injury€constitute[d]€aÐ L œ Ðbreach€of€the€appropriate€legal€standard,ðð€ò òòòRoe€v.€Jeffersonó óóó,€875Ð 8 ˆ ÐS.W.2d€653,€657€(Tenn.€1994).€€Rather,€as€we€have€recentlyÐ $ t Ðemphasized,€the€statute€of€limitations€begins€to€run€when€the€plaintiffÐ  ` Ðknows€or€in€the€exercise€of€reasonable€care€and€diligence€shouldÐ ü L  Ðknow€that€an€injury€has€been€sustained€as€a€result€of€wrongful€orÐ è 8  Ðtortious€conduct€by€the€defendant.€€ò òòòStanburyó óóó,€at€677;€ò òòòsee€also€Roeó óóó,Ð Ô$  Ð875€S.W.2d€at€657€(ð ð[T]he€plaintiff€is€deemed€to€have€discovered€theÐ À  Ðright€of€action€if€he€is€aware€of€facts€sufficient€to€put€a€reasonableÐ ¬ü  Ðperson€on€notice€that€he€has€suffered€an€injury€as€a€result€of€wrongfulÐ ˜è  Ðconduct.ðð).€€ð ðIt€is€knowledge€of€facts€sufficient€to€put€a€plaintiff€onÐ „Ô  Ðnotice€that€an€injury€has€been€sustained€which€is€crucial.ðð€€ò òòòStanburyó óóó,Ð pÀ Ðat€678.€€Such€knowledge€includes€not€only€an€awareness€of€the€injury,Ð \¬ Ðbut€also€the€tortious€origin€or€wrongful€nature€of€that€injury.Ð H˜ Ðò òòòHathaway€v.€Middle€Tennessee€Anesthesiologyó óóó,ò òòò€P.C.ó óóó,€724€S.W.2dÐ 4„ Ð355,€359€(Tenn.€App.€1986).Ð p` x` x ÐÌÓÓò òòòId.ó óóó€at€733„34.Ð øH ÐÓÓà  àPlaintiff€asserts€that€the€statute€of€limitations€should€only€begin€to€run€when€Dr.€RobertsÐ Ð  Ðbecame€aware€of€the€tortious€origin€of€his€injuries€and€notes€Defendantsðð€answer,€in€whichÐ ¼  ÐDefendants€admit€that€ð ðDr.€Roberts€was€not€informed€that€the€fistula€could€be€result€of€medicalÐ ¨ø Ðnegligence€.€.€.€.ðð€€The€record€establishes€that€by€January€9,€1995,€Dr.€Roberts€not€only€noticed€airÐ ”ä Ðcoming€out€of€his€penis,€but€he€noticed€feces€in€his€urine,€was€passing€urine€through€his€rectum,€andÐ €Ð Ðwas€experiencing€severe€pain€in€his€leg.€€He€admits€he€knew€something€was€wrong,€and€he€knew€thatÐ l¼ Ðhe€had€not€been€informed€prior€to€the€surgery€that€such€conditions€could€or€might€occur.€€Dr.Ð X ¨ ÐRoberts,€an€ophthalmologist€by€training,€testified€by€deposition€that€he€knew€that€a€fistula€was€aÐ D!” Ðð ðabnormal€communication€between€two€internal€organs,ðð€although€he€noted€that€in€his€practice€heÐ 0"€  Ðdid€not€deal€with€that€particular€type€of€fistula.€€Dr.€Roberts€also€testified€that:Ð #l! ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àI€know€a€little€bit€about€the€basic€principles€of€medicine;€and€whenÐ ô$D # Ðyou€have€urine€coming€out€of€the€rectum€and€feces€coming€out€of€theÐ à%0!$ Ðpenis,€you€have€to€have€a€hole€of€some€kind€there.ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌClearly,€Dr.€Roberts€knew€for€a€year€before€his€suit€was€filed€that€when€he€gave€his€consent€for€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsurgery,€he€had€not€been€informed€of€anything€approaching€the€complications€that€he€encountered.€Ð )à$( ÐBy€the€same€token,€he€was€aware€that€there€was€an€unusual€and€unexpected€condition€and,€at€the€veryÐ |*Ì%) Ðleast,€was€put€on€inquiry€that€some€wrongful€conduct€had€caused€this€condition.Ð h+¸&* Їòòóóòòò òóóó óà  àPlaintiff€argues€that€the€statute€of€limitations€should€not€begin€to€run€until€the€DefendantsððÐ ° Ðdoctor„patient€relationship€with€Dr.€Roberts€terminated,€because€Defendants€continuouslyÐ œì Ðrepresented€to€Dr.€Roberts€that€the€fistula€would€heal€by€itself.€€Because€of€these€continuingÐ ˆØ Ðrepresentations€and€assurances,€Plaintiff€asserts€that€Dr.€Roberts€could€not€have€known€of€theÐ tÄ Ðtortious€origin€of€his€injuries€until€after€the€court„imposed€date€of€discovery€of€April€22,€1995.€€WeÐ `° Ðdisagree.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àFirst,€this€theory€cannot€apply€to€Dr.€Robertððs€lack€of€informed€consent€claim.€€A€lack€ofÐ $ t Ðinformed€consent€claim,€by€its€very€nature,€arises€when€an€individual€becomes€aware€of€the€fact€thatÐ  ` Ðhis€physicians€did€not€disclose€some€risk€or€complication.€€òòò ò€See€Church€v.€Peralesóóó ó,€No.€M19997„Ð ü L  Ð00227„COA„RS„CV,€2000€WL€1183074,€at€*6€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).€€In€this€case,€when€Dr.Ð è 8  ÐRoberts€discovered€that€he€had€a€ð ðhole€of€some€kind,ðð€he€had€knowledge€of€a€symptom€orÐ Ô$  Ðcomplication€of€which€his€physicians€failed€to€adequately€warn€him.€€Therefore,€continuedÐ À  Ðassurances€that€the€unexpected€complication€would€ð ðheal€itselfðð€are€irrelevant€to€a€determination€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€date€of€discovery.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àSecondly,€we€note€that€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€expressly€abrogated€the€ð ðcontinuingÐ pÀ Ðmedical€treatment€doctrine.ðð€€òòò òSee€Stanbury€v.€Bacardióóó ó,€953€S.W.2d€671,€676€(Tenn.€1997).€€TheÐ \¬ Ðcontinuing€medical€treatment€doctrine€was€a€presumption€that€a€patient€could€not€discover€an€injuryÐ H˜ Ðwhile€medical€treatment€continued.€€òòò òSee€id.óóó ó€€The€òòò òStanburyóóó ó€court€clearly€stated€the€rule€applicableÐ 4„ Ðto€cases€involving€continuing€medical€treatment€and€assurances,€ð ðIf€there€is€actual€proof€that€theÐ  p Ðpatient€òòknows€or€reasonably€should€know€of€the€injury€or€harm€before€termination€of€medicalÐ  \ Ðtreatmentóó,€the€statute€of€limitations€is€not€tolled.ðð€€òòò òId.ó óóó€€We€believe€such€proof€exists€in€this€case,€andÐ øH Ðthat€there€is€no€genuine€dispute€of€the€facts€which€establish€the€applicable€discovery€date.€€€For€theseÐ ä4 Ðreasons,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€partial€summary€judgment€to€Defendants€Bicknell€andÐ Ð  ÐAppleton.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€second€issue€for€review€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€summary€judgmentÐ ”ä Ðto€Drs.€Bicknell,€Appleton,€and€Harmon€on€the€remaining€claims.€€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€Ô#†X¾cXXXã'@#ÔÔ‡XF‡XXX¾cÔððÔ#†X¾cXXXF‡[\#ÔÔ‡XãXXX¾cÔ€29„26„115€provides€in€Ð €Ð Ðpertinent€part:Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÔ#†X¾cXXXã¡\#ÔÔ‡XãXXX¾cÔà ¸ à(a)€In€a€malpractice€action,€the€claimant€shall€have€the€burdenÐ D!” Ðof€proving€by€evidence€as€provided€by€subsection€(b):Ð0"€ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(1)€The€recognized€standard€of€acceptable€professionalÐ #l! Ðpractice€in€the€profession€and€the€specialty€thereof,€if€any,€that€theÐ $X" Ðdefendant€practices€in€the€community€in€which€the€claimant€practicesÐ ô$D # Ðor€in€a€similar€community€at€the€time€the€alleged€injury€or€wrongfulÐ à%0!$ Ðaction€occurred;ÐÌ&"%` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(2)€That€the€defendant€acted€with€less€than€or€failed€to€actÐ ¸'#& Ðwith€ordinary€and€reasonable€care€in€accordance€with€such€standard;€Ð ¤(ô#' Ðâ âandÐ)à$(` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(3)€As€a€proximate€result€of€the€defendant's€negligent€act€orÐ ° Ðomission,€the€plaintiff€suffered€injuries€which€would€not€otherwiseÐ œì Ðhave€occurred.ЈØ` x` x Ðâ âà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(b)€No€person€in€a€health€care€profession€requiring€licensureÐ tÄ Ðunder€the€laws€of€this€state€shall€be€competent€to€testify€in€any€courtÐ `° Ðof€law€to€establish€the€facts€required€to€be€established€by€subsectionÐ L œ Ð(a),€unless€the€person€was€licensed€to€practice€in€the€state€or€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðcontiguous€bordering€state€a€profession€or€specialty€which€wouldÐ $ t Ðmake€the€person's€expert€testimony€relevant€to€the€issues€in€the€caseÐ  ` Ðand€had€practiced€this€profession€or€specialty€in€one€(1)€of€these€statesÐ ü L  Ðduring€the€year€preceding€the€date€that€the€alleged€injury€or€wrongfulÐ è 8  Ðact€occurred.€€€Ô#†X¾cXXXãT]#ÔÔ‡XãXXX¾cÔÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌà  àBoth€Dr.€Bicknell€and€Dr.€Appleton€filed€affidavits€and€testified€by€depositions€that€theyÐ ¬ü  Ðcomplied€with€the€recognized€standard€of€acceptable€professional€practice€as€urologists€in€Jackson,Ð ˜è  ÐTennessee.€€In€addition,€they€presented€similar€proof€from€another€physician.€€Plaintiff€did€not€putÐ „Ô  Ðon€any€expert€proof€concerning€the€standard€of€care€required€of€Drs.€Bicknell€and€Appleton€or€thatÐ pÀ Ðthey€deviated€from€any€standard€of€care€which€caused€injury€to€Dr.€Roberts.€€The€trial€court€correctlyÐ \¬ Ðgranted€summary€judgment€on€the€remaining€claims€against€Drs.€Bicknell€and€Appleton.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àPlaintiffððs€cause€of€action€against€Dr.€Harmon,€as€set€out€in€his€complaint,€is€as€follows:Ð  p ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àPlaintiffs€allege€that€Harmon€was€negligent€and€deviated€fromÐ øH Ðthe€applicable€standard€of€care€in€his€care€and€treatment€of€Dr.Ð ä4 ÐRoberts€both€in€general€and€for€the€following€specific€reasons,Ð Ð  Ðincluding,€but€not€limited€to:м ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€In€failing€timely€and€appropriately€to€diagnose€and€treat€theÐ ”ä Ðurethrorectal€fistula;ЀÐ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àB.€€In€failing€to€refer€Dr.€Roberts€to€a€physician€competent€to€repairÐ X ¨ Ðthe€urethrorectal€fistula;ÐD!”` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àC.€€In€concurring€with€or€recommending€to€Bicknell€and€AppletonÐ #l! Ðthat€the€colostomy€be€reversed€when€Harmon€knew€or€should€haveÐ $X" Ðknown€the€urethrotectal€fistula€had€not€healed;Ðô$D #` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àD.€€In€reversing€the€colostomy€when€the€urethrorectal€fistula€was€notÐ Ì&"% Ðhealed€to€a€sufficient€degree€to€prevent€the€subsequent€complicationsÐ ¸'#& Ðexperienced€by€Dr.€Roberts;Ф(ô#'` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àE.€€In€failing€generally€to€treat€Dr.€Roberts€in€accordance€with€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðapplicable€standard€of€care.Ðh+¸&*` x` x Їà  àThe€only€expert€witness€offered€by€Plaintiff€to€prove€the€standard€of€care€for€surgeons€in€theÐ ° ÐJackson€community€and€Dr.€Harmonððs€deviation€therefrom€was€Dr.€David€Armstrong.€€The€trialÐ œì Ðcourt€determined€that€he€was€incompetent€to€testify,€because€he€had€no€knowledge€of€the€standardÐ ˆØ Ðof€care€in€Jackson€or€a€similar€community.€€Plaintiff€has€raised€no€specific€issue€concerning€the€trialÐ tÄ Ðcourtððs€ruling€but€has€presented€some€argument€disputing€the€ruling.€€As€noted€above,€underÐ `° ÐTennessee€law,€proof€of€failure€of€a€physician€to€adhere€to€an€acceptable€standard€of€care€in€treatingÐ L œ Ða€patient€must€be€by€expert€medical€testimony.€€In€the€case€at€bar,€the€trial€court€found€that€PlaintiffððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðexpert,€Dr.€David€Armstrong,€was€not€a€qualified€expert€under€the€ð ðlocality€rule,ðð€codified€at€T.C.A.Ð $ t Ððð€29„26„115.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€Dr.€Armstrong,€Plaintiffððs€only€expert€witness€whoÐ  ` Ðhas€expertise€in€the€area€of€treatment€of€urethrorectal€fistula,€does€not€conform€to€the€requirementsÐ ü L  Ðof€T.C.A.€ðð€29„26„115(a)(1).Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiff€in€a€medical€malpractice€action€carries€the€burden€of€proof€as€to€the€statutoryÐ À  Ðrequirement€that€medical€experts€practice€in€a€community€similar€to€the€one€in€which€the€claim€arose.€Ð ¬ü  Ðòòò òSee€Mabon€v.€Jackson„Madison€County€General€Hosp.óóó ó,€968€S.W.2d€826,€828€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ˜è  Ð1997).€€Although€this€Court€has€ð ðadmonished€lawyers€to€couch€their€medical€expertsðð€conclusionsÐ „Ô  Ðin€the€language€ofðð€the€statute,€we€realize€that€ð ða€mere€ritualistic€incantation€of€statutory€buzzÐ pÀ Ðevidences€very€little.ðð€€òòò òChurchóóó ó,€2000€WL€1183074€at€*13.€€Rather,€we€must€look€at€the€expertððsÐ \¬ Ðopinion€to€determine€if€it€is€based€upon€ð ðtrustworthy€facts€or€data€sufficient€to€provide€some€basisÐ H˜ Ðfor€the€opinion.ðð€€òòò òId.óóó ó€€We€must,€therefore,€examine€the€record€for€evidence€that€Dr.€Armstrong€wasÐ 4„ Ðqualified€to€testify€as€to€the€recognized€standard€of€acceptable€professional€practice€required€of€aÐ  p Ðsurgeon€practicing€in€Jackson,€Tennessee,€or€a€similar€community,€in€1995.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àBefore€examining€the€record,€we€note€that€the€trial€court€is€vested€with€broad€discretion€€òòò òóóó óÔ#†X¾cXXXãe#ÔÔ‡!X¾cXXX¾cÔtoÐ ä4 Ðdetermine€the€ð ðadmissibility,€qualifications,€relevancy€and€competency€of€expert€testimony.ðð€Ð ä4 Ðò òòòMcDaniel€v.€CSX€Transp.,€Inc.ó óóó,€955€S.W.2d€257,€263€(Tenn.€1997).€€òòò òÔ#†X¾cXX!X¾c’x#ÔÔ‡XãXXX¾cÔSee€Shelby€County€v.€Bardenóóó ó,Ð Ô$ Ð527€S.W.2d€124,€131€(Tenn.€1975)òòò ò;€Mabonóóó ó,€968€S.W.2d€at€829.€€Ô#†X¾cXXXã·y#ÔÔ‡!X¾cXXX¾cÔThe€trial€courtððs€rulings€in€thisÐ Ô$ Ðregard€will€be€upheld€except€upon€a€showing€of€an€abuse€of€this€discretion.€€òòò òSeeó óóóÔ#†X¾cXX!X¾cyz#ÔÔ‡!X¾cXXX¾cÔ€ò òòòÔ_ÔMcDanielÔ_Ôóóó ó,€955Ð Ô$ ÐS.W.2dò òòò.ó óóó€at€263„64.Ô#†X¾cXX!X¾cP{#ÔÔ‡XãXXX¾cÔ€€Although€it€is€undisputed€that€Dr.€Armstrongððs€affidavit€recites€the€statutoryÐ Ä Ðbuzz„words,€ð ðI€am€familiar€with€the€standard€of€care€in€Jackson,€Madison€County,€Tennessee.€.€.€,ðð€Ð Ä Ðat€deposition,€Dr.€Armstrong€quite€candidly€admitted€to€knowing€nothing€about€the€practice€ofÐ °  Ðmedicine€in€Jackson,€Tennessee€and€the€applicable€standard€of€care€for€that€locality.€€Dr.Ð œ!ì ÐArmstrongððs€deposition€includes€the€following€exchange:Ð ˆ"Ø  ÐÌÓ€ (š½83ÓØ! !Øà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ€(Defense€counsel):à0h` x` xàAnd€[sic]€what€fields€of€medicine€do€youÐ `$°" Ðconsider€yourself€an€expert?ÐL%œ #hxhx Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA€(Dr.€Armstrong):à h àColorectal€surgery.Ð8&ˆ!$` x` x ÐÓ€ (ª½88Óà8  àà8` Ð Ð àØ! !ØQ:à ¸ àHave€you€ever€been€to€Jackson,€Tennessee?Ð$'t"%` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA:à ¸ àNo,€sir.Ð(`#&` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ:à ¸ àDo€you€know€where€itððs€located?Ðü(L$'` x` x ÐØ! !ØÓ€ (н08Óà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA:à ¸ àNo,€sir.Ðè)8%(` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ:à ¸ àDo€you€know€the€size€of€Jackson?ÐÔ*$&)` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA:à ¸ àNo,€sir.ÐÀ+'*` x` x Ðà  àà ` àQ:à ¸ àDo€you€know€how€many€hospitals€there€were€in€Jackson€in€1995?Ð ° Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA:à ¸ àHow€many€hospitals?Мì` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ:à ¸ àYes.ЈØ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA:à ¸ àNo.ÐtÄ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ:à ¸ àDo€you€know€anyone€that€lives€in€Jackson,€Tennessee?Ð`°` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA:à ¸ àNo.ÐL œ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ:à0¸ ` x` xàDo€you€know€of€anyone€who€has€ever€practiced€surgery€inÐ 8 ˆ ÐJackson,€Tennessee?Ð$ t¸ x¸ x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA:à ¸ àNo.Ð `` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€à0¸ ` x` xàAre€you€familiar€with€the€skills€of€any€surgeons€in€Jackson,Ð ü L  ÐTennessee?Ðè 8 ¸ x¸ x ÐÝ"‚ ·¤"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚ ·¤›‡Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2нÔÚ  ÚAÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  ÝNo,€sir.݃ ·¤›‡È‡ÝŒÐÔ$ ¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  Ýà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ:à ¸ àHave€you€ever€treated€a€patient€from€Jackson,€Tennessee?ÐÀ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA:à ¸ àI€donððt€believe€so.Ьü ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ:à0¸ ` x` xàHow€many€colleges€or€universities€were€in€Jackson€in€1995?Ð˜è ¸ x¸ x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA:à ¸ àI€donððt€know,€sir.Ð„Ô ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ:à ¸ àWere€there€any€medical€schools€in€Jackson€in€1995?ÐpÀ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€à0¸ ` x` xàI€donððt€know.€€Iððve€never€been€there.Ð\¬¸ x¸ x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€à0¸ ` x` xàWere€there€any€teaching€hospitals€in€Jackson€in€1995?ÐH˜¸ x¸ x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA:à ¸ àI€donððt€know€that.Ð4„` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ:à0¸ ` x` xàHow€many€medical€specialties€were€represented€in€Jackson,Ð  p ÐTennessee€in€June€of€1995?Ð \¸ x¸ x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA:à ¸ àI€donððt€know.ÐøH` x` x ÐÌAlthough€we€agree€with€Plaintiffððs€counsel€that€this€Court€is€in€ð ðas€good€a€position€as€the€trial€courtÐ Ð  Ð.€.€.€to€determine€this€issue€because€the€trial€court€considered€only€Dr.€Armstrongððs€affidavit€andÐ ¼  Ðdeposition,ðð€we€cannot€say€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€ruling€Dr.€ArmstrongððsÐ ¨ø Ðtestimony€inadmissible.€€The€law€on€expert€witnesses,€as€it€exists€in€Tennessee,€requires€the€expertÐ ”ä Ðto€have€òòsomeóó€knowledge€of€the€practice€of€medicine€in€the€community€at€issue€or€a€similarÐ €Ð Ðcommunity.€€We€believe€that€it€is€reasonable€to€base€such€knowledge,€among€other€things,€uponÐ l¼ Ðinformation€such€as€the€size€of€the€community,€the€existence€or€non„existence€of€teaching€hospitalsÐ X ¨ Ðin€the€community€and€the€location€of€the€community.€€Without€such€information,€it€is€difficult€toÐ D!” Ðcompare€communities€for€the€purpose€of€satisfying€the€locality€rule.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àIn€their€brief,€Plaintiff€argues€that:Ð $X" ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àDr.€Armstrongððs€knowledge€of€the€legal€differences€between€a€localÐ à%0!$ Ðstandard€of€care€versus€a€national€standard€of€care€are€unimportantÐ Ì&"% Ðand€irrelevant€and€do€not€affect€the€validity€of€his€opinion€with€regardÐ ¸'#& Ðto€whether€Dr.€Harmon€rendered€proper€medical€treatment€to€Dr.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐRoberts.€€Ð)à$(` x` x Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) ÐPlaintiff€is,€essentially,€arguing€that€the€locality€rule€be€abandoned€in€favor€of€a€national€standard€forÐ ° Ðâ âmedical€care.€€However,€this€Court€has€settled€this€argument€inò òòòó óóó€a€case€in€which€we€rejected€an€expertÐ œì Ðwitness€who€premised€his€opinion€on€a€national€standard€of€care.€€ò òòòSee€Mabonó óóó,€968€S.W.2d€at€830.Ô#†X¾cXXXãÿ{#ÔÔ‡XãXXX¾cԀРˆØ ÐIn€that€case,€the€expert€witnessððs€deposition€testimony€was€nearly€identical€to€that€of€Dr.€Armstrong,Ð tÄ Ðreproduced€above.€€ò òòòSee€id.ó óóó€at€830„31.Ð `° ÐÌÔ#†X¾cXXXãE•#ÔÔ‡XãXXX¾cÔà  àPlaintiffððs€brief€argues€that€a€factual€dispute€is€created€by€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Joseph€Smith,€Ð 8 ˆ Ðone€of€Dr.€Robertsððs€treating€physicians,€and€also€the€testimony€of€one€of€the€Defendantsðð€expertÐ $ t Ðwitnesses,€Dr.€Guy€Voeller.€€However,€from€the€record€it€appears€that€Dr.€Smith€was€not€revealedÐ  ` Ðby€the€Plaintiff€as€an€expert€witness€against€Dr.€Harmon,€and€Dr.€Smithððs€testimony€shows€that€heÐ ü L  Ðdid€not€know€the€recognized€standard€of€acceptable€professional€practice€for€surgeons,€such€as€Dr.Ð è 8  ÐHarmon,€in€the€Jackson€area.€€As€to€Dr.€Voeller,€he€determined€from€the€documented€record€thatÐ Ô$  Ðthere€would€be€no€deviation€from€the€standard€of€care€on€Dr.€Harmonððs€part.€€Moreover,€Dr.Ð À  ÐVoellerððs€deposition€was€taken€pursuant€to€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€26.02€(4).€€Thus,€his€deposition€may€notÐ ¬ü  Ðbe€used€at€trial,€except€for€impeachment€purposes.€€ò òòòSee€ó óóóTenn.R.Civ.P.€32.01€(1).€€The€evidenceÐ ˜è  Ðsupporting€or€opposing€summary€judgment€must€be€such€facts€as€would€be€admissible€in€evidence.€Ð „Ô  Ðò òòòSeeó óóó€Ô_ÔTenn.R.Civ.P.Ô_Ô€56.06.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àUnder€the€record€in€this€case€as€to€the€cause€of€action€against€Dr.€Harmon,€there€is€no€genuineÐ H˜ Ðissue€as€to€any€material€fact,€and€Defendant,€Dr.€Harmon,€was€correctly€granted€summary€judgment.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àSince€the€Defendant,€The€Jackson€Clinic,€was€sued€only€on€the€theory€of€òòrespondeatÐ  \ Ðsuperioróó,€the€trial€court€correctly€granted€summary€judgment€to€The€Jackson€Clinic.Ð øH ÐÌà  àThe€third€issue€concerns€the€courtððs€protective€order€regarding€certain€records€of€the€JacksonÐ Ð  ÐMadison€County€General€Hospital.€€The€information€sought€from€the€hospital€concerned€theÐ ¼  Ðcryoablation€procedure€performed€by€Drs.€Bicknell€and€Appleton€on€Dr.€Roberts.€€SummaryÐ ¨ø Ðjudgment€was€granted€on€this€cause€of€action€because€it€was€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€Ð ”ä ÐTherefore,€the€records€sought€under€this€issue€have€no€relevance€to€the€case€and,€therefore,€weÐ €Ð Ðpretermit€this€issue.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àIn€summary,€the€order€of€the€trial€court€granting€summary€judgment€to€Defendants€isÐ D!” Ðaffirmed.€€The€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€be€necessary.€Ð 0"€  ÐCosts€of€the€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€appellant,€Rosemary€Roberts,€and€her€surety.Ð #l! ÐÔ#†X¾cXXXãb–#ÔÔ#†¼¤Ô»XX¾c˜ #ÔÔ€X¾cX»¼¤ÔÔà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à__________________________________________Ð ø$H # Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.