ÿWPCË ªS® HH^¶–-d—^u¢v“TÉ\(¾lMB™w¯—WJI7ŒxÒ0{€½šò?uË}$햲Рå€Ê–âY‡“‹LúP\ ?…Ê,hi¿& ¥yڔꆛaÔØ€¥ùµ 0çnŸutþÌïf\à.Âdò¯ŽêÅÝi˜GŠ}Çï«h¬Ñ3CdSäKñ»{ÙŠu2™o’Š MÐ/jr_Ñoœâpû2üÿ\WM¬Î”„ uˆëšû0y)ŒÀ‚ÔNÃî™VsB<]\3'ƒf¹›ðtvœþUNÞ}¤`‰dGI @œ»0=¥×¿,rÎÎRŠô¹ùßä´œô¿"­yÞ œ§¿Ù"Ï€CkY cgD„6·‡§ŸŽcçœ#*6ÒøâÎCÜ_pk“¬Bƒ0Šþ-&ë¢mÑhÉp}éYº’Ÿ²»¢v6#å O/2é"˃û£¢B:pY¢$êÛ¼ÖëÉ<&ÃЛ"vôø©¨Z:§.ô`T3èb:f)‘W"ÜÛ¸A)8ú;Ìg=‰2¼OŠ17U !­)Õ¯çWÔ߃Pëß×ßuqõd(ÓàŠ?ŒõN¼W9¬Ïî „ƒó|-{œ&HÛJÒ£eô£3‹ËcW#ÁÂUNƒ %Ñ 0F×UN ^ k ww 4{  ž m  0©· a` 0DÁ Ì Ñ ÿÙ §Ø-E¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ B®˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(iñ$¡¡Ó  ÓÔUSUS.,Ô(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularf9+s j5+#ky€Jca4J3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(Y(2á$¤¤Ý ƒiñ!ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ôØòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó WÝ ƒ á$ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ôØòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIt€is€not€clear€if€that€testimony€was€given€in€medical€malpractice€cases.€€Only€one€to€two€percent€of€Dr.Ð ° ÐKennedyððs€time€was€spent€testifying€as€an€expert€in€malpractice€cases.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÂÝ ƒ á$ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ôØòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔNo€discovery€deposition€is€included€in€the€record.  õÝ ƒ á$ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ôØòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€court€also€granted€the€plaintiffððs€motion€to€exclude€the€testimony€of€the€defendantððs€medical€expert,€Dr€Ô‡ôØòòôØÔÐ ° ÐLance€Weaver,€Ô#†ôØòòôØ#Ôbecause€he€had€practiced€in€California,€not€Tennessee,€the€year€prior€to€the€injury.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ tÄ Ð29„26„115(b).€€ Ý ƒ á$ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ôØòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôØòòôØÔIn€òòSutphinóó,€the€plaintiff€argued€that€the€geographical€limitation€on€the€competency€of€experts€wasÐ ° Ðunconstitutionally€arbitrary€and€irrational€because€it€exceeded€the€implicit€requirement€stated€in€the€locality€rule.€€SheÐ tÄ Ðmaintained€that€the€expertððs€state€of€licensure€was€irrelevant€as€long€as€the€expert€had€knowledge€of€the€standards€inÐ 8ˆ Ðcommunities€similar€to€the€defendantððs.€€After€admitting€the€logic€of€that€argument,€the€Court€determined,€however,€thatÐ üL Ðits€responsibility€was€to€apply€the€rational€basis€test€to€the€geographic€competence€requirement.€€Having€found€aÐ À Ðlegitimate€state€interest€in€the€locality€rule€requiring€an€expert€to€have€knowledge€of€local€standards,€the€Court€found€thatÐ „Ô Ðthe€legislature€may€have€determined€that€physicians€licensed€in€Tennessee€or€bordering€states€were€most€qualified€toÐ H ˜ Ðrender€an€opinion€on€the€standard€of€care€applicable€to€a€Tennessee€doctor.€€The€resulting€potential€for€reduction€inÐ  \ Ðinaccurate€testimony€was€determined€to€be€reasonably€related€to€the€legitimate€state€interest€in€ensuring€fair€trials.Ô#†ôØòòôØ#Ô #Ñ#€CXÿÿd#Ñ dÝ ƒiñ!ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡X)¨XXXÔÑ  ÑÔ‡¼]»XX)¨ÔÑ  ÑÑ€zãÑà@ü ü ìàÔ#†X)¨X»¼]t#ÔÔ‡îI¬îXX)¨ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†X)¨XîîI¬å#ÔÔ‡¼]»XX)¨ÔˆÐ Ö& ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€5,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ#†X)¨X»¼]#ÔÌò òÔ‡¼]»XX)¨ÔJACKIE€ROBINSON€v.€PATRICK€J.€LECORPS,€M.D.Ô#†X)¨X»¼]#Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€96C„3528€€€€€€Mary€Ashley€Nichols,€Special€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` AßÐ –æ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„01581„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€September€25,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€case€arises€from€a€medical€malpractice€suit€in€which€defendantððs€motion€to€dismiss€was€grantedÐ d´ Ðpursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115€after€plaintiffððs€sole€expert€was€excludedÔ#†X)¨XXX)¨I#ÔÔ‡X)¨XXX)¨Ô€from€testifyingÐ P  Ðbecause€his€testimony€was€based€on€a€national€standard€of€orthopedic€care.€€For€the€reasons€below,Ð <Œ Ðwe€affirm€the€lower€courtððs€decision€to€exclude€the€plaintiffððs€medical€proof.€€We€also€affirm€theÐ (x Ðdismissal€of€the€case.Ð d ÐÓ³ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€CourtÐ ì< ÐAffirmed€and€Remandedó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.óó,€andÐ ° ÐòòWilliam€B.€Cain,€JJóó.,€joined.Ð œì ÐÌMary€A.€Parker,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€Richard€D.€Piliponis,€Mt.€Juliet,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,Ð tÄ ÐJackie€Robinson.Ð `° ÐÌC.€Hayes€Cooney,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Patrick€J.€Lecorps,€M.D.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÓ¶ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÐ #`" ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€plaintiffððs€medical€malpractice€complaint€was€dismissed€after€the€trial€court€granted€theÐ è$8 $ Ðdefendantððs€motion€òòin€limineóó€to€exclude€the€evidentiary€deposition€of€plaintiffððs€only€expert€witness.€Ð Ô%$!% ÐIf€the€expertððs€testimony€was€properly€excluded,€the€plaintiff€would€be€unable€to€meet€his€burden€ofÐ À&"& Ðproof€on€the€elements€of€medical€malpractice.€€The€basis€for€the€trial€courtððs€exclusion€of€theÐ ¬'ü"' Ðtestimony€of€the€expert€was€the€failure€of€the€expert€to€demonstrate€knowledge€of€the€standard€ofÐ ˜(è#( Ðcare€in€Nashville,€the€community€where€the€defendant€practices.€€The€background€relevant€to€ourÐ „)Ô$) Ðconsideration€of€this€appeal€is€as€follows.Ð p*À%* ÐÌà  àPlaintiff,€Jackie€Robinson,€an€inmate€at€Riverbend€Maximum€Security€Institute,€injured€hisÐ H,˜', Ðankle€when€it€was€caught€and€twisted€between€two€railroad€ties€on€March€11,€1994.€€He€was€firstÐ 4-„(- ÐÑzãÑâ âÑ8€)¨XXdìdÈ8Ñâ âÑ  Ñtreated€in€the€prison€infirmary€by€a€nurse.€€Several€days€later€an€x„ray€was€ordered,€and€he€wasÐ ° Ðtreated€conservatively€by€Dr.€Frank€Thomas.€€When€the€x„ray€revealed€a€fracture,€Mr.€Robinson€wasÐ œì Ðtransported€to€Meharry€Medical€Center€for€treatment€by€defendant,€Dr.€Patrick€LeCorps.€€Dr.Ð ˆØ ÐLeCorps€was€under€a€contract€with€the€Department€of€Correction€to€provide€health€care€to€inmates.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àOn€March€15,€Dr.€LeCorps€set€the€fracture,€applied€a€long€leg€cast€and€ordered€a€re„Ð L œ Ðexamination€in€two€weeks.€€On€March€22,€1994€Dr.€LeCorps€performed€a€closed€reductionÐ 8 ˆ Ðprocedure.€€Mr.€Robinson€purportedly€suffered€continued€pain€prior€to€his€next€visit€on€April€5,€atÐ $ t Ðwhich€time€Dr.€LeCorps€removed€the€long€cast€and€reset€the€ankle€with€a€short€cast.€€On€April€15,Ð  ` ÐMr.€Robinson€removed€the€cast€himself€after€it€got€wet.€€When€Dr.€LeCorps€examined€the€ankle€onÐ ü L  ÐApril€19,€Mr.€Robinson€complained€of€pain€and€was€prescribed€medication.€€On€May€3,€Mr.Ð è 8  ÐRobinson€again€complained€of€pain€and€was€prescribed€more€medication.€€However,€Dr.€LeCorpsÐ Ô$  Ðtold€him€that€the€fracture€was€fully€healed€as€evidenced€by€an€x„ray.€€Thereafter,€Mr.€RobinsonÐ À  Ðcontinued€to€complain€of€pain€to€workers€at€the€prison€infirmary.€€He€was€seen€by€Dr.€LeCorps€onÐ ¬ü  ÐJuly€5,€1994€and€complained€of€pain€when€turning€his€foot€and€on€ambulation,€but€Dr.€LeCorpsÐ ˜è  Ðstated€there€was€no€neurovascular€deficit.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àIn€December€1994,€Mr.€Robinson€was€transported€to€Meharry€again€after€experiencing€pain.€Ð \¬ ÐHe€was€treated€by€Dr.€William€Bacon€who€diagnosed€post„traumatic€arthritis€in€Mr.€RobinsonððsÐ H˜ Ðankle.€€In€November€1995,€Mr.€Robinson€underwent€an€arthrodesis,€a€procedure€in€which€his€ankleÐ 4„ Ðjoints€were€fused.Ð  p ÐÌà  àIn€September€1996,€Plaintiff€commenced€the€underlying€action,€asserting€that€Dr.€LeCorpsððÐ øH Ðtreatment€of€his€ankle€was€negligent.€Subsequently,€Plaintiff€identified€his€sole€medical€expertÐ ä4 Ðwitness€as€Dr.€William€Kennedy€and€provided€Dr.€Kennedyððs€report,€which€included€his€statementÐ Ð  Ðthat€he€was€a€licensed€orthopedic€physician€actively€practicing€medicine€in€Tennessee€during€the€yearÐ ¼  Ðpreceding€March,€1994.€Ô#†X)¨XXX)¨µ#ÔÔ‡X)¨XXX)¨Ô€In€February€1999,€the€evidentiary€deposition€of€òòóóÔ#†X)¨XXX)¨s#ÔÔ‡X)¨XXX)¨ÔDr.€Kennedy€was€taken.€Ð ¨ø ÐDr.€Kennedy€has€practiced€in€the€state€Tennessee€since€1972,€primarily€in€Johnson€City.€€He€isÐ ”ä Ðcertified€by€both€the€American€Board€of€Orthopedic€Surgery€and€by€the€American€Board€ofÐ €Ð ÐIndependent€Medical€Examiners.€€He€retired€from€the€practice€of€orthopedic€surgery€in€1998.€€HisÐ l¼ Ðcurrent€practice€was€confined€to€independent€medical€examinations,€including€related€testimonyÐ X ¨ Ðwhere€needed.€€He€has€provided€testimony€in€a€number€of€cases,€including€three€cases€in€DavidsonÐ D!” ÐCounty,€as€an€expert€witness.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†X)¨XXX)¨ì#ÔÔ‡X)¨XXX)¨ÔÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àHe€testified€in€this€case,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:Ð $X" ÐÌà8  àQ:€Based€on€your€review€of€the€records€and€your€experience€as€an€orthopedicÐ à%0!$ Ðsurgeon,€what€is€the€recognized€standard€of€acceptable€professional€practice€inÐ Ì&"% Ðorthopedic€surgery€in€Nashville,€Tennessee,€in€March,€1994,€in€view€of€the€conditionÐ ¸'#& Ðof€Mr.€Robinsonððs€ankle€when€he€presented€to€Dr.€LeCorps€on€3/16/94?Ф(ô#'Ð Ð  Їà8  àMr.€Cooney:€I€object€to€that€testimony€on€the€basis€he€testified€in€his€discoveryÐ ° Ðdeposition׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€his€opinions€were€based€on€the€national€standard.ÐœìÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àQ:€Do€you€consider€the€national€standard€to€be€the€same€as€the€recognized€standardÐ tÄ Ðof€acceptable€professional€practice€as€it€would€be€in€Nashville,€Tennessee?Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àMr.€Cooney:€Same€objection,€based€on€his€prior€deposition.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àA:€Yes.Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àQ:€What€do€you€base€that€on,€that€opinion?Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àA:€Nashville€is€certainly€recognized€as€a€regional€medical€center,€and€communicationÐ À  Ðand€training€are€such€in€our€country€today€that€the€two€standards,€locally,€as€held€inÐ ¬ü  ÐNashville€and€for€that€matter€where€I€have€practiced€in€Johnson€City,€would€beÐ ˜è  Ðexpected€to€be€the€same,€and€also€the€same€as€the€national€standard.Ð„Ô Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àThere€is€no€differentiation€recognized€in€our€profession€€of€one€locality€as€opposedÐ \¬ Ðto€the€other,€certain€localities€comparable€with€Nashville€and€Johnson€City,Ð H˜ ÐTennessee,€on€the€part€of€any€of€our€national€organizations€including€the€AmericanÐ 4„ ÐBoard€of€Orthopedic€Surgery.€Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àAll€of€us,€whether€we€are€from€Johnson€City€or€from€Nashville,€would€stand€the€sameÐ øH Ðtest€and€would€be€expected€to€have€the€same€knowledge€and€to€practice€in€veryÐ ä4 Ðsimilar€fashions€by€the€American€Board€of€Orthopedic€Surgery.ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àMr.€Cooney:€Same€objection.ШøÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àQ:€.€.€.€What€is€your€opinion€as€to€the€recognized€standard€of€acceptable€professionalÐ €Ð Ðpractice€in€Nashville€in€March,€1994,€when€Mr.€Robinson€appearedð!ðpresented€to€Dr.Ð l¼ ÐLeCorps?ÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àMr.€Cooney:€Same€objection.Ð0"€ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àA:€In€my€opinion€the€standard€of€care€would€have€called€for€a€closure€of€the€ankleÐ $X" Ðmortise€and€a€restoration€of€the€normal€anatomy€of€the€ankle€including€the€reductionÐ ô$D # Ðof€the€fracture€of€the€lateral€malleolus.€€That€could€have€been€done,€as€I€previouslyÐ à%0!$ Ðstated,€either€by€closed€method€or€by€open€method.€€But€the€ankle€is€an€„€is€anÐ Ì&"% Ðunforgiving€joint€and€can€be€expected€to€yield€to€an€arthritic€condition€if€followingÐ ¸'#& Ðan€injury€which€disrupts€the€ankle€mortise€as€this€one€did,€the€normal€anatomicalÐ ¤(ô#' Ðrelationships€are€not€restored€within€the€ankle€joint.Ð)à$(Ð Ð  Їà  àOn€the€day€scheduled€for€trial,€February€23,€1999,€the€court€considered€defendantððs€motionÐ ° Ðòòin€limineóó€to€exclude€the€evidentiary€deposition€of€Dr.€Kennedy׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€on€the€grounds€that€his€testimonyÐ œì Ðwas€based€on€a€national€standard€of€care€and€was€therefore€inadmissible€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ ˆØ Ð29„26„115€(1996€&€Supp.€2001).€€The€trial€court€granted€the€motion€on€March€15,€1999,€ð ðon€theÐ tÄ Ðgrounds€that€he€testified€that€he€was€basing€his€opinion€on€a€national€standard€of€orthopedic€care€and,Ð `° Ðtherefore,€said€opinion€standing€alone€did€not€meet€the€requirements€of€the€Tennessee€MedicalÐ L œ ÐMalpractice€Act,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115€.€.€.ðð€€Specifically,€the€trial€court€cited€òòCardwell€v.Ð 8 ˆ ÐBecktolóó,€724€S.W.2d€739€(Tenn.€1987)€and€òòMabon€v.€Jackson„Madison€County€General€Hosp.óó,€968Ð $ t ÐS.W.2d€826€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€€The€trial€court€also€granted€plaintiffððs€motion€for€interlocutoryÐ  ` Ðappeal€on€this€issue,€which€was€denied€by€this€court.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àDays€later,€Dr.€LeCorps€moved€to€dismiss€arguing€that€Mr.€Robinson€had€no€expert€medicalÐ Ô$  Ðproof€to€support€his€claim€that€Dr.€LeCorps€breached€the€standard€of€care€and€would€be€unable€toÐ À  Ðmake€out€a€medical€malpractice€claim€without€the€testimony.€€In€response,€Mr.€Robinson€asked€theÐ ¬ü  Ðcourt€for€the€opportunity€to€call€Dr.€Kennedy€to€testify€at€trial€to€establish€the€applicable€standard€ofÐ ˜è  Ðcare€and€Dr.€LeCorpððs€breach€of€such€standard.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔLeCorpsÔ_Ôððs€Motion€to€Dismiss€was€ultimatelyÐ „Ô  Ðgranted.€€Mr.€Robinson€appeals€arguing€that€the€trial€court€abused€itððs€discretion€by€excluding€Dr.Ð pÀ ÐKennedyððs€deposition€testimony€and€by€not€allowing€Dr.€Kennedy€to€testify€live€at€trial€as€to€theÐ \¬ Ðproper€standard€of€care.€€For€the€reasons€set€forth€below,€we€find€that€Dr.€Kennedy€did€notÐ H˜ Ðadequately€testify€as€to€support€a€finding€that€he€had€the€requisite€knowledge€of€the€standard€of€careÐ 4„ Ðin€Nashville,€Tennessee,€and,€therefore,€his€testimony€was€properly€excluded.€€Further,€we€find€noÐ  p Ðerror€in€the€granting€of€the€defendantððs€motion€to€dismiss.Ð  \ ÐÌà@´´)ìàI.ˆÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àÔ#†X)¨XXX)¨#ÔÔ‡X)¨XXX)¨ÔThe€trial€court€has€broad€discretion€in€determining€the€ð ðadmissibility,€qualifications,Ð ¼  Ðrelevancy€and€competency€of€expert€testimony,ðð€and€we€will€not€reverse€that€decision€unless€thereÐ ¨ø Ðis€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòMcDaniel€v.€CSX€Transp.,€Inc.óó,€955€S.W.2d€257,€263€(Tenn.€1997)òò;Ð ”ä ÐShelby€County€v.€Bardenóó,€527€S.W.2d€124,€131€(Tenn.€1975).€€ð ðAbuse€of€discretionðð€does€not€denoteÐ €Ð Ðintentional€wrong,€bad€faith€or€misconduct€on€the€part€of€the€trial€court.€€òòFoster€v.€Amcon€Intððl,€Inc.óó,Ð l¼ Ð621€S.W.2d€142,€145€(Tenn.€1981).€€Instead,€it€ð ðsimply€mean[s]€an€erroneous€conclusion€orÐ X ¨ Ðjudgment€on€the€part€of€the€trial€judge€.€.€.€ðð€€òòIdóó.Ð D!” ÐÌÔ#†X)¨XXX)¨H4#Ôà  àAbuse€of€discretion€standard€requires€us€to€consider€(1)€whether€the€decision€has€a€sufficientÐ #l! Ðevidentiary€foundation,€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€correctly€identified€and€properly€applied€theÐ $X" Ðappropriate€legal€principles,€and€(3)€whether€the€decision€is€within€the€range€of€acceptableÐ ô$D # Ðalternatives.€€òòState€ex€rel.€Vaughn€v.€Kaatrudeóó,€21€S.W.3d€244,€248€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).€€WhileÐ à%0!$ Ðâ âwe€will€set€aside€a€discretionary€decision€if€it€does€not€rest€on€an€adequate€evidentiary€foundation,Ð Ì&"% Ðor€if€it€is€contrary€to€the€governing€law,€we€will€not€substitute€our€judgment€for€that€of€the€trial€courtÐ ° Ðmerely€because€we€might€have€chosen€another€alternative.Ô‡X)¨XXX)¨ÔÐ œì Ðâ âÌà@••)ìàII.ˆÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115(a)(1)€states€in€pertinent€part:Ð L œ ÐÌà8  à(a)€In€a€medical€malpractice€action,€the€claimant€shall€have€the€burden€of€proving€[by€Ð $ t Ðqualified€expert€testimony]:Ð `Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(1)€The€recognized€standard€of€acceptable€professional€practice€in€theÐ ü L  Ðprofession€and€the€specialty€thereof,€if€any,€that€the€defendant€practices€in€theÐ è 8  Ðcommunity€in€which€he€practices€or€in€a€similar€community€at€the€time€the€allegedÐ Ô$  Ðinjury€or€wrongful€action€occurred.ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThis€ð ðlocality€ruleðð€component€of€the€statute€is€part€of€the€requirement€that€a€malpracticeÐ ˜è  Ðplaintiff€show€ð ðthat€the€defendant€failed€to€act€with€ordinary€and€reasonable€care€when€compared€toÐ „Ô  Ðthe€customs€and€practices€of€physicians€from€a€particular€geographic€region.ðð€Ô#†X)¨XXX)¨×:#ÔÔ‡X)¨XXX)¨Ô€€òòSutphin€v.€Plattóó,€720Ð pÀ ÐS.W.2d€455,€457€(Tenn.€1986)Ô#†X)¨XXX)¨H?#Ô.€€The€legislative€purpose€underlying€this€requirement€has€beenÐ \¬ Ðdescribed€by€our€Supreme€Court:€ð ðThere€is€an€undeniable€legitimate€state€interest€in€assuring€thatÐ H˜ Ðdoctors€charged€with€negligence€in€this€State€receive€a€fair€assessment€of€their€conduct€in€relationÐ 4„ Ðto€community€standards€similar€to€one€in€which€they€practice.ðð€€òòSutphinóó,€720€S.W.2d€at€457.Ô‡X)¨XXX)¨ÔÐ  p ÐÌà  àThe€actual€issue€determined€by€the€court€inòò€Ô_ÔSutphinÔ_Ôóó€was€the€constitutionality€of€a€differentÐ øH Ðlegislatively€prescribed€limitation€on€the€competency€of€an€expert€in€medical€malpractice€actions:Ð ä4 Ðthat€found€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€29„26„115(b).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€That€section€requires€that€the€testifyingÐ Ð  Ðexpert€be€licensed€to€practice€in€Tennessee€or€a€contiguous€bordering€state€during€the€year€precedingÐ ¼  Ðthe€alleged€injury.€òòóóÔ#†X)¨XXX)¨ƒA#ÔÔ‡X)¨XXX)¨Ô€The€Court€began€its€analysis€of€this€expert€competency€requirement€withÐ ¨ø Ðconsideration€of€its€relationship€to€the€locality€rule,€and€described€the€locality€rule€as€follows:Ð ”ä ÐÌà8  àThis€geographic€component€to€the€relevant€standard€of€care€evolved€out€of€aÐ l¼ Ðrecognition€that€the€medical€customs€or€practices€varied€depending€on€the€particularÐ X ¨ Ðarea€in€which€the€physician€practiced.€€Traditionally,€the€relevant€geographic€area€wasÐ D!” Ðstrictly€defined.€€The€plaintiff€was€required€to€introduce€evidence€concerning€theÐ 0"€  Ðstandard€of€care€in€the€strict€locality€where€the€defendant€worked.€€However,€in€lightÐ #l! Ðof€a€modern€trend€towards€the€national€standardization€of€medical€practices,Ð ° Ðespecially€in€specialties,€courts€and€legislatures€have€gradually€expanded€the€relevantÐ œì Ðgeographic€area€for€providing€the€medical€standard€of€care.€€Indeed,€the€TennesseeÐ ˆØ Ðlegislature€has€adopted€a€somewhat€broadened€definition€of€the€geographicÐ tÄ Ðcomponent€to€the€medical€standard€of€care,€requiring€proof€of€ð ð[t]he€recognizedÐ `° Ðstandard€of€acceptable€professional€practice€.€.€.€in€the€community€in€which€[theÐ L œ Ðdefendant]€practices€or€in€a€similar€community.€.€.€.ððÐ8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌòòSutphinóó,€720€S.W.2d€at€457€(internal€citations€omitted;€emphasis€added).€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€herein€relied€on€two€casesòò.óó€€The€first,€òòCardwell€v.€Bechtolóó,€724€S.W.2d€739Ð è 8  Ð(Tenn.€1987),€involved€a€malpractice€action€against€an€osteopath,€wherein€the€court€excludedÐ Ô$  Ðtestimony€from€an€orthopedic€specialist€and€a€neurologist€who€both€admitted€that€they€were€notÐ À  Ðfamiliar€with€the€practice€and€types€of€treatments,€nor€the€standard€of€care,€of€osteopaths.€€òòIdóó.€at€752,Ð ¬ü  Ð754.€€Thus,€we€find€the€òòBechtolóó€case€has€little€relevance€to€the€issue€presented€herein.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€second€case€relied€on€by€the€trial€court€was€€òòMabon€v.€Jackson„Madison€County€GeneralÐ pÀ ÐHosp.óó,€968€S.W.2d€826,€830„31€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997)€(òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€April€20,€1998).€€In€thatÐ \¬ Ðcase,€€this€court€found€that€the€expertððs€testimony€was€excluded€€because€the€expert€demonstratedÐ H˜ Ðð ða€complete€lack€of€knowledge€of€Jacksonððs€medical€community.ðð€€The€expert,€a€Dr.€Shane,€testifiedÐ 4„ Ðon€cross€examination€that€he€did€not€know€the€population€of€Jackson,€did€not€know€the€number€ofÐ  p Ðhospitals€in€Jackson,€if€there€was€a€medical€school€there,€the€number€of€doctors€in€Jackson,€had€neverÐ  \ Ðbeen€to€Jackson,€did€not€know€any€physicians€there,€and€had€never€treated€a€patient€there.€€òòIdóó.€at€830„Ð øH Ð31.€€Based€on€such€testimony,€the€court€heldÐ ä4 ÐÌà8  àTo€qualify€as€an€expert,€a€physician€is€not€required€to€be€familiar€with€all€of€theÐ ¼  Ðmedical€statistics€of€a€particular€community.€€However,€a€complete€lack€ofÐ ¨ø Ðknowledge€concerning€a€communityððs€medical€resources€would€be€contrary€toÐ ”ä Ðknowledge€of€the€required€standard€of€care.€€The€plaintiffððs€tendered€expert€must€beÐ €Ð Ðfamiliar€with€the€standard€of€care€in€the€community€in€which€the€defendant€practicesÐ l¼ Ðor€in€a€similar€community.ÐX ¨Ð Ð  Ðà@òò(ìà*****ˆÐ D!” Ðà8  àIn€this€case,€Dr.€Shaneððs€deposition€testimony€leads€us€to€conclude€that€he€is€notÐ 0"€  Ðfamiliar€with€the€standard€of€care€in€Jackson,€Tennessee.€€Moreover,€we€cannotÐ #l! Ðaccept€Dr.€Shaneððs€bare€assertion€that€the€standard€of€care€in€Jackson€is€the€sameÐ $X" Ðnationwide€and€that€the€level€of€care€with€which€Dr.€Shane€is€familiar€should€haveÐ ô$D # Ðbeen€available€in€Jackson.Ðà%0!$Ð Ð  ÐÌòòIdóó.€at€831.€€Thus,€in€òòMabonóó,€the€expertððs€testimony€was€excluded€because€his€testimony€was€basedÐ ¸'#& Ðsolely€on€his€knowledge€of€a€national€standard€of€care.€€He€stated€in€his€affidavit€that€the€defendantÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdoctor€failed€to€meet€the€standard€of€care€that€ð ðshould€have€been€available€in€a€city€the€size€ofÐ )à$( ÐJackson,€Tennessee.ðð€€The€court€found€this€statement€significant€as€indicative€that€the€expertððsÐ |*Ì%) Ðtestimony€was€premised€on€the€national€standard€and€not€on€the€applicable€local€standard.€€TheÐ h+¸&* Ðexpert€also€readily€admitted€his€complete€lack€of€knowledge€of€Jacksonððs€medical€community.€€ThisÐ ° Ðcourt€concluded€the€expertððs€testimony€did€not€provide€the€requisite€basis€for€knowledge€of€localÐ œì Ðstandards.€€òòSee€also,€Ayers€v.€Rutherford€Hospital,€Inc.óó,€689€S.W.2d€155,€159,€162„63€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð ˆØ ÐApp.€1984)€(òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€April€22,€1985)€(expert€testified€he€knew€nothing€about€the€size€ofÐ tÄ Ðthe€city€of€Murfreesboro,€the€size€of€the€hospital,€had€never€been€there€and€did€not€know€anyone€whoÐ `° Ðpracticed€there).Ð L œ ÐÔ#†X)¨XXX)¨UD#ÔÌà  àIn€other€cases,€a€proposed€expertððs€reliance€on€a€national€standard€of€care€has€also€resultedÐ $ t Ðin€the€exclusion€of€that€expertððs€testimony.€€For€example,€in€òòOsler€v.€Burnettóó,€No.€02A01„9202„CV„Ð  ` Ð00046,€1993€WL€90381€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€March€30,€1993)€we€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€summaryÐ ü L  Ðjudgment€excluding€the€testimony€of€an€expert€who€ð ðreadily€admittedðð€he€was€not€familiar€with€theÐ è 8  Ðmedical€standards€in€the€city€in€which€the€defendant€practiced.€€òòIdóó.€at€*4.€€We€held€the€expert€simplyÐ Ô$  Ðfailed€to€establish€that€he€had€knowledge€of€the€requisite€standard€of€care.€€In€òòSpangler€v.€EastÐ À  ÐTennessee€Baptist€Hospitalóó,€No.€E1999„01501„COA„R3„CV,€2000€WL€222543€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ¬ü  ÐFebruary€28,€2000),€we€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€plaintiffððs€expert€was€not€qualifiedÐ ˜è  Ðto€testify€as€an€expert€because€the€expertððs€belief€that€he€was€familiar€with€the€standard€of€care€in€theÐ „Ô  Ðdefendantððs€locality€was€based€solely€on€his€conclusion€ð ðthat€standard€of€care€did€not€vary€fromÐ pÀ Ðcommunity€to€community.ðð€€We€specifically€stated€that€the€expert€ð ðpresented€no€other€factual€basisÐ \¬ Ðthat€he€was€familiar€with€the€local€standard€of€care,€and€there€is€no€proof€whatsoever€in€the€recordÐ H˜ Ðthat€would€explain€how€the€witness,€a€physician€from€Washington,€D.C.,€would€be€familiar€with€theÐ 4„ Ðstandard€of€care€in€Knoxville.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€*2.Ð  p ÐÌà  àIn€all€the€cases€described€above,€the€expert€was€shown€to€have€no€knowledge€of€the€standardÐ øH Ðof€care€in€the€defendantððs€community€or€in€a€community€shown€to€be€similar.€€Thus,€these€holdingsÐ ä4 Ðstand€for€the€proposition€that€an€expertððs€knowledge€of€the€national€standard€of€care,€even€coupledÐ Ð  Ðwith€a€bare€assertion€that€the€national€standard€applied€to€the€defendantððs€community,€was€notÐ ¼  Ðsufficient€to€establish€the€requisite€knowledge€of€the€local€standard€where€the€facts€demonstrated€noÐ ¨ø Ðknowledge€of€the€locality€or€similar€localities.€€As€this€court€has€recently€stated:Ð ”ä ÐÌà8  àAlthough€this€Court€has€ð ðadmonished€lawyers€to€couch€their€medical€expertsððÐ l¼ Ðconclusions€in€the€language€ofðð€the€statute,€we€realize€that€ð ða€mere€ritualisticÐ X ¨ Ðincantation€of€statutory€buzz€evidences€very€little.ðð€€Rather,€we€must€look€at€theÐ D!” Ðexpertððs€opinion€to€determine€if€it€is€based€upon€ð ðtrustworthy€facts€or€data€sufficientÐ 0"€  Ðto€provide€some€basis€for€the€opinion.ðð€€Ð#l!Ð Ð  ÐÌòòRoberts€v.€Bicknellóó,€No€W2000„02514„COA„R3„CV,€2001€WL€935345,€at€*7€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Aug,Ð ô$D # Ð16,€2001)€(internal€citations€omitted).€€The€expert€in€òòBicknellóó€ð ðcandidly€admittedðð€to€knowingÐ à%0!$ Ðnothing€about€the€practice€of€medicine€in€the€community€where€the€defendant€practiced.€€TheÐ Ì&"% Ðspecifics€of€this€complete€lack€of€knowledge€were€established,€as€in€òòMabon,óó€by€cross„examination,Ð ¸'#& Ðand€the€testimony€was€nearly€identical€to€that€of€the€proposed€expert€in€òòMabonóó.€€Stating€that€the€lawÐ ¤(ô#' Ðof€expert€witnesses€ð ðrequires€the€expert€to€have€òòsomeóó€knowledge€of€the€practice€of€medicine€in€theÐ )à$( Ðcommunity€at€issue€or€a€similar€community,ðð€this€court€concluded€the€expertððs€testimony€did€notÐ |*Ì%) Ðmeet€that€standard.€€òòIdóó.€at€*8.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àIn€another€recent€opinion,€this€court€closely€examined€an€expertððs€testimony€regarding€theÐ ° Ðapplicable€standard€of€care€to€determine€if€there€was€sufficient€proof€that€Lexington,€Kentucky,Ð œì Ðwhere€the€expert€practiced,€was€similar€to€the€locality€of€defendantððs€practice,€Memphis,€Tennessee.Ð ˆØ ÐòòWilson€v.€Pattersonóó,€No.€W2000„02771„COA„R3„CV,€2001€WL€912807€€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Aug.€10,Ð tÄ Ð2001).€€In€that€case,€the€expert,€Dr.€Swan,€first€testified€that€a€national€standard€was€applicable.€€òòIdóó.Ð `° Ðat€*3.€€Later,€he€submitted€affidavits€that€clarified€that€the€standard€in€Lexington,€Kentucky,€andÐ L œ ÐMemphis,€Tennessee,€were€the€same€as€the€national€standard.€€Further,€he€was€familiar€with€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðstandard€in€Memphis€because,€like€Lexington,€it€was€a€regional€medical€center,€had€a€medical€schoolÐ $ t Ðand€he€had€testified€in€trials€there,€which€involved€reading€medical€records€and€depositions€of€otherÐ  ` Ðdoctors€in€the€area.€€òòIdóó.€at€*3.€€Defendant€attempted€to€strike€the€testimony€contained€in€the€affidavitsÐ ü L  Ðas€being€in€contradiction€to€his€deposition€testimony€regarding€a€national€standard.€€òòIdóó.€at€*7„8.€€ThisÐ è 8  ÐCourt€did€not€find€the€statements€to€be€in€contradiction€to€each€other,€but€instead,€found€that€theÐ Ô$  Ðaffidavits€explained€the€deposition€testimony.€€òòIdóó.€€Further,€while€Dr.€Swanððs€testimony€on€theÐ À  Ðsimilarities€between€the€medical€communities€of€Lexington€and€Memphis€was€ð ðsomewhat€meager,ððÐ ¬ü  Ðit€was€determined€to€be€enough€to€survive€dismissal€on€summary€judgment.€€òòIdóó.€at€*9.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€analysis€inòò€Pattersonóó€is€similar€to€that€employed€earlier€in€òòLedford€v.€Moskowitzóó,€742Ð pÀ ÐS.W.2d€645€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987),€wherein€this€court€reversed€a€trial€courtððs€determination€that€theÐ \¬ Ðplaintiffððs€expert€was€insufficiently€familiar€with€the€standard€of€care€in€the€applicable€localityÐ H˜ Ð(Cleveland,€Tennessee).€€Commenting€on€the€expertððs€admission€that€he€had€never€been€to€ClevelandÐ 4„ Ðand€did€not€know€the€number€of€hospitals€or€doctors€there,€this€court€emphasized€that€ð ðpreciseÐ  p Ðknowledge€of€the€specific€medical€statistics€of€a€particular€community€.€.€.€is€not€a€requirement€ofÐ  \ Ðthe€statute.ðð€€The€expert€had€testified€that€his€Atlanta€practice€involved€referrals€from€small€townsÐ øH Ðoutside€Atlanta€and€that€he€was€familiar€with€the€standard€of€care€in€small€towns€all€over€Georgia.€Ð ä4 ÐTherefore,€he€stated€he€was€familiar€with€the€standard€of€care€in€Cleveland€ð ðin€a€broad€sense.ðð€€ThisÐ Ð  Ðcourt€found€that€ð ðtaken€as€a€whole,€[the€expertððs]€proof€creates€a€material€issue€of€fact€on€theÐ ¼  Ðstandard€of€acceptable€psychiatric€practice€in€similar€communities€to€those€found€in€Polk,€McMinn,Ð ¨ø Ðand€Bradley€county€Ô_Ôarea[sÔ_Ô].€€Although€medical€malpractice€actions€impose€more€rigorous€proceduralÐ ”ä Ðrequirements€on€the€plaintiff,€once€the€threshold€of€proof€has€been€crossed;€as€it€has€been€here€byÐ €Ð ÐPlaintiffððs€expert€.€.€.€then€the€case€should€proceed€to€trial€on€the€merits.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€649.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àWe€do€not€conclude€that€a€physicianððs€reference€to€a€national€standard€automatically€excludesÐ D!” Ðthat€doctorððs€testimony€on€the€basis€of€the€locality€rule.€€As€early€as€1986,€our€Supreme€CourtÐ 0"€  Ðrecognized€a€trend€toward€the€ð ðnational€standardization€of€medical€practices,€especially€inÐ #l! Ðspecialties.ðð€€òòSutphinóó,€720€S.W.2d€at€457.€€However,€the€medical€professionððs€trend€does€notÐ $X" Ðeliminate€the€statutory€requirement€that€a€medical€malpractice€plaintiff€establish€through€expertÐ ô$D # Ðtestimony€the€standard€of€acceptable€practice€in€the€community€where€the€defendant€practices€or€aÐ à%0!$ Ðsimilar€community.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àThe€question€is€whether€the€expert€possesses€knowledge€of€the€standard€in€the€relevantÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcommunity.€€The€expert€must€have€ð ðsome€knowledgeðð€as€a€basis€for€his€or€her€opinion€on€theÐ )à$( Ðapplicable€standard.€€The€purpose€of€the€locality€rule€is€to€insure€that€ð ðdoctors€charged€withÐ |*Ì%) Ðnegligence€in€this€state€receive€a€fair€assessment€of€their€conduct€in€relation€to€community€standardsÐ h+¸&* Ðsimilar€to€the€one€in€which€they€practice.ðð€€òòSutphinóó,€720€S.W.2d€at€458.€€€Whether€the€proposedÐ ° Ðexpert€can€provide€the€basis€for€such€a€ð ðfair€assessmentðð€is€the€fundamental€issue€to€be€determinedÐ œì Ðby€the€court€in€ruling€on€the€admissibility€of€the€expertððs€testimony.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àAs€the€authorities€discussed€above€make€clear,€an€expertððs€knowledge€of€the€standard€in€aÐ `° Ðparticular€locality€based€solely€on€the€expertððs€knowledge€of€the€national€standard€and€his€or€herÐ L œ Ðbelief€that€the€national€standard€should€apply€in€the€relevant€locality€do€not€demonstrate€knowledgeÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€the€local€standard.€€After€reviewing€Dr.€Kennedyððs€testimony€thoroughly,€we€can€find€no€otherÐ $ t Ðbasis€for€his€knowledge€of€the€standard€of€acceptable€practice€in€Nashville.€€He€did€not€say€he€wasÐ  ` Ðfamiliar€with€that€standard€or€that€he€was€familiar€with€the€Nashville€medical€community.€€He€statedÐ ü L  Ðthat€the€standard€in€Nashville€ð ðwould€be€expected€to€be€the€same€.€.€.€as€the€national€standard.ððÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àIt€is€the€role€of€the€trial€court€to€review€and€determine€the€trustworthiness€of€the€factual€basisÐ À  Ðfor€an€expertððs€testimony.€€òòMcDaniel€v.€Ô_ÔCSXÔ_Ô€Transp.,€Inc.óó,€995€S.W.2d€at€265.€€Herein,€Dr.€KennedyÐ ¬ü  Ðprovided€no€factual€basis€for€his€knowledge€of€the€standard€of€care€in€Nashville.€€Therefore,€the€trialÐ ˜è  Ðcourt€acted€well€within€its€discretion€in€excluding€Dr.€Kennedyððs€testimony,€and€we€affirm€thatÐ „Ô  Ðdecision.Ð pÀ ÐÌà@vv(ìàIII.ˆÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àBecause€we€affirmed€the€dismissal€of€Mr.€Robinsonððs€case€on€the€first€ground,€we€must€nowÐ  p Ðdecide€whether€or€not€the€court€erred€in€not€allowing€plaintiffððs€request€to€have€Dr.€Kennedy€testifyÐ  \ Ðlive€at€trial.€€We€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€trial€court€in€not€allowing€any€further€testimonyÐ øH Ðby€Dr.€Kennedy€and€dismissing€the€cause€of€action.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIt€is€well€settled,€and€plaintiff€readily€admits€in€his€brief,€that€it€is€in€the€trial€courtððsÐ ¼  Ðdiscretion€to€allow€additional€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Brockóó,€940€S.W.2d€577,€580€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.Ð ¨ø Ð1996)€and€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€785€S.W.2d€132,€136€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1989)€(both€citing€òòState€v.€Bellóó,Ð ”ä Ð690€S.W.2d€879,€882€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.1985)€(òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€Apr.€1,€1985));€òòWinchester€v.Ð €Ð ÐWinchesteróó,€No.€02A01-9802-CV-00046,€1999€WL€250176,€at€*12€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Apr.€28,€1999)Ð l¼ Ð(òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€Oct.€4,€1999).€Ô‡X)¨XXX)¨ÔOur€Supreme€court€has€stated€that€a€decision€to€not€allowÐ X ¨ Ðadditional€evidence€may€be€set€aside€when€ð ðthere€is€a€showing€that€an€injustice€has€been€done.ðð€Ð D!” ÐòòSimpson€v.€Frontier€Ô_ÔCmtyÔ_Ô.€Credit€Unionóó,€810€S.W.2d€147,€149€(Tenn.€1991).€€We€do€not€find€thatÐ 0"€  Ðto€be€the€case€here.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àMr.€Robinson€was€well€aware€of€potential€problems€with€Dr.€Kennedyððs€testimony.€Ð ô$D # ÐTherefore,€there€were€ample€opportunities€to€present€further€testimony€to€explain€his€familiarity€withÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€standard€of€care€in€Nashville.€€First,€Mr.€Robinson€was€most€certainly€aware€of€the€statutoryÐ Ì&"% Ðrequirements€to€qualify€as€an€expert€in€a€medical€malpractice€case€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Ð ¸'#& Ððð€29„26„115.€€Second,€Dr.€Ô_ÔLeCorpsÔ_Ô€objected€at€the€evidentiary€deposition€based€on€the€testimony€Dr.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐKennedy€was€providing,€and€apparently€had€also€given€in€the€discovery€deposition.€€The€objectionÐ )à$( Ðwas€clear€and€concise€as€required€and€stated€an€objection€ð ðon€the€basis€he€[Dr.€Kennedy]€testifiedÐ |*Ì%) Ðin€his€discovery€deposition€his€opinions€were€based€on€a€national€standard.ðð€€At€that€time,€Mr.Ð h+¸&* ÐRobinson€could€have€asked€more€detailed€questions€to€explain€how€and€why€Dr.€Kennedy€wasÐ ° Ðfamiliar€with€the€standard€of€care€in€Nashville,€and€even€why€he€knew€that€(rather€than€expected)€theÐ œì ÐNashville€standard€was€the€same€as€the€Johnson€City€or€the€national€standard,€for€that€matter.€Ð ˆØ ÐHowever,€no€such€questions€were€asked.€€Finally,€Mr.€Robinson€was€made€aware€of€the€specificÐ tÄ Ðargument€and€objection€of€Dr.€Ô_ÔLeCorpsÔ_Ô€prior€to€trial€as€evidenced€by€the€motion€òòin€Ô_ÔlimineÔ_Ôóó€to€excludeÐ `° Ðthe€testimony€of€Dr.€Kennedy.€€As€in€some€of€the€cases€discussed€above,€Mr.€Robinson€could€haveÐ L œ Ðproduced€an€explanatory€affidavit€from€Dr.€Kennedy€in€response€to€the€objections€or€the€motion€orÐ 8 ˆ Ðcould€have€notified€counsel€and€the€court€that€Dr.€Kennedy€may€be€called€to€testify€in€person€at€trial.€Ð $ t ÐThe€record€does€not€reflect€that€any€of€these€measures€were€taken.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àTherefore,€we€see€no€evidence€of€an€abuse€of€discretion€on€behalf€of€the€trial€court€to€notÐ è 8  Ðallow€additional€evidence€after€these€opportunities€had€already€passed.€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtððsÐ Ô$  Ðdismissal€of€this€cause€of€action€based€upon€plaintiffððs€inability€to€meet€his€burden€of€proof€by€expertÐ À  Ðtestimony.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà@ll)ìàIV.ˆÐ „Ô  ÐÌà  àThis€cause€is€affirmed€and€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€actions€not€inconsistent€with€thisÐ \¬ Ðopinion.€€The€costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellant,€Jackie€Robinson,€for€which€executionÐ H˜ Ðshall€issue€if€necessary.Ð 4„ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ä4 Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEÔ#†X)¨XXX)¨u‡#Ô