ÿWPCÎ ¨d“„›µ­SÛý@âÇîz‰qúìÝã¿ÜÓÆ7× =~3;¿ß‘ÕpË2ÈS6Ÿ]¹jç ‚yðôyòtºsÅ’'w% TÏÁE¨{ 33ö?À®ÀÕaæÕ£…¨¢9V¦¾õ7 Œ‹ó—zª¿Ä6´ª·}5çׇ<~T‰*—[Ñ„ìЩ£Ëªò@ï†BP@iñØPp—ÌÞÀk"Ã*• Y–GÌ‘Ói¹A½86Ì8üœ·*Xæñn°×ž2Õå‚…ÜvŽoª¨:T¡¾ôtÎú‰ì»Hre†ñ¦n±ß?£$ê‚Ö¤Nç=EGŽÆ«½9ˆPâªù F¥)‘6Œc6ekVâ*;/Êâè:FѰ₟YìÀ\E›ðŠ7¡ˆýABJke…âo0$X½ƒP®å¹8¹×~†¡µ¼d¦[^mR|µ0Q"îáBuÌKMײ˷üe‘¯Gd-ŸûÕ,b¾– ;´ýl8ë+XÓB‹OwÄ /OfØ7È«@æÎ=§ Q ΄w3œm~Ï*‰VcÙ+…(Šÿ+eÐ6bÌ$bA¼PÂÌг®ðàTíÇpvqX\[_Äõ~®—`m&gJÉLzƒ±³ãôb#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 U(N¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ ™ ƧÆmÆ3ÆùùN¿¿¿EÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁbÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà 0ëËËËË B¶¶ 0¤Ó D3w D-ª 0K×× AS"Æu 0¤; 0Dß A«#˜\\IB01S08T\knoxclerk4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»Ýœ^/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular²p)/ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ  COASwineyMorristownSpanglerHuffakerpercutaneousgastrostomynonsuitLinasCowdenSovranDownenMcCarley OmerCarvell CBLAssocsPerales N.O. S.W.Tenn.CtVenableP]riorVandenheovelHechtPublg SipeLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2vk$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ý»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¦íò»»Ô d(|3G$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ý»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ý»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ý»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Ý»»»ÔÑ8€R‰XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îDÝÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼Ý»îîD #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAugust€22,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XR‰X»¼ÝÔÌÌò òÔ#†¼Ý»XXR‰ô#ÔERNEST€W.€SIPE,€BOTH€AS€ADMINISTRATOR€OF€THE€ESTATE€ANDÐ æ 6 ÐNEXT€OF€KIN€OF€GLADYS€LOUISE€SIPE,€DECEASEDòòóó€v.€F.€RAYMONDÐ ú J ÐPORTER,€M.D.òòóóÔ‡XR‰X»¼ÝÔó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ ^  Ðà@@øøìàNo.€1„638„96€€€€€€Dale€C.€Workman,€JudgeÐ úJ  ÐÌFiled€October€30,€2003€Ð Ò"  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2002„02938„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R9„CVÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á Ðó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓErnest€W.€Sipe€(ð ðPlaintiffðð)€sued€F.€Raymond€Porter,€M.D.€(ð ðDr.€Porterðð)€regarding€Dr.€PorterððsÐ d´ Ðmedical€care€of€Gladys€Louise€Sipe.€€Plaintiff€filed€his€expertððs€affidavit.€€Plaintiffððs€expert€then€wasÐ P  Ðdeposed.€€During€this€deposition,€defense€counsel€questioned€Plaintiffððs€expert€about€portions€of€Ms.Ð <Œ ÐÔ_ÔSipeÔ_Ôððs€medical€record€that€Plaintiffððs€expert€had€not€reviewed€previously.€€Dr.€Porter€then€filed€aÐ (x Ðmotion€for€partial€summary€judgment.Ô#†¼Ý»XXR‰í#ÔÔ‡XR‰X»¼ÝÔ€€After€his€deposition,€Plaintiffððs€expert€reviewed€all€of€theÐ d Ðpreviously€unreviewed€records,€and€Plaintiff€then€filed€a€supplemental€affidavit€of€his€expert.€€TheÐ P ÐTrial€Court€applied€the€rule€of€cancellation€and€found€that€Plaintiffððs€expertððs€opinions€wereÐ ì< Ðcontradictory€and€that€his€testimony€as€an€expert€witness€should€be€cancelled€and€disregarded€asÐ Ø( Ðcompetent€proof€in€this€case.€€The€Trial€Court€then€granted€Dr.€Porterððs€motion€for€partial€summaryÐ Ä Ðjudgment.€€Plaintiff€appeals.€€We€reverse€and€remand.€€€Ô#†¼Ý»XXR‰“#ÔÔ‡XR‰X»¼ÝÔÐ ° ÐÌÓÓÌò òInterlocutory€Appeal€Pursuant€to€Rule€9,€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.;€Ð t"Ä! ÐJudgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Reversed;€Case€Remanded.ó óÐ `#°" ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Ý»àXR‰E #ÔÔ‡XR‰X.¼ÝÔD.€Michael€Swiney,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.,óó€andÐ $&t!% ÐòòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€joined.Ð '`"& ÐÌÌLeslie€A.€Muse€and€Gary€E.€Brewer,€Morristown,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Ernest€W.€Sipe.Ð Ô)$%) ÐÌGary€G.€Spangler€and€Joseph€M.€Huffaker,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee,€F.€RaymondÐ ¬+ü&+ ÐPorter,€M.D.Ð ˜,è', ÐÓ1 Óò òÐ „-Ô(-ý ÐÔ_ÔOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Ý»XXR‰` #ÔÔ‡XR‰X»¼ÝÔÐ ° ÐòòóóÔ#†¼Ý»XXR‰¨ #ÔÔ‡XR‰X»¼ÝÔÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óò òòòBackgroundóóó óÐ ˆØ ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€sued€Dr.€Porter€and€Jeffrey€S.€Hecht,€M.D.€(ð ðDr.€Hechtðð)€for€the€wrongfulÐ `° Ðdeath€of€his€wife,€Gladys€Louise€Sipe,€alleging€that€Drs.€Porterððs€and€Hechtððs€medical€care€of€Ms.Ð L œ ÐSipe€deviated€from€the€acceptable€standard€of€care€and€caused€ð ðextensive€suffering€and€[the]Ð 8 ˆ Ðeventual€deathðð€of€Ms.€Sipe.€€Dr.€Porterððs€treatment€of€Ms.€Sipe€involved,€in€part,€the€placement€ofÐ $ t Ða€percutaneous€endoscopic€gastrostomy€(ð ðPEGðð)€tube.€€Both€Dr.€Porter€and€Dr.€Hecht€filed€motionsÐ  ` Ðfor€summary€judgment.€€Dr.€Hecht€later€withdrew€his€motion€for€summary€judgment€to€allowÐ ü L  ÐPlaintiff€to€take€a€voluntary€nonsuit€as€to€him€and€an€order€was€entered€dismissing€Dr.€Hecht€fromÐ è 8  Ðthe€case.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€responded€to€Dr.€Porterððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€and€filed€theÐ ¬ü  Ðaffidavit€of€his€expert,€Linas€J.€Adams,€M.D.€(ð ðDr.€Adamsðð).€€The€Trial€Court€heard€argument€andÐ ˜è  Ðentered€an€order€on€March€21,€1997,€granting€partial€summary€judgment€to€Dr.€Porter.€€The€TrialÐ „Ô  ÐCourt€held€that€Dr.€Porter€ð ðshould€be€granted€partial€summary€judgment€on€the€issue€of€whether€heÐ pÀ Ðnegligently€performed€the€PEG€tube€operative€procedure€.€.€.€.ðð€€The€Trial€Court€further€held€thatÐ \¬ Ðdisputed€issues€remained€regarding€whether€the€ð ðPEG€tube€operative€procedure€was€medicallyÐ H˜ Ðindicatedðð€and€whether€Dr.€Porter€obtained€appropriate€informed€consent.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àDr.€Adamsðð€deposition€was€taken€in€February€of€2002.€€The€deposition€questions€andÐ  \ Ðanswers€revealed€that€Dr.€Adams€had€not€reviewed€all€of€the€Fort€Sanders€and€University€ofÐ øH ÐTennessee€Hospital€records€relating€to€Ms.€Sipeððs€care.€€During€this€deposition,€defense€counselÐ ä4 Ðprovided€Dr.€Adams€with€portions€of€those€records€that€Dr.€Adams€had€not€reviewed€previously€andÐ Ð  Ðthen€questioned€Dr.€Adams€regarding€those€records.€€€€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àDr.€Porter€then€filed€a€motion€for€partial€summary€judgment€on€the€issue€of€whetherÐ ”ä Ðthe€PEG€tube€operative€procedure€was€medically€indicated.€€In€his€brief€filed€in€support€of€thatÐ €Ð Ðmotion,€Dr.€Porter€stated€that€prior€to€Dr.€Adamsðð€deposition,€Dr.€Adams€ð ðhad€not€fully€consideredÐ l¼ Ðand€reviewed€pertinent€Fort€Sanders€and€University€of€Tennessee€Hospital€records€relating€to€Mrs.Ð X ¨ ÐGladys€Sipeððs€nutritional€and€eating€problems€.€.€.€.ðð€€Dr.€Porterððs€brief€quotes€portions€of€Dr.€AdamsððÐ D!” Ðdeposition€filed€with€the€Trial€Court€where€Dr.€Adams€was€questioned€regarding€portions€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðpreviously€unreviewed€records.€€The€motion€contends€that€Dr.€Adamsðð€answers€to€these€depositionÐ #l! Ðquestions€both€Ô#†¼Ý»XXR‰#ÔÔ‡XR‰X»¼ÝÔcontradicted€his€earlier€opinions€as€expressed€in€his€affidavit€and,€in€fact,€wereÐ $X" Ðfavorable€to€Dr.€Porter€on€the€issue€of€whether€the€PEG€tube€operative€procedure€was€medicallyÐ ô$D # Ðindicated.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€responded€to€the€motion€for€partial€summary€judgment€and€filed€theÐ ¸'#& ÐSupplemental€Affidavit€of€Dr.€Adams.€€After€his€deposition,€Dr.€Adams€was€provided€with€both€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðportions€of€the€chart€on€which€deposition€questions€were€based€and€the€surrounding€records€that€hadÐ )à$( Ðnot€been€reviewed€by€Dr.€Adams€prior€to€his€deposition.€€Dr.€Adams€reviewed€all€these€additionalÐ |*Ì%) Ðrecords€prior€to€signing€his€supplemental€affidavit.Ô#†¼Ý»XXR‰×#ÔÔ‡XR‰X»¼ÝÔ€€The€supplemental€affidavit€specifically€statesÐ h+¸&* Ðthat€Dr.€Adams€had€reviewed€additional€records€that€had€not€been€made€available€to€him€at€the€timeÐ ° Ðof€his€deposition.€€The€supplemental€affidavit€expresses€additional€opinions,€explains€his€opinionsÐ œì Ðin€light€of€the€newly€reviewed€records,€and,€just€like€his€original€affidavit,€opines€that€Dr.€Porter€fellÐ ˆØ Ðbelow€the€acceptable€standard€of€care€in€performing€a€PEG€tube€placement€on€Ms.€Sipe.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€entered€an€order€on€September€27,€2002,€granting€Dr.€Porter€partialÐ L œ Ðsummary€judgment€holding€that€Dr.€Adamsðð€opinions€ð ðon€the€issue€of€medical€indication€for€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐPEG€procedureðð€are€contradictory€and€holding€that€Dr.€Adamsðð€expert€testimony€ð ðis€consequentlyÐ $ t Ðcancelled€and€is€to€be€disregarded€as€competent€proof€in€this€cause.ðð€€Plaintiff€filed€a€motion€forÐ  ` Ðinterlocutory€appeal€to€this€Court,€which€was€granted.€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ü L  ÐÌÓ  Óò òòòDiscussionóóó óÐ Ô$  ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àà ` àAlthough€not€stated€exactly€as€such,€Plaintiff€raises€one€issue€on€appeal:€whether€theÐ ¬ü  ÐTrial€Court€erred€in€its€order€granting€partial€summary€judgment€by€holding€that€Dr.€Adamsðð€expertÐ ˜è  Ðopinions€are€contradictory€such€that€his€testimony€should€be€cancelled€and€disregarded€as€competentÐ „Ô  Ðproof€in€this€case.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€our€Supreme€Court€has€instructed:Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€standards€governing€an€appellate€courtððs€review€of€aÐ  p Ðmotion€for€summary€judgment€are€well€settled.€€Since€our€inquiryÐ  \ Ðinvolves€purely€a€question€of€law,€no€presumption€of€correctnessÐ øH Ðattaches€to€the€lower€courtððs€judgment,€and€our€task€is€confined€toÐ ä4 Ðreviewing€the€record€to€determine€whether€the€requirements€of€Tenn.Ð Ð  ÐR.€Civ.€P.€56€have€been€met.€€òòSee€Hunter€v.€Brown,€óó955€S.W.2d€49,Ð ¼  Ð50„51€(Tenn.€1997);€òòCowden€v.€Sovran€Bank/Central€South,€óó816Ð ¨ø ÐS.W.2d€741,€744€(Tenn.€1991).€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Civil€ProcedureÐ ”ä Ð56.04€provides€that€summary€judgment€is€appropriate€where:€(1)€thereÐ €Ð Ðis€no€genuine€issue€with€regard€to€the€material€facts€relevant€to€theÐ l¼ Ðclaim€or€defense€contained€in€the€motion,€òòsee€Byrd€v.€Hall,€óó847Ð X ¨ ÐS.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993);€and€(2)€the€moving€party€is€entitledÐ D!” Ðto€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€on€the€undisputed€facts.€€òòSeeÐ 0"€  ÐAnderson€v.€Standard€Register€Co.,€óó857€S.W.2d€555,€559€(Tenn.Ð #l! Ð1993).€€The€moving€party€has€the€burden€of€proving€that€its€motionÐ $X" Ðsatisfies€these€requirements.€€òòSee€Downen€v.€Allstate€Ins.€Co.,€óó811Ð ô$D # ÐS.W.2d€523,€524€(Tenn.€1991).€€When€the€party€seeking€summaryÐ à%0!$ Ðjudgment€makes€a€properly€supported€motion,€the€burden€shifts€to€theÐ Ì&"% Ðnonmoving€party€to€set€forth€specific€facts€establishing€the€existenceÐ ¸'#& Ðof€disputed,€material€facts€which€must€be€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐòòSee€Byrd€v.€Hall,€óó847€S.W.2d€at€215.Ð)à$(` x` x Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àTo€properly€support€its€motion,€the€moving€party€must€eitherÐ ° Ðâ âaffirmatively€negate€an€essential€element€of€the€non„moving€partyððsÐ œì Ðclaim€or€conclusively€establish€an€affirmative€defense.€€òòSee€McCarleyÐ ˆØ Ðv.€West€Quality€Food€Serv.,€óó960€S.W.2d€585,€588€(Tenn.€1998);Ð tÄ ÐòòRobinson€v.€Omer,€óó952€S.W.2d€423,€426€(Tenn.€1997).€€If€the€movingÐ `° Ðparty€fails€to€negate€a€claimed€basis€for€the€suit,€the€non„movingÐ L œ Ðpartyððs€burden€to€produce€evidence€establishing€the€existence€of€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðgenuine€issue€for€trial€is€not€triggered€and€the€motion€for€summaryÐ $ t Ðjudgment€must€fail.€€òòSee€McCarley€v.€West€Quality€Food€Serv.,€óó960Ð  ` ÐS.W.2d€at€588;€òòRobinson€v.€Omer,€óó952€S.W.2d€at€426.€€If€the€movingÐ ü L  Ðparty€successfully€negates€a€claimed€basis€for€the€action,€the€non„Ð è 8  Ðmoving€party€may€not€simply€rest€upon€the€pleadings,€but€must€offerÐ Ô$  Ðproof€to€establish€the€existence€of€the€essential€elements€of€the€claim.ÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€standards€governing€the€assessment€of€evidence€in€theÐ ˜è  Ðsummary€judgment€context€are€also€well€established.€€Courts€mustÐ „Ô  Ðview€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€partyÐ pÀ Ðand€must€also€draw€all€reasonable€inferences€in€the€nonmovingÐ \¬ Ðpartyððs€favor.€€òòSee€Robinson€v.€Omer,€óó952€S.W.2d€at€426;€òòByrd€v.Ð H˜ ÐHall,€óó847€S.W.2d€at€210„11.€€Courts€should€grant€a€summaryÐ 4„ Ðjudgment€only€when€both€the€facts€and€the€inferences€to€be€drawnÐ  p Ðfrom€the€facts€permit€a€reasonable€person€to€reach€only€oneÐ  \ Ðconclusion.€òòSee€McCall€v.€Wilder,€óó913€S.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.Ð øH Ð1995);€òòCarvell€v.€Bottoms,€óó900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995).Ðä4` x` x ÐòòÌStaples€v.€CBL€&€Assocs.,€Inc.,€óó15€S.W.3d€83,€88„89€(Tenn.€2000)€(footnote€omitted).€€A€court€is€notÐ ¼  Ðto€weigh€the€evidenceÔ#†¼Ý»XXR‰"#ÔÔ‡XR‰X»¼ÝÔ€when€evaluating€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2dÐ ¨ø Ð208,€211€(Tenn.€1993).Ð ”ä Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àÌà  àà ` àIt€is€a€well€settledòòóó€rule€in€Tennessee€that€ð ðcontradictory€statements€by€the€sameÐ l¼ Ðwitness€regarding€a€single€fact€cancel€each€other€out.ðð€€òòChurch€v.€Peralesóó,€39€S.W.3d€149,€169Ð X ¨ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000);€òòe.g.,€Johnston€v.€Cincinnati,€N.O.€&€T.P.€Ry.€Co.óó,€240€S.W.€429,€436€(Tenn.Ð D!” Ð1921);€òòIn€Re:€Estate€of€Rossóó,€969€S.W.2d€398,€400€(Tenn.Ct.€App.€1997)Ô#†¼Ý»XXR‰X5#ÔÔ‡XR‰X»¼ÝÔòò;€Taylor€v.€NashvilleÐ 0"€  ÐBanner€Publððg€Co.óó,€573€S.W.2d€476,€482€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1978)òòÔ#†¼Ý»XXR‰z8#ÔÔ‡XR‰X»¼ÝÔóó.€€A€person€who€ð ðwithout€mistakeÐ #l! Ðinduced€by€the€opposite€party,€.€.€.€has€taken€a€particular€position€deliberately,€in€the€course€ofÐ $X" Ðlitigation,€must€act€consistently€with€it.€€One€cannot€play€fast€and€loose.ðð€€òòStamper€v.€Venableóó,€97Ð ô$D # ÐS.W.€812,€813€(Tenn.€1906)€(citation€omitted).Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€rule€of€cancellation€only€applies,€however,€ð ðwhen€the€inconsistency€in€theÐ ¸'#& Ðwitnessððs€testimony€is€unexplained€and€when€neither€version€of€his€testimony€is€corroborated€byÐ ¤(ô#' Ðother€evidence.ððòòóó€€òòTayloróó,€573€S.W.2d€at€483.€€ð ðThe€testimony€of€a€witness€as€to€a€particular€fact€mayÐ )à$( Ðhave€value€even€though€he€has€both€affirmed€and€denied€it€if€the€contradiction€is€explained€and€isÐ |*Ì%) Ðshown€to€have€been€the€result€of€misunderstanding€or€inadvertence.ðð€€òòJohnstonóó,€240€S.W.€at€435.€Ð h+¸&* Ðð ð[P]rior€inconsistent€statements€may€be€explained,€and€such€inconsistencies€go€only€to€the€weightÐ ° Ðto€be€given€the€witnessððs€testimony.ðð€€òòBaxter€v.€Vandenheovelóó,€686€S.W.2d€908,€911€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð œì Ð1984).€€€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€first€glance,€the€opinions€Dr.€Adams€expressed€in€his€original€affidavit€and€theÐ `° Ðopinions€he€expressed€during€his€deposition€appear€to€be€contradictory.€€However,€this€apparentÐ L œ Ðcontradiction€has€been€explained€and€shown€to€be€the€result€of€Dr.€Adams€forming€these€differentÐ 8 ˆ Ðopinions€expressed€at€different€times€based€upon€the€medical€information€and€records€he€wasÐ $ t Ðfurnished€at€each€particular€time.€€In€short,€the€opinions€expressed€by€Dr.€Adams€in€his€first€affidavit,Ð  ` Ðthen€in€his€deposition,€and€finally€in€his€supplemental€affidavit€each€were€based€on€different€sets€ofÐ ü L  ÐMs.€Sipeððs€medical€records€and€information€furnished€to€Dr.€Adams€at€each€of€those€three€times.€Ð è 8  ÐDr.€Adamsðð€opinions€expressed€in€his€original€affidavit€were€based€upon€the€medical€records€he€hadÐ Ô$  Ðreviewed€at€that€time.€€At€his€deposition,€he€was€furnished€portions€of€additional€medical€records€andÐ À  Ðhe€considered€those€portions€of€additional€medical€records,€along€with€the€medical€records€heÐ ¬ü  Ðoriginally€reviewed,€and€expressed€his€opinions€based€on€that€set€of€records.€€Finally,€after€hisÐ ˜è  Ðdeposition,€Dr.€Adams€reviewed€even€more€medical€records€so€that€the€opinions€expressed€in€hisÐ „Ô  Ðsupplemental€affidavit€are€based€upon€the€records€reviewed€prior€to€his€original€affidavit,€thoseÐ pÀ Ðportions€of€the€additional€medical€records€upon€which€he€was€questioned€at€his€deposition,€and€theÐ \¬ Ðadditional€medical€records€reviewed€after€his€deposition.€€€The€apparent€difference€in€opinionsÐ H˜ Ðexpressed€in€his€original€affidavit€and€in€his€deposition€occurred€because€Dr.€Adams€was€presentedÐ 4„ Ðat€his€deposition€with€portions€of€additional€records€he€had€not€reviewed€and€then€questionedÐ  p Ðregarding€those€portions.€€When€Dr.€Adams€reviewed€Ms€Sipeððs€entire€medical€record,€after€hisÐ  \ Ðdeposition,€the€opinions€he€formed€were€consistent€with€the€opinions€expressed€in€his€originalÐ øH Ðaffidavit.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€apparent€inconsistency€in€Dr.€Adamsðð€testimony€has€been€explained,€and,€thus,Ð ¼  Ðthe€rule€of€cancellation€does€not€apply.€€Any€inconsistencies€go€to€the€weight€to€be€given€Dr.€AdamsððÐ ¨ø Ðtestimony.€€As€the€apparent€inconsistencies€in€Dr.€Adamsðð€testimony€have€been€explained€and€as€aÐ ”ä ÐTrial€Court€is€not€to€weigh€the€evidence€on€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€we€hold€that€the€TrialÐ €Ð ÐCourt€erred€in€granting€Dr.€Porter€summary€judgment€on€the€issue€of€ð ðwhether€the€PEG€procedureÐ l¼ Ðthat€[Dr.€Porter]€performed€was€medically€indicated.ðð€€€€€€€€Ð X ¨ ÐÔ#†¼Ý»XXR‰.9#ÔÔ‡XR‰X»¼ÝÔÌÓ  Óò òòòConclusionó óóóÐ 0"€  ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àà ` àThe€partial€summary€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€on€the€issue€of€ð ðwhether€the€PEGÐ $X" Ðprocedure€that€[Dr.€Porter]€performed€was€medically€indicatedðð€is€reversed,€and€this€cause€isÐ ô$D # Ðremanded€to€the€Trial€Court€for€such€further€proceedings€as€are€required€consistent€with€thisÐ à%0!$ ÐOpinion.€€The€costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€Appellee,€F.€Raymond€Porter,€M.D.€€Ð Ì&"% ÐÔ#†¼Ý»XXR‰ J#ÔÔ‡XR‰X»¼ÝÔÌÔ#†¼Ý»XXR‰}L#ÔÔ€XR‰X»¼ÝÔÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGE