ÿWPCU4 G# òUNý %K 0ñQUNBw@4Ðä 0 5ó 0D( 0@l 0J¬ 0Tö 0^J 0h¨ 0r AQ‚ ÆÓ 0D™ BÝ 0Dú D/> 0|m Bé D3 0†9¿ 0Ç 1uW 0dÌU >0B)nDC— AMÚU*'wQØÈ V±ò¼ù¨µn]!Ë#¹[%*'Æ>+v~-vÓ‚.˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLLÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(Ɇ$¡¡Ñ°°ÑѰ°ÑÒ°°ÒÒ°°ÒÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓÔ€X”XXXÔ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular ›UœDUžVŸV D¡V¢Ó€®±n~<$¬DT3|x±(å(3“í$¤¤Ý ƒ†!ÝѰ°ÑѰ°ÑÒ°°ÒÒ°°ÒÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÔ€XñXXXÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô !#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý d($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxd2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔüÿP Pd""""'ÿÿdxd2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô&)+ ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d55557Border 1dd 6Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial mÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€4ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€8ÔÔ€8ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€8XÔÌÌò òJune€2,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€8ôÔAppellateÏCourt€Clerkó ó ÎÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€4ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓ€€Dr.€Swafford€also€sued€Blue€Cross€Blue€Shield€of€Tennessee€and€THCC,€Inc.;€theseÏparties€were€voluntarily€dismissed€without€prejudice€and€are€not€involved€in€this€appeal.€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€4ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓ€€Defendants€assert€that€this€April€17,€1997,€notification€gave€Dr.€Swafford€notice€that€heÏwould€be€terminated€90€days€thereafter.€€Dr.€Swafford€maintains€that€he€was€terminated€effectiveÏon€April€17,€1997,€without€advance€notice.Ì LÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€4ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓ€€Dr.€Swafford€filed€an€affidavit€stating€that€he€learned€of€the€retrieval€of€the€allegedlyÏdefamatory€information€by€St.€Francis€Hospital€on€March€6,€1995.€€Dr.€Swaffordððs€brief€claimsÏthat€Baptist€Hospital€accessed€the€information€in€July€of€1992,€but€this€assertion€is€not€clearlyÏsupported€by€the€record.Ì èÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€4ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓ€€€As€of€the€filing€of€this€opinion,€no€reported€cases€address€the€statute€of€limitations€in€the€Ïcontext€of€defamation€on€the€Internet.€€Undoubtedly€this€will€be€an€issue€in€the€future.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€JamesÏE.€Stewart€&€Laurie€J.€Michelson,€òòCyberspace€Defamationóó,€75€Mich.€B.J.€510,€512€(1996);€ÏByron€F.€Marchant,€òòOn„Line€on€the€Internet:€First€Amendment€and€Intellectual€PropertyÏUncertainties€in€the€On„Line€Worldóó,€39€How.€L.J.€477,€503€n.90€(1996).Ì ²Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€4ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓ€€This€issue€was€raised€in€ò òòòYater€v.€Wachovia€Bankó óóó,€861€S.W.2d€369,€372„73€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1993),€but€it€was€not€necessary€to€resolve€it€in€that€case.Ì žÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€4ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€ÓÓEnacted€in€1970,€the€FCRA€was€designed€to€require€credit€reporting€agencies€to€maintainÏð ðreasonable€proceduresðð€to€ensure€that€accurate€consumer€information€is€reported.€€15€U.S.C.A.Ïðððð€1681(b)€and€1681e(a)€(1998).€€Under€the€Act,€an€injured€consumer€may€sue€a€credit€reportingÏagency€for€failure€to€comply€with€requirements€set€forth€in€the€Act.€€15€U.S.C.A.€ðð€1681o€(1998).€Ì dÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€4ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€ÓÓIn€support€of€this€holding,€the€Court€cited€a€law€review€article€that€drew€an€ð ðanalogy€toÏthe€common€law€rule€in€commercial€defamation€cases.ðð€€ò òòòHydeó óóó,€861€F.2d€446,€449òòò ò€ó óóó(citing€MarthaÏF.€Davis,€òòSolving€Statute€of€Limitations€Problems€under€Fair€Credit€Reporting€Actóó,€18€Ind.€L.€R.Ï507,€514€(1985)).Ì †Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€4ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓ€We€do€not€address€a€situation€in€which€the€information€in€the€Data€Bank€could€beÏaccessed€by€the€general€public.Ì ¯Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€4ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€TÓÓhis€issue€was€raised€in€òòò òYateró óóó,€ò òòòsupraó óóó,€but€resolution€of€that€issue€was€not€necessary.€Ïò òòòYateró óóó,€861€S.W.2d€at€372„73.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€4ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓ€€It€should€be€noted€that€this€Court€recently€addressed€a€situation€in€which€the€plaintiffÏhad€no€prior€knowledge€of€the€potential€for€libel€and€the€plaintiff€€discovered€the€libel€at€a€date€laterÏthan€the€point€of€dissemination.€€ò òòòSee€Leedom€v.€Belló óóó,€No.€03A01„9704„CV„00136,€1997€WLÏ671918,€at€*7€(Tenn.€App.€Oct.€29,€1997)€(adopting€the€Mississippi€Supreme€Courtððs€holding€thatÏthe€statute€of€limitations€should€run€from€the€point€of€discovery€ð ðin€that€limited€class€of€libel€casesÏwhich,€because€of€the€secretive€or€inherently€undiscoverable€nature€of€the€publication€the€plaintiffÏdid€not€know,€or€with€reasonable€diligence€could€not€have€discovered,€that€he€had€been€defamed.ððÏ(quoting€ò òòòStaheli€v.€Smithó óóó,€548€So.2d€1299,€1303€(Miss.€1989))).€Ì ¼Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€4ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓ€In€ò òòòEmersonó óóó,€cited€by€Dr.€Swafford,€the€Court€applied€a€one€year€statute€of€limitationsÏfor€€the€conspiracy€claim.€ò òòòEmersonó óóó,€431€S.W.2d€at€286.ÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€4ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÓÓ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€ ÙœßR€796A1-j|é_` ­ `€€@ÿRß›à@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóÌGREG€œSWAFFORD,›€M.D.,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà àò ò)à àó óShelby€Law€No.€œ54167Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óAppeal€No.€02A01„9612„CV„00311ò òÌMEMPHIS€INDIVIDUAL€PRACTICEà à)ÌASSOCIATION,€SOUTHERN€HEALTHà à)ÌPLAN,€INC.,€THE€APPLE€PLAN,€a€›à à)à àœÌProduct€of€the€Southern€Health€Plan,€à à)ÌInc.,€a€Federally›€Qualified€Health€œà àà à)ÌMaintenance€Organization,›€œBLUEà àà à)ÌCROSS›€AND€œBLUE€SHIELD›€OF€œà àà à)ÌTENNESSEE,›€INC.,€œTHCC,€INC.,›€a€œà à)ÌTennessee›€œNon„Profit€Corporation,›à àœ)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àœó óDefendants/Appellees.›à àà àò ò)Ìó óÌÌà0 àà àà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€ROBERT€L.€CHILDERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌòòÌFor€the€Plaintiff/Appellantóó:òòà àà àà àFor€the€Defendants/AppelleesÌóóà àà àà àà àà àà àòòMemphis€Individual€Practice€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAssociation€and€Southern€Health€Plan,€Inc.óó:ÌWilliam€J.€Simmons€à àà àà àà àJohn€I.€Houseal,€Jr.ÌMemphis,€Tennessee€€à àà àà àWilliam€L.€Bomar€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àLeo€Bearman,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àSean€M.€HaynesÌà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€K.€SmithÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSteven€S.€HeinrichsÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TennesseeÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òREVERSED€IN€PART,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAFFIRMED€IN€PART€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.€ÇØØÙ  ÙÓÓÑ7€|ÉXXdðXXdì7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌà àThis€is€a€libel€suit€brought€by€a€physician€against€a€health€maintenance€organization€andÏrelated€health€insurance€entities.€€The€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€theÏdefendants€based€on€the€statute€of€limitations.€€The€lawsuit€involves€allegedly€false€informationÏreported€to€the€National€œPractitioner›€œData›€Bank.€€In€an€issue€of€first€impression,€we€hold€that€eachÏdissemination€of€the€allegedly€defamatory€information€by€the€Data€Bank€gives€rise€to€a€separateÏcause€of€action.€€The€grant€of€summary€judgment€is€affirmed€in€part€and€reversed€in€part,€and€theÏcause€is€remanded.Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant€Greg€Swafford,€M.D.€(ð ðDr.€Swaffordðð)€is€a€licensed€physicianÏpracticing€family€medicine€in€Shelby€County.€Defendant/Appellee€Southern€Health€Plan,€Inc.Ï(ð ðSouthernðð)€is€a€federally€qualified€health€maintenance€organization€operating€in€Tennessee.€ÏSouthern€hired€Defendant/Appellee€Memphis€Individual€Practice€Association€(ð ðMIPAðð)€toÏpromote,€sell,€and€manage€an€insurance€product€known€as€ð ðThe€Apple€Plan.ðð€€MIPA€is€responsibleÏfor€supervising€physicians€who€treat€Apple€Plan€policyholders€in€Tennessee.× ƒ: ××  ×€€Southern€and€MIPAÏmay€collectively€be€referred€to€as€ð ðthe€Defendants.ððÌà àIn€February€1990,€the€parties€entered€into€a€contract€entitled€ð ðMIPA€Participating€PrimaryÏCare€Physician€Agreementðð€(ð ðAgreementðð).€€The€Agreement€required€MIPA€to€refer€a€specifiedÏnumber€of€Apple€Plan€patients€to€Dr.€Swafford€and€required€Dr.€Swafford€to€treat€the€patientsÏreferred€to€him.€€The€Agreement€stated€that€either€party€could€withdraw€from€the€œAgreement›€uponÏninety€daysðð€notice.€€Ìà àIn€early€1991,€Dr.€Swafford€was€notified€that€the€Defendants€intended€to€sanction€him€forÏsubstandard€care.€€On€April€17,€1991,€Dr.€Swafford€received€a€notice€of€termination€due€to€allegedÏviolations€of€quality€of€care€standards.× ƒ; ××  ×€€Dr.€Swafford€believed€that€the€assertion€of€substandardÍcare€was€false,€but€did€not€object€to€his€termination.Ìà àOn€August€22,€1991,€the€Defendants€reported€Dr.€Swaffordððs€termination€to€the€NationalÏPractitioner€Data€Bank€(ð ðData€Bankðð).€€The€Data€Bank€operates€pursuant€to€42€U.S.C.A.€ððððÏ11131,€òòet.€seq.€óó(1995),€and€maintains€a€data€base€of€information€concerning€health€care€providers.€ÏAmong€œother›€requirements,€the€Act€imposes€a€mandate€that€all€health€care€entities€report€adverseÏprofessional€review€actions€to€the€Data€Bank.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€ðð€11133.€€Information€in€the€Data€Bank€is€Ïconfidential€and€can€œbe›€œaccessed€only›€by€health€care€entities.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€ðð€11137(b).€€Ìà àDr.€Swafford€alleged€that,€at€the€time€that€the€Defendants€reported€his€termination€to€theÏData€Bank,€he€was€unaware€of€the€reportððs€existence.€€In€January€1992,€Dr.€Swafford€was€notifiedÏby€the€Data€Bank€that€the€Defendants€had€reported€that€his€clinical€privileges€had€been€revoked€dueÏto€violations€of€quality€of€care€standards.€€Dr.€Swafford€was€uncertain€about€the€specific€number€ofÏinstances€in€which€health€care€entities€accessed€his€information€from€the€Data€Bank;€€however,€atÏleast€three€entities€have€retrieved€information€from€the€Data€Bank:€Baptist€Hospital,€St.€FrancisÏHospital,€and€the€Tennessee€Board€of€Medical€Examiners.€€None€denied€clinical€privileges€to€Dr.ÏSwafford.€€Nevertheless,€Dr.€Swafford€maintains€that€the€existence€of€the€Data€Bank€report€forcedÏhim€to€defend€his€record€to€these€œentities›€by€demonstrating€that€the€charge€of€substandard€care€wasÏfalse.€€The€record€does€not€clearly€indicate€when€each€of€these€health€care€entities€retrievedÏinformation€from€the€Data€Bank€or€when€Dr.€Swafford€became€aware€that€the€information€had€beenÏretrieved.× ƒ< ××  ×Ìà àDr.€Swafford€filed€a€lawsuit€against€the€Defendants€on€June€1,€1993.€€The€case€wasÏremoved€to€federal€court€and€the€parties€engaged€in€considerable€discovery.€€On€April€28,€1995,ÏDr.€Swafford€filed€an€amended€complaint€that€appears€to€œallege€several€causes€of€action,€including›Ïdefamation,€injury€to€personal€property,€intentional€infliction€of€emotional€distress,€outrageousÍconduct,€tortious€interference€with€business€œrelations,€and›€civil€œconspiracy.›€€The€federal€courtÏremanded€the€case€to€state€court.€€Both€parties€filed€cross„motions€for€summary€judgment.€€œIn€theirÏmotion,€the›€œDefendants›€œargued›€that€the€gravamen€of€Dr.€Swaffordððs€Complaint€is€libel€and€isÏbarred€by€a€one„year€statute€of€limitations.€€The€œDefendants›€also€maintained€that€Dr.€SwaffordÏfailed€to€satisfy€the€elements€of€certain€other€claims.Ìà àOn€June€œ6,›€1996,€the€trial€court€entered€a€succinct€order€granting€the€Defendantsðð€motionÏfor€summary€judgment,€without€elaborating€on€its€reasoning.€€From€this€order,€Dr.€Swafford€nowÏappeals.Ìà àOn€appeal,€Dr.€Swafford€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€granting€summary€judgment€toÏthe€Defendants.€€Dr.€Swafford€argues€that€the€trial€court€misapplied€the€one€year€statute€ofÏlimitations€for€injury€to€person€as€opposed€to€the€three€year€statute€for€injury€to€property.€€Dr.ÏSwafford€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€improperly€utilized€the€ð ðsingle€publication€ruleðð€for€theÏalleged€œdefamation,›€as€opposed€to€the€ð ðmultiple€publication€rule.ðð€€Finally,€Dr.€Swafford€arguesÏthat€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€applying€a€three€year€statute€of€limitations€to€the€civil€conspiracyÏcharge,€and€that€his€claim€for€tortious€interference€with€business€relations€should€not€have€beenÏdismissed.Ìà àIn€addition€to€responding€to€Dr.€Swaffordððs€contentions,€the€Defendants€assert€that€hisÏappeal€should€be€dismissed€due€to€Dr.€Swaffordððs€ð ðfatal€procedural€errors.ðð€€The€Defendants€allegeÏthat€Dr.€Swafford€failed€to€comply€with€Rules€4(a),€24(a),€and€24(d)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏAppellate€Procedure.€€We€will€first€address€the€procedural€issues.€€Ìà àThe€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€to€the€Defendants€on€June€6,€1996.€€Dr.ÏSwafford€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€on€July€œ8,›€1996.€€He€also€filed€a€post„judgment€motion€pursuantÏto€Rules€59.02€and€59.04€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€Dr.€Swaffordððs€post„judgment€motion€was€denied€on€October€7,€1996.€€Under€Rule€4(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏAppellate€Procedure,€the€time€period€for€filing€his€notice€of€appeal€ran€from€the€denial€of€this€post„judgment€motion.€Dr.€Swafford€did€not€file€another€notice€of€appeal€after€his€post„judgment€motionÍwas€denied.€€The€Defendants€argue€that€Dr.€Swaffordððs€failure€to€file€a€second€notice€of€appealÏviolates€Rule€4(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€Ìà àRule€4(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€provides€that€the€notice€of€appealÏð ðshall€be€filed€.€.€.€within€30€days€after€the€date€of€entry€of€the€judgment€appealed€from.€.€.€.ðð€ÏBased€on€this€provision,€the€Defendants€argue€that€Dr.€Swaffordððs€appeal€should€be€dismissed.€ÏHowever,€Rule€4(d)€of€the€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àA€prematurely€filed€notice€of€appeal€shall€be€treated€as€filed€after€entry€of€theÏjudgment€œfrom›€which€the€appeal€is€taken€and€on€the€day€thereof.ÌÌÓÓThe€Advisory€Commission€Comment€to€Rule€4(d)€states€that€Rule€4(d):ÌÓÓà8 àestablishes€the€general€rule€that€the€right€to€appeal€is€not€lost€by€filing€notice€ofÏappeal€before€entry€of€the€judgment€appealed€from.€€The€Commission€is€concernedÏthat€some€lawyers€have€misread€the€original€draft€and€have€failed€to€file€a€newÏnotice€of€appeal€when€the€earlier€notice€is€of€ð ðno€effectðð€because€a€motionÏdisposition€intervened.€€Believing€that€even€a€premature€notice€of€appeal€suffices€toÏinform€the€œÌÌÌà8 àadversary›€that€an€appeal€is€intended,€the€Commission€proposes€deleting€portions€ofÏsubdivisions€(b)€and€(d)€to€give€an€early€notice€an€effective€date€identical€to€the€dateÏof€entry€of€an€order€overruling€a€post„trial€motion.ÌÌÓÓUnder€4(d),€a€prematurely€filed€notice€of€appeal€may€be€deemed€timely.€€òòò òSee€Gaskill€v.ÏGaskilló óóó,€936€S.W.2d€626,€œ63›0€n.4€(Tenn.€œApp.€1996).›€€We€find€that€Dr.€Swaffordððs€notice€ofÏappeal€was€timely€under€œRule›€4(d).€€Rule€4(a)€does€not€bar€this€appeal.Ìà àDefendants€also€argue€that€the€appeal€should€be€dismissed€because€Dr.€Swafford€violatedÏœRule›€24(d)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€by€not€timely€filing€a€statement€that€noÏtranscript€was€to€be€filed,€and€also€violated€Rule€24(a)€by€failing€to€timely€file€a€description€of€theÏrecord.€Ìà àRule€24€concerns€the€preparation€and€filing€of€the€record€on€appeal.€€Although€theÏrequirements€are€important,€failure€to€comply€with€Rule€24€does€œnot€always›€warrant€dismissal€ofÏthe€appeal:ÌÓÓà8 àœThe›€provisions€of€œRule€24›€regarding€the€designation,€preparation€and€certificationÏof€the€transcript€œare›€clear€and€œunambiguous.€€A€brief€review€of€the€rule€prior€toÍfiling€a€notice€of€appeal€will€provide€adequate€instruction€to€careful€counsel.€ÏNonetheless,€we€hold€that€in€this€case,€the€dismissal€of€this€appeal€was€inconsistentÏwith€the€spirit€and€intent€of€the€rules.€€›ÌÌÓÓòòò òJohnson€v.€Hardinó óóó,€926€S.W.2d€œ236,€240„241›€(Tenn.€1996).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€ÏConsequently,€we€shall€address€the€substantive€issues€raised€on€appeal.€€Ìà àA€motion€for€summary€judgment€should€be€granted€when€the€movant€demonstrates€thatÏthere€are€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€aÏmatter€of€law.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.03.€€The€party€moving€for€summary€judgment€bears€theÏburden€of€demonstrating€that€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists.€€ò òòòByrd€v.€Hallóóó ó,€847ÏS.W.2d€208,€211€(Tenn.€1993).€€On€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€court€must€take€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,€allowing€all€reasonableÏinferences€in€favor€of€that€party,€and€discarding€all€countervailing€evidence.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€210„11.€ÏSummary€judgment€is€only€appropriate€when€the€facts€and€the€legal€conclusions€drawn€from€theÏfacts€reasonably€permit€only€one€conclusion.€€ò òòòCarvell€v.€Bottomsó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.Ï1995).€€Since€only€questions€of€law€Ìare€involved,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€regarding€a€trial€court's€grant€of€summaryÏjudgment.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€Therefore,€our€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€is€ò òòòde€novoó óóóÏon€the€record€before€this€Court.€€ò òòòId.óóó óÌà àThe€applicable€statute€of€limitations€is€determined€by€the€gravamen€of€the€action,€rather€thanÏthe€designation€of€the€case€as€lying€in€tort€or€contract.€€ò òòòTaylor€v.€Trans€Aero€Corp.ó óóó,€924ÏS.W.2d€109,€113€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€We€look€at€the€subject€matter€of€the€lawsuit,€rather€than€theÏremedial€procedure€used.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€(citing€ò òòòWilliams€v.€Thompsonó óóó,€223€Tenn.€170,€172,€443ÏS.W.2d€447,€449€(1969)).€Ìà àThere€is€little€dispute€in€this€case€that€the€gravamen€of€Dr.€Swaffordððs€action€is€libel.€€ò òòòSee,Ïœe.g.,ó óóó›€ò òòòBrown€v.€Dunstanó óóó,€409€S.W.2d€365,€367€(Tenn.€œ1966);€òòò òYater€v.€Wachovia€Bank€ó óóó,Ï861€S.W.2d€369,€372€(Tenn.€App.€1993).›€€The€trial€court€properly€applied€the€one€year€statute€ofÏlimitations€for€ð ð[a]ctions€for€libel,€[and]€for€injuries€to€the€person€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„3„104€(Supp.€1997).€Ìà àNext€we€must€determine€whether€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations€had€expired€when€theÏplaintiff€filed€his€lawsuit.€€It€is€undisputed€that€the€lawsuit€was€filed€more€than€one€year€after€Dr.ÏSwafford€learned€that€the€allegedly€defamatory€information€had€been€reported€to€the€Data€Bank.€ÏHowever,€it€appears€that€at€least€one€instance€in€which€the€information€was€accessed€may€haveÏtaken€place€within€the€one„year€limitations€period.€€To€resolve€this€issue,€we€must€determine€(1)Ïwhether€the€ð ðsingle€publication€ruleðð€should€apply€in€this€case,€and€(2)€when€the€limitations€periodÏcommenced€for€each€claim.Ìà àUnder€the€ð ðtraditional€common€law€approachðð€in€libel€cases,€€an€independent€cause€ofÏaction€exists€for€each€dissemination€of€a€defamatory€statement.€€ò òòòApplewhite€v.€Memphis€StateÏUniv.ó óóó,€495€S.W.2d€190,€191,€193€(Tenn.€1973).€€Distribution€of€multiple€copies€of€libelousÏmaterials€created€multiple€claims,€œð ðeach€one›€accruing€at€the€time€of€distribution.ðð€€œò òòòId.ó óóó€at€193.òòò ò›€€ó óóóThisÏis€known€as€the€ð ðmultiple€publication€rule.ðð€€ò òòòId.€Ìà àó óóóIn€response€to€the€problems€created€by€a€multiplicity€of€lawsuits,€the€ð ðsingle€publicationÏruleðð€developed.€€The€single€publication€rule€is€an€exception€to€the€traditional€view€that€each€ofÏseveral€communications€to€a€third€person€by€the€same€defamer€is€a€separate€publication.€€Under€thisÏexception,€ð ð[a]ny€one€edition€of€a€book€or€newspaper,€or€any€one€radio€or€television€broadcast,Ïexhibition€of€a€motion€picture€or€similar€aggregate€communication€is€a€single€publication.ðð€ÏRestatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€œ577A(3)›€(1977).€Ìà àThe€comments€to€the€Restatement€indicate€that€the€reason€for€the€single€publication€rule€is€toÏavoid€the€ð ðnumerous€suitsðð€that€may€culminate€from€the€publication€of€a€ð ðlarge„scaleÏcommunication.ðð€€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€577A€cmt.€c;€ò òòòsee€also€Applewhiteó óóó,€495ÏS.W.2d€at€193„94.€€The€Restatement€comments€state€that€the€single€publication€rule€does€not€applyÏto€ð ðaggregate€publications€on€different€occasions.ðð€€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts€€ðð€577A€cmt.€d.€ÏThe€Restatement€explains:ÌÓÓà8 àif€the€same€defamatory€statement€is€published€in€the€morning€and€evening€editionsÍof€a€newspaper,€each€edition€is€a€separate€single€publication€and€there€are€twoÏcauses€of€action.€€The€same€is€true€of€a€rebroadcast€of€the€defamation€over€radio€orÏtelevision€or€a€second€run€of€a€motion€picture€on€the€same€evening.€€In€these€casesÏthe€publication€reaches€a€new€group€and€the€repetition€justifies€a€new€cause€ofÏaction.€€The€justification€for€this€conclusion€usually€offered€is€that€in€these€cases€theÏsecond€publication€is€intended€to€and€does€reach€a€new€group.ÌÌÓÓò òòòId.óóó óÌà àThe€single€publication€rule€was€recognized€in€Tennessee€in€òòò òApplewhite€v.€MemphisÏState€Univ.ó óóó,€495€S.W.2d€190€(Tenn.€1973).€€In€ò òòòApplewhiteó óóó,€òòò ò€ó óóóthe€plaintiff€filed€suit€against€theÏauthor€of€a€book€and€its€publisher€for€allegedly€libelous€remarks€contained€in€the€book.€€The€trialÏcourt€dismissed€the€action,€ruling€that€the€statute€of€limitations€expired€prior€to€the€filing€of€theÏlawsuit.€€The€plaintiff€appealed.€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€191.€€Adopting€the€single€publication€rule,€the€SupremeÏCourt€held:ÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€single€publication€rule€is€suited€to€the€contemporary€publishing€worldÏwhere€large€œnumbers›€of€copies€of€a€book,€newspaper,€or€magazine€are€circulated.€ÏIt€would€substantially€impair€the€administration€of€justice€to€allow€separate€actionsÏon€each€individual€copy€and€it€would€create€the€possibility€of€harassment,€andÏmultiple€recoveries€against€defendants.€€Therefore,€we€hold€under€Tennessee€law€aÏplaintiff€should€be€limited€to€a€single€cause€of€action€based€on€the€circulation€ofÏcopies€of€an€edition€of€a€book,€newspaper,€or€periodical.ÌÌÓÓò òòòId.€óóó óat€194.€€€Thus,€for€an€ð ðaggregate€communicationðð€such€as€book€or€newspaper,€the€singleÏpublication€rule€applies.€€Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€Data€Bank€is€an€electronic€data€base€that€stores€information€related€to€theÏquality€of€care€of€physicians.€€Each€transmission€by€the€Data€Bank€of€the€report€on€Dr.€SwaffordÏwas€released€in€response€to€an€affirmative€request€by€a€hospital€or€other€health€care€entity.ÏInformation€stored€œin›€the€Data€Bank€may€be€accessed€only€by€certified€health€care€entities.€Ìà àThe€Defendants€argue€that,€once€the€information€is€stored€on€the€Data€Bank,€it€becomesÏopenly€accessible€to€the€public€and€is€akin€to€the€ð ðcirculation€of€copies€of€an€edition€of€a€book,Ïnewspaper,€or€periodical.ðð€€œò òòòApplewhiteó óóó,€at€194.€€The›€Defendants€contend€that€any€alleged€injuryÏoccurs€when€the€information€is€stored€on€the€Data€Bank.€€Dr.€Swafford,€on€the€other€hand,€arguesÏthat€the€single€publication€rule€is€not€applicable€to€these€facts.€€He€contends€that€injury€does€not€œÇoccur›€until€the€information€stored€on€the€Data€Bank€is€requested€and€retrieved€by€individual€healthÏcare€entities.€Ìà àWhether€the€single€publication€rule€should€be€applied€to€the€dissemination€of€allegedÏœdefamatory›€information€in€the€Data€Bank€to€health€care€providers€is€an€issue€of€first€impression€inÏTennessee.€€We€found€no€published€decisions€in€other€states€addressing€this€issue.€€Ì€€à àSince€there€are€no€reported€defamation€cases€on€the€access€of€Data€Bank€information,€weÏlook€to€decisions€with€analogous€facts.œ× ƒ= ××  ×›€€Several€courts€have€considered€when€the€cause€of€actionÏaccrues€for€an€action€arising€out€of€an€allegedly€defamatory€statement€in€a€credit€report.œ× ƒ> ××  ×›€€In€ò òòòHydeÏv.€Hibernia€Natððl€Bankó óóó,€861€F.2d€446€(5th€Cir.€1988),€the€plaintiff€claimed€that€the€defendantÏbank€had€submitted€to€the€defendant€credit€reporting€agency€an€erroneous€statement€that€theÏplaintiff€had€failed€to€pay€a€debt.€€Although€the€plaintiff€was€aware€of€the€false€information€in€hisÏcredit€report,€he€took€no€action€to€remedy€the€error.€€Three€years€later,€a€credit€card€companyÏrejected€the€plaintiffððs€application€for€a€credit€card.€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€447.€€The€plaintiff€then€filed€suit€forÏnegligent€violation€of€€the€Fair€Credit€Reporting€Act€(ð ðFCRAðð),€15€U.S.C.A.€ðððð€1681€òòò òet.€seqó óóó.œ× ƒ? ××  ×›Ìà àThe€FCRA€includes€a€two„year€statute€of€limitations€which€begins€to€run€ð ðfrom€the€date€onÏœwhich€the›€liability€arises.ðð€€œ15€U.S.C.A.òòò ò€ó óóóð𛀜1681p€(1998).›€€After€considering€several€alternativesÏfor€when€ð ðliability€arises,ðð€the€Fifth€Circuit€held€that€liability€arises€on€the€date€on€which€credit€wasÍdenied€to€the€consumer,€because€this€is€the€date€ð ðon€which€injury€is€inflicted.ðð€€ò òòòHydeó óóó,€861€F.2d€atÏ449.€€ò òòòHydeó óóó€states:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€œday›€the€report€is€transmitted€to€a€user€is€usually€the€date€on€which€injury€isÏinflicted,€since€that€report€is€used€by€the€institution€as€the€basis€for€its€denial€ofÏcredit€to€the€consumer.€€Because€the€tort€is€inchoate€until€the€victim€is€injured,€theÏdate€upon€which€the€erroneous€information€is€transmitted€by€the€credit€agency€to€theÏpotential€user€corresponds€to€the€date€on€which€the€limitations€period€for€the€tortÏbegins.ÌÌÓÓò òòòId.ó óóóœ× ƒ@ ××  ×›€€The€ò òòòHydeó óóó€Court€discussed€whether€later€dissemination€of€the€same€credit€report€constitutedÏa€separate€cause€of€action€to€which€a€distinct€limitations€period€would€attach.€€After€discussing€theÏapplication€of€the€single€publication€rule€in€defamation€suits,€the€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà àWe€do€not€find€the€rationale€underlying€the€single„publication€rule€applicableÏto€the€Fair€Credit€Reporting€Act.€€The€major€harm€may,€indeed,€result€from€the€firstÏtransmission€of€defamatory€material€to€an€institution,€but€the€confidential€nature€of€aÏcredit€report€necessarily€means€that€each€new€issuance€results€in€a€distinct€andÏseparate€injury.€€The€Restatement€of€Torts€(2d)€ðð€577A€appears€to€diverge€from€theÏsingle„publication€rule€in€its€Comment€on€subsection€(1)€when€it€states€that€ð ðeachÏcommunication€of€the€same€defamatory€matter€by€the€same€defamer,€whether€to€aÏnew€person€or€to€the€same€person,€is€a€separate€and€distinct€publication,€for€which€aÏseparate€cause€of€action€arises.ðð€€We€adopt€the€Restatementððs€formulation€andÏconclude€that€each€transmission€of€the€same€credit€report€is€a€separate€and€distinctÏtort€to€which€a€separate€statute€of€limitations€applies.ÌÌÓÓò òòòId.ó óóó€at€450.Ìòòò òà àó óóóSimilarly,€in€ò òòòLawhorn€v.€Trans€Union€Credit€Info.€Corp.ó óóó,€515€œF.€Supp.›€19€(E.D.ÏMo.€œ1981),›€€the€plaintiff€brought€a€claim€under€the€FCRA,€alleging€that€the€defendant€creditÏreporting€agency€had€repeatedly€violated€the€Act€by€failing€to€ensure€the€accuracy€of€the€plaintiffððsÏcredit€report.€€The€plaintiff€claimed€that€the€defendantððs€violations€were€in€the€nature€of€aÏð ðcontinuing€violation,ðð€resulting€in€the€denial€of€credit€on€more€than€one€occasion€over€the€courseÏof€several€years.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€19„20.€€The€court€rejected€the€plaintiffððs€ð ðcontinuing€violationðð€theory,Ïholding€that€ð ðliability€arises,€if€at€all,€when€defendantððs€practices€lead€to€the€preparation€of€anÍerroneous€or€incomplete€consumer€report.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€20.Ìà àThe€court€interpreted€the€FCRA€as€recognizing€separate€violations€of€the€Act€for€theÏdissemination€of€each€report.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€Thus,€ð ðthe€date€of€the€report€would€signal€the€beginning€of€theÏrunning€of€the€statute€of€limitations,ðð€and€the€plaintiff€was€permitted€to€recover€for€violations€thatÏoccurred€within€the€two€year€limitations€period.€€œò òòòId.;ó óó󛀜ò òòòsee›€also€Wilson€v.€Porter,€Wright,ÏMorris€&€Arthuró óóó,€921€œF.€Supp.›€758,€761€(S.D.€Fla.€1995)€œ(ð ð[T]he›€alleged€violations€of€theÏFCRA€committed€by€[the€credit€reporting€agency]€took€place€when€the€credit€reports€were€œissued.›€.Ï.€.ðð);€òòò ò€Koropoulos€v.€œThe€Credit›€Bureau,€Inc.ó óóó,€€734€F.2d€37,€39€(D.C.€Cir.€1984)€(holdingÏthat€the€provisions€of€the€FCRA€allow€a€consumer€to€bring€suit€ð ðonly€if€a€credit€reporting€agencyÏissues€an€inaccurate€report€œÇon›€the€consumer,€since€only€then€does€harm€flow€from€the€agencyððs€violation.ðð);€Ralph€œV.›€Seep,ÏAnnotation,€òòRunning€of€Statute€of€Limitations€in€Civil€Actions€Under€Fair€Credit€Reporting€Actóó,Ï111€A.L.R.€Fed.€647€(1993).€Ìà àIn€ò òòòSchneider€v.€United€Airlines,€Inc.ó óóó,€256€Cal.€Rptr.€71€(Cal.€App.€1989),€theÏplaintiffs€filed€a€defamation€lawsuit€against€the€defendants€for€transmitting€allegedly€falseÏinformation€to€a€credit€reporting€agency.€€The€plaintiffs€claimed€that€the€information€wasÏtransmitted€with€the€intent€that€the€credit€agency€would€republish€the€information.€€A€few€monthsÏlater,€the€plaintiffs€were€notified€by€a€bank€(ð ðBank€1ðð)€that€their€applications€for€credit€cards€wereÏrejected.€€€Bank€1's€rejections€were€€due€in€part€to€the€credit€report.€€Several€weeks€later,€theÏplaintiffs€received€a€copy€of€the€credit€report.€€Several€months€after€this,€the€plaintiffs€learned€thatÏthe€credit€reporting€agency€had€republished€the€information€to€a€second€bank€(ð ðBank€2ðð).€€Based€inÏpart€on€the€credit€report,€Bank€2€denied€the€plaintiffsðð€request€for€credit.€€The€plaintiffsðð€lawsuitÏwas€filed€more€than€one€year€after€the€transmission€of€the€credit€information€from€the€defendants€toÏthe€credit€reporting€agency.€€The€lawsuit€was€also€filed€more€than€one€year€after€the€transmission€ofÏthe€information€from€the€credit€reporting€agency€to€Bank€1.€€However,€the€lawsuit€was€filed€withinÏone€year€of€the€transmission€of€the€information€by€the€agency€to€Bank€2.€€The€plaintiffs€argued€thatÏthe€republication€to€Bank€2€was€within€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations€for€libel.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€73.€€TheÏtrial€court€ruled€that€the€cause€of€action€accrued€at€the€time€the€plaintiffs€discovered€the€existence€ofÏthe€allegedly€false€credit€report.€Ìà àThe€California€Court€of€Appeals€reversed€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€74.€€DistinguishingÏthe€case€from€instances€in€which€the€single€publication€rule€was€applied,€the€Court€held€that€ð ðwhereÏrepublication€reaches€a€new€entity€or€person,€repetition€justifies€a€new€cause€of€action.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€75.€ÏCiting€the€traditional€common€law€approach,€the€Court€found€that€the€credit€reporting€agencyððsÏdissemination€of€the€credit€report€to€Bank€1€and€Bank€2€ð ðconstituted€two€separate€publications,ððÏand€that€the€plaintiffs€had€two€independent€causes€of€action.€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€76.€€Consequently,€the€CourtÏruled€that€the€œplaintiffsðð›€action€for€libel€for€the€dissemination€of€the€information€to€Bank€2€wasÍtimely.€€œò òòòId.;›€œbut›€see€Ferber€v.€Citicorp€Mort.,€Inc.ó óóó,€No.€94€Civ.€3038,€1996€WL€œ46874,Ïat€*6›€(S.D.N.Y.€Feb.€6,€1996)€(ð ð[W]e€find€that€[the€defendantððs]€alleged€ððcontinued€reportingððÏwas€not€a€republication€giving€rise€to€a€new€cause€of€action.ðð)òòò òÌóóó óà àThe€facts€in€this€case€are€analogous€to€the€facts€in€the€above€credit€report€decisions.€UnlikeÏthe€mass€publication€of€a€book,€magazine,€or€television€commercial,€it€is€unlikely€that€more€than€aÏhandful€of€individuals€or€entities€would€gain€access€to€information€stored€in€the€data€base.€€UnlikeÏò òòòApplewhiteó óóó,€the€information€stored€in€the€Data€Bank€is€not€within€the€domain€of€theÏð ðcontemporary€publishing€world.ðð€ò òòòApplewhiteó óóó,€495€S.W.2d€at€194.€€In€addition,€the€health€careÏentities€in€this€case,€like€the€entities€accessing€credit€information,€€requested€information€from€theÏData€Bank€on€separate€and€distinct€occasions.€€Therefore,€there€is€no€€ð ðòòaggregateóó€publicationðð€asÏcontemplated€in€cases€applying€the€single€publication€rule.€€While€information€in€the€Data€BankÏmay€be€accessed€by€several€entities,€the€justification€for€the€single€publication€rule,€a€vastÏmultiplicity€of€lawsuits€resulting€from€a€mass€publication,€is€simply€not€present€here.€€Under€theÏfacts€of€this€case,€we€hold€that€the€single€publication€rule€is€inapplicable.× ƒA ××  ×€€Therefore,€a€separateÏlimitations€period€attaches€to€each€publication.€€Ìà àWe€must€next€consider€the€date€on€which€Dr.€Swaffordððs€cause€of€action€accrued,€œi.e.òò,óó›€theÏdate€on€which€the€limitations€period€began€to€run.€€The€statute€of€limitations€commences€when€theÏplaintiff€has€a€cause€of€action.€€ò òòòR.J.€Reynolds€Tobacco€Co.€v.€œCarsonó óóó,›€187€Tenn.€157,Ïœ172,›€213€S.W.2d€45,€51€(1948).€€The€cause€of€action€accrues€when€the€plaintiff€attains€the€right€toÏsue.€€ò òòòArmistead€v.€Clarksville„Montgomery€County€School€System,€ó óóó222€Tenn.€486,Ïœ490,€437›€S.W.2d€527,€528„29€(1969).€€In€ò òòòShell€v.€Stateó óóó,€893€S.W.2d€416,€422€(Tenn.€1995),Ïthe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€held:ÌÓÓà8 àUnder€the€law€of€Tennessee,€a€cause€of€action€accrues€when€the€plaintiff€suffers€inÏactuality€a€legally„cognizable€wrong€and€thus€acquires€a€right€to€bring€suit€forÏredress.€€Where,€as€here,€it€is€alleged€that€the€defendants€disseminated€wrongfullyÍuntruthful€information€about€the€plaintiff,€the€cause€of€action€accrues,€and€theÏstatute€of€limitations€begins€to€run,€at€the€time€such€dissemination€takes€place.ÌÌÓÓ(citations€omitted).€€Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€information€was€transmitted€from€the€Defendants€to€the€Data€Bank€onÏAugust€22,€1991.€€It€is€undisputed€that€Dr.€Swafford€had€notice€of€this€œtransmission›€in€JanuaryÏ1992€at€the€latest.€€Dr.€Swafford€filed€his€lawsuit€in€June€1993.€€Therefore,€if€the€limitations€periodÏbegan€to€run€at€the€point€of€transmission€to€the€Data€Bank€or€at€the€point€of€discovery€by€Dr.ÏSwafford,€Dr.€Swaffordððs€action€would€be€time„barred,€since€both€dates€are€beyond€the€one„yearÏstatute€of€limitations€for€libel.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ28„3„104€(Supp.€1997).›€€However,€if€theÏlimitations€period€began€to€run€on€the€date€on€which€the€Data€Bank€information€was€transmitted€toÏa€health€care€facility,€arguably,€at€least€one€claim,€based€on€the€transmission€to€Baptist€Hospital,Ïwould€be€timely.€€No€case€law€in€Tennessee€addresses€application€of€the€statute€of€limitations€whenÏthe€plaintiff€had€knowledge€of€the€likelihood€of€publication€before€it€occurred.× ƒB ××  ×€€€€Ìà àThe€Defendants€contend€that€the€statute€of€limitations€should€begin€to€run€from€the€date€inÏJanuary€œ1992€on›€which€Dr.€Swafford€knew€that€the€allegedly€defamatory€information€was€storedÏwith€the€Data€Bank.€€The€Defendants€note€that€Dr.€Swafford€was€aware€of€the€likelihood€that€healthÏcare€providers€would€access€the€report.€€Consequently,€they€maintain€that€he€should€be€required€toÏbring€his€action€within€one€year€of€the€date€he€discovered€that€the€information€was€stored€with€theÏData€Bank.€€Under€the€Defendantsðð€analysis,€Dr.€Swaffordððs€Complaint€was€filed€more€than€a€yearÏafter€the€date€of€discovery€and€his€action€is€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.Ìà àIn€the€credit€report€cases€discussed€above,€the€courts€determined€that€liability€arose,€and€theÏlimitations€period€commenced,€when€the€credit€report€was€transmitted€from€the€credit€agency€to€aÏuser.€€ò òòòSee€Hydeó óóó,€861€F.2d€at€œ449;ò òòò›€œsee›€also€Lawhornó óóó,€515€F.Supp.€at€20;€ò òòòWilsonó óóó,€921€œF.ÏSupp.›€at€761;€ò òòòKoropoulosó óóó,€734€F.2d€at€39.€€€€€€One€commentator€discussing€the€FCRA€noted:ÌÓÓà8 àInformation€stored€on€computer€software€does€not€constitute€a€report€until€someoneÏasks€for€a€readout,€for€the€contents€of€the€report€will€not€be€discovered€absent€someÏcommunication.€€Therefore,€damages€do€not€arise€until€the€report€is€communicatedÏto€a€potential€lender,€affecting€the€borrowerððs€finances,€reputation,€or€peace€ofÏmind.ÌÌÓÓMartha€F.€Davis,€òòSolving€Statute€of€Limitations€Problems€Under€Fair€Credit€Reporting€Actóó,€18ÏInd.€œL.Rev.€507,€514›€(1985).€€Ìà àHowever,€most€of€the€credit€report€cases€involve€situations€in€which€the€plaintiffÏdiscovered€the€existence€of€the€report€òòafteróó€the€report€was€disseminated€to€various€businesses.€€ForÏinstance,€in€ò òòòWilson€v.€Retail€Credit€Co.ó óóó,€438€F.2d€1043€(5th€Cir.€1971),€the€plaintiff€allegedÏthat€a€credit€reporting€agency€had€released€a€libelous€credit€report€about€the€plaintiff€to€severalÏbusinesses.€€The€plaintiff€discovered€the€existence€of€the€report€òòafteróó€it€was€released.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€1045.€ÏApplying€Mississippi€law,€the€Court€held€that€the€cause€of€action€accrued,€ð ðwhen€the€report€wasÏreceived€by€defendantððs€customer,€and€not€when€plaintiff€discovered€its€existence.ðð€€ò òòòId;ó óóó€ò òòòcf.€TomÏOleskerððs€Exciting€World€of€Fashion,€Inc.€v.€Dun€&€Bradstreet,€Inc.ó óóó,€334€N.E.2dÏ160,€164€(Ill.€1975)€œÇ(holding›€that€statute€of€limitations€begins€to€run€when€the€plaintiff€knew€or€should€have€known€ofÏthe€reportððs€existence);€òòò òKelley€v.€Rinkleó óóó,€532€S.W.2d€947,€949€(Tex.€1976)€(same).Ìà àIn€ò òòòHydeó óóó,€ò òòòsupraó óóó,€the€plaintiff€was€aware€of€the€erroneous€credit€report€three€years€beforeÏhe€was€denied€credit€based€on€the€report.€€He€filed€suit€for€negligence€under€the€FCRA.€€TheÏò òòòHydeó óóó€Court€held€that€the€limitations€period€for€the€cause€of€action€in€tort€began€to€run€when€theÏerroneous€information€was€transmitted€from€the€credit€agency€to€the€potential€user.€€The€CourtÏœobserved:ÌÓÓ›à8 àThe€failure€of€the€consumer€to€mitigate€his€damages€by€filing€suit€when€he€is€firstÏinjured,€thus€permitting€a€more€widespread€circulation€of€the€credit€information,Ïshould€have€a€ð ðbearing€[only]€on€the€[calculation€of]€damages.ððÌ€€€€€€òòò òà àó óóóÌÓÓò òòòœId.›€ó óóóat€450(quoting€Prosser€&€Keaton€on€the€Law€of€Torts€ðð113,€at€800€(5th€ed.€1984)).Ìà àIn€ò òòòSchneideró óóó,€ò òòòsupraó óóó,€the€plaintiffs€knew€of€the€erroneous€credit€report€at€the€time€theÏdefendants€filed€the€report€with€the€credit€reporting€agency.€€As€in€this€case,€the€defendantsÏcontended€that€the€statute€of€limitations€should€begin€to€run€from€the€date€the€plaintiff€knew€of€theÏreport.€€The€ò òòòSchneideró óóó€Court€held:ÌÓÓà8 àIf€a€plaintiff€is€aware€of€the€facts€giving€rise€to€a€cause€of€action€which€accruedÏbefore€the€cause€of€action€on€which€he€is€suing€based€on€the€same€defamatoryÏmatter€as€his€earlier€cause€of€action€but€based€on€a€separate€publication,€the€statuteÏof€limitations€on€the€later€cause€of€action€does€not€run€from€the€time€of€accrual€ofÏthe€first€cause€of€action.€€Therefore,€the€fact€that€[plaintiffs]€had€knowledge€thatÏdefamatory€information€was€published€by€respondents€when€they€supplied€theÏcredit€information€to€[the€credit€reporting€agency]€does€not€preclude€the€applicationÏof€the€rule€that€a€party€has€a€cause€of€action€for€libel€each€time€the€defamatory€matterÏis€published,€even€if€the€originator€of€the€defamatory€matter€did€not€republish€theÏdefamatory€matter,€as€long€as€republication€should€have€been€reasonablyÏforeseeable€by€the€originator.ÌÌÓÓò òòòœSchneideró óóó,›€256€Cal.€Rptr.€at€75.Ìà àIn€this€case,€we€need€not€determine€whether€a€cause€of€action€for€libel€arose€at€the€point€ofÏtransmission€of€the€information€to€the€Data€Bank€or€at€the€point€of€discovery€by€Dr.€Swafford.€€AsÏnoted€above,€both€dates€are€beyond€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations.€€œHowever,›€since€we€holdÏthat€the€single€publication€rule€is€inapplicable€and€a€separate€limitations€period€attaches€to€eachÏpublication,€we€must€determine€when€the€limitations€period€commenced€for€each€claim€arising€outÍof€a€publication€that€occurred€within€one€year€prior€to€the€filing€of€the€complaint.€€Ìà àAs€in€ò òòòSchneideró óóó,€Dr.€Swafford€had€knowledge€of€the€allegedly€defamatory€informationÏbefore€it€was€published€to€health€care€entities.€€Both€Dr.€Swafford€and€the€Defendants€couldÏreasonably€foresee€that€such€publication€would€occur.€€However,€as€in€ò òòòSchneideró óóó,€Dr.ÏSwaffordððs€prior€knowledge€of€the€defamatory€information€ð ðdoes€not€preclude€the€application€ofÏthe€rule€that€a€party€has€a€cause€of€action€for€libel€each€time€the€defamatory€matter€is€œpublished,ððÏò òòòSchneideró óóó,€ò òòòsupraó óóó,€at€75,›€so€long€as€the€publication€is€ð ðreasonably€foreseeable.ðð€€A€separateÏclaim€arises€out€of€each€publication,€and€a€separate€injury€occurred€with€each€publication.€€For€eachÏclaim,€ð ðthe€statute€of€limitations€begins€to€run€at€the€time€such€dissemination€takes€place.ðð€€ò òòòShelló óóó,Ï893€S.W.2d€at€422.€€ò òòò€See€also€œWilson›€v.€Porter,€Wrightó óóó,€921€œF.€Supp.›€at€761€(ð ðThe€allegedÏviolations€of€the€FCRA€committed€by€[the€credit€reporting€agency]€took€place€when€the€creditÏreports€were€issued€.€.€.ðð).€€Therefore,€we€hold€that€the€limitations€period€for€each€claimÏcommenced€on€the€date€on€which€the€potential€user€received€the€information€from€the€Data€Bank.Ìà àThe€record€does€not€clearly€indicate€when€the€Data€Bank€transmitted€the€information€toÏusers€such€as€Baptist€Hospital€and€St.€Francis€Hospital.€€This€must€be€determined€on€remand.€€TheÏgrant€of€summary€judgment€to€the€Defendants€must€be€reversed€as€to€claims€arising€out€ofÏinstances€in€which€the€Data€Bank€transmitted€information€to€a€potential€user€within€one€year€priorÏto€the€filing€of€Dr.€Swaffordððs€lawsuit.€€This€holding€is€predicated€on€Dr.€Swaffordððs€priorÏknowledge€of€the€existence€of€the€information€in€the€Data€Bank.œ× ƒC ××  ×›ò òÌó óà àDr.€Swafford€also€contends€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€applying€the€one„yearÏstatute€of€limitations€to€his€claim€of€civil€conspiracy.€€Dr.€Swaffordððs€Amended€Complaint€allegesÍthat€the€€œDefendants€have›€continued€to€conspire€to€destroy€his€reputation,€damage€his€emotionalÏwell„being,€ruin€his€practice€and€deprive€him€of€revenue.€€He€argues€that€civil€conspiracy€is€anÏintentional€tort€and€is€governed€by€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations€set€forth€in€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€œðð€28„3„105›€(Supp.€1997).€€In€support€of€his€argument,€Dr.€Swafford€cites€ò òòòBudgetÏRent„A„Car€of€Knoxville,€Inc.€v.€Car€Services,€Inc.ó óóó,€469€S.W.2d€360,€362,€225€Tenn.Ï342,€œ348€(1971).€€The›€€ò òòòBudgetó óóó€œCourt€states:›ÌÓÓà8 àConspiracy€is€a€tort€and€is€subject€to€the€running€of€the€statute€of€œthree›€years.€€TheÏperiod€of€limitations€begins€to€run€from€the€time€of€the€last€overt€act€.€.€.€.€€€€€€€ÌÌÓÓò òòòœId.€€óóó óDr.›€Swafford€maintains€that€the€alleged€conspiracy€is€a€ð ðcontinuingðð€conspiracy.€€He€arguesÏthat€€œÌeach›€communication€by€the€Defendants€to€the€Data€Bank€ð ðconcerning€Swafford€without€advisingÏhim€of€such€communication€constitutes€a€separate€overt€act€(by€omission),€and€.€.€.€insofar€as€[theÏData€Bank]€acts€in€effect€as€the€agent€of€MIPA€in€republishing€its€misinformation,€each€and€everyÏpublication€and€republication€by€[the€Data€Bank]€to€hospitals,€health€boards,€and€other€concernedÏagencies€and€persons€constitute€a€continuing€and€unknown€number€of€additional€overtÏconspiratorial€acts.ððÌà àð ð[A]€civil€conspiracy.€.€.is€neither€a€punishable€offense€standing€alone€nor€a€wrong€capableÏof€supporting€a€cause€of€action€by€its€own€weight.ðð€€ò òòòWyatt€v.€Union€Mortgage€Co.ó óóó,€598ÏP.2d€œ45,€53›€(Cal.€1979).€€Consequently,€the€procedural€law€applicable€to€the€gravamen€of€theÏcomplaint€applies€to€the€civil€conspiracy€claim.€€ò òòòSee€Taylor€v.€Trans€Aero€Corp.ó óóó,€924ÏS.W.2d€109,€113€(Tenn.€App.€1995);€ò òòòsee€also€Wyattó óóó,€598€P.2d€at€53,€n.4€(ð ðit€is€preciselyÏbecause€civil€conspiracy€is€not€a€tort€or€a€cause€of€action€itself€that€the€tolling€of€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€on€the€underlying€torts€in€this€case€becomes€relevant€at€œall.ðð).€€For›€example,€inÏò òòòBraswell€v.€Carothersó óóó,€863€S.W.2d€722,€725€(Tenn.€App.€1993),€the€Court€held:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€statute€of€limitations€for€personal€injury€claims€is€one€year.€€T.C.A.€ðð€28„3„104.€€This€includes€personal€injuries€resulting€from€the€tort€of€civil€conspiracy.ÌÌÓÓ(citing€ò òòòHarvest€Corp.€v.€Ernst€&€Whinneyó óóó,€610€S.W.2d€727,€729„30€(Tenn.€App.€œ1980)).€€›ÍAs€noted€above,€the€gravamen€of€Dr.€Swaffordððs€action€is€libel.€€Therefore,€his€claim€of€civilÏconspiracy€to€libel€is€governed€by€the€one€year€statute€of€limitations.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„3„104.€Ìà àWe€must€next€determine€when€the€one„year€limitations€period€commenced€as€to€Dr.ÏSwaffordððs€œclaim€of›€civil€conspiracy.€€Case€law€indicates€that€the€limitations€period€for€a€civilÏconspiracy€claim€commences€with€the€last€overt€act€committed€by€the€co„conspirators€in€furtheranceÏof€the€conspiracy:ÌÓÓà8 àA€civil€action€for€injury€lies€for€a€conspiracy€only€from€the€time€that€an€overt€actÏcausing€such€damage€has€been€created€or€enacted.€€As€an€ordinary€proposition€thereÏis€no€civil€liability€for€conspiracy€until€an€œovert›€act€has€been€committed.€€òòò òWhereÏthere€is€a€continuing€conspiracy,€or€where€acts€continue€to€show€aÏconspiracy,€the€statute€of€limitations€commences€to€run€from€the€lastÏovert€act€and€not€from€the€first€.€.€.€.€€It€is€not€when€the€result€or€theÏsuffering€is€continued„„not€when€the€suffering€is€done,€but€when€theÏact€is€done€which€causes€the€suffering.ó óóó€€It€is€the€overt€act€causing€theÏconspiracy€that€causes€the€damages€and€it€is€from€this€act€that€œÇà8 àthe›€statute€begins€to€run€and€not€from€the€suffering€or€the€hurting€as€a€result€of€theÏact.€€ÌÌÓÓò òòòEmerson€v.€Machameró óóó,€431€S.W.2d€at€283,€286€(Tenn.€1968)€(citations€omitted)€(emphasisÏœadded);× ƒD ××  ×›€œò òòòsee›€also€Budgetó óóó,€469€S.W.2d€at€œ362,€225€Tenn.€at€348.€€›Ìà àAn€overt€act€is€ð ðan€act€done€by€one€or€more€of€the€conspirators€pursuant€to€the€scheme€andÏin€furtherance€of€the€object€[of€the€œconspiracy].ðð›€15A€œC.J.S.€Conspiracy›€œðð5,›€p.€607.€€Although€Dr.ÏSwafford€alleges€that€the€Data€Bank€acted€ð ðin€effect€as€the€agent€of€MIPA,ðð€the€complaint€does€notÏallege€that€the€Data€Bank€is€an€alleged€co„conspirator.€€Therefore,€the€last€overt€act€committed€byÏthe€œco„conspirators›€in€this€case€œis€the›€Defendantsðð€transmission€of€information€to€the€Data€Bank,Ïnot€the€Data€Bankððs€dissemination€of€the€information€to€third€parties.€€The€date€of€the€œlastÏtransmission€of€information€to€the€Data€Bank›€is€unclear€from€the€record€and€must€be€determined€onÏremand.Ìà àThe€Defendants€contend€that€Dr.€Swafford€fails€to€state€a€claim€for€civil€conspiracy€to€libelÏbecause€he€can€prove€no€damages.€€It€is€undisputed€that€Dr.€Swafford€was€not€denied€clinicalÏprivileges€by€any€of€the€health€care€œentities€that›€accessed€the€information€from€the€œData€Bank.›€ÏConsequently,€he€can€point€to€no€tangible€economic€damages.€€However,€Dr.€Swafford€alleges€thatÏhis€reputation€was€damaged€and€that€he€has€been€forced€to€spend€numerous€hours€defending€hisÏrecord.€€In€ò òòòBraswelló óóó€the€Court€held€that€ð ð[d]amages€for€mental€suffering€are€recoverable€in€anÏaction€for€civil€conspiracy.ðð€€òòò òBraswell,€ó óóó863€S.W.2d€at€œ727.€€This›€issue€is€without€merit.€Ìà àFinally,€the€Defendants€contend€that€Dr.€Swaffordððs€claim€of€tortious€interference€withÏbusiness€relations€was€properly€dismissed€since€Dr.€Swafford€failed€to€demonstrate€any€economic€Ïharm.€€As€noted€above,€Dr.€Swafford€concedes€that€his€clinical€privileges€were€not€denied€by€anÏentity€that€accessed€the€information€from€the€Data€Bank.Ìà àThe€elements€necessary€to€establish€a€prima€facie€claim€for€tortious€interference€with€aÍbusiness€relationship€are€set€out€in€ò òòòNew€Life€Corp.€of€Am.€v.€Thomas€Nelson,€Inc.ó óóó,€932ÏS.W.2d€921,€927€(Tenn.€App.€œ1996).›€€The€elements€include:€ÌÓÓà8 àœ.€.€.€the›€existence€of€a€valid€business€relationship€(not€necessarily€evidenced€by€anÏenforceable€contract)€or€expectancy;€knowledge€of€the€relationship€or€expectancy€onÏthe€part€of€interferer;€an€intentional€interference€inducing€or€causing€a€breach€orÏtermination€of€the€relationship€or€expectancy;€and€resultant€damage€to€the€partyÏwhose€relationship€or€expectancy€has€been€disrupted.ÌÌÓÓò òòòId.ó óóó€(quoting€45€Am.€Jur.€2d€òòInterferenceóó€50€(1969));€ò òòòsee€also€Collins€v.€Greene€CountyÏBankó óóó,€916€S.W.€2d€941,€947€n.3€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€In€this€case,€Dr.€Swafford€failed€toÏdemonstrate€any€breach€or€termination€of€a€business€relationship€or€expectancy.€€He€failed€toÏestablish€a€necessary€element€of€this€claim,€and€therefore€the€trial€court€correctly€granted€summaryÏjudgment€to€the€Defendants€on€this€issue.Ìà àIn€sum,€we€hold€that€Dr.€Swaffordððs€failure€to€re„file€his€notice€of€œappeal›€and€his€failure€toÏfile€a€statement€that€no€transcript€was€to€be€filed€do€not€warrant€dismissal€of€this€appeal.€€We€holdÏthat€the€gravamen€of€Dr.€Swaffordððs€complaint€is€libel€and€that€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations€isÏapplicable.€€We€find€that€the€ð ðsingle€publication€ruleðð€is€not€applicable€under€the€facts€of€this€case,Ïand€that€each€dissemination€of€the€allegedly€defamatory€report€gives€rise€to€a€separate€cause€ofÏaction.€€Any€claim€that€may€have€arisen€at€the€point€of€transmission€of€the€information€to€the€DataÏBank€or€at€the€point€of€discovery€is€time„barred.€€As€to€claims€arising€after€discovery,€theÏlimitations€period€for€each€cause€of€action€commenced€on€the€date€of€dissemination€of€the€allegedlyÏlibelous€information,€œi.eòò.,óó›€the€dates€on€which€potential€users€received€the€report€from€the€DataÏœBank.€€The›€case€is€remanded€for€a€determination€of€the€dates€on€which€the€Data€Bank€report€wasÏtransmitted€to€users.€€To€the€extent€that€any€transmissions€of€the€allegedly€defamatory€reportÏoccurred€within€one€year€prior€to€the€filing€of€Dr.€Swaffordððs€complaint,€the€grant€of€summaryÏjudgment€to€the€Defendants€is€reversed.€€œÌà àAs›€to€Dr.€Swaffordððs€claim€of€civil€conspiracy€to€libel,€we€hold€that€the€one„year€statute€ofÏlimitations€applicable€to€libel€claims€would€also€apply€to€the€conspiracy€claim.€€The€limitationsÏperiod€for€the€claim€of€civil€conspiracy€commenced€on€the€date€of€the€last€overt€act€by€the€allegedÍco„conspirators,€the€Defendants.€€œThe›€case€is€remanded€for€a€determination€of€this€date€as€well,€andÏthe€grant€of€summary€judgment€on€this€claim€is€reversed€if€this€date€is€determined€to€be€within€oneÏyear€prior€to€the€filing€of€Dr.€Swaffordððs€lawsuit.€€On€Dr.€Swaffordððs€claim€of€tortious€interferenceÏwith€business€relations,€the€grant€of€summary€judgment€is€affirmed€because€Dr.€Swafford€failed€toÏpresent€evidence€œof€the›€breach€or€termination€œof›€a€business€relationship€or€expectancy.̜Ǜà àThe€trial€courtððs€order€is€affirmed€in€part,€reversed€in€part,€and€remanded€for€furtherÏproceedings€in€accordance€with€this€Opinion.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€equally€to€both€parties,€forÏwhich€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ìó óà àò òÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.€J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌó óòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìóóò òDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ó ó