WPC >ZE{U9L;c4AF'aY$k7 jtqNKs`Z*ܮ B[Z:E g)D~̓?GqɌfY'bCZ3#>E>2!QJ` 69qK_}oXC!˳ES4${ې" ~6M%Ii=BQlJ#J0?-iamɸT땠I_E1%Ln9gv?Lwtx L7~fmF}S)zk#x:܇F!ުSb>zsJ SL}@5Q4*ԋ<{fBS0 ~fJuG.b@T+;!:0Y^AG N;&QiPv:-}wXd"*H9F4F Z 0(i  w@ 4 UN 0l[ 0D UN KY UN4UN&tU:cccccccccUB % B D3 0D5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555 AOy 0D D/ Bw#%3|x:($ 'D(D)*D+,D-.P/P0 Ӏ * $    1       X+XXX &&X X+TheGrayCourtstatedtheissue:  0 ` WhetherprinciplesofcomparativefaultshouldapplyinTennesseemedicalmalpracticeactionssoastoresultintheapportionmentofdamagesbetweentheestateofadecedentwhoactednegligentlyincausinganinitialinjuryandaphysicianwhonegligentlytreatedthedecedentforthatinjury. ` (#` (# (hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular((3$ !      0  (#$  0  (hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular A $    1       XKXXX &΢&X XKTheGrayCourtstatedtheissue:  0 ` WhetherprinciplesofcomparativefaultshouldapplyinTennesseemedicalmalpractice rj  actionssoastoresultintheapportionmentofdamagesbetweentheestateofadecedentwhoactednegligentlyincausinganinitialinjuryandaphysicianwhonegligentlytreatedthedecedentforthatinjury. ` (#` (# (hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular * $    1      XKXXX&΢&X XKTheGrayCourtstatedtheissue:  0 ` WhetherprinciplesofcomparativefaultshouldapplyinTennesseemedicalmalpracticeactionssoastoresultintheapportionmentofdamagesbetweentheestateofadecedentwhoactednegligentlyincausinganinitialinjuryandaphysicianwhonegligentlytreatedthedecedentforthatinjury. ` (#` (# (hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular XXXX XX Ad   FILEDO    November24,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX d&&&&'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !  ݛ  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7 XXdd7X@DXXXXX@DԀ@j j  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  М..00..0l*6&"h 8 `E tt06H l HH(#(#0. 4 .00/ /00/ /00/ < /00/  /00/  /00/ D /00/  /@ ATKNOXVILLE JOELJ.TROY,Individuallyandasnext  )C/ANO.03A019707   (#(#HHCV00271andasnextfriendofLaureenElizabeth  )   TroyandJoelJames JakeTroy,III,  )WASHINGTONLAW    4    <     ) 4  Plaintiffs, <     )HON.G.RICHARDJOHNSON,    4    <     )CHANCELLORv. 4    <     )   4    <     )CHARLEST.HERNDON,IV,    )  AdministratoradLitemoftheEstateof  )  CliftonB.Graham,deceased,andthe  )  EstateofWardG.Wilson,deceased,  )REVERSED   4    <     )AND 4  Appellee. <     )REMANDED  JOHNT.MILBURNROGERSandKENNETHN.BAILEY,JR.,ROGERS,LAUGHLIN,NUNNALLY,HOOD&CRUM,P.C.,Greeneville,forAppellant.ROBERTD.ARNOLD,ARNOLD,HAYNES&SANDERS,JohnsonCity,forAppellee.@% OPINION  )""  4    <      D   Franks,J. 4  ThisisaRule9,T.R.A.P.Appeal,whicharisesfromanautomobileaccidentthatoccurredonOctober2,1991.PlaintiffJoelJ.Troywasinvolvedinacollisionwithatruckownedbydefendant,WardWilson,anddrivenbydefendantCliftonGraham. 4  TroywastakentoJohnsonCityMedicalCenterandtreatedintheemergencyroombyDoctorDavis.OnSeptember30,1992,Johnsonfiledsuitonbehalfofhimselfandhisminorchildren.Thedefendantsfiledtheiranswersand ;34 duringthependencyofthissuitbothdefendantsdied.Plaintiffrevivedthissuitagainsttheirestates,andonFebruary20,1997,fourdayspriortothetrialdate,defendant,administratoradlitem,attemptedtoamendhisanswer,andallegedthatDr.DavisnegligentlytreatedJoelTroyforinjuriessustainedintheaccident.OnJuly15,1997,theCourtalloweddefendanttoamendtheanswerandgrantedanInterlocutoryAppeal. 4  AppellantcontendsthattheamendmentiscontrarytothecommonlawrulewhichhasnotbeenalteredbyTennesseesadoptionofcomparativefault.Insupportofhisposition,appellantcitesAtkinsonv.Hemphill,1994WL456349(Tenn.  App.)InAtkinson,thedefendantattemptedtoamendhisanswertoallegethatthe  negligenceofnonpartymedicalpractitionerhadworsenedtheplaintiffsinjuries.ThisCourtwasfacedwiththeeffectofTennesseesadoptionofcomparativefaultonthisissue. 4  TheCourtfirststatedthetraditionalcommonlawrule:0 4 0 4(#4(#[I]foneisinjuredbythenegligenceofanother,andtheseinjuriesareaggravatedbymedicaltreatment(eitherprudentornegligent),thenegligenceofthewrongdoercausingtheoriginalinjuryisregardedastheproximatecauseofthedamagesubsequentlyflowingfromthemedicaltreatment.  (# (# Id.At*2(citingTransports,Inc.V.Perry,414S.W.2d1(Tenn.1967)).Seealso )"" Restatement(SecondofTorts457(1967). 4  Therationaleforthisruleisthat thetortfeasorwhosenegligencecausedtheinjuredpartytorequiremedicalattentionshouldbearalltheforeseeablerisksresultingfromtheinjury,includingrisksderivedfromthemedicalprovidershumanfallibility.Id.at*2.TheAtkinsonCourtnotedthatthisruledidnot 2++ immunizeanegligentthirdpartyfromliability,sincethedefendantcouldimpleadthethirdpartyorsueunderatheoryofsubrogationorindemnity.SeeOwensv.Truck 6// StopsofAmerica,915S.W.2d420(TN1996). 811  4  TheCourtthenconsideredtheeffectofMcIntyrev.Balentine,833 :33 S.W.2d52(Tenn.1992)uponthiscommonlawrule,anddeterminedthattheadoptionofcomparativefaultdidnotalterthetraditionalrule.Itwasnotedthatabolishingtherulewouldpenalizeinjuredparties:0 4 0 4(#4(#X+XbAbolitionofthecommonlawrulewouldeffectivelyshifttheburdenof (  provingmedicalnegligence(oritsabsence)fromthedefendanttotheplaintiff.Toprotectthemselves,plaintiffsinfuturecaseswouldfeelcompelledtotimelynamemedicalprovidersasdefendantsinanysuitwherethenegligenceoftheoriginaltortfeasorledtothenecessityformedicalcare,whetherornotmedicalnegligencewasactuallysuspected.Incaseslikethepresentone,wherethiswasnotdone,andtheoneyearstatuteoflimitationsforfilingmedicalmalpracticeclaimspassed,allowingthedefendanttoallegemedicalnegligenceasanaffirmativedefensewouldunfairlyprejudicetheplaintiffsrighttoafullrecoveryforherinjuries.Byretainingthecommonlawrule,asotherjurisdictionsthathaveadoptedcomparativenegligencehaveapparentlydone,wedonotpenalizetheinjuredplaintiff,nordoweeliminateanyremediespreviouslyavailabletothedefendant.Thoughhemaynotassertthenegligenceofasubsequentmedicalproviderasanaffirmativedefensetoreducehisliabilitytotheplaintiff,thedefendantmaystillfileathirdpartyclaimoraseparatesuitinsubrogationtoredeemhisownrightsagainstthenegligentpractitioner.  (# (# Id.at*3(citationsomitted).    4  Thisreasoningispersuasive.SinceAtkinsonwasdecided,atleastone ! additionaljurisdictionhasreachedthesameconclusion.SeeEdwardsv.Sisler,691N.E.2d # 1252(Ind.Ct.App.1998). 4  TheAppelleecountersthatAtkinsonisnotdispositiveandthattheTennessee ' " SupremeCourtsdecisioninGrayv.FordMotorCo.,914S.W.2d464(Tenn.1996)is h)`"$ controlling.InGray,theSupremeCourtacceptedaquestionoflawcertifiedfromtheSixth H+@$& CircuitCourtofAppealsconcerningwhethercomparativefaultprinciplesshouldapplyinTennesseemedicalmalpracticecasestoallowapportionmentofdamagesbetweentheestateofadecedentwhoactednegligentlyincausingtheinitialinjuryandaphysicianwhonegligentlytreatedthedecedent.Thecourtdeterminedthatcomparativefaultprincipleswouldapply.  4  WhileGrayisawellreasonedopinion,itdidnotaddresstheissuepresented 6/2 intheinstantcase.    %  1      Nowhereintheopinionisthereanysuggestionthatthecommonlawrule   concerningatortfeasorsliabilityforsubsequentmedicalnegligencehasbeenabolished.Whiletheopinionclearlyallowstheintroductionofcomparativefaultintocertainmedicalnegligenceissues,itdoesnotresolvetheissueinthiscase.Intheabsenceofcontrollingauthoritytothecontrary,wefindnoreasonto$abolishthe$%$commonlaw$%(&C&(&&)c)&ommon&*&L&*&&+l+&aw&,&R&,&&-r-&ule.&'''Atkinson''.'Thus,we  concludetheTrialCourterredinallowingtheamendment. 4  ThepartieshavealsoraisedtheissueofwhethertheTrialCourterredinallowingamendmentwhenthestatuteofreposehadexpiredandDr.Daviscouldnolongerbeheldliablebytheappellant.Inlightofthedispositionofthefirstissue,thereisnoneedtoresolvethisquestion.#bXX+#   4  Theamendmentisdisallowedandthecauseremandedwiththecostoftheappealassessedtoappellee.@+ D    4    <     __________________________    4    <     HerschelP.Franks,J.CONCUR:___________________________DonT.McMurray,J.___________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.