WPC ~?.q6H`t'8%#Hq"<9+MhʝTN S1VKU/Oíy0·Hj@,i:OKD OGySph:r@턮P{$ha$YҏFYٸC:E~CFxR03^KN(jY.WKxh1:om~JLz_̽R0pk/ir 9K5U)SOYOmdL(67vFNWa)@aU~@sۊNYƱ1s~NMI9毂Q /IdOGZ*^M6^"zz;:T驧h[<N|(+(@:JR\IF$ink_థƄy2Ԕ&0.о]\u 6CM!3)ds1mN茒O|T9b %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m  #  j 0 1NC 72E 1uwE 72 0c  1 72  0D<<<b 0 B{{ 0 D3< D-o 0K AS: 0 0D ARr-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular$w%- 3|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptU  RI$      1     _ ` Inthemain,themotiontoreconsiderrepeatstheargumentsmadeinthemotiontoalter,amendand  correct.\\IB27S11T\stats1,,,,0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (EhCEKQW]cioAutoList21.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(#$  0   - -(|G2I$ !.8 UdXXd8         0   d(|3AA$ !.8 UdXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3AA$ !.8 UdXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     __  8^XXdd8  @ $INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#$#Ԉ & @November14,2002SessionX^XԈ L  #XX^#  _MR_.SAMMYW.VEST,etal.v.DR.FRANCIS_GOSWITZ_,etal.X^X  J S@& &  AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforAndersonCounty  J @ No.00LA0003JamesB.Scott,Jr.,Judge  6   FILEDDECEMBER30,2002    @*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @No.E200101613_COA_ԄR3CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }   #XX^#  X^X#XX^x#X^X  ThisisamedicalmalpracticecasefiledonJanuary3,2000,andamendedonJanuary11ofthesame v year.ThesuitwasbySammyW.Vestandhisadultchildren,AngliaM._Somner_,CherylD.Travis, b andDannyW.Vest,againstDr.Francis_Goswitz_ԀandDr.Helen_Vodopick_.Thesuitseeksdamages N fortheDefendantsfailuretoreferMr.Vesttoaspecialist,resultinginaninjurytohimaswellas : tohischildren.TheTrialJudgesustainedamotionbytheDefendantstodismissthechildrenas &v partiesPlaintiff,andlateramotionforsummaryjudgmentastoMr.Vestssuit.Hefurthergranted b sanctionspursuanttoRule11.03againstcounselforthePlaintiff.#XX^#X^XԀWeaffirm. N  _Tenn.R.App.P._Ԁ3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed; & CauseRemanded     #X^} #X^X.HoustonM._Goddard_,_P.J._,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franksand  CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,JJ.,joined.  EdwardA._Slavin_,Jr.,St.Augustine,Florida,fortheAppellants,SammyW.Vest,AngliaM. ^!  _Somner_,CherylD.TravisandDannyW.Vest J"! DebraA.Thompson,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheAppellees,Francis_Goswitz_,M.D.,andHelen "$r# _Vodopick_,M.D. %^ $ {  OPINION  &6"&   #XX^ #X^X#XX^ #  X^X  Mr.Vestandthechildrenappeal,raisingthefollowingtwoissues: *%*  (5h83"3"   3@25h  I  .3  0   SHOULDSUMMARYJUDGMENTBEREVERSEDBECAUSE n,', THECOURTERREDBYGRANTINGITWITHOUTORDERING Z-(- _DEFENDANTSDEPOSITIONSANDDISCOVERY  COOPERATION?3@݌ X X  Ќ  "3"  3 25h  II  .3  0   DIDTHECOURTERRBYIMPOSINGSANCTIONSFOR t REQUESTINGRECONSIDERATIONOFTHESUMMARY ` JUDGMENTORDER?3 8݌L  X X  Ќ    WebelieveastobothissuesthestandardofreviewisabuseofdiscretionbytheTrialCourt. $ t Everettv.McCall,anunreportedopinionofthisCourtfiledinKnoxvilleonApril3,2001;Krugv.  ` Krug,838S.W.2d197(Tenn.Ct.App.1992).  L    TherecorddisclosesthatatahearingheldonDecember15,2002,byorderenteredonMarch $  15,2001,theTrialCourtenteredapretrialorderwhich,aspertinenttothisappeal,providesthe   following:   2. AllpartydepositionswillbetakenonorbeforeMarch19,2001.    (Eh88! !"3"  32Eh  3  .3  0   PlaintiffswillidentifytheirexpertwitnessesbyMarch19,2001.3-݌\ X X  Ќ  "3"  3 2Eh  4  .3  0   DefendantswillidentifytheirexpertwitnessesbyMay18,2001.3 9݌4 X X  Ќ  "3"  32Eh  5  .3  0   ThistrialwillbeginonAugust282001.3C݌ \ X X  Ќ    TheDefendantsbrief(seeappendix)accuratelysetsoutwithreferencestotherecordthe 4 factsnecessaryfordispositionofissueone.     Inlightofthefactssetoutintheappendix,weconcludetheTrialCourtdidnotabuseits  discretioninentertainingandgrantingthemotionforsummaryjudgment.    Astothesecondissue,thesanctionswereimposedbytheTrialCourtbecause,subsequent l tothefilingofanoticeofappeal,counselforthePlaintiffsfiledamotiontoreconsidertheTrial X  Courtsactionuponapreviousmotiontoalterandamend. D!   Ingrantingthesanctions,whichwereonlyagainstEdwardA.Slavin,Jr.,counselforthe #l! Plaintiffs,theTrialCourtsorderrecitesthefollowing: $X"  ItisfurtherORDEREDpursuanttoTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure %0!$ 11thatplaintiffsMotiontoReconsiderCourtsRulingonMotiontoAlter, &"% AmendandCorrectJudgment  #  1      ׀wasinviolationofRule11.02(1),andthatitwas '#& presentedforanimproperpurpose,suchastoharassortocauseunnecessarydelay (#' orneedlessincreaseinthecostoflitigation,andthatsanctionsshallbeorderedto  wit:AttorneyEdSlavinshallpayreasonableattorneysfeesandotherexpenses  incurredasadirectresultoftheviolationtotalling$2,125.75.SeeAffidavitof  DebraA.Thompsonattachedhereto.Theamountof$2,125.75shallbepaidby t Mr.SlavindirectlytothelawfirmofBaker,McReynolds,OKane&Atkins,P.O. ` Box1708,Knoxville,Tennessee,379011708,withinthirty(30)daysoftheentry L  ofthisOrder. 8    WefirstquestionwhethertheTrialCourtcouldentertainamotiontoreconsiderafteranotice  ` ofappealhadbeenfiledand,further,evenintheabsenceofanoticeofappealwhetherthePlaintiffs  L  wereentitledtofilethemotionseekingreconsiderationoftheirpreviousmotiontoalterandamend.  8  Itwouldseemtousthatifthisispermissibleaggrievedpartiescouldfilemultiplemotionsto $  reconsider,whichcoulddelayresolutionofthedisputebetweenthemindefinitely.     Finally,astothispoint,webelievethemostcompellingreasonforrejectingissuetwois   that!andwerepeatforemphasis!thesanctionswereagainstcounselforthePlaintiffs.However,the   noticeofappeallistsonlyPlaintiffsSammyW.Vest,CherylD.Travis,AngliaM.Somnerand p DannyW.Vestastheappealingparties. \   FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmedandthecauseremanded 4 forcollectionofthesanctionsimposedandcollectionofcostsbelow.Costsofappealareadjudged  p againstSammyW.Vest,AngliaM.Somner,CherylD.Travis,DannyW.Vestandtheirsurety.  \    `     h   _________________________________________      `     h   HOUSTONM.GODDARD,PRESIDINGJUDGE