WPCD Wv'AA #_qo]c #.cȠ>SZ> \߮b6=3O(Z LB.KJrwqjt<̯gm [fbmnۀ}Cʱ[4\m#93`#:Y!"0`Fœ]5ޒ9oWN GSܧA畍'w^-5u]+xFx D-i#rE@v0:|? :U#lj@t3S|ѝekkWf8{џuK~`#f]}IMi.!t;JQcg@A]|yVALɄ!k S 0UH 0 0 0E 0 0 0p 0 0 0e 0* 0 0 0[ 0 0 0> 0b` 0h 0* 0 0 0R! 0! 0" 0,# 0# 0H$ 0$ 0% 0>v& 0& 0' 0( 0p) 0R* 04+ 0, 0, 02- 0- 0:. 0Y / 0_c/ 0 / 00 0N2 B*T4 D/~4 04 D/6 06 067 07 08 0:9 0^: Bq: 0<: 0: D5n; D-; 0K; 1e< AS<< 0= 0D=> A>U6,?U*b? 1u? 72@@@-3@3@`C(I Z(Times New Roman (`$.8dd8    몁1 ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular)N1:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5HP LaserJet 4300 PS0(#$  0  \  `&Times New Roman I R.$      2    _ԀTheCourtofAppealshasinterpretedTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection2920102(3)(A)asexcludingthe  State.Youngbloodv.Clepper,856S.W.2d405,406(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   - -(AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKb<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Kb<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/Kb<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7M(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?c%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dL)1dxd<:zTop of For7O(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?c%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  L)2dxd0KS.SampleKb<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong (|G2.$ !.8 dXXd8         0  8dl6TypewriterKb<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB       d2 0CommentB  (|3IP$ !.8 dXXd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  %&'()*+,!35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3IP$ !.8 dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK<6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)di) # R.$      1    _e8 ԀUnderfederalstatutorylaw,patientsmustbeevaluatedpriortotheiradmissiontoMedicaidfundednursing  homes.42U.S.C.A.1396r(West2003).Thepurposeofthescreeningistopreventtheadmissionofmentallyillor t mentallyretardedpatients.Seeid.;seealso42C.F.R.431.621,483.106(2004).Althoughthescreeningis 8 administeredbytheState,thephysicalandmentalevaluationsareperformedbynonstateemployeesorentities.42 L U.S.C.A.1396r(b)(3)(F)(West2003).# e8~# HembreePASARRCentervilleAdminstrationStinsonGleavesSundquist$n]otwithstandingYoungbloodClepperAssem S.R.l]egal t]hen]egligentConleyLifecarescreenings !.8 dd8     _    8YXXdd8` @ q`INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#`q+#Ԉ &   June3,2004Session L XX` #`XX #PATRICIACONLEY,INDIVIDUALLYANDASPERSONAL J REPRESENTATIVEOFTHEESTATEOFMARTHASTINSON,  ^ DECEASEDv.STATEOFTENNESSEEXX`  " r @@ AppealbyPermissionfromtheCourtofAppeals " r TennesseeClaimsCommission ^  @@No.20200368W.R.Baker,Commissioner J  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200200813SCR11CVFiledAugust25,2004   AV) ` dE<` A     #`XX#XX`Wegrantedreviewinthiscasetoaddressthreeissues:(1)whethertheStateisa governmental  entityunderTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection201119(g)(Supp.2003);(2)whethertheState x maybeliableformedicalmalpracticeunderTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection98307(a)(1)(D) d (2003),whentherewasno professional/clientrelationshipbetweentheclaimantandastate P employee;and(3)whethertheStatemaybeliableforthe negligentcare,custody,orcontrolofa < personunderTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection98307(a)(1)(E)(2003)whenitadministerspre (x admissionscreeningofanursinghomepatientasrequiredbyfederalstatute.TheClaims d Commissionheldthattheclaimantsactionwasbarredbytheoneyearstatuteoflimitationsbecause P theStatewasnotagovernmentalentityandalsothatthecomplaintfailedtostateaclaimuponwhich < reliefcouldbegranted.TheCourtofAppealsreversedonthestatuteoflimitationsissueand ( remandedforfurtherproceedingsontheactionsformedicalmalpracticeandnegligentcare,custody,  andcontrol.Afterreviewingtherecordandapplicableauthority,weconclude:(1)thatthecomplaint  wastimelyfiledunderTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection201119(g)becausetheStateisa    governmentalentity;(2)thatthecomplaintfailstostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted !  formedicalmalpracticebecausetherewasno professional/clientrelationshipbetweenastate t"! employeeandtheclaimant;and(3)thatthecomplaintfailstostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbe `#" grantedfortheStates negligentcare,custodyandcontrolwhenitisbasedontheState L$# administeredpreadmissionscreeningofanursinghomepatientasrequiredbyfederalstatute.We 8% $ thereforeaffirmtheCourtofAppealsjudgmentinpartandreverseinpart. $&t!% ( Tenn.R.App.P.11AppealbyPermission;JudgmentoftheCourtofAppeals 'L#' AffirmedinPartandReversedinPart;CaseDismissed  (8$(   E.RileyAnderson,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichFrankF._Drowota_,III,C.J., *&* and_Adolpho_ԀA.Birch,Jr.,JaniceM.Holder,andWilliamM.Barker,JJ.,joined. +&+   ,', _PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral;andMartha   A.Campbell,SeniorCounsel,fortheAppellant,StateofTennessee.  GeneHallworth,Columbia,Tennessee,fortheAppellee,PatriciaConley. t  @@OO& OPINION  L   Background  $ t     MarthaStinsonwasapatientatCentervilleHealthCareCenter,anursinghomein  L  Centerville,Tennessee.OnJanuary1,2000,shewasbeatenseverelybyJamesJohnson,apatient  8  atthenursinghomewhohadbeendiagnosedashavingagitatedpsychosis.Stinsonlaterdiedfrom $  theinjuriesshesufferedinthebeating.     PatriciaConley,thedaughterofMarthaStinsonandthepersonalrepresentativeofherestate,   filedatimelycomplaintforwrongfuldeathagainstLifecareCentersofAmerica,Inc.( Lifecare),   whichoperatedtheCentervilleHealthCareCenter,allegingthatLifecarewasnegligentinits p supervisionofJamesJohnson.OnAugust24,2001,Lifecarefiledananswer,allegingthattheState \ ofTennesseewasatfaultforthenegligentpreadmissionscreeningofJamesJohnsonandthe H placementofJohnsonintoCentervilleHealthCareCenter.h #  1      ׀ 4   OnAugust31,2001,ConleyfiledaclaimagainsttheStateallegingthattheStatewas  \ negligentinthepreadmissionscreeningofJamesJohnsonwhichdeterminedthathewasfitfor H admissiontotheCentervillenursinghome.TheStatemovedtodismissConleysclaimonthe 4 groundsthatitwasnotfiledwithinoneyearofMarthaStinsonsdeathandthatitalsofailedtostate   aclaimuponwhichreliefcouldbegrantedunderRule12.02(6)oftheTennesseeRulesofCivil   Procedure.ConleysreplytothemotiontodismissassertedthattheclaimwasbasedontheStates  medicalmalpracticeinscreeningJamesJohnsonandtheStatesnegligent care,custody,orcontrol  ofJohnsonpursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection98307(a)(1)(D)and(E).    TheClaimsCommissionruledthattheclaimwasbarredbytheoneyearstatuteoflimitations X  becausetheStatewasnota governmentalentityunderTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection201 D! 119(g).TheClaimsCommissionalsofoundthatthecomplaintfailedtostateaclaimuponwhich 0"  reliefcouldbegrantedunderTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure12.02(6).TheCourtofAppeals #l! reversedtheClaimsCommissionsrulingsandremandedthecaseforfurtherproceedings. $X"   Wegrantedthisappeal. %0!$  &"% @& ANALYSIS     StandardofReview      AmotiontodismissacomplaintforfailuretostateaclaimpursuanttoRule12.02(6)ofthe ` TennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureassertsthattheallegationsinthecomplaint,acceptedastrue, L  failtoestablishacauseofactionforwhichreliefcanbegranted.Leachv.Taylor,124S.W.3d87, 8  90(Tenn.2004). $ t   ThetrialcourtsdismissalofacomplaintpursuanttoRule12.02(6)presentsaquestionof  L  lawthatwereviewdenovowithoutapresumptionofcorrectnesstotheconclusionsreachedbelow.  8  Leach,124S.W.3dat90.Likewise,questionsofstatutoryconstructionpresentquestionsoflawthat $  wereviewdenovowithoutapresumptionofcorrectnesstotheconclusionsreachedbelow.Kiv.   State,78S.W.3d876,879(Tenn.2002).     StatuteofLimitations       TheStatearguesthatConleysclaimwasbarredbythestatuteoflimitationsapplicableto \ wrongfuldeathcasesbecauseitwasnotfiledwithinoneyearofMarthaStinsonsdeath.TheState H acknowledgesthatTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection201119(Supp.2003)providesanadditional 4 ninety(90)daysforaplaintifftofileacomplaintagainstathirdpartywhothedefendanthasalleged  p isatfaultandthatLifecareallegedtheStatewasatfault.Itarguesthestatutedoesnotapplytothe  \ Statebecauseitisnota governmentalentity.Conleyarguesthattheclaimwastimelyfiledand H thattheStateisagovernmentalentity. 4   Asthisissueinvolvesextensivestatutoryanalysis,webeginouranalysisbyreviewing   familiarprinciplesofstatutoryconstruction.Our primarygoalininterpretingstatutesisto  ascertainandgiveeffecttotheintentionandpurposeofthelegislature.Stewartv.State,33  S.W.3d785,791(Tenn.2000)(quotingGleavesv.CheckerCabTransitCorp.,15S.W.3d799,802  (Tenn.2000)).Whenthestatutorylanguageisunambiguous,weapplyitsplainandordinary l meaning.PlannedParenthoodofMiddleTenn.v.Sundquist,38S.W.3d1,24(Tenn.2000).When X  thestatutorylanguageisambiguous,wemustlooktoothersources,suchaslegislativehistory,to D! determinetheintentandpurposeofthelegislature.Id. 0"    Withtheseprinciplesinmind,weturntoTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection201119,which $X" statesinpertinentpart: $D # 8  8`   (a)Incivilactionswherecomparativefaultisorbecomesanissue, &"% ifadefendantnamedinanoriginalcomplaintinitiatingasuit... '#& allegesinananswer...totheoriginal...complaintthatapersonnot (#' apartytothesuitcausedorcontributedtotheinjuryordamagefor )$( whichtheplaintiffseeksrecovery,andiftheplaintiff'scauseor |*%) causesofactionagainstsuchpersonwouldbebarredby_any h+&* applicablestatuteoflimitationsbutfortheoperationofthissection,  theplaintiffmay,withinninety(90)daysofthefilingofthefirst  answerorfirstamendedanswerallegingsuchperson'sfault,either:` x` x 8  8`    (1)Amendthecomplainttoaddsuchpersonasadefendant ` ...;orL ` x` x 8  8`    (2)Instituteaseparateactionagainstthatpersonbyfilinga $ t summonsandcomplaint.... `` x` x Tenn.CodeAnn.201119(a)(Supp.2003)(emphasisadded).Thestatutefurtherprovidesthat $   [n]otwithstandinganyprovisionoflawtothecontrary,thissectionappliestosuitsinvolving   governmentalentities.Tenn.CodeAnn.201119(g)(Supp.2003).     Anexaminationofthisstatuteandchapterrevealsthatthephrase governmentalentities   isnotdefinedinTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection201119(g)orelsewhereinthisstatutorytitle, p chapterorpart.Moreover,thereisnoindicationthattheplainandordinarymeaningofthestatute \ includesorexcludestheStateofTennesseeasa governmentalentitywhenitactsthrougha H department,agency,orotherinstrumentality.Id.Thus,thephraseisambiguousandwemustlook 4 elsewhereforinterpretativeguidanceindeterminingthelegislativeintent.  p   Inturningfirsttootherpertinentstatutoryprovisions,wefindthatthephrase governmental H entitiesisdefinedintheGovernmentalTortLiabilityAct: 4 8  8`    Governmentalentitymeansanypoliticalsubdivisionofthestateof   Tennesseeincluding,butnotlimitedto,anymunicipality,  metropolitangovernment,county,utilitydistrict,schooldistrict,  nonprofitvolunteerfiredepartmentreceivingfundsappropriatedby  acountylegislativebodyoralegislativebodyofamunicipality, l humanresourceagency,publicbuildingauthority,anddevelopment X  districtcreatedandexistingpursuanttotheconstitutionandlawsof D! Tennessee,oranyinstrumentalityofgovernmentcreatedbyanyone 0"  (1)ormoreofthenamedlocalgovernmentalentitiesorbyanactof #l! thegeneralassembly[.]$X"` x` x Tenn.CodeAnn.2920102(3)(A)(Supp.2003)(emphasisadded).Althoughthisstatutecontains &"% abroaddefinitionofagovernmentalentitythatincludes anypoliticalsubdivisionoftheStateand '#&  is notlimitedtodepartments,agencies,andinstrumentalitiesofgovernment,itdoesnoteither (#' expresslyincludeorexcludetheStateitself. #  2      ׀Moreover,thisstatutorydefinitionisapplicabletothe   GovernmentalTortLiabilityAct,andthereissimplynoindicationthatthisdefinitionisapplicable  toTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection201119(g).    WethereforeturntothelegislativehistoryunderlyingthepassageofTennesseeCode ` Annotatedsection201119(g).Indiscussingthelegislation,theChairmanoftheHouseJudiciary L  Committeeexplained: Thisjusttreatsthestate...andthegovernmentsandthecitiesjustlike 8  everybodyelse.Theyplaywiththesameruleseverybodyelsedoes.H.R.1173,101stGeneral $ t _Assembly,_Ԁ1stSess.,May11,1999.Inaddition,remarksmadeintheSenateillustratethatthestatute  ` wasintendedtoremedyanexistinginconsistencybyincludingtheStateasagovernmentalentity:  L  8  8`   Ifyou,Senator,oracorporation,oralimitedpartnership,oranyother $  entitywerenamedbyadefendantin[an]answerasbeingpartially   responsibleforsomeactthatwasallegedtobetheproximatecause   ofaninjury,thentheplaintiffwouldhave90daystobringyouinor   thatcorporationinorthatLLCinorwhoeverelse,butnotacity,a   countyorthestate.Andthatswherethelawisnotuniform.p` x` x S.R.1033,101stGeneralAssembly,1stSess.,May27,1999. H   Inviewofthislegislativehistory,weholdthattheintentandpurposeofthelegislaturewas  p undoubtedlytoincludetheStateofTennesseeasagovernmentalentityforthepurposeofTennessee  \ CodeAnnotatedsection201119(g)(Supp.2003).Inthepresentcase,Conleyfiledatimely H complaintagainstLifecare,whichfiledananswerraisingtheissueoftheStatescomparativefault 4 aftertheoneyeartimeperiodspecifiedinthestatuteoflimitations.Conleythenfiledaclaim   directlyagainsttheStateallegingnegligenceintheprescreeningadmissionofJamesJohnsonwhich   determinedthatJohnsonwasfitforadmissionintothenursinghome.Because_Conley_sclaimwas  filedwithinninety(90)daysof_Lifecare_sanswer,theclaimwastimelyunderTennesseeCode  Annotatedsection201119andwasnotbarredbythestatuteoflimitations.  @MedicalMalpracticeClaim X    HavingdeterminedthattheStateisagovernmentalentityandthat_Conley_sclaimwas 0"  timely,wenextturntotheissueofwhethertheclaimstatedaviablecauseofactionformedical #l! malpracticepursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection98307(a)(1)(D),whichstatesthata $X" claimmaybefiledfor [l]egalormedicalmalpracticebyastateemployee;provided,thatthestate $D # employeehasaprofessional/clientrelationshipwiththeclaimant. %0!$   TheStatearguesthattheclaimfailedtostateanactionformedicalmalpracticeagainstthe '#& StatebecausenostateemployeesconductedthescreeningofJamesJohnson,seeU.S.C.A. (#' 1396r(b)(3)(F)(West2003),andbecausetheclaimantdidnothavea professional/client  relationshipwithastateemployeeasrequiredbyTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection98  307(a)(1)(D).ConleyarguesthatherclaimstatedavalidactionbecausetheStateowedadutyof  caretoforeseeablethirdpartieswhowereatriskofharm,suchasMarthaStinson,initspre t admissionscreeningofnursinghomepatients. `   InTennessee,theClaimsCommissionhas exclusivejurisdictiontodetermineallmonetary 8  claimsagainstthestatebasedontheactsoromissionsofstateemployees....Tenn.CodeAnn. $ t 98307(a)(1)(Supp.2003).ThisCourthasrecognizedthat [_w]hile_ԀtheClaimsCommissionhas  ` exclusivejurisdictiontohearclaimsarisingagainstthestate,thisjurisdictionislimitedonlytothose  L  claimsspecifiedinTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection9-8-307(a).Stewartv.State,33S.W.3d785,  8  790(Tenn.2000)(citationandfootnoteomitted).Moreover,ifaclaimfallsoutsideofthecategories $  specifiedinsection9-8-307(a),thenthe stateretainsitsimmunityfromsuit,andaclaimantmay   notseekrelieffromthestate.Id.     Thestatutorybasisfor_Conley_sclaimprovidesthataclaimagainsttheStatemayarisefrom    [l]egalormedicalmalpracticebyastateemployee;provided,thatthestateemployeehasa p professional/clientrelationshipwiththeclaimant.Tenn.CodeAnn.98307(a)(1)(D)(Supp. \ 2003).Thestatutorylanguagemakesitclearthataclaimantmustestablisha professional/client H relationshipexistedbetweentheclaimantandastateemployee.Id. 4   Inthiscase,ConleyfailedtostateacauseofactionunderTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection  \ 98307(a)(1)(D).Althoughpreadmissionscreeningisrequiredbyfederalstatute,theevaluations H arenotconductedbystateemployees.42U.S.C.A.1396r(b)(3)(F)(West2003).Theclaimdid 4 notidentifyanyprofessionalwhowasallegedtohavecommittedmedicalmalpractice,nordidit   allegeanyfactualdetailssupportingtheallegedmalpractice.Moreover,theclaimdidnotallegeany   factsthatwouldestablisha professional/clientrelationshipbetweentheclaimant,i.e.,Conley,and  astateemployee,orbetweenMarthaStinsonandastateemployee.Thus,theclaimfailedtosatisfy  therequirementsforamedicalmalpracticeclaimpursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection98  307(a)(1)(D)(Supp.2003). l   Despitetheplaintermsofthestatute,ConleyarguesthattheCourtofAppealsproperlyfound D! thatshestatedaclaimunderTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection98307(c),whichprovidesthat 0"   [t]hedeterminationofthestatesliabilityintortshallbebasedonthetraditionaltortconceptsof #l! dutyandthereasonablyprudentpersonsstandardofcare.Morever,ConleyarguesthattheCourt $X" ofAppealsproperlyheldthatadutycouldbeimposedinthiscasebasedonTurnerv.Jordan,957 $D # S.W.2d815(Tenn.1997). %0!$   WedisagreewiththeCourtofAppealsanalysis.First,asamatterofstatutoryconstruction, '#& thespecifictermsofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection98307(a)(1)(D),whichrequireaclaimant (#' toestablisha professional/clientrelationship,controloverthegeneralprovisionsofTennessee )$( CodeAnnotatedsection98307(c).See,e.g.,Washingtonv.RobertsonCounty,29S.W.3d466, |*%) 475(Tenn.2000). h+&* _ԇ  Second,ourdecisioninTurnerheldthatapsychiatristowedadutyofcaretoaplaintiffnurse  wherethepsychiatrist knowsorshouldknowthatapatientposesanunreasonableriskofharmto  aforeseeable,readilyidentifiablethirdperson.957S.W.2dat816.Ourholdinginvolvedprivate  partiesandhadnobearingontheissueoftheStatesliabilityformedicalmalpracticeunder t TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection98307(a)(1)(D).Moreover,ouranalysisinTurnerreiterated ` thegeneralrulethat aphysician/patientrelationshipisnecessaryforamedicalmalpracticeclaim L  butnotanegligenceaction.Turner,957S.W.2dat819n.4. 8    Accordingly,weholdthatamedicalmalpracticeactionunderTennesseeCodeAnnotated  ` section98307(a)(1)(D)unambiguouslyrequiresa professional/clientrelationshipbetweenthe  L  claimantandastateemployee.ConleysclaimagainsttheStatedidnotallegesufficientfactsto  8  establishthiselementand,therefore,failedtostateacauseofactionuponwhichreliefcouldbe $  grantedpursuanttoRule12.02(6)oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.   @NegligentCare,Custody,andControl     Wenextturntotheissueofwhetherthecomplaintstatedaclaimuponwhichreliefcouldbe p grantedunderRule12.02(6)oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedurebasedonTennesseeCode \ Annotatedsection98307(a)(1)(E),whichstatesthataclaimformonetarydamagesmaybefiled H basedontheStates [n]egligentcare,custody,andcontrolofpersons. 4   TheStatearguesthatthepreadmissionscreeningofJamesJohnsonbeforehisadmissionto  \ theCentervillenursinghomewasnotconductedbystateemployeesandthattheStatedidnothave H  care,custody,andcontroloverJohnson.Conleyrespondsthatthepreadmissionscreeningof 4 JohnsonwasrequiredbyfederalstatutesandsupportsaclaimagainsttheStatefornegligentcare,   controlorcustody.     WebeginouranalysisofthisissuebyexaminingTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection98  307(a)(1)(E)(Supp.2003),whichprovidesthataclaimformonetarydamagesmaybefiledwiththe  ClaimsCommissionbasedontheStates [n]egligentcare,custody,andcontrolofpersons. l Althoughthestatutorylanguageusestheconjunctive and,wehaveearlierexplainedthatthestatute X  shouldbeinterpretedinthedisjunctive: D! 8  8`   [I]tisdifficulttoconceivethatthelegislatureintendedtodeny #l! jurisdictionincaseswherenegligentcontrolofapersonbyastate $X" employeeresultedininjury,eventhoughtheinjuredpersonwasnot $D # actuallywithinthecareorcustodyofthestateemployee.%0!$` x` x Stewartv.State,33S.W.3d785,792(Tenn.2000). '#&   InapplyingthisstatuteinStewart,weheldthattheClaimsCommissionlackedjurisdiction )$( wheretheclaimallegedthatastatepoliceofficernegligentlyfailedtosupervisecountydeputiesin |*%) securinganarrestscenewhichcausedtheclaimanttobestruckbyatruckandseverelyinjured.Id. h+&* at79293.AlthoughwerecognizedthattheStatemaybeliableforinjuriestothirdpersonscaused  bypersonsforwhichtheStatehasresponsibilitypursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection98  307(a)(1)(E),weconcludedthatthestateofficerdidnothaveaduty ofcare,custody,andcontrol  overthecountyofficersanddidnotassumesuchadutyunderthefactsofthatcase.Accordingly, t weheldthattheclaimshouldhavebeendismissed.Stewart,33S.W.3dat79394. `   Incontrast,inHembreev.State,925S.W.2d513(Tenn.1996),weheldthataproperclaim 8  wasstatedwheretheclaimallegedthattheStatenegligentlyreleasedapatientfromamentalhealth $ t institutewholatershotandkilledseveralindividuals.WeexplainedthattheStateisresponsiblefor  ` thepropercareandcontrolofpatientsinitsmentalhealthfacilitiesandthatthedecisiontorelease  L  apatient, ifnegligentlymade,mayexposetheStatetoliability.Id.at517.Afteremphasizingthat  8  thepatientwasinactualcustodyoftheStatesmentalhealthfacilityatthetimeoftherelease $  decisionandthattherecorddidnotindicatethatthepatienthadbeendischargedfromtheStates   careatthetimeoftheoffenses,weconcluded:   8  8`   First,giventhat[thepatient]wasliterallywithinthestatescustody   whenthedecisiontoreleasehimwasmade,theclaimantshavestated p acauseofactionunder[section]98307(a)(1)(E).Second,although \ weholdthatphysicalconfinementintheliteralsenseisnota H prerequisiteunder[section]98307(a)(1)(E),agenuineissueof 4 materialfactexistsastowhether[thepatient]was confined.If[the  p patient]were confined,thentheclaimantshavestatedacauseof  \ action....H` x` x Id.at518.     Applyingtheforegoingprinciplesinthiscase,weconcludethattheclaimdidnotstatean  actionuponwhichreliefcouldbegrantedpursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection98  307(a)(1)(E).AlthoughtheStateisrequiredbythefederalgovernmenttoadministerthepre  admissionscreeningofpatientsadmittedtoMedicaidfundednursinghomes,see42U.S.C.A. l 1396r(West2003),theclaimdidnotallegethatstateemployeesconductedthescreeningor X  evaluationofJamesJohnson.Indeed,theStatepointsoutthatpreadmissionscreeningsunderthe D! federalstatutemaynotbeconductedbystateemployeesoragencies.42U.S.C.A.1396r(b)(3)(F) 0"  (West2003).UnlikeHembree,therehasbeennoshowingthattheStatehad care,custodyor #l! controlunderthefactsofthiscase.Moreover,therehasbeennoassertionthattheStateslimited $X" involvementimposedadutytocontroltheactionsofJohnsonafterhewasplacedinthenursing $D # facilityownedbyLifecare.SeeStewart,33S.W.3dat794.Accordingly,theclaimfailedtostate %0!$ anactionforreliefunderTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection98307(a)(1)(E). &"%   CONCLUSION  (#' v  Afterreviewingtherecordandapplicableauthority,weconclude:(1)thatthecomplaintwas |*%) timelyfiledunderTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection201119(g)becausetheStateisa h+&*  governmentalentity;(2)thatthecomplaintfailstostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted  againsttheStateformedicalmalpracticebecausetherewasno professional/clientrelationship  betweenastateemployeeandtheclaimant;and(3)thatthecomplaintfailstostateaclaimupon  whichreliefcanbegrantedagainsttheStatefor negligentcare,custody,orcontrolbecausein t administeringtheprescreeningofanursinghomepatient,theStatedidnothave care,custody[or] ` control.Accordingly,weaffirmtheCourtofAppealsjudgmentinpartandreverseinpart.Costs L  onappealaretaxedtotheState. 8     `     h     ________________________________  L     `     h     E.RILEYANDERSON,JUSTICE  8