WPCI _yYESERI~[dS\uy׬ZIz"l#o BΦ7,5"KNzމg7cL$x}i;jfC aݤ_pTFro&0ŒX7(I,/K5T}`2\Dr&M׫/ ݉:zӬXy?Zq"D]mj9xݮ: e$sqj>,[[L+2}p//:!Jv &g n=@]7g7 o_-swLvnrWIR." Ud<ٵ@5 b=~6MPۀ;O~^Q*|VeZg}p2w`ʴR 1q֚L"` n#UN % 0:! ^ [ wg 4k   m 0 0DD  N  0Uf 0 0 0c 0" 0 0 0; 0 0 0H 0 0 0y 0  0 0\ 0 0~ 0@ 0 0 0h 0 0 0B! 0! 0^" 0# 0# 0>$ 0$ 0% 0& 0' 0h( 0J) 0,* 0* 02+ 0+ 0:, 0Y - 0_y- 0 - 0. 0d0 B*j2 D/2 02 D/4 04 065 05 0:7 0^>7 0<7 1e7 0N=8U68U>8U*8N)9 1u+9 729 A9 0V}:: Bc< D-< 0K<<AVCUNDNdDEEU@E 1Eb{FFFIH"H%HHHHHH  I  I\\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0(@ Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,/ qdj/:i+003|xU(M(2#J$ !USUS.,  L2XX    0  (#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*+ (_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   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7C(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?P%2A`Arial?  SO\  `&Times New RomanS7X(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dB)1dxd<:zTop of For7E(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?P%2A`Arial?  SO\  `&Times New RomanS7X(X75+ ` hp x 5  B)2dxd0KS.SampleKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"# 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(O$<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Ri)UYX&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK(.3$ !USUS.,     #J$USUS.,L2XX    6    _Ԁ Thefollowingactionsshallbecommencedwithinthree(3)yearsfromtheaccruingofthecauseofaction:  (1)Actionsforinjuriestopersonalorrealproperty....Tenn.CodeAnn.28-3-105(2000). t  d)!dxdx( $ Figure  1     #J$USUS.,L2XX    4    _ԀSection2926115(a)provides:  0  0` (#(#Inamalpracticeaction,theclaimantshallhavetheburdenofprovingbyevidenceasprovidedby 8 subsection(b):L` (#` (# ̀0  0` (#(#(1)Therecognizedstandardofacceptableprofessionalpracticeintheprofessionandthe  specialtythereof,ifany,thatthedefendantpracticesinthecommunityinwhichthedefendant H  practicesorinasimilarcommunityatthetimetheallegedinjuryorwrongfulactionoccurred; \` (#` (# ̀0  0` (#(#(2)Thatthedefendantactedwithlessthanorfailedtoactwithordinaryandreasonablecarein    accordancewithsuchstandard;andX  ` (#` (# ̀0  0` (#(#(3)Asaproximateresultofthedefendant'snegligentactoromission,theplaintiffsuffered  0  injurieswhichwouldnototherwisehaveoccurred. ` (#` (#    #J$USUS.,L2XX    5    _ (a)Thefollowingactionsshallbecommencedwithinone(1)yearafterthecauseofactionaccrued:  (1)Actionsforlibel,forinjuriestotheperson,falseimprisonment,maliciousprosecution,breachofmarriage t promise....Tenn.CodeAnn.283104(a)(1)(2000). 8  LabCorpSchulderDep'tNiblack("  Z6Times New Roman Regular D  #J$USUS.,L2XX    3    _TheCourtofAppealsheldthatthesixyearstatuteoflimitationsforcontractactionsdidnotapplyinthis  case.NeitherpartyraisedthisissueonappealtoourCourt.(I Z(Times New Roman (UEGMSY_ekqAutoList241.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.- -   #J$USUS.,L2XX    1    _AnothertestwasperformedbyLaboratoryInvestments,acodefendantinthecase.Thattestindicatedthat  therewasa99.99% chancethatGunterwasthefatherof_J.C._ԀLaboratoryInvestmentsisnot,however,apartytothis t appeal. <  #Xd# b         #J$USUS.,L2XX    2    _]L2L2InkeepingwiththeCourtspolicy,weidentifyminorchildrenbytheirinitials.#L2]L2#1112 !USUS.,  _XX   ]]V.]deV INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @@gg$ATNASHVILLE#]]V.#]X X] & #]X]X E#]^]June4,2003Session#]]^#]V.] L #]]V.#]V.] #]]V.I#]^]STANLEYA.GUNTERv.LABORATORYCORPORATIONOF 4  AMERICA,d/b/aLABCORP,etal. #]]^#]V.] H  #]]V.;#]X X] @@AppealbypermissionfromtheCourtofAppeals H  CircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty 4  @@G G No.01C2890ThomasW.Brothers,Judge#]X]X #]V.]  p  #]]V.#]X X]@@*AW_) ` dE<` A H  No.M200200600SCR11CV FiledDecember19,_2003 _ C   AW_) ` dE<` A  #X XX]X n# #XX #^= XXdd=#^#X X  Wegrantedpermissiontoappealtodeterminetheapplicablestatuteoflimitationsinthisaction @ againstalaboratorythatanalyzesbloodforpurposesofprovidingevidenceinpaternitycases.The , trialcourtruledthatthecasewas governedbytheapplicableoneyearstatuteoflimitationsin  TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsections283104and2926116d , dwhichrefer toinjuriestotheperson  andmedicalmalpracticeclaims d, danddismissedtheactionbecausethesuitwas filedoutsidetheone  yearlimitation.Theintermediatecourtappliedthethreeyearstatuteoflimitationsapplicableto  suitsforrecoveryofmonetary damagesforinjuriestopersonalpropertyand,thereby,reversedthe  trialcourtsruling.Weconcludethatthisactionsoundsinnegligenceratherthanmedical p malpractice.Further,weconcludethattheeconomiclosssustainedbytheplaintiffisaninjuryto \ propertyratherthantotheperson.Thus,weholdthatthethreeyearstatuteoflimitations forinjury H topersonalpropertyapplies.Accordingly,weaffirmthejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsand 8 remandthecasetothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.  $t  `X XXX   Tenn.R.App.P.11AppealbyPermission;JudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsAffirmed L andCaseRemandedtotheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty  8 < #X XX`X  # ]X XX _Adolpho_ԀA.Birch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhich% l FrankF.Drowota,III, "! C.J.,and#X X]X 9#`X XX E.RileyAnderson%l#X XX`X 1#]X XXX ,JaniceM.Holder,#X XX]X #`X XXX andWilliamM.Barker,JJ.,% m %m1joined. #" #X XX`X #WilliamE._Godbold_,III,andCherieD._Jewell_,Chattanooga,Tennessee,andThomasJ._Dement_,II, % $ Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,LabCorp. p&!% AugustC.Winter,Brentwood,Tennessee,fortheappellee,StanleyA.Gunter. H(#'    Opinion  *p%) I.FactsandProceduralHistory +H'+    Thefactsasallegedbytheappellee,StanleyA.Gunter,revealthatajudgmentestablishing - )- d d8 XXdd8b d  _paternityandorderingthepaymentofchildsupportwasenteredagainsthimbased,inpart,onthe  resultsofabloodtestperformedbytheappellant,LaboratoryCorporationofAmerica(d/b/a  LabCorp).Theresultsofthattestc  #  1      ׀wereissuedonMay25,1999,andindicatedthattherewasa  99.94% chancethatGunterwasthefatherofJ.C.f  #  2      ׀Gunterasserted,however,thatheneverhad t sexualrelationswiththemotherofthechild.Thus,hecontended,inacomplaintfiledonSeptember ` 21,2001,thatLabCorpnegligentlyperformedthepaternitytestandoverstatedtheprobabilityof L  paternity.Hiscomplaintallegednegligenceandbreachofcontract,^h  #  3      ׀andhesoughtdamagesinthe 8  amountoftheeconomiclossoccasionedbytheobligationimposeduponhimtomakechildsupport $ t payments.  `   LabCorp,contendingthattheoneyearstatuteoflimitationsapplicabletomedical  8  malpracticeclaimsorpersonalinjuryclaimsappliedandhadrunpriortothefilingofthecomplaint, $  movedtodismissthecomplaintforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted.See   Tenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)(2003).Gunterrespondedthatthethreeyearstatuteoflimitationsfor   personalpropertytortactionsshouldbeappliedinstead.Thetrialcourtruledthatthecasewas    governedbytheapplicableoneyearstatuteoflimitationsinTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsections   283104and2926116.TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection2926116(a)(1) (2000)providesthat  p  [t]hestatuteoflimitationsinmalpracticeactionsshallbeone(1)yearassetforthin[section]283 ` 104.TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection283104(2000)providesthatthestatuteoflimitations L forinjuriestothepersonshallbecommencedoneyearafterthecauseofactionaccrued.Onappeal, 8 theCourtofAppealsreversedthetrialcourtsruling,holdingthatGunterscomplaintstatedacause $t ofactionforinjuriestopersonalproperty,andthusiscontrolledbythethreeyearstatuteof ` limitationssetforthinTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection283105.Wegrantedpermissionto L appealpursuanttoRule11oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProceduretodeterminethe 8 applicablestatuteoflimitationsinGuntersactionagainstLabCorp. $   II.StandardofReview   j a(U83R  OnappealtothisCourt,LabCorpchallengesthesufficiencyofthecomplaint,contendingthat  undertheapplicableoneyearstatuteoflimitationsthecomplaintistimebarred. Theapplicable p statuteoflimitationsinaparticularcausewillbedeterminedaccordingtothegravamenofthe \  complaint.Vancev.Schulder,547S.W.2d927,931(Tenn.1977).Thedeterminationofthe H! gravamenofthecomplaintisaquestionoflawwhichmaybeappropriatelyaddressedinamotion 4"  todismissunderRule12.02(6)oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.  #p!   $\" 8  ARule12.02(6)motiontodismissforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcan  begrantedtestsonlythesufficiencyofthecomplaint,notthestrengthofaplaintiff's  proofasdoes,forexample,amotionforadirectedverdict.Thefailuretostatea  claimuponwhichreliefcanbegrantedisdeterminedbyanexaminationofthe t complaintalone.Thebasisforthemotionisthattheallegationscontainedinthe ` complaint,consideredaloneandtakenastrue,areinsufficienttostateaclaimasa L  matteroflaw.Themotionadmitsthetruthofallrelevantandmaterialaverments 8  containedinthecomplaintbutassertsthatsuchfactsdonotconstituteacauseof $ t action.InscrutinizingthecomplaintinthefaceofaRule12.02(6)motionto  ` dismiss,courtsshouldconstruethecomplaintliberallyinfavoroftheplaintiff,taking  L  allallegationsoffactthereinastrue.Themotionshouldbedeniedunlessitappears  8  thattheplaintiffcanprovenosetoffactsinsupportofherclaimthatwouldentitle $  hertorelief.    CookBy&ThroughUithovenv.Spinnaker'sofRivergate,Inc.,878S.W.2d934,938(Tenn.1994)   (citationsomitted).   Ѐ  Becausethiscasecomestousuponamotiontodismiss,wearerequiredtoacceptthefacts \ allegedinthecomplaintastrueandtoreviewsolelythelegalissuepresented.Crewsv.Buckman H Lab s .Intl,Inc.,78S.W.3d852,855(Tenn.2002).Thus,thismatterpresentsissuesoflawwhich 4 thisCourtreviewsdenovowithnopresumptionofcorrectnessarisingfromthetrialcourts $t conclusions.Carvellv.Bottoms,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995). `   III.Analysis 8  +   Inthisappeal,LabCorpcontendsthattheCourtofAppealserredbyapplyingthethreeyear  statuteoflimitationsforpersonalpropertytortactionsandasserts,instead,thatGuntersclaimisone  ofmedicalmalpracticesubjecttoaoneyearstatuteoflimitations.AccordingtoLabCorp,Gunters  actionaccruedonMay25,1999,whenthereportonthebloodtestwasissued,andexpiredMay25,  2000,oneyearafterthedatethestatutebegantorun.Gunterrespondsthatthethreeyearstatuteof p limitationsperiodfornegligenceactionsisapplicableinthiscase,andthus,thattheCourtof \  Appealscorrectlyruledthathiscomplaint,filedonSeptember21,2001,wasnottimebarred.  H!    A.NegligenceinLaboratoryTestingasMedicalMalpractice  #p!     TodeterminewhichlimitationsstatutecontrolsGuntersclaimagainstthelaboratory,we $H # mustfirstdecidewhethertheclaimsoundsinmedicalmalpracticeornegligence. [T]hedistinction %4!$ betweenmedicalmalpracticeandnegligenceisasubtleone,formedicalmalpracticeisbutaspecies & "% ofnegligenceandnorigidanalyticallineseparatesthetwo.Weinerv.LenoxHillHosp.,673 ' #& N.E.2d914,916(N.Y.1996)(quotingScottv.Uljanov,541N.E.2d398,399(N.Y.1989)). (#' Tennessee hasattemptedtodistinguishmedicalmalpracticefromnegligence .SeeTenn.CodeAnn. )$( 2926115;Bradshawv.Daniel,854S.W.2d865,870(Tenn.1993). *%)    `     h      p      x  l+&*   Aclaimofcommonlawnegligencerequiresproofofthefollowingelements:adutyofcare  owedbythedefendanttotheplaintiff;conductfallingbelowtheapplicablestandardofcarethat  amountstoabreachofthatduty;aninjuryorloss;causeinfact;andproximateorlegalcause.White  v.Lawrence,975S.W.2d525,529(Tenn.1998).Medicalmalpracticeactionsarespecifically t controlledbythemedicalmalpracticestatute,TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection2926115,which ` essentiallycodifiesthecommonlawelementsofnegligence.Kilpatrickv.Bryant,868S.W.2d594, L  598(Tenn.1993).Section2926115placesontheclaimanttheburdenofprovingthefollowing 8  statutoryelements:(1)therecognizedstandardofprofessionalcare;(2)thatthedefendantfailedto $ t actinaccordancewiththeapplicablestandardofcare;and(3)thatasaproximateresultofthe  ` defendant'snegligentactoromission,theclaimantsufferedaninjurywhichotherwisewouldnot  L  haveoccurred.Z  #  4      ׀ SeeMoonv.St.ThomasHosp.,983S.W.2d225,229(Tenn.1998).  8    Indistinguishingbetweenthetwoclaims,itshouldbenotedthatnotallcasesinvolving   healthormedicalentitiessoundinmedicalmalpractice.SeePullinsv.FentressCountyGen.Hosp.,   594S.W.2d663,669(Tenn.1979)(indicatingthatmedicalmalpracticestatutesdidnotapplyinthe   determinationofwhetherhospitalbreacheditsdutytokeephospitalfreefromspiders);seealso   Bradshawv.Daniel,854S.W.2d865,870(Tenn.1993)( [Aphysicianpatientrelationship]isnot p necessaryforthemaintenanceofanactionbasedonnegligence,andthisCourthasspecifically \ recognizedthataphysicianmayoweadutytoanonpatientthirdpartyforinjuriescausedbythe H physiciansnegligence....);Peetev.ShelbyCountyHealthCareCorp.,938S.W.2d693,696 4 (Tenn.Ct.App.1996)(holdingthatacomplaintbypatientthatapieceoforthopedicsuspensionbar  p aboveherhospitalbedfellandstruckthetopofherheadwasaclaimforordinarynegligence,not  \ medicalmalpractice,andthuspatientwasnotrequiredtoprovestatutoryelementsofmalpractice H action). Attheotherendofthespectrum,themedicalmalpracticestatutemayextendtoactsofnon 4 physicians,suchasnurses,whentheyareinvolvedinthemedicaltreatmentofapatient.Cf.Seavers   v.MethodistMed.Ctr.,9S.W.3d86,96(Tenn.1999)(findingthatbasedonthedoctrineofresipsa   loquitur,theappellantraisedagenuineissueofmaterialfactthatnursesnegligentlyrestrainedor  positionedpatientsarmwhileshewasundertheircare,resultinginthedamagetoherrightulnar  nerve).  Ї  AlthoughthisCourthasnotspecificallyarticulatedtheanalysistobeusedtodistinguishan  ordinarynegligenceclaimfromamedicalmalpracticeclaim,thedistinguishingfeatureisevident  fromourreviewofthepreviouslymentionedcases.Whenaplaintiffsclaimisforinjuriesresulting  fromnegligentmedicaltreatment,theclaimsoundsinmedicalmalpractice.See,e.g.,Seavers,9 t S.W.3dat86.Whenaplaintiffsclaimisforinjuriesresultingfromnegligentactsthatdidnotaffect ` themedicaltreatmentofapatient,theclaimsoundsinordinarynegligence.See,e.g.,Bradshaw,854 L  S.W.2dat870.TheNewYorkcourtshavespecificallyaddressedthisissueandhaveconcludedas 8  follows: $ t 8  aclaimsoundsinmedicalmalpracticewhenthechallengedconduct constitutes  L  medicaltreatmentorbearsasubstantialrelationshiptotherenditionofmedical  8  treatmentbyalicensedphysician.Bycontrast,when thegravamenofthe $  complaintisnotnegligenceinfurnishingmedicaltreatmenttoapatient,butthe   hospital'sfailureinfulfillingadifferentduty,theclaimsoundsinnegligence.    Weiner,673N.E.2dat916(quotingBleilerv.Bodnar,479N.E.2d230,23435(N.Y.1985)).We   embracethisanalysisandholdthatwhenaclaimallegesnegligentconductwhichconstitutesor p bearsasubstantialrelationshiptotherenditionofmedicaltreatmentbyamedicalprofessional,the \ medicalmalpracticestatuteisapplicable.Conversely,whentheconductallegedisnotsubstantially H relatedtotherenditionofmedicaltreatmentbyamedicalprofessional,themedicalmalpractice 4 statutedoesnotapply.  p     Thecrucialquestionhere,then,iswhethertheservicesperformedbyLabCorpforGunter H bearasubstantialrelationshiptotherenditionofmedicaltreatment.Ofcourse,theremaybe 4 circumstanceswheretheanalysisodfapersonsbloodcouldbesubstantiallyrelatedtotherendition   ofmedicaltreatment.dButwhenthatanalysisisperformedtoobtainaDNAprofileforpurposesof   paternitydetermination,norenditionofmedicaltreatmentisinvolved.See,e.g.,Smithv.Katzman,  611N.E.2d1013,1014(OhioCt.App.1992)(recognizingprecedentthat negligentblood-grouping  analysis[doneforapaternitysuit]isnotaclaimthatarisesoutofthemedicaldiagnoses,careor  treatmentofanyperson).Thus,thecoreissueinthiscase!theadequacyofthelaboratorysblood l testingprocedures!doesnotimplicateissuesofmedicalcompetenceorjudgmentlinkedtoGunters X  treatment.Accordingly,weholdthatthemedicalmalpracticestatuteanditsconcomitantoneyear D! limitationofactionshavenoapplicationtoGuntersclaim. 0"    WeacknowledgethatthisruleconflictswithlanguageinthecasesofTerryv.Niblack,979 $X" S.W.2d583(Tenn.1998)andMillerv.Niblack,942S.W.2d533(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).Thecourts $D # inthosecasesappliedthemedicalmalpracticestatutetobloodtestingforpaternitydetermination; %0!$ however,the issueoftheproprietyofapplyingthemedicalmalpracticestatutewasnotraisednor &"% wasitpertinenttotheoutcomeofthecases. Thus,weconsiderd the d languageindicatingthatthe ' #& medicalmalpracticestatutesapplytobloodtestingforapaternitydeterminationtobe obiterdictum (#' andnotbinding.SeeShoushav.MatthewsDrivurselfServ.,Inc.,358S.W.2d471,47374(Tenn. )$( 1962)(notingthat adecisionisauthorityforthepointorpointsdecided,andnothingmore,andthat *%) generalexpressionsinanopinionaretobetakeninconnectionwiththecaseinwhichtheywere t+&* used,andwhentheygobeyondthat,theyarenotauthorityforanothercase).    @bbB. NatureoftheInjury    Concludingthattheactioninthiscasesoundsinnegligence,ratherthanmedicalmalpractice, t wemustnowdeterminewhethertheinjurywastothepersonortoproperty.Thisdistinctionis ` importantbecauseaoneyearstatute oflimitations appliesto injuriestotheperson,[  #  5      ׀whereas,a L  threeyearlimitationsperiodappliestoinjuriestoproperty.V  #  6       <    Inholdingthatinjuriestothepersonarenotlimitedtophysicalinjuriesandthatdamagedone  d toaplaintiffsreputationisan injurytotheperson,theCourthasstatedthefollowing:  P  8  Itisthenourconclusionthatthephraseinjuriestothepersonasusedintheinstant (  statuteistobeconstruedcomprehensivelyandascontemplatingitsapplicationto   actionsinvolvinginjuriesthatareotherthanphysical.Itspurposeistoincludewithin   thatperiodoflimitationactionsbroughtforinjuriesresultingfrominvasionsofrights   thatinhereinmanasarationalbeing,thatis,rightstowhichoneisentitledbyreason   ofbeingapersonintheeyesofthelaw.Suchrights,ofcourse,aretobe t distinguishedfromthosewhichaccruetoanindividualbyreasonofsomepeculiar ` statusorbyvirtueofaninterestcreatedbycontractorproperty.L   Brownv.Dunstan,409S.W.2d365,367(Tenn.1966)(quotingCommerceOilRef.Corp.v.Miner, $t 199A.2d606(R.I.1964)).Similarly,thisCourthas reject[ed]thenotionthatinjurytopropertyas ` contemplated[bysection283105]islimitedtophysicalinjurytoproperty,adoptinginsteadthe L opinionthatalossinvalueisalsoconsideredinjurytoproperty.Vancev.Schulder,547S.W.2d 8 927,932(Tenn.1977).Thus,bothofthelimitationsstatutesinvolvingpropertyinjuriesand $ personalinjurieshavebeeninterpretedtoapplytonegligenceclaimsforsolelyeconomicdamages:  claimsforeconomicdamagesarisingfrominvasionsofrightsthat inhereinmanasarational  beingaregovernedbythelimitationsperiodforinjuriestotheperson,seeBrown,409S.W.2dat  367,andclaimsforeconomicdamagesarisingfrompropertyrightsaregovernedbythethreeyear  limitationsperiodforinjuriestoproperty.SeeTipsPackageStore,Inc.,v.CommercialIns. p ManagingInc.,86S.W.3d543,552(Tenn.2001).Ourfinaltask,then,istodeterminewhether \  Guntersallegedinjuriesariseoutofhispropertyrightsorhisrightsasa rationalbeing. H!   Here,Gunterseeksmonetarydamagesbasedonafinancialobligation,hischildsupport  #p! payments,thathehasincurredbecauseofthebloodtest.Hisallegedeconomicinjurydoesnotarise  $\" outof aninvasionofarightwhich inheresinmanasarationalbeingsuchastherighttoagood  reputation.SeeBrown,409S.W.2dat367.Accordingly,wemustconcludethatthiscauseofaction  isgovernedbythethreeyearstatuteoflimitationsforinjuriestoproperty.Consequently,weaffirm  thereversalofthetrialcourtbytheCourtofAppeals. x   IV.Conclusion  P  b  Bythisdecisionweconcludethattheapplicablestatuteoflimitationsforanegligenceaction ( x againstabloodtestinglaboratoryregardingareportwhichwasusedtoimposechildsupport  d paymentsisthethreeyearstatuteoflimitationsforinjurytoproperty.Accordingly,wevacatethe  P  orderofthetrialcourtdismissingthecomplaintasbarredbythestatuteoflimitations.Weaffirm  <  theCourtofAppealsandremandthecaseforfurtherproceedings. (    ThecostsofappealaretaxedtotheAppellant,LaboratoryCorporationofAmerica,forwhich   executionmayissueifnecessary.   `X XXX #X XX`X e#0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#    ___________________________________th(#h(#    `     h     ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,JUSTICE