WPC  1# U: % 0 w4+? 0DN 0D AQ 0J7 0T 0^ 0h3 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0d Bx  0D[ 0@ 0D D/#U*R B| D3B)DC AM8v~v6HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh,  AZ"Arial RegularX(`zZ$TRY,3' Letter3'3' Letter3'T  EI  E> HHEHHaaӀ_#3|x((2>$ zZ!TRY3' Letter3' 3' Letter3'T   4pXX=Xdd=   0  (#$  0  !"#$&C<< C2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1  ((' dxd<  9p`(ArialP Pd 'dxd% Line 7 d****7Border 1dd!#+C << G y !  #d#'\R3'\     ""  '   YYY FILED'XMay11,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#'\R3'\     $ 4   ' &d&       ThesubstanceofRule56.05iscurrentlycontainedinRule56.06.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ! . '\R3'\     4      \RA'\њ7XXdd7   !R,-+A1-j|`  `@R @ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE       FORPUBLICATION        Filed: 򀀀May11,1998 MATTHEWSEFFERNICK,@ )@ ) PLAINTIFFAPPELLEE,@ ) DAVIDSONCIRCUIT@ )v.@ ) Hon.ThomasW.Brothers,Judge@ )SAINTTHOMASHOSPITALAND@ ) No.01S019706CV00122BARRYE.YARBROUGH,M.D.,@ )@ ) DEFENDANTSAPPELLANTS.@ )FORAPPELLANTS:    FORAPPELLEE:C.J.GIDEON,JR.     ROGERL.GILBERTSHIRLEYA.IRWIN    KNOXVILLENASHVILLE@ 'OPINION 'XCOURTOFAPPEALSREVERSED HOLDER,J.   @ OPINION  Wegrantedthisappealtodecidewhetherthetrialcourterredinrelyingonexcerptsofadepositionwhenstrikingtheaffidavitoftheplaintiff'sexpert.TheCourtofAppealsheldthatthedepositionalexcerptscouldnot"beconsideredasevidence"becausethey"contain[ed]noaffidavitasrequiredbyT.R.C.P.Rules30.03and56.05."Wereversetheappellatecourt'sdismissalfinding:(1)thattheissuewaswaived;(2)thatTenn.R.Civ.P.30.03and56.05neitherprecludefilingexcerptsofadepositionnorrequirethatanaffidavitbeattachedtodepositionexcerpts;and(3)thatthetrialjudgeneitherabusedhisdiscretionnoractedarbitrarilyinstrikingtheexpert'saffidavitpursuanttoTenn.R.Evid.702and703. Theplaintiff,MatthewSeffernick,filedamedicalmalpracticeactionagainstthedefendants,SaintThomasHospitalandBarryE.Yarborough,M.D.ϜSeffernickallegedthathewasapatientatSaintThomasHospitalinNashville,Tennessee,wherehewasseenbyDr. BarryYarborough.Theplaintiffsoughtmedicalattentionforaneyeinjuryafterbeingstruckintheeyebyametalwire. Theplaintiffdevelopedseverepainandswellingofhiseyeandareductionofvision.Hewasdiagnosedwithbothendophthalmitisanddetachedretina.Heunderwenttwosurgicalproceduresandultimatelylostvisioninhiseye.Hefiledsuitagainstthedefendantsalleging"thatthedefendantsfailedtoproperlytreattheplaintiff'seyeinjuryandfailedtogivehimproperantibiotictreatmentoranyothertreatmentotherthanointmentandapatch...." Thedefendantsfiledamotionforsummaryjudgmentsupportedbytheaffidavitofthedefendant,Dr.Yarborough.Hestatedthathediagnosedtheplaintiffashavinganabrasionoftherighteyewithsubconjunctivalhematoma.HetreatedthehematomawithGaramycinophthalmicsolutionandappliedapatchtotheplaintiff'seye.Headvisedtheplaintifftodiscontinueuseofthepatchthenextdayiftheplaintiffwere"comfortableandwithoutproblems."Heinstructedtheplaintifftoreturntotheemergencydepartmentifheexperiencedanycomplicationswithhiseye. TheplaintiffrespondedbyfilingtheaffidavitofWinstonHallWorthington,M.D.Inhisaffidavit,Dr.WorthingtonstatedthatDr.Yarboroughdeviatedfromthestandardofcareintreatingtheplaintiffbyfailingto:8 1.havetheplaintiffreexaminedwithin24hoursoftheemergencyroomvisit;8 2.examinetheplaintiff'seyewithaslitlampmicroscopetoevaluateforapossiblepenetrationinjury;and8 3."placepatientonGaramycinOintmentandpatchtheeyeovernight."ThetrialjudgefoundthatDr.Worthington'saffidavitcreatedanissueofdisputedmaterialfactanddeniedthedefendantsmotionforsummaryjudgment. ThedefendantsthenconductedadiscoverydepositionofDr.Worthington.Dr.WorthingtonacknowledgedinhisdepositionthattheemergencyroomrecordsindicatedtheapplicationofGaramycinOintment.Dr.Worthingtonfurtherstated,contrarytohisaffidavit,thathewasunabletoofferanopinionthattheapplicationofGaramycinwouldhavepreventedtheplaintiff'sinfection.8 Q.Canyousay,toareasonabledegreeofmedicalcertainty,whethertheendophthalmitisthatthepatienthadwouldhavebeenpreventedifGaramycinointmenthadbeenappliedintheERatSaintThomas? A.No. ... Q....WhydidMatthewSeffernickhaveadetachmentofhisretina? A.Idon'tknow. ...8 Q.Canyoutellme,then,toareasonabledegreeofmedicalcertainty,whydidtheretinaldetachmentoccur? A.Ihavenoidea. ...8 Q.IsitfairtosaythatwhileyouhavesomecriticismsofDr.Yarborough,youcan'treallysaythatwhatyoucriticizehimforactuallycausedthisyoungmantosustainhisvisualloss? A.That'strue.ThedefendantsfiledamotiontostriketheaffidavittestimonyofDr.WorthingtonandrenewedtheirmotionforsummaryjudgmentbaseduponinconsistenciesbetweenDr.Worthington'saffidavitandhisdeposition.ThedefendantsfiledexcerptsofDr.Worthington'sdiscoverydepositioninsupportoftheirmotiontostrike.Theexcerptsofthedepositionwereindexed,attachedtoaNoticeofFilingandmadeapartofthetrialrecord.Theplaintiff'scounselneitherobjectedtotheauthenticitynortotheadmissibilityofthedepositionexcerpts. Thetrialcourtgrantedthedefendants'motiontostriketheaffidavittestimonyofDr.Worthingtonfinding:8 thatthereisaninadequatefactualandscientificbasisforthetestimonyofDr.Worthington,thatDr.Worthington'stestimonywillnotsubstantiallyassistthetrieroffact,thatmanymaterialaspectsofDr.Worthington'stestimony,comparinghisaffidavitwithhisAugust30,1995depositiontestimony,cannotbereconciled,andthatDr.Worthington'sopinionsare,fundamentally,untrustworthy.Thetrialcourtthengrantedthedefendants'motionforsummaryjudgment.TheCourtofAppealsreversedthetrialcourt'sdismissal.Theappellatecourtreasonedthatthe"documententitled'NoticeofFiling'whichcontainspurportedexcerptsfrom[Worthington's]deposition...cannotbeconsideredasevidence...becauseitcontainsnoaffidavitasrequiredbyT.R.C.P.Rules30.03and56.05." Contrarytotheappellatecourt'sruling,Tenn.R.Civ.P.30.03and56.05 .   כneitherprecludethefilingofexcerptsofadepositionnorrequirethatanaffidavitbeattachedtodepositionexcerpts.SeeTenn.R.Civ.P.32(contemplatinguseof"anypartorallofadeposition").Moreover,theplaintiff'sattorneyobjectedneithertotheadmissibilitynortotheformoftheNoticeofFiling.Hadtheplaintiff'sattorneybelievedthattheexcerptsconveyedaninaccurateassessmentofDr.Worthington'sdepositionaltestimony,theplaintiffshouldhaveobjectedandrequestedthattheentiredepositionbeadmittedintoevidence.SeeTenn.R.Civ.P.32.01(4)("Ifonlypartofadepositionisofferedinevidencebyaparty,anadversepartymayrequiretheofferingpartytointroduceanyotherpartwhichoughtinfairnesstobeconsideredwiththepartintroduced..."). Generally,questionsregardingtheadmissibility,qualifications,relevancyandcompetencyofanexpert'stestimonyarelefttothediscretionofthetrialcourt.McDanielv.CSXTransportation,Inc.,955S.W.2d257,263(Tenn.1997).PursuanttoTenn.R.Evid.703,atrialcourtmustdisallowtestimonyintheformofopinionorinferencewhentheunderlyingfactsordataindicatealackoftrustworthiness.Id.at26465.Whilesimilarlanguageisnotpresentinthefederalrule,Tenn.R.Evid.703is"designedtoencouragetrialcourtstotakeamoreactiveroleinevaluatingthereasonablenessoftheexpertsrelianceupontheparticularbasisfor[theexperts]testimony."Id.at265.Thetrialcourt'srulingonthesemattersmayonlybeoverturnedifthediscretionisarbitrarilyexercisedorabused.Id.at26364. WeholdthatthefailuretoobjectconstitutedawaiverandthatthetrialjudgeneitherabusedhisdiscretionnoractedarbitrarilyinstrikingDr.Worthington'stestimonypursuanttoTenn.R.Evid.702and703.Thedecisionoftheappellatecourtisreversed,andthetrialcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgmentisreinstated.ThecaseisremandedtotheCourtofAppealsforreviewofthepretermittedissueofwhetherthetrialcourtcorrectlyawardeddiscretionarycoststothedefendants.Costsofthisappealshallbetaxedtotheplaintiff,MatthewSeffernick,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.             JANICEM.HOLDER,JUSTICE CONCUR: Anderson,C.J.̜DrowotaandBirch,J.J.Reid,Sp.J.