Summary
adopting the interpretation of § 20–1–119 given in Townes, and reversing the court's own prior opinion rejecting Townes, which at the time was unpublished and thus nonbinding, after the Tennessee Supreme Court remanded the matter for reconsideration following its decision to order publication of the recent Townes opinion
Summary of this case from Woodward v. City of GallatinOpinion
No. E2001-02816-COA-RM-CV.
Filed December 28, 2001.
Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Knox County; No. 1-606-96; The Honorable Dale C. Workman, Judge.
Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part and Remanded.
H. Naill Falls, Jr., James B. Johnson, Nashville, for Appellant.
Wynne C. Hall, Summer H. Stevens, Knoxville, for Appellee.
Alan E. Highers, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which David R. Farmer, J., and Holly Kirby Lillard, J., joined.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Rule 10 (Court of Appeals). Memorandum Opinion. — (b) The Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modify actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it shall be designated "MEMORANDUM OPINION," shall not be published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in a subsequent unrelated case.
This case involves a medical malpractice claim that was dismissed on summary judgment by the trial court. The plaintiff, Steffone McClendon, appealed to this Court, seeking a reversal of the trial court's summary judgment. We affirmed the trial court's decision based on the legislative history and our interpretation of Section 20-1-119 of the Tennessee code. The plaintiff sought a review of this Court's decision with the Tennessee Supreme Court. Although the supreme court refused to hear the case, it remanded the case to this Court for reconsideration in light ofTownes v. Sunbeam Oster Co., Inc., 50 S.W.3d 446 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2001) released this year by the middle section of this Court and recently published.
We now adopt the interpretation of Section 20-1-119 of the Tennessee Code given in Townes. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the trial court and our previous opinion insofar as to allow the plaintiff to add Dr. Elaine Bunick as a defendant and remand this case for trial. Our previous opinion in this matter is affirmed in all other respects. Costs of this appeal are taxed against the defendant, Dr. Elaine Bunick, for which execution may issue if necessary.