IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

April 13, 2015 Session

CONNIE RABY v. COVENANT HEALTH, ET AL.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Anderson County

No. B4LA0015 Donald R. Elledge, Judge

No. E2014-01399-COA-R3-CV-FILED-JUNE 9, 2015

This appeal arises from a construction negligence case. Connie Raby (“Plaintiff”), sued 

Covenant Health, Rentenbach Engineering Company, and TEG Architects, LLC, 

(“Defendants,” collectively) in the Circuit Court for Anderson County (“the Trial 

Court”). Plaintiff alleged that the absence of shielding in a portion of the radiology 

facilities in the new emergency department at Methodist Hospital caused Plaintiff to 

suffer damages from excessive radiation exposure. Defendants filed motions for 

summary judgment asserting the statute of repose, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202 (2000), 

as a complete defense. The Trial Court granted Defendants‟ motions for summary 

judgment. Plaintiff appeals to this Court arguing, in part, that the statute of repose did 

not run because the absence of the required shielding in the radiology facilities meant the 

project was not substantially completed on the date as found by the Trial Court. We hold, 

inter alia, that the radiology facilities, while perhaps defective, were used for their 

intended purpose and were substantially complete as found by the Trial Court. The 

construction statute of repose expired and serves to defeat Plaintiff‟s claims. We affirm 

the Trial Court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed;

Case Remanded

D. MICHAEL SWINEY, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHN W.

MCCLARTY and THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, JJ., joined.

John D. Agee, Clinton, Tennessee, for the appellant, Connie Raby.

F. Michael Fitzpatrick and Rachel Park Hurt, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellee, 

Covenant Health.

Howard E. Jarvis, Dean T. Howell, and April A. Carr, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the 

appellee, Rentenbach Engineering Company.
-2-

R. Loy Waldrop, Jr., W. Paul Whitt, and Janet S. Hayes, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the 

appellee, TEG Architects, LLC.

OPINION

Background

The background facts of this case are relatively straightforward. Plaintiff, 

along with several other similarly situated parties, filed a complaint in January 2014 

against Defendants alleging that Plaintiff was exposed to excessive radiation from the 

radiology facilities at Methodist Hospital. Defendants were involved with the 

construction project at Methodist Hospital, including the radiology facilities, in some 

capacity. Plaintiff alleged that portions of walls lacked the necessary lead shielding, and 

that this defect led to Plaintiff‟s exposure to excessive radiation. Defendants filed 

answers in opposition. Certain of Defendants raised comparative fault against Methodist 

Medical Center of Oak Ridge (“MMC”), or, alternatively, that Covenant Health owned 

the facilities. Defendants later filed motions for summary judgment in which they 

asserted that the construction statute of repose was a complete defense. Plaintiff filed a 

Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and Motion to Quash Notices of Hearing. 

Plaintiff sought to add MMC as a Defendant to the complaint. The Trial Court granted 

Plaintiff‟s Motion to Quash, allowing additional time to take discovery on the issues of 

substantial completion and the statute of repose. 

In June 2014, the Trial Court heard Defendants‟ motions for summary 

judgment as well as Plaintiff‟s motion to add MMC as a party. The Trial Court granted 

Defendants‟ motions for summary judgment and denied Plaintiff‟s Motion to Amend. 

The Trial Court incorporated its oral ruling into its order, which we quote from:

We‟re here today on the case of Michael Phillips, Case No. 

B4LA0014, Connie Raby, B4LA0015, Mary Ridenour, et al., B4LA0016, 

Keith Gillis, B4LA0017, and Micah Lewellen, et al., B4LA0018, all versus 

Covenant Health, Rentenbach Engineering, doing business as Rentenbach 

Constructors, Inc., and TEG Architects, LLC.

We‟re here as a result of a motion for summary judgment being filed 

under Rule 56 and, would advise counsel, under Rule TCA 20-16-101, 

which basically reversed the finding in Hanna[n] vs. Alltel, where the 

parties who do not bear the burden of proof, it reversed - - it went from 

putting it on - - or reversing it to trial. And I was a part of that. Martin vs. 

Southern Railroad and Hanna[n] vs. Alltel were both debated on the floor. 
-3-

But it takes us back to what it was before Hanna[n] vs. Alltel. It‟s back to 

“put up or shut up.” That‟s the language that‟s used in the discussion.

It is uncontroverted that litigation in each of these cases was filed on 

or about January 13, 2014, or thereafter. It is uncontroverted that in each of 

these litigations, specifically in paragraph 9, that the emergency department 

was substantially completed and opened in February of 2006.

I read the complaint again twice yesterday, and nowhere in the 

complaint could I find any allegation of fraud or wrongful concealment. It 

is undisputed that this is a construction lawsuit, and when you read the 

allegations set out in the complaint, it‟s a construction lawsuit. It‟s an 

errors and omissions lawsuit, where one panel of lead-lined Sheetrock was 

left out of the x-ray room.

And it‟s uncontroverted and undisputed that the imaging center was 

substantially complete to the point of making it available for its intended 

use as an emergency room no later than March 23, 2006. That‟s the 

affidavit of Anthony Pettitt that attached the Certificate of Compliance 

under Exhibit A. It‟s undisputed that the code enforcement supervisor, 

Danny Boss, for the City of Oak Ridge issued a use permit for the 

emergency room on or about April 4, 2006. But, factually, the emergency 

room was in fact being used at the end of March through December of 

2013, at which time the lead-lined wall was then constructed. December 

2013, they added lead shielding that was omitted. That‟s in the deposition 

of David Newman, page 11, line 3 through 6, page 15, line 5 through 9.

I have read the report of Roy Osborne. I find that that report and 

several of the items submitted by Plaintiff in response to the statement of 

facts and their allegations of additional statements of facts do not comply 

with Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 56.06. But even taking into 

consideration Roy Osborne‟s report, it does not set out and does not 

mention the absence of any lead-lined wall or knowledge - - and that‟s 

important, knowledge - - that the lead-lined wall was not appropriately 

built. To the contrary, it said it had adequate lead-lined shielding. So even 

if I took it into consideration, it doesn‟t rise to the effect of fraud or 

concealment, which hasn‟t been pled. 

We‟re here on the statute of repose, and I‟ll remind counsel, and it 

becomes a part of my ruling today, that under 28-3-201 under 

“Definitions,” “Substantial completion means that degree of completion of 
-4-

a project, improvement, or a specified area or portion thereof (in 

accordance with the contract documents, as modified by any change orders 

agreed to by the parties) upon attainment of which the owner can use the 

same for the purpose for which it was intended.” It also says, “The date of 

substantial completion may be established by written agreement between 

the contractor and owner.”

We had a notification, pursuant to the statute, that was filed and is 

considered by the Court a notice of substantial completion on March 23, 

2006, between the contractor and the owner. We had the fact that from 

March of 2006 till December of 2013, it was used for the purpose for which 

it was intended. It was an x-ray room, it was a CT room, and that‟s what it 

was used for.

Then we look at “Limitation of Actions,” and this is where the 

statute of repose comes in, TCA 28-3-202. “All actions to recover damages 

for any deficiency in the design, planning, supervision, observation of 

construction, or construction of an improvement to real property must be” -

- it goes on - - “must be brought against the person performing or 

furnishing the design, planning, supervision, construction within four years 

after substantial completion of such an improvement.”

TCA 28-3-203 says if you suffer the injury in the fourth year, then, 

of course, it adds a year to it.

And then 28-3-205 specifically sets out “Limitation not defense for 

party in possession, guilty of fraud, who conceals cause of action.” Under 

subparagraph (b), “The limitation provided shall not be available as a 

defense to any person who shall have been guilty of fraud in performing or 

furnishing the design, planning, supervision, observation of construction, 

construction of” - - and then it goes on about land - - “who shall wrongfully 

conceal any such action.”

As mentioned before, that‟s not an issue before the Court, but even if 

it were, there is nothing that this Court can find of any allegation of 

wrongful concealment.

The Court finds that the case that most appropriately matches, to the 

Court - - and I know intelligent minds differ frequently on what a case says, 

but that‟s why we have courts of appeals, and this came out of the Court of 

Appeals. Counts Company vs. Praters, Inc., 392 S.W.3d 80, goes through 
-5-

case after case that specifically addresses each of the issues that we have 

here.

And let me first go over substantial completion, and it defines 

substantial completion on page 84. It defines it under TCA 28-3-201, just 

as I have. And in this case, it argued about the flooring was installed in 

2006, and they resurfaced it in 2007. It talks about two different 

incidences, just as we‟ve talked about here. But the Counts court recites 

Watts v. Putnam County, where it says that TCA 28-3-202 “explained that 

it was a statute that was designed to create an „outer limit‟” - - quotations, 

their quotations, not mine - - “of liability to all potential actions based on 

injury to the property, „without regard to the date of the discovery.‟ 28-3-

202 did not extend any statute of limitations, but rather was „superimposed‟ 

on existing statutes, and was unrelated to the accrual of any cause of action 

since it expressly stated that it began to run on the date of substantial 

completion rather than the date of injury or damage. The Court agreed with 

the decision from the Federal Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, 

wherein it was held that the legislative intent in passing 28-3-202 was to 

„insulate contractors, architects, engineers and the like from liability for 

their defective construction or design of improvements to property where 

either the occurrence giving rise to the cause of action or injury happens 

more than four years after substantial completion of the improvement.‟”

So as it pertains to fraud and concealment, the plaintiff in this case, it 

was argued that “defendant was guilty of fraudulent 

concealment/concealment sufficient to toll TCA 28-3-202,” pursuant to, of 

course, TCA 28-3-205, and it cites Cunha and Conley. “However, plaintiff 

failed to properly plead this claim. Plaintiff did allege in its amended 

complaint that they „led parties to believe that the repair work it performed 

in 2007‟” - - that‟s where we go to the two different dates - - “ „had 

resolved the problem. Praters knew or should have known that these 

representations were false as the floor cupping did not correct itself after 

moisture problems,‟” etcetera. It says, “In order to toll the statute, plaintiff 

must allege „the cause of action was known to the defendant and 

fraudulently concealed by him.‟”

I have nothing in the record, nothing, that says that, not in the 

pleadings, not in the affidavits, not in the depositions that have been filed.

“Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 9.02 requires that „in pleadings 

averring fraud, the circumstances constituting fraud „shall be stated with 
-6-

particularity‟.‟ Plaintiff failed to state circumstances constituting 

fraudulent concealment with particularity, as the only circumstances alleged 

by the plaintiff was the problem did not resolve as defendant said it would.” 

Again, it goes on.

It‟s a good case. I researched it and couldn‟t find where it‟s been 

modified as it pertains to the issues before the Court today. I think Counts

Company vs. Prater hits on all four corners on this case.

I think and I so find that as set out, I have nothing that contradicts 

the date of completion, of substantial completion, as defined by statute and 

case law being on or about March 23, 2006. I find nothing, nothing, in the 

record that contradicts the fact that none of the defendants in this case knew 

or attempted to fraudulently conceal any cause of injury that is allegedly 

suffered by the plaintiffs in each of these five cases.

The ownership of the property is clear, but the fact is, Methodist 

Medical Center is not a party to this litigation, and if they were, it would 

apply to them also. The undisputed, verified, pursuant to Rule 56, 

information before the Court for the Court to take into consideration is 

Methodist Medical Center owned the property, Jan McNally, as president 

of the corporation, signed the contract with the engineers and the 

construction company. The deed to the property, as presented to the Court, 

is owned by Methodist Medical Center. It‟s a separate corporate entity that 

is not a party to this litigation, but, obviously, even if it were, the ruling of 

the Court would apply to them also. We have pending a motion to join 

Methodist Medical Center.

Even in the proposed amended complaint that‟s been filed in this 

case, nowhere does it mention fraud or concealment that I can recall. And, 

again, I read it all again yesterday. I read the complaints again yesterday to 

ensure that the statutes and case law as I read them was consistent with the 

proof that had been submitted to me under Rule 56.

For those reasons, I find that the motions for summary judgment 

filed in each of the five cases by each of the defendants in this cause of 

action are valid, and the Court would grant the same. I would tax the cost 

to the plaintiffs.

Plaintiff appeals. 
-7-

Discussion

Although not stated exactly as such, Plaintiff raises the following issues on 

appeal: 1) whether the Trial Court erred in granting summary judgment to Defendants 

when, according to Plaintiff, issues of fact existed concerning the substantial completion 

of the project at question and whether exceptions to the statute of repose applied; 2) 

whether the Trial Court erred in denying Plaintiff‟s motion to amend to add MMC as a 

party; and, 3) whether the Trial Court erred in limiting discovery to the date of substantial 

completion when other relevant issues were before the Trial Court.

With regard to summary judgments, this Court explained in Estate of Boote 

v. Roberts:

The trial court‟s resolution of a motion for summary judgment is a 

conclusion of law, which we review de novo on appeal, according no 

deference to the trial court‟s decision. Martin v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 271 

S.W.3d 76, 84 (Tenn. 2008). Summary judgment is appropriate only when 

the moving party can demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material 

fact, and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 

56.04; see Hannan v. Alltel Publ’g Co., 270 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tenn. 2008); 

Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208, 214 (Tenn. 1993).

This action was filed [after July 1, 2011]. Therefore, the trial court 

was required to apply the summary-judgment standard set forth in 

Tennessee Code Annotated § 20-16-101. That statute provides:

In motions for summary judgment in any civil action 

in Tennessee, the moving party who does not bear the burden 

of proof at trial shall prevail on its motion for summary 

judgment if it:

(1) Submits affirmative evidence that 

negates an essential element of the nonmoving 

party‟s claim; or

(2) Demonstrates to the court that the 

nonmoving party‟s evidence is insufficient to 

establish an essential element of the nonmoving 

party‟s claim.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-16-101 (Supp. 2012).
-8-

Estate of Boote v. Roberts, No. M2012-00865-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 1304493, at **8-9

(Tenn. Ct. App. March 28, 2013), no appl. perm. appeal filed (footnotes omitted).

The construction statute of repose states as follows:

All actions to recover damages for any deficiency in the design, planning, 

supervision, observation of construction, or construction of an improvement 

to real property, for injury to property, real or personal, arising out of any 

such deficiency, or for injury to the person or for wrongful death arising out 

of any such deficiency, shall be brought against any person performing or 

furnishing the design, planning, supervision, observation of construction, 

construction of, or land surveying in connection with, such an improvement 

within four (4) years after substantial completion of such an improvement.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202 (2000) (emphasis added). 

Substantial completion is defined as follows:

“Substantial completion” means that degree of completion of a project, 

improvement, or a specified area or portion thereof (in accordance with the 

contract documents, as modified by any change orders agreed to by the 

parties) upon attainment of which the owner can use the same for the 

purpose for which it was intended; the date of substantial completion may 

be established by written agreement between the contractor and the owner.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-201(2) (2000).

We first address whether the Trial Court erred in granting summary 

judgment to Defendants when, according to Plaintiff, issues of fact existed concerning the 

date of the substantial completion of the project at question and whether exceptions to the 

statute of repose applied. Plaintiff argues that the absence of the shielding in the wall 

means that the construction project was not substantially completed until that defect was 

corrected. Therefore, according to Plaintiff, the statute of repose did not expire because it 

never started running until the defect was corrected. 

To resolve this issue, we must consider the definition of substantial 

completion. Substantial completion does not mean perfect completion according to the 

exact specifications. Otherwise, the qualifying word “substantial” before “completion”

would have no meaning. Rather, as reflected in the statutory definition quoted above, 

substantial completion means that the project or improvement can be used for its intended 

purpose. The undisputed evidence in the record on appeal is that the emergency 
-9-

department, including the CT room at issue, was used from March 2006. The fact that 

the improvement allegedly was defective does not prevent that improvement from being

substantially complete. This Court in addressing this issue has stated:

This Court again reiterated that in Meyer, the Court rejected the 

argument that substantial completion cannot occur until all defects have 

been repaired, and stated that a building is substantially complete when it 

can be used for its intended purpose, even if it has some defects, and thus 

subsequent repairs do not affect the date of substantial completion. Id.

In this case, plaintiff‟s allegation that the attempted repairs by 

defendant would change the date of substantial completion is a conclusion, 

not accepted by the courts. The above cases make clear that the date of 

substantial completion is determined by the date upon which the 

improvement can be used for that which it was intended, and there is no 

dispute herein that these floors were completed, i.e. installed, by May 2006. 

The fact that a repair was attempted by Praters one year later does not 

change the date of substantial completion under case law. Plaintiff‟s 

attempt to characterize the work done in 2007 as “additional work” rather 

than a “repair” is misguided. There can be no serious argument that the 

additional work done in 2007 was anything more than an attempt to repair a 

floor that was unsatisfactory.

Counts Co. v. Praters, Inc., 392 S.W.3d 80, 86 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012).

In our view, adopting Plaintiff‟s argument would vitiate the very purpose of 

the construction statute of repose. Under Plaintiff‟s position, every defective 

construction project would be considered not substantially complete for purposes of the 

relevant statute of repose. This surely is not what our General Assembly intended. 

Rather, it is clear that our General Assembly intended through the construction statute of 

repose to set an outer limit to liability arising from defective work on improvements to 

real property. The undisputed evidence is that the CT room was, in fact, used for its 

intended purpose starting in 2006. The Trial Court did not err when it found there was no 

genuine dispute that the date of substantial completion was “on or about March 23, 

2006.”

Plaintiff argues further that exceptions to the statute of repose apply. The 

exceptions are stated as follows:

(a) The limitation provided by this part shall not be asserted as a defense by 

any person in actual possession or the control, as owner, tenant, or 
-10-

otherwise, of such an improvement at the time any deficiency in such an 

improvement constitutes the proximate cause of the injury or death for 

which it is proposed to bring an action.

(b) The limitation hereby provided shall not be available as a defense to any 

person who shall have been guilty of fraud in performing or furnishing the 

design, planning, supervision, observation of construction, construction of, 

or land surveying, in connection with such an improvement, or to any 

person who shall wrongfully conceal any such cause of action.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-205 (2000).

As found by the Trial Court, no exception applies. First, it is undisputed

from the record that Methodist Hospital was in ownership, possession, and control of the 

CT room at all relevant times in this case. Regarding fraud or wrongful concealment, we 

find, as did the Trial Court, that Plaintiff did not plead this with sufficient particularity. 

Although Plaintiff alleged that Defendants falsely or deceptively omitted material facts 

regarding the defect, Plaintiff does not specify how. The fact that a construction defect 

exists and goes unnoticed does not in itself constitute fraud or wrongful concealment. To 

hold otherwise would mean that most every construction defect could be considered a 

species of fraud which would, once again, vitiate the intention and purpose of the 

construction statute of repose. Plaintiff‟s argument ignores the underlying intention and 

purpose of the statute of repose and the exceptions thereto. Our General Assembly made 

a public policy decision when it enacted the improvement to real property statute of 

repose, as is its responsibility.

The evidence in the record is undisputed, as found by the Trial Court, that 

the relevant CT room project was substantially completed by March 2006. Plaintiff filed 

the present lawsuit in January 2014. The four year statute of repose had long expired,

and this serves to defeat Plaintiff‟s claims. We hold, as did the Trial Court, that the 

construction statute of repose applies to defeat Plaintiff‟s claims and that none of the 

statutory exceptions apply.

We next address whether the Trial Court erred in denying Plaintiff‟s motion 

to amend to add MMC as a party. The abuse of discretion standard applies. Our 

Supreme Court has stated:

The grant or denial of a motion to amend a pleading is discretionary 

with the trial court. Harris v. St. Mary’s Med. Ctr., Inc., 726 S.W.2d 902, 

904 (Tenn. 1987). Generally, trial courts must give the proponent of a 

motion to amend a full chance to be heard on the motion and must consider 
-11-

the motion in light of the amendment policy embodied in Rule 15.01 of the 

Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure that amendments must be freely 

allowed; and, in the event the motion to amend is denied, the trial court 

must give a reasoned explanation for its action. Henderson v. Bush Bros. & 

Co., 868 S.W.2d 236, 238 (Tenn. Workers‟ Comp. Panel 1993). Although 

permission to amend should be liberally granted, the decision “will not be 

reversed unless abuse of discretion has been shown.” Welch v. Thuan, 882 

S.W.2d 792, 793 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994). Factors the trial court should 

consider when deciding whether to allow amendments include “[u]ndue 

delay in filing; lack of notice to the opposing party; bad faith by the moving 

party, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, undue 

prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment.” Merriman v. 

Smith, 599 S.W.2d 548, 559 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979).

Cumulus Broadcasting, Inc., v. Shim, 226 S.W.3d 366, 374 (Tenn. 2007).

In Lee Medical, Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 2010), the 

Supreme Court discussed the abuse of discretion standard at length, stating:

The abuse of discretion standard of review envisions a less rigorous 

review of the lower court‟s decision and a decreased likelihood that the 

decision will be reversed on appeal. Beard v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 

288 S.W.3d 838, 860 (Tenn. 2009); State ex rel. Jones v. Looper, 86 

S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). It reflects an awareness that the 

decision being reviewed involved a choice among several acceptable 

alternatives. Overstreet v. Shoney’s, Inc., 4 S.W.3d 694, 708 (Tenn. Ct. 

App. 1999). Thus, it does not permit reviewing courts to second-guess the 

court below, White v. Vanderbilt Univ., 21 S.W.3d 215, 223 (Tenn. Ct. 

App. 1999), or to substitute their discretion for the lower court‟s, Henry v. 

Goins, 104 S.W.3d 475, 479 (Tenn. 2003); Myint v. Allstate Ins. Co., 970 

S.W.2d 920, 927 (Tenn. 1998). The abuse of discretion standard of review 

does not, however, immunize a lower court‟s decision from any meaningful 

appellate scrutiny. Boyd v. Comdata Network, Inc., 88 S.W.3d 203, 211 

(Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).

Discretionary decisions must take the applicable law and the relevant 

facts into account. Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hosp. 

Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346, 358 (Tenn. 2008); Ballard v. Herzke, 924 S.W.2d 

652, 661 (Tenn. 1996). An abuse of discretion occurs when a court strays 

beyond the applicable legal standards or when it fails to properly consider 

the factors customarily used to guide the particular discretionary decision. 
-12-

State v. Lewis, 235 S.W.3d 136, 141 (Tenn. 2007). A court abuses its 

discretion when it causes an injustice to the party challenging the decision 

by (1) applying an incorrect legal standard, (2) reaching an illogical or 

unreasonable decision, or (3) basing its decision on a clearly erroneous 

assessment of the evidence. State v. Ostein, 293 S.W.3d 519, 526 (Tenn. 

2009); Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hosp. Auth., 249 

S.W.3d at 358; Doe 1 ex rel. Doe 1 v. Roman Catholic Diocese of 

Nashville, 154 S.W.3d at 42.

To avoid result-oriented decisions or seemingly irreconcilable 

precedents, reviewing courts should review a lower court‟s discretionary 

decision to determine (1) whether the factual basis for the decision is 

properly supported by evidence in the record, (2) whether the lower court 

properly identified and applied the most appropriate legal principles 

applicable to the decision, and (3) whether the lower court‟s decision was 

within the range of acceptable alternative dispositions. Flautt & Mann v. 

Council of Memphis, 285 S.W.3d 856, 872-73 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) 

(quoting BIF, a Div. of Gen. Signal Controls, Inc. v. Service Constr. Co., 

No. 87-136-II, 1988 WL 72409, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 1988) (No 

Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed)). When called upon to review a 

lower court‟s discretionary decision, the reviewing court should review the 

underlying factual findings using the preponderance of the evidence 

standard contained in Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d) and should review the lower 

court‟s legal determinations de novo without any presumption of 

correctness. Johnson v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 146 S.W.3d 600, 604 (Tenn. 

Ct. App. 2004); Boyd v. Comdata Network, Inc., 88 S.W.3d at 212.

Beecher, 312 S.W.3d at 524-25.

In its written order, the Trial Court stated that Plaintiff‟s motion was 

“futile.” In addition, the Trial Court elaborated on its reasoning in its oral ruling as 

quoted above. The Trial Court did not commit reversible error in declining to add MMC

as a party because to have granted the motion would not have altered the outcome of 

Plaintiff‟s case against Defendants. The statute of repose still would have served to 

defeat Plaintiff‟s claims against Defendants. We find no abuse of discretion by the Trial 

Court on this issue.

The final issue we address is whether the Trial Court erred in limiting 

discovery to the date of substantial completion when other relevant issues were before the 

Trial Court. “Decisions concerning pretrial discovery are matters well within the 

discretion of the trial court and thus are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” 
-13-

Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., 227 S.W.3d 595, 600 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). Plaintiff

fails to adequately articulate what additional discovery Plaintiff believes was necessary 

for the resolution of this case. We also note that it appears from the record that Plaintiff 

was, in fact, given sufficient opportunity for discovery as to the dispositive issue before 

the Trial Court, that of the date of substantial completion. We hold that the Trial Court 

did not abuse its discretion in limiting discovery thusly. 

Conclusion

The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed, and this cause is remanded to 

the Trial Court for collection of the costs below. The costs on appeal are assessed against 

the Appellant, Connie Raby, and her surety, if any.

_________________________________ 

D. MICHAEL SWINEY, JUDGE