### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT KNOXVI LLE Su bmitt ed on B ri ef

s Ja nuary 18, 200 6

LARRY GRIG SBY v . UNIVERSI TY OF TENNES SEE ME DICAL CENTER, ET AL


### . Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Knox County No. 1-114-05 D ale C. Workm an, Jud ge

No. E2005-01099-COA- R3-CV - F ILED FEBRUARY 22, 2006

I n th is pro se medical malpr actice case , the issues on appe al ar e whe ther the A ppellant, L arry Grig sby , timely

fi l ed a notice of a

ppeal a s reg ards De fendants Dr. Paul A. Hatc her and Dr. E. Jay Moung er, a nd whether

the trial co urt corr ectly

g rante d summary

judgme nt to the University of Te nn e sse e Me dic a l Ce nte r ( “ UT MC” ). We d ism iss the app e a l a s to the De fe nd a nt d oc tor s b e c aus e we f ind that Mr. Grig sby

did not comply

with the j urisdictional require ment of Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a), mandating the timely

filing of a notice of

appea l. We a ffirm summary judgme nt in UTMC’s favor beca use Mr. Grigsby

proce eded sole ly

on the vicario u s liabilitytheory of respondeat superior
, pu rs ua nt t o h is a lle g a tio ns that Dr s. Hatc he r a ndMo un g e r w e re a g e nts a nd /or e mpl oy e e s o f U TM C. Be cause the allege d ag ents have been ex onerated by an adjudication of non-liability , and ther efor e the a lle g e d p ri nc ipa l, UT MC, ma y no t be he ld vic ari ou sly lia ble , w e a ff

ir m su mma

ry jud g me nt i n favor of UTMC.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed; Case Re m anded

S HAR ON G. LEE , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in whic h H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P.J
., and D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , J ., joined.

L arry Grig sby
, pro se Ap pe lla nt.
Stephen C. Dave s and Jeffre y R. Thompson, Knoxvi lle, Tenne ssee, f or the Appe llee, Univer sityof Tenne ssee Me dical Center

.

J ames H. L ondon and J ason H. L ong , Knoxvi lle, Tenne ssee, f or the Appe llees, Paul A. Hatcher and E. J ay Moung er.-2- OP IN ION

I. Fac tua l an d P

ro c e dur al B ac kg ro und

On Fe bruary

24, 2005, Mr. Gr i g sby

filed his complaint in this action, alleg ing that the Def endants c ommitt ed various acts of malprac tice in the course of his medical treatment, resulting in injuries that included the loss of one of hi s kidney s. On Marc h 10, 2005, UTMC filed a motion to d ism iss , a sse rt ing that the c omp la int ma de no a lle g a tio ns of

ne g lig e nc e sp e c if

ic a lly a g a ins t UTMC, nor did it alleg e a de viation from the re cog nized standard of a cce ptab l e m ed ical ca re a s
re qu ir e d by T. C.A . § 29 -2 6- 11 5. UT MC f urthe r a lle g e d th a t th e c omp la int a lle g e d f a c ts “ that c aus e this claim to be barr ed by the one y ear statute of l imitations as found at T.C.A. §29-26-118.” Mr. Grig sby filed a r esponse in opposition to the moti on to dismi ss, supported by his own aff

idavit.

Dr s. Hatc he r andMo un g e r f ile d a mot ion fo r s umm ary jud g me nt, su pp orte d b y

the a ff ida vit of Dr. H atche r and Mr . Grig sby ’s medica l rec ords. On April 12, 2 0 0 5
, the trial court entere d an order g ranting UTMC’s motion to dismiss
, holding that the c omplaint failed to state a c laim upon wh ic h r e lie f c a n be g rante d a nd dis mis sin g the c omp la int a s to UT MC pu rs ua nt to Te nn

. R. C iv. P. 12 .0 2( 6) . T he tr ia l c ou rt de c reed in it s o rd e r t

hat “ [t]he re be ing no jus t r e a so n f or de la y , it is expressly direc ted that final judg ment be ente red a s to this defendant.”

On May 6, 20 05 , M r. Grisg by fi le d a no tic e of app e a l w ith the tr ia l c ou rt , s ta tin g in i ts

e nti re ty a s f oll ow s: “ No tic e is he re by

g ive n th a t L arry

Grig sb y [,] pl a int if

f a bo ve na me d, he re app e a ls to the Te nn e sse e c ou rt of Ap pe a ls a t Kn oxvil le
, Te nn e sse e fr om the fi na l jud g me nt e nte re d inthi s action the 10 day

of Mar ch 2005” [sic]. th

Following a hea

ring on the matter, the trial court enter ed an orde r on June 28, 2005, gr anting summary judgme nt to Drs. Hatche r and Mounge r. M r. Gr igsby did not file a notice of

appea l reg arding the s ummary judgme nt. Howeve r, Mr. Grig sby arg ues i n his brief filed with this court that “the doc tor defe ndants here wer e not entit led t o summary judgme nt[ .]” Drs. Hatc her and Moung er fi le d a motio n to dis mis s th e app e a l a s to the m, o n g ro un ds that Mr . G ri g sb y didno t c omp ly

wi th Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a) and 3(f ) by failing to timely file a notice of appea l de signating that he soug ht relief from the summary

judgme nt in their favor

.

II. Issu es Prese nted

Th e iss ue s p re se nte d f

or ou r d e te rm inatio n a

re a s f oll ow s:

1. Whe the r the app e a l of

su mma ry jud g me nt i n f

a vo r o f Dr s. Hatc he r an d M ou ng e r s ho uld be dis mis se d f

or failu re to time ly

fi le a no tic e of app e a l of the jud g me nt.

2. Whether the trial c ourt corr ect l y g rante d UTMC’s motion to di smiss Mr. Grigsby ’s complaint as to UTMC for f ailure to state a

claim upon which r elief c an be g rante d.-3- III. Notice of Appeal

Th e qu e s t i o n o f

w h e t h e r M r

. G r i g s b y ’ s ap p e a l o f

t h e s u m m ar y

j u d g m e n ti n f

a v o r o f D r s. Hatche r and Moung er must be dismissed is gove rned by Tenn. R. App. P. 3(f) and 4(a) . I n a similar pr e vio us c a se , th is c ou rt

ha s n ote d th a t

Tenn. R.App. P. 3(f) require s appellants to desig nate the " judgme nt from which relief is soug ht," and Tenn. R.App. P. 4(a) re quires that notices of appea l must be "filed with and re ceive d by the cler k of the tr i al court within 30 day s after the date of

entry of the judg ment

app e a le d fr om. " Te nn

. R.A pp

. P. 3( f) lim its the sc op e of ap pell a te

re vie w to the jud g me nt or or de r d e sig nate d b y the no tic e ; see H

all v. Ha ll, 772 S.W .2d 432, 435-36 (Te nn.Ct

. Ap p.1989); while, Tenn. R.App. P. 4(a) e stablishes a mandatory , jurisdictional time limit for filing a notice of appea l that c annot be waiv ed o r ex tended. See Jefferson v . Pneumo Se rvs. Corp., 69 9 S.W .2d 181, 184 (T e nn .Ct .A pp .1 98 5) ; John Barb, Inc. v. Unde rwrit ers at Lloyds of London, 653 S.W .2d 422, 424 (Tenn.Ct.App.1983).

Goad v. Pasipanodya , No. 01A01-9509- CV-00426, 1997 WL 749462 at *2 (Te nn. Ct. App., M.S., filed Dec. 5, 1997). I n Goad , th e c ou rt he ld that w he re a n a

pp e lla nt’ s n oti c e of

app e a l id e nti fi e d o nly the trial court’s J une 19, 1995 orde r and not its Marc h 17, 1995 order , Tenn. R. App. P. 3(f) limit ed his appea l to the J une 19, 1995 order

. Id; se e also Cox v. She ll, No. W2004-01777-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 2860249 at *12 (Te nn. Ct. App., W .S., filed Oct. 31, 2005)(“ when a specific judgme nt or order is designated i n the not ice of appea l, Tenn. R.App. P. 3(f) limits the scope of a ppellate r eview to the jud g me nt o r o rd e r d e sig nate d. ” ); Co n s o li d a te d W a s te S y s te m s , LL C v

. M

e tr o G o v ’ t. of Nashville and Davidson Co., M 2 0 0 2

- 0 2 5 8 2

- C O A

- R 3

- C V
, 2 0 0 5 W L 1 5 4 1 8 6 0 a t * 4 4 (T e nn . Ct

. App., M.S., filed J une 30, 2005).

I n the pre sent ca se, Mr. Grig sby filed his notice of appea l stating that he appea ls “from the fi na l ju dg me nt e nte re d in thi s a c tio n th e 10 day of Ma rc h 20 05 .” Al tho ug h the date is o bv iou sly th incorre ct, we be lieve it is fairly appar ent that Mr. Grigsby meant to appe al t he judgment of the tria l court e ntere d April 12, 2005, disposing of U TMC’s motion filed on March 10, 2005. Mr. G rig sby could not have inc luded in this noti ce of appea l the t rial court’s summary judgme nt entere d on J une 28, 2005, beca

use his notice wa s filed May 6, 2005. I t is thus clear that Mr. Grig sby

filed no notice of appe al of the tria l court’s summary judgme nt in favor of Drs. Hatche r and Moung er. “ The notice of appeal requirement is jurisdictional and mandatory in all civil case s. I f the notice of appe al is not filed as r equire d by Rule 4, an appellate court is w ithout jurisdiction to he ar the issues raised on the defe ctive appe al.” Hu t ch es on v. Barth, 178 S.W .3d 731, 733 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)( footnotes omitted).-4-

Under the fore g oing a

uthorities and analy sis, we hold that we are without jurisdiction t o hear the ap p e a l o f th e tria l c o u r t’ s s u mm ar y ju d g me n t in f a v o r o f D r s

. H a tc h e r a n d M o u n g er, a nd that judgme nt has bec ome final. We find the f ollowing c omment by

the Goad c ou rt apt ande qu a lly pertinent to the pre sent ca se:

We do not favor dismissing pro s e litigants' appea ls on what might

app e ar t o b e te c hn ic a lit ie s. Ho we ve r, wh ile pa rt ie s w ho c ho os e to repr esent themselve s are entitled to fair a nd equal tre atment, they are not entitled to shift the burden of litigating their case to the courts, see Dozier v. Ford Motor Co., 702 F.2d 1189, 1194 ( D.C.Cir.1983), or to be exc u s ed fr om comply ing w ith the same substantive and proce d u r a l re q u irements that other repr esente d parties must adhe re to. See I rvin v. City of Clarksville, 767 S.W .2 d 6 49, 652 (T e nn .Ct .A pp .1 98 8)

. Accord ing ly , th e y mus t a c t w ith in the tim e periods provide d by

the applica

ble statutes and r

ules in order to ha ve their ca ses consider ed. See W illiams-Guice v. B oard of Educ., 45 F.3d 161, 164 (7th Cir.1995); Kelley v. Secre tary, United States Dep't of Lab or , 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 ( Fe d.Cir.1987).

Goad , 1997 WL

749462 at *2.

IV . V ic ar iou s L iab ility Und

e r Re sp ond

e at S upe rio r D oc trine

As above noted, UTMC filed its motion to dismiss on the g round that the c omplaint failed to state a claim upon which re lief ca n be g rante d ag ainst it, pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P . 12.02(6). Rul e 12 .0 2 p ro vid e s a s f

oll ow s:

I f, on a motion asserting the de fense numb er ed (6 ) to dismiss for failure to state a c laim u p o n which re lief can be g rante d, matters

ou tsi de the ple a din g are pr e se nte d to and no t excl ud e d b y the c ou rt , the motion shall be treat ed as one for summary

judgme nt and disposed of as pr ovided in Rule 56, and all partie s shall be g iven

rea sonable opportunity

to pr esent all materia l ma de pertinent to such a motion by

Rule 56.

Be cause Mr. Grig sby

filed his own af

fidavit in support of his re s p o n se in opposition to UTMC ’s motion to di smiss and there is no indication that the tri al co u rt “e x cluded” the af fidavit, the trial court should have treated the motion as one for summary judgme nt under this rule.

A m otion for summary

judgme nt should be g rante d when the mova nt demonstrates that ther e-5-

are no g enuine issues of materia l f act a nd that the moving pa rty is entitled to a judgme nt as a matter of law. Te nn. R. Civ. P . 56.04. The pa rty moving f

or summary

judgme nt bear s th e burde n of demonstratin g t h at no genuine issue of materia l fac t exi sts. Ba in v . W e lls
, 936 S.W .2d 618, 622 (Tenn. 1997). On a motion for summary judgme nt, the court must take the strong est leg itimate view of the e vidence in fav o r o f the nonmoving pa rty , allow all re asonable infere nces in fa vor of that party , and disca

rd all counte rvailing evidenc e. By rd v . H all
, 847 S.W .2d 208 (Tenn. 1993)

.
Our ex amination of t he record under thi s standard le ads to the conc lusion that Mr. Grig sby proce eded sole ly

under the theory

of respondeat superior , a ll e g i n g th at U TM C w a s v ic ari ou sly lia ble fo r the a c ts o f i ts a lle g e d a g e nts , D rs . H a tc he r and Mo un g e r. Ne ith e r h is c omp la int no r h is a ff

ida vit alleg es neg lige nce on U TMC’s part that is independe nt of t he alleg ed ac tions of the Def endant doctors. The only alleg ations in Mr. Grig sby ’s complaint spec ifically perta ining to UTMC ar e stated

a s f oll ow s:

Pla int if

fs c on dit ion c on tin ue d to wo rs e n un de r the c are of de fe nd a nts and U.T. Me dical C en t er St aff but nothing wa s done by either the defe ndan t Ho s pital or defe ndant doctors r esulting in the lost of plaintiffs kidney

[si c].

*** [P laintiff’s injuries] were direc tly and proxi mately

cause d by

the following acts of ne g lige nce and torts of the def endant s and def

endant Ho sp ita l. Neg lige nce, G ross neg lige nce, de liberateindiffer ence , wonton and

w il lf u ll n e g li g e n c e , o u tr a g e o u s c o n d u c t an d ma l- p r a c ti c e [s ic ].

[Nu m b e r i n g i n o r i g i n a l o m i t t e d ]. M r

. G r i g s b y d i d n o t f i l e a n a f f i d a v i t o f a m e d i c a l e xpe rtin t his

c a s e

. H i s o w n a f

f i d a v i ts t a t e s a s f

o l l o w s i n i t s e n t i r e t y:

I L arry Grig sby , having first bee n duly sworn, h er eb y

states [sic] as fo llo ws : 1. I a m e ig hte e n (1 8) y ears of a g e a ndthe fa c ts c on ta ine d inthi s aff idavit are based [upon] m y own per sonal knowledg e. 2. That at a ll tim es alleg ed in the complaint that the a ffiant wa s under the c ar e o f T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f T e n n e s s e e M e d i c a l C e n t e r a nd a s a result of ne g lige nce of

the Medica l Center sustained injurie s b ythe defe ndants named in this case and that U.T. Me d i ca l Center is the du ly re c og nize d a dmi nis tr a tor s [si c ] of a ll the de fe nd a nts a ndits hospital operation. 3. That on 3-2 4 -0 4 t he plaintiff wa s diag nosed by primary car e doctors and it wa s conclude d that his injuries was [sic] the re sult of improper c are and neg lige nce of the Univer sity of Tennessee Me dical

c e n te r a n d s ta f f a s d e f in e d in [th e ] c o mp lain t an d th a t p lain ti f f [’ ]s-6- claim ac crue d on th at ex act date, complaint was f iled Fe bruary

24 th 2005. Complaint compli es with statute of limitation mandates. 4. During and up until this date the de fendant Hospital was under the fo llo wi ng du tie s: a. T o ex erc ise that deg ree of ca re, skill and dilige nce use d by hospitals ge nera lly in that community , and re quired by the express or i m p l i ed co n tra ct o f t h e u n d er t ak i n g. 5. I n brea ch o f t h es e duties def endant U.T . Medica l Center wa s neg lige nt and g rossly

neg lige nt of [si c] the foll o wi n g acts or omi ssi on s: a. That acc idents such as plaintiff sustaine d do not occur even w hen that treatment is prope rly administered howeve r so as a re sult of the hospital fai ling to insure skill and the f ollowing of

protocol for treatment the plaintiff was injure d. b. The defenda nts allow i ts phy sicians t o operate its equipment above and bey ond medical mandates in a neg lige nt ma nner that cause s harm without care

. c. Def endant hospital ha d a duty to diag nose plaintiff c onditions [ sic] when pla intiff complained a nd failed to g ive him supportive treatment. d. Pla int if f w a s a patie nt i n d e fe nd a nt h os pit a l w hen neglig e nt a c ts

a n d imp r o p e r

p r o c e d u r e a n d s u r g e r y

s u s tain e d h is in

ju r ie s [s ic ].

I n his re s p o n s e to UTMC’s motion t o dismiss , Mr. Grig sby arg ued to the trial c ourt that “De fenda nt U.T. Medica l Cen ter is liable under r espondent [sic] s uperior be cause under this doctrine master is re sponsible for wont [si c] of car e on ser vants[’] part towa rd those to whom master ow es duty of care, provided failure of serva nt to use such car e occ urre d in the course of his employ ment.” L ike wi se , M r. Grisg by ’s app e llate brie f i s d ir e c te d e nti re ly to h is re sp on de at s up e rio r arg ume nt, stating
, a mo n g o th e r th in g s , th a t “ in a n a ly zi n g th e Co mp lain t, th is H o n o r ab le Co u r t w il l f ind that such plea ding d oes in fac t alleg e neg lige nce and malprac tice ag ainst the Def endant Unive rsity

of Tenne ssee Me dical C enter throug h vicarious liability under the doctrine of responde at superior for the ac tions of Defe ndants/phy sicians Paul A. Hatc her and E. J ay Moung er.”

I n Johnson v. LeBonhe ur C h i l d ren’s Me dical Center, 74 S.W .3d 338 (Tenn. 2002) , the Sup re me Cou rt

wa s pr e se nte d wi th the qu e sti on of wh e the r a ph y sic ia n r e sid e nt’ s p e rs on a l im mun ity fr om a la ws uit pr oh ibi te d th e ho sp ita l w he re the re sid e nt w or ke d f ro m be ing he ld v ic ari ou sly lia ble under the re sp on de at s up e rio r do c tr ine ba se d u po n th e re sid e nt’ s a c tio ns

. Th e Cou rt a ns we re d in the ne g a tiv e a ndfu rthe r s ta te d a s f oll ow s:

a principal may not be he ld vicariously liable under the doc trine of responde a t superior based upon the acts of its agent in three instances : ( 1) when the agent has bee n exone rated by an adjudication of n on -l iab ili ty , ( 2) wh e n th e ri g ht o f a c tio n a g a ins t th e agent is-7- e xting uis he d b y

op e ratio n o f l a w, or

(3 ) w he n th e inj ur e d p art y exti ng uishes the ag ent' s liab i l i t y by confe rring an af

firmative,

su bs ta nti ve ri g ht u po n the a g e nt that pre c lud e s a sse ssm e nt o f l ia bil ity

a g a ins t th e a g e nt.

Johnson , 74 S.W .3d at 345 (e mphasis added) . The Supreme Court reiter ated this principle a y ear later in Sh e lbu rn e v . Fro nti e r H e alt h , 126 S.W .3d 838, 844 (Tenn. 2003)

.
As alre ady

noted, the trial c ourt g rante d summary judgme nt i n favor

of Drs. H atche r and Moung er. “ A motion for summary judgme nt goe s directly

to the merits of the litigation.” Byrd v. Hall, 84 7 S. W.2 d 2 08 , 2 10 (T e nn . 1 99 3) ; Fo wle r v . H ap py Go od ma n F am ily
, 575 S.W .2d 496, 498 (T e nn . 197 8). Th is c ou rt ha s h e ld that a

su mma ry jud g me nt that ha s b e c ome fi na l c arrie s res judicata eff

ect. H o ll in s v

. Co v in g to n Pike Chrysler- Plymouth, Inc

. , No. W2002-00492-COA-R3-CV, 20 02 WL 31 89 57 20 a t *2 (T e nn . Ct. App . W. S., fi le d D e c . 2 3, 20 02 ); Anderson v. Ray ner, No. W2004-00485-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 3543682 at *5-6 (Tenn. Ct. App. W.S., filed Dec. 28, 2005)

. Res judicata is a

do c tr ine that “ ma y

be su c c e ssf

ull y ple a de d w he n a jud g me nt on the me ri ts e xhaus ts or extinguishes the c ause of action on which it is based[.]” National C o rd o va C orp. v. City of Me mp his , 380 S.W .2d 793, 796 (Tenn. 1964) . We a re of the opinion that a summary judgme nt that has become final se rves to “e x onerate [the ag ent] byan adjudication of non-liability .” Johnson, 74 S.W .3d at 345. Consequently , under Johnson and Shelburne, the alleg ed princ ipal, UTMC, cannot be held vica

ri o usly liable under

the re sp on de at s up e rio r do c tr ine be c a us e the a lle g e d a g e nts , D rs

. H a t c h e r a n d M o u n g e r

h a v e b e e n e x o n e r a t e d b y a n a d j u d i c a t i o n o f

n o n

- l i ab i l i t y.

Ou r a ff ir ma nc e of

the dis mis sa l of

Mr . G ri g sb y ’s c a us e of

a c tio n a g a ins t U TM C is ob vio us ly based upon differ ent g rounds than those upon which the trial court relied, beca use t h e D ef

en d ant doctors had not y et bee n g rante d summary judgme nt when the tria l court g rante d UTMC’s motion to dismiss. But “[i] t is well settled that if there is any g round upon which a d ec re e b ef o re t he appellate court on a broad a ppeal c an be a ffirme d, it will be done, even thoug h it be a diffe rent g round fr om that upon which the chancellor ba ses his decr ee.” Barner v. Boggiano , 222 S.W .2d 672, 677 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1949). It is our opinion that the principle of ag ency law espouse d by

the Supreme Court in Johnson and Sh elburne a nddis c us se d h e re in r e nd e rs a ll o the r i ssu e s mo ot, be c aus e reg ardle ss of the outcome of any other iss ue, Mr. Grig sby

cannot r ecove r under respondeat superior ag ainst UTMC, the allege d principal, when his cause of ac tion ag ainst the alleg ed ag ents has bee n
e xti n g u i s h e d

. “ I f t h e tr i a l c o u r t r e a c h e d t h e c o rr e c t r e s u l t , t h e j u d g m e n t b e l o w i s e n tit le d to aff irmance , ir respe ctive of the rea son stated.” Be ns on v . U . S . S te e l Co rp ., 465 S.W .2d 124, 130 (Tenn. 1971)

.-8- V . Conclu sion

F o r t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d r e a s o n s , t h e j u d g m e n to f t h e tr i a l c o u r ti s a f

f i r m e d i n i t s e n t i r e t y. C o s t s o n ap p e a l ar e a s s e s s e d t o t h e A p p e l l a n t , L arr y G r i g s b y.

________________________________________ SHARON G. LEE, J UDGE