T en n. R

. C t

. A p p
. 1 0 st ates: 1

T h is C o u rt, w ith the c o n c u rr e n c e o f all ju d g e s p a rtic ip a ting in the c a se , m a y a ff irm , re v e rs e o r m o d ify t he act i o ns o f

t he t ri al co urt by me m o randum op i ni o n when a fo rma l op i ni o n w o u ld h ave no prec edent i a l v a l u e
. W h e n a c a s e i s de c i de d b y me mo r a n du m o pi n i on i t s h a l l be de s i g n at ed “M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N ,” s h a ll no t be pub l i shed, and s hal l not b e ci t ed or rel i ed on f o r any r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e. 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT NAS HVILLE A ugus t 19 , 200 5 S es sio n EDWARD L. EL LI S, JR. v . JO HN W. BACON, M.D. Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Su m ner County No. 25449-C C .L. Rogers, Judge

No. M2005- 00222-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Novem ber 21, 2005

Th e un su c c e ssf

ul p la int if f b ri ng s thi s app e a l fr om the tr ia l c ou rt ’s su mma ry jud g me nt d ism iss ing his malprac tice cla im. Bec ause the plaintiff d i d not respond to the def endant’ s proper ly

supported Mo tio n f or Sum mary

Judg me nt, we a ff

ir m. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
W I L L I AM B. C A IN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R ., J . and J ER R Y S MI TH , S P .J ., joined.
Edwar d L . Ellis, Nashville, Tennessee , pro s e
. Parks T. Chastain, Scott T. Foster , Nashville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellee, John W . Ba con, M.D.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1 This appea l results from a me dical malpra ctice c laim. Edwar d E l l is, J r., af ter a n initial nonsuit, filed a sec ond complaint in Circuit Court for Sum ner County alleg ing ma lprac tice on the part of John W . Ba con, M.D. In the complaint which he filed on May 3, 2004, pro s e , M r. El lis alleg ed that Dr . Ba con had damag ed his sciatic ne rve w hile perf ormin g a right hip repla ceme nt s u r g e r y.
Dr . B a c on a ns we re d th e c omp la int on Ma y 28 , 20 04 , de nying ne g lig e nc e , raisi ng the statut e of limitations as a bar to the cl ai m and raising a s an additional af firmative de fense Mr. Ellis’s-2-

informed c onsent. Acc ording to defe nse counsel’s certification, a c opy of the Notice of Appe ara nce of Counsel and Answe r wa s sent to Mr. Ellis at 609 S. 6t h Street, Na shville, Tennessee , 37206. The plaint if f’ s o nly oth e r a dd re ss a

pp e ari ng in the recor d b e fo re us is the g e ne ra l de liv e ry a dd re ss t o which Mr. Ellis had his mail delivere d in the course of the l itigation. On J une 14, 2004, counse l for Dr. B acon f

orwa rded his first set of i nterrog atories to Mr. El lis at t he 609 S. 6th Street address. On that sa me date c ou ns e l se nt r e qu e sts fo r ad mis sio n. De fe ns e c ou ns e l the n sen t a lett e r t o M r. El lis reque sting supplementa

ry discovery

including an audio taped copy of a prior telephone conver sation in which def

ense c ounsel ag ree d to ext end the discove ry deadline “ an additional 15 day s.”
B y le tte rs date d Sep te mbe r 8 a ndSe pte mbe r 2 2, 20 04 , d e fe ns e c ou ns e l a sk e d th a t Mr . E lli s comply with the prior dis covery reque sts. Despite these letters, Mr. Elli s never completely

provided this discovery . I n addition, the rec ord does n o t s h o w any attempt of discovery

on the part of Mr. Ellis. On November 15, 2004, Dr. Bac on, throug h counsel, filed his Moti on for Summary J udg ment a c c omp a nie d b y

the do c tor ’s a ff

ida vit c on ta ini ng the fo llo wi ng a ve rm e nts :
7. My

tr e a tme nt andc are of

Ed wa rdEl lis , Jr. , b e fo re , d uring a nd a ft e r the fu ll righ t h i p repla ceme nt performed on Fe bruary 5, 2002 at Sumner Reg ional Medica l Hospital in Gallatin, Tennessee , did not fall b el o w t he re cog nized standard of

acc eptable pr ofessional pra ctice i n Nashville and G allatin, Tenne ssee.
8. To the e xten t th e plaint if f h a s a ny inj urie s to his ri g ht h ip a re a or sc ia tic nerve , those injuries are not the re sult of any neg lige nt act or omission which i s a l l e g e d t o h a v e o c c u rr e d d u r i n g t h e f u l l r i g h th i p r e p l a c e m e n ts u r g e r y.
I n addition to t h i s Motion, counsel filed a Motion to Dee m the Admission R equests Admitted for the purposes of summary judgme nt. Mr. El lis failed to respond to either motion and failed to appe ar on the date of

the he ari ng ind ic a te d o n D e fe nd a nt’ s Mo tio n f or Sum mary

Judg me nt.
Since a more compelling rea son exi sts for sustaining summary judgme nt it is not nece ssary to d isc us s th e se pr oc e du ra l a ndfa c tua l sh ortc omi ng s.
On Dec ember

15, 2004, the trial court hear d the Motion for Summary J udg ment and ente red a n o rd e r dra ft e d b y

de fe ns e c ou ns e l a ndfo rw ard e d to Mr . E lli s a t th e 60 9 S. 6thStr e e t a dd re ss pu rs ua nt t o th e c e rt if

ic a te of se rv ic e
. On Janu ary 13 , 200 5, Mr . Elli s file d his N oti c e of Ap pe a l in t h e t ri al co u rt , an d t h e c as e i s n o w be fo re u s fo r re v i ew o f t h e su m m ar y j u d gm en tgra n t

. Al t h o u gh pro s e pa rt ie s a re a ff or de d a lib e ra l int e rp re ta tio n of the ir ple a din g s a nd brie fs be fo re ou r c ou rt s, thi s liberal c onstruction cannot c reate rig hts where none exist. Mr. Elli s, as appe llant, bear s the burden of prope rly

prepa ring a re cord on a

ppeal. Te nn. Rule App. P. 24.
Whe n a de fe nd a nt c ome s f

or wa rd wi th pr oo f ne g a tin g a n e sse nti a l of the plaint if

f’ s c la im, that plaintiff so cha lleng ed is no long er e ntitled to rely solely on the pleading s, but must offer proof of his own rebutting t hat of the de fenda nt and establishing a g enuine issue f or trial. Ba in v . W

e lls ,-3-

936 S.W .2d 618, 622 (Tenn.1997) . A plaintiff ac ting a s his own counsel i s n o t exempt from the require ment of proc edura l and substantive law, a nd a trial c ourt may not otherwise shift the bur den of litigation to the repre sented de fenda nt in order to be “ fair” to the unrepr esente d party

. Hessme r v. Miranda , 138 S.W .3d 231 (Tenn.Ct.App.2003). When met with the a ffidavit of the defe ndant doctor a lleg ing that his performa nce c omported wit h the gene rally rec og nized standard of ca re, Mr

. El lis wa s n o lo ng e r a

ble to re ly up on his ple a din g
. He wa s r e qu ir e d to pr ov ide a ff ir ma tiv e pr oo f t o the c on tr ary

a t le a st s uf

fi c ie nt t o c re a te a

g e nu ine iss ue of ma te ri a l fa c t as t o h is m a lpr a c tic e c la im. See H essmer , 138 S.W .3d at 244, se e als o Tenn.Code Ann.§ 29- 26-115(a )(supp.2002). Instead of supply ing this proof

, Mr. Ellis alleg es bef

ore this Court that he was unable to obtain his mail at the g ener al d el i v ery

mailbox to which he ha d his mail delivered until some time after the entry of judgme nt on the defe nse’s Motions. During the interim, he was absent fr om the State of Tenne ssee.
I n our de novo re vie w o f the re c or d b e fo re us , we f indthat th e plaint if

f h a s f a ile d in thi s malprac tice ac tion to establish any g enuine issue of fac t a s to the standard of car e applica

ble to Dr. Ba con or a ny

brea ch by

Dr. Ba con of that standard of ca re w hich proxim ately

cause d damag e to the plaintif f

. T h is is a p r o f

e s s io n a l ma lp r a c ti c e a c ti o n
. O n c e D r
. B a c o n r e s p o n d e d w ith h is e x pert aff idavit of compliance with the applicable standard of car e, Plaintiff must count er b yex pert e vid e nc e of

de viatio n fr om su c h sta nd ard of c are , a ndfailu re to d o s o is fata l on su mma ry jud g me nt. Bursack v . W

ilson , 982 S.W .2d 341 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998). T he judg ment of the trial court is affirmed. Cos ts a re a sse sse d to Ap pe lla nt.

___________________________________ WI LL I AM B. CAIN, J UDGE