# FILED
December 5, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk 

## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE

WILLIAM W. GOAD, JR., ) ) Plaintiff /Appella nt, )

) ) Davidson C ircuit VS. ) No. 94C- 295 ) ) ALPHONSE PASIPANODYA, M.D., ) Appeal N o. MEHARRY HUBBARD HOSPITAL, ) 01A01-9509- CV-00426 FRANK THOMA S, M.D ., and ) LARRY WOODLEE, ) ) Defenda nts/Appell ees. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY

AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE THE HONORABLE HAMILTON V. GAYDEN, JUDGE

For the Plaintiff/

Appellant : For Meharry Hubbard Hospital : William W. Goad , Jr., Thomas A. Wiseman, III Pro Se John T. Reese Nashville, Tennessee For Larry Woodlee : Cyrus L. Booker Carla G . Fox Nashville, Tennessee



## APPEAL DISMISSED

WILL IAM C. KO CH, JR., JUDG

E1 See State v. Goad , 692 S.W.2d 32 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985).

2 See State v. Goad , 707 S.W.2 d 846 (Te nn. 1986) (conditionally af firming Mr . Goad’sfirst degreemurder c onviction and dea th sentence); State v. Goad , No. 85-25-I, 1986 WL 12370 (Tenn. Oct. 27, 1986) (affirming Mr. Goad’s convicti on and de ath sente nce); Goad v. St

ate , 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (affirming Mr. Goad ’s conviction for f irst degree murder and remanding the ca se for a new sentencing hearing). 2 

## O P I N I O N

This appeal involves a prisoner’s medical m alpracti ce suit stemming from the repair of an epigastric hernia. The prisoner filed a p ro se co mplaint aga inst the surgeon who had pe

rformed the surger

y, the hospi tal wher

e the surgery was performe d, and a phys ician and physici an’s assis tant emplo yed by th e prison. T h e Circuit Court for Davidson C ounty first

granted th e motion fo r summar y judgment filed by the physician’s assistan t and later grant ed the summ ary judgme nt motion filed by the ho spital. The priso ner appea led from t he order s ummarily

dismissing hi s claims against t he hospi tal. We have determined that the prisone

r’s appea l must be dismissed because h e has not complied w ith the mandatory requirements of Tenn. R. App. P. 3(f) and 4(a).

I.

WilliamM. Goad, Jr. is incarcerate d at the Riverbend Maximum S ec urity Institution

followingconvictions in Davidso n County for armed r obbery and

assault withintent to commit first degree murder 1 an d in Sumner County for first degree murder and arme d robbery. 2 In A ugust 1 989, Dr. Alphonse T . Pasipa nodya performed surgery on Mr. Goad at Meharry Hubbard Hospital to repair an epigastri c hernia. Dr. Pasipanodya closed Mr. Goad’s fascia w ith prolene sutures and then closed the incision with surgical staples. The prolene sutures wer e p ermanent and non-absorbable, and Dr. Pasipan odya i ntended them to remain in Mr. Goad’s abdomen in accordance with accepted medical practice.

In Octobe r 1993, Mr . Goad no ticed the s utures imm ediately b eneath his skin and began e xperienci ng discomfo rt in the a rea of hi s hernia op eration. Dr. F rank Thomas examined him inthe prison i nfirmar y in Novemb er 1993 and ordered several medical tests. L arry Wood lee, a p hysician’s assistant w orking at the pri son, examined Mr. Goa

d again in e arly Janua

ry 1994 and r

efer red him to another3 Mr. Goad’s claims against Drs. Pasipanodya and Thomas are not before us on this appe al. 3 physician for additional medical treatment. Several weeks later, Mr. Goad filed a pro se complaint in the Chancery Courtfor Dav idson County a gainst Drs. P asipanodya and Thomas, Mr. Woodlee, and Mehar ry Hubbard Hospital alleging that they had failed to exercise due care and did not provide him with proper medical treatme nt
. The chancery court later transferred the c ase t o the Circ uit Court f or Davids on County.

Mr. Woodlee moved for a summary j udgment in February 1995. The trial courtentered an order

on March 17, 1995, dismissing Mr. Goad’s claims against Mr. Woodlee and included in the order a Tenn. R . Civ. P . 54.02 c ertific ationthat the order would be deemed final. Thereafter, Me harry Hubbard Hospital moved for a summary jud gment. On June 19, 1995, the t rial cour t entered an order granting Me

ha rr y Hubbard Hospital’ s motion and certifying thatthis order

would alsobe deeme d to be final under Tenn. R. C iv. P. 54 .02. Mr . Goad f iled a no tice of a

ppe al with the trial courton July 24, 19 95, statin g thathe desire d to appeal from the trial cour

t’s June 19, 1995 order.

II. This appe al involves the fate of Mr. G oad’s cla ims against

Mr. Woo dlee and Meharry HubbardHospital. 3 Even though Mr. Goad takes issue with the summary dismissal of these claims, we cannot reach the merit s of

his arguments because he has not compl ied with th e mandatory requiremen ts of Tenn. R. App . P. 3(f) and 4(a).

The Tennessee Ru les of Ap pellat e Proced ure govern

appeals tothis court. Ten n. R. App. P. 3(f) requires appellant s to designat e the “judg ment from

whi c h relief is sought,” and Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a) re quires tha t notices of

appeal mu st be “filed with and received by the clerk of the trial court within 30 da

ys after the date of entry of the jud gment app ealed from.” Tenn. R . App. P . 3(f) l imits the sc ope of appellate review to the judgment or order designated

by the notic e; see Hall v . Hall , 772 S.W.2d 432, 435-36 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989); while, Tenn. R. App. P. 4( a) establishes a mandat ory , jurisdictional time limit for filing a notice of appeal that cannot be waived or e xtended. See Jeffers on v. Pneumo S ervs. Corp. , 69 9 S.W. 2d 181, 184 (Tenn . Ct. A

pp. 1985); John Barb, Inc. v. Underwri ters at Lloyds of London ,4

653 S.W.2 d 422 , 424 (Tenn. Ct. A pp. 1983). Incarc erated pr o se litigan

ts are not entitled to relief from Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a)’s mand atory requ irements. See Goodw in
v. Hendersonville Police Dep’t , App. N o. 01A01- 9509-CH- 00423, 1997 W L 576340, at *3 (Tenn. Ct . App. Sept. 17, 1 997) (Tenn. R . App. P. 11 appl ication p ending).

Mr. Goad has not properly perfected an appeal from the March 17, 1995 order summarily

dismissing his claims ag ainst M r. Woodle e for tw o reasons. First, h is notice of appeal identifies only the trial court’s June 19, 1995 order and does not mention the

March 17, 1995 order. Thus, Tenn. R. App. P. 3(f) limits his a ppeal to the June 19, 1995 order. Second, since the trial court desi gnated the

March 17, 1995 order as final i n accorda

nce with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02, Mr. Goad should have filed his notice of appeal within thirty days after the entry of the March 1 7, 1995 order. His July 24, 1995 notice of a ppeal, tothe extent it c ould applyto the orde r dismissin g Mr. Goad’s claims against Mr. Woodlee, w as filed over two months too late.

Mr. Goad’s appeal from the summary dismissal of his claims against Meharry Hubbard Hospital must meet the same fate. Even though he specifically designated the June19, 1995 judgment as the one he desired to appeal f rom, he d id not file his notice of appeal

with the c lerk of the

trial cour t until July 24, 1995. S in ce the trial courtc le rk recei ved Mr. G oad’s notic e of appea l from the June 19, 199 5 judgment five days after

the expiratio n of Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a) ’s filing de adline, t he notice o f appeal was fi led too la te.
III.

We do not favor

dismissing pr

o se litigan

ts’ appea ls on what migh

tappear to be technica

lities. H owever, while par ties who c hoos e to represent themselves are entitl ed to fair an d equal tre atment, they are not entitle d to shift the burden of litigatingtheir case t o the court s, see Dozier v. Ford Motor Co. , 702 F.2 d 1189, 1194 (D.C. Cir. 1983), or to be excu sed from complying w ith the sam e substantiv e and procedural requiremen ts that ot her represen ted partie s must adh ere to. See Irvin v. City of Clarksv ille , 767 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). Accordingly, they must act within the time periods provided by the applicable statutes and rules in order to have their cases consider ed. See Williams-Guice v. Board of Educ. , 45 F.3d 161, 164 (7th Cir. 1995); Kelley v . Secret ary, Uni ted States D ep’t o f Labor , 81 2 F.2d 1378, 13 80 (Fed. Cir. 1 987).5 Mr. Goad has n o t filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court’s orders dismissing his claims against Mr. Woodlee or Meharry Hubbard H ospital and has not stated thathe is appealing from the t rial cour t’s order dismissing hi s claims against Mr. Woodlee. Ac cordingly, we dismiss his appeal and tax the costs of the appeal against him for which execution, if necessary, may issue.

_________________

____________ WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE

CONCUR:

_________________

________________ HENRY F. TODD, PRESIDING JUDGE MIDDLE SECTION

_________________

________________ SAMUEL L. LEWIS, JUDGE