Samuel L. Graham, Jr. v. The Family Cancer Center, PLLC, W2016-00859-COA-R3-CV

Samuel L. Graham, Jr. had rising PSA levels from 2000–2007 while under care of Dr. Earle Weeks; symptoms (hematuria, pain) and an ultrasound occurred but no biopsy was performed and referrals were not pursued.
PSA rose to 26.66 ng/mL in Feb 2008; biopsy showed adenocarcinoma; radical prostatectomy in April 2008 revealed extensive, high‑risk, locally advanced disease.
Plaintiffs sued in 2009 alleging failure to timely diagnose and treat; after a voluntary nonsuit they refiled in 2014 relying on the saving statute.
Expert disclosures/depositions: Plaintiffs identified Drs. Philip Rast and Stephan Allen; a consent order limited plaintiffs to Dr. Allen’s trial opinions regarding Dr. Weeks; defendants secured exclusion of opinions about acts before Jan. 9, 2006 (statute of repose).
At deposition/trial Dr. Allen acknowledged opportunities to diagnose in 2004–2007 but could not state to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that earlier intervention (notably surgery in 2007) would have changed the outcome. Plaintiffs did not present new causation opinions from Dr. Rast on refiling.
The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding plaintiffs lacked expert proof of causation within the actionable period; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment was improper because plaintiffs had sufficient expert causation proof	Allen’s testimony establishes negligence and causation for the relevant post‑2006 period; Rast should be allowed to testify beyond prior opinions	No expert establishes causation after Jan. 9, 2006; Rast is limited by prior disclosures/consent order	Court affirmed: plaintiffs failed to produce expert causation within the repose period; summary judgment proper

Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (summary judgment burdens and standards)
Williams v. Baptist Mem’l Hosp., 193 S.W.3d 545 (Tenn. 2006) (medical malpractice elements require expert proof)
Martin v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 271 S.W.3d 76 (Tenn. 2008) (view evidence in favor of nonmoving party on summary judgment)
Lane v. Becker, 334 S.W.3d 756 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (appellate waiver for issues not raised below)
Fayne v. Vincent, 301 S.W.3d 162 (Tenn. 2009) (doctrine of waiver)
Campbell Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Brownlee–Kesterson, Inc., 677 S.W.2d 457 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984) (waiver doctrine cited)