APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Pursuant to Rule 23, Rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Court has accepted for decision the following question of law certified by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Whether principles of comparative fault should apply in Tennessee medical malpractice actions so as to result in the apportionment of damages between the estate of a decedent who acted negligently in causing an initial injury and physician who negligently treated the decedent for that injury.

This case presents for review the decision of the Court of Appeals sustaining the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground the suit is barred by the three year statute of limitations. This Court finds the essential cause of action alleged is breach of contract rather than injury to property and, therefore, the applicable limitation period is six years rather than three years.

At issue in this appeal by the Board of Dentistry is the validity and constitutionality of a proposed civil penalty against Harold Richardson for practicing dentistry and operating a dental clinic without a license. Also  called into question is the authority of the Davidson County Chancery Court to resolve, on judicial review of an administrative order, constitutional issues that were not addressed in the administrative order. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the Chancery Court has jurisdiction to  consider constitutional issues not addressed in the administrative  proceeding. As a result, the Chancery Court's resolution of those issues in the first Chancery Court proceeding from which Richardson did not appeal, bars consideration of those issues. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, reversed, and this matter is remanded to the Board of Dentistry for further proceedings.

This divorce case presents for review the judgment of the Court of Appeals, affirming the trial court, that a one-half undivided interest in a tract of real property is marital property within the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 4-121(b)(1)(B) (1991). This Court finds that the interest is the husband's separate property, not marital property, thus requiring that the Court of Appeals' decision be reversed.

Gregory Adams Valentine was convicted by a jury of unlawful possessoin of a Schedule VI Substance with intent to manufacture, deliever, or sell (a Class E felony) and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia (a Class A misdemeanor). We granted his application for review pursuant to Rule 11, Tenn. R. Crim. P., in order to determine whether his testimony fulfilled the requirements of Rule 41 (g), Tenn.R.Crim.P., thereby preserving his right to challenge, on appeal, the admission of illegally obtain evidence.