It has long been the rule that affidavits of defendant professionals are sufficient to support a motion for summary judgment and to shift the burden to the plaintiff to come forward with competent expert proof showing there is a dispute. Miller v. Birdwell, 327 S.W.3d 53, 60 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) ("It is well established that the affidavits of the defendant physicians are sufficient by themselves to support a motion for summary judgment.") (citing Kenyon v. Handal, 122 S.W.3d 743 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003)). Mr. Seiler's expert affidavit addressed two essential elements of Mr. Barna's claim: that Mr. Seiler breached his duty to represent Mr. Barna with "that degree of care, skill, and diligence which is commonly possessed and exercised by attorneys practicing in the same jurisdiction," and that Mr. Barna's damages were caused by any breach of duty by Mr. Seiler. As a general rule, a defendant's affidavit stating that, in his or her professional opinion, nothing done by the professional violated the applicable standard of care or cause the alleged injury has been held sufficient to negate elements of negligence or malpractice in the plaintiff's case and require that plaintiff come forward with expert evidence creating a dispute that warrants a trial.

See Bowman v. Henard, 547 S.W.2d 527, 531 (Tenn. 1977); Miller v. Birdwell, 327 S.W.3d 53, 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010); see also Harris v. Buckspan, 984 S.W.2d 944, 945 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (plastic surgery cases not within knowledge of laymen). The summary judgment deadline is January 1, 2015.

As such, we likewise view Mr. Huggins's own statement that he made a capital contribution as a mere conclusory assertion where it is not accompanied by any facts that could be used to support it or other substantiating evidence. SeeMiller v. Birdwell , 327 S.W.3d 53, at 60–62 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (holding that affidavits of two doctors in a health care liability case were sufficient to shift the burden because rather than making statements of compliance with the standard of care without explanation, they outlined the facts serving as the basis for their conclusion).Taking the record as a whole, we cannot conclude that Mr. Huggins's bare assertion that he contributed to AF financially in an unknown, yet “significant” amount, does anything more than create metaphysical doubt as to this issue.

However, a conclusory assertion in an affidavit does not necessarily render the affidavit insufficient to shift the burden of production where the assertion is supported by identified facts. See Miller v. Birdwell, 327 S.W.3d 53, at 60–62 (Tenn.Ct.App.2010) (holding that affidavits of two doctors in a health care liability case were sufficient to shift the burden because rather than making statements of compliance with the standard of care without explanation, they outlined the facts serving as the basis for their conclusion); Barna v. Seiler, No. M2008–01573–COA–R3–CV, 2011 WL 1486613, at *7 (Tenn.Ct.App. Apr. 19, 2011) (“[A]n affidavit is considered ‘conclusory’ if it does not indicate a factual basis for the opinion.”). The affidavits submitted by Paul and John Murphy each identified facts supporting their assertion that they did not have the requisite intent to make misrepresentations in the transactional documents.Each stated that any representations they made in the documents were based on the representations of the architects and engineers involved in building the structures.

However, a conclusory assertion in an affidavit does not necessarily render the affidavit insufficient to shift the burden of production where the assertion is supported by identified facts. See Miller v. Birdwell, 327 S.W.3d 53, at 60–62 (Tenn.Ct.App.2010) (holding that affidavits of two doctors in a health care liability case were sufficient to shift the burden because rather than making statements of compliance with the standard of care without explanation, they outlined the facts serving as the basis for their conclusion); Barna v. Seiler, No. M2008–01573–COA–R3–CV, 2011 WL 1486613, at *7 (Tenn.Ct.App. Apr. 19, 2011) (“[A]n affidavit is considered ‘conclusory’ if it does not indicate a factual basis for the opinion.”). The affidavits submitted by Paul and John Murphy each identified facts supporting their assertion that they did not have the requisite intent to make misrepresentations in the transactional documents.