person’s tort claims arising out of a single incident? 2. Whether, under Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-1-106, the disability of “unsound mind” is “removed” when the injured person’s legal representative accepts responsibility for the injured person’s tort claims arising out of a single incident? We accepted these certified questions. See Tenn. Sup.Ct. R. 28 (2006). Analysis I. Legal Disability Statute Because we find the second certified question to be dispositive of the first, we begin with it. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the appointment of a legal guardian does not remove an injured person’s disability of “unsound mind” under Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-1-106 and that the statute of limitations remains tolled so long as the injured person 330 (1983) (<HOLDING>); Chagnon v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 96 N.H. 256,
holding that new yorks statute tolling statute of limitations during a period when a person is under a disability because of infancy is not terminated by acts of guardian or legal representative in taking steps to pursue claims on infants behalf holding that a social security disability determination is a legal proceeding holding that cjlearly the purpose of our legal disability statute is to lift the burden of severe time restrictions or limitations from those under legal disability that is from those who do not have the ability and capacity to protect their rights existing under our laws holding that our law prohibiting disability discrimination could be invoked by a person with asymptomatic hiv infection and recognizing that the 1989 definitional changes broadened the scope of protected status under our disability discrimination law id at n 5 holding disability determination is made at time of alleged discrimination not later when remedial measures are used to correct disability