 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Herron v. Hornady Truck Lines Inc.3/18/1999
AFFIRMED.
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and Conclusions of law.
The issue is whether the Chancery Court of Bradley County, Tennessee, has jurisdiction to hear the case. By way of a motion for summary judgment, the Chancellor held that the Court was without subject matter jurisdiction and entered an order of dismissal. The plaintiff appeals, and presents for review the propriety of the dismissal of his case.
The plaintiff is a resident of Bradley County, Tennessee. He telephoned Hornady Truck Lines, headquartered in Monroeville, Alabama, on April 28, 1997, to enquire about employment as a truck driver. The terminal manager of Hornady, Scott Johnson, invited him to come to the Birmingham, Alabama terminal to apply for a job as a over-the-road driver.
On May 5, 1997, the plaintiff arrived in Birmingham. He filled out and signed an application for employment, took a road test, was given a drug screen, a safety interview, and finally, a Department of Transportation written test. He passed these tests and was offered a job while at the Birmingham terminal. He thereupon accepted the offer.
Plaintiff began work and was assigned the Birmingham location as his home terminal. He received dispatch instructions from the Monroeville, Alabama, office. After completing a delivery he would telephone the Alabama office for further instruction. On July 2, 1997, he was injured in an accident in Alabama while in the course and scope of his employment.
Our review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(2); Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 550 (Tenn. 1995). We review questions of law de novo with no presumption of correctness. Perry v. Sentry Ins. Co., 938 S.W.2d 404 (Tenn. 1996). Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, Tenn. R. Civ. P. Rule 56.03. The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating to the Court that there are no disputed, material facts creating a genuine issue, Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208 (Tenn. 1993).
"The applicable statute is T.C.A. § 50-6-115. It provides If an employee, while working outside the territorial limits of this state, suffers an injury on account of which such employee . . . would have been entitled to the benefits provided by this chapter had such injury occurred within the state, such employee . . . shall be entitled to the benefits provided by this chapter; provided that at the time of such injury:"
"(1) The employment was principally localized within this state; or"
"(2) The contract of hire was made in this state."
It is not disputed that the accident occurred in Alabama; thus, the plaintiff was required to show either that his employment was principally localized within Tennessee or that the contract of hire was made in Tennessee.
The plaintiff argues that the contract for hire was made in Tennessee, because he called Hornady after reading an advertisement in a magazine, answered all pertinent questions, and was told by the telephone recruiter that he was hired provided that he attend an orientation session at the Birmingham terminal and complete certain tests. But it is not seriously disputed that every determinative fact
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|