 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Freeman v. Marco Transportation Co.9/18/2000
May 2000 Session at Nashville
We granted this appeal to determine whether an action filed pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann § 50-6-241(a)(2) requesting reconsideration of a workers' compensation award must be filed in the court in which the original workers' compensation claim was decided. We hold that a request for reconsideration must be filed in the court that originally exercised jurisdiction over the workers' compensation claim.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e); Judgment of the Workers' Compensation Special Appeals Panel Affirmed
Janice M. Holder, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which E. Riley Anderson, C.J., and Frank F. Drowota, III, and Adolpho A. Birch, Jr., JJ., joined. William M. Barker, J., not participating.
OPINION
On February 12, 1996, the chancery court of Knox County approved the settlement of a workers' compensation claim of Lloyd Freeman (Freeman) against Marco Transportation Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (defendants). In February 1997, Freeman filed a complaint seeking additional workers' compensation benefits pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(a)(2). The new complaint was filed in the circuit court of Knox County. The circuit court awarded an additional $43,332.80 in workers' compensation benefits.
The defendants appealed, contending that Freeman was required to file his § 241(a)(2) action in the chancery court of Knox County, the court that had approved the original settlement. A majority of the Workers' Compensation Special Appeals Panel agreed that the action was improperly filed in the circuit court and dismissed the suit. The majority stated, however, that " othing herein should be construed to prevent the plaintiff from pursuing his claim in the court which approved the original settlement." We granted review.
ANALYSIS
Tennessee Code Ann § 50-6-241(a)(2) provides, in pertinent part:
In accordance with this section, the courts may reconsider upon the filing of a new cause of action the issue of industrial disability. Such reconsideration shall examine all pertinent factors, including lay and expert testimony, employee's age, education, skills and training, local job opportunities, and capacity to work at types of employment available in claimant's disabled condition. Such reconsideration may be made in appropriate cases where the employee is no longer employed by the pre-injury employer and makes application to the appropriate court within one (1) year of the employee's loss of employment, . . . . Id. (emphasis added).
Freeman properly filed a new cause of action requesting a reconsideration of the previous settlement. The new cause of action was filed in a circuit court and not in the chancery court that had approved the settlement. The plaintiff contends that the phrase "the appropriate court" means any court that could properly exercise jurisdiction over the "new cause of action." The filing of a workers' compensation suit is governed generally by Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225. Tennessee Code Ann. § 50-6-225(c)(1) provides that a petition may be filed in "either the circuit, criminal or chancery court of the county in which the petitioner resides or in which the alleged accident happens."
The defendants contend that the phrase "the appropriate court" suggests that there is but one appropriate court-the court originally approving the settlement. Moreover, the term "reconsideration" suggests that a court is reconsidering its own previously entered order. The defendants point to a similar issue decided under a different statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-231, and argue that we should rely upon Gould, Inc. v. Barnes, 498 S.W.
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.
|
|