 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lanius v. Nashville Electric Service12/2/2005
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The parties to this case call upon this Court to determine the trial court of jurisdiction and the proper place of venue in a workers' compensation suit involving, as the defendant, a municipal corporation, which enjoys sovereign immunity unless waived. On March 17, 2004, the plaintiff, Tommy D. Lanius, filed a complaint in the chancery court of his county of residence-Sumner County, Tennessee-pursuant to the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act and its venue provisions, against his employer, the defendant, Nashville Electric Service (NES). NES subsequently filed a motion to transfer the case to Davidson County, Tennessee, its county of residence, on two principal grounds: (1) that NES, as a municipal governmental entity enjoying sovereign immunity, cannot be sued absent its consent or contrary to any terms that condition its consent and (2) that any action against a municipal entity is a local action, as opposed to a transitory action, thus giving subject matter jurisdiction only to the courts of the entity's county of residence.
The Chancery Court for Sumner County, Tennessee, denied NES's motion to dismiss or to transfer the case to Davidson County. It later granted NES's application for interlocutory appeal. This Court granted the application to hear this appeal pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.
We hold that the court of jurisdiction and of proper venue in this case is dictated by Tennessee's Workers' Compensation Act, which, when voluntarily entered into by NES pursuant to an express grant of authority by the General Assembly, constituted a waiver of its sovereign immunity and effected its consent to be sued "in the circuit, criminal, or chancery court in the county in which the employee resides." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(a)(2) (Supp. 2004). Furthermore, we hold that venue is controlled by the specific venue provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act to the exclusion of the common law local venue rule. Accordingly, we affirm the chancery court's denial of NES's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction or improper venue.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
As with all questions of law, our review of this Tennessee Rule of Civil Proceedure 12 motion to dismiss for improper venue is conducted "under a pure de novo standard . . . , according no deference to the conclusions of law made by the lower courts." S. Constructors, Inc. v. Loudon County Bd. of Educ., 58 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tenn. 2001).
ANALYSIS
In Five Star Express, Inc. v. Davis, 866 S.W.2d 944, 950 (Tenn. 1993), we held that "venue in worker's compensation actions is to be determined solely by the workers' compensation venue statute-§ 50-6-225(c)(1)-and any other authority indicating otherwise is hereby expressly overruled." Section 50-6-225(c)(1) of the Tennessee Code of 1993, which was the venue provision of the Workers' Compensation Act at the time Five Star was announced, provided that " he party filing the petition may . . . file . . . an original petition in either the circuit, criminal or chancery court of the county in which petitioner resides or in which the alleged accident happens" (emphasis added). In the present dispute, the plaintiff, Tommy Lanius, filed his lawsuit in the chancery court of his undisputed county of residence, Sumner County, pursuant to the first of the two venue options provided for in this statute.
NES argues that, as a municipal entity, it enjoys sovereign immunity and, as a consequence, our holding in Five Star has no applicability here and therefore the Chancery Court of Sumner County has no jurisdiction to hear Mr. Lanius's case. Further, it argues th
Page 1 2 3 4 Tennessee Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|