Teresa L. Crisp v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employee insists the trial court erred in summarily dismissing her claim for insufficient evidence of a connection between the employment and the State of Tennessee. As discussed below, the panel has concluded there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the employee's insurer is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (22 Supp.) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed JOE C. LOSER, JR., SP. J., in which ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., J., and JOHN K. BYERS, SR. J., joined. Michael A. Walker, Jamestown, Tennessee, for the appellant, Teresa L. Crisp Joe M. Looney, Crossville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company MEMORANDUM OPINION The employee or claimant, Ms. Crisp, initiated this civil action to recover workers' compensation benefits. The employer's insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, moved for summary judgment of dismissal pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-115. The trial court granted the motion. The claimant has appealed. Summary judgment is almost never an option in workers' compensation cases; Berry v. Consolidated Systems, Inc., 84 S.W.2d 445, 446 (Tenn. 1991). However, when there is no dispute over the evidence establishing the facts that control the application of a rule of law, summary judgment is an appropriate means of deciding such issues as whether an action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations or by res judicata; whether a party has standing; or whether the court has jurisdiction. Id at 446. The dispositive issue in this case involves the applicability of a rule of law to undisputed facts. The standard of review on appeal of a grant of summary judgment is de novo upon the record without a presumption of correctness to determine whether the absence of genuine and material factual issues entitle the movant to a judgment as a matter of law. Goodloe v. State, 36 S.W.3d 62, 65 (Tenn. 21) The movant must either affirmatively negate an essential element of the non- movant's claim or conclusively establish an affirmative defense; mere conclusory assertions that the non-movant has no evidence are insufficient; and if the movant does not negate a claimed basis for the suit, the non-movant's burden to produce evidence establishing the existence of a genuine issue for trial is not triggered and the motion for summary judgment must fail. If, however, the movant successfully negates a claimed basis for the suit, the non-movant may no longer simply rely upon the pleadings, but must then establish the existence of the essential elements of the claim or the non- existence of the defense. Finister v. Humboldt General Hosp., Inc., 97 S.W.2d 435, 438 (Tenn. 1998). The claimant entered into a contract of hire with the employer, M & P Utilities, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, while in the State of Missouri. She worked for the employer in several states before suffering a serious back injury while working in Colorado, where she was hospitalized for five days. She returned to her home state, Tennessee, after leaving the hospital and has received most of her medical care in Tennessee. The claimant rejected an offer to settle her workers' compensation claim under Minnesota law and sued for benefits under Tennessee law. A worker who is injured outside the territorial limits of Tennessee is covered under the Act if, and only if, he or she would have been covered if the injury had occurred within the state and (1) the employment was principally localized within Tennessee or (2) the contract of hire was made in Tennessee. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-115. Ordinarily, though, if an injury occurs in another state, benefits under the Tennessee Act are not recoverable unless it can be shown that the contract of hire was made in Tennessee. Perkins v. BE & K, Inc., 82 S.W.2d 215, 216 (Tenn. 199). The claimant argues that the statute should be construed to provide coverage under the circumstances of this case because the employer was qualified to do business in Tennessee when she was injured, is a licensed contractor in Tennessee, has had continual workers' compensation insurance in Tennessee since 1996, has bid for jobs in Tennessee for the past several years and the claimant presently works on one of them, has offered Tennessee workers' compensation to its employees injured in Texas, has established an office in Fentress County, the claimant's treating physicians are located in Tennessee, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company has been providing Tennessee employers with workers' compensation insurance for decades. Under the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act, the right of an employee who suffers a work-related injury to recover compensation benefits from his employer is governed by the statutes -2-