George T. Potter v. Schlegel Finishing, Inc.,

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. The plaintiff appeals from the dismissal of his case by way of summaryjudgment and also appeals from the order of the trial court awarding the defendant discretionary costs. The defendant raises as an issue the action of the trial court in considering the affidavit of the plaintiff in determining the summary judgment motion. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court for Blount County is Reversed and Remanded JOHN K. BYERS, SR. J., in which E. RILEY ANDERSON, C.J. and ROGER E. THAYER, SP. J., joined. Edward M. Graves, Jr, Carl Winkles, and Douglas C. Weinstein, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, George T. Potter. F. R. Evans, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellees BTR Sealing Systems N. America - Tennessee Operations f/k/a Schlegel Tennessee, Inc., and ACE USA (mis-styled "CIGNA" in the caption). OPINION Facts The plaintiff brought suit to recover for an injury to his back, which he alleges occurred on June 14, 1993. The protracted proceedings in this case resulted in the taking of the plaintiff's deposition, the interrogatories of the plaintiff, the affidavit of the plaintiff, a deposition of a representative of the defendant, the depositions of two doctors, and various other documents which were collected and filed in the record. In the course of taking the plaintiff's deposition and other discovery, it was discovered the plaintiff had suffered a previous back injury that ultimately required surgery; however, when the plaintiff filled out his application for employment with the defendant, he responded "no" to the questions concerning previous work injuries, workers' compensation claims and surgery. Further, he did not reveal the information to the preemployment physician who conducted a physical examination of him on behalf of the defendant. The defendant made a motion for summary judgment in the case. The trial judge granted the motion, ruling: Considering the entire record, the court is of the opinion and finds that the gross misrepresentations of the employee to the employer at the time of hire are unconscionable and that this is a proper case for summary judgment in that (1) the employee knowingly and wilfully made false representations of his physical condition, (2) the employer relied upon the false representations and such reliance was a substantial factor in the decision to hire, and (3) a causal connection exists between the false misrepresentations and the alleged injury suffered by the employee in this case. Discussion The standard of review of a summary judgment order in a worker's compensation case is not de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness, which is the standard generally applied to such cases in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-225(e). Rather, it is governed by Rule 56 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, and the judgment of the trial court is not reviewed with a presumption of correctness. In considering a motion for summary judgment, the pleadings and the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opponent of the motion. Wyatt v. Winnebago Indus. Inc., -2-