Holmes, LaDonna v. Amazon.Com

2022 TN WC 8
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedFebruary 3, 2022
Docket2020-08-0229
StatusPublished

This text of 2022 TN WC 8 (Holmes, LaDonna v. Amazon.Com) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Holmes, LaDonna v. Amazon.Com, 2022 TN WC 8 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2022).

Opinion

FILED Feb 03, 2022 03:34 PM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS AT MEMPHIS

LADONNA HOLMES, ) Docket No. 2020-08-0229 Employee, ) v. ) AMAZON.COM, ) State File No. 5700-2020 Employer, ) And ) AMERICAN ZURICH INS. CO., ) Judge Allen Phillips Carrier. )

COMPENSATION ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The Court held a hearing on February 1, 2022, on Amazon’s Motion for Summary Judgment. For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion.

Facts

Amazon filed a Petition for Benefit Determination alleging that Ms. Holmes failed to pursue a claim for benefits for a December 8, 2019 injury. The mediating specialist filed a Dispute Certification Notice on October 29, 2021, and noted in an addendum that Ms. Holmes did not cooperate in setting mediation.

On November 2, Amazon filed this Motion for Summary Judgment and obtained the February 1 hearing date from the Court. Amazon provided notice of the hearing to Ms. Holmes.

In support of its motion, Amazon filed a Statement of Undisputed facts as required by Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 56.03 supported by a managerial employee affidavit. The Court summarizes those facts as follows:

1. On December 8, 2019, Ms. Holmes instigated an altercation with a co-employee, which resulted in their termination. 2. Amazon’s Code of Conduct prohibits altercations at work.

1 3. Amazon’s Code of Conduct explained the reasons for the policy against altercations, specifically to prevent the risk of injury or financial loss. 4. Amazon enforces its policy against altercations. 5. Ms. Holmes received a copy of the Code of Conduct when she was hired. 6. During the altercation, Ms. Holmes lost her balance and fell, leading to her making a claim for benefits.

Based on these facts, Amazon contended it was entitled to summary judgment under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-110(a)(1) (2021), which provides no compensation is allowed for an injury resulting from an employee’s misconduct. Amazon cited Mitchell v. Fayetteville Pub. Util., 368 S.W.3d 442, 453 (Tenn. 2012), where the Tennessee Supreme Court adopted the following four-part analysis for willful misconduct and safety-rule violations:

1. The employee’s actual as opposed to constructive notice of the rule; 2. The employee’s understanding of the danger involved in violating the rule; 3. The employer’s bona fide enforcement of the rule; and 4. The employee’s lack of a valid excuse for violating the rule.

Amazon claimed it satisfied all four factors.

Ms. Holmes did not file a response to the motion and did not appear for the hearing.

Analysis

Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 56.02 provides that a party against whom a claim is asserted may move for summary judgment at any time. Johnson v. Loomis Armored, 2018 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 60, at *9 (Nov. 21, 2018). Further, Rule 56.03 provides specific filing requirements for both parties in summary judgment cases, and they “are not mere suggestions” but rather plain and unambiguous requirements. Thomas v. Zipp Express, 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 22, at *11 n.4 (Mar. 15, 2017).

Specifically, as the moving party, Amazon must file a statement of undisputed material facts with citations to the record. It did so. As the nonmoving party, Ms. Holmes must respond to Amazon’s statement of undisputed facts, indicating either her agreement with the facts or demonstrating how they are disputed. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.03. She did not. Thus, the Court considers Amazon’s motion unopposed and whether summary judgment is appropriate.

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment

2 as a matter of law.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04. To prevail, Amazon must do one of two things: (1) submit affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of Ms. Holmes’s claim, or (2) demonstrate that her evidence is insufficient to establish entitlement to benefits. Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-16-101; see also Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC., 477 S.W.3d 235, 264 (Tenn. 2015).

Amazon proved that Ms. Holmes was guilty of misconduct, it had a rule against the misconduct, Ms. Holmes was aware of the rule and the reasons for it, and it enforced the rule. These facts meet the requirements for a misconduct affirmative defense under Mitchell, and Ms. Holmes filed nothing to refute them. It follows then that it has submitted affirmative evidence to negate an essential element of Ms. Holmes’s claim, and Amazon is entitled to summary judgment.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

1. The Court grants Amazon’s Motion for Summary Judgment on grounds that Ms. Holmes engaged in misconduct under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- 110 (a)(1). Her claim against Amazon is dismissed with prejudice to its refiling.

2. Unless appealed, this order shall become final in thirty days.

3. The Court assesses the $150.00 filing fee against Amazon, for which execution might issue as necessary. Amazon shall pay the filing fee to the Clerk within five business days of this order becoming final.

4. Amazon shall file Form SD-2 with the Clerk within five business days of this order becoming final.

IT IS ORDERED.

ENTERED February 3, 2022.

______________________________________ JUDGE ALLEN PHILLIPS Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this Order was sent as indicated on February 3, 2022.

Name Certified First Class Email Service sent to: Mail Mail Ladonna Holmes, X X X 210 W. Jackson Ave., Apt. G10 Employee West Memphis, AR 72301 W. Troy Hart and X wth@mijs.com Kristen C. Stevenson, kcstevenson@mijs.com Employer’s Attorneys

Penny Shrum, Clerk of Court Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

4 Compensation Hearing Order Right to Appeal: If you disagree with this Compensation Hearing Order, you may appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board or the Tennessee Supreme Court. To appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, you must: 1. Complete the enclosed form entitled: “Notice of Appeal,” and file the form with the Clerk of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims within thirty calendar days of the date the compensation hearing order was filed. When filing the Notice of Appeal, you must serve a copy upon the opposing party (or attorney, if represented).

2. You must pay, via check, money order, or credit card, a $75.00 filing fee within ten calendar days after filing of the Notice of Appeal. Payments can be made in-person at any Bureau office or by U.S. mail, hand-delivery, or other delivery service. In the alternative, you may file an Affidavit of Indigency (form available on the Bureau’s website or any Bureau office) seeking a waiver of the filing fee. You must file the fully- completed Affidavit of Indigency within ten calendar days of filing the Notice of Appeal. Failure to timely pay the filing fee or file the Affidavit of Indigency will result in dismissal of your appeal.

3. You bear the responsibility of ensuring a complete record on appeal. You may request from the court clerk the audio recording of the hearing for a $25.00 fee.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Troy Mitchell v. Fayetteville Public Utilities
368 S.W.3d 442 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2012)
Michelle RYE Et Al. v. WOMEN’S CARE CENTER OF MEMPHIS, MPLLC Et Al.
477 S.W.3d 235 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2022 TN WC 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-ladonna-v-amazoncom-tennworkcompcl-2022.