Jones, Alfrend v. F S Sperry Co., Inc.

2021 TN WC 210
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedAugust 5, 2021
Docket2020-08-0726
StatusPublished

This text of 2021 TN WC 210 (Jones, Alfrend v. F S Sperry Co., Inc.) 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
Jones, Alfrend v. F S Sperry Co., Inc., 2021 TN WC 210 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2021).

Opinion

FILED Aug 05, 2021 11:28 AM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

ALFREND JONES, ) Docket No. 2020-08-0726 Employee, ) v. ) F S SPERRY CO., INC., ) State File No. 442-2020 Employer, ) And ) AMERISURE MUTUAL INS. CO., ) Judge Allen Phillips Carrier. )

COMPENSATION HEARING ORDER DISMISSING CASE

This case came before the Court for a Compensation Hearing on July 21, 2021. For the following reasons, the Court dismisses the case.

History of Claim

On December 18, 2019, Mr. Jones sustained an injury, and Sperry provided medical treatment. On March 3, 2020, the authorized physician placed Mr. Jones at maximum medical improvement and assessed a permanent impairment rating. Sperry then attempted to settle the case with Mr. Jones as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- 207(3)(A), which states that, at the time the injured employee reaches maximum medical improvement, the injured employee “shall be paid” benefits equal to his impairment rating.

Mr. Jones did not respond, so Sperry filed a Petition for Benefit Determination on July 22, 2020, and listed the only issue as: “We have attempted to settle claim with Employee but Employee will not advise if he is represented by an attorney and will not contact Employer/Carrier’s attorney to discuss settlement.” The parties did not resolve the case in mediation so the mediator issued a Dispute Certification Notice listing the only issue as, “employee will not respond to attorney’s offer of settlement.”

Neither party filed a request for hearing within sixty days after issuance of the Dispute Certification Notice. Thus, the Court entered a Show Cause Order on December 18 ordering that the parties appear and state why the Court should not dismiss the case.

1 At a Show Cause Hearing on January 5, 2021, Mr. Jones did not appear, and the Court announced it would dismiss the case without prejudice. However, before the Court could enter a dismissal order, Mr. Jones contacted an Ombudsman with the Bureau’s Mediation and Ombudsman Services. The Ombudsman then contacted the Court to advise that Mr. Jones misinterpreted the time of the show cause hearing because of the difference between Eastern Time and Central Time. Based on Mr. Jones’s communication, the Court did not enter an order of dismissal but instead reset the Show Cause Hearing for January 20.

On January 20, Mr. Jones appeared and stated he was consulting with an Ombudsman and also stated that he wanted to speak with an attorney. Based on those statements, the Court set aside its oral dismissal and allowed Mr. Jones until January 29 to file a request for a hearing. He filed a request but failed to include four agreed upon dates for a hearing as required. Nevertheless, considering Mr. Jones’s status as a self-represented litigant, the Court allowed the case to proceed.

At a hearing on February 8, the Court declined to enter a Scheduling Order based again on Mr. Jones’s statement that he wanted to consult with an attorney regarding Sperry’s settlement offer. The Court advised Mr. Jones that it would allow him additional time, but it would set the case for trial at the next hearing.

On March 1, the Court entered a Scheduling Order that set the July 21 Compensation Hearing.1 After the Court entered the Scheduling Order, Mr. Jones filed nothing in support of his claim, as the Scheduling Order required. As noted, he did not appear for the hearing, and Sperry moved for dismissal. Mr. Jones contacted the Court eight days later, on July 29, when he called the Court’s staff and said he was unaware of the Compensation Hearing.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Mr. Jones chose to represent himself, which is his right. However, unrepresented litigants must comply with the same standards to which represented parties must adhere. Watson v. City of Jackson, 448 S.W.3d 919, 926 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). Further, Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-216 requires that the Court apply the law fairly and impartially, favoring neither the employee nor the employer. Here, the Court must follow that directive in the context of two statutory provisions and the applicable procedural rules. First, under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(3)(A), the employer shall pay the employee, at the time he reaches maximum medical improvement, permanent disability benefits equal to his impairment rating. Sperry attempted to do so, but Mr. Jones neither communicated his acceptance of those benefits nor did he advise Sperry’s counsel if he was represented by an attorney. The failure to communicate prompted Sperry to file this case.

1 The Court attaches all referenced orders in the attached Appendix.

2 Second, if Mr. Jones had accepted the benefits Sperry offered, Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-240 requires Court approval of the settlement. Specifically, under that section, a settlement is binding on the parties only if reduced to writing and determined by the Court to provide substantially the benefits to which the employee is entitled. Had Mr. Jones communicated with Sperry, the parties might have signed a settlement agreement and presented it to the Court for approval. Mr. Jones might have accepted the offered benefits at any of the hearings described above, and the Court might have held an approval hearing at any time during the one-year pendency of the case.

Third, Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 41.02(1) states three separate grounds for involuntary dismissal: failure to prosecute, to comply with the rules, and to comply with court orders. All three grounds apply here.

Namely, Mr. Jones did not prosecute his case. Under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239, the employee bears the burden of proving every element of his case by a preponderance of the evidence. If Mr. Jones believed he was entitled to more benefits than those based on the authorized physician’s rating, he had ample opportunity to pursue them. The Court particularly notes his statements made at several hearings regarding consultation with an Ombudsman and seeking legal counsel.

Next, Mr. Jones did not comply with the rules. He filed no documentation supporting an award of benefits in excess of the treating physician’s rating and he did not appear for trial as required.

Finally, Mr. Jones did not comply with the order setting the case for trial. The Scheduling Order clearly stated the July 21 Compensation Hearing date. Moreover, at the Scheduling Hearing, the Court specifically discussed the date for the Compensation Hearing and set it by agreement of the parties. Based on the entire record, the Court finds no justification for Mr. Jones’s failure to appear, or for why he failed to contact the Court for the first time until eight days after the hearing. Notably, all orders contain the same certificate of service, which lists the same addresses for Mr. Jones, both electronic and physical. At no time did he voice any inaccuracies regarding his address or that he failed to receive any of the Court’s orders.

In summary, Rule 41.02 “is necessary to enable the court to manage its own docket, and to protect defendants against plaintiffs who are unwilling to put their claims to the test but determined to subject them to the continuing threat of an eventual judgment.” Osagie v. Peakload Temp. Serv., 91 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). Those procedural safeguards apply here, and the Court, based on the entire record, exercises its discretion to dismiss the case.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows: 1.

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

Related

Osagie v. Peakload Temporary Services
91 S.W.3d 326 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 2002)
Candace Watson v. City of Jackson
448 S.W.3d 919 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2021 TN WC 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-alfrend-v-f-s-sperry-co-inc-tennworkcompcl-2021.