Vickers, Kimberly v. Amazon

2019 TN WC 72
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedMay 2, 2019
Docket2018-06-0149
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 TN WC 72 (Vickers, Kimberly v. Amazon) 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
Vickers, Kimberly v. Amazon, 2019 TN WC 72 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2019).

Opinion

FILED May 02, 2019 11:20 AM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION IN THE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS AT NASHVILLE

Kimberly Vickers, ) Docket No. 2018-06-0149 Employee, ) v. ) Amazon, ) State File No. 8788-2015 Employer, ) And ) American Zurich Ins. Co., ) Judge Kenneth M. Switzer Carrier. )

COMPENSATION HEARING ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This case came before the Court on April 29, 2019, on Amazon's Motion for Summary Judgment. The issue is whether Amazon is entitled to summary judgment because Kimberly Vickers failed to file her claim within the statute of limitations. For the reasons below, the Court finds she did not timely file and grants the motion.

History of Claim

Ms. Vickers became injured at work on December 23, 2014. Amazon accepted the claim and provided treatment. According to Amazon's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, it last provided benefits on November 12, 2015. Ms. Vickers agreed that Amazon last provided benefits on November 12, 2015, for purposes of this motion only. 1 Ms. Vickers filed a Petition for Benefit Determination on January 29, 2018. Her opposition to this motion focuses on her attempts to file a petition before that date.

Ms. Vickers's counsel's former legal assistant emailed the Bureau of Workers' Compensation via the ombudsman program address on November 2, 2016, with attachments. The email stated, "The original signed Petition has been forwarded by first 1 The parties agreed that Amazon voluntarily paid benefits in 2018 for treatment administered in 2015. This does not extend the limitations period. "Voluntary payments of compensation and medical treatment occurring after the statute of limitations has already run are of no effect." Dye v. Witco Corp. , 216 S.W.3d 317,321 (Tenn. 2007).

1 class mail today." The attached letter stated, "Enclosed please find a copy of the 'Petition for Benefit Determination' form that was emailed to the designated email address on November 2, 2016. I would appreciate your acknowledging, either by mail, email or both that you have received this Petition." The letter did not copy Amazon's carrier or opposing counsel. Ms. Vickers admitted, again for purposes of this motion only, that she has no return receipt or any type of certificate of service documenting the filing of any petition in the years 20 14 through 20 17.

Ms. Vickers attached affidavits from her attorney and his current legal assistant in response to the motion. They testified that the email sent to the ombudsman address on November 2, 2016, was not returned as "undeliverable." Counsel further stated that the copy of the petition that was sent via regular mail on the same date was never returned to his office.

Amazon argued that Ms. Vickers did not file the petition within the statute of limitations. Ms. Vickers countered that the November 2, 2016 email and letter are a "timely filing."

Law and Analysis ' 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 as a matter oflaw." Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04.

Amazon must do one of two things to prevail on its motion: (1) submit affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of Ms. Vickers's claim, or (2) demonstrate that Ms. Vickers's evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of her claim. Tenn. Code Ann.§ 20-16-101 (2018); see also Rye v. Women's Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 264 (Tenn. 2015). If Amazon is successful in meeting this burden, Ms. Vickers must then establish that the record contains specific facts upon which a trier of fact could base a decision in her favor. Rye, at 265.

The applicable part of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-203(b )(2) provides the right to compensation is barred unless a petition for benefit determination is filed within one year from the time the employer ceased to make payments of compensation. Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-203(c) provides the issuing date of the last payment of compensation by the employer constitutes the time the employer ceased making payments. Ms. Vickers agreed with Amazon that it made the last payment of legal significance here on November 12, 2015. Therefore, she needed to file a petition on or before November 12, 2016. However, Ms. Vickers' petition is stamped as "filed" on January 29, 2018, over one year and two months after the limitations period expired.

2 Amazon directed the Court's attention to rules defining the term "filed." It cited the Bureau's General Rules definition, which apply to the Bureau as a whole. The rules specific to practice in the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims also contain a definition of "filed," which provides in relevant part: "For purposes of this chapter, a pleading or other document required to be sent to the court shall be considered filed ... when the material being transmitted reaches the [Bureau) or its designated agent, if transmitted by first-class mail, facsimile, [or] electronic mail[.]" Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-21-.02 (June, 20 15) (emphasis added). An email to an ombudsman, where there is no proof that an ombudsman or any other Bureau staff received it or provided the requested acknowledgment of receipt, cannot suffice as proof of filing. Stated another way, Ms. Vickers submitted no proof that her email or letter reached the Bureau.

Ms. Vickers's counsel correctly observed that the petition instructs to email the form to the ombudsman address. However, as previously noted, he offered no proof that the Bureau received the petition; rather, he offered proof that the petition did not return to his office. The two are not equivalent. He also gave no explanation for his failure to follow up with the Bureau within a reasonable time when he did not receive a file- stamped copy of the petition. Rather, he waited well over two years before filing the petition.

Counsel further argued that a grant of summary judgment on this issue is an inequitable result. However, the above-quoted summary judgment standards do not allow for a consideration of the equities. The Court does not enter judgment_ lightly but is bound to apply the law as it is written. The one-year statute of limitations makes no exception for attempts at filing.

Therefore, the Court holds Ms. Vickers did not file her petition within one year from the time Amazon made its last payment of compensation. The Court must hold that Ms. Vickers's right to compensation is barred under the statute of limitations.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Amazon's Motion for Summary judgment is granted, and Ms. Vickers's claim for the requested workers' compensation benefits is dismissed on the merits with prejudice to its refiling.

2. The filing fee of $150.00 is taxed to Amazon under Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-21-.07 (2018), to be paid to the Court Clerk within five days of the entry of this order, and for which execution may issue as necessary.

3. Amazon shall prepare and submit the SD-2 to the Court Clerk within ten days of the date of judgment.

3 4. Absent appeal, this order shall. become final thirty days after entry.

ENTERED May 2, 2019.

Ju(lgc Kenneth M.

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

Related

Dye v. Witco Corp.
216 S.W.3d 317 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2007)
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)
2019 TN WC 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vickers-kimberly-v-amazon-tennworkcompcl-2019.