Opinion

Sanders, Sarah v. Regis Corp., dba SmartStyle

  • 2015 TN WC 110
Court
Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
Filed
Sep 1, 2015
Status
Published
On the bench
Joshua Davis Baker
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT NASHVILLE

SARAH SANDERS, ) Docket No.: 2015-06-0017

Employee, )

v. ) State File No.: 2292-2015

REGIS CORP., D/B/A SMARTSTYLE, )

Employer, ) Date of Injury: December 30, 2014

and )

SEDGWICK, ) Judge Joshua Davis Baker

Carrier/TPA. )

)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS CAUSE came before the undersigned Workers’ Compensation Judge on

August 27, 2015, for a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Regis Corp., d/b/a

Smartstyle (Smartstyle), the employer. The Court conducted the hearing by telephone.

Attorney Gary Siciliano represented Smartstyle. The employee, Sarah Sanders, did not

participate in the telephonic hearing and did not file a response opposing Smartstyle’s

motion.

History of the Claim

Mr. Sanders filed a Petition for Benefit Determination on January 13, 2015,

seeking medical benefits for an injury she incurred through a physical altercation with her

cousin-in-law that occurred during her shift at Smartstyle. On March 16, 2015, Ms.

Sanders filed a Request for Expedited Hearing. Following an in-person hearing, the

Court issued an Expedited Hearing Order on May 11, 2015, denying Ms. Sanders’

request for medical benefits. In the Order, the Court deemed Ms. Sanders’ claim

noncompensable, based on the Court’s finding that Ms. Sanders’ injury did not arise out

of her employment due to the purely private nature of the altercation.

Issue

Whether the Court should dismiss Ms. Sanders’ claim for workers’ compensation

benefits.

Discussion

Rule 0800-02-21-.14(3) (2014) of the Tennessee Compilation Rules and

Regulations provides that, where a claim is denied on grounds of compensability

following an Expedited Hearing, the employer may file a motion to dismiss the claim.

The rule states that the injured employee shall file a response to the employer’s dismissal

motion within thirty days after its filing and, thereafter, the Court shall set the motion for

a hearing. Id. Ms. Sanders did not file a response within the designated time period.

Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239(c)(1) (2014) provides that the

Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure govern all procedures before the Court of Workers’

Compensation Claims, “unless an alternate procedural . . . rule has been adopted by the

administrator.” Section 50-6-239(c)(1) (2014) further provides that, “[w]henever the

administrator has adopted an alternate procedural . . . rule that conflicts with the

Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure . . . the rule adopted by the administrator shall

apply.”

Rule .14(3) provides a procedural mechanism for the potential dismissal of a

workers’ compensation claim which, by definition, is tied to a procedure—an Expedited

Hearing—that is unique to the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims. As such, a Rule

.14(3) motion is distinct from the dismissal mechanisms (motions to dismiss and for

summary judgment) provided for in the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. For that

reason, the Court finds that a Rule .14(3) motion to dismiss is an alternate procedure as

contemplated by section 50-6-239(c)(1) (2014), and that the determination of a Rule

.14(3) motion is not governed by the standards and procedures applied to motions to

dismiss or motions for summary judgment under the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.

By definition, a Rule .14(3) motion may be filed only after the Court denies a

claim on the grounds of compensability following an Expedited Hearing. Implicit in the

finding of noncompensability at the Expedited Hearing is a determination that the

evidence introduced at the Expedited Hearing did not establish that the injured worker

would likely prevail at a final Compensation Hearing. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1)

(2014).

That being the case, Rule .14(3) provides a procedural mechanism by which an

employer can force an injured worker to address the evidentiary inadequacies that

resulted in the adverse decision at the Expedited Hearing. If, in response to the

employer’s Rule .14(3) motion, the injured worker does not resolve the evidentiary

2

inadequacies in his or her claim or articulate a clear and present intent to do so, the

consequence is dismissal of the injured worker’s claim.

Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239(c)(6) (2014) provides that, “[a]t a

hearing the employee shall bear the burden of proving each and every element of the

claim[.]” Smartstyle’s Rule .14(3) motion brings before the Court the issue of whether

Ms. Sanders can carry her burden of proving that her injury arose primarily out of her

employment.

At the Expedited Hearing, Ms. Sanders testified that her cousin-in-law entered

Smartstyle and began “acting out” by talking about religion, politics, and homosexuality.

Ms. Sanders instructed her cousin-in-law to leave the salon. The following day, her

cousin-in-law returned, and Ms. Sanders and the cousin-in-law got into a fight just

outside the doors of Smartstyle. Walmart’s security camera captured the incident. The

Court determined Ms. Sanders’ claim stemmed from a purely private dispute and deemed

her claim noncompensable for that reason. Subsequent to the Court’s ruling, Smartstyle

filed the Rule .14(3) motion.

The Court heard Ms. Sanders’ testimony and, based on the factual scenario

presented, the Court finds that she cannot carry her burden of proof at a final

Compensation Hearing. Accordingly, the Court finds Smartstyle’s motion well-taken

and dismisses Ms. Sanders’ claim. Rule .14(3) does not mandate whether a dismissal

thereunder is with or without prejudice. In light of the foregoing, the Court dismisses

Ms. Sanders’ claim with prejudice to its refiling.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Ms. Sanders claim for benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Law is

dismissed with prejudice.

2. The Court assesses the $150 filing fee in this claim to Smartstyle and/or its

workers’ compensation carrier pursuant to Rule 0800-02-21-.07 (2014) of the

Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations. Smartstyle or its carrier shall

promptly remit the filing fee to the Clerk of the Court of Workers’

Compensation Claims.

3. Unless an appeal of is filed with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals

Board or the Tennessee Supreme Court, this order shall become final in

thirty days.

3

ISSUED AND FILED WITH THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

CLAIMS ON THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015.

______________________________

Joshua Davis Baker, Judge

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

Right to Appeal:

Tennessee Law allows any party who disagrees with this Order of Dismissal to appeal the

decision to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. To file a Notice of Appeal, you

must:

1. Complete the enclosed form entitled: “Compensation Hearing Notice of Appeal.”

2. File the completed form with the Court Clerk within thirty days of the date the

Compensation Order was entered by the Workers’ Compensation Judge. See

Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-22-.01(1)(b) (2014).

3. Serve a copy of the Request for Appeal upon the opposing party.

4. The appealing party is responsible for payment of a filing fee in the amount of

$75.00. Within ten calendar days after the filing of a notice of appeal, payment

must be received by check, money order, or credit card payment. Payments can be

made in person at any Bureau office or by United States mail, hand-delivery, or

other delivery service. In the alternative, the appealing party may file an Affidavit

of Indigency, on a form prescribed by the Bureau, seeking a waiver of the filing

fee. The Affidavit of Indigency may be filed contemporaneously with the Notice

of Appeal or must be filed within ten calendar days thereafter. The Appeals Board

will consider the Affidavit of Indigency and issue an Order granting or denying

the request for a waiver of the filing fee as soon thereafter as is

practicable. Failure to timely pay the filing fee or file the Affidavit of

Indigency in accordance with this section shall result in dismissal of the

appeal.

5. After the Workers’ Compensation Judge approves the record and the Court Clerk

transmits it to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, the appeal will be

docketed and assigned to an Appeals Board Judge for Review. At that time, a

4

docketing notice shall be sent to the parties. Thereafter, the parties have fifteen

calendar days to submit briefs to the Appeals Board for consideration. See Tenn.

Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-22-.02(3) (2014).

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this Order of Dismissal was sent to

the following recipients by the following methods of service on this the 1st day of

September, 2015.

Name Certified Fax Email Service sent to:

Mail

Sarah Sanders, Employee X 938 33rd Street

Nashville, Tennessee 37209

Gerard Siciliano, X gms@lutheranderson.com

Employer’s attorney

_____________________________________

Penny Shrum, Clerk of Court

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov

6

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.