Opinion

Hickey, Curtis v. Hermitage Hall

  • 2016 TN WC 30
Court
Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
Filed
Feb 9, 2016
Status
Published
On the bench
Dale Tipps
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 12.4%

The opinion

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT MURFREESBORO

Curtis Hickey ) Docket No.: 2015-05-0136

Employee, )

v. ) State File No.: 21266-2015

)

Hermitage Hall )

Employer, )

And ) Judge Dale Tipps

)

Sedgwick CMS )

Insurance Carrier. )

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

THIS CAUSE came before the undersigned Workers' Compensation Judge upon

the employer, Hermitage Hall’s, Motion to Dismiss, filed December 30, 2015.

Hermitage Hall moved for dismissal pursuant to Rules 37.02(C) and 41.02(1) of the

Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. After Mr. Hickey filed his response to the motion,

the Court conducted a telephonic hearing on February 4, 2016, with counsel for both

parties participating.

The procedural history of this case is as follows: Mr. Hickey filed a Petition for

Benefit Determination on May 6, 2015. As he never requested a hearing, Hermitage Hall

filed a Request for Expedited Hearing on August 20, 2015. Mr. Hickey left a voicemail

for Hermitage Hall’s attorney the night before the scheduled hearing, stating he had to

attend a family funeral. Mr. Hickey then failed to appear at the Expedited Hearing,

which was reset for October 7, 2015. On the morning of October 7, Mr. Hickey

appeared, but requested a continuance in order to retain legal counsel. The Court reset

the hearing again for November 19, 2016. Mr. Hickey appeared without an attorney on

1

November 19, and the hearing went forward, resulting in the Court’s November 25, 2015,

Order for Medical Benefits.

On November 24, 2015, Hermitage Hall filed a Motion to Compel responses to its

written discovery requests to Mr. Hickey. Mr. Hickey filed no response to the motion,

and the Court issued an Order on December 8, 2015, requiring him to respond to

Hermitage Hall’s outstanding interrogatories and requests for production, and to execute

the requested medical releases within fifteen days. Mr. Hickey failed to comply. On

January 28, 2016, the Court conducted an Initial Hearing, which Mr. Hickey failed to

attend.

Hermitage Hall moved to dismiss the claim on the grounds that Mr. Hickey has

made no effort to pursue his claim. It notes his failure to request a hearing, the two

continuances, his failure to retain counsel within the time allotted by Court, his failure to

respond to or appear for the Motion to Compel, his failure to participate in the Initial

Hearing on January 28, 2016, and his failure to select a physician from the panel

provided pursuant to the Court’s November 25, 2015 Order. Hermitage Hall also

contends dismissal is appropriate in light of Mr. Hickey’s failure to respond to the written

discovery requests pending since June 2015.

Mr. Hickey has now retained counsel, and his attorney entered a Notice of

Appearance on January 12, 2016. Counsel for Mr. Hickey argues dismissal of the claim

would be manifestly unjust because any misconduct was unintentional and occurred

while Mr. Hickey was unrepresented. He contends Mr. Hickey “is a lay person who

lacks a complete understanding of the complex procedures of the Bureau of Workers’

Compensation, and who failed to fully appreciate what was required of him by this

Court.” During the hearing, counsel also stated that, as a layperson, Mr. Hickey does not

understand the relevance of his prior medical records and feels the information in those

records is personal and private. Finally, Mr. Hickey also contends dismissal is unmerited

because Hermitage Hall has not demonstrated any prejudice it suffered because of his

failure to respond to discovery.

2

Rule 41.02(1) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure allows a defendant to

move for dismissal of a claim “[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with

these rules or any order of court.” Further, if a party “fails to obey an order to provide or

permit discovery, . . . the court in which the action is pending may make such orders in

regard to the failure as are just,” including entering an order dismissing the action. Tenn.

R. Civ. P. 37.02.

Mr. Hickey’s attorney argues dismissal would be unjust because any misconduct

was unintentional. The procedural history of this claim belies this contention. Taken

alone, Mr. Hickey’s desultory efforts to prosecute his claim and his repeated refusal to

participate in discovery might well be sufficient grounds for sanctions. His refusal to

comply with the Court’s December 8, 2015 order removes all doubt.

Mr. Hickey not only failed to comply with the Court’s order, but it is clear from

the record1 and statements of counsel that his refusal to answer the written discovery was

based upon his belief that records of prior medical treatment were private and irrelevant

to his claim. This constitutes an intentional disregard for the rules of this Court and an

active, ongoing refusal to obey this Court’s order. As such, it is the duty of this Court to

impose appropriate sanctions. “The trial courts of Tennessee must and do have the

discretion to impose sanctions such as dismissal in order to penalize those who fail to

comply with the Rules and, further, to deter others from flouting or disregarding

discovery orders.” Holt v. Webster, 638 S.W.2d 391, 394 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982).

Counsel for Mr. Hickey also contends all Mr. Hickey’s violations of the discovery

rules occurred while he was unrepresented. He contends Mr. Hickey is an

unsophisticated layperson who did not understand what was required of him by the Court.

The Court first notes Mr. Hickey is represented by counsel and has been since at least

January 12, 2016. Nevertheless, he still failed to respond to the outstanding discovery

before the dismissal hearing. Further, the Court had the opportunity to observe Mr.

Hickey, a teacher, successfully establish a workplace accident during the Expedited

1

Hermitage Hall’s Expedited Hearing Brief included a copy of an email from Mr. Hickey to Bureau Mediator,

Angela Sparkman. In it, Mr. Hickey refused to provide additional medical information, “as the notes from the

recent attending [doctors] are sufficient.”

3

Hearing. The Court is unpersuaded that he is too unworldly or unintelligent to

understand the simple language of the December 8, 2015 Order that: “Mr. Hickey shall

respond to the June 2, 2015 Interrogatories and Requests for Production and execute the

requested medical record releases within fifteen days of the date of this Order.”

Trial courts should exercise restraint when dismissing a party’s claims

because “[t]he interests of justice are best served when lawsuits are

resolved on their merits after trial.” Dismissal for failure to prosecute or

failure to abide by discovery rules is a severe sanction that “run[s] counter

to the judicial system’s general objective of disposing of cases on the

merits.” For this reason, the judiciary generally favors lesser sanctions

when appropriate. But the effectiveness of discovery and procedural rules

would diminish if trial courts lacked ample authority to sanction their

violation.

Langlois v. Energy Automation Sys., Inc., 332 S.W.3d 353, 357 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009)

(citations omitted).

Mr. Hickey, in addition to his failure to prosecute his claim, deliberately or

willfully continues to flout the Court’s order. Under these circumstances, the Court finds

dismissal is an appropriate sanction.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the above-captioned matter is hereby

dismissed with prejudice. The $150.00 filing fee for this this cause is taxed to the

Employer, Hermitage Hall, pursuant to Rule 0800-02-21-.07 of the Mediation and

Hearing Procedures, for which execution may issue, as necessary. Unless an appeal of

this order is filed with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board or the Tennessee

Supreme Court, this order shall become final in thirty days.

ENTERED this the 9th day of February, 2016.

_____________________________________

Dale Tipps, Judge

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

4

Right to Appeal:

Tennessee Law allows any party who disagrees with this Dismissal Order 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).

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

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).

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Order was sent to the following

recipients by the following methods of service on this the 9th day of February, 2016.

Name Certified Via Via Service sent to:

Mail Fax Email

Zachary Wiley X ZWILEY@forthepeople.com

Gregory Fuller X ghfuller@mijs.com

_____________________________________

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.