Opinion

Hughes, Ralph v. Barnhart Crane and Rigging Co.

  • 2017 TN WC App. 54
Court
Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
Filed
Sep 21, 2017
Status
Published
On the bench
Marshall L. Davidson III, David F. Hensley, Timothy W. Conner
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 12.5%

The opinion

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Ralph Hughes ) Docket No. 2016-02-0348

)

v. ) State File No. 65244-2015

)

Barnhart Crane and Rigging Co., et al. )

)

)

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )

Compensation Claims )

Brian K. Addington, Judge )

Affirmed and Remanded—Filed September 21, 2017

The employee, a crane operator, sustained an injury to his right hand and wrist in the

course and scope of his employment. After receiving the employer’s responses to his

requests for admission, the employee filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to

discovery and to strike the employer’s responses. The trial court denied the motion, and

the employee appealed. We affirm the trial court’s decision and remand the case.

Presiding Judge Marshall L. Davidson, III, delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in

which Judge David F. Hensley and Judge Timothy W. Conner joined.

Thomas D. Dossett, Kingsport, Tennessee, for the employee-appellant, Ralph Hughes

Eric Shen, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee, Barnhart Crane and Rigging

Co.

Memorandum Opinion1

Ralph Hughes (“Employee”) alleges suffering an injury to his hand and wrist

when a large valve fell on him in the course of his employment with Barnhart Crane and

Rigging Company (“Employer”) on July 17, 2015. Employee was transported to a

hospital and treated for a laceration to his right wrist. He received authorized medical

1

“The Appeals Board may, in an effort to secure a just and speedy determination of matters on appeal and

with the concurrence of all judges, decide an appeal by an abbreviated order or by memorandum opinion,

whichever the Appeals Board deems appropriate, in cases that are not legally and/or factually novel or

complex.” Appeals Bd. Prac. & Proc. § 1.3.

1

treatment and was ultimately placed at maximum medical improvement. In anticipation

of trial, Employee served Employer with various requests for admission, to which

Employer responded.

Thereafter, Employee filed a “Motion to Extend [the] Deadline for Responding to

Written Discovery and to Strike the [Employer’s] Responses to [Employee’s] Requests

for Admissions,” asking that the “responses filed by [Employer] . . . be stricken as being

inadequate, incomplete and not in compliance with the rules.” In its response to the

motion, Employer contended that its responses to Employee’s requests for admission

were “proper and complete” and, therefore, Employee’s motion should be denied. The

trial court denied Employee’s motion on the basis that Employer’s responses complied

with the applicable rules and that there was “no justifiable basis for extending the

deadline for responding to written discovery.” Employee has appealed.

Employee has provided no brief or substantive argument on appeal setting out how

the trial court erred in ruling upon his motion. Employee did attach a two-paragraph

document to his notice of appeal titled “statement of the issues.” However, other than

containing conclusory statements, the document identifies no issues and offers no

meaningful explanation for how the trial court may have abused its discretion in

resolving the parties’ discovery dispute. As our Supreme Court has made clear, “[i]t is

not the role of the courts, trial or appellate, to research or construct a litigant’s case or

arguments for him or her, and where a party fails to develop an argument in support of

his or her contention or merely constructs a skeletal argument, the issue is waived.”

Sneed v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., 301 S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn.

2010).

Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court and remand the case.

2

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Ralph Hughes ) Docket No. 2016-02-0348

)

v. ) State File No. 65244-2015

)

Barnhart Crane and Rigging Co., et al. )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Appeals Board’s decision in the

referenced case was sent to the following recipients by the following methods of service

on this the 21st day of September, 2017.

Name Certified First Class Via Fax Via Email Address

Mail Mail Fax Number Email

Thomas D. Dossett X td@tdlaw.com

Eric Shen X eric.shen@libertymutual.com

Brian K. Addington, X Via Electronic Mail

Judge

Kenneth M. Switzer, X Via Electronic Mail

Chief Judge

Penny Shrum, Clerk, X Penny.Patterson-Shrum@tn.gov

Court of Workers’

Compensation Claims

Jeanette Baird

Deputy Clerk, Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board

220 French Landing Dr., Ste. 1-B

Nashville, TN 37243

Telephone: 615-253-0064

Electronic Mail: WCAppeals.Clerk@tn.gov

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.