WPCX liZݠDsaMLrv=#̻[&ĽQ@Y 쩅lhi;E;SEk/T%_qj<=}eU[8A}nLx*'/! J!{?(!bE`7BYjJH4Bބ3 :µ $FE4ʌ)5M w.֘4fRE`]LOf׫[3d`1;ѥmICNfT/$_蜳0+mDHfHؠzX[$l.-Z@D)s kCkp'|h1pؐQK"XgwC(Ss?ٚ{EcMxЌo~ R$֩qB 7(x2jIOR)# >UNI % 0U <Pw@4U < 0+ AQ" 0Dsa z (zU:99999s""""""" B*G 0D  0DQ 0D D/ B D3%HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(7$  7XXdXXd7  Xd|XXX-Bu Z$Arrus BT Roman [E U!U"U#$Ӏ0n~<$ 3|x0)L  Z $Arrus BT Roman((3$ 7!  7,XXdd7  XUXXX   `   0   !" %C<< C($$   1     $  XXXX `   1    T.C.A.506106(5)allowscountiesandmunicipalcorporationsto optin  totheWorkersCompensationstatute.However,theCitydecidedagainstfilingtherequiredwrittenacceptance,andinsteadbegantheOJIprogramofitsowndesign.   o$ X XXX   `   2    Inaderivativeaction,Brownswife,Elizabeth,filedsuitagainsttheCityfor  lossofconsortium.AfterthetrialjudgegrantedtheCitysMotionforSummaryJudgment,ElizabethBrownssuitwenttotrial.ThejudgefoundthattheCityhadprovidedBrownwithunsafemachinerywithwhichtocompletehiswork,andthattheCityknewthatthemachinerywasunsafe.Therefore,thetrialcourtfoundtheCitynegligentandawardedMrs.Brown$25,000asdamagesforlossofconsortium. p  o$ X XXX   `   4    ӀT.C.A.2920403(1998Supp.)setstheminimumamountofinsurance  coverageat$130,000.00,anditisimplicitlystipulatedthatthereisnootherapplicableinsurance.  !"  XjXXXZ8XXj   Ad FILEDXjXZ8   October22,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.XXjAppellateCourtClerk  p  o$ X XXX   `   4    ӀT.C.A.2920403(1998Supp.)setstheminimumamountofinsurance  coverageat$130,000.00,anditisimplicitlystipulatedthatthereisnootherapplicableinsurance.,cAZ"Arial Regular   o$ X XXX   `   3    TheexistenceofsovereignimmunityisestablishedinArticle1,Section17of  theTennesseeConstitution: SuitsmaybebroughtagainsttheStateinsuchamannerandinsuchcourtsastheLegislaturemaybylawdirect. dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  (#$  0  ''' dxdP Pd'dxd 7!  7lXXdd7  XQXXX  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7lXXdXXd70$r (<,(j 8` `@E` ttx$, r$0@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @)ATJACKSON `  ______________________________________________ 0t (>.*jxU` `@EI2 ` ttx$ V t0ROGERBROWN,    ` PlaintiffAppellant, `     h      p C.A.No.02A019803CV00069Vs. `     h      p ShelbyCircuitNo.767437T.D.    CITYOFMEMPHIS,     ` DefendantAppellee.____________________________________________________________________________@H H FROMTHESHELBYCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURT@} } THEHONORABLEROBERTA.LANIER,JUDGE@RRThomasK.McAlexanderofJackson@(ForPlaintiff@RobertL.J.Spence,Jr.,CityAttorney@K K ElbertJefferson,Jr.,Sr.AssistantCityAttorney@(ForDefendant!!@$ REVERSEDANDREMANDED %!! @' Opinionfiled: ($$        `     h      p    W.FRANKCRAWFORD, 1--  `     h      p   PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.CONCUR:ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGEDAVIDR.FARERMER,JUDGE " :66  ;77 "# ` Plaintiff,RogerBrown,appealstheorderofthetrialcourtgrantingsummaryjudgmenttoDefendant,CityofMemphis. ` Thefactsarenotdisputed.ThissuitstemsfromanonthejobinjurysufferedbyBrownonMay12,1995.TheCityemployedBrownasabackhoeoperatorattheM.C.StilesSewageTreatmentPlant.OneofBrownsdutieswastomoveasledbackandforthacrossasludgepond.Originally,acranewasusedtomovethesled;however,atsometimepriortotheaccidentthecranehadbrokendown.Theemployeesatthesewagetreatmentplantwereforcedtoimprovisebyusingbulldozersandapulleyarrangement.Brownoperatedoneofthesebulldozerswithalargepulleyattachedtoitsside.Acableranthroughthispulleyandacrossasludgepondtoanotherbulldozerlocatedontheoppositeside.Thesledmovedbetweenthebulldozersandacrossthepondbymeansofthecable. ` WhileoperatingthebulldozeronMay12,1995,thecablebecamejammedinthepulleysystem.Inanattempttofreethecable,Brownclimbeddownfromthebulldozerandstoodinthesludgepond.Afterseveralhoursoftryingtofreethecable,anotheremployeeattemptedtobreakthecablefreewiththebulldozerontheoppositesideofthepond.Whentheemployeestartedthebulldozerandbegantheattempt,thecablejerkedandseverelylaceratedBrownsleg.Tomakemattersworse,Brownwasstandinginrawsewagewhentheinjuryoccurred.TherawsewageseepedintoBrownswoundcausingseverecomplicationsandworseningtheinjury. ` TheCityisnotcoveredbytheTennesseeWorkersCompensationAct.  ##  1      ׀The ,(( Citydoeshavean onthejobinjury(OJI)programdesignedtocompensateinjuredemployeesforlostwagesandmedicalbills.PursuanttotheOJI,theCitypaidBrowninexcessof$150,000forlostwagesandmedicalbillsasaresultofhisinjury. ` OnMarch12,1996,BrownfiledsuitagainsttheCityundertheGovernmental 400 TortLiabilityAct(GTLA). ##  2      ׀BrownallegedthattheCitywasnegligentinoperation   oftheM.C.StilesSewageTreatmentPlant,andthatthisnegligencecausedBrownsinjuries.TheCityfiledaMotionforSummaryJudgmentrequestingthetrialcourttodeterminethatBrownwouldnotbeentitledtodamagesbecausethepaymentof$150,000undertheOJIprogramexceededthe$130,000limitundertheGTLA.ThetrialjudgegrantedtheCitysmotion,anddismissedBrownsaction.Brownappeals,andtheissuepresentedforreviewiswhetherthetrialcourterredingrantingsummaryjudgmenttotheCity. ` X XXX Amotionforsummaryjudgmentshouldbegrantedwhenthemovant  demonstratesthattherearenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04.Thepartymovingforsummaryjudgmentbearstheburdenofdemonstratingthatnogenuineissueofmaterialfactexists. Bainv.Wells ,936S.W.2d618,622(Tenn.1997).On  amotionforsummaryjudgment,thecourtmusttakethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,allowallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthatparty,anddiscardallcountervailingevidence. Id. In Byrdv.Hall ,847 " S.W.2d208(Tenn.1993),ourSupremeCourtstated:I8 ` Onceitisshownbythemovingpartythatthereisnogenuineissueofmaterialfact,thenonmovingpartymustthendemonstrate,byaffidavitsordiscoverymaterials,thatthereisagenuine,materialfactdisputetowarrantatrial.Inthisregard,Rule56.05providesthatthenonmovingpartycannotsimplyrelyuponhispleadingsbutmustsetforthspecificfactsshowingthatthereisagenuineissueofmaterialfact +'' fortrial.# X XXX #X XXX 8` !` !,((  Id. at211(citationsomitted)(emphasisinoriginal). .**  ` Summaryjudgmentisonlyappropriatewhenthefactsandthelegal 0 ,, conclusionsdrawnfromthefactsreasonablypermitonlyoneconclusion. Carvellv.  Bottoms ,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995).Sinceonlyquestionsoflawareinvolved,  thereisnopresumptionofcorrectnessregardingatrialcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgment. Bain ,936S.W.2dat622.Therefore,ourreviewofthetrialcourtsgrant   ofsummaryjudgmentis denovo ontherecordbeforethisCourt. Warrenv.Estate   ofKirk ,954S.W.2d722,723(Tenn.1997).# X XXX 0#X XXX       ` # X XXX #Aspreviouslynoted,thefactsarenotdisputed.Althoughtheprovisionsofthe   OJIprogramarenotinevidence,thepartiesapparentlystipulatedtoitsexistenceasshownintheappendixtoappelleesbrief.TheyfurtherstipulatedthatBrownwaspaidinexcessof$150,000.00pursuanttotheprogram.Underthisscenario,wemustdeterminefromtheprovisionsoftheGTLAandtheOJIprogramwhetherthecityisentiltedentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw. ` In1973,theTennesseestatelegislaturepassedtheGTLA.PriortothepassageoftheGTLA,thedoctrineofsovereignimmunity protectedthestateanditspoliticalsubdivisionsfromtortliability. ##  3      ׀ Crusev.CityofColumbia ,922S.W.2d   492,495(Tenn.1996). Intheperformanceofitsgovernmentalfunctions,themunicipalityisanarmoragentoftheStateandenjoysthesameimmunityundertheconstitutionalprovision. CityofLavergnev.SouthernSilver,Inc. ,872S.W.2d687, &"" 690(Tenn.App.1993)(citing Scatesv.BoardofComm'rsofUnionCity ,196Tenn. ($$ 274,265S.W.2d563(1954)).TheGTLAispremisedexplicitlyontheabsoluteimmunityofgovernmentalentities. Id. Thecodificationofthisgeneralimmunity , (( states:8 ` 8 ` !` !Exceptasmaybeotherwiseprovidedinthischapter,allgovernmentalentitiesshallbeimmunefromsuitforanyinjurywhichmayresultfromtheactivitiesofsuchgovernmentalentitieswhereinsuchgovernmentalentitiesareengagedintheexerciseanddischargeofanyoftheir 4$00 functions,governmentalorproprietary.    T.C.A.2920201(a)(1980&1997Supp.).TheGTLAcodifiedthelonghelddoctrineofsovereignimmunity,yetremovedgovernmentalimmunityinafewlimitedcircumstances. Cruse, 922S.W.2dat496.    ` Thestatuteprovides,interalia,that [i]mmunityfromsuitofallgovernmental   entitiesisremovedforinjuryproximatelycausedbyanegligentactoromissionofanyemployeewithinthescopeofhisemployment....T.C.A.2920205(1980).BrownssuitfitsthiscategoryandisproperlyfiledpursuanttotheGTLA. ` Whileallowingsuitsagainstlocalgovernments,theGTLAdoeslimittheamountofrecovery.Atpresent,aplaintiffsuingintortforthenegligenceofcityemployeesundertheGTLAmayonlyrecoveramaximumof$130,000.T.C.A.2920311(1980)provides:8 ` 8 ` !` ! 2920311.Judgmentoverlimitsofinsurancepolicy  prohibited. 󀄀Nojudgmentorawardrenderedagainsta  governmentalentitymayexceedtheminimumamountsofinsurancecoveragefordeath,bodilyinjuryandpropertydamageliabilityspecifiedin2920403 ##  4      ,unless   suchgovernmentalentityhassecuredinsurancecoverageinexcessofsaidminimumrequirements,inwhicheventthejudgmentorawardmaynotexceedtheapplicablelimitsprovidedintheinsurancepolicy.     ` TheCitychosenottooperateundertheWorkersCompensationlawasallowedunder506106(5)ofthestatute.TheCitydidestablishanOJIprogram.TheOJIprogramcoversallpermanent,fulltimeemployeesandprovidesthefollowingbenefits:8 ` 8 ` !` ! III.PROCEDURES.**   8 ` 8 ` !` ! A.Payments0 ,,   8 ` 8 ` !` !1.MedicalExpense    8 ` 8 ` !` !a.TheCitywillpaynecessarymedicalexpenses, 4 00 includingphysicianfees,hospitalbills,andcertainotherancillaryexpenseswhenanOJIclaimisacceptedbytheCity.Thisissubjecttoanoverallmaximumof$50,000perinjuryorillness.AmountscanbeincreasedonlybyactionoftheCityCouncil.    8 ` 8 ` !` !b.Medicalexpensepaymentsonlyarecontinuedfora   periodofupto3yearsincasesoflineofdutydisabilityretirement,oreligibilityfortotalandpermanentdisabilitybenefitsunderSocialSecurity,ortheemployeereceivesbenefitsundertheLongTermDisabilityIncomePlan.    8 ` 8 ` !` !2.LostTime    8 ` 8 ` !` !Fullsalarywillbepaidforamaximumperiodof6months(180calendardays)toemployeescoveredbytheOnTheJobInjuryProgramforaslongasthereismedicaldocumentationfromthephysicianofrecordthatitismedicallynecessaryfortheemployeetoremainoffworkduetotheonthejobinjuryorillness.NoemployeemaybeoffaCityjoblongerthan12consecutivemonthsfromthedatetheemployeeisunabletoworkduetodisabilityfromillnessand/orinjury....    If,afterreceivingOJIleavewithpayforsixmonths,theemployeeismedicallyunabletoperformthedutiesrequired,theemployeemustexerciseoneoftheoptionsprovidedfor.(TheseprovisionsarenotpertinenttotheissuesbeforetheCourt.) ` AfterviewingtheOJIprogramasawhole,andinrelationtotheWorkersCompensationAct,wefindthattheprogramestablishedbytheCitywasintendednotascompensationforthenegligenceoffellowemployeesbutasafringebenefitforanytypeofworkrelatedaccident.WhilethepaymentsmadeundertheOJIprogramaresimilartopaymentsmadeundertheWorkersCompensationstatute,oneimportantdifferenceexitsbetweenthetwo.TheWorkersCompensationstatuteexplicitlyexcludesallotherclaimsagainstemployers. See T.C.A.506108(a).The .** OJIprogramhasnosuchexclusivityprovision. ` TheGTLAwaspassednotonlytocodifythecommonlawdoctrineofsovereignimmunitybuttoallowforexceptionstoit. Hawksv.Cityof 400 Westmoreland ,960S.W.2d10,14(Tenn.1997).Plaintiffs,suchasBrown,injured 622 bythenegligenceofemployeesofmunicipalitiesweretheintendedbeneficiariesof 8 44 thelegislation. See T.C.A.2920205(1980).Ontheotherhand,theOJIprogram  outlinedintheemployeehandbookdidnotintendtocompensateBrownorotherinjuredworkersforthenegligenceoftheCityoremployees. ` TheGTLAwasenactedtoallowplaintiffstosuecitygovernmentsandobtainjudgmentsupto$130,000foractionsintort.TheOJIprogramwasinitiatedbytheCityasafringebenefittoemployeesandprovidesforpaymenttoemployeeswithoutregardtotortliabilityoftheemployer.Theprogramissomewhatanalogoustotheworkerscompensationlaw.Theprogramisalsoakintoatypeofinsuranceplanpayingimmediatebenefitsformedicalexpensesandlostincome. ` Theprogramprovidesthecitywithsubrogationrightsifbenefitsarepaidforinjuriescausedbythirdparties.Significantly,theprogramdoesnotmentionsubrogationorcreditifthereisaGTLAclaimagainsttheCity.Asnoted,theprogramlimitstheCitysliabilityformedicalexpensesto$50,000.00andlimitstheCitysliabilityfortheemployeeslostsalarytosixmonths. ` Theconstructionofmunicipalordinancesandresolutionsisaregovernedbythesamerulesthatcontrolconstructionofthestatestatutes. Loginsv.Lightner ,897 " S.W.2d698,702(Tenn.App.1994); TennesseeManufacturedHousingAssnv. $  MetropolitanGovtofNashville ,798S.W.2d254,260(Tenn.App.1990).The & "" primarypurposeofstatutoryconstructionistoascertainandgiveeffecttotheintentionorpurposeoflegislationasexpressedinthelegislation. WestinghouseElec. *&& Corp.v.King ,678S.W.2d19,23(Tenn.1984),appealdismissed105S.Ct.1830,470 ,(( U.S.1075,85L.Ed.2d131(1985)).񀀀Likewise,theprimaryruleofcontractconstructionistodeterminetheintentofthepartiesfromthefourcornersofthecontract. A.G.Rogusv.FirstTennesseeBankNatlAssn ,738S.W.2d635,637 2.. (Tenn.App.1987).Legislationmustbeconstruedorinterpretedwithreferencetoitsintendedpurpose. Whitev.Cain ,178Tenn.469,159S.W.2d92(1942). The 622 legislativeintentorpurposeistobeascertainedprimarilyfromthenaturaland 8 44 ordinarymeaningofthelanguageusedwhenreadinthecontextoftheentirestatuteandwithoutanyforcedorsubtleconstructiontolimitorextendtheimportofthelanguage. CityofCaryvillev.CampbellCounty ,660S.W.2d510,512(Tenn.App.  1983); Azbillv.Azbill ,661S.W.2d682,686(Tenn.1983).    ` ConsideringthelanguageusedintheOJIandtheintendedpurposeoftheprogram,theCityintendedthatthemedicalbenefitsandsalaryaslimitedintheprogramwouldbeaseparateanddistinctfringebenefittotheemployeesubjectonlytotherightofsubrogationshouldtheinjuryresultinginthebenefitbecausedbytheactionsofathirdparty.PaymentsmadeinexcessofthebenefitsprovidedforintheprogramshouldbeconsideredasadvancepaymentstowardanyallegedliabilityforwhichtheCitymightultimatelybeheldliable.WebelievethereasoningofthisCourtin Howardv.Abernathy ,751S.W.2d432(Tenn.App.1988)isapplicableto  thecaseatbar.In Howard ,plaintiffsustainedpersonalinjuriesinaautomobile   collisionwiththedefendant.Priortosuitbeingfiledforhisallegedpersonalinjury,thedefendantsliabilityinsurerpaidtheplaintiff$1,407.00,theamountofplaintiffsincurredmedicalbills.Whensuitwasfiled,theplaintiffpresentedproofofmedicalexpensesaspartofhisclaimfordamages.Averdictwasreturnedinfavoroftheplaintifffor$7,500.00andjudgmententeredthereon.Thedefendantfiledamotiontoreducetheamountofthejudgmentbytheamountpreviouslypaidinadvanceforthemedicalexpenses.Thetrialcourtdeniedthemotion,andthisCourtreversedthetrialcourt,grantedcreditfortheamountpreviouslypaid,andreducedthejudgmentaccordingly.In Howard ,theCourtnotedthattheamountreceivedbytheplaintiff .** forhismedicalexpenseswasnotaloanoranyothertransactionthatcreatedanobligationonhispart.TheCourtstated: Themoneyreceivedbyplaintiffwasanadvancepaymentorpartialsatisfactionoftheclaimoftheplaintiff. Id. ,at434435. 400 TheCourtnotedthatthemakingofadvancepaymentswasahumanitarianpracticethatshouldbeencouragedandcommended.Weagreewithobservationofthe 844  Howard court.Wefeelthatthesamecircumstancesexistinthecaseatbar.Inthe  instantcase,theCity,withoutanyobligation,madethepaymentsinexcessofthoserequiredbytheOJIprogramandshouldbeallowedtoclaimcreditforsuchpaymentsinanyproceedingtoestablishlegalliabilityonthepartoftheCity. ` SincetherecordindicatesthattheamountforwhichtheCityshouldbegivencreditislessthanthemaximumliabilityoftheCityundertheGTLA,summaryjudgmentwasinappropriate. ` Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisreversed,andthecaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmaybenecessaryconsistentwiththisopinion.Costsoftheappealareassessedagainsttheappellee. X XXX  `     h      p _________________________________   `     h      p W.FRANKCRAWFORD,   `     h      p PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S. # X XXX I#   CONCUR:  X XXX ____________________________________   ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE # X XXX K#  X XXX ____________________________________ !  DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE # X XXX ML#Ԝ    #