ÿWPCœ /# ¢U:­ %ç 0(íw@4Uib xn­„1 0J1 0T{ 0^Ï 0h- 0r• 0| 0†ƒ 0  1u™ 0d U*r B)œ AQÅ Æ 0DÜ 0@ 0D` DC¤ D/ç B B3 D3P AMƒ Ð få v~KvÓɘHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ ÏDÐDÑUÒbÓDÔDÕÖ×Ó€áê‚_#x3|xá- ù -«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó7Border 1dd(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd!#%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌNovember€7,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€¯¢XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÞ ÞÌJOHN€C.€CURRY€andà àà àà à)ÌJIMMY€TATE,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPetitioners/Appellants,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9703„BC„00130ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àTennessee€Claims€CommissionÌÙ€!ÙßR€*+%A1-j| ` ç `€€@ÿRßà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€500795ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àRespondent/Appellee.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌà@ àAPPEALED€FROM€THE€TENNESSEE€CLAIMS€COMMISSION€Ìà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àHONORABLE€W.€R.€BAKER,€COMMISSIONER,€MIDDLE€DIVISIONÌÌÌÌPHILLIP€L.€DAVIDSONÌSuite€107Ì2400€Crestmoor€RoadÌNashville,€Tennessee€37215Ìà àAttorney€for€Petitioners/AppellantsÌÌJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌMICHAEL€E.€MOOREÌSolicitor€GeneralÌÌMICHAEL€W.€CATALANOÌAssociate€Solicitor€GeneralÌ425€5th€Avenue€NorthÌNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0497Ìà àAttorney€for€Respondent/AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌKOCH,€J.ÌBUSSART,€J.ÌÌÓ  ÓÑ€,ÑÇÓÓà@ àòòò òÔ€ ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€XÔó óóóÌà@ àÌà àà àTwo€former€employees€of€the€Public€Service€Commission€(PSC)Ïfiled€claims€with€the€Claims€Commission,€alleging€that€they€had€been€wrongfullyÏterminated€from€their€positions€with€the€PSC.€€The€Claims€Commission€dismissedÏthe€claims€for€lack€of€jurisdiction.€€The€plaintiffs€appealed€to€this€court€under€RuleÏ12,€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€€We€affirm€the€Claims€Commission.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àà àJohn€C.€Curry€and€Jimmy€Tate€were€motor€carrier€enforcementÏofficers€employed€by€the€Tennessee€Public€Service€Commission.€€On€January€18,Ï1995,€both€officers€were€terminated€by€the€Executive€Director€of€the€PSC€ð ðfor€theÏgood€of€the€serviceðð€because€of€an€investigation€by€the€TBI€into€allegations€ofÏdishonest€conduct€made€against€them.€€They€appealed€their€terminations,€inÏaccordance€with€procedures€established€for€the€PSC,€and€an€administrative€lawÏjudge€(ALJ)€heard€their€appeal€on€March€30,€1995.ÌÌà àà àOn€September€1,€1995,€the€ALJ€issued€an€administrative€orderÏwhich€included€a€finding€of€fact€that€there€was€no€credible€evidence€that€eitherÏparty€had€participated€in€criminal€activity€or€in€misconduct€of€any€kind.€€The€ALJÍalso€found€that€there€had€not€been€such€media€coverage€of€the€TBI€investigationÏas€would€render€the€parties€ineffective€on€the€job,€and€support€their€discharge€forÏthe€good€of€the€service.€Officers€Curry€and€Tate€were€ordered€to€be€restored€toÏtheir€positions,€with€all€their€back€pay€awarded€to€them,€and€no€loss€of€seniority€orÏof€any€other€benefits€attributable€to€their€employment.ÌÌà àà àBetween€the€time€the€parties€were€discharged,€and€the€time€theyÏwere€restored€to€their€positions,€Chapter€305€of€the€Public€Acts€of€1995€had€beenÏpassed€by€the€Legislature€and€signed€by€the€Governor.€€The€Act€transferred€allÏlaw€enforcement€officers€of€the€PSC€to€the€Department€of€Safety.€€Officers€CurryÏand€Tate€thus€became€employees€of€the€Department€of€Safety€upon€theirÏreinstatement.€ÌÌà àà àThe€significance€of€the€change€is€that€employees€of€the€DepartmentÏof€Safety€are€entitled€to€the€protections€and€procedures€found€in€the€Civil€ServiceÏAct,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€8„30„101,€et€seq.,€including€the€right€to€file€negligenceÏclaims€against€the€State,€whereas€employees€of€the€PSC€were€specificallyÏexcluded€from€the€provisions€of€the€Civil€Service€Act.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€8„30„101(a)(23)(J).ÌÌà àà àOn€May€16,€1997,€Curry€and€Tate€filed€a€claim€with€the€TennesseeÏClaims€Commission.€€They€alleged€that€as€a€result€of€the€negligence€of€the€PSCÍin€compiling€the€information€and€evidence€which€was€used€to€terminate€them,Ïthey€suffered€ð ðphysical€injury€and€great€emotional€anxiety€and€distress,€physicalÏinjury€and€have€been€subject€to€financial€deprivation€and€loss€.€.€.€.ðð€and€theyÏasked€for€damages€ð ðin€the€maximum€statutory€amount,ðð€which€would€be€$300,000Ïeach.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„307(e).€ÌÌà àà àThe€Claims€Commission€dismissed€the€claims,€stating€that€as€theÏclaimants€were€employees€of€the€PSC€at€the€time€of€the€acts€complained€of,€it€hadÏno€jurisdiction.€€An€appeal€to€this€court€followed.ÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà àà àThe€appellants€contend€that€they€obtained€the€right€to€file€their€claimÏwith€the€Claims€Commission€when€they€were€transferred€to€the€Department€ofÏSafety.€€They€concede€that€€statutes€are€generally€presumed€to€operateÏprospectively€only,€absent€a€contrary€provision€in€the€statute€itself,€but€they€argueÏthat€the€case€of€òòState€Dept.€of€Human€Services€v.€DeFrieceóó,€937€S.W.2d€954Ï(Tenn.€App.€1996)€stands€for€the€proposition€that€a€new€statute€that€changes€aÏrule€of€practice€applies€to€all€pending€cases.€€However€we€believe€that€ChapterÏ305€does€far€more€than€merely€change€a€rule€of€practice.ÌÌà àà àThe€òòDeFrieceóó€case€involved€a€termination€of€parental€rights.€€TheÏmotherððs€rights€were€terminated€after€three€separate€hearings€in€Juvenile€Court.ÏBetween€the€first€and€second€hearing,€the€Legislature€changed€the€route€ofÏappeal€for€a€party€aggrieved€by€a€juvenile€courtððs€decision€to€terminate€€parentalÏrights.€€Prior€to€April€15,€1994,€such€a€party€would€have€been€entitled€to€a€trial€òòdeÏnovoóó€in€circuit€court.€After€that€date,€appeal€was€directly€to€this€court.€€The€motherÏinsisted€that€she€was€entitled€to€a€trial€òòde€novoóó.ÌÌà àà àThe€òòDeFrieceóó€court€acknowledged€that€there€was€an€exception€toÏthe€general€rule€that€statutes€are€presumed€to€be€applied€prospectively€only.€€TheÏcourt€quoted€a€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€case€to€that€effect,€òòKee€v.€ShelterÏInsurance€Co.óó,€852€S.W.2d€226€(Tenn.€1993):€ÌÒ € ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÒ 0 ÒÒ  Òð ðAn€exception€exists€.€.€.€for€statutes€which€are€remedial€orÏprocedural€in€nature.€€Such€statutes€apply€retrospectively,Ïnot€only€to€causes€of€action€arising€before€such€actsÏbecome€law,€but€also€to€all€suits€pending€when€theÏlegislation€takes€effect,€unless€the€legislature€indicates€aÏcontrary€intention€or€immediate€application€would€produceÏan€unjust€result.ððÌÌÒ € ÒÒ  ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒòòDeFrieceóó€at€957„958.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€court€found€that€the€new€statute€was€indeed€procedural€inÏnature€rather€than€substantive,€but€that€under€the€circumstances,€its€retroactiveÏapplication€would€be€unjust.€€The€court€did,€however,€vacate€and€remand€theÍorder€of€the€juvenile€court,€on€a€finding€that€the€State€had€failed€to€present€clearÏand€convincing€evidence€that€the€motherððs€rights€should€be€terminated.€ÌÌà àà àOur€initial€inquiry€in€the€present€case€must€be€whether€Chapter€305Ïof€the€Public€Acts€of€1995€should€be€considered€a€substantive€statute,€in€whichÏcase€it€may€not€be€applied€retrospectively,€or€whether€it€is€to€the€contrary€aÏprocedural/remedial€statute€requiring€further€analysis€to€determine€whether€itÏshould€be€applied€to€the€claims€of€Messrs.€Curry€and€Tate.Ì€€à àÌà àà àChapter€305€is€a€lengthy€and€complex€statute€which€amends€manyÏdifferent€sections€of€the€Tennessee€Code€in€order€to€abolish€the€Public€ServiceÏCommission.€€It€establishes€a€new€entity€in€the€PSCððs€place,€called€theÏTennessee€Regulatory€Authority,€and€it€distributes€the€functions€of€the€PSC€to€theÏnew€entity,€and€to€other€entities€of€State€government,€such€as€the€Department€ofÏTransportation,€the€Comptroller€of€the€Treasury,€and€the€Department€of€Safety.€ÏSection€46€(out€of€the€138€Sections€of€the€Act)€transfers€all€enforcement€officers€ofÏthe€PSC€to€the€Department€of€Safety.ÌÌà àà àWe€have€found€nothing€in€the€Act€to€indicate€that€the€LegislatureÏintended€it€to€have€retroactive€effect;€instead,€Section€138€sets€out€a€schedule€forÏthe€implementation€of€the€Actððs€various€provisions,€some€parts€of€it€to€take€effectÍon€July€1,€1995,€some€on€January€1,€1996,€some€on€July€1,€1996,€and€someÏ(including€Section€46)€ð ðon€becoming€law.ðð€€The€Act€became€law€on€May€26,€1995.ÌÌà àà àStatutes€that€affect€only€the€method€or€the€procedure€for€prosecutingÏor€defending€an€action€may€be€considered€remedial.€€A€procedural€or€remedialÏstatute€does€not€affect€the€vested€rights€or€liabilities€of€the€parties.€€Statutes€thatÏcreate€a€new€right€of€recovery€or€change€the€amount€of€damages€recoverable€areÏnot€considered€Ñ X Ñremedial,€because€they€have€altered€the€vested€rights€of€theÏparties.€€òòSeeóó€òòShell€v.€Stateóó,€893€S.W.2d€416€(Tenn.€1995);€òòSaylors€v.€Rigsbeeóó,Ï544€S.W.2d€609€(Tenn.€1976).ÌÌà àà àThus,€the€statute€in€the€òòDeFrieceóó€case€was€not€consideredÏsubstantive,€because€it€did€not€create€a€new€remedy€or€right,€or€deprive€a€party€ofÏa€previously€existing€remedy€or€right€but€merely€changed€the€manner€in€which€toÏvindicate€a€previously„existing€right.€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€statute€in€the€present€case€does€alter€the€vested€rights€of€theÏparties.€€It€grants€the€claimants€new€substantive€rights,€which€they€did€not€enjoy€asÏemployees€of€the€PSC:€€the€right€to€sue€the€State,€and€the€right€to€recoverÏsubstantial€damages€if€their€suit€is€successful.€€It€also€deprives€the€State€of€anÏimmunity€from€suit€that€the€legislature€chose€not€to€remove€prior€to€May€26,€1995.ÌÌà àà àIt€therefore€follows€that€the€act€is€substantive€in€nature,€and€notÏmerely€procedural,€and€may€not€be€applied€to€causes€of€action€that€arose€before€itÏbecame€law.€€The€Claims€Commission€was€correct€to€find€that€it€had€noÏjurisdiction€to€consider€the€claims€of€Mr.€Curry€or€Mr.€Tate.ÌÌà àà àWe€remand€this€appeal€to€the€Claims€Commission€for€any€furtherÏactions€necessary.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellants.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWALTER€W.€BUSSART,€JUDGEÌÌÑ Ü ÑÑ  Ñ