WPCC  V+YvMvuAnK\HݏX[V'+ gZ@\VPU&+Dn}*MUiyĸɁs؈d4}"{v<=0ϦO *da[)J=L/졻Î]/ۮh:f}VWfrz|-*[y>ÆL&Ds˝XV3([\K%w{ E)f3S=E[!X +#ʆUy 8kOVN蕑h4'?O+37Z#HP-6o/![̴*Y@8\=xPi;bUo5.glٴ=*y$WЄdE|]LBf&Vh ܔKдDɨ[Y^@Uw!mP$в@T (' g|@;-*# LUNW % 0(bw@4/>FU:KU: AQ 0D 0D 0Dc c D/ B B D3 HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($- - RFSFUTFEUFUVF[WFDXFYFTeZFӀdFօ#%3|xfF ""   XloXXX 7X Xlo   Ad FILED XloX 7  September11,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular ""   XloXXX 7X Xlo   Ad FILED XloX 7  September14,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxd dP Pd'''''dxd !  YFYFYFYFTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7NXXdd7    ќ dFdFdFZFZFr )<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxP,  rdFZFZFSCOTTGRAHAMHARTMAN,KAY  )  HARTMAN,hismotherandduly    )  qualifiedconservatorandguardian,and  )  CLEONHARTMAN, h     )    `     h     ) p YFYFTennesseeClaimsCommissionYFYF   dFdF ` YFYFClaimants/Appellants,YFYF    ) p YFYFMiddleDivisionYFYF    `     h     ) p YFYFNo.85209YFYF   VS. `     h     ) | t  `     h     ) p AppealNo. h` dFdFTHEUNIVERSITYOFTENNESSEEand) p 01A019804BC00196 TL  dFdFTHESTATEOFTENNESSEE,    ) @8  dFdF `     h     )dFt )>.*jxr` `@E` 8ttxP r tߛdF ` Defendants/Appellees.    )   @C C INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@(ATNASHVILLE@  APPEALFROMTHETENNESSEECLAIMSCOMMISSION@;;#ATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEE0 `  ` T$` T$   HONORABLEW.R.BAKER,COMMISSIONER,MIDDLEDIVISION 2 Mr.PaulS.Davidson424ChurchStreet,Suite2800Nashville,Tennessee37219ATTORNEYFORYFYFCLAIMANTS/APPELLANTSYFYFMr.RonaldC.LeadbetterAssociateGeneralCounselTheUniversityofTennessee810AndyHoltTowerKnoxville,Tennessee379960184ATTORNEYSFORDEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS  AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED.  +$(   `     h     HENRYF.TODD `     h     PRESIDINGJUDGE,MIDDLESECTIONCONCURS:BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGEWILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE  ;49  ЇSCOTTGRAHMHARTMAN,KAY  )  HARTMAN,hismotherandduly    )  qualifiedconservatorandguardian,and  )  CLEONHARTMAN, h     )    `     h     ) p YFYFTennesseeClaimsCommissionYFYFYFYF    ` YFYFClaimants/Appellants,YFYFYFYF    ) p YFYFMiddleDivisionYFYFYFYF    `     h     ) p YFYFNo.85209YFYFYFYF   VS. `     h     ) | t  `     h     ) p AppealNo. h` THEUNIVERSITYOFTENNESSEEand) p 01A019804BC00196 TL  THESTATEOFTENNESSEE,    ) @8   `     h     ) ` Defendants/Appellees.    )    @88( ;XXOPINION#XNX;#       ` ThecaptionedclaimantshaveappealedfromthedecisionoftheTennesseeClaimsCommissiondenyingtheirclaimagainsttheStateandtheUniversityofTennesseeforthecatastrophicinjuryofastudentathleteYFYFwhileYFYFYFYFengagedinathleticactivity. ` ThestudentwasthebeneficiaryofascholarshipcontractbindingtheUniversitytofurnishhimtreatmentforinjuriesreceivedduringYFYFathleticYFYFYFYFcompetition.TheUniversitypurchasedfromNationalUnionInsuranceCompany,apolicyofinsuranceinsuringitsliabilityunderscholarshipcontractstotheextentofthecoverageprovidedbythepolicy.ThefatherofthestudentwasanemployeeofBellSouthCorporationwhichprovidedforthefamiliesofitsemployeeshealthcareinsurancewithindesignatedlimits. ` WiththeapprovaloftheYFYFUniversityofTennessee,YFYFYFYFthestudenttraveledtoYFYFLexington,YFYFYFYFKy.,toparticipateinaregionaltrackandfieldcompetitionsponsoredandcontrolledbytheUniversityofKentucky.Whileperforming warmingupexercisesinthespaceassignedtohimbytheUniversityofKentucky,thestudentwasstruckintheheadbyaheavymisslethrownbyanotherstudentwhowasparticipatinginthesameregionalcompetition.Hisseriousinjurywillrequirecustodialcarefortheremainderofhislife.TheUniversityofTennesseehasagreedtofurnishallneededfuturecare.ThepresentclaimseekspaymentofexpensesofcareandtreatmentalreadyfurnishedwithoutanyofferofcareorpaymentthereforbytheUniversityofTennessee.YFYFClaimantsYFYFYFYFhaveneitherpaidYFYFfornorYFYFYFYFassumedliabilityforanycareortreatment.Sofarasthis 0:(37 recordshows,allofsaidexpenseshavebeenpaidbytheinsurerofBellSouthCorporationandNationalUnionInsuranceCo. ` Specifically,theBellSouthinsurerpaid$1,223,513.NationalUnionreimbursedtheBellSouthinsurertotheextentof$196,849andhaspaid$27,822directtocarefurnishers.Asstated,theparentsandtheUniversityofTennesseehavepaidnothing. ` NeithertheBellSouthinsurernorNationalUnionInsuranceCo.isapartytothisproceeding.However,appellantsinsistthattheyhavearighttosueforthebenefitoftheinsurerswhichpaidtheexpenses.TheCommissionheldotherwise. ` Also,theclaimantssoughtdamagesforpain,sufferinganddisabilityofthestudentandlossofhissocietyandservicesresultingfromthenegligenceoftheUniversityinsupervisingandprotectingthestudentfrominjury.TheUniversityofferedevidencedisprovingsuchnegligence,andtheCommissionheldfortheUniversityonthisissue. ` Onappeal,theclaimantspresentonlyoneissue,whichis:`  I.  WhethertheTennesseeClaimsCommissions `&X" SummaryJudgmentOrderdismissingAppellantscontractualclaimwasincontraventionoftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureandtheRulesoftheTennesseeClaimsCommission,whichbothcreateaclearsubrogationexceptiontotheRealPartyinInterestRule.xӀ j` \However,appellantssubmitfivedistinctargumentsinsupportoftheirissue.Appellantsdonotchallengethenegativerulingupontheirnegligenceclaim. FirstArgument :NopresumptionofCorrectness. H3@,0  ` AppellantsrelyuponpreliminaryrulingsoftheCommissionuponmotionsofthepartiesforpartialsummaryjudgments,whichhavenotheretoforebeenmentionedinthisopiniontosimplifythenarrative. 816 Ї ` AppellantsfiledamotionforapartialsummaryjudgmentrequiringtheUniversityofTennesseetoprovidethemedicaltreatmentpromisedinitsstudentathleticcontract.TheCommissionsustainedthismotion,andtheUniversityofTennesseeagreedtocomply.Thisdoesnotappeartobeatissueonappeal. ` OnSeptember29,1989,theCommissionenteredanorderconcludingasfollows:`    TheCommissionalsoconcludesthatthecontractprovidingfor medicalattentiondoesnotlimitthemannerinwhichthemedicalattentionisprovided.TheDefendanthastheoptionofprovidingmedicalattentioneitherbypayingforthirdpartiestoprovideit,orprovidingititselforacombinationofthetwo.ThismayworkahardshipupontheparentsoftheinjuredPlaintiffiftheStatedeemsitnecessarytoprovidethismedicalattentionatthemedicalschoolinMemphis,EastTennesseeState,ortheUniversityhospitalinKnoxville,butthisoptionislefttotheState.ThequalityofthemedicalattentionappropriatetotheinjuredPlaintiffscondition.Exoticorexperimentaltreatmentarenotincluded,butthesamemaybeprovidediftheStatedesires.    13. h Inshort,theCommissionconcludes(1)that  thereasonableinterpretationoftheexpression medicalattentionduetoathleticparticipationobligatestheStatetoprovidereasonablemedicaltreatmentappropriatetoScottHartmansconditionwithoutlimitationastotimeordollarlimit.(2)Ifitwerenecessarytoresorttoexplanatorydocuments,theletterofAugust4,1986istheonlysignificantnoncontractualdocumentandit,innoway,suggeststhecontractuallanguageislimited.(3)Thelawofcontracts,underthesefacts,doesnotpermitresorttooralnegotiationspriortoenteringthecontract,nortooralintimationsoftheinterpretationofthecontractgivenaftertheinjury,tointerpretthecontractlanguage.However,iftheywerereferredto,eitherorbothdecidedlyfavorthePlaintiffsinterpretationofthecontract.(4)TheState,throughtheUniversityofTennesseeorotherwise,mayprovidethemedicalattentioneither(a)inkindbytakingoverthecareofScottHartmanusingStatemedicalemployees,or(b)theStatemaypaythirdpartiestodothis. !` !!Appellantsbriefstates:`  Inaseparatecivilaction,HartmanjudiciallyenforcedtheCommissions1989OrderrequiringtheUniversitysmedicalinsurertopayBellSouth(subrogeeinparttoHartmanscontractualclaims)$196,849.  )` )) 705 AppellantsbriefcitesthefinalorderoftheCommissionwhichstatesthatthe$196,849payment wasYFYFmadeYFYFYFYFbutdoesnotmentiontheseparatesuit.Nootherinformationiscitedorfoundastothepartiesorproceedingsintheseparatesuit. ` NeithertheCommissionnorthisCourtcanbeexpectedtorecognizeas thelawofthecaseaphantomseparatesuitwithoutauthenticevidenceoftheproceedingsandjudgmenttherein. ` Otherthanstatedabove,thepreliminarypartialsummaryordersoftheCommissionhavenorelationtothecorrectnessofthefinalorderoftheCoimmissionuponthemeritsofappellantsclaimagainsttheStateofTennesseeandtheUniversityofTennessee. SecondArgument :DoctrineofSubrogation. (   ` AppellantsciteDixonv.Morgan,154Tenn.389,285S.W.2d558(1926)whichhasbeen  carefullyexaminedwithoutdiscoveryofanyrelevancetothefactsandproceedingsinthepresentcase.Dixoninvolvedaseriesofrealestatetransactions.Thepersonentitledtosubrogationwasapartytothecase,andwouldhavebeenaheavyloserifsubrogationhadnotbeengranted..Inthepresentcase,YFYFtheYFYFYFYFvolunteerYFYFsubrogorsYFYFYFYFYFYFareYFYFYFYFseekingtorecoverinYFYFtheirYFYFYFYFownYFYFnamesYFYFYFYFfundswhichmayormaynotbejustlydueathirdpartywhichisnotaparticipantinthisproceedingandthebasisofwhoserightsisnotinthisrecord. ` Moreover,thewayisopenforthethirdpartysubrogeetoassertitsrights,ifany,inaseparateclaimtotheClaimsCommission. ` Nomeritisfoundinappellantssecondargument.YFYF  816 ThirdYFYFYFYFArgument :NoLosstoClaimants.   ` Appellantsdonotarguethattheyhavesufferedlossbypayingmedicalexpenses.TheyarguethatBellSouthsinsurerhassufferedlossbypayingsame,andthatsaidinsurerhasarightto stepintoHartmansshoestoenforceHartmansclaim.ThisargumentignoresthelegalrealitythatHartmancannotestablishaclaimforYFYFWFlegalWFXFmedicalXFYFYFYFYFexpenseswithoutproofofpaymentofsameorliabilitytherefor.InWimberlyv.AmericanCasualtyCo.,Tenn.1979,584S.W.2d200, H@  plaintiffsufferedafirelossandsuedhisinsurertodetermineitssubrogationrightsagainsttheonewhocausedthefire.Thefactsandproceedingsofthatcasedistinguishitfromthepresentcase. `  ` InAmosv.CentralCoalCo.,38Tenn.App.626,277S.W.2d457,asublesseewhomade x paymentofsublessorsobligationtoYFYFpreventYFYFYFYFforfeitureoftheinterestofbothsublessorandsublesseewasgrantedrightsofsubrogationtotheextentofpaymentssomade.Inthepresentcase,theHartmanshavemadenopayment,andtheonewhomadethepaymentisnotbeforethisCourt. FourthArgument :RulesofCivilProcedureandoftheCommission. $   ` TRCPRuleYFYF17.01YFYFYFYFandCommissionRule031011.17(1)doprovidethatasubrogormaysueinhisownnameforthebenefitofthesubrogee,butneitherruledispenseswithproofoftheclaimwhich,inthepresentcase,includesdocumentationoftheclaim.Thisrecordcontainsnoevidenceoftheinsuringagreementuponwhichthesubrogationclaimisbased.InTravelers +$( InsuranceCompanyv.Williams,Tenn.1976,541S.W.2d587,theopinionquotestheprovisions -&* ofthepolicyregardingsubrogation.Theissueonappealwastherightoftheattorneyfortheinsuredtocollectafeefromtheinsurer. ` AppellantsciteanunpublishedopinionofthisCourtwhereinthisCourtstated:`    TheChurchinsuredbyAetnawasheavilydamagedinafirewhichoccurredin1992.Aetnapaidthelossandthereafterfiledthisactioninthenameofthechurchtorecoupitspaymentunderprinciplesofsubrogation.Thecomplaint 927 wasfiledonNovember3,1992,withtheknowledgeofallpartiesthatitwasasubrogationaction.ThecasewasfinallysetfortrialonDecember1,1995beforeajury.OnNovember27,1995,thetrialcourtorderedthatAetnaInsuranceCo.shouldbeanamedpartysinceitwastherealpartyininterest.  Aetnaobjectedtoitsinvoluntarilyrole,assertingthatthecasehadbeenpendingforthreeandonehalfyearswhen,threedaysbeforetrial,itwassummarilyaddedasaplaintiff.WegrantedaRule10applicationtoconsidertheproprietyofthisaction.  ӄ>  TheRuleclearlyauthorizesAetnaInsuranceCompanytobringanactioninthenameofthepartytowhoserightsitissubrogatedwithoutbeingnameditselfasapartytothislawsuit.SeeTravelersIns.Co.v.Williams,541S.W.2d587,  590(Tenn.1976). O;` A;]; ` Inthepresentcase,nothingisfoundintherecordtoshowthateitherinsurerbroughtthisactioninthenameoftheinjuredpartiestoenforcesubrogationrightsandnoevidenceinthisrecordsupportsthecontractualrightsofeitherinsurertobesubrogatedtotherightsoftheinjuredparties. ` Nomeritisfoundinappellantsfourthandlastissue. ` YFYFT.C.A.YFYFYFYFYFYF98403(a)(1)providesinpertinentpartasfollows:YFYFYFYF`    YFYFThedecisionsoftheindividualcommissioners,or,whenrendered,decisionsoftheentirecommissionregarPFtPFdingclaimsontheregulardocketmaybeappealedtotheTennesseeCourtofAppealspQFruQFRFurRFsuanttoTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure,exceptthattaxappealsshallgodirectlytotheTennesseeSupremeCourtandworkerscompensationcasesshallbeappealedpursuanttotheprocedureforotherworkerscompensationcasesunderB506225(e).  TheevidencehasbeenreviewedVFVFdenovaVFVFpursuantto 0|)- TRAPRule13.Itdoesnotpreponderateagainstthefactualfindingsofthecommissionandnoerroroflawisfoundintheconclusionsofthecommission.DUFUFYFYFYFYF |B` nB ` NogroundsarefoundforreversalormodificationoftheordersoftheYFYFClaimsTFSFSFTFYFYFYFYFCommissionwhichareaffirmed.Costsofthisappealaretaxedagainsttheappellants.The 927 causeisremandedtotheCommissionforanynecessaryfurtherproceedings. ;  D  AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED.  h`  `     h      p _________________________________ `     h      p HENRYF.TODD x     `     h      p PRESIDINGJUDGE,MIDDLESECTIONDECONCUR:____________________________BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGE____________________________WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE