WPC Mp)!Zl IlT `d(|Y!6'qȐCRC^Rjw ݖTkGPZt <1=mދxA l)*qj1 (R ;YAM%/6dF 0 0D N AS H H fU:tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt B 0u 0u 0D{{ D5HP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1 $XwXXXUSUS.,<4 9Z+ Courier New br'L @q'3|xU&@FZ*CaslonOpnface BT  4 4$XwXXXUSUS.,    1    _ɣXXwIamlesssureofwhattheSupremeCourtwoulddowiththeeconomic P  lossesthatmakeupapartofthe incidentaldamagessufferedby[a]   decedentsnextofkin. Jordan ,984S.W.2dat600.Sincetheinstantcase  ` doesnotinvolveadeceasedworker,Idonotfinditnecessarytoaddressthis l  issue.(M(3<$  !XCXXXUSUS.,      0  (#$  0  Z[\]_E<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 \ [ "XtXXXUSUS.,  _XXXXtT XX   Ad FILEDLT   November8,1999Cecil_Crowson_,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdA ,cAZ"Arial Regular dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(M3 $  !XCXXXUSUS.,  (M3 $  !XCXXXUSUS.,  ($$   1  YYYY)!dxdx  !XtXXXUSUS.,  _TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TP 8TCXXdd8@| | INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE   _v_@0,j: `@E tt Wv_@$ATKNOXVILLE p         `     h      p WILLIED._HUNLEY_,JR.,andwife)C/ANO.03A019902CV00049BRENDAK._HUNLEY_Ԁand0 h 0h(#h(#)8\ (#(# _VELVAC_,INC.,0 0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#)2 (#(#    `     h   )   ` PlaintiffsAppellants,)   `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHEv.0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#)KNOXCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURT6(#(#    `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )SILVERFURNITUREMANUFACTURING)CO.andTABSERVICECORPORATION,)   `     h   )HONORABLEHAROLD_WIMBERLY_,   ` DefendantsAppellees.)JUDGE@""  XXXXt  !X XDISSENTINGOPINION Sn !! XtX ! SnԈ %     ` IdissentfromthemajoritysholdingthattheworkerscompensationcarrierforMr._Hunley_semployeris_subrogated_,withoutfurtherinquiry,totheproceedsofMrs._Hunley_ssettlementofherlossofconsortiumclaimthataroseoutoftheworkrelatedinjuriessustainedbyherhusband.   ` Istartbyobservingthatthecompensationcarriers_subrogation_Ԁrightsundertherelevantstatuteonlyextendtotwotypesofrecovery:a recoveryagainst[athirdparty_tortfeasor_][1]bytheworker,or[2]bythosetowhomsuchworkersrightofactionsurvives....See_T.C.A._Ԁ506 7,5 112(c)(1)(1991).Iwillexaminethesetwotypesofrecoveryin X9|.7 _theorderstated.       ` Inmyopinion,itgoeswithoutsayingthatMrs. P  _Hunley_srecoverybywayofsettlementofherlossofconsortium   claimisnota recovery...bytheworker[i.e.,Mr._Hunley_];  X rather,andobviously,itisarecoverybyMrs._Hunley_.I ` recognizethatMrs._Hunley_sclaimisaderivativeoneinthe   sensethatherhusbands injuriesorincapacities...giveriseto h  andestablish[her]claim,see Jacksonv.Miller ,776S.W.2d d  115,117(_Tenn.Ct.App_.1989)(Anderson,J.);butthisdoesnot 0  changethebasicfactthatMrs._Hunley_sclaimforlossof   consortium isacauseofactionseparatefromherhusbands 8 causeofaction. Id .Inmyjudgment,Mrs._Hunley_sclaimfor 4 lossofconsortiumclearlydoesnotfallwithinthe   recovery...bytheworkerlanguageof_T.C.A._Ԁ506112(c)(1). \    ` Tobuttressitsholdingintheinstantcase,the X  majoritycitesandreliesupontheunreportedopinionofthis " Courtinthecaseof Sextonv.TriCitiesInsulation,Inc. ,C/A #` No.94,1987WL7720(_Tenn.Ct.App_.,filedMarch10,1987).I |%,  agreethat Sexton holdsthat anamountallocatedtothewifefor ('" lossofconsortium[isnot]outsidetheemployers_subrogation_ ($ rights[.] Id .,1987WL7720at**1.Inmyjudgment, Sexton is *P & nolonger"ifiteverwas"goodlaw.AsJudge_Goddard_Ԁpointed l,"( outinhisseparateconcurringopinionin Sexton ,therewere,at .#* thattime, nocasessupportiveoftheconclusionreachedinthe /%, majorityopinionin Sexton .Mycurrentresearchhasnot 1@'. discoveredanyauthorityotherthan Sexton .Itshouldalsobe \3 )0 notedthat Sexton relieduponthecaseof Beamv.Maryland (5*2 CasualtyCo. ,477S.W.2d510(Tenn.1972),aSupremeCourtcase 6,4 holdingthattheemployers_subrogation_Ԁrightsunder_T.C.A._Ԁ50  8p.6 914(nowT.C.A.506112)extendtothatportionofa P  settlementofawrongfuldeathclaimthatinurestothebenefit   ofthechildrenofthedeceasedemployee.Ibelievethatthe  X holdingin Beam wasimpliedlyalteredbytheSupremeCourts T decisionintherecentcaseof Jordanv.BaptistThreeRivers   Hosp .,984S.W.2d593(Tenn.1999).      ` When Beam wasdecided,theTennesseewrongfuldeath h  statutoryprovisionshadbasicallybeenconstrued,fornearlya 4  century,asasurvivaltypeofwrongfuldeathscheme. Jonesv. 0  Black ,539S.W.2d123,12425(Tenn.1976).Thisbeingthecase,  itwaslogicalfortheSupremeCourtin Beam toholdthatthe x entiresettlementofthewrongfuldeathclaiminthatcasewas D subjecttotheemployerssubrogationrights.Ifthewrongful @ deathclaimisauthorizedunder survivallegislation,thenit   isclearthatawrongfuldeathrecoveryis,inthelanguageof "H thesubrogationstatute,a recovery...bythosetowhomsuch D$ workersrightofactionsurvives. %     ` Ibelievethat Jordan necessarilychangestherulingin 'L"  Beam because Jordan clearlyholdsthattheTennesseewrongful h)$ deathstatutoryscheme,inadditiontoauthorizingasurvival 4+ & action, createsacauseofactionthatcompensatessurvivorsfor ,"( theirlosses. Jordan ,984S.W.2dat598.(Emphasisadded). .H$* Interestinglyenough, Jordan holdsthatthedamagessufferedby d0&, thedecedentsnextofkin,asdifferentiatedfromthedeceaseds 02'. causeofactionwhichsurvivesthelattersdeath,includeloss 3)0 ofconsortium.IconcludefromthisthatiftheSupremeCourt 5D+2 werepresentedtodaywiththefactsin Beam, itwouldholdthat L7,4 thenoneconomiclossofconsortiumactionbythewidowand  9.6 childrenintheirownright,asopposedtothedamagesinthe P  survivalaction,doesnotfallwithinthesurvivallanguageof   thesubrogationstatute.  #  1        X    ` SinceIbelievetheholdingin Jordan  trumpsthe T holdingin Beam ,andsince Sexton reliedextensivelyon Beam ,I   donotfeelboundby Sexton .AsIhavepreviouslyindicated,I   amnotawareofanySupremeCourtauthorityholdingthata h  compensationcarrierssubrogationrightsextendtoalossof d  consortiumclaimofaninjuredemployeesspouse.      ` In Jordan ,theSupremeCourtnotedthatlossof l consortium 8   8 ` consistsofseveralelements,encompassing 4 notonlytangibleservicesprovidedbya   familymember,butalsointangiblebenefits  eachfamilymemberreceivesfromthe f continuedexistenceofotherfamilymembers.  < Suchbenefitsincludeattention,guidance, b! care,protection,training,companionship, 8" cooperation,affection,love,andinthecase # ofaspouse,sexualrelations.#` x` x Ѐ( Id. at602.Ascanbeseen,theselosses,beingnoneconomicin %@  nature,aretotallyunrelatedtothewagebasedcompensation \' " entitlementinvolvedintheworkerscompensationstatutory )$ scheme.Thereisno diminish[ing][of]theemployers *d & subrogationrightsgrantedunder[T.C.A.506112(c)(1)],see `,"(  Heggiev.CumberlandElectricMembershipCorp .,790S.W.2d284, .#* 28687(Tenn.Ct.App.1990),byarulingthatpreventsthe /%, compensationcarrierfromreachingthesenoneconomicdamages. 1@'. This,coupledwiththeplainlanguageofthestatute,convinces  H3(0 methatarecoveryofconsortiumdamagesdoesnotfallwithinthe P  statutorylanguage, recovery...bytheworker.      ` Itisclearthatthesecondtypeofrecoverydescribed  X inthe_subrogation_Ԁstatute" recovery...bythosetowhomsuch T workersrightofactionsurvives"hasabsolutelynobearingon  thedecisioninthiscase.AsIhavepreviouslynoted,theclaim \  ofaspouseofaninjuredworkerforlossofconsortiumisnot X   theworkersrightofaction.Inaddition,andmore   importantly,theconceptof _surviv[al_]inthelanguageunder `  discussionisobviouslynotrelevanttoaworker,suchasMr. \  _Hunley_,whoseinjuriesdidnotresultindeath.     ` Iwouldholdthatneitherofthetwotypesofrecovery d describedinthe_subrogation_Ԁstatutearepresentinthiscase. `    ` Mydissentismadewithonecaveat.WhileIwould   reversethejudgmentofthetrialcourtholdingthatthe !h compensationcarrierhasanabsoluterighttopursueits d# _subrogation_ԀrightsastoMrs._Hunley_ssettlement,Iwouldremand %  forahearingbythecourtbelowtodetermineiftheallocation &x" of$200,000tosettleMrs._Hunley_sclaimisareasonable t($$ allocationofthetotalsettlementof$400,000.Sincea  *& _tortfeasor_Ԁanditsliabilityinsurancecarriertypicallydonot +|!( carehowmultipleplaintiffsdivideupatotalsettlementaslong x-(#* asalloftheclaimsarereleased,Idonotbelievethatthe $/$, willingnessofadefendantorhiscarriertopayacertainamount 0&. insettlementofaclaimisprimafacieevidenceofits |2,(0 reasonableness.Therefore,itseemstomethatacompensation 44)2 carriershouldhavetherighttoquestionwhetheranallocation 5+4 ofapartofatotalsettlementtotheconsortiumclaimis 7<-6 reasonablyrelatedtothepartiesrespectiveinjuriesandlosses 89.8 _orisjustashamtopartiallyavoidthecarriers_subrogation_ P  rightswithrespecttotheinjuredemployeesthirdpartyclaim.      ` Thesumandsubstanceofmydissentcanbereducedto  X thisfinding:Ibelievethelanguageof_T.C.A._Ԁ506112(c)(1), T givenitsordinaryandusualmeaningandconstruedsoastoavoid  anunreasonableresult,doesnotextendthestatutory_subrogation_ \  rightsofthecompensationcarriertothereasonablesettlement X  valueofMrs._Hunley_sseparateclaimforlossofconsortium.      `     h     __________________________ \     `     h     CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.