WPC* # VUNa % 0 (w@4 1 UP@  0P& @Lv om 0l/ 0D 0J B1 0TN 0@ 0^ 0h@ A 0r' 0| 0 D3 0 1u^ 0dU>7U 6uB)DC AMU*d5JSa v~!vd# AO7)) 0DL* D/* B*HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ EDӀf|$3|x&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular  /Q+ d  e& 1!` 0  `{ EP x2 xP x2e((3/Q$ !   d C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\GRAPHICS\DRAFT.WPGWPCD%&1D%&1''3XXXX,,51.+3 `! ''i((S)c))"G*"G*))|)|)|)-). )(k(<(y'&[%{%U %<I%&|&''j'\'3'3'T'T''13N `"0(0(''r&%%+&\O&=&9&6'b{''<](x(0(0(13 `#T#+T#+T#+'H+'H+'H+t+t+O+O+O+-++*\*U`*\ *\ *B$*B$**<*I*n*n***e)e)e))))Q)5)4)g((:(:(R(R(R((()))))*=*****I+I+ `$ c, c, h, i, u, ^, H, ;, $,s ,^ ,I ,0 , D, D, , ,H -H -H -1 -$--,-,Y,l+6+++*5*5*?*?*Te++ ,/k,,a,F,,+5O++*[*|)))) J*p * + x+ k+; ~+ + + , c, c,13N `%e +e + + + \+t #+M * *[*r?*Cl**)*+++ &, &,13J `& 50 50 0 / /U // F/! . . G.\ .\ .v -v -B -1 -w-w- e- e- e- N- N- N-k -k -k - - - k- k- k-\ - , [, [,R ,R , - - - - -} .} .( e.( e.( e.v .v .v . $/ $/ $/ 5/ 5/ L/ L/ L/h .P . . . . .` .k 8/ / / / / /( /( / / / / 0 0 50 50 `'/// / / / k/ J/t +/O /1 / . . / ,/ U/j u/j u/ 0 0 a0> 0 0 0 1 1z 1z 1z 1 0 0 50q h0` }0, 0 c0 F0 / / / / s/ c/ +/ +/ / / / / / ;/ O/< |/< |/ . .P m.P m.P m. .. W.{ . #/ U///((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123   d2" 0Indent20 23  ("$    2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  !y  <<= 8C2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  'dxd2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   "#'()+ ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d66667Border 1dd!7C << G<  9p`(Arial  !#d#4  99   YYY FILED9X August18,1998CecilCrowson,Jr.9AppellateCourtClerk  !#d#4  $       55SeeT.C.A.506101,etseq. + !#d#4  $       55Foreaseofreference,Lambert,SuperiorandLegionwillbereferredtocollectivelyas theplaintiffs. @ !#d#4  $       55Atthetime Dobbins wasdecided,thereexistedaconflictbetweenthelimitationsperiodssetforthinthetwostatutes. I !#d#4  $       55Cf. Turnerv.AldorCo.ofNashville ,827S.W.2d318,322(Tenn.App.1991),inwhichweheldthattheinjuredplaintiffsbreachofwarrantyclaimwasgovernedbythefouryearstatuteoflimitationsinT.C.A.472725(1),ratherthanthegenerallimitationsperiodcontainedinT.C.A.283104(a)(1).Theinstantplaintiffsrelianceon Turner ismisplaced,however;althoughthatcaseinvolvedanonthejobinjury,theworkerscompensationstatutes,andT.C.A.506112inparticular,werenotmentionedinthatcase.Theissuesnowbeforeusdonotappeartohavebeenraisedin Turner . { !#d#4  $       55Giventhisconclusion,weneednotaddresstheadditionalissueraisedbyNational,i.e.,thattheplaintiffshavenocauseofactionagainstthedefendantsunderT.C.A.472A216.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva !C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . 4  P 5\RA'\7XXdd7R8:7A1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ COURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATKNOXVILLEVIRGINIALAMBERT,SUPERIOR )C/ANO.03A019802CV00071HOMEHEALTHCAREOFMIDDLE )TENNESSEE,INC.,andLEGION )INSURANCECOMPANY,   )      ) PlaintiffsAppellants, )      )      )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHEv.      )HAMILTONCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURT      )      )      )      )INVACARECORPORATIONand  )NATIONALMEDICALEQUIPMENTOF )THESOUTHEAST,INC.,  )      )HONORABLESAMUELH.PAYNE, DefendantsAppellees. )JUDGEForAppellantVirginiaLambert ForAppelleeInvacareCorp.SONYAW.HENDERSON    SAMUELL.FELKERThomas,Henderson&Pate   JOHNC.HAYWORTHMurfreesboro,Tennessee   Bass,Berry&Sims,P.L.C.       Nashville,TennesseeForAppellantsSuperiorHome  ForAppelleeNationalMedicalHealthCareofMiddleTennessee, EquipmentoftheSoutheast,̜Inc.andLegionInsuranceCompany Inc.JOHNTHOMASFEENEY    KENNETHR.STARRFeeney&Lawrence,P.L.L.C.  Starr&Daniell,P.C.Nashville,Tennessee   Chattanooga,Tennessee@    OPINION55XAFFIRMEDANDREMANDED       Susano,J.    PlaintiffVirginiaLambert( Lambert)wasinjuredonAugust22,1995,whileinthecourseandscopeofheremploymentwiththeplaintiffSuperiorHomeHealthCareofMiddleTennessee,Inc.( Superior).LambertsinjuriesoccurredwhileshewasusingamechanicalliftmanufacturedbydefendantInvacareCorporation( Invacare)andleasedtoSuperiorbydefendantNationalMedicalEquipmentoftheSoutheast,Inc.( National).AsLambertwastransferringapatientfromachairtoabed,oneoftheliftswheelscameoff,forcingLamberttobearthepatientsweightandcausinganinjurytoherback.Asaresult,Lambertreceivedworkerscompensationbenefits,whichwerepaidonbehalfofSuperiorbytheplaintiffLegionInsuranceCompany( Legion).  SuperiorandLegionfiledsuitagainstInvacareandϜNationalonFebruary26,1997,seekingdamagesandreimbursementforthecompensationbenefitspreviouslyprovidedtoandonbehalfofLambert.Theircomplaint,whichstatesthattheiractionisbroughtpursuanttoT.C.A.506112oftheWorkersCompensationϜLaw, ;   ׀assertsclaimsbaseduponnegligence,strictliability,andbreachofwarranty.  OnJune19,1997,Lambertfiledanactionforbreachofwarrantyagainstthesamedefendants,InvacareandNational,seekingdamagesforherinjuries.LambertscasewasthenconsolidatedwiththatofSuperiorandLegion. <   כThetrialcourtsubsequentlydismissedallclaims,holdingthattheapplicablestatuteoflimitationshadrunwithrespecttoeach.Insoholding,thetrialcourtrelieduponthelimitationsprovisionsfoundinT.C.A.506112,whichsectionprovides,inpertinentpart,asfollows: 8 (a)WhentheinjuryordeathforwhichcompensationispayableundertheWorkersCompensationLawwascausedundercircumstancescreatingalegalliabilityagainstsomepersonotherthantheemployertopaydamages,theinjuredworker,orsuchinjuredworkersdependents,shallhavetherighttotakecompensationundersuchlaw,andsuchinjuredworker,orthosetowhomsuchinjuredworkersrightofactionsurvivesatlaw,maypursuesuchinjuredworkersortheirremedybyproperactioninacourtofcompetentjurisdictionagainstsuchotherperson.@ *** 8 (d)(1)Suchactionagainstsuchotherpersonbytheinjuredworker,orthosetowhomsuchinjuredworkersrightofactionsurvives,mustbeinstitutedinallcaseswithinone(1)yearfromthedateofinjury. 8 (d)(2)Failureonthepartofaninjuredworker,orthosetowhomsuchinjuredworkersrightofactionsurvives,tobringsuchactionwithintheone(1)yearperiodshalloperateasanassignmenttotheemployerofanycauseofactionintortwhichtheworker,orthosetowhomsuchworkersrightofactionsurvives,mayhaveagainstanyotherpersonforsuchinjuryordeath,andsuchemployermayenforcesameinsuchemployersownnameorinthenameoftheworker,orthosetowhomsuchworkersrightofactionsurvives,forsuchemployersbenefit,assuchemployersinterestmayappear,andtheemployershallhavesix(6)monthsaftersuchassignmentwithinwhichtocommencesuchsuit.Applyingtheaboveprovisions,thetrialcourtreasonedthatsinceLamberttheinjuredworkerhadnotfiledaclaimwithintheoneyearlimitationsperiod,hercauseofactionwasbarredbyT.C.A.506112(d)(1).Bythesametoken,thetrialcourtfoundthattheadditionalperiodoflimitationssetforthatT.C.A.506112(d)(2)operatedtobartheclaimsofSuperiorandLegion,whichhadbeenfiledmorethan18monthsafterthedateofLambertsinjury.  Theplaintiffsappealed,raisingtheissueofwhethertheirclaimsareinsteadsubjecttothefouryearlimitationsperiodfoundatT.C.A.472A506(1).Thatsectionprovides,inpertinentpart,that 8 [a]nactionfordefaultunderaleasecontract,includingbreachofwarrantyorindemnity,mustbecommencedwithinfour(4)yearsafterthecauseofactionaccrued....PlaintiffscontendthattheirclaimsareforbreachofwarrantyandarenotrelatedtoLambertsemployment,andthattheapplicablestatuteoflimitationsperiodisthusfouryears,ratherthantheoneyear/18monthperiodssetforthinT.C.A.506112.  Wecannotagreewiththeplaintiffscontention.Itistruethatthesubjectlimitationsprovisionsareinconflict.Byitsownterms,however,T.C.A.506112expresslyappliestosituationswhereaninjurycompensableundertheWorkersCompensationLawoccursundercircumstancescreatinglegalliabilityinathirdparty.T.C.A.506112(a).Thatispreciselythesituationintheinstantcase.Theplaintiffsargumentthatthestatuteoflimitationscannotbe reducedfromfouryearstooneyearsimplybecausetheinjuryoccurredwhileLambertwasatworkmissesthepoint;thestatuteoflimitationsprovisionsinT.C.A.506112(d)arenecessarilyimplicatedbecauseLambertsinjurywascompensableundertheWorkersCompensationLaw.  InconstruingT.C.A.506112(d),wehavepreviouslyheldthat 8 [t]hestatuteisclearandunambiguousthatforaperiodofoneyearfromthedatethatthecauseofactionaccrues,theemployee...caninstitutesuitagainstallegedlyliablethirdparties.However,thestatuteexplicitlyprovidesthatattheexpirationoftheoneyear,theclaimoftheemployeeisassignedtotheemployer....Thereislittledoubtthatthelegislatureintendedfortheemployerortheworkerscompensationcarriertoproceedwithitsassignedclaimwithineighteenmonthsofthedatethecauseofactionaccrues. Craigv.R.R.Street&Co.,Inc. ,794S.W.2d351,358(Tenn.App.1990);seealso Gibsonv.LockwoodProductsDivisionofJ.L.Underwood ,724S.W.2d756,760(Tenn.App.1986).  Furthermore,itiswellestablishedthatspecificstatutoryprovisionsgenerallywillbegiveneffectoverconflictinggeneralprovisions.See Dobbinsv.TerrazzoMachine&SupplyCo. ,479S.W.2d806,809(Tenn.1972),and Woodroofv.CityofNashville ,192S.W.2d1013,1015(Tenn.1946)( ...thereasonandphilosophyoftherule[givingeffecttospecificstatutoryprovisionsovergeneralones]isthatwherethemindofthelegislaturehasbeenturnedtothedetailsofasubjectandtheyhaveacteduponit,astatutetreatingthesubjectinageneralmannershouldnotbeconstruedasintendedtoaffectthemoreparticularprovision.).In Dobbins, aninjuredemployee,whopreviouslyhadreceivedworkerscompensationbenefits,broughtanactionagainstthemanufacturersofthemachinethathadcausedhisinjuries.TheSupremeCourtheldthatthespecificstatuteoflimitationsprovisionsnowfoundat506112controlledoverthegeneralstatuteoflimitationsforpersonaltortactions. =   כ Dobbins ,479S.W.2dat809. >   כ  Inlightoftheforegoing,weconcludethatthefactsofthiscasebringitsquarelywithintheprovisionsofT.C.A.506112.Accordingly,Lamberthad,pursuanttoT.C.A.506112(d)(1),oneyearfromthedateofherinjurywithinwhichtofileherclaimagainstInvacareandNational.TheinjuryoccurredonAugust22,1995;LambertscomplaintwasnotfileduntilJune19,1997,sometwentytwomonthslater.OnceLambertsyearinwhichtofilehadexpiredwithoutsuitbeingfiled,hercauseofactionwasautomaticallyassignedbythestatutetoheremployer,Superior;fromthatpoint,Superiorhadsixmonthsinwhichtocommenceitsownaction.SeeT.C.A.506112(d)(2).ItisclearthatSuperiorandLegiondidnotfiletheircomplaintuntilFebruary26,1997justover18monthsfromthedateoftheaccident,orsixmonthsand4daysfromthedateonwhichLambertscauseofactionwasstatutorilyassigned.  WethereforeholdthatthetrialcourtcorrectlyappliedthestatuteoflimitationsprovisionscontainedinT.C.A.506112(d)indismissingtheplaintiffsclaims. ?   כThedecisionofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellant.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforthecollectionofcostsassessedthere,pursuanttoapplicablelaw.Ӝ̛       __________________________       CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.̜CONCUR:_________________________HerschelP.Franks,J._________________________WilliamH.Inman,Sr.J.