WPC4  хPfPaWuUe;4%:9E/Ɂ`v~yW1UMM.`DUΏ,>v&|C)'>#c%3;7<,S䝚 v17h "<  ʇ]7Vgc{MpAi3cUU2 hR۞ $qT@bv$GWsZdEc Xd˹vZJ2ԋ}<􏷂k/~5Q{ejJ%Sz&D< o.+w9+6PK܋>KFX.1fHhU:`PH r@W|m<$jܳ6sFMK֫cƍ6(3;dkٌ-0Rmr"`<eW%}UE6&\;¢tXY{>c-jS(I- #ob#\ %% ^ + 07 UvN w 4 z%  q  m ULN   s9N  0DEDFF DMMMMMMMMMu``````Rb'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 0//// B 07 D5 D- 0K== AS 0 0DE A\\ib01s01\clerk1nas,,,,0Qr1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular0:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt 3|xU(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5   R $      1    _Twostatutoryextensionsareatplayhere.Pursuantto Tenn.CodeAnn.506112(d)(2)# #,i ftheinjuredworker  failstobringanactionwithinoneyear,theworkerscauseofactionisassignedtotheemployerandworkers t compensationcarrierwhothenhavesixmonthstocommencetheaction.# #ԀTheother,whichisatwoyearextension,is 8 affordedtoacarrierthatisinliquidation.Tenn.CodeAnn.569313(b)(1).(#$  0    R $      2    _ ThelacerationoftheaortawasdiscoveredtwodayslaterwhenDr.Mackeyperformedexploratorysurgery  duetomedicalcomplicationsKratzwasexperiencing.# ~#Ԁ Thus,theallegedmalpracticeclaimaccruedonAugust20,2000.# r# R $      4    _ KratzneverrevivednorrefiledhisactionagainstDr.Mackey.# ~#  R $      5    _TheCommonwealthCourtofPennsylvaniadeclaredReliancetobeinsolventandappointedaliquidatoron  October3,2001. k R $      3    _Reliancewasseekingtorecoverworkerscompensationbenefitspaidand/ortobepaid.AtthetimeReliance  fileditscomplaint,ithadmadeworkerscompensationpaymentstoMartyKratzinexcessof$500,000. H R $      6    _Theeffectofexpungingtherecordsofacriminalchargeistorestorethepersontothepositionheorshe  occupiedpriortothearrestorcharge.Statev.Sims,746S.W.2d191,199(Tenn.1988).Thus,personswhoserecords t havebeenexpungedmayproperlydeclinetorevealoracknowledgetheexistenceofthecharge.Pizzillov.Pizzillo,884 8 S.W.2d749,754(TennCt.App.1994).- -(|G2 $ !.8Ddd8         0   d(|3Nj$ !.8Ddd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Nj$ !.8Ddd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Ddd8     _  D8XXdd8  @ BpDINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#DBp #Ԉ 8   October1,2004Session ^ XXD #DXX#RELIANCEINSURANCECOMPANYv.EDWARD_MACKEY_,M.D.XXD   \ @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty  \ @@No.03C2360ThomasW.Brothers,Judge  H @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200303106_COA_ԄR3CVFiledNovember18,_2004_   AV) ` dE<` A      Workerscompensationinsurancecarrierfileda_subrogation_Ԁactionagainstaphysicianwho  allegedlycommittedmalpracticewhiletreatinganinjuredworker.Theactionwas#DXXř#XXDfiledalmostthree v yearsafterthecauseofactionaccrued.Thephysicianmovedtodismisstheactionastimebarred. b Theworkerscompensationcarrierinsistedtheactionwastimelyfiled,claimingitwasaffordedtwo N extensionsonthestatuteoflimitations,oneofwhichwasasixmonthextension#DXX#XXDԀpursuanttoTenn. : CodeAnn.506112(d)(2)#DXXş#XXD. #  1      ׀#DXX%#XXDThetrialcourtheldthattheinsurancecarrierwasnotentitledtothe &v sixmonthextensionandtheactionwastimebarred.Weaffirm. b  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed  :   #DXŽ#XX.DFrankG.Clement,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamB.Cainand  PatriciaJ.Cottrell,JJ.,joined.  BranchH._Henard_,III,#DXX: #XXDNashville,Tennessee,andStephenR.Harris#DXXj #XXD,PatriciaProctor,and#DXX #XXDMichael  C._Kochkodin_,Philadelphia,Pennsylvania,fortheappellant,RelianceInsuranceCompany. r  NoelF._Stahl_#DXX3 #XXDԀandJeffrey_Zager_,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,Edward_Mackey_,M.D. J"!   OPINION #DXXL #XXD "$r# #DXXP#  XXD XXXX   #XXX X# XXXXRelianceInsuranceCompanyprovidedworkerscompensationbenefitsforMarty_Kratz_Ԁwhen %J!% he#XXX X'# XXXXԀsufferedaworkrelatedinjuryonMarch22,2000.Followingtheinjury,_Kratz_Ԁwasreferredto  &6"& _Dr.EdwardMackeytorepairherniateddiscs#XXX X# XXXX.Dr.MackeyperformedsurgeryonKratzonAugust  18,2000,duringwhichitisallegedthatDr.MackeylaceratedKratzsaorta#XXX X# XXXX. #  2      ׀Inthissubrogation  action,RelianceallegesthatthelacerationtoKratzsaortacausedasubstantiallossofblood,which  inturn,causedKratztosufferadebilitatingstrokeforwhichRelianceremittedsubstantialworkers t compensationbenefits.#XXX X## #  3       XXXXԀ ` #XXX X# XXXX  #XXX Xh# XXXXKratzfiledamedicalmalpracticeactionagainstDr.MackeyonAugust17,2001,onlyto 8  voluntarilydismisshisactiononSeptember27,2001.h #  4      ׀Sometwoyearslater,August15,2003, $ t Reliancefiled#XXX Xŷ#thisactionasthepurportedassigneeofKratzsthirdpartyclaimagainstDr.Mackey.  `  XXXXThus,ReliancefiledthisactionalmostthreeyearsafterKratzscauseofactionaccrued.  L  #XXX XŨ#  Reliancefiledthisactionpursuantto XXXXTenn.CodeAnn.506112(d)(2),allegingthatitis $  theassigneeofKratzscauseofactionagainstDr.Mackey.Thestatuteprovidesthatanin#XXX XŐ# XXXXjured   workerhasoneyearwithinwhichtoinstituteanactionagainstanalleged#XXX X~# XXXXthirdpartytortfeasorsuch   asDr.Mackey.Itfurtherprovidesthatiftheinjuredworkerfails tobringsuchactionwithinone   year,thecauseofactionshallbeassignedtotheemployer(andtheworkerscompensationcarrier),   whothenhassixmonthsfromtheassignmenttocommencesuchsuit.Tenn.CodeAnn.506 p 112(d)(2).ReliancearguesthatKratzsvoluntarydismissalofthemalpracticeactionagainstDr. \ MackeyconstitutedafailuretoeffectivelybringanactionwhichcausedanassignmentofKratzs H causeofactiontoRelianceonAugust20,2001,whichwastheoneyearanniversaryoftheaccrual 4 oftheaction.Reliancecontendsthatithadanadditionalsixmonthsfromthatdatewithinwhichto  p commenceitsactionagainstDr.Mackey.Therefore,ifReliancescontentioniscorrect,ithaduntil  \ February20,2002,tocommencethisaction#XXX X%# XXXX.#XXX Xő# XXXX H   ItwasduringthissixmonthperiodthatReliancewasplacedinliquidation.Thatoccurred   onOctober3,2001. #  5      #XXX X# XXXXԀTenn.CodeAnn.569313(b)(1)#XXX X# XXXXprovidesthattheliquidatorhastwoyears   toinstituteanaction#XXX Xv# XXXXafteranorderappointingaliquidatorisissued#XXX X # XXXXif theperiodoflimitationfixed  byapplicablelawhasnotexpiredatthetimeofthefilingofthepetitionuponwhichsuchorderis  entered.#XXX XŁ # XXXXԀ#XXX XŃ!# XXXXThisactionwasfiledonAugust15,2003,lessthantwoyearsfollowingtheentryofthe  orderofliquidation.#XXX X!# XXXXThus,Relianceassertsthatthisactionwastimelyfiledbecauseitwasin l liquidationduringthesixmonthextensionaffordedbyTenn.CodeAnn.506112(d)(2)andthis X  actionwasfiledwithinthetwoyearwindowprovidedby#XXX XŌ"# XXXXTenn.CodeAnn.569313(b)(1)#XXX X## XXXX.#XXX XB$# XXXX D! #XXX XŇ$# XXXX 0"  Ї  Dr.MackeysmotiontodismisswasbasedontheargumentthatReliancewasnotthe  assigneeofKratzscauseofactionunderTenn.CodeAnn.506112(d)(2)#XXX X$# XXXXԀandthereforewasnot t affordedthesixmonthextension.TheargumentwasbasedonthepremisethatTenn.CodeAnn. ` 506112(d)(2)assignstheinjuredworkersactiononlyiftheworkerdoesnotfilehisorherown L  action.Dr.Mackeyarguedthat#XXX X%# XXXXԀKratzstimelyfiledsuitagainsthimprecludedtheassignmentunder 8  T#XXX X{'# XXXXenn.CodeAnn.506112(d)(2),#XXX X(# XXXXԀ#XXX X(# XXXXthesubsequentvoluntarydismissalnotwithstanding.#XXX X(# XXXX  $ t #XXX X7)# XXXX  BothpartiesagreethattheliquidationextensionprovidedbyTenn.CodeAnn.569  L  313(b)(1)#XXX XŔ)# XXXXwouldsavethedayforRelianceif,butonlyif,Relianceisaffordedthesixmonth  8  extensionunderTenn.CodeAnn.#XXX XZ*# XXXXԀ506112(d)(2).#XXX X#+# XXXXԀTherefore,theonlyissuebeforethiscourtis $  whetherRelianceisentitledtothesixmonthextensionpursuantto#XXX Xz+# XXXXTenn.CodeAnn.506   112(d)(2)#XXX XE,# XXXXԀastheassigneeofKratzscauseofaction.#XXX Xſ,# XXXX   #XXX X0-# XXXX  Theissuepresentedrequiresstatutoryinterpretationwhichisaquestionoflaw.Wereview   questionsoflawdenovo,withoutapresumptionofcorrectnessofthetrialcourt'sjudgment.See p Nelsonv.Wal-MartStores,Inc.,8S.W.3d625,628(Tenn.1999);Owensv.TruckstopsofAmerica, \ 915S.W.2d420,424(Tenn.1996). H   ThestatutetobeinterpretedistheWorkersCompensationAct(the Act).Theparties  p presentdifferingperspectivesastohowtheActistobeinterpreted.#XXX XŇ-# XXXXReliancearguesthatweareto  \ construetheActliberally,expansivelytoprovidemethodsbywhichtheultimatelossresultingfrom H injuriestoworkersmaybebornebythethirdpartywrongdoer.Dr.Mackeyarguesthatamoreliteral 4 interpretationofthestatuteisrequired.     AnexcellentsummaryofourroleininterpretingtheActisfoundinWilkinsv.KelloggCo.,  48S.W.3d148,152(Tenn.2001).Asour#XXX XG0# XXXXԀsupremecourtexplains,theroleofthecourtsstartswith  thepremisethat:  #XXX XŜ2# XXXX  8  [W]hiletheWorkers'CompensationActistobeliberallyconstruedforthe X  employee'sbenefit,thatpolicydoesnotauthorizetheamendment,alterationor D! extensionofitsprovisionsbeyonditsobviousmeaning.Pollardv.KnoxCounty, 0"  886S.W.2d759,760(Tenn.1994)#XXX XT3# XXXX.#XXX X 5# XXXXԀThispremiseissimplyaspecificapplicationof #l! themostbasicruleofstatutoryconstruction:courtsmustattempttogiveeffecttothe $X" legislativepurposeandintentofastatute,asdeterminedbytheordinarymeaningof $D # itstext,ratherthanseektoalteroramendit.(citationsomitted).Inattemptingto %0!$ accomplishthisgoal,courtsmustkeepinmindthatthe"legislatureispresumedto &"% useeachwordinastatutedeliberately,andthattheuseofeachwordconveyssome '#& intentandhasaspecificmeaningandpurpose."Bryantv.GencoStamping&Mfg. (#' Co.,33S.W.3d761,765(Tenn.2000)."Consequently,wherethelegislature )$( includesparticularlanguageinonesectionofthestatutebutomitsitinanother |*%) sectionofthesameact,itispresumedthatthelegislatureactedpurposefullyin h+&* includingorexcludingthatparticularsubject."Id.;seealsoCrowev.Ferguson,814  S.W.2d721,723(Tenn.1991)("TheCourtshouldassumethattheLegislatureused  eachwordinthestatutepurposelyandthattheuseofthesewordsconveyedsome  intentandhadameaningandpurpose.").t   8   ` Withthispremiseinmind,andgiventhefactthateachvocationaldisability L  categoryisdistinctandservesaspecificcompensationgoal,seeIvey,3S.W.3dat 8  446,Wilkins'sargumentthatthetrialcourtcorrectlycalculatedherbenefitsisnot $ t persuasive.ThetrialcourtbasedtheawardonWilkins'spre-injuryaverageweekly  ` wage,butthatconceptisconspicuouslyabsentfromthetemporarypartialdisability  L  provisionofthestatute,whichrefersonlyto"wage."Inacaseverysimilartotheone  8  beforeus,wehavepreviouslyheldthatthisconspicuousabsence!theappearance $  of"averageweeklywage"inonepartofthestatutebutnotanother!wasdispositive.   InMcCrackenv.Rhyne,theemployeesoughtbenefitsforapermanentpartial   disabilityatatimewhensuchbenefitswerebasedonthe"differencebetweenthe   wageoftheworkmanatthetimeoftheinjuryandthewageheisabletoearninhis   partiallydisabledcondition...."196Tenn.72,73,264S.W.2d226,227(1953). p Thetrialcourtfoundthatthephrase"wageoftheworkeratthetimeoftheinjury" \ wassynonymouswithaverageweeklywage,andawardedbenefitsbasedonthat H rationale.Wereversed,concludingthat"thelegislatureintendedtosayexactlywhat 4 itdidsay"andthatacourtdoesnothavetheauthority"tosubstitutewordsofitsown,  p andhavingadifferentmeaning,inlieuofthewordswhichitappearsthelegislature  \ intendedtouse."Id.196Tenn.at78-79,264S.W.2dat229.H   Wilkins,48S.W.3dat152.153.   #XXX XO5# XXXX  RelianceplacesgreatemphasisonPlough,Inc.v.PremierPneumatics,Inc.,660S.W.2d495  (Tenn.Ct.App.1983)#XXX XB# XXXXԀwhereinthiscourtinterpretedthestatuteatissue#XXX XŞC# XXXX.ThedefendantsinPlough  arguedthatanemployermayonlysuethirdpartieswhentheinjuredemployeehasfailedtosueany  thirdpartieswithinoneyearoftheinjury.Thedefendantsfurtherarguedthatonceaninjured l employeesuedathirdparty,anythirdparty,theemployer'srighttosueadditionalthirdpartieswas X  pre-empted.Thecourtcharacterizedthedefendantsargumentashaving thecharacteristicofa D! mirage:itdisappearsuponcloseexamination.Itisbaseduponanaltogetherstrainedandnarrow 0"  readingofthestatute.660S.W.2d#XXX XD# XXXXat498.Asthecourtexplained: #l! 8  Theexpresslanguageofthestatutedoesnotsupporttheirargument,andwedonot $D # believethatdefendants-appellees'proposedconstructionofthestatuteisanaccurate %0!$ representationofthelegislature'sintent.Indeed,thestatutewaspassedtointeralia &"% facilitateanemployer'srecoveryagainsttortiousthirdpartieswhentheinjured '#& employeehasfailedtobringanactionagainstsuchtortiousthirdparties.(#'   8   ` Defendants-appelleesalsoassert:"Thelegislaturecouldeasilyhaveprovided |*%) forthissituationbyaddingtothestatutelanguagethatallowstheemployerorinsurer h+&* tobringasuitagainstanypersonnotsuedbytheemployee."This,ofcourse,iswhat  thelegislaturedid.Theironyofthisargumentisthatthedefendant'sproposed  constructionofthestatuteistheonlyonethatrequireswordsnotusedbythe  legislaturetobeaddedtothestatute.Thestatutesimplysays:"[Anyinjured t employee]maypursuehis...remedybyaproperactioninacourtofcompetent ` jurisdictionagainstsuchotherperson[legallyliableforinjuriestotheemployee]." L  Tenn.CodeAnn.50-914(1977)(emphasisadded).TheLegislatureemployedthe 8  singularformof"person"inreferringtoatortiousthirdpartyknowingthatoneor $ t multiplesuitscouldbefiledbytheemployeeagainstallegedtortfeasors.Wewould  ` strainindeedifweconstruedtheActtomeanthatthefilingofonesuitagainstone  L  tortfeasorwouldbartheemployerfromhisrightstosueothersunderthestatute. 8    Plough,660S.W.2dat499#XXX X!G# XXXX.#XXX XQO# XXXX     Reliancearguesthatavoluntarydismissalbytheinjuredworkerissynonymouswiththe   injuredworkerhavingfailedto bringanaction.IfRelianceiscorrect,avoluntarydismissalwould   havethesamelegaleffectas#XXX XŔO# XXXXԀanexpungementinacriminalcase,whichvitiatesthefactthatthe p criminalchargeswereeverfiled.) #  6      ׀We,however,findReliancesargumenttobewithoutmerit.A \ voluntarydismissalremainsofrecordasdoesthecomplaintitdismisses.Thedismissaldoesnot H vitiatethefactthattheactionwascommenced.Indeed,thecomplaintremainsofrecord,though 4 dismissed,unlikecriminalchargesthathavebeenexpunged.  p   #XXX XQ# XXXXTheruleofstatutoryconstructiontowhichallothersmustyieldisthattheintentionofthe H legislaturemustprevail.Plough,660S.W.2d#XXX XŹS# XXXXat498;#XXX XšT# XXXXCityofHumboldtv.Morris,579S.W.2d860, 4 863(Tenn.Ct.App.1978).#XXX XT# XXXXԀLegislativeintentistobeascertainedprimarilyfromthenaturaland   ordinarymeaningofthelanguageused,whenreadinthecontextoftheentirestatute,withouta   forcedconstruction.Plough,660S.W.2d#XXX XŕU# XXXXat4989;#XXX XV# XXXXWorrallv.KrogerCompany,545S.W.2d736,  738(Tenn.1977).#XXX X,W# XXXXԀ#XXX XW# XXXXԀToholdthatthevoluntarydismissalofacivilactionequatestotheactionnever  havingbeenfiledrequiresastrainedreadingofthestatute,whichisinappropriate.Plough,#XXX XX# XXXX660  S.W.2d#XXX XY# XXXX#XXX XqY# XXXXat498.#XXX XźY# XXXXԀHere,theexpresslanguageofthestatute!thattheinjuredworkerfailedto bring l anaction!isunambiguous.Asthesayinggoes,itspeaksforitselfandtherulesofstatutory X  interpretation#XXX X Z# XXXXcompelustodeclineaninvitationtoconstrueastatutethatisunambiguous. D! #XXX XG[# XXXX  Asthestatuteexpresslyprovides,onceaninjuredworker!suchasKratz!filesanaction #l! againstthethirdparty,theactionhasbeen broughtorfiledagainstthenameddefendant(s).The $X" voluntarydismissaloftheactiondoesnotvitiatethatfact#XXX X[# XXXX.#XXX Xk]# XXXXTheconditionprecedenttothe $D # assignmentoftheactionfromtheinjuredworker,Kratz,toReliancewouldbethefactthatKratz %0!$ failed tobringsuchactionagainstDr.Mackey.Tenn.CodeAnn.506112(d)(2)#XXX XŰ]# XXXX.Here__Kratz_ &"% didnotfailto bringanactionagainstDr._Mackey_.Tothecontrary,#XXX X^# XXXX_Kratz_Ԁtimelyfileda  malpracticeactionagainstDr._Mackey_.Therefore,thetimelyfilingoftheactionby_Kratz_Ԁagainst  Dr._Mackey_Ԁprecludedtheassignmentof_Kratz_sclaimagainstDr._Mackey_ԀtoReliance,thevoluntary  dismissalnotwithstanding.#XXX X_# XXXXAccordingly,Relianceisnottheassigneeof_Kratz_sclaimagainstDr. t _Mackey_ԀanditisnotaffordedthesixmonthextensiononthestatuteoflimitationsunderTenn.Code ` Ann.506112(d)(2).Thus,thisactionistimebarred#XXX X3b# XXXX. L  #XXX Xc#  CostsofappealareassessedagainstRelianceInsuranceCompany. $ t    `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     FRANKG.CLEMENT,JR.,JUDGE