WPC&# # V %a 0 Pgw@4 UN 0h 0D 0J@  0T 0^ UHD 0h 0l b` 0rh 0| 0V 0 1ul 0d BE D3bU>U* 0@=U 6EB){DC AMU*4>^nl ovKv~0v AO!! 0D" D/" B #HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS0X((m$  89D:;E<=D>?@eAӀڃ"3|xL(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(D(3\ $ m!    `   0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  <09Z 0Courier (W1) Regular26 0Indent40 0 0 23  (D3$ m!   - -2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d$$$$'dxd<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Times("$     z !  +       )   z !  +       )  <  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d11117Border 1dd-2C << G<  9p`(Arial 4 !  #d#+       44   YYY FILED4X September2,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.4AppellateCourtClerk  d !#d#+        $       00Rule23.05statesthata classactionshallnotbevoluntarilydismissedorcompromisedwithouttheapprovalofthecourt.... b !#d#+        $       00Rule66statesthatan actionwhereinareceiverhasbeenappointedshallnotbedismissedexceptbyorderofthecourt.... e !#d#+        $       00Theemployeesresponsetotheemployerscounterclaim,asrequiredbyTenn.R.Civ.P.7.01,isnotincludedintherecordpresentedtothisCourt;however,thisisnotraisedasanissuebytheparties.NoresponsivepleadingsbytheSecondInjuryFund,asidefromtheinitialanswertothecomplaint,appearintherecord,nordidthatpartyparticipateatthetrialoronappeal. A !#d#+        $       00Tenn.CodeAnn.2914100to2914113(1980).SeealsoTenn.R.Civ.P.57.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . +       ݛ ,    &d&&,,Xd&  \RA'\./  \RA'\07dd7ќ          September2,1997          FORPUBLICATION@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE̜R352A1-j|` . `@Rߛ@ ATKNOXVILLE    MARYBLAKE,   )       )   PlaintiffAppellant, )      )       ) v.      ) GREENECHANCERY      )PLUSMARK,INC.,ANDSUEANN ) Hon.DennisH.Inman,̜HEAD,DIRECTOROFTHE  )Chancellor̜DIVISIONOFWORKERS  )COMPENSATION,TENNESSEE  )DEPARTMENTOFLABOR,  )      )  DefendantsAppellees. ) No.03S019512CH00137    ForPlaintiffAppellant:    ForDefendantAppelleePlusMark:BobMcDanielGreen    GeneP.GabyJohnsonCity     Milligan&Coleman       Greeneville       ForDefendantsAppelleesSue        AnnHead,Directorofthe       DivisionofWorkersCompensation          AnneT.Widseth       TennesseeDepartmentofLabor       Knoxville       SandraKeith       TennesseeDepartmentofLabor       Nashville        @ 0OPINION 0X̜JUDGMENTOFTRIALCOURTREVERSED;CASEREMANDED.      REID,J.  ThisisanappealfromthedecisionoftheChanceryCourtinaworkerscompensationcase,inwhichthetrialcourtgrantedtheemployeesmotionfornonsuitandthenenteredajudgmentofnoliabilityfortheemployeronitscounterclaim.Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisreversed,andthecaseisremanded.   I     OnSeptember25,1992,MaryBlakefiledacomplaintforworkerscompensationbenefitsagainstheremployer,PlusMark,Inc.,andtheSecondInjuryFund.Thecomplaintallegedaclaimforpermanentpartialdisabilitybenefits.TheSecondInjuryFundfiledananswerstatingthatitwaswithoutsufficientknowledgetorespondtothecomplaintandprayedthattheclaimagainsttheFundbedismissed.Theemployerfiledapleadingconsistingofanansweranda countercomplaint.Intheanswer,thedefendantpledthestatuteoflimitationsandlackofnoticeoftheallegedinjury,andrespondedtotheallegationsofthecomplaint.Initscounterclaim,theemployer adopt[ed]theallegationsofitsanswer,and [sought]adetermination...oftherights,dutiesandobligationsofthepartiesandgeneralrelief.  FollowingthedismissalofamotionbytheemployerforsummaryjudgmentonAugust27,1993andthedecisionofaworkerscompensationspecialistfiledonOctober24,1994,thecasewassetfortrialonMay31,1995.Onthedayofthetrial,theemployeefiledamotionforacontinuancestatingthatshehadnotbeenabletoschedulethedepositionofhermedicalexpert.Thecourtdeniedthemotionforacontinuance.Thereupon,theemployeemadeamotionthathercomplaintbedismissedwithoutprejudice,whichwasgranted.  Accordingtothejudgmententeredinthetrialcourt,thecasethen proceededontheemployerscounterclaim foradeterminationoftheworkerscompensationbenefits,ifany,towhichMaryBlakewasentitledfromPlusMark,Inc.Noproofwaspresentedbyanyparty.Thecourtenteredjudgmentthattheemployee recovernoworkerscompensationbenefitsforherclaimedinjury.  Onappeal,thecaseinitiallywasreferredtoaSpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPanelforfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.ThecasewaswithdrawnforreviewbytheCourtpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(5)(A)(Supp.1996).@ II   Theemployeeinsiststhatthetrialcourterredindenyinghermotionforacontinuance,hearingthecaseontheemployerscounterclaimanddetermining,withoutproof,thatshewasnotentitledtoanybenefits.@ A.   Thegrantingordenialofamotionforacontinuanceliesinthesounddiscretionofthecourt.Moreheadv.State,219Tenn.271,409S.W.2d357,358(1966).Therulingonthemotionwillnotbedisturbedunlesstherecordclearlyshowsabuseofdiscretionandprejudicetothepartyseekingacontinuance.Statev.Strouth,620S.W.2d467,472,(Tenn.1981),cert.denied,455U.S.983(1982).Thiscasehadbeenfiledformorethantwoandahalfyearswhenthecourtdeniedthemotionforacontinuance.Thecasehadbeencontinuedpreviouslybecause,inthewordsofthetrialcourt,theplaintiffwas lookingforadoctor.Insupportofthemotionforacontinuance,theplaintiffattachedaletterinwhichaphysiciandescribedtheemployeesmedicalcondition,whichincludedcervicaldischerniationatthreelevels,andstatedthatshehadbeendisabledsince1991.However,thelettercontainednostatementastocausationoftheconditiondescribed.Theletterdidnotstatethatthephysicianwouldtestifyastocausation,oreventhathewouldtestifyatall.Consequently,theemployeehasfailedtodemonstratethatthecourtabuseditsdiscretionindenyingthemotionforcontinuanceorthattheemployeewasprejudicedbythedenial.Seee.g.CommissioneroftheDept.ofTransp.v.Hall,635S.W.2d110(Tenn.1982).@ B .   Therightoftheemployeetotakeanonsuitandtheordergrantingthenonsuitwithoutprejudiceisnotcontested.Theemployeeinsiststhatproceedingfurtherontheemployersprayerforadeclaratoryjudgmentwaserror.Sheinsiststhatsincethecounterclaimassertednogroundsforreliefotherthanthedenialofliability,dismissalofthecomplaintrequiredthedismissalofthecounterclaimaswellastheanswer.TheprovisionsofTenn.CodeAnn.506225andTenn.R.Civ.P.41.01(1),donotsupporttheemployeesposition.    Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(Supp.1993)authorizestheemployeeandalsotheemployertosubmitaworkerscompensationcontroversytothecourtfordetermination.Subsection(a)(1)provides:8 8 IncaseofadisputeoverorfailuretoagreeuponcompensationundertheWorkersCompensationLawbetweentheemployerandemployeeorthedependentsoftheemployee,eitherpartymaysubmittheentirematterfordeterminationtothejudgeorchairofthecountycourtinwhichtheaccidentoccurred,andsuchjudgeorchairisvestedwithjurisdictiontohearanddeterminetheissuesandrenderandenforcejudgment.Subsection(b)provides:̀8 8 ThepartyinvokingthepowerofthecourtshallfileapetitionsettingoutthefactsonwhichtheclaimisbasedundertheWorkersCompensationLaw.Underthisstatute,anydisputebetweentheemployerandtheemployeewillberesolveduponasuitbyeitherparty settingoutthefactsonwhichtheclaimisbasedundertheWorkersCompensationLaw.Inthiscase,theemployerassertedthatrightintheformofacounterclaim.  Rule41.01(1)statesthecircumstancesunderwhichaplaintiffmayvoluntarilydismissacomplaintwithoutprejudiceandtheeffectsuchadismissalhasonacounterclaim.Itstates:8 8 SubjecttotheprovisionsofRule23.05 6   ׀orRule66 7   ׀oranystatute,andexceptwhenamotionforsummaryjudgmentmadebyanadversepartyispending,theplaintiffshallhavetherighttotakeavoluntarynonsuittodismissanactionwithoutprejudice....Ifacounterclaimhasbeenpleadedbyadefendantpriortotheserviceuponthedefendantofplaintiffsmotiontodismiss,thedefendantmayelecttoproceedonsuchcounterclaiminthecapacityofaplaintiff.Sinceadefendantmayproceedonacounterclaimeventhoughtheplaintiffhastakenanonsuit,thequestioniswhethertheemployerspleadingsetforthacounterclaimwithinthemeaningoftherule.Apparently,thispreciseissuehasnotbeenconsideredpreviouslybyanappellatecourtinthisjurisdiction.  Historically,inequitypractice,thedismissalofanoriginalbillordinarilycarriedwithitthedismissalofacrossbillorananswerfiledasacrossbill,unlesstheanswerorcrossbillsetupgroundsforaffirmativerelief.HenryR.Gibson,SuitsinChancery726(2nded.1907);McDowellv.HuntContractingCo.,133Tenn.437,181S.W.680,681(1916).Thegeneralruleisthat8 8  [a]susedinaparticularstatuteorruleprecludingdismissalwheretheadversepartyhassoughtaffirmativerelief,theterm affirmativereliefrequirestheallegationofnewmatterthat,ineffect,amountstoacounterattack.Thereliefsought,ifgranted,mustoperatenotasadefense,butaffirmativelyandpositivelytodefeattheplaintiffscauseofaction.Thus,wherethepleadingsinacounterclaimconstitutemeredenialsoftheplaintiffscauseofactionandstatenofactsonwhichaffirmativereliefcouldbegranted,theplaintiffsrighttovoluntaryterminationofthesuitisnotaffected.24Am.Jur.2dDismissal66(1983).ThisgeneralruleisconsistentwiththelanguageofTenn.R.Civ.P.13.UnderRule13.01acompulsorycounterclaimis anyclaim,otherthanatortclaim,whichatthetimeofservingthepleadingthepleaderhasagainstanyopposingparty,ifitarisesoutofthe...occurrencethatisthesubjectmatteroftheopposingpartysclaim....  Theemployersstatutoryrighttofilesuitand submittheentirematterfordeterminationbythecourt,Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(a)(1),canbeassertedasacounterclaimunderRule41.01.Thecounterclaiminthiscaseincorporatesthematerialcontainedintheanswer,identifiestheparties,acknowledgesthattheemployeehasfiledaclaimforworkerscompensationbenefits,andsetsforthadditionalinformationregardingtheconditionsoftheemployeesemployment.Theemployerspleadingsassertthatanyclaimisbarredbytheoneyearstatuteoflimitationandthattheemployeedidnotgivenoticewithin30daysoftheallegedinjury.Thepleadingsassertthattheemployeehasnotsustainedaworkrelatedinjuryinthecourseofheremploymentandsheisnotentitledtoanybenefits.Theseallegationsbytheemployeraremorethan meredenialsoftheplaintiffscauseofaction.Theywouldhavebeensufficienttostateaclaimforreliefundertheworkerscompensationstatuteasanoriginalcomplaintfiledbytheemployer.Consequently,theyaresufficienttostateacounterclaimunderRule41.01.@ C .  However,thisfindingthatthecounterclaimsurvivedthedismissaloftheemployeescomplaintdoesnotconcludethemattertobedecided.Thetrialcourterredinawardingjudgmentfortheemployerwithouthearingproof.Afterthecomplaintwasdismissed,thecasewaspendingontheemployerspleadings. 8   ׀Thepleadingpartyhastheburdenofprovingthatthecontroversyisjusticiableandofestablishingthefactsneededtobringanaction.AlthoughthecounterclaimwasfiledundertheauthorityoftheworkerscompensationstatuteandnotundertheDeclaratoryJudgmentAct, 9   ׀itisinthenatureofanactionfordeclaratoryjudgment.Ӏ8 8  [Themajorityviewisthat]theburdenofproofinadeclaratoryjudgmentactionisthesameasinordinaryactionsatlaworsuitsinequity,andtheplaintiffbringingadeclaratoryjudgmentactionmust,inordertosucceed,provehiscaseinaccordancewithandwithinthemeaningofsuchrules,andthisruleisnotaffectedbythefactthatanegativedeclarationissoughtofnonliability.Itmaybestatedasageneralrule,thattheburdenofproofisupontheplaintifftoshowthatconditionsexisttojustifythecourtinexercisingitsdiscretionarypowerstograntdeclaratoryreliefpursuanttothedeclaratoryjudgmentstatute.Itseemsthatanapplicantforadeclaratoryjudgmenthastheburdenofshowingthatpresentjusticiablecontroversyexists,andifthisfactisnotshownthenacauseofactionfordeclaratoryreliefisnotestablished....2WalterH.Anderson,ActionsforDeclaratoryJudgments375(2ded.1951).SeealsoJaredv.Fitzgerald,183Tenn.682,195S.W.2d1,4(1946);CenturyIndus.,Inc.v.WengerCorp.,851F.Supp.1260,1263(S.D.Ind.1994).  Theemployerhadtheburdenofprovingtheallegationssetforthinitspleadingsjurisdictionalfacts,theissueincontroversyandthecircumstancesthatgaverisetothecontroversy.Theemployeewillbeentitledtosuchbenefits,ifany,asthisevidencemayshow,unlesstheemployeeproducesevidencewhichshowsthatsheisentitledtoadditionalbenefits.Consequently,eventhoughtheemployerspleadingallegingacounterclaimwasnotdismissedwiththeemployeescomplaint,thepleading,withoutproof,doesnotentitletheemployertoajudgment.̀  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisreversed,andthecaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedings.  CostsoftheappealaretaxedtoPlusMark,Inc.       ___________________________       Reid,J.Concur:̜Anderson,C.J.,Drowota,Birch,and Holder,JJ.