WPC GV)= ݕ |f_> p@G7w )) ÍřHD>a]nvgdZ(茙 ;DPt ’$‹+AɂƟ^u4-l ch hNd_^X+Z{GڿGۏiʆ' %x 0~wj4pT U: 0D-qU Ny 0 AQ UN C2 u     iU:uuuuuuuuuuu 0u 0 0D D/ B0 BM D3j,  AZ"Arial RegularX(`zI$TRY(3' Letter3'3' Letter3'T  ;<H=>E?@AEBCDDEIFEGӀRVSTUӀyk&x3|x^c:\office\wpwin\template\legal\11deny.wpt  !7'"    X<XXX !X X<   Ad FILED X<X !  June18,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAt ,cAZ"Arial Regular(#$  0  (hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(|(3 f$ zI!TRY3' Letter3' 3' Letter3'T       0   !"#%C<< C(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular 9   f$      1    XX NWho,ofcourse,wouldhaveenteredthejudgmentproposedbytheemployerhaditbeentimelypresented.# Nn##X<XO#       f$      2     XXXX NX XKeepinginmindthatitwastheemployeewhosubmittedthejudgmentand,ineffect,determinedtheissue.   c$HXXXX `   3     XXXX <X XԀ# XX <# V X X#   V ~# V  Travisv.CityofMurfreesboro,686S.W.2d68(Tenn.1985).#  V "##XX #  !7'"   X<XXX!XX<   Ad FILEDX<X!  June18,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAt ,cAZ"Arial RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|37'$ zI!TRY3' Letter3' 3' Letter3'T   (|37'$ zI!TRY3' Letter3' 3' Letter3'T   ($$   1  ''' dxd dP Pd&&&&'dxd zI!TRY3' Letter3' 3' Letter3'T   ` TR[A'Legal RedY3' LetterA' Legal 3' LetterTGr(<,(j 8` `@Ea ` 8ttxP,`  rG@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@%%(ATNASHVILLEC'Xp@XX'CCHARLESC.JONES,@.) p RUTHERFORDCIRCUIT@@A@no@ABNO.339BDB  BDB65B  ~ @.)E p NO. ____________ E PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,@.) J @.)v.@.) p HON.ROBERTE.CORLEW, v  @.) p  @ JUDGE \  TRIDON,WAUSAUINSURANCE@.) B  COMPANY,ROYALINSURANCE@.) (  COMPANYandLIBERTYMUTUAL@.) p S.CT.NO.01S019712CV00272   INSURANCECOMPANY,@.)   @.) DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS.@.)0 p AFFIRMED`pT$pT$ @II* JUDGMENT  X  ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtuponmotionforreviewpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(5)(B),theentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferraltotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanel'sMemorandumOpinionsettingforthitsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference; Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthatthemotionforreviewisnotwelltakenandshouldbedenied;and Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanel'sfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawareadoptedandaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgmentoftheCourt. Costswillbepaidby9a9:9ooek9:;ppellant,;forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. ITISSOORDERED.  0      8    p PERCURIAM>=d=>?DROWOTA,?<_________,<J.NOTPARTICIPATINGF  P:04 ` TRX3'Letterhead[A'Legal Red3'0Avery 5663 Clear AddressA'Legal RedTFR  P8.4 RS   XXXX ZX X  ?cћ@@  INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE `  STTSSUUSSUr(<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxP,  rߛUS@@B B SPECIALWORKERS'COMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL@@ATNASHVILLE   B  ̜@#(June29,1998Session)CHARLESC.JONES,   8   ) p RUTHERFORDCIRCUIT &    0      8   ) p  <   Plaintiff/Appellee   8   ) p NO.01S019712CV00272 R  М  0      8   )v.  0      8   ) p  ~    0      8   ) p HON.ROBERTE.CORLEW, 4 МTRIDON,WAUSAUINSURANCE  ) p JUDGE J COMPANY,ROYALINSURANCE  ) ` COMPANYandLIBERTY 8   ) v MUTUALINSURANCE 8   )  COMPANY,     8   )    0      8   ) Defendants/Appellants 8   ) p  .  ̜#s  Z˺ #rs  s̛ FortheAppellant:   8   FortheAppellee: z$  LutherE.Cantrell,Jr.   8   JimWiseman %( ThirdFloor,CourtSquareBldg.  SallySchneider &8 300JamesRobertsonParkway 8   Wiseman&Schneider,Attorneys 'H Nashville,TN37201   8   131NorthChurchStreet (X   0      8   Murfreesboro,TN37130   MEMORANDUMOPINION 81'% М̛MembersofPanel: JusticeFrankF.Drowota,III ~6-* SeniorJudgeWilliamH.InmanSpecialJudgeJoeC.Loser,Jr.̛̜   ;n2/ М̛AFFIRMED     8    p INMAN,SeniorJudge  0  @QQMEMORANDUMOPINION  P #s  rs# Z s Thisworkers'compensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecial ~ Workers'CompensationAppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)forhearingandreportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw. WeareconcernedherewithaRule60motiontoalteroramendajudgmentwithrespecttotheemployeesaverageweeklywage.Theproceduralunnicetiescompelsomethingofastretchmadenecessaryiftheemployeeistobeawardedhisdue. Ajudgmentwasenteredresolvingallissuesincludingafindingthattheemployeesaverageweeklywagewas$359.00. Forreasonsnotentirelycleartheemployeedidnotprovehisaverageweeklywageatthetrial,beingcontentwiththerepresentationoftheemployerthattheinformationwouldbefurnishedtotheCourtwithinten(10)days.Thiswasnotdoneowingtotheillnessofthe recordskeeper.Theemployeethensubmittedaproposedjudgmentwhichrecitedthathisaverage ! weeklywagewas$359.00.SUS?c  SUS Thereafter,theemployersubmittedaproposedjudgmentsimilartothe ># judgmentsubmittedbytheemployeeexceptthatitfoundtheemployeesaverageweeklywagewas$503.84,adifferenceof$144.24. Thejudgmentproposedbytheemployee,andsubmittedfirst,wasenteredbythetrialjudge.  #  1       '6  Theemployerappealed,contestingallissuesexcepttheaverageweeklywage.X  #  2      ׀TheSpecialWorkersCompensationPanelaffirmedonSeptember29, )b  1997.TheSupremeCourtadoptedandaffirmedthejudgmentonOctober31,1997. Butintheinterim,onOctober15,1997theemployeefiledaRule60.02motiontoalteroramendthejudgmentupondiscoveringthathisaverageweeklywagewasthereinsubstantiallyunderstated.Thismotionwasresistedbytheemployerwhoassertedthatthetrialcourtlackedtherequisitejurisdictionsincethecasewasthenwendingthroughtheappellateprocess. ThetrialjudgegrantedthereliefsoughtbyanorderenteredNovemberϜ21,1997whichsettheaverageweeklywageat$503.84.TheemployerpresentstothisPanelitscontinuingargumentthatthetrialcourthadnojurisdictiontoentertainaRule60motion. Theemployerarguesthatthemotionshouldbetreatedasonefiledunder60.01forthecorrectionofclericalmistakes,which,ifdiscoveredafter 7.+ anappealispending,maybeaddressedonlywithleaveoftheappellatecourt.Alternatively,theemployerarguesthatifthemotionistreatedunderRule60.02,itfailsbecausetherewasnomistake,sincethejudgmentwaspreparedbytheemployeescounsel,withnosurpriseorinadvertenceorexcusableneglect,orfraud,misrepresentationormisconductbytheemployer,andwasnotmadewithinareasonabletime,sinceten(10)monthselapsedbetweenawarenessandaction. ` Ajusticiableresolutionofthiscaseismademoredifficultbecausethe60.02motion mistakenlyreferredtoaclericalerror,cognizableunder60.01. 61. ?c  ?c  Theappellantpresentsitsargumentinapuristform,arguingthatRulesshouldbeenforcedwhich,ifso,wouldrequireaholdingthattheerroneousweeklywageamountwasmerelyclericalandhenceroutinelycorrectable,whichisnotthecasesincetheerrorisnotclerical. ` Weagreethattheerrorcannotbecharacterizedasaclericalone.Noreasoncomestomindotherthanitwastheresultofnegligence.Ordinarilysuchneglectwouldnotbeexcusable,butthepeculiarcircumstancessurroundingtheissueoftheaverageweeklywagearesuchthatweareconstrainedtoremitstrictconstruction.Aswehaveseen,forreasonsnotcleartheemployeedidnotoffersatisfactoryproofofhisaverageweeklywage,andthepartiesagreedthattheemployerwouldfurnishthenumberswithintendays,whichwasnotdone.Afterjudgmentwasenteredtheemployerfurnishedthetrueamount,butnoactionwastakentocorrecttheerroneousweeklywage,andthematterwasnotbroughttotheattentionofthetrialjudgeuntiltheRule60.02motionfocusedonit.Whilewestrugglewiththeproceduraldifficulties,sincethemotiondoesnotallegeexcusableneglect,wethinkthedeprivationofsubstantialbenefitsowingtotheemployeeattributabletothesequenceofeventsrevealedinthisrecordwouldbeaparody,andwechoosetotreatthemotionasallegingexcusableneglect,andasonetimelyfiled.Sincethemotionwasnotacteduponuntilremand,weseenojurisdictionalincursivenessingrantingthereliefsought. ` Becausenoabuseofdiscretionbythetrialjudgeinoverrulingdefendantsmotionforreliefhasbeendemonstrated,  #  3      thejudgmentofthetrial x4/, courtisaffirmed.Costsareassessedtoagainsttheappellant.Travisv.Cityof <51. Murfreesboro,686S.W.2d68(Tenn.1985).Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedwithcostsassessedtotheappellant. 61. j < ` ̜ `     h      `     h     _______________________________ `     h     WilliamH.Inman,SeniorJudgeCONCUR:_______________________________FrankF.Drowota,III,Justice_______________________________JoeC.Loser,Jr.,SpecialJudge# <j"# @ Ѐ    S