WPC' &Vٗ}2 T 3k)ȦCUr\RH?3ђ(c&ȘЅj+6u esCw3k{bޓ)$gs<3=v{Tg?9a(g`< +Ie0 iܛЎx|)륫BhMH}†FߩF쒗v4 GBsH8 r{L9c'2Q`?WW5B@dfqtM>b!izw:r6F$+C8 c8xN؎VMi`J S] =!yb(|5IڠcarV{{7,bxȴibﱺusMk?5 3ub#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz z  W   UNN 0D=Eb 0$$$$ B 0, D3 D- 0K00 AS{ 0 0D8 A|HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,02) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular~&) C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(uH Z6Times New Roman Regular(#$  0    RE$      1  =  _Theoriginalorderdoesnotstatetheamountofvocationaldisabilityrepresentedbythesettlement.Thereis  nodispute,however,thattheoriginalsettlementwaslessthantwoandonehalftimesFreemansmedicalimpairment t ratingassetforthinTenn.CodeAnn.50-6-241(a)(1). - -(|G2E$ !.8UEdd8         0  = d(|3~$ !.8UEdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3~$ !.8UEdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8UEdd8     _   UE8iXXdd8@ H$UEINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#UEH$ #Ԉ &   May2000SessionatNashville L XiXUE #UEXXi#LLOYDFREEMANv.MARCOTRANSPORTATIONCO.,etal.XiXUE  J @@ AppealbyPermission  J fromtheSupremeCourtSpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPanel  6 CircuitCourtforKnoxCounty  " @@No.29297HaroldWimberly,Judge    @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E199700029SCWCMCVFiledSeptember18,_2000_ }  AV) ` dE<T` A U    XiXXXi#UEXXiz#XiXUEWegrantedthisappealtodeterminewhetheranactionfiledpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn P 50-6-241(a)(2)requestingreconsiderationofaworkerscompensationawardmustbefiledinthe < courtinwhichtheoriginalworkerscompensationclaimwasdecided.Weholdthatarequestfor (x reconsiderationmustbefiledinthecourtthatoriginallyexercisedjurisdictionovertheworkers d compensationclaim.#XiXXXi##UEXXiY# P   UEUEXiXUETenn.CodeAnn.50-6-225(e)#XiXXXi##UEXXi#XiXUE; N JudgmentoftheWorkersCompensationSpecialAppealsPanelAffirmed  :   JaniceM.Holder,#UEXix#XiX.UEJ.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichE.RileyAnderson,C.J.,and  FrankF.Drowota,III,andAdolphoA.Birch,Jr.,JJ.,joined.WilliamM.Barker,J.,not  participating.  SidneyW.GilreathandW.R.Baker,ofKnoxvilleTennessee,fortheappellant,LloydFreeman. r  JamesT.SheaIV,ofKnoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellees,MarcoTransportationCompanyand J"! LibertyMutualInsuranceCompany. 6#"   #UEXXiQ #XiXUE @@OO& OPINION #UEXXi #XiXUE %^ $ #UEXXi< #  UEUEXiXUE  OnFebruary12,1996,thechancerycourtofKnoxCountyapprovedthesettlementofa &6"& workerscompensationclaimofLloydFreeman(Freeman)againstMarcoTransportationCompany '"#' andLibertyMutualInsuranceCompany(defendants).InFebruary1997,Freemanfiledacomplaint ($( seekingadditionalworkerscompensationbenefitspursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.50-6-241(a)(2). #  1      ׀ )$) ThenewcomplaintwasfiledinthecircuitcourtofKnoxCounty.Thecircuitcourtawardedan  additional$43,332.80inworkerscompensationbenefits.    Thedefendantsappealed,contendingthatFreemanwasrequiredtofilehis241(a)(2)action t inthechancerycourtofKnoxCounty,thecourtthathadapprovedtheoriginalsettlement.A ` majorityoftheWorkersCompensationSpecialAppealsPanelagreedthattheactionwasimproperly L  filedinthecircuitcourtanddismissedthesuit.Themajoritystated,however,that [n]othingherein 8  shouldbeconstruedtopreventtheplaintifffrompursuinghisclaiminthecourtwhichapprovedthe $ t originalsettlement.Wegrantedreview.  `   @&ANALYSIS  8    TennesseeCodeAnn50-6-241(a)(2)provides,inpertinentpart:   8  8`   Inaccordancewiththissection,thecourtsmayreconsideruponthe   filingofanewcauseofactiontheissueofindustrialdisability.Such   reconsiderationshallexamineallpertinentfactors,includinglayand p experttestimony,employeesage,education,skillsandtraining,local \ jobopportunities,andcapacitytoworkattypesofemployment H availableinclaimantsdisabledcondition.Suchreconsiderationmay 4 bemadeinappropriatecaseswheretheemployeeisnolonger  p employedbythepreinjuryemployerandmakesapplicationtothe  \ appropriatecourtwithinone(1)yearoftheemployeeslossof H employment,....4` x` x Id.(emphasisadded).     Freemanproperlyfiledanewcauseofactionrequestingareconsiderationoftheprevious  settlement.Thenewcauseofactionwasfiledinacircuitcourtandnotinthechancerycourtthat  hadapprovedthesettlement.Theplaintiffcontendsthatthephrase theappropriatecourtmeans l anycourtthatcouldproperlyexercisejurisdictionoverthe newcauseofaction.Thefilingofa X  workerscompensationsuitisgovernedgenerallybyTenn.CodeAnn.50-6-225.TennesseeCode D! Ann.50-6-225(c)(1)providesthatapetitionmaybefiledin eitherthecircuit,criminalorchancery 0"  courtofthecountyinwhichthepetitionerresidesorinwhichtheallegedaccidenthappens. #l!   Thedefendantscontendthatthephrase theappropriatecourtsuggeststhatthereisbutone $D # appropriatecourt"thecourtoriginallyapprovingthesettlement.Moreover,theterm %0!$  reconsiderationsuggeststhatacourtisreconsideringitsownpreviouslyenteredorder.The &"%  defendantspointtoasimilarissuedecidedunderadifferentstatute,Tenn.CodeAnn.50-6-231, '#& andarguethatweshouldrelyuponGould,Inc.v.Barnes,498S.W.2d623(Tenn.1973),toconclude  thattheoriginalchancerycourtwasthepropercourtinwhichtofilethisaction.     Issuesofstatutoryconstructionarequestionsoflawandshallberevieweddenovowithout t apresumptionofcorrectness.SeeBeareCo.v.TennesseeDep'tofRevenue,858S.W.2d906,907 ` (Tenn.1993).ThisCourt'sroleinstatutoryinterpretationistoascertainandtoeffectuatethe L  legislature'sintent.SeeStatev.Sliger,846S.W.2d262,263(Tenn.1993).Generally,legislative 8  intentshallbederivedfromtheplainandordinarymeaningofthestatutorylanguagewhenastatute's $ t languageisunambiguous.SeeCarsonCreekVacationResorts,Inc.v.DepartmentofRevenue,865  ` S.W.2d1,2(Tenn.1993).Ifastatute'slanguageisexpressedinamannerdevoidofambiguity,  L  courtsarenotatlibertytodepartfromthestatute'swords.SeeId.Accordingly,courtsarerestricted  8  tothe"naturalandordinary"meaningofastatuteunlessanambiguitynecessitatesresorting $  elsewheretoascertainlegislativeintent.Austinv.MemphisPublgCo.,655S.W.2d146,149   (Tenn.1983).        Thestatuteemploystheterms reconsiderand reconsideration. Reconsidermeans to   consideragain,especially withintenttomodifyanearlierdecision.WebstersIINewCollege p Dictionary927(1995).BlacksLawDictionarystatesthat reconsiderationimplies adifferent \ decisionbytheentitywhichinitiallydecidedit.BlacksLawDictionary1272(6thed.1990);cf.. H LesterWitte&Co.v.Pate,279S.E.2d501,502(Ga.Ct.App.1981)( reconsidermeans to 4 consideragain;toreviewwithcare,especiallywithaviewtoareversalofpreviousaction.).We  p findthelanguageofTenn.CodeAnn.50-6-241tobeunambiguous.Byemployingtheterm  \  reconsider,itisevidentthatthelegislatureregardedarequestforreconsiderationbroughtpursuant H toTenn.CodeAnn.50-6-241(a)(2)asacontinuationoftheoriginalworkerscompensationclaim. 4 Furthermore,asthedefendantpointsout,thestatutorylanguage applicationtotheappropriate   courtclearlyindicatesthereisbutonecourtinwhichthemotionisappropriate"thecourtthat   originallyheardthesettlement.See82Am.Jur.2dWorkersCompensation651(1992)(thecourt  havingjurisdictiontosecurecompensationisusuallyempoweredtoreopenormodifyitsawards);  101C.J.S.WorkmensCompensation855(1958)( aproceedingtomodifyanawardisnotanew  proceeding,butisonebasedonthejurisdictionofthe...courtacquiredintheoriginal l proceeding.);seealso49C.J.S.Judgments278(1997).Thus,weconcludethatamotionfor X  reconsiderationbroughtpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.50-6-241(a)(2)mustbefiledinthesame D! courtthatexercisedjurisdictionovertheoriginalworkerscompensationclaim. 0"    ThisholdingastoTenn.CodeAnn.50-6-241(a)(2)isconsistentwiththisCourtsapproach $X" regardingmodificationofworkerscompensationbenefitsunderTenn.CodeAnn.50-6-231 $D # (formerlyTenn.CodeAnn.50-1025(b)).Section231(2)providesasfollows: %0!$ 8  8`   Ifthepartiescannotagree,thenatanytimeaftersix(6)monthsfrom '#& thedateoftheawardanapplicationmaybemadetothecourtsby (#' eitherparty,onthegroundofincreaseordecreaseofincapacitydue )$(  solelytotheinjury.Insuchcases,thesameprocedureshallbe |*%) followedasin50-6-225incaseofadisputedclaimfor  compensation.` x` x  InGould,thisCourtconstruedTenn.CodeAnn.50-1025(b).Weheldthatthemodificationsuit t filedinGibsonCountywasacontinuationoftheoriginalcompensationsuit bypetitionfora ` reopeningandmodificationoftheoriginaljudgmentfiledinMadisonCounty.Gould,498S.W.2d L  at625.Accordingly,weheldthatthesecondactionshouldhavebeenfiledinMadisonCountyand 8  affirmedthedismissalofthesuit.Seeid.Astheconcurringopinionpointsout,sucharuleseeks $ t toavoid strugglesbetweencourtswhichwouldultimatelydestroytheenduringvalueofjudgments.  ` Id.at626(Humphreys,J.,concurring).  L    Accordingly,wedismissFreemanscomplaintwhichwasfiledinKnoxCountycircuitcourt. $  Wenextconsidertheeffectofthedismissalofthecircuitcourtaction.     TennesseeCodeAnnotated28-1-105(a)(1999),thesavingsstatute,states:   8  8`   Iftheactioniscommencedwithinthetimelimitedbyaruleorstatute p oflimitation,butthejudgmentordecreeisrenderedagainstthe \ plaintiffuponanygroundnotconcludingtheplaintiffsrightof H action,...theplaintiff...may...commenceanewactionwithin 4 one(1)yearafterthereversalorarrest.... p` x` x Tennesseelawstronglyfavorstheresolutionofalldisputesontheirmerits,andthesavingsstatute H istobegivenabroadandliberalconstructioninordertoachievethisgoal.SeeHenleyv.Cobb,916 4 S.W.2d915,916(Tenn.1996).Thesavingsstatutehasbeenheldtoapplytoatimelyfiledcasethat   wasdismissedforlackofjurisdictionandthenrefiledintheappropriatecourtwithinoneyearofthe   dismissal.See#UEXXi #XiXUE#XiXXXi #XiXXXiBurnsv.PeoplesTel.&Tel.Co.,33S.W.2d76(Tenn.1930)(timelyfiledsuit  dismissedforlackofjurisdictionbychancerycourtofKnoxCountyandrefiledincircuitcourtof  KnoxCounty).Inthiscase,theappealspaneldismissedFreemansrequestforreconsideration.  BecausethedismissalwasappealedtothisCourt,thefinaldispositionofthisissuewillnotoccur l untilthisCourtentersitsjudgment.See#XiXXXiW7#XiXXXi#UEXXi7#XiXUEMcBurneyv.Aldrich,816S.W.2d30,34(Tenn.Ct.App. X  1991)( Itisgenerallyagreedthatajudgmentisnotfinalandresjudicatawhereanappealis D! pending.). 0"    WeagreewiththepanelthatadismissalwouldnotbarFreemanfromrefilinghiscomplaint $X" inthechancerycourtthatapprovedthesettlement.Accordingly,thecomplaintforreconsideration $D # isdismissedwithoutprejudice,andFreemanmayrefilehisrequestforreconsiderationwithinone %0!$ yearofthedateofjudgmentinthiscase. &"%   @ll%CONCLUSION (#'   WeholdthatarequestforreconsiderationbroughtpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn. |*%) 50-6-241(a)(2)mustbefiledinthesamecourtthatexercisedjurisdictionovertheoriginalworkers h+&* compensationclaim.ThesavingsstatuteappliestopermitFreemantorefilehisrequestfor  reconsiderationwithintwelvemonthsoftheentryofjudgmentofthisCourt.#UEXXi9##UEUE9#XiXUE     `     h     ___________________________________ L     `     h     JANICEM.HOLDER,JUSTICE