WPC ?Nıc0elX>QIz 42A5ޖ6a'Dh M;Yi#m4d8{v^w,Xጪpx7ޒcK0q ("ߴ !g+?᪳ug (Ķe/ׁ.h8 M HtMjb"EN@HoCsv@fE F__a.::-nlj {y+#u6;C`>;Lq{.D :]?'~l]Gʭ&b 1g;̂wφ{kgSCã'?5AU#{ \j # {O٥=H|rD-yS$T3UuWxhf/77-jvm{"AmX?K-~aդ&Rzm=_ջe*# LUNW % 0(w4mU: 0 0D U: e M W U:p UN U: AQ2  U: B  0D 0D 0D++ D/oo B D3HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($  U E  D D I   H U E D D D  E .e    E  Ӏ u[%3|x ,  AZ"Arial Regular((2$ !  =|Xdd=4=aXX   0  (#$  0     $=|Xdd=4=aXX   1    =aTheDepartmentofLaborStandardFormMedicalReport.,  AZ"Arial Regular    ٨$=\Xdd=4AXX   1    ATheDepartmentofLaborStandardFormMedicalReport.,  AZ"Arial Regular(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular!"#$&C<< C ""  X XXXN  XX    Ad FILEDX X N  December7,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd 'dxd !      XuXXXԚ4Ҝ TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'Tћ   7|XXdXXd7   = XXdd=  X Xu"*US \\ (:!&)*   11\23\1998(10:49am)!  :.|lG:\IB013S2\OPINION\ACTIVE\PHILLIPS\CIRC'D\PHILLIPB.OPN|G:\IB013S2\OPINION\ACTIVE\PHILLIPS\CIRC'D\PHILLIPB.OPN/   # XuX #    TR[A'Legal Red3'A' Legal3'T   r)<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxP,  r         @PPDINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ll)DATNASHVILLE t)>.*jx` `@E ` 8ttxP tߛ  OPN# 9896     <      D   FORPUBLICATION    <      D   Filed: 򀀀  November30   Dece  ,ber   mber7  ,  December7,   1998 T$T$MT$  BILLYR.PHILLIPS,@##/D) H@  @##/D) PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,@##/D)  TennesseeClaimsCommission (  @##/D)v.@##/D)  @##/D)  Hon.W.R.Baker,Commissioner  TENNESSEETECHNOLOGICAL@##/D)  UNIVERSITY,STATEOF@##/D)  TENNESSEE,@##/D)  No.01S019708BC00173  @##/D) DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS.@##/D)       FORAPPELLANT: <      D   FORAPPELLEE: (#  JOHNKNOXWALKUP     D   RONALD   THURMAN   %    AttorneyGeneralandReporter   D   Cookeville   %!   MARY  BYRDFERRARA  Assistant  AttorneyGeneral@oo)D  X XuOPINION # XuX Z #Ԉ 4-0 CLAIMSCOMMISSIONAFFIRMEDINPART  CT$HOLDER,J.  F:>36(  @,D OPINION    WegrantedthisappealtoaddresswhethertheStatemaybeliablefordiscretionarycostspursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.54.04(2)inaworkers'compensationcase.WeholdthattheStatemayonlybetaxedforcostsexpresslypermittedbyeithertheTennesseeclaimscommissionstatuteortheWorkers'CompensationAct.    BACKGROUND   - Theplaintiff,BillyR.Phillips,sustainedaworkrelatedinjurywhileemployedbythedefendant,astateuniversity.TheplaintifffiledamotiontorecoverdiscretionarycostspursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.54.04.Themotionsoughtrecoveryfor"expensesincurredbytheplaintiffinpreparationandprosecutionofthiscase."Specifically,theplaintiffallegedhewasentitledtorecover:(1)thetreatingphysician'sfeeof$150.00forpreparationofaC32form     #  1      ׀inlieuofadeposition;(2)courtreportercostsof$35.00associatedwith %  theplaintiff'sdiscoverydeposition;and(3)afeeof$300.00chargedbyavocationaldisabilityexpertwhotestifiedattrial. Theclaimscommissionawardedtheplaintiffpermanentpartialdisabilitybenefitsofthirtypercenttothebodyasawholeand$150.00forthetreatingphysician'sfeeinlieuofdeposition.Theclaimscommissiondeniedtheplaintiff'srequestsforthecourtreportercostsandforthevocationaldisabilityexpert'sfee.TheSpecialWorkers'CompensationPanelmodifiedtheplaintiff'sdisabilityawardtothirtysevenpercenttothebodyasawholeandremandedthecasefor 5.2 anawardofreasonablediscretionarycosts.TheStatehasraisedonlyoneissueonappealtothisCourt:whethertheStatemaybeheldliablefordiscretionarycosts.Wegrantedreviewandholdthattheclaimscommissionactedproperlyindenyingdiscretionarycostsotherthanthetreatingphysician'sfeeforpreparationoftheC32form.    ANALYSIS  H@   Theplaintiffarguesthatheisentitledtodiscretionarycostspursuanttoboth   Tenn.  R.Civ.P.  54.04 ,  andourholdinginReaganv.American  Policyholders'Ins.Co.,842S.W.2d249(Tenn.1992).Rule54.04permitsa  prevailingpartytorecovercourtcosts,discretionarycosts,andinterpretercosts.SeeRule54.04(1)(permittingrecoveryofcostsincludedinthebillofcosts);Rule  54.04(2)(allowingrecoveryofdiscretionarycosts);Rule54.04(3)(permittingappointmentandpaymentforinterpreter).Rule54.04(1)prescribesalimitationfortheassessmentofcostsagainsttheStateaspartytolitigation.Thislimitationprovidesthat"costsagainstthestate,itsofficers,oritsagenciesshallbeimposedonlytotheextentpermittedbylaw."Id. &"  Theclaimscommissionhasexclusivejurisdictionoverworkers'compensationclaimsagainsttheStateofTennessee.Tenn.CodeAnn.        9 - 8-307(a)(1)(K).  The  claims   commission  statuteexpresslyprovidesthat"[t]hestatewillbeliableforactualdamages  only.  ...Thestatewillnotbeliableforpunitivedamagesandthecostsoflitigationotherthancourtcosts."Tenn.CodeAnn.98307(d).  5.2  InReaganv.AmericanPolicyholders'Ins.Co.,842S.W.2d249,251   (Tenn.1992),thetrialcourttaxedtotheSecondInjuryFundaportionofthecourtcostsandcostsassociatedwiththetreatingphysician'sfeeandtestimony.ReagandealtonlywiththeassessmentofcostsagainsttheSecondInjuryFund.   Reaganisreadilydistinguishablefromthecasenowbeforeus.Claimsagainst  theState,unlikethoseagainsttheSecondInjuryFund,aresubjecttothe  claims   commission  statutes. Rule54.04(2)permitsdiscretionarycosts.The  claims   commission  statutespecificallyprohibitstaxingdiscretionarycostsagainstthestate.Tenn.CodeAnn.98307(d).WhileRule54.04isaruleofgeneralapplication,98307isalegislativemandatewithspecificapplicationtotheStateasadefendant.Weholdthatthespecificmandateof98307(d)takesprecedenceoverthegeneraldiscretionarycostsprovision,Rule54.04(2).SeeCooperv.Alcohol h` Comm.oftheCityofMemphis,745S.W.2d278,280(Tenn.1988)(holding H!@ specificstatutoryprovisionstakeprecedenceovergeneralruleprovisions).Accordingly,theStatemaynotbetaxeddiscretionaryorlitigationcostsabsentanexpresslegislativemandate. TheState'sliabilityforworkers'compensationclaimsissubjecttothegeneralprovisionsoftheWorkers'CompensationAct("Act").TheActprovides:8  Thefeeschargedtotheclaimantbythetreatingphysicianoraspecialisttowhomtheemployeewasreferredforgivingtestimonybyoraldepositionrelativetotheclaim,shall,unlesstheinterestsofjusticerequireotherwise,beconsideredapartofthecostsofthecase,tobechargedagainsttheemployerwhentheemployeeistheprevailingparty.   ! !   6/3 Tenn.CodeAnn.506226(c)(1).We,therefore,mustdeterminewhetherthis sectionmaybeinterpretedasanexpresslegislativemandateauthorizingalitigationcostagainsttheStateinaworkers'compensationcase.TheTennessee  claims   commission  statuteexcludescertainenumeratedcodesectionsfromapplicabilityinworkers'compensationclaimsfiledagainsttheState.Tenn.CodeAnn.  98307(K)( I  i ).  Absentfromthislistofexclusionsis506226(c)(1).̀ Afundamentalruleofstatutoryconstructionisthatthementionofonesubjectinastatutemeanstheexclusionofothersubjectsthatarenotmentioned.Statev.Davis,940S.W.2d558,561(Tenn.1997);Mikev.Po  Group,Inc.,937S.W.2d790,794(Tenn.1996);  State  v.Harkins,811S.W.2d  79,82(Tenn.1991)(holdingomissionsaresignificantwhenstatutesareexpressincertaincategoriesbutnotothers).Hadthelegislatureintendedtoprecludeapplicationof506226,itcouldhavesimplyaddedthiscodesectiontothelistofexcludedcodesectionsin98307.Accordingly,theStatemaybeliableforfeeschargedtoaworkers'compensationclaimantbyatreatingphysicianorspecialist,asprovidedforin506226(c)(1). Intheclaimnowbeforeus,theplaintiffhasrequestedreimbursementforthefollowingexpenses:(1)thefeechargedbythetreatingphysicianrelativetotheclaim;(2)thecostofacourtreporterfortheplaintiff'sdiscoverydeposition;and(3)thefeechargedbyvocationaldisabilityexpertforappearanceattrial.Astheprevailingparty,theplaintiffisentitledonlytothecostsofthetreatingphysiciansfeepursuantto506226.Theplaintiff'sremainingtwoclaimsfordiscretionarycostsareoutsidetheambitof506226andwereproperlydenied. 704 Ї Theclaimscommissionsjudgmentastocostsisaffirmed.Thejudgmentastotheplaintiff'sdisabilityawardstandsasmodifiedbytheSpecialWorkers'CompensationPanelatthirtysevenpercenttothebodyasawhole.Costsofthisappealshallbetaxedequallyagainsttheplaintiffanddefendantsforwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.   <      D T$T$MT$ (     <      D JANICEM.HOLDER,JUSTICE Panel:   Anderson,C.J.  Drowota ,  and Birch   ,andBarker,  , J.J.         SpecialJustice   Reid,Sp.J.,NotParticipating