WPC 4# U: %- 03w@.4n 0? 0D  0D" 0Jf 0T L U<P 0^ 0h 0rR 0| 0@ 0 1uV 0d AQ/ 0F 0@] B D/ B D3U*9B)cDC AMv~yvHP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH,cAZ"Arial RegularX($  HTR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalTXXXX7.XXdXXd7 vwDxyDz{ӀVe"(3|x((2 $ !  HTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXXXX7XXdd7   `   0  (#$  0  H($$   1  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT.B' Z$Arrus BT Roman2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X!"#&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3Ֆ$ !  HTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXXXX7XXdd7  ("$     d((' dxdP Pd$$$$'dxd<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d----7Border 1dd!#.C << G  !  #d#,    H \RA'\#d#  ""  ,   YYY FILED,XJune23,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#,    H \RA'\#d#  ""  ,   YYY FILED,XJune23,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ! . ,    H \RA'\#Xd##Xd#  ݛ   ӛ ̜!R/0.A1-j|` . `@RߛINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEESPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANELATNASHVILLE  DAVIDH.CRENSHAW,SR.  )      ) DAVIDSONCHANCERY Plaintiff/Appellee   )      ) 01S019701CH00018v.      )      ) ROBERTS.BRANDT,ATSSOUTHEAST,INC.,   ) CHANCELLOR      ) Defendant/Appellant  ) FortheAppellant:    FortheAppellee: FredC.Dance    CharlesAbbottDance,Dance&Lane   Abbott&Burlison3200WestEndAve.,Ste.101  6263PoplarAve.,Ste.1130Nashville,TN37203   Memphis,TN38119    MEMORANDUMOPINION MembersofPanel: ChiefJusticeAdolphoA.Birch,Jr.SeniorJudgeJohnK.ByersSpecialJudgeJoeC.Loser,Jr.  AFFIRMED       BYERS,SeniorJudge  Thisworkers'compensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)forhearingandreportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw. ThisisanappealbytheemployerfromanorderofthetrialcourtsettingasideapreviouslyissuedorderofdismissalforfailuretoprosecuteaworkerscompensationcasewithinoneyearunderthelocalrulesofcourtforDavidsonCounty.ThetrialcourtsetasidethedismissalorderunderRule60.02,Tenn.R.Civ.p. ThecomplaintforworkerscompensationbenefitswasfiledOctober14,1994.ThedefendantfiledanansweronNovember17,1994.Thetrialcourt,suasponte,dismissedthecomplaintonNovember6,1995underthelocalruleforfailuretoprosecute. Therecordbeforeus,whichconsistsofthepleadings,ordersandanaffidavitoftheemployeescounselinsupportofhisRule60motion,showthenoticeofdismissalwasfiledoncounselfortheplaintiffonNovember14,1995.OnJanuary22,1996,plaintifffiledaRule60motiontohavetheorderdismissedorsetaside. OnFebruary26,1996,thetrialjudgefound Plaintiff[had]notmadeoutasufficientshowingofmistake,inadvertence,surprise,orexcusableneglecttojustifyreliefunderRule60,TennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure,however becausethismatterisaworkerscompensationaction,theOrderofDismissalwillbesetasideandthiscaseshallbeputbackontheCourtsactivedocket. Unlessotherwisesetoutintheorderofdismissal,suchorderoperatesasanadjudicationuponthemerits.Rule41.02(3),Tenn.R.Civ.P. Rule59.04,Tenn.R.Civ.P.,providesforamotiontoamendoralterajudgment.Suchmotionsmustbefiledandservedontheoppositepartywithin30daysoftheentryofthejudgmentinquestion. Ajudgmentbecomesfinalin30daysandcannotbereviewedafterthattime.ϜAlgeev.StateFarmGeneralIns.Co.,890S.W.2d445,447(Tenn.Ct.App.1994). Theorderofdismissalinthiscasebecamefinal30daysafterentrythereof,i.e.,December6,1995.NoRule59motionwasfiledbytheplaintiff. Afterthejudgmentbecomesfinal,theonlyavenuetohavethejudgmentsetasidewasbywayofamotioninaccordancewithRule60,Tenn.R.Civ.P.ThatRuleprovides:8 Onmotionanduponsuchtermsasarejust,thecourtmayrelieveapartyorthepartyslegalrepresentativefromafinaljudgment,orderorproceedingforthefollowingreasons:(1)mistake,inadvertence,surpriseorexcusableneglect;(2)fraud(whetherheretoforedenominatedintrinsicorextrinsic),misrepresentation,orothermisconductofanadverseparty;(3)thejudgmentisvoid;(4)thejudgmenthasbeensatisfied,releasedordischarged,orapriorjudgmentuponwhichitisbasedhasbeenreversedorotherwisevacated,oritisnolongerequitablethatajudgmentshouldhaveprospectiveapplication;or(5)anyotherreasonjustifyingrelieffromtheoperationofthejudgment.Themotionshallbemadewithinareasonabletime,andforreasons(1)and(2)notmorethanoneyearafterthejudgment,orderorproceedingwasenteredortaken. TheplaintiffsmotionRule60didnotsetoutwithparticularitywhatprovisionofRule60hereliedupontohavethejudgmentsetaside.Fromtherecordandpleadings,neitherreason(2)fraud,norreason(3)thejudgmentwasvoid,nor(4)satisfactionofjudgmentwasreliedonbytheplaintiffforhavingthejudgmentsetaside. IfreliefcouldbegrantedunderRule60,itwouldhavetobeongrounds(1)mistake,inadvertence,surpriseorexcusableneglector(5)anyotherreasonjustifyingrelieffromtheoperationofthejudgment. ThestandardofreviewofarulingbyatrialcourtonaRule60.02motioniswhetherthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninreachingitsconclusion. WeagreewiththedefendantthatsettingasidetheorderofdismissalmerelybecausethecasebeingdismissedisaworkerscompensationcaseisnotasufficientbasisforsettingasidetheorderunderRule60.02.However,weareoftheviewthereviewingcourtmayexaminethewholerecordtoseeifthereisabasisforsuchactionevidentthereinwhichsatisfiestherequirementsofRule60.02andjustifiedtheactionofthetrialcourt. Theplaintiffsmotionandhiscounselsaffidavitaverthedefendantsworkerscompensationcarrierdidnotaccepttheplaintiffsclaimascompensableuntilsuitwasfiled. Further,plaintiffscounselaverredthatthecarriercommencedworkerscompensationpaymentstotheplaintiffafterthesuitwasfiled.Thedefendantdidnotrefutethisclaim. Theplaintiffaverredthatfurtherprosecutionofthecasewas tableduponcommencementofpaymentsuntilitwasdeterminedthateffortstosettletheissueofpermanentpartialdisabilityfailedtoproveproductive. Althoughtherecordbeforeusisnotclearonthenatureofthepaymentofcompensation,itappearsthesepaymentswerefortemporarytotaldisability. Theplaintifftakesthepositionthathecouldnotprosecutethecaseuntilhehadreachedmaximummedicalrecoveryorunlessthecarrierceasedpaymentsofbenefits.AWorkersCompensationcasemaynotbeprosecutedordetermineduntiltheinjuredworkerhasreachedmaximummedicalimpairment.ThequestionnowbecomeswhetherthisfactjustifiesgrantingtheplaintiffreliefunderRule60.02. InToneyv.MuellerCo.,810S.W.2d145,146(Tenn.1991),theCourtheld:8 Rule60.02ismeanttobeusedonlyinthosefewcasesthatmeetoneormoreofthecriteriastated.AsrecentlystatedbythisCourt, Rule60.02actsasanescapevalvefrompossibleinequitythatmightotherwisearisefromtheunrelentingimpositionoftheprincipleoffinalityembeddedinourproceduralrules.Thompsonv.FiremansFundIns.Co.,789S.W.2d235,238(Tenn.1990).Becauseoftheimportanceofthis principleoffinality,the escapevalveshouldnotbeeasilyopened.WhenapartyseekstheextraordinaryreliefpermittedbyRule60.02(1), theburdenisuponthemovanttosetforthinamotionorpetition,orinaffidavitsinsupportthereof,factsexplainingwhymovantwasjustifiedinfailingtoavoidmistake,inadvertenceorsurprise.Hopkinsv.Hopkins,572S.W.2d639,640(Tenn.1978). AlthoughthefailureofplaintifftofileaRule59motionisinexplicable,wearenotpreparedtoholdhisfailuretodosoisthecontrollingelementinthismatter. WebelievethatinthiscasetheholdingoftheCourtinToneyv.MuellerCo.,supra,iscontrolling,i.e.,thatRule60.02shouldbeusedtoescapewhatcouldotherwiseworkapossibleinequityiftheorderofdismissalisheldtobefinal. Althoughcounselinhismotiondidnotaverhisfailuretoprosecutethiscasewasduetoexcusableneglect,thesenseofhisavermentthatthepaymentof  benefitsbythedefendantscarrierandhiscorrectcontentionthathecouldnotprosecutethecaseuntiltheplaintiffhadreachedmaximummedicalimpairmentisanavermentwhichfitstheexcusableneglectrequirement. AlthoughsettingasidethejudgmentbecausetheactionwasaworkerscompensationcasewouldnotfittherequirementsofRule60.02,wemayaffirmtheactioniftherecordshowstheactionwasjustifiedbyavalidreasonevidentthereineventhoughthetrialjudgefoundanotheranderroneousreasonforsettingthejudgmentaside. Weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourtandassessthecoststothedefendant/appellant.      _________________________________      JohnK.Byers,SeniorJudge̜CONCUR:______________________________AdolphoA.Birch,Jr.,ChiefJustice______________________________JoeC.Los%  er,Jr.,SpecialJudge     H    @ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLEDAVIDH.CRENSHAW,SR.,  ) DAVIDSONCHANCERY      ) No.943123III Appellee,    )      ) Hon.RobertS.Brandt,v.      ) Chancellor      )      ) No.01S019701CH00018J/1;+'b| ` . `@JATSSOUTHEAST,INC.,  )       ) Appellant.    ) AFFIRMED.@ JUDGMENTORDER  ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtuponmotionforreviewpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(5)(B),theentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferraltotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanel'sMemorandumOpinionsettingforthitsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference;  Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthatthemotionforreviewisnotwelltakenandshouldbedenied;and  Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanel'sfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawareadoptedandaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgmentoftheCourt.   Costsonappealareassessedtotheappellant.  ITISSOORDEREDthis23rddayofJune,1997.      PERCURIAMBirch,C.J.Notparticipating.,ԛ