WPCi ZZ> i}DGZ'&ڂ/!!*IgX.↋!nfHm {O~ +ُ)g (LpmFڴY ]Kx0#%&֨9A|Դ ju µa Zl!m˙n ~ȕ&|EW։hKHe՜ O6N;FMlUxJ`ݻ~$6& ?mӷHb1m(xixK'=w4,w'%g|Jj)l?w]]2.VB(Geb0O'Wǡn yG¹Z jG_n^ (˺ۋP|h x EOk`tM Z|vk g!& wVGL ɠt~K8XiC ɠb %\Nb 0dU2N^ :wF4J z^  m     j 0 0D N:v<E=# z<<UNb\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 0dddd B OO 0l D5 D-E 0Krr AS 0 0Dz A(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegulardN1 p)/xb014d7 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|xU  R$      1  XYX  _} XXYԀDefendantsbriefreferstothefilingdateasJuly19,2003.#XYX }~#ԁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5()$  3   l R$      2  XYX  _Ԁ} XXYThesefactswerenotapparentinthecomplaintbutwerefactsdisclosedbythepartiestothetrialcourtfor  considerationontheissueofdismissal.#XYX }#  3 R$      3  XYX  _Ԁ} XXYAfterthetrialcourtdismissedthecase,theemployeefiledanaffidavitinsupportofamotiontoreconsider  and/ornewtrial.\\IB01S08T\knoxclerk4,,,,0C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(I Z6Times New Roman Regular- -(|G2$ !..8Q%dd8         0  XYX d(|3x$ !..8Q%dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3x$ !..8Q%dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Q%dd8     _Q%8YXXdd8  VDQ%@@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL & @@ATKNOXVILLE#Q%VD# L June11,2004Session "r XYXQ% #Q%XXY#LORIANNJOHNSONv._MCKEE_ԀFOODSCORPORATIONXYXQ%   p @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforHamiltonCounty  p @@No.030818HowellN.Peoples,Chancellor  \ FiledOctober12,2004 4  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   No.E200302899_WC_ԄR3CVMailedAugust3,2004   #Q%XXY#XYXQ%AV) ` dE<` A       ThisworkerscompensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkersCompensation  AppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)for v hearingandreportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.#Q%XXY#XYXQ%ԀThetrial b courtdismissedtheclaimholdingitwasbarredbytheexpirationoftheoneyearstatuteof N limitations.Thejudgmentisreversedasanissueoffactexistsastowhetherthestatuteof : limitationsshouldbesuspendeduntiltheemployeelearnedofherdisabilityfromherdoctor. &v J   Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(1999)AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt N ReversedandRemanded  :     RogerE.Thayer,Sp.J.,#Q%XY#XYX.Q%deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichE.RileyAnderson,J.,and  WilliamH._Inman_,Sr.J.,joined.  DanielK._Habenicht_,Chattanooga,Tennessee,forAppellant,LoriAnnJohnson.   BruceC.BaileyandCharlesD.Lawson,Chattanooga,Tennessee,forAppellee,_McKee_ԀFoods ^"! Corporation. J#"    MEMORANDUMOPINION #Q%XXY] #XYXQ% "%r $   #Q%XXY #XYXQ%  Theemployee,LoriAnnJohnson,hasperfectedanappealfromanorderoftheChancery &J"& Courtdismissingherclaimonthedefensetheoneyearstatuteoflimitationshadexpired. '6#'    Facts  )%) 6   ThecomplaintallegesthatonaboutJuly1,2002,theemployeewastransferredtoadifferent +&+ jobwith_Mckee_ԀFoodsCorporation,whichinvolvedmorestrenuousworkthanshehadbeen ,', performing;thatwithintwoweeksinthenewposition,shebegantoexperiencepaininherlower n-(- _backandsherequestedatransferoutofthisnewposition;thatonSaturday,July13,2002thepain  becamesosevereshesawadoctoronJuly16,2002andhescheduledanMRIexamination;onJuly  19,2002thedoctoradvisedhershehadthreeruptureddiscsinherlowbackthatnecessitated  immediatesurgery;andthatsheallegestheruptureddiscswerecausedbyherlastworkactivities. t   DefendantemployerfiledamotiontodismissunderRule12,Tenn.R.Civ.P.thatstatedthe L  complaintallegedtheinjuryhadoccurredonorbeforeJuly13,2002andthatthecomplaintwasnot 8  filedwithinoneyearofsaiddate. $ t   TherecordindicatesthecomplaintwasfiledonJuly17,2003.  )  1      ׀Italsoappearsthatthe  L  employeeslastworkdaywasJuly11,2002andthatsheneverreturnedtoworkandshewas  8  terminatedbyheremployeronJuly15,2003astherewasacompanypolicywhichprovided $  employeeswithlessthanfiveyearsofsenioritymaymissworkfornomorethanamaximumof   twelvemonths.T )  2           TheChancellorsustainedthemotiontodismissbasedontherulinginthecaseof Lawson   v.LearSeatingCorp. ,944S.W.2d340(Tenn.1997),andholdingtheactionwasfiledmorethan p oneyearaftertheemployeeslastworkday. \    StandardofReview  4   Generallythestandardofreviewoffactualissuesinaworkerscompensationcaseisdenovo  \ upontherecordofthetrialcourtaccompaniedbyapresumptionofcorrectnessofthetrialcourts H findings,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(2). 4 Thereviewoflegalissuesisdenovo. Tuckerv.Foamex,LP ,31S.W.3d241,242(Tenn.2000).   Appealsfromsummaryjudgmentproceedingsarenotcontrolledbythedenovostandardofreview.    Blockerv.RegionalMedicalCenter, 722S.W.2d660(Tenn.1987).     AnalysisofIssue     TennesseeCodeAnnotated506302requiresaclaimmustbefiledwithinoneyearofthe X  accidentorwithinoneyearofthecessationofthepaymentofcompensationbenefits.However,the D! courtshaveheldthattherunningofthestatuteissuspendeduntilbyreasonablecareanddiligence 0"  itisdiscoverableandapparentthataninjurycompensableundertheworkerscompensationlawhas #l! beensustained. Ferrellv.CignaProperty&Cas.Ins.Co. ,33S.W.3d731(Tenn.2000); Ogden $X" v.MatrixVision ,838S.W.2d528(Tenn.1992); NortonCo.v.Coffin ,553S.W.2d751(Tenn. $D # 1977).Undertheruleregardingsuspensionofthestatute,itisthedatethatanemployeesdisability %0!$ manifestsitselftoapersonofreasonablediligence,ratherthanthedateoftheaccident,thattriggers &"% thestatuteoflimitations. McLerranv.MidSouthStone,Inc. ,695S.W.2d181(Tenn.1985);   Jonesv.HomeIndem.Ins.Co. ,679S.W.2d445(Tenn.1984).    Inevaluatingacaseundertheserules,itmustbedetermined(1)whentheaccidentis t consideredtohaveoccurredand(2)whetherthecircumstancesaresuchastojustifythesuspension ` ofthelimitationperiod. L    ThesolepurposeofamotiontodismissunderRule12.02(6),Tenn.R.Civ.P.,istotestthe $ t legalsufficiencyofthecomplaint, Dobbsv.Guenther ,846S.W.2d270(Tenn.Ct.App.1992),and  ` suchmotionisarequestbyapartyforthecourttoenterajudgmentonthepleadings.WhenaRule  L  12motiontodismissisfiled,thecourtisrequiredtoconstruethecomplaintinfavoroftheplaintiff.  8   Huckebyv.Spangler, 521S.W.2d568(Tenn.1975); Hollowayv.PutnamCo. ,534S.W.2d292 $  (Tenn.1976).     However,Rule12providesthatifmattersoutsidethepleadingsarepresentedtothecourt   andnotexcluded,themotionshallbetreatedasoneforsummaryjudgmentanddisposedofas   providedinRule56andallpartiesshallbegivenreasonableopportunitytopresentallmaterial p pertinenttothemotionbyRule56.Tenn.R.Civ.P.12.02,12.03. \   Thepartywhomovesforsummaryjudgmenthastheburdenofshowingthatnogenuineissue 4 ofmaterialfactexists,andthecourtmustviewtherecordinthelightmostfavorabletothemotions  p opponent. Taylorv.NashvilleBannerPublishingCo. ,573S.W.2d476(Tenn.Ct.App.1978),cert.  \ denied,441U.S.923,99S.Ct.2032,60L.Ed2d396(1979). H   Onamotionforasummaryjudgmentdisputesastomaterialfactsmustbeevidenceby   affidavitsorotherswornevidenceoffacts,andnotmerelybyunsworngeneralizedassertionsin   pleadings. WachoviaBank&TrustCo.v.Glass ,575S.W.2d950(Tenn.Ct.App.1978).    Anappealfromasummaryjudgmentinaworkerscompensationcaseisnotcontrolledby  thedenovostandardofreviewprovidedbytheWorkersCompensationActbutisgovernedbyRule l 56,Tenn.R.Civ.P.; Downenv.AllstateIns.Co. ,811S.W.2d523(Tenn.1991).Nopresumption X  ofcorrectnessattachestodecisionsgrantingsummaryjudgmentbecausetheyonlyinvolvequestions D! oflaw;onappealthereviewingcourtmustmakeafreshdeterminationconcerningwhetherthe 0"  requirementsofRule56havebeenmet. Gonzalesv.AlmanConst.Co. ,857S.W.2d42(Tenn.Ct. #l! App.1993). $X"   Inthepresentappeal,theemployeearguesthatshewasnotawareshehadsustainedaserious %0!$ injuryuntilJuly19,2002,whenherdoctoradvisedhershehadthreeruptureddiscsandthather &"% actionwasfiledonJuly17,2003whichwaswithinoneyearofsaiddate.Theemployercontends '#& thatMs.JohnsonwaswellawareofaproblemwithherbackasofJuly13,2002andthatthetrial (#' courtwascorrectinholdingherlastworkdayonJuly11,2002startedtherunningofthelimitation )$( periodandthatthefilingofthesuitwasnottimely. |*%) _ h+&*   Wefindthatfactsoutsidethecomplaintwerepresentedtothecourtandundertheauthorities  citedthemotionmustbeconsideredasoneforsummaryjudgment.Therecordinsupportofa  summaryjudgmentinfavoroftheemployerisextremelymeagerwithonlythecomplaintand  generalizedassertionsoffactinanunswornresponsetothispleading.Noaffidavitsorothersworn t evidenceexists. )  3       `   Weagreewiththetrialcourtthatiftherecordestablishestheemployeewasinjuredovera 8  periodoftwoweeksasaresultofrepetitiveworkactivity,thenthegeneralruleisthatthe accident $ t resultingininjuryisconsideredtohaveoccurredonthelastdaytheemployeeworked.See Lawson  ` v.LearSeatingCorp. ,944S.W.2d340(Tenn.1997).However,wefindthatthereisaseparate  L  questioninthiscaseastowhethertheoneyearstatutewassuspendeduntiltheemployeelearnedof  8  herdisabilityfromherdoctoronJuly19,2002.Agenuineissueoffactdoesexistonthesuspension $  questionandweholditwasinappropriatetodismisstheaction.See Jonesv.Home_Indem_.Ins.   Co. ,679S.W.2d445(Tenn.1984); Osbornev.BurlingtonInd.,Co.,_Klopman_ԀDiv. ,672S.W.2d   757(Tenn.1984);and _Hibner_Ԁv.St.PaulMercuryIns.Co. ,619S.W.2d109(Tenn.1981).      Conclusion  t 3  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisreversedandthecaseisremandedforfurtherproceedings. L Costsoftheappealaretaxedto_McKee_ԀFoodsCorporation. 8    `     h     ___________________________________ L    `     h     ROGERE.THAYER,SPECIALJUDGE 8   $ __Q%XXY   @ #XYXQ%26#VDXXYINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#XYXVD6#Q%XXYԈ & @ June11,2004Session L #XYXQ%57# Q%XXY  LORIANNJOHNSONv.MCKEEFOODSCORPORATION#XYXQ%7#  J 7@  ChanceryCourtforHamiltonCounty  J @%No.030818  6    `     h FiledOctober12,2004    @*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @No.E200302899WCR3CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }   Q%XXY#XYXQ%c:#@& JUDGMENT Q%XXY#XYXQ%:#Ԉ x  Q%XXY#XYXQ%$;#Q%XXYXC Q%#XOX XCg;#  ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtuponthemotionforreviewfiledbyMcKeeFoodsCorporation < pursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.50-6-225(e)(5)(B),theentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferral (x totheSpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanelsMemorandumOpinionsetting d forthitsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw. P   ItappearstotheCourtthatthemotionforreviewisnotwelltakenandisthereforedenied. ( ThePanelsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedbyreference,areadopted  andaffirmed.ThedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgmentoftheCourt.    CostsareassessedtoMcKeeFoodsCorporation,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.  #XYXXXO;#Q%XXY#XYXQ%z?#ANDERSON,J.,NOTPARTICIPATING_