ÿWPC 1U:¾ %øþn­ 04»ïw@ï4/C 0JC 0T 0^á 0h? 0r§ 0| 0†• 0 1u« 0d U6„B)º AQãÆ4 0Pú 0@J 0DŠ DCÎ D/ B@ B] D3z AM­ U*ú $ f& %Œ v~±vÓ/<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiX3|x«<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiXÂxþ6X@É“8õ X@( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Ó DÓ€VîDDD Ó€ ­cœ$(2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5((3Þ¸$¢¢Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó7Border 1dd(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd!#%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial øÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌMay€8,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌMay€8,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ Ð ÒÙ€!ÙÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€*,%A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌÌMARILYN€L.€KNIGHT,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€Plaintiff/Appellant€€€€€€)€€No.€01S01„9710„CH„00214€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìv.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€DAVIDSON€CHANCERY€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï)€€ÌLIBERTY€MUTUAL€INSURANCE€GROUP,€€€)€€HON.€IRVIN€H.€KILCREASE,ÏJR.,Ì€€€€€€€€Defendant/Appellee€€€€€€€)€€CHANCELLOR€€€€€€€€€Ìòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌMICHAEL€H.€SNEED€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€D.€RANDALL€MANTOOTH€€€ÌSuite€2121,€Parkway€Towers€€€€€€€€€€GREGORY€H.€OAKLEY€€€€€€€€ÌNashville,€TN€37219€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€LEITNER,€WILLIAMS,€DOOLEY€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïand€NAPOLITANÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€2300€First€American€CenterÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Nashville,€TN€27238„2300€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONóóÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àMEMBERS€OF€PANELÌÌà@ àJANICE€M.€HOLDER,€ASSOCIATE€JUSTICE,€SUPREME€COURTÌà@ à€WILLIAM€H.€INMAN,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌà@ àWILLIAM€S.€RUSSELL,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌREVERSED€and€REMANDED€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€RUSSELL,€SP.€J.ÌÌÓÓÑ7€"sXXdÈXXdÈ7Ñà àThis€appeal€in€a€workers'€compensation€case€has€beenÏreferred€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€ofÏthe€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏSection€50„6„225€(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€SupremeÏCourt€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.Ìà@ àÌà àThis€worker's€compensation€case€was€commenced€initially€byÏthe€employer's€insurance€carrier,€Liberty€Mutual€Insurance€Group,Ïby€a€"Petition€for€Determination€of€Workers'€CompensationÏLiabilities"€filed€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€County,Ï"pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€50„6„225".ÌÌà àThe€petition€in€part€said:€"Petitioner€requests€a€hearing€byÏthis€court€on€the€issue€of€the€compensability€of€respondent'sÏalleged€injuries€and€on€the€nature€and€extent€of€respondent'sÏresulting€permanent€disability,€if€any,€if€her€injuries€are€foundÍto€be€compensable".ÌÌà àThe€subject€employee€filed€a€responsive€pleading€labeledÏ"Answer€to€Petition€for€Determination€of€Workers'€compensationÏLiability",€and€closed€the€pleading€with€the€language:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à"Wherefore€having€fully€answered,€theÏRespondent€request€[sic]€that€the€Court€grantÏa€hearing€in€this€matter€as€soon€as€itsÏpractical€and€to€determine€the€rights€andÏliabilities€of€the€parties".ÌÌÓÓThe€alleged€accident€date€is€January€14,€1995.ÌÌà àOn€October€9,€1996,€counsel€for€Liberty€Mutual€InsuranceÏGroup€filed€a€"Notice€of€Voluntary€Dismissal"€under€Rule€41.01€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€containing€the€languageÏthat€said€Petitioner€"hereby€gives€notice€that€this€cause€isÏvoluntary€dismissed€without€prejudice".€€A€copy€was€served€uponÏthe€injured€employee's€counsel.ÌÌà àThe€record€before€us€does€not€include€a€transcript€of€whatÏoccurred€in€the€Circuit€Court€regarding€this€notice€of€voluntaryÏnonsuit.€€Based€upon€what€subsequently€occurred€in€the€ChanceryÏCourt€in€this€case€before€us€on€appeal,€we€can€assume€that€theÏvoluntary€dismissal€was€permitted€and€that€action€was€notÏappealed€from.ÌÌà àThe€employee,€assuming€that€the€suit€could€be€revived€withinÏa€year€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotation€Section€28„1„101,€etÍseq.,€filed€a€new€suit€on€the€same€cause€of€action€in€theÏChancery€Court€for€Davidson€County€on€October€22,€1996,€thirteenÏdays€after€the€insurance€company€had€voluntarily€dismissed€theÏpetition€that€it€had€filed.ÌÌà àBecause€the€employee's€suit€in€Chancery€Court€was€filedÏnearly€two€years€after€the€alleged€accident€date,€the€insuranceÏcompany€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€the€new€suit€on€the€ground€thatÏit€was€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€Apparently€theÏemployee€had€obtained€a€medical€anatomical€impairment€of€6%€toÏthe€body€as€a€whole€and€this€was€communicated€to€counsel€forÏLiberty€Mutual€before€said€insured€nonsuited€its€original€action.€ÏThis€motion€to€dismiss€is€not€in€the€record€before€us.€€TheÏemployee's€response€to€said€motion,€with€exhibits,€is€in€thisÏrecord.€€The€response€was€filed€on€December€16,€1996.ÌÌà àOn€January€6,€1997,€counsel€for€the€employee€filed€a€motionÏto€be€allowed€to€amend€the€€pending€complaint€"to€allege€that€sheÏis€entitled€to€workers'€compensation€benefits€as€a€result€of€anÏinjury€subsequent€to€the€injury€alleged€in€the€complaint€*€*€*Ï[and]€this€court's€resources€would€be€put€to€best€use€if€all€herÏclaim€for€workers€compensation€benefits€as€against€thisÏparticular€defendant€are€resolved€at€the€same€time".ÌÌà àOn€January€31,€1997,€after€a€hearing€on€both€pendingÏmotions,€the€Chancellor€ruled:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àOrdered,€Adjudged€and€Decreed€thatÏPlaintiff's€claim€for€a€worker's€compensationÏinjury€which€allegedly€occurred€on€JanuaryÏ14,€1995,€is€hereby€dismissed€with€prejudiceÏpursuant€to€the€savings€statute€set€out€atÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€28„1„105.€ÏIt€is€further€Ordered€that€plaintiff€shall€beÏallowed€to€file€an€amended€complaint€settingÏforth€allegations€that€Plaintiff€suffered€aÏdifferent€injury€than€the€injury€alleged€toÏhave€occurred€on€January€14,€1995."Ì€ÌÓÓÌà àOn€February€21,€1997,€the€employee's€counsel€applied€to€theÏtrial€court€for€a€Rule€9,€T.R.A.P.,€appeal€from€the€dismissal€ofÏher€suit€for€benefits€growing€out€of€the€alleged€January€14,€1995Ïinjury.€€Counsel's€premise€for€the€appeal€was€that€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€Section€28„1„101,€et€seq.,€would€save€the€employee'sÏcause€of€action€because€of€the€insurance€company's€original€suitÏand€the€nonsuit€thereof.ÌÌà àThe€insurance€company€filed€an€answer€to€the€Rule€9€appealÏapplication.€€It€contained€statements€indicating€that€the€MotionÏto€Dismiss€had€been€granted€because€the€employee€had€not€filed€aÏ"counterclaim"€to€the€insurance€company's€original€petition.€€ItÏalso€asserts€that€the€employee€had€remaining€causes€of€actionÏagainst€the€insurance€company€for€a€separate€injury,€and€that€theÏmost€efficient€method€of€handling€the€litigation€would€be€to€waitÏuntil€the€remaining€cause€of€action€is€litigated,€and€then€pursueÏthe€appeal€sought€under€Rule€9.€€The€Rule€9€appeal€was€denied.ÌÌà àNo€amendment€setting€out€a€new€cause€of€action€was€everÍfiled€by€counsel€for€the€employee.€€Consequently,€on€May€2,€1997,Ïcounsel€for€Liberty€Mutual€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€for€failureÏto€prosecute.ÌÌà àOn€May€15,€1997,€counsel€for€the€employee€filed€this€notice:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à"Pursuant€to€Rule€41€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Civil€Procedure,€plaintiff€hereby€givesÏher€Notice€of€the€Voluntary€Dismissal€of€theÏabove€referenced€lawsuit,€without€prejudice."ÌÌAn€order€granting€the€dismissal€was€filed€May€21,€1997.ÌÌÓÓÌà àOn€June€20,€1997,€the€employee€filed€notice€that€she€"herebyÏappeals€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee€from€the€final€judgmentÏentered€in€this€action€on€the€21st€day€of€May,€1997".€€Facially,Ïthis€became€an€appeal€by€the€plaintiff€from€an€order€of€voluntaryÏnonsuit€obtained€by€the€plaintiff.ÌÌÓÓà@ àòòISSUES€RAISED€ON€APPEALÌÌÌÓÓà àóóThe€plaintiff/appellant€raises€the€single€issue€that€she€hadÏsought€to€appeal€via€Rule€9;€contending€that€she€had€a€year€inÏwhich€to€bring€suit€after€Liberty€Mutual€voluntarily€dismissedÏits€suit.ÌÌà àThe€appellee,€Liberty€Mutual€Insurance€Group,€contends€(1)Ïthat€this€appeal€is€not€properly€before€this€court,€and€(2)€theÏtrial€court€did€not€err€in€dismissing€the€suit€as€being€timeÏbarred.ÌÌÓÓà@ àòòCONCLUSIONSÌÌÌÓÓà àóóUnfortunately,€we€do€not€know€what€transpired€when€LibertyÏMutual€Insurance€Group€was€allowed€to€nonsuit€the€petition€thatÏit€initially€filed€after€a€year€had€passed€post€injury,€and€afterÏtheir€counsel€had€been€advised€that€the€injured€employee€had€beenÏdiagnosed€with€a€permanent€impairment€from€the€injury.€€To€permitÏa€legitimate€claim€to€become€time€barred€in€this€fashion€isÏcontrary€to€the€intent€of€the€statute€which€allows€theÏemployer/insurer€to€file€suit.ÌÌà àThe€language€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€50„6„225€isÏboth€controlling€and€enlightening.€€Either€party€to€a€workers'Ïcompensation€dispute€"may€submit€the€òòentireóó€òòmatteróó€forÏdetermination".€€The€insurance€company€in€the€case€at€bar€askedÏin€its€petition€that€the€court€determine€the€compensability€ofÏthe€employee's€alleged€injuries.€€The€employee,€in€her€Answer,Ïasked€the€Court€to€determine€the€rights€and€liabilities€of€theÏparties.€€There€can€be€no€doubt€that€a€judgment€in€favor€of€theÏemployee€could€have€been€returned€in€that€case€under€thoseÏpleadings.€€The€ÌÌappellee's€argument€that€no€counterclaim€was€involved€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà àWe€do€not€know,€from€this€record€whether€or€not€the€employeeÏassented€to€the€dismissal.€€We€hold€that€the€saving€statute,ÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€28„1„105,€applied€to€this€non„suit€by€Liberty€Mutual€Insurance€Group€to€the€benefit€of€theÏinjured€employee.ÌÌà àReaching€this€issue€in€the€procedural€posture€of€this€caseÏis€not€without€difficulty.€€The€last€order€in€the€case€was€theÏemployee's€voluntary€nonsuit.€€Normally,€one€does€not€appeal€fromÏtheir€own€voluntary€dismissal.€€What€has€actually€occurred€isÏthat€the€employee€sought€first€via€Rule€9€to€appeal€the€dismissalÏof€her€suit€based€upon€the€alleged€injury€of€January€14,€1995.€ÏThis€was€denied,€probably€because€the€Court€had€allowed€for€anÏamendment€to€the€complaint€which€would€have€generated€an€entirelyÏseparate€claim.€€This€amendment€never€materialized.€€Counsel€forÏthe€appellant/employee€could€not€appeal€without€permission€theÏprior€dismissal€until€there€was€a€final€judgment€in€the€instantÏcase.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€54.02.€€The€procedural€problem€thusÏexisting€had€its€genesis€in€the€trial€court's€allowing€anÏamendment€to€a€dismissed€complaint€that€would€add€a€new€cause€ofÏaction.€€The€new€cause€of€action€was€never€generated,€and€theÏnon„suit€effectively€closed€the€case€pending€in€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àThis€court€has€held€in€certain€instances€that€an€appeal€canÏfollow€a€voluntary€nonsuit.€€òòPanzer€v.€Kingóó,€743€S.W.€2d€612Ï(Tenn.€1988).ÌÌà àIn€the€case€at€bar€the€employee€was€denied€a€Rule€9€appealÏof€obvious€merit€when€her€pending€case€had€been€finally€disposedÏof.€€Ìà àWe€note€the€broad€power€of€the€court€set€our€in€T.R.A.P.ÏRule€36€to€grant€the€relief€that€a€party€is€entitled€to.€ÌòòÌà àóóWe€hold€that€in€the€interest€of€justice€this€appeal€from€aÏvoluntary€nonsuit€is€before€the€court.ÌÌà àWe€hold€that€this€suit€was€timely€filed.€€It€is€remanded€toÏthe€trial€court€for€consideration€upon€its€merits.ÌÌà àCosts€on€appeal€are€assessed€to€the€Appellee.òòÌóóà àÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÓÓóó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÏWILLIAM€S.€RUSSELL,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóJANICE€M.€HOLDER,€ASSOCIATE€JUSTICE€Ì€ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóWILLIAM€H.€INMAN,€SENIOR€JUDGE€€Ì€Ìà àÌÌÌÌÌÑ€-ÑÇÒ  ÒÒ £ ÒòòÔ€¼Ôà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌßJ€*.;+'b|^` ç `€@ÿJßÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌMARILYN€L.€KNIGHT,à àà à}à àDAVIDSON€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à}à àNo.€96„3302„III(I)€BelowÌà àPlaintiff/Appellantà à}Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à}à àHon.€Irvin€Kilcrease,€Jr.,Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à}à àChancellorÌà àà àà àà àà àà à}ÌLIBERTY€MUTUAL€INSURANCEà à}ÌGROUP,€à àà àà àà àà à}à àNo.€01S01„9710„CH„00214Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à}Ìà àDefendant/Appelleeà à}à àREVERSED€AND€REMANDED.ÌÌÌà@ àJUDGMENT€ORDERÌÌÌÓ€Óà àà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entireÏrecord,€including€the€order€of€referral€to€the€SpecialÏWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel'sÏMemorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€byÏreference.Ìà àà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€theÏMemorandum€Opinion€of€the€Panel€should€be€accepted€andÏapproved;€andÌà àà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel'sÏfindings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€are€adopted€andÏaffirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€theÏjudgment€of€the€Court.ÌÓ ` ` šXÓà àà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€Appellee,€Liberty€MutualÍInsurance€Group,€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÏnecessary.ÌÓÓà àà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€on€May€8,€1998.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌóóÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ€XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ