WPC XI_VC}͂/-_Qrhnxm(Yi'̇*%\L%cG!4ς%G kW|h- JFcazU,iԓ/$U_7˄r)bQJI~+Xo0ܲK30Qҕd)5'=|.Z 4ɫfQ|uktf›R3TM 53 X ʕڷ@xQ)h"Zx'i,&;;O^cތd]FO=$쫋:(LVMbNs{po+H! \+J0*`. M,4/(@C\ZnO]PfƬiIr6XU1u[_V!XPS+2f3oФb:dy'b %\^ b 0nU6NwD4H\ zk m  #  _ %  UNNVNE z 0DS    b 0 B  0 D3k D- 0K ASi 0/ 0D A}-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular],9Ȝ3|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptU HP LaserJet 4 Plus,,,,,,0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularC:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(#$  0  1248- -(|G2z$ !..8dd8         0  X+X d(|35$ !..8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|35$ !..8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _8+XXdd8  ?@@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL , @@ATJACKSON#?# X February28,2002Session 4 X+X #XX+#DALEPARISHv._MASSMAN_ԀCONSTRUCTIONCO.,etal.X+X  <  @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty D  @@No.CT00628900RobertA.Lanier,Judge 4  @@*AV) ` dE<` A T  No.W200101678SCWCMCVMailedApril12,2002;FiledAugust1,2002 S  #XX+#X+XAV) ` dE<` A 3      Thisworkers'compensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppeals 2 PaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)forhearingand " reportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.Inthisappeal,#XX+#X+XԀthe  employeeappellantinsiststhetrialcourterredinfinding(1)theemployeesemploymentwasnot  principallylocatedinTennessee,(2)thecontractofhirewasnotmadeinTennessee,and(3)the  defendantswaivedtheirrighttoassertTennesseedoesnothavejurisdictionovertheclaim.As  discussedbelow,thepanelhasconcludedthejudgmentshouldbeaffirmed.     Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(1999)AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt b Affirmed.  R     JoeC.Loser,Jr.,Sp.J.#X+#X+X.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichL.T._Lafferty_,Sr.J.,and 2 JaniceM.Holder,J.,joined. "r LawrenceW.WhiteandR.ScottVincent,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,DaleParish !R _Sarannah_ԀL._McMurtry_,Brentwood,Tennessee,fortheappellees,_Massman_ԀConstructionCo.and "2! St.PaulFire&MarineInsuranceCompany #"" F   MEMORANDUMOPINION #XX+ #X+X %!$   #XX+C #X+X  Theemployeeorclaimant,DaleParish,isaTennesseeresidentwhowasinjuredwhile '"& workinginArkansasforaforeignconstructioncompany,_Massman_ԀConstructionCompany.The (#' proofisthatasmallpartoftheconstructionprojectonwhichtheclaimantwasworkingwastobe r)$( performedinTennessee,butthattheworkwasprincipallylocatedinArkansas,wheretheinjury b*%) occurred. R+&*   Theclaimant,wholivesinMemphis,hadfirstlearnedofanopeningforawelderonthe 2-(, projectbyhislocalunion.Twoweekslaterhemetwiththeprojectmanagerattheprojecttrailerin  Arkansas,wherehesoughtemploymentasasupervisor.Instead,theprojectmanagerofferedthe  claimantapositionasawelder,subjecttobeingclearedforsuchworkbytheunionandproducing  evidenceofhisabilitytoweld.Theclaimantacceptedajobasawelderatthetime,subjectto  approvalbyhislocalunioninMemphis.UponbeingclearedbythelocalinMemphis,theclaimant p reportedtoworkinArkansaswithawrittenreferralfromtheunionandbeganworkingasawelder. `    Hewasinjured. @    TheclaimantinitiatedthiscivilactiontorecoverTennesseeworkerscompensationbenefits  p  forhisinjuries.Afteratrialonthemerits,thetrialcourtdismissedthecomplaintbecausethe `  TennesseeWorkersCompensationLawisgenerallyinapplicablewheretheinjuryoccursinanother P  state,andbecausethefactsofthiscasedonotbringitwithinanyknownexceptiontothatrule. @    Appellatereviewoffindingsoffactisdenovoupontherecordofthetrialcourtaccompanied   byapresumptionofcorrectnessofthefindings,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceis  otherwise.Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(2).Thistribunalisnotboundbythetrialcourt'sfindings  butinsteadconductsanindependentexaminationoftherecordtodeterminewherethe  preponderancelies._Galloway_Ԁv.MemphisDrumServ.,822S.W.2d584,586(Tenn.1991).  XL XXX+Conclusionsoflawaresubjecttodenovoreviewonappealwithoutanypresumptionofcorrectness.#X+X XXL#Ԁ  _Ivey_Ԁv.TransGlobalGas&Oil,3S.W.3d441,446(Tenn.1999).    XL XXX+AworkerwhoisinjuredoutsidetheterritoriallimitsofTennesseeiscoveredundertheAct ` if,andonlyif,hewouldhavebeencoverediftheinjuryhadoccurredwithinthestateand(1)the L employmentwasprincipallylocalizedwithinTennesseeor(2)thecontractofhirewasmadein 8 Tennessee.#X+X XXL#Tenn.CodeAnn.506115(1999);Matthewsv.St.PaulP&LInsurance,845S.W.2d $t 737(Tenn.1992).XL XXX+ $t   Anexceptiontothisrulemayexist,however,incaseswheretheinvolvementofTennessee P isverysubstantial,despitethefactthatthecontractandtheinjurywereelsewhere.Tocomewithin < theexceptionorthirdcategoryofextraterritorialcoverageitmustbeshownthatTennesseehas  ( alegitimateinterestinthecontroversyandthereisasubstantialconnectionbetweenTennesseeand ! theparticularemployeremployeerelationship.#X+X XXL #Bryantv.Seward,490S.W.2d497(Tenn.1973).XL XXX+Ԁ "  Ordinarily,though,ifaninjuryoccursinanotherstate,benefitsundertheTennesseeActarenot #! recoverableunlessitcanbeshownthatthecontractofhirewasmadeinTennessee.#X+X XXL#Perkinsv.BE $" &K,Inc.,802S.W.2d215,216(Tenn.1990). % #   TheappellantfirstcontendshisemploymentwasprincipallylocalizedinTennesseebecause |'"% thefactsaresimilartothoseinBryantv.Seward.Inthatcase,boththeemployerandtheemployee l(#& residedinTennessee,thepremisesoftheemployerweresituatedonthestateline,andtheworkof \)$' theemployeewasdonewiththeboundariesofbothstates.ItwasheldthatTennesseehadsufficient L*%( connectionwithandinterestinaparticularemployeremployeerelationshiptoapplyitsworkers <+&) compensationlaw.TheonlyconnectionsbetweenthepresentcaseandTennesseeare(1)the ,,|'* employeelivesinTennesseeand(2)heheardaboutthejobopeningwhileathome.Thosefactsare  insufficient,asthetrialcourtheld,toallowrecoveryunderTennesseelaw.SeeRayv.Aetna  CasualtyandSuretyCo.,517S.W.2d194,197(Tenn.1974).    TheappellantnextcontendstheemploymentcontractwasmadeinTennesseebecausethe p claimantcouldnotworkunlesshisagreementwasclearedbyhisunioninTennessee.Whileitis `  undisputedthatsuchclearancewasnecessaryandthathelearnedwhathishourlywagewouldbe P  whileinTennessee,thetrialcourtfound,basedalsoonundisputedproof,thatthecontractwasnot @  completeduntiltheclaimantarrivedatthejobsite,submittedhispapersandshowedtheemployer 0  hecouldweldsatisfactorily.Weconclude,fromthoseundisputedfacts,thatthetrialcourtdidnot  p  errinholdingthatthecontractthereforewasmadeinArkansas.Weagreewiththeemployerthat `  theclaimantsentitlementtobenefitsisunderArkansaslaw. P    Theappellantfinallycontendstheemployeris_estopped_Ԁfromdenyingcoverageunderthe 0  lawofthisstate,becausearepresentativetoldhimhecouldapplyforsuchcoverage.Inouropinion,   theargumentiswithoutmerit.    Forthosereasons,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedto  theappellant.     `     h     ___________________________________ p    `     h     JOEC.LOSER,JR. `   @ XX+#X+X(#XX+   @ #X+X3)#XX+#X+X̟)#?XX+INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON , #X+X?)#XX+#X+X̌*# XX+#X+X*#XX+%    DALEPARISH%3+v.%  _MASSMAN_ԀCONSTRUCTIONCOMPANY,%r+Ԁetal.#X+X+#XX+#X+X+#  H @+@* %  %},Ԉ@*AV) ` dE< ` A߈  @ @ No.% # %#-W200101678SCWCMCVFiledAugust1,2002  ? AV) ` dE< ` A     XX+#X+X-#@( ORDER XX+#X+X7.#Ԉ   XX+#X+X̖.#XX+#X+X.#  ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtuponthemotionforreviewfiledbyDaleParish,pursuantto   Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(5)(B),theentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferraltotheSpecial   Workers'CompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanel'sMemorandumOpinionsettingforthits ~ findingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw. n   ItappearstotheCourtthatthemotionforreviewisnotwelltakenandisthereforedenied. N ThePanel'sfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedbyreference,areadopted > andaffirmed.ThedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgmentoftheCourt. .~   CostsareassessedtoDaleParish,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. ^    `     h     PERCURIAM  XX+   `     h     #X+X3#