WPCN Gm$v$xX9 S\MKҊE\0fkީ,5^tW۩*VA-.\&nC+&ƻJ`+ͻ^RQ[X j=4NTl V-*%'P9'dLvd9M>ȶp32I/n (MzObR'b|BS#fԒ7͵LZ˦z R{;!]}d-& C%8? z$tuA`[и,-ILq7dL+s[8Pԃ]Q/@/)ckyg#5b'O)|I 'Q9`4棜07G 6Ow` ßY頄VW.ӻFFqd}Y_IʘIֱ*vj?9űdR >*6CS]ow7fO k*b#\ % U)@# 0c U N ^ 9 wE zI  4   m   ] #NN zEoqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqbCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC 0KKKK B 66 0S D3 D-* 0KWW AS 0 0D_ AHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 60(@ Z(Times New Roman (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularE)  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.wptք^)<83|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 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.wpt- -(|G2i$ !..8EMdd8         0  XX d(|3ǀ$ !..8EMdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ǀ$ !..8EMdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8EMdd8     _EM8XXdd8  NEMNN@@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL & @@ATKNOXVILLE#EMN# L August30,2000Session "r XXEM #EMXX9#GEORGET.POTTERv._SCHLEGEL_ԀFINISHING,INC.,etal.XXEM   p @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtfor_Blount_ԀCounty  p @@No.L8903W.DaleYoung,Judge  \ @@*AV) ` dE<` A   No.E199901808_WC_ԄR3CVMailedNovember9,2000   #EMXX#XXEMFiled:December12,2000   AV) ` dE<` A       ThisworkerscompensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkersCompensation  AppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.#EMXX#XXEMԀ#EMXXt# XXEMԀ506225(e)(3)for v hearingandreportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.#EMXX#XXEMԀTheplaintiff b appealsfromthedismissalofhiscasebywayofsummaryjudgmentandalsoappealsfromtheorder N ofthetrialcourtawardingthedefendantdiscretionarycosts.Thedefendantraisesasanissuethe : actionofthetrialcourtinconsideringtheaffidavitoftheplaintiffindeterminingthesummary &v judgmentmotion.Wereversethejudgmentofthetrialcourtandremandthecaseforfurther b proceedings.#EMXX#XXEM N #EMXX #XXEM   Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(1999)AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt & for_Blount_ԀCountyisReversedandRemanded       JohnK.Byers,Sr.J.#EMX! #XX.EM,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichE.RileyAnderson,C.J.#EMX #XX.EMand  RogerE.Thayer,Sp.J.#EMX #XX.EM,joined.   EdwardM.Graves,Jr,CarlWinkles,andDouglasC.Weinstein,Knoxville,Tennessee,forthe ^"! appellant,GeorgeT.Potter. J#" F.R.Evans,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellees_BTR_ԀSealingSystemsN.America "%r $ TennesseeOperationsf/k/a_Schlegel_ԀTennessee,Inc.,andACEUSA(misstyled _CIGNA_inthe &^!% caption). &J"&   '6#' @   OPINION #EMXX #XXEM    #EMXX7#   @  XXEMFacts #EMXX# r  XXEM  Theplaintiffbroughtsuittorecoverforaninjurytohisback,whichheallegesoccurredon p  June14,1993.Theprotractedproceedingsinthiscaseresultedinthetakingoftheplaintiffs \  deposition,theinterrogatoriesoftheplaintiff,theaffidavitoftheplaintiff,adepositionofa H   representativeofthedefendant,thedepositionsoftwodoctors,andvariousotherdocumentswhich 4  werecollectedandfiledintherecord.  p    Inthecourseoftakingtheplaintiffsdepositionandotherdiscovery,itwasdiscoveredthe H  plaintiffhadsufferedapreviousbackinjurythatultimatelyrequiredsurgery;however,whenthe 4  plaintifffilledouthisapplicationforemploymentwiththedefendant,heresponded notothe   questionsconcerningpreviousworkinjuries,workerscompensationclaimsandsurgery.Further,   hedidnotrevealtheinformationtothepreemploymentphysicianwhoconductedaphysical  examinationofhimonbehalfofthedefendant.    Thedefendantmadeamotionforsummaryjudgmentinthecase.Thetrialjudgegrantedthe l motion,ruling: X 8  8`   Consideringtheentirerecord,thecourtisoftheopinionandfinds 0 thatthegrossmisrepresentationsoftheemployeetotheemployerat l thetimeofhireareunconscionableandthatthisisapropercasefor X summaryjudgmentinthat(1)theemployeeknowinglyandwilfully D madefalserepresentationsofhisphysicalcondition,(2)theemployer 0 relieduponthefalserepresentationsandsuchreliancewasa  substantialfactorinthedecisiontohire,and(3)acausalconnection  existsbetweenthefalsemisrepresentationsandtheallegedinjury   sufferedbytheemployeeinthiscase.!` x` x    Discussion  h#!   Thestandardofreviewofasummaryjudgmentorderinaworkerscompensationcaseisnot @% # denovoupontherecordwithapresumptionofcorrectness,whichisthestandardgenerallyapplied ,&|!$ tosuchcasesinaccordancewithTennesseeCodeAnnotated506225(e).Rather,itisgoverned 'h"% byRule56oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure,andthejudgmentofthetrialcourtisnot (T#& reviewedwithapresumptionofcorrectness. (@$'   Inconsideringamotionforsummaryjudgment,thepleadingsandtheevidencemustbe *&) viewedinthelightmostfavorabletotheopponentofthemotion.Wyattv._Winnebago_ԀIndus.Inc., +'* 566S.W.2d276(Tenn.App.1977).Summaryjudgmentistoberenderedonlywhenitisshownthat  thereisnogenuineissueoffactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatterof  law._Hilliard_Ԁv.Tenn.StateHomeHealthServices,Inc.,950S.W.2d345(Tenn.1997).    Incasesofallegedfalsestatementsinanemploymentcontractthatwouldbarrecoveryfor ` aninjurytotheemployee,theemployermustshowtheemployeeknowinglyandwillfullymadea L  falserepresentationastohisorherphysicalcondition,thattheemployerrelieduponthefalse 8  representationandthereliancewasasubstantialfactorinthehiring,andthatthereisacausal $ t connectionbetweentheinjurycurrentlyinquestionandtheprevious,unrevealedcondition.  `   Thecausalconnectionmustbeafactualconnectionbetweenthepreviousinjuryorcondition  8  whichwasconcealedandthecurrentinjury.FederalCopperandAluminumCompanyv.Dickey, $  493S.W.2d463(Tenn.1973),_Beasley_Ԁv.UnitedStatesFidelityandGuarantyCompany,699   S.W.2d143(Tenn.1985).Allofthesefactorsmustbeproveninordertoestablishthedefenseof   falserepresentationinthehiringprocess._Raines_Ԁv.ShelbyWilliamsIndustries,Inc.,814S.W.2d   346(Tenn.1991).     Thestatements,theplaintiffsdeposition,andtheotherdiscoverymaterialintherecordshow \ conflictingfactswithrespecttoeachoftheelementsthedefendantwasrequiredtoproveinorder H toshowtheplaintiffcouldnotproceedbecauseofhisallegedwillfulconcealmentoftheprevious 4 backinjury.Obviously,thetrialjudgehadtoweightheevidencetoreachthesummaryjudgment  p entered.Asummaryjudgmentwasinappropriateinthiscase.  \   Thetrialcourtsorderawardingthedefendantdiscretionarycostissetasideaswell.The 4 mattershallabidethetrialofthecaseonthemerits.     Theissueoftheplaintiffsaffidavitinresponsetothedefendantmotionforasummary  judgmentismoot.Wewouldhavereachedthesameopinioninthecasehadtheaffidavitnotbeen  considered.    Thecostoftheappealistaxedtothedefendant. X     `    `     h     ___________________________________ $X"    `     h     JOHNK.BYERS,SENIORJUDGE  $D # EMXX@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @ ATKNOXVILLE,TENNESSEE   #XXEM(# EMXX  GEORGET.POTTERV._SCHELEGEL_ԀFINISHING,INC,ETAL#XXEM\)#    {)@yy CircuitCourtfor_Blount_ԀCounty   @%No.L8903   @*AV) ` dE< ` A߈    @ No.E199901808_WC_ԄR3CVFiledDecember12,2000      `     h AV) ` dE<f` A g   EMXX#XXEMI,#@& JUDGMENT EMXX#XXEM,#Ԉ b     ` ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtupontheentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferral &v totheSpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanelsmemorandumOpinionsetting b forthitsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference; N    ` Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthatthememorandumOpinionofthePanel : shouldbeacceptedandapproved;and &    ` Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanelsfindingsoffactsandconclusionsoflaware  adoptedandaffirmedandthedecisionofthePanelismadetheJudgementoftheCourt.     ` CostsonappealaretaxedtotheDefendant,_Schlegel_ԀFinishing,Inc.and_Cigna_,for  whichexecutionissueifnecessary.  EMXX#XXEM1#12/12/00 ^ EMXX#XXEMv1#@*