VICTOR SOTO v. DENNY PATTERSON, JR., D/B/A PATTERSON CONSTRUCTION, ET AL. - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Karen Belcher on Oct 17, 2024

Court: TN Workers Comp Appeals Board

Attorneys 1: Emily Bragg Faulkner, Memphis, Tennessee, for the employer-appellant, Denny Patterson, Jr., d/b/a Patterson Construction

Attorneys 2: Victor Soto, Memphis, Tennessee, employee-appellee, pro se

Judge(s): GODKIN

This is the second interlocutory appeal in this case. The claimant asserts he sustained significant head injuries and brain trauma while working at one of the employer’s job sites. The employer denied the claim, contending that the claimant was an independent contractor at the time of the accident. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court denied the claimant’s request for benefits, concluding he had failed to provide sufficient evidence that he would likely prevail at trial in establishing he was an employee. Thereafter, the employer filed a motion for summary judgment accompanied by a statement of undisputed facts, asserting the claimant was unable to prove, as a matter of law, that he was an employee of the defendant at the time of the accident. Following a hearing on the employer’s motion, the trial court determined that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the claimant’s employment status and denied the employer’s motion. The employer appealed. We vacated the trial court’s order and remanded the case for the trial court to address the effect, if any, of the claimant’s failure to respond to the employer’s statement of undisputed facts. On remand, the court again denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the employer had failed to meet its initial burden of production as described in Rule 56 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The employer has appealed. After careful review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s order for reasons other than those stated by the court, and we remand the case.

Attachments: