Dukes v. Montgomery County Nursing Home

• Decision Date: 12 October 1982
• Citation: 639 S.W.2d 910
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
• Parties: Addie C. DUKES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY NURSING HOME, The Tennessee Company, and the Northwestern National Insurance Group, Defendants-Appellees. 639 S.W.2d 910

Page 910

639 S.W.2d 910

Addie C. DUKES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY NURSING HOME, The Tennessee Company, and the Northwestern National Insurance Group Defendants-Appellees.

639 S.W.2d 910

Supreme Court of Tennessee at Nashville.

Oct. 12, 1982.

Steve Atkins, Clarksville, for plaintiff-appellant.

Randall C. Ferguson, Nashville, for defendants-appellees.

OPINION

BROCK, Justice.

The complaint in this case alleges a claim for benefits under the Worker's Compensation Act. The trial court concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and, accordingly, dismissed the action pursuant to defendant's motion.

The defect found by the trial court in the complaint was that it disclosed upon its face that the action was not filed within the one year statute of limitations for worker's compensation claims, T.C.A., Sec. 50-1003, and that a prior suit filed by the plaintiff upon this same claim which was later voluntarily nonsuited did not operate to save the instant action under the terms of T.C.A., Sec. 28-1-105, the "savings statute," because that original action had itself been filed more than one year after the date of the accident on April 12, 1976.

The plaintiff sought to avoid the bar of the one year statute of limitations by alleging in the complaint that the original action was not filed within one year of the date of the accident because of fraudulent misrepresentations made by the defendant and its agents that defendant's liability was recognized and benefits under the worker's compensation law would be paid without the necessity of the plaintiff filing suit.

The defendants argued in the trial court, as they do here, that, although fraudulent misrepresentations by an employer or its agents may estop an employer from relying upon the statute of limitations, thus enabling a plaintiff to file his claim more than one year from the date of the accident, nevertheless, the voluntary dismissal or nonsuit of such an action does not afford the plaintiff the benefit of the savings statute T.C.A., Sec. 28-1-105, because the original action was not "commenced within the time limited by a rule or statute of limitation, ...."

We are limited to the facts alleged in the complaint. The plaintiff alleges in her complaint that she was injured by an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment when she suffered an injury to her back while lifting a patient on April 12, 1976. The complaint then alleges as follows:

V

"That immediately after the incident referred to in paragraph 4 above, your complainant reported her injuries to Mr. Edge, assistant administrator and to Mr. Jarrell, administrator of the Montgomery County Nursing Home, and that an accident report was completed by your complainant upon request of the defendants. The administrative personnel of the Montgomery County Nursing Home referred your complainant to the defendant insurance adjustment company, The Tennessee Company, who represented and advised the defendant, The Northwestern National Insurance Group, whereby your complainant talked with a Mr. Caulk who stated that your complainant would receive $85.00 a week until she was able to report back to work and that medical expenses would be paid by the insurance carrier, the defendant, The Northwestern National Insurance Group.

VI

"After such assurances by Mr. Caulk of the defendant, The Tennessee Company, said payments were not forthcoming and, after repetitive weekly phone calls by the complainant unto Mr. Caulk, her calls were not returned by Mr. Caulk or anyone else acting in his behalf. In December of 1976 your complainant informed The Tennessee Company that she would contact a lawyer for the filing of suit, but was assured that such would not be necessary for her payments would be forthcoming. Two weeks subsequent to said assurances, Mr. Caulk died and her case was referred to Mr. Bob Dozier for processing. Mr. Dozier informed the complainant that they had more claims than they could process but that the claim would be referred to the Nashville office unto a Mr. Bushman who would contact her that Friday of that week. Mr. Bushman never contacted your complainant. The complainant then took the course of action of talking to Mr. Jarrell of the Montgomery County Nursing Home and to Mike Allen of the office of Budgeting and Accounting of Clarksville, Tennessee; but that after being assured that Mr. Allen would assist your complainant, he also never returned any calls or inquiries by your complainant.

VII

"On May 26, 1977, a Mr. Smith of the office of The Tennessee Company came unto the complainant to make an offer of settlement to pay hospital bills and for the days lost by the complainant from her place of employment but that, after refusal by the complainant to accept said offer, the defendants chose to rely upon the defense of the running of the statute of limitations. However, even after initially asserting said defense, The Tennessee Company requested a meeting to settle the claim to be set for June 14, 1977.

VIII

"By the facts stated, your complainant would show unto the court that the defendants are barred the use of the statute of limitations by virtue of their misrepresentation and fraud in continuously offering to settle the matter and continuously assuring that the matter would be handled without the necessity of hiring competent counsel and by never warning her of the limit in which time she had to bring to issue the matters between the parties.

IX

"Furthermore, the complainant would show that by the misrepresentation of the defendants in this matter, the defendants are estopped to use the defense of the statute of limitations as a bar. By the delay and by offering to settle with the complainant and after the running of the statute of limitations, the defendants intended and thereby did, in fact, waive the statute of limitations in this case." [Emphasis added.]

Treating the facts alleged in the complaint as true,...