Eadie v. Complete Co., Inc., No. M2002-02010-SC-WCM-CV.
| Court | Supreme Court of Tennessee |
| Writing for the Court | Janice M. Holder, J. |
| Citation | 142 S.W.3d 288 |
| Parties | Christopher A. EADIE v. COMPLETE CO., INC., et al. |
| Decision Date | 27 August 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. M2002-02010-SC-WCM-CV. |
v.
COMPLETE CO., INC., et al.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Williamson County, R.E. Lee Davies, J.
[142 S.W.3d 289]
James R. Tomkins, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellants-defendants, Complete Company, Inc. and Westfield Insurance Companies.
Phillip R. Newman, Franklin, Tennessee, for the appellee-plaintiff, Christopher A. Eadie.
JANICE M. HOLDER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which E. RILEY ANDERSON, ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., and WILLIAM M. BARKER, JJ., and JERRY L. SMITH, Sp.J., joined. FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, C.J., not participating.
We granted review in this case to consider whether an employee is barred from seeking workers' compensation benefits in Tennessee because the employee made a binding election of remedies by pursuing benefits for the same injury in another state. We hold that the employee's filing of a claim in South Carolina, his request for a hearing there, and the taking of depositions in that matter constitute affirmative acts to obtain benefits in another state sufficient to constitute a binding election of remedies that bars the employee's Tennessee claim. Therefore, we reject the conclusion of the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel on this issue and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In June of 1997, Christopher A. Eadie ("the employee"), a South Carolina resident, sustained serious and permanent injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Georgia. At the time of the accident, the employee was working for Complete Company, Inc. ("Complete"), a Tennessee corporation. Complete had an agreement with The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. ("Home Depot") to make concrete repairs to its stores in multiple states. When the accident occurred, the employee was hauling a load of cement through Georgia to be used in a concrete repair job at a Home Depot store in North Carolina.
In the fall of 1997, the employee filed an original and an amended claim in South Carolina seeking "any and all rights he is entitled to under the workers' compensation laws of South Carolina." He specifically requested a hearing in that proceeding. Depositions were taken in the South Carolina matter in February of 1998, with employee's counsel deposing the owner of Complete. In June of 1998, the employee filed a claim with the Georgia State Board of Workers' Compensation. Shortly thereafter, the employee filed suit in Tennessee seeking workers' compensation benefits from both Home Depot and Complete. After the Tennessee claim was filed, the employee filed an additional claim in the North Carolina Industrial Commission seeking medical and disability benefits under that state's laws. There has been no activity in the Georgia and North Carolina cases beyond the filing of claims. The employee has not received benefits as a result of his claims in any of the four states.
Complete and its workers' compensation insurance carrier, Westfield Insurance Companies ("Westfield"), filed a motion for summary judgment in this case, contending: 1) the employee was an independent contractor; and 2) the employee was precluded from pursuing benefits in Tennessee because he made a binding election of remedies by seeking benefits in other states. Home Depot also filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the employee was an independent contractor of Home Depot.
The trial court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissed the case. The trial court determined that the employee was an independent contractor of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DirecTV, Inc. v. Roberts
...record de novo and make a fresh determination of whether the requirements of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56 have been met. Eadie v. Complete Co., 142 S.W.3d 288, 291 (Tenn.2004) ; Blair, 130 S.W.3d at 763. III. ANALYSIS The Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution empowers Congress "[t]o regu......
-
Green v. Green, No. M2006-02119-SC-R11-CV.
...that the requirements of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56 have been satisfied. Eskin v. Bartee, 262 S.W.3d at 732; Eadie v. Complete Co., 142 S.W.3d 288, 291 (Tenn.2004); Staples v. CBL Assocs., Inc., 15 S.W.3d 83, 88 (Tenn.2000). The reviewing courts must also consider the evidence in the light most fa......
-
Leverette v. Tenn. Farmers, No. M2011-00264-COA-R3-CV
...de novo and make a fresh determination of whether the requirements of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56 have been met. Eadie v. Complete Co., Inc., 142 S.W.3d 288, 291 (Tenn. 2004); Blair v. West Town Mall 130 S.W.3d at 763. The moving party has the burden of demonstrating that it is entitled to judgment......
-
Hughes v. New Life Dev. Corp., No. M2010–00579–SC–R11–CV.
...determination that the requirements of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56 have been satisfied. Eskin v. Bartee, 262 S.W.3d at 732;Eadie v. Complete Co., 142 S.W.3d 288, 291 (Tenn.2004). The reviewing court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and must resolve all ......
-
DirecTV, Inc. v. Roberts
...record de novo and make a fresh determination of whether the requirements of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56 have been met. Eadie v. Complete Co., 142 S.W.3d 288, 291 (Tenn.2004) ; Blair, 130 S.W.3d at 763. III. ANALYSIS The Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution empowers Congress "[t]o......
-
Green v. Green, No. M2006-02119-SC-R11-CV.
...that the requirements of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56 have been satisfied. Eskin v. Bartee, 262 S.W.3d at 732; Eadie v. Complete Co., 142 S.W.3d 288, 291 (Tenn.2004); Staples v. CBL Assocs., Inc., 15 S.W.3d 83, 88 (Tenn.2000). The reviewing courts must also consider the evidence in the light most fa......
-
Leverette v. Tenn. Farmers, No. M2011-00264-COA-R3-CV
...de novo and make a fresh determination of whether the requirements of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56 have been met. Eadie v. Complete Co., Inc., 142 S.W.3d 288, 291 (Tenn. 2004); Blair v. West Town Mall 130 S.W.3d at 763. The moving party has the burden of demonstrating that it is entitled to judgment......
-
Hughes v. New Life Dev. Corp., No. M2010–00579–SC–R11–CV.
...determination that the requirements of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56 have been satisfied. Eskin v. Bartee, 262 S.W.3d at 732;Eadie v. Complete Co., 142 S.W.3d 288, 291 (Tenn.2004). The reviewing court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and must resolve all ......