Jones v. Home Indem. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 23 May 1983 |
| Citation | 651 S.W.2d 213 |
| Parties | Erma Lee JONES, Appellant, v. HOME INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 651 S.W.2d 213 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Linda L. Moore, Hill Garrety & Associates, P.C., Jeffrey A. Garrety, Hill, Garrety & Associates, P.C., Jackson, for appellant.
E.J. Nunn, Spragins & Murchison, Jackson, for appellee.
The sole issue before the Court in this worker's compensation case is whether the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment, invoking the bar of the one year statute of limitations. We find that the record presents a genuine issue of material fact and that the granting of a summary judgment was erroneous. We reverse and remand for a complete trial of this worker's compensation case on its merits.
Plaintiff was injured on July 30 or 31, 1979, but did not file suit until August 25, 1980. Plaintiff contends that under the "injury" statute of limitations that governs in this State, the statute did not begin to run until November 19, 1979, and that suit was timely filed. Defendant contends that the statute began to run on the date of the accident.
The summary judgment procedure is not to be regarded as a substitute for trial of disputed factual issues. The burden is on the moving party to show the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact and that movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The trial court and the appellate courts must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the opponent of the motion, including the benefit of every reasonable inference that can be drawn therefrom. See, e.g., Taylor v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co., 573 S.W.2d 476, 480 (Tenn.App.1978).
The record reveals that during the period in which plaintiff was being treated by Dr. Williams, plaintiff received shots and medication which brought her temporary relief; that plaintiff was under the impression that Dr. Williams was treating her for "pulled muscles" in her back; that Dr. Williams advised her that her condition was not serious and that she did not have a permanent condition but that she could expect to improve; that plaintiff was able to return to her regular work schedule; and that up until the second week in November, when her back pain, accompanied by pain in her leg, began to increase, her pain had lessened enough that plaintiff actually believed that her condition had improved. Yet against these facts, defendant contends that plaintiff's initial pain was so severe that she needed assistance in getting out of bed the morning after the accident; that the accident forced her to miss...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Elvis Presley Intern. Memorial Foundation v. Crowell
...of the motion and must, likewise, draw all legitimate conclusions and inferences in the opponent's favor. Jones v. Home Indemnity Insurance Co., 651 S.W.2d 213, 214 (Tenn.1983) and Daniels v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc., 692 S.W.2d 422, 424 We have determined that Elvis Presley Ente......
-
Byrd v. Hall
...exist and that it is, therefore, entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See, e.g., Downen, 811 S.W.2d at 542; Jones v. Home Indem. Ins. Co., 651 S.W.2d 213, 214 (Tenn.1983); Williamson Cty. Broadcasting v. W. Cty. Bd. of Ed., 549 S.W.2d 371, 372 (Tenn.1977); Taylor, 573 S.W.2d at 480; Luc......
-
Blair v. Allied Maintenance Corp.
...Inc., 624 S.W.2d 547, 550 (Tenn.1981). However, they are not substitutes for a trial of disputed factual issues. Jones v. Home Indem. Ins. Co., 651 S.W.2d 213, 214 (Tenn.1983). Nor should they be used to resolve disputes concerning inferences to be drawn from the facts or to weigh the evide......
-
Knapp v. Holiday Inns, Inc.
...judgments should not be used as substitutes for trials on the merits when the material facts are in dispute, Jones v. Home Indemnity Insurance Co., 651 S.W.2d 213, 214 (Tenn.1983), or when there is uncertainty about whether the material facts are in dispute, Executone of Memphis, Inc. v. Ga......