Nickerson v. Knox Cnty., E2020-01286-SC-R3-WC
| Decision Date | 08 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. E2020-01286-SC-R3-WC,E2020-01286-SC-R3-WC |
| Parties | ANGELA VARNER NICKERSON v. KNOX COUNTY, TENNESSEE |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
Employee filed a workers' compensation claim against Employer alleging mental injury resulting from traumatic work-related experiences that occurred years earlier. Employer denied the claim and moved for summary judgment citing the statute of limitations. The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims denied the motion. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board vacated the order and remanded for the court to consider whether it had subject matter jurisdiction based on Employee's alleged date of injury. After a second hearing, the court again denied summary judgment, concluding the date of Employee's mental injury should be determined by the "discovery rule" and the "last day worked" rule. The Appeals Board reversed and remanded for entry of an order of dismissal based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Employee appealed. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the judgment of the Appeals Board and adopt its opinion as set forth in the attached Appendix.1
Tony Farmer, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Angela Varner Nickerson.
Evan E. Hauser, Deputy Law Director, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Knox County, Tennessee.
OPINIONAngela Varner Nickerson ("Employee") began employment with the Knox County Sheriff's Department ("Employer") in 1998, processing crime scenes as a forensics technician until her transfer to another department in 2011. In June 2018, Employee filed a claim for worker's compensation benefits in the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims ("trial court") asserting mental injury based on a 2018 diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder she attributed to exposure to specific crime scenes before her transfer.
Employer denied the claim and moved for summary judgment, alleging the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board ("Appeals Board") vacated the trial court's order and remanded the case for the court to preliminarily consider whether it could exercise subject matter jurisdiction based on the date of injury. Nickerson v. Knox Cnty. Gov't, No. 2019-03-0559, 2020 WL 1940373, at *3 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. App. Bd. Apr. 17, 2020) (corrected) ( that, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated sections 50-6-237 and -217 (2014 & Supp. 2020), the jurisdiction of the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims is limited to cases having a date of injury on or after July 1, 2014).
On remand, Employer filed a renewed motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, arguing the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction and/or the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. After a second hearing, the court again denied the motion for summary judgment, concluding the "discovery rule" and the "last day worked rule" applied to the determination of the date of Employee's mental injury. The trial court explained that Employee was alleging a "cumulative" injury that did not become disabling until September 2018; thus, these factual disputes precluded summary judgment. The Appeals Board reversed the trial court and remanded for entry of an order of dismissal based on the lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Nickerson v. Knox Cnty. Gov't, No. 2019-03-0559, 2020 WL 9210675, at *11 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. App. Bd. Sept. 2, 2020).
In this appeal, the sole issue is whether the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims had subject matter jurisdiction over Employee's claim based on the date of mental injury. Upon due consideration, we affirm the judgment of the Appeals Board and adopt its opinion as set forth in the attached Appendix. Costs of this appeal are taxed to Angela Varner Nickerson, for which execution may issue if necessary.
/s/_________
APPENDIX
(OPINION OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD)
Factual and Procedural Background
Angela Varner Nickerson ("Employee") was employed by Knox County Government ("Employer") as a forensics technician for approximately eleven years until 2011, after which she transferred to Employer's Special Services Department. While working as a forensics technician, Employee viewed certain crime scenes that she alleged precipitated a mental injury, including scenes involving the death of a child and another involving abuse and injuries to children. Following these events, which occurred prior to her transfer to the Special Services Department in 2011, she began experiencing nightmares and depression that she stated continued "on and off since the incidents." She further stated that the nightmares got worse over time. Employee alleges no additional precipitating or aggravating work-related events occurring after her transfer to the Special Services Department.
At some point before March 2015, Employee was told by a primary care physician, Dr. Robert Thompson, that she "may" have post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"). In March 2015, she was again told by a medical provider she "may" have PTSD and there was a "possibility that [her] workplace experiences had contributed to [her] mental health issues." In September 2015, she sought treatment from a psychiatrist, Dr. Kenneth Jobson, and they discussed whether she may suffer from PTSD related to her employment. Due to health insurance issues, she did not return to Dr. Jobson until April 2018. Employee asserts Dr. Jobson did not diagnose her with PTSD until May 7, 2018.
In June 2018, Employee submitted a claim for workers' compensation benefits to Employer. Almost one year later, on April 29, 2019, she filed a petition for benefits, alleging that "[a]s a result of specific traumatic experiences as an employee of the Knox County Sheriff's Department, I have been diagnosed and treated for PTSD." She identified her date of injury as June 12, 2018.
Employer denied the claim, asserting Employee did not file her claim timely, and it filed a motion for summary judgment based on the alleged late filing of Employee's petition. Employee responded that the statute of limitations was suspended by application of the discovery rule, arguing that she did not know or have reason to know her symptoms were causally related to her employment until she was diagnosed with PTSD in May 2018. Alternatively, she argued her mental injury was a gradual injury to which the "last day worked rule" applies, resulting in her date of injury being the last day she worked for Employer, which was less than one year before she filed her petition forbenefits. Employer disputed the application of both rules, asserting Employee knew or should have known the work-related nature of her alleged mental injury in 2015 when she sought mental health treatment for problems related to her "workplace experiences." Employer additionally argued Tennessee does not recognize a mental injury as a gradual injury and the last day worked rule is inapplicable to Employee's claim.
The trial court denied Employer's motion for summary judgment, concluding there were genuine issues of material fact as to when Employee knew or reasonably should have known of her alleged work-related mental injury. Employer appealed that decision, and we vacated the trial court's order and remanded the case for the trial court to consider whether it could exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. On remand, Employer filed a "Renewed Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment," and Employee filed a response. After an additional hearing, the trial court again denied Employer's motion for summary judgment, concluding the last day worked rule and the discovery rule "apply to the determination of the date of [Employee's] injury." The court further noted that Employee alleged her mental injury was "cumulative in nature" and did not become disabling until September 2018, thereby creating disputed issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment. Employer has appealed.
Standard of Review
The interpretation and application of statutes and regulations are questions of law that are reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness afforded the trial court's conclusions. See Mansell v. Bridgestone Firestone N. Am. Tire, LLC, 417 S.W.3d 393, 399 (Tenn. 2013). Likewise, a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary judgment is reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness. Wallis v. Brainerd Baptist Church, 509 S.W.3d 886, 895 (Tenn. 2016) (). We are also mindful of our obligation to construe the workers' compensation statutes "fairly, impartially, and in accordance with basic principles of statutory construction" and in a way that does not favor either the employee or the employer. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-116 (2019).
Analysis
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims has subject matter jurisdiction over Employee's claim. The analysis and resolution of this issue involve statutory interpretation and the application of rules of statutory construction. In Thompson v. Comcast Corp., No. 2017-05-0639, 2018 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 1, at *24-25 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. App. Bd. Jan. 30, 2018), we addressed the rules of statutory construction as...
To continue reading
Request your trial