Perrin v. Gaylord Entertainment Co.

• Decision Date: 05 December 2003
• Docket Number: No. M2001-01585-SC-WCM-CV.,M2001-01585-SC-WCM-CV.
• Citation: 120 S.W.3d 823
• Parties: William PERRIN v. GAYLORD ENTERTAINMENT CO., et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

120 S.W.3d 823

William PERRIN v. GAYLORD ENTERTAINMENT CO., et al.

No. M2001-01585-SC-WCM-CV.

Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Nashville.

October 1, 2003 Session.

December 5, 2003.

Ann Buntin Steiner, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellant, William Perrin.

Richard K. Smith and Kathleen W. Smith, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellee, Gaylord Entertainment Company.

E. RILEY ANDERSON, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, C.J., and JANICE M. HOLDER and WILLIAM M. BARKER, JJ., joined. ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., J., not participating.

OPINION

We granted review to determine whether the employee's action for reconsideration of his workers' compensation benefits was filed too late pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(a)(2) (1999). The trial court found that the employee's action to reconsider his prior award was untimely because it was filed more than one year after his employment with his pre-injury employer had ended and also found that the employee's settlement with his pre-injury employer had waived his right to reconsideration. The Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel affirmed the trial court's ruling on the ground that the action was untimely. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we agree that the employee's action to reconsider his award of benefits was untimely because it was not filed within one year of his loss of employment with his pre-injury employer as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(a)(2). Accordingly, we affirm the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Panel.

BACKGROUND

The employee, William Perrin, age 41 at the time of the trial, began working in 1986 as a stagehand for The Nashville Network ("TNN"), which was owned by Gaylord Entertainment Company ("Gaylord"). Perrin's duties required him to move lighting, set up stages, and unload equipment from trucks. On December 17, 1996, Perrin injured his lower back while moving a ladder in the course and scope of his employment. Following back surgery in February of 1997, Perrin returned to work at TNN in May of 1997, with restrictions on lifting.

In October of 1997, Perrin reached maximum medical improvement and his physician assigned an impairment rating of eighteen percent (18%) permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. On March 26, 1998, Perrin settled his workers' compensation claim with Gaylord. The settlement agreement awarded Perrin a lump sum payment of $79,842.60, which was based on forty-five percent (45%) vocational disability, or two and one-half times the impairment rating. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-241(a)(1) (1999). The settlement agreement was approved by the trial court.

Prior to the settlement, on October 1, 1997, TNN was purchased by CBS Corporation ("CBS") and CBS Cable Network, Inc. As a result of the sale, Gaylord/TNN employees became CBS employees. Perrin continued to work as a stagehand for TNN, now owned by CBS, at the same place and with the same coworkers. Although Perrin received the same hourly rate of pay, his paychecks were no longer written or issued by Gaylord and were instead written and issued on behalf of CBS by a check-writing service.

In December of 1998, however, Perrin's work assignments for TNN, which had decreased since the sale to CBS, ceased completely and resulted in his termination. Perrin began working as a driver for Loomis Fargo, but he was unable to drive the standard shift armored vehicles without pain in his back. Perrin again changed employment and took a position as a jailor with the Wilson County Sheriff's Department, where he was working 40 hours per week at the time of trial.

Perrin testified at trial that he still suffered from pain in his lower back and that the pain affected his ability to work around the home and participate in recreational activities.

In September of 1999, Perrin filed this action for reconsideration of his award against Gaylord, and then later filed a similar action for reconsideration of his award against CBS and CBS Cable Network.¹ The trial court dismissed the action against Gaylord after finding that Perrin was no longer employed by Gaylord after the purchase of TNN by CBS and that the action for reconsideration of his workers' compensation award was not filed within one year of the settlement agreement with Gaylord.² The Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel affirmed the ruling of the trial court.

We granted this appeal.

ANALYSIS

Standard of Review

Our standard of review of questions of fact in a workers' compensation appeal is de novo upon the record, with a presumption that the trial court's findings are correct unless the preponderance of evidence is otherwise. Richards v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 70 S.W.3d 729, 732 (Tenn.2002); see also Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(2) (1999). Our standard of review of questions of law, however, such as that presented in this case, is de novo without a presumption of correctness. Richards, 70 S.W.3d at 732.

Reconsideration of a Prior Award

The employee, William Perrin, argues that his action for reconsideration was timely filed under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(a)(2) because it was filed within one year of his loss of employment with CBS. He argues that the Special Workers' Compensation Panel erroneously concluded that the action had to be filed within one year after TNN was purchased by CBS, particularly since there had been no change in his work with TNN. Gaylord argues that the Panel correctly held that the action was not filed within one year of Perrin's loss of employment with Gaylord.

When interpreting statutes, a reviewing court must ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent without restricting or expanding the statute's intended meaning or application. Parks v. Tenn. Mun. League Risk Mgmt. Pool, 974 S.W.2d 677, 679 (Tenn.1998). The court must examine the language of the statute and, if unambiguous, apply its ordinary and plain meaning. Id.; see also Niziol v. Lockheed Martin Energy Sys., Inc., 8 S.W.3d 622, 624 (Tenn.1999). If the language of the statute is ambiguous, the court must examine the entire statutory scheme and the relevant legislative history to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent. Parks, 974 S.W.2d at 679.

We begin our analysis by reviewing the statutory provisions that govern the circumstances in which an employee may seek reconsideration of a prior workers' compensation award:

[T]he court may reconsider, upon the filing of a new cause of action, the issue of industrial disability.... Such reconsideration may be made in appropriate cases where the employee is no longer employed by the pre-injury employer and makes application to the appropriate court within one (1) year of the employee's loss of employment, if such loss of employment is within four hundred (400) weeks of the day the employee returned to work.

Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-241(a)(2) (1999) (emphasis added); see also Niziol, 8 S.W.3d at 624 (applying section 50-6-241(a)(2)).

The key provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(a)(2) as applied in this case state that an action for reconsideration may be made where the employee (1) "is no longer employed by the pre-injury employer," and (2) "makes application within one (1) year of the employee's loss of employment." Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-241(a)(2) (1999). We will look at each requirement in turn.

The phrase "no longer employed with the pre-injury employer" is not defined in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(a)(2) or elsewhere in the statutory scheme. The term "employer," however, is defined and includes:

any individual, firm, association or corporation, or the receiver, or trustee of the same, or the legal representative of a deceased employer, using the services of not...