Poore v. Magnavox Co. of Tennessee
| Decision Date | 27 February 1984 |
| Citation | 666 S.W.2d 48 |
| Parties | Betty C. POORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAGNAVOX COMPANY OF TENNESSEE, Defendant-Appellee. 666 S.W.2d 48 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Carl R. Ogle, Jr., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-appellant.
H. Scott Reams, Morristown, for defendant-appellee.
In this worker's compensation case the trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of the defendant, holding that (1) the statute of limitations had run on the plaintiff's cause of action and (2) that plaintiff's injury was not compensable. In this Court the attorney for the defendant-appellee admits that an issue of fact was created respecting the second ground of the summary judgment.
The issue presented, then, is whether or not the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff's action was barred by the statute of limitations of one year. The instant civil action was filed on June 30, 1980, within one year of the voluntary non-suit entered on July 16, 1979, terminating the first action filed by the employee seeking to enforce this claim. That first action was filed on May 1, 1978, and thus the real issue is whether that action was timely filed.
The trial court is authorized, in a proper case, to grant a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56, Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. That Rule provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
"The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."
The summary judgment procedure is not to be regarded as a substitute for trial of disputed issues of fact. Taylor v. Nashville Banner Pub. Co., Tenn.App., 573 S.W.2d 476 (1978). As on a motion for a directed verdict, the court deciding a motion for summary judgment must view the pleadings and evidence before it in the light most favorable to the opponent of the motion, on an issue by issue basis. Wyatt v. Winnebago Industries, Inc., Tenn.App., 566 S.W.2d 276 (1977). When weighing such a motion, if the mind of the court entertains any doubt whether or not a genuine issue exists as to any material fact it is its duty to overrule the motion.
In this case the court had before it the complaint and answer, the petitioner's discovery deposition, depositions by Dr. John Ellis and a deposition by Dr. John H. Kinser. We now review those same documents to determine whether or not the court properly granted summary judgment.
For many years the petitioner has worked on an assembly line in a plant in which the defendant produces television sets and in her work has been required to engage in repeated lifting and twisting, often while holding heavy objects. While thus engaged she suffered an apparent minor injury to her back in 1969 which she reported to the employer and she was seen and treated by the employer's physician but was returned to work after two or three days' absence. Down through the years petitioner continued to do her work in a satisfactory manner. Throughout the time, however, she suffered from pain in her lower back which she and her regular physician, Dr. Ellis, attributed to "female problems."
On April 29, 1977, she "was hurting all over (her) body" while performing her work and at the suggestion of her superiors, she sought medical care and entered a hospital at about 1:30 p.m. where she was examined and treated by Dr. Ellis. Dr. Ellis explained that the reason for her admission was a bronchial disturbance, inflammation and coughing.
He further stated that the patient did, however, complain of back pain when she coughed and this led him to have x-rays made of her low back which disclosed a condition that he described as spondylolisthesis as well as degenerative disc disease. He states that this discovery was made on May 5, 1977. We quote Dr. Ellis as follows:
With respect to the same issue the petitioner in her discovery deposition testified:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Byrd v. Hall
...trial of genuine and material factual matters. Blocker v. Regional Medical Center, 722 S.W.2d 660, 660-61 (Tenn.1987); Poore v. Magnavox Co., 666 S.W.2d 48, 49 (Tenn.1984); Layhew v. Dixon, 527 S.W.2d 739, 742 (Tenn.1975); Anthony v. Constr. Prods., Inc., 677 S.W.2d 4, 10 (Tenn.App.1984); F......
-
Blair v. Allied Maintenance Corp.
...reasonable inferences in the opponent's favor. Blocker v. Regional Medical Center, 722 S.W.2d 660, 660 (Tenn.1987); Poore v. Magnavox Co., 666 S.W.2d 48, 49 (Tenn.1984). We have determined that neither the Workers' Compensation Law, nor the federal labor laws, nor Mr. Blair's failure to mak......
-
D.T. McCall & Sons v. Seagraves
...312 (Tenn.Ct.App.1975). Summary judgments are inappropriate when genuine disputes concerning material facts exist. Poore v. Magnavox Co., 666 S.W.2d 48, 49 (Tenn.1984); Executone of Memphis, Inc. v. Garner, 650 S.W.2d 734, 736 (Tenn.1983). In determining whether a factual dispute exists, th......
-
Burgess v. Harley
...a trial when material facts are genuinely disputed. Blocker v. Regional Medical Ctr., 722 S.W.2d 660, 663 (Tenn.1987); Poore v. Magnavox Co., 666 S.W.2d 48, 49 (Tenn.1984). Summary judgments should not be used to find facts, to resolve factual disputes, or to choose among various permissibl......