Roettger v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County

Citation991 S.W.2d 244
PartiesDavid A. ROETTGER, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, Tennessee, acting by and through the ELECTRIC POWER BOARD through said Government a/k/a Nashville Electric Service, Defendants/Appellees.
Decision Date27 May 1999
CourtSupreme Court of Tennessee – Spec. Workers Comp.

Joseph Michael Dalton, Jr., Catherine S. Hughes, Eason, Dalton & Associates, Nashville, TN., for Appellant.

C. Dewey Branstetter, Bryan E. Pieper, Branstetter, Kilgore, Stranch & Jennings, Nashville, TN., for the Appellee.

March 10, 1999

Members of the panel:

ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, Associate Justice, JAMES L. WEATHERFORD, Senior Judge, and JOE C. LOSER, Jr., Special Judge.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JAMES L. WEATHERFORD, Senior Judge.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The sole issue for review is the trial court's determination that the savings statute T.C.A. § 28-1-105, cannot be used to extend the limitations period against a governmental entity which has consented to be covered by the provisions of the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act, pursuant to T.C.A. § 50-6-106(5). For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

The employee or plaintiff instituted this civil action to recover medical and disability benefits for injuries resulting from a work related accident which occurred on May 2, 1994. The defendant, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, acting by and through the Electric Power Board, filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff's cause of action failed to comply with the applicable limitations period.

The parties to this action, pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 56.03 filed a Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts in conjunction with the employer's motion for summary judgment.

The following facts are not in dispute:

1. The plaintiff alleges that on or about May 2, 1994, he slipped and fell while in the course and scope of his employment with the defendant, suffering injuries from said fall.

2. The defendant is a municipal corporation, and, pursuant to T.C.A. § 50-6-106(5), has voluntarily accepted the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, T.C.A. § 50-6-101 et. seq.

3. The plaintiff filed a workers' compensation claim regarding the above injury on or about November 22, 1994.

4. The plaintiff's complaint was voluntarily dismissed on February 15, 1996.

5. On or about November 5, 1996, less than one year from the date of the voluntary dismissal, but more than one year from the date of the injury, the plaintiff filed the instant complaint.

The employee, the appellant, contends that by voluntarily opting to accept the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act § 50-6-106(5), that the employer has also voluntarily submitted to the savings statute, which is a separate statute. Apparently there are no Tennessee decisions that determine whether the savings statute, T.C.A. § 28-1-105, applies to a governmental entity which has consented to be covered by the provisions of the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act, pursuant to T.C.A. § 50-6-106(5).

There are Tennessee decisions which hold that sovereign immunity bars application of the savings statute to actions against a governmental entity. Williams v. Memphis Light, 773 S.W.2d 522 (Tenn.App.1988) (Governmental Tort Liability Act claims); Automobile Sales Co. v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Boone v. Town of Collierville
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • August 8, 2019
    ...opinions, including Webster . See id. (citing Lynn , 63 S.W.3d at 337 ; Roettger v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County , 991 S.W.2d 244, 245 (Tenn. Workers Comp. Panel 1999) ; Webster , 902 S.W.2d at 414 ).Mr. Boone's brief does not discuss the Webster case or Collierville's argume......
  • Newman v. City of Knoxville, No. E2008-00924-WC-R3-WC (Tenn. Sp. Workers Comp. 5/12/2009)
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court — Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel
    • May 12, 2009
    ...on the statute of limitations, specifically citing the Tennessee Supreme Court's holding in Roettgen v. Metropolitan Govt. of Nashville and Davidson Cty., 991 S.W.2d 244, 245 (Tenn. 1999). 2. The parol evidence rule, which is designed to uphold the integrity of written contracts, precludes ......
  • Milhous v. Metro Gov't of Nashville, 97-00226
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • August 31, 2000
    ...unless the statute specifically states that it applies to governmental, as well as private, defendants. Roettger v. Metropolitan Gov't, 991 S.W.2d 244, 245 (Tenn. 1999); Automobile Sales Co. v. Johnson, 174 Tenn. 38, 49, 122 S.W.2d 453, 458 (1938); Nance v. City of Knoxville, 883 S.W.2d 629......
  • Davidson v. Lewis Bros. Bakery
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • June 28, 2007
    ...one-year statute of limitations, because the GLTA contains no waiver of the State's sovereign immunity); Roettger v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, 991 S.W.2d 244, 245 (Tenn.Workers Comp.Panel 1999) (a municipality that voluntarily accepts the operation of the Workers' Compens......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT