# FIL ED
Dece mber 7 , 19 98 Cecil W. Crow son Appella te Court Clerk IN THE SUPRE ME COURT OF TENNESS EE

A T NASHVILLE

FOR PUBLICA

TION Filed: Decem ber 7 , 19 98
BIL LY R. PHILL IPS, ) ) PLA INT IFF/APP ELL EE, ) T enn essee Claims Com mission ) v . ) ) Hon. W . R. B aker, Com mission er T ENNESSE E T ECHNOLOGI CAL ) UNIVERSITY, STAT E OF ) T ENNESSE E, ) No. 0 1S0 1-97 08-BC-00 173 ) DEFENDANT S/AP PEL LANT S. )

FOR APP ELLANT : FOR APP ELL EE: JOHN KNOX W ALK UP RONALD T HURM AN Atto rney Gene ral an d Rep orter Cooke v ille MARY BYRD FERRARA Assistan t Attorne y

Gen eral



# O P I N I O N

CLAIMS COMMISSION A FFIRMED IN PART HOLDER, J.OPINIO N
W e grante d th is app eal t o a ddre ss w het her t he Sta te m ay be liab le for discretion arycosts pursu antto T enn . R. Civ. P. 54 .04 (2) in a workers' com pen sation case . W e h old t hatthe Sta te m ay only be ta xed for cost s expressly

pe rmitte d b y

eith er th e T enn essee claim s com mission stat ute or th e W orkers' Com pen sation Act.
BACKGROUND
T he plaint if

f , BillyR. Ph illips, susta ined a work-relate d inju ry w hile em ployed b y

the de fend ant , a state un iversity . T he plaint if f filed a m otion to recover discretion ary

costs pursu antto T enn . R. Civ. P. 54 .04 . T he mo tion sought recovery

for "e x pen ses incu rred by the plain tif f in p repa ration an d prose cution of

this ca se." Sp ecifically , th e p laintif f alleged he was e ntitled to recover: (1) th e tre ating ph ysician's fee of $1 50. 00 for prep aratio n o f a C-32 form in lieu of

a d epo sition; (2) cou rt repo rter costs of $3 5.0 0 a ssociate d with 1 the plain tif

f's discovery

de positio n; a nd (3) a fee of $3 00. 00 charged by a vocat iona l disab ility

expert who te stified a t trial.
T he claims com mission awarded the plain tif f pe rman entpa rtial disab ility ben ef its of

thirty percen t to the bo dy as a whole a nd $15 0.0 0 for th e tre ating physician's fee in lieu of de positio n. T he claims com mission de nied the plain tif f's requests for th e co urt rep orter co sts an d for th e vocation al disa bility expert's fee. T he Spe cial W orkers' Com pen sation Pa nel m odif ied t he plaint if f's disab ility award to t hirty-seven perce nt t o th e b ody as a w hole an d rem and ed the case for an award of

reaso nab le discret iona ry costs. T he Sta te h as raise d o nly one issu e

T h e D e p a rt m e n t o f L a b o r S t a n d a r d F o r m M e d i c a l R e p o rt
. 1 2on app eal to th is Court: w het her t he Sta te m ay be h eld liab le for discretio nary costs. W e grante d review an d h old t hatthe claim s com mission acte d p rope rly in den y ing discretion ary

costs oth er th an the trea ting physician's fee for prep aratio n of the C-32 form.
A NA LYSIS
T he plaint if

f argues t hathe is en titled to d iscretiona ry costs pursu antto bot h T enn . R. Civ. P. 54 .04 an d o ur ho lding in Rea gan v. Ame rican Policyholders' In s. Co., 84 2 S .W .2d 24 9 (T enn . 19 92). Rule 5 4.0 4 p ermits a prevailing pa rty

to recover court co sts, d iscretiona ry costs, an d int erprete r costs. See Rule 5 4.0 4(1) (pe rmitting reco veryof costs include d in the bill of costs); Rule 54. 04(2 ) (allow ing recovery of discretio nary costs); Rule 54. 04(3 ) (permitt ing app ointm entan d p aymen t for inte rpreter). Ru le 54 .04 (1) prescribes a lim itation for th e a ssessm entof

costs against t he Sta te a s pa rty to litig ation . T his limita tion provides th at " costs a gainst th e sta te, its of ficers, or its a gencies sh all be imp osed on ly

to the extent perm itted by law ." Id.
T he claims com mission ha s exclusive jurisdictio n o ver workers' com pen sation claim s against the Sta te o f T enn essee . T enn . Cod e A nn. § 9 -8-307 (a)(1)(K). Th e claim s com mission stat ute expressly provides th at " [t]h e state w ill be liab le for act ual d am ages on ly
. . . . T he state w ill not b e liab le for pun itive d am ages an d th e co sts of litigation o the r tha n co urt co sts." T enn . Cod e Ann . § 9-8-30 7(d).
In Re agan v. Am erican Policyholders' In s. Co., 84 2 S .W .2d 24 9, 2 51 (Te nn. 19 92), the trial cou rt taxed t o th e S econ d Injury Fun d a po rtion o f

the court costs a nd costs a ssociate d with the trea ting physician's fee and test imo ny. 3Reagan dea lt on ly w ith th e a ssessm entof costs against t he Seco nd Injury Fund. Reagan is read ily

distinguisha ble f rom the case now be fore u s. Claim s against the Sta te, unlike tho se a gainst th e S econ d Injury Fun d, a re subject to the claim s com mission stat ute s.
Rule 5 4.0 4(2) pe rmits d iscretiona ry costs. T he claims com mission stat ute specif ically

proh ibits ta x ing discretion ary costs against t he state . T enn . Cod e Ann . § 9-8-30 7(d). W hile Rule 54 .04 is a ru le of genera l app lication, § 9 -8-307 is a legislative ma nda te with spe cific app lication to t he Sta te a s a d efend ant . W e hold tha t th e sp ecific ma nda te o f § 9 -8-307 (d) take s prece den ce o ver th e general d iscretiona ry

costs provisi on, Rule 5 4.0 4(2). S ee Coop er v. Alcoho l Com m. of

the City of Mem phis, 745 S.W .2d 27 8, 2 80 (Te nn. 19 88) (ho lding specif ic statu tory prov isions ta ke p reced ence over general rule provisions). Accordin gly , th e S tate m ay not b e ta xed discretion aryor litigation costs a bsen t an express legislative m and ate
. T he Sta te's liab ility

for workers' com pen sation claim s is subject tothe general p rov isions o f

the W orkers' Com pen sation Act ("Act" ). T he Act p rov ides:
T he fees charged to t he claima nt b y the trea ting physician or a sp ecialist tow hom the em ployee was referred for giv ing testim ony by oral de positio n rela tive to the claim , sha ll, unle ss the intere sts of

justice require oth erw ise, b e co nside red a pa rt of the costs o f the case , to be cha rg ed against t he em ployer w hen the em ployee is th e p revailing party.
T enn . Cod e A nn. § 5 0-6-22 6(c)(1). W e, t here fore, mu st de term ine wheth er th is section m ay be int erprete d a s an express legislative m and ate au tho riz ing a litig ation cost against t he Sta te in a workers' com pen sation case . T he T enn essee claim s com mission stat ute excludes ce rtain e num erate d co de section s from app licability in workers' comp ensa tion claims filed a gainst th e

4Sta te. T enn . Cod e A nn. § 9 -8-307 (K)(i) . A bsen t f rom this list o f exclusions is § 5 0-6-22 6(c)(1).
A f und am ent al rule of

stat uto ry

con struction is tha t th e m ent ion o f on e subje ct in a stat ute m ean s the exclusion o f oth er subjects th at a re no t me ntion ed. St ate v. Dav is, 94 0 S .W .2d 55 8, 5 61 (Te nn. 19 97); Mike v . Po Group , In c., 9 37 S.W .2d 79 0, 7 94 (Te nn. 19 96); Sta te v. Harkins, 8 11 S.W .2d 79, 82 (Te nn. 199 1) (hold ing om issions a re significant w hen stat ute s are express in certa in cat egories bu t no t ot hers). Ha d th e legislature inte nde d to preclu de app lication of

§ 5 0-6-22 6, it could ha ve sim ply adde d th is code sectio n to the list of excluded cod e se ctions in § 9-8-30 7. Accordin gly , th e S tate m ay be liab le for fees charged to a workers' com pen sation claim antby a trea ting physician or specia list, as p rov ided for in § 50 -6-226 (c)( 1).
In t he claim now before u s, th e p laintif f ha s requeste d reim burse me nt for the followi ng expense s: (1) t he fee charged by the t reatin g physici an relative to the claim ; (2) th e co st of a co urt rep orter for th e p laintif f's discovery

de positio n; and (3) th e fee charged by vocat iona l disab ility expert for ap pea ranceat trial. As th e p revailing party, the plain tif f is en titled only to th e co sts of the trea ting physician’s fee pursu antto § 5 0-6-22 6. T he plaint if f's rem aining two claims for discretion arycosts are o utside the am bit o f § 5 0-6-22 6 a nd were p rope rly den ied.
T he claims com mission ’s judgme nt a s to costs is a f firmed . T he judgme nt as to the plain tif

f's disab ility

award stan ds a s m odif ied b y the Sp ecial W orkers' Com pen sation Pa nel a t th irty-seven perce nt t o th e b ody as a w hole . Cost s of this a ppe al sha ll be t axed equa lly against the plain tif

f an d d efend ant s for w hich execution m ay issue if

ne cessary. 5JANICE M. HOL DER, JUST ICE
Pane l: And erson , C.J. Drowota an d B irch, J.J. Reid, S p.J., Not P articipat ing

6