# FILED
February

5, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk MAVI S A. COMBS, ) ) Petitioner /Appella nt, ) Appeal No.

) 01-A-01-9608-CH-00385 v. ) ) Davidson Chancery THE METROPOLI

TAN GOVERNMENT ) No. 95- 233 6-II OF NASHVIL

LE and DAVI

DSON ) COUNTY, a

nd the CI VIL SERVI CE ) COMMISSION, ) ) Responde nts/Appllees. ) )
COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE
APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY

AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
THE HONORABLE ELLEN HOBBS LYLE, CHANCELLOR

DAVID I . KOMISAR 211 Printer's Alley

Building Suite 400 Nashville, Tennessee 37201 ATTORNEY FOR PETITI ONER/APPELLANT

JA MES L. MU RP HY, III Director of Law The Department of La

w of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davi dson County WM. MICHAEL SAF

LEY Metropolitan Attorney 204 Metro

politan Cou

rthouse Nashville, Tennessee 37201 ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENTS/APPELL EES

AFFIRMED AND

REMANDED
SAMUEL L. LEWIS, JUDGE- 2

- 

# OPINION

This is an appea

l by pet itioner/a ppell ant, Mavi s A. Com bs, from the decision of the Davidson County Chan ceryCour t upholding the decision of respo ndent

/appellee, the Metro politan Civi l Servic e Com missio n (“t

h e Comm ission”), to deny

Ms . Com

bs in-line- of-duty

injury leave. The fac ts out of which this matt

er arose are as f ollows.
Ms. Combs is an em

plo ye e of respondent/appellee, the Metropolitan Governm ent of Nashville and Davidson County (“Metr o”) in that she

works for

the Metropolitan Police Department (“ the Department”). While p articipa ting intraining exercise s in April of

1974, Ms. Combs was struck on her lef t knee wit h a baton. A 101 occupation al injur

y report was c ompleted. Doc tor s at Nashville General Hospital treated Ms. Com

bs' knee in

jury on 10, 17, and 24 Apri l 1974 and on 17 May 19 74. On 22 March 1979, Ms. Combs ' left kne e gave out while shewas com ing down the stairs in the police building. An occupational injury report form was com pleted. T he reportreferenced the A

pril 1974 inj ury. Once aga in, doctor s at Na shville General Hospital treated Ms. Co mbs' knee injury.
Ms. Combs resigned f

rom t he Depar tment in January

1981. She

moved to San Diego, California a nd bega n working f or the San

Diego She

riff's Departm

ent. On 4 April 198 5, doctors at a hospita l in San D iego trea

ted Ms. Combs for a

swollen left knee . The D epartm

ent rehir ed Ms. Co mbs in 1 987.
On 25 May 1994, D r. Robert K. Johnson treated Ms. Combs for left knee pain. An occupa

tional inj ury r

eport wa s comp leted on 31 M ay 1994 detailing M s. Combs'1974 knee inj ury an d her reoc curring w eakness, cracking , pain, and swelling in her left knee. Dr. Johnson concluded that Ms . Com bs needed an arthrosc opic d ebridem ent of her le ft knee an d that her k nee conditi on was re lated to the 19 7 4 inju ry. Dr. Jack

Corban, Metro's Civil Service Medical Examiner , also rendered an opi nion. He concl

uded that Ms . Com

bs' left k nee conditi on was not r

elated toth e 1974 inju r y, but Dr. Corban ne ver examined Ms. C ombs. Ms. Combs then s aw a th ird doctor, D r. Kur

t Spindler , Dire ctor of S ports Medic ine, Ass istant Pro fessor Orthopae dic and Rehabi litation, Vanderb ilt Univer sityMedical Center. Dr. Spindler- 3

-

examined Ms. Combs and concluded that she should be

"treate d arthrosc opically for debridement of her

meniscallesion and a

rticulala r cartil age change s" and that "it is
conce ivableand probable that her meniscus tear could be caused at the tim e of h e r injury in 1974 and remain m ildlysymptomatic to severely symptomatic at th is point ."
Ms. Combs requeste d in-line- of-duty injury leavefrom

the Depa rtment in order to r eceive th e necessa

ry tr eatm ent. Th e Depar

tment denied her

request on

20 June 1994. Ms. Combs filed an i nternal gr ievance p ursuant to t

he civil se rvice rul es. The grie vance pane l made the follow ing findings: It is the opinion of

this panel, based on the information provided by the three phy sicians, that M s. C ombs' current m edical pro bl ems with her left knee are in part dire ctly r

elated to t he April 1974 line of duty injury. Further, we believe that Ms . Co mb s break in servi ce with Metropolitan Government should not be a factor in determining I.O.D . status. We reco mme nd that Ms. Combs be grante d I.O. D. stat us to have

th e corrective surgery performed on her knee and the necessary recovery tim

e. The chief of police rejected the findings of t he grievance panel, a

nd Ms. Com

bs timely filed a r

equest for review by the C omm

ission. The Comm

ission's initial order denied Ms. Combs in-line-of-duty inj ury leave. Ms. Com bs filed an

appeal w ith the Comm ission. The Com

missio n entered a

final orde r upholding th e initial or

der on 30 May 1995.
Ms. Combs next appea

led to the C hancery

Court for Davidson County. In a me mora ndum opi nion, the c hancery court conc luded as fo llows: In light of the

testim ony of the two e xamining physi cians, itis e vi dent that th ere wa s a causal relations hip betwe en [Ms. Combs'] 1974 injur

y and he r curre nt condition. The hea ring officer's decision to the contra ry is not supported by substantial and ma terial e vidence in light of the entire r ecord. The next issue is whether [Ms. Combs] is entitled to i njur yon-duty benefits. As the heari ng office r noted in his initial order, Civil Service

rules do not

allow for the connec tion of s erv ice time or benefits unless the em

ployee is re-em ployed within one year

of term ination. In this case, [ Ms. Com bs] wa s absent fr

om emplo ym ent with the police department for over si x year s. Therefore, when she r

esume d empl oym

ent with the Metropolitan Police Departm

ent, her status wa s that of a

new em ployee , and she los t he r rig ht t o pu rsu e a cl aim ba sed upo n he r 19 74 i njur y. On 2 April 1996, the c ha ncery court ente

red its fi nal judgm

ent incorporating the- 4

-

memorandum opinion an d uphol ding the Commission's deci sion.
Thereafter, Ms. Com

bs filed a timely noti c e of appeal to this court. Her only issue was “ [w]hether the reviewi ng court er

red in uphold

ing the dec ision of the
comm ission denyin g in-line-duty benefits to appellant because civil service rules do not allow fo r th e connection of service time or benefits unless the employee is reemployed within o ne year of terminatio n.” Respondents contend that the Comm iss ion denied Ms. Combs in-line-ofduty injury

leave bec ause the c ivil servic e rules donot allow f or connect

ion of service ti me for the pur

pose of rece iving benefits unless the employee requested reemplo ymentwithin one

year of the em

ployee 's resigna

tion. In ot

her word s, if the employee does not sat

isfy t his requir emen t, he or sh e is a new

emplo yee un der the rules and any

injury existing pr

ior to em ploym ent would be a pre- existing con dition. Ms. Combs , howeve

r, argue s that ther

e is no civil

service rule provi ding that a break in service term

inates bene fits. T

hus, it is M s. Com

bs' contention

that the de cision of the Com missio n to deny

her benef

its was a rbitrary and capri cious.
Article 12 of Metro's charter establishe d the Com

missio n and set fo rth its powers and duties. The charter directs the Com

missio n to establi sh rules re gulating attendance, leaves of absence, and re-em ployment. Metro Charter § 12 .07(d), (e). To accom modat e thi s direc tive and others, the Comm ission adopted the civil service rules and r

egulations.
Itis accept

ed law in Tennesse e that "co nsiderable deferen ce will

be granted to an adm inistrativ e agency 's interp retation o f its regul ation unless the interpretation is inconsiste nt wi th the terms of the regulation." Gay v. City of S ummerville , 878 S.W. 2d 124, 127 (T enn. App. 1994). H ere, the Comm ission was aske d to interpret the intent of t

he rules which it had p reviously adopted. The Com

missio n is in a better positionto decide what

is covered by the civil service rules than eithe r this cour

t or anyother body

because t he Com missio n is the adm

inistrativ e body that devised the rules.
Itis the opinio n of this cou rt that the Comm ission's int

erpreta tio n is no t- 5

-

inconsistentwiththe rules. Rule 4.7( b)(3) spe cifically requ ires that “[t] o be eligibl e to be placed

on the re- emplo ym

ent eligibi lity li st . . . [a] written re quest by the former empl oyee must b e present ed . . . within 12 m

onths of the effecti ve date of the employee' s resignati on.” Civ. Serv. C omm 'n R. 4. 7(b) (3). A pers on who is reemplo yed by

the Comm

ission rec eives num

erous bene fits includ

ing credit for prior accumulated

sick leave and servic e time. Id. 4.7(e). It is not inconsisten

twith these rules to conclu de that Ms. C ombs wa s not elig ible for r e-em ploym ent and wa s, therefore, not entitled to the benefits of re-employm ent. More ove r, it wa s not inconsistentfor the C omm iss ion to conclude that Ms. Combs was a new employee because s he was not

re-em ployed as descri

bed in the r

ules.
Therefore, it results that the j udgmen tof thechancell or is aff

irme d, and the causeis remanded to the chancery courtfor any f urther ne cessary

proceedi ngs. Costs on appeal a

re taxed t o petitioner

/appellant , Mavis A . Com bs.

________ _________________

______ __ _ SAMUEL L . LEWIS, JUDGE

CONCUR:

______________________________________ HENRY F. TODD, P.J., M.S.

______________________________________ BEN H. CANTRELL , JUDGE