FILED

February 5, 1997

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

MAVIS A. COMBS, )

)

Petitioner/Appellant, ) Appeal No.

) 01-A-01-9608-CH-00385

v. )

) Davidson Chancery

THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT ) No. 95-2336-II

OF NASHVILLE and DAVIDSON )

COUNTY, and the CIVIL SERVICE )

COMMISSION, )

)

Respondents/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 PETITIONER/APPELLANT

JAMES L. MURPHY, III

Director of Law

The Department of Law of the

Metropolitan Government of

Nashville and Davidson County

WM. MICHAEL SAFLEY

Metropolitan Attorney

204 Metropolitan Courthouse

Nashville, Tennessee 37201

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENTS/APPELLEES

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

SAMUEL L. LEWIS, JUDGE
- 2-

OPINION

This is an appeal by petitioner/appellant, Mavis A. Combs, from the

decision of the Davidson County Chancery Court upholding the decision of

respondent/appellee, the Metropolitan Civil Service Commission (“the

Commission”), to deny Ms. Combs in-line-of-duty injury leave. The facts out of

which this matter arose are as follows.

Ms. Combs is an employee of respondent/appellee, the Metropolitan

Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“Metro”) in that she works for the

Metropolitan Police Department (“the Department”). While participating in training

exercises in April of 1974, Ms. Combs was struck on her left knee with a baton. A

101 occupational injury report was completed. Doctors at Nashville General Hospital

treated Ms. Combs' knee injury on 10, 17, and 24 April 1974 and on 17 May 1974.

On 22 March 1979, Ms. Combs' left knee gave out while she was coming down the

stairs in the police building. An occupational injury report form was completed. The

report referenced the April 1974 injury. Once again, doctors at Nashville General

Hospital treated Ms. Combs' knee injury. 

Ms. Combs resigned from the Department in January 1981. She moved to

San Diego, California and began working for the San Diego Sheriff's Department.

On 4 April 1985, doctors at a hospital in San Diego treated Ms. Combs for a swollen

left knee. The Department rehired Ms. Combs in 1987.

On 25 May 1994, Dr. Robert K. Johnson treated Ms. Combs for left knee

pain. An occupational injury report was completed on 31 May 1994 detailing Ms.

Combs' 1974 knee injury and her reoccurring weakness, cracking, pain, and swelling

in her left knee. Dr. Johnson concluded that Ms. Combs needed an arthroscopic

debridement of her left knee and that her knee condition was related to the 1974

injury. Dr. Jack Corban, Metro's Civil Service Medical Examiner, also rendered an

opinion. He concluded that Ms. Combs' left knee condition was not related to the

1974 injury, but Dr. Corban never examined Ms. Combs. Ms. Combs then saw a

third doctor, Dr. Kurt Spindler, Director of Sports Medicine, Assistant Professor

Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation, Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Dr. Spindler
- 3-

examined Ms. Combs and concluded that she should be "treated arthroscopically for

debridement of her meniscal lesion and articulalar cartilage changes" and that "it is

conceivable and probable that her meniscus tear could be caused at the time of her

injury in 1974 and remain mildly symptomatic to severely symptomatic at this point."

Ms. Combs requested in-line-of-duty injury leave from the Department in

order to receive the necessary treatment. The Department denied her request on 20

June 1994. Ms. Combs filed an internal grievance pursuant to the civil service rules.

The grievance panel made the following findings:

 It is the opinion of this panel, based on the information

provided by the three physicians, that Ms.Combs' current medical

problems with her left knee are in part directly related to the April

1974 line of duty injury. Further, we believe that Ms. Combs

break in service with Metropolitan Government should not be a

factor in determining I.O.D. status. We recommend that Ms.

Combs be granted I.O.D. status to have the corrective surgery

performed on her knee and the necessary recovery time.

The chief of police rejected the findings of the grievance panel, and Ms. Combs

timely filed a request for review by the Commission. The Commission's initial order

denied Ms. Combs in-line-of-duty injury leave. Ms. Combs filed an appeal with the

Commission. The Commission entered a final order upholding the initial order on 30

May 1995. 

Ms. Combs next appealed to the Chancery Court for Davidson County. In

a memorandum opinion, the chancery court concluded as follows:

In light of the testimony of the two examining physicians,

it is evident that there was a causal relationship between [Ms.

Combs'] 1974 injury and her current condition. The hearing

officer's decision to the contrary is not supported by substantial

and material evidence in light of the entire record.

The next issue is whether [Ms. Combs] is entitled to injuryon-duty benefits. As the hearing officer noted in his initial order,

Civil Service rules do not allow for the connection of service time

or benefits unless the employee is re-employed within one year of

termination. In this case, [Ms. Combs] was absent from

employment with the police department for over six years.

Therefore, when she resumed employment with the Metropolitan

Police Department, her status was that of a new employee, and

she lost her right to pursue a claim based upon her 1974 injury.

On 2 April 1996, the chancery court entered its final judgment incorporating the
- 4-

memorandum opinion and upholding the Commission's decision. 

Thereafter, Ms. Combs filed a timely notice of appeal to this court. Her

only issue was “[w]hether the reviewing court erred in upholding the decision of the

commission denying in-line-duty benefits to appellant because civil service rules do

not allow for the connection of service time or benefits unless the employee is reemployed within one year of termination.”

Respondents contend that the Commission denied Ms. Combs in-line-ofduty injury leave because the civil service rules do not allow for connection of service

time for the purpose of receiving benefits unless the employee requested reemployment within one year of the employee's resignation. In other words, if the

employee does not satisfy this requirement, he or she is a new employee under the

rules and any injury existing prior to employment would be a pre-existing condition.

Ms. Combs, however, argues that there is no civil service rule providing that a break

in service terminates benefits. Thus, it is Ms. Combs' contention that the decision of

the Commission to deny her benefits was arbitrary and capricious.

Article 12 of Metro's charter established the Commission and set forth its

powers and duties. The charter directs the Commission to establish rules regulating

attendance, leaves of absence, and re-employment. Metro Charter § 12.07(d), (e). To

accommodate this directive and others, the Commission adopted the civil service

rules and regulations.

It is accepted law in Tennessee that "considerable deference will be granted

to an administrative agency's interpretation of its regulation unless the interpretation

is inconsistent with the terms of the regulation." Gay v. City of Summerville, 878

S.W.2d 124, 127 (Tenn. App. 1994). Here, the Commission was asked to interpret

the intent of the rules which it had previously adopted. The Commission is in a better

position to decide what is covered by the civil service rules than either this court or

any other body because the Commission is the administrative body that devised the

rules.

It is the opinion of this court that the Commission's interpretation is not
- 5-

inconsistent with the rules. Rule 4.7(b)(3) specifically requires that “[t]o be eligible

to be placed on the re-employment eligibility list . . .[a] written request by the former

employee must be presented . . . within 12 months of the effective date of the

employee's resignation.” Civ. Serv. Comm'n R. 4.7(b)(3). A person who is reemployed by the Commission receives numerous benefits including credit for prior

accumulated sick leave and service time. Id. 4.7(e). It is not inconsistent with these

rules to conclude that Ms. Combs was not eligible for re-employment and was,

therefore, not entitled to the benefits of re-employment. Moreover, it was not

inconsistent for the Commission to conclude that Ms. Combs was a new employee

because she was not re-employed as described in the rules.

Therefore, it results that the judgment of the chancellor is affirmed, and the

cause is remanded to the chancery court for any further necessary proceedings. Costs

on appeal are taxed to petitioner/appellant, Mavis A. Combs.

__________________________________

SAMUEL L. LEWIS, JUDGE

CONCUR:

______________________________________

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

______________________________________

BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE