TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT NASHVILLE

Carrie Robinson

, Employee, ) ) Docket No. 2016

- 06

- 1563

)

v. )

Vanderbilt University

, Employer, ) ) ) State File No. 48284

- 2016

A nd Vanderbilt (self

- insured)

, Insurance Carrier. ) ) ) ) Judge Joshua D avis Baker

COMPENSATION ORDER GRANTING

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter came before the Court on June 5 , 2017, upon the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Vanderbilt University under Rule 56 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil

Procedure

. The determinative legal issue is whether Vanderbilt is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law b ecause Ms. Robinso n failed to timely file her claim for workers’ compensation benefits . Ms. Robinson did not file a written response to Vanderbilt’s motion but did attend the hearing. Based on its review of Vanderbilt’s motion and the parties’ arguments

, the Court grants Vanderbilt ’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

History of Claim

In an April 26, 2016 letter to Vanderbilt, Ms. Robinson alleged she suffered a neck and back injury before her retirement on August 1, 2015 , due to lifting large boxes of

fruit and other sundries at a small market on Vanderbilt’s campus

. After receiving Ms. Robinson’s letter, Vanderbilt denied the claim due to lack of timely notice and lack of a specific injury. Ms. Robinson filed a Petition for Benefit Determination (PBD) with the

Burea u of Workers’ Compensation on August 18, 2016. The PBD identified Ms. Robinson’s date of injury as June 1, 2015. Ms. Robinson requested an expedited hearing

. At the expedited hearing, a senior claims supervisor for Vanderbilt testified that2

Vanderbilt di d not pay any workers’ compensation benefits to Ms. Robinson. On March 10, 2017, The Court entered an order denying her claim on statute of limitations grounds

. This motion for Summary Judgment followed.

Legal Principles and Analysis

Motions for summary judgment are governed by Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56.04, which prov id es for entry of summary judgment when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show tha t 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.” Aside from Rule 56, in 2011, the Tennessee General Assembly codified the burden of proof as follows:

In motions for summary judgm ent in any civil action in Tennessee, the moving party who does not bear the burden of proof at trial shall prevail on its motion for summary judgment if it:

(1) Submits affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim; or (2) Demonstrates to the court that the nonmoving party’s evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of the nonmoving party’s

claim.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 20

- 16

- 101 (201 6 ); Payne v. D and D Elec., 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 21, at *7

- 8 (May 4, 2016).

If the moving party meets its burden of negating an essential element or demonstrating evidence is insufficient, then the injured employee, as the nonmoving party, must “demonstrate the existence of specific facts in the record which could le ad a rational trier of fact to find in [his or her] favor[.]” Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC , 477 S.W.3d 235, 265 (Tenn. 2015). Thus, if Vanderbilt meets its burden of proof, Ms. Robinson must do more than simply show some “metaphysical

doubt ” as to the material facts. Id. at 265

. In reaching its decision, the Court must focus

on evidence Ms. Robinson has presented at the summary judgment stage, “not on hypothetical evidence that theoretically could be adduced . . . at a future trial.” Id

.

An essential element of Ms. Robinson’s claim includes proving s he timely filed

h er PBD

. When the employer does not voluntarily pay benefits in a workers’ compensation claim , the Workers’ Compensation Law provides that the employee’s

“r ight to compensation... shall be forever barred” unless the employee files a PBD

“ within one (1) year after the accident resulting in injury .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50

- 6

- 203(b)( 1 ) (2016). The employer has the burden of producing facts to show that the

statute of limita tions bars a claim. Once the employer establishes those facts, the3

employee must prove that an exception exists or the claim is barred

. See Cloyd v. Hartco Flooring Co. , 274 S.W.3d 638, 647 (Tenn. 2008) (citing Ingram v. Earthman

, 993 S.W.2d 611, 633 ; Jones v. Coal Creek Mining & Mfg. Co. , 180 S.W. 179, 182 (Tenn. 1915)

.

In its statement of undisputed facts, Van derbilt included the following facts: (1)

Vanderbilt denied Ms. Robinson’s claim for benefits ; (2) Vanderbilt paid no benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act; ( 3 ) Ms. Robinson retired from Vanderbilt effective August 1, 2015; and

, (3) Ms. Robinson filed a PBD for workers’ compensation benefits on August 18, 2016, which indicated a June 1, 201 5 date of injury.

At the motion hearing, Ms. Robinson failed to prove that an exception extends the

statute of limitations in her claim. Her filing clearly occurred after the statute of limitations expired , and t he facts support Vanderbilt’s statute of limitations defense. As required by Rye

, supra , “The focus is on the evidence the nonmoving party comes

forward with at the summary judgment stage , not on hypothetical evidence that theoretically could be adduced . . . at a future trial.” Id . at 265 (emphasis added). Therefore, the Court holds Ms. Robinson failed to “demonstrate the existence of specific

facts in the record which could lead a rational trier of fact to find in favor of the nonmoving party.” Id

. A ccordingly, the Court grants Vanderbilt’s Motion.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Vanderbilt’s Motion for Summary Judgment is grante d.

2. Ms. Robinson’s claim is dismissed with prejudice.

3. The Court assesses the $150 filing fee to Vanderbilt pursuant to Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800

- 02

- 21

- .07 (201 6 ), for which execution may issue as necessary.

4. Vanderbilt shall prepare and submit the SD

- 1 for this matter within ten calendar days of the date of judgment.

ENTERED ON THIS THE 6 TH DAY OF JUNE , 2017.

____________________________________ Judge Joshua D. Baker Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Order was sent to the following recipients by the following methods of service on this the

____ day of May

, 2017.

Name Certified

Mail Via

Fax Via

Email Service sent to:

Carrie Robinson, Employee X X 800 Paige Ct. Nashville, TN 37207 Robinsoncm61@gmail.com Nathaniel Cherry

, Attorney X ncherry@howardtatelaw.com

_____________________________________ Penny Shrum, Clerk Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov