Opinion ID: 1762295
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jurisdiction of General Sessions Court for Warren County

Text: As the trial was about to commence, the defendants made an oral motion to amend their answer, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction on grounds that the statute granting jurisdiction to the General Sessions Court was unconstitutional. The trial court denied the motion. Although the motion to amend came late, subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by waiver or consent, and parties to a proceeding may raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction at any time in any court. In re Southern Lumber & Mfg. Co., 141 Tenn. 325, 210 S.W. 639, 640 (1919); Metro. Gov't v. Tenn. Solid Waste Disposal Control Bd., 832 S.W.2d 559, 561 (Tenn.Ct.App.1991). The defendants challenge the constitutionality of Tennessee Code Annotated section 16-15-5004(c), which confers jurisdiction over workers' compensation cases to the General Sessions Court for Warren County. [2] Specifically, the statute states: Effective September 1, 1990, in counties of the third class having a population of not less than thirty-two thousand six hundred (32,600) nor more than thirty-two thousand seven hundred (32,700) according to the 1980 federal census or any subsequent federal census: (1) The general sessions court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit and chancery courts over workers' compensation cases. Tenn.Code Ann. § 16-15-5004(c) (1994). When considering the constitutionality of a statute, we start with a strong presumption that acts passed by the legislature are constitutional. See Osborn v. Marr, 127 S.W.3d 737, 740-41 (Tenn.2004); West v. Tenn. Hous. Dev. Agency, 512 S.W.2d 275, 279 (Tenn.1974). Any reasonable doubt about whether a statute is constitutional must be resolved in favor of its constitutionality. See State v. Taylor, 70 S.W.3d 717, 721 (Tenn.2000). Thus, the defendants have a heavy legal burden in this case in challenging the constitutionality of section 16-15-5004(c). See West, 512 S.W.2d at 279. The defendants argue that Tennessee Code Annotated section 16-15-5004(c) suspends a general law in violation of article XI, section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution. Article XI, section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution provides that [t]he Legislature shall have no power to suspend any general law for the benefit of any particular individual, nor to pass any law for the benefit of individuals inconsistent with the general laws of the land. Specifically, the defendants argue that Tennessee Code Annotated section 16-15-5004(c) suspends section 50-6-225(a)(1), which confers jurisdiction over workers' compensation cases to circuit, criminal, and chancery courts. [3] Ms. McCarver maintains that the statute does not suspend a general law and, in any event, is rationally related to legitimate legislative interests. Article XI, section 8 is implicated when a statute `contravene [s] some general law which has mandatory state-wide application.' Riggs v. Burson, 941 S.W.2d 44, 53 (Tenn.1997) (quoting Civil Serv. Merit Bd. v. Burson, 816 S.W.2d 725, 731 (Tenn.1991)). Even if a statute does suspend a general law, that statute will be upheld unless it creates classifications which are capricious, unreasonable, or arbitrary. Riggs, 941 S.W.2d at 53. In other words, there must be a rational basis for the classification. See Stalcup v. City of Gatlinburg, 577 S.W.2d 439, 441 (Tenn. 1978). The statute which confers jurisdiction over workers' compensation cases to circuit, criminal, and chancery courts specifically states: In case of a dispute over or failure to agree upon compensation under the Workers' Compensation Law between the employer and employee or the dependents of the employee, either party may file a civil action in the circuit, criminal, or chancery court in the county in which the employee resides or in which the alleged injury occurred. . . . Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-225(a)(1) (1999). [4] The Workers' Compensation Law, codified at Tennessee Code Annotated sections 50-6-101 to -801, applies uniformly throughout the state. Therefore, we hold that section 50-6-225(a)(1), conferring jurisdiction over workers' compensation claims to circuit, criminal, and chancery courts, is a general statute with mandatory state-wide application, and section 16-15-5004(c), granting jurisdiction to the Warren County General Sessions Court contravenes that law. However, this does not end our analysis. As stated previously, if there is a rational basis for the classification in question, then the statute meets constitutional muster. In this case, we conclude that there was a rational basis for granting the Warren County General Sessions Court subject matter jurisdiction over workers' compensation cases. A legislative enactment passes rational basis review if any possible reason can be conceived to justify the classification. Stalcup, 577 S.W.2d at 442. In Stalcup , the Court was called upon to make a determination as to whether a reasonable basis for the special classification existed and concisely explained the rules for such a determination: It is not necessary that the reasons for the classification appear in the face of the legislation. If any possible reason can be conceived to justify the classification, it will be upheld and deemed reasonable. So long as the statute applies equally and consistently to all persons who are or may come into the like situation or circumstance, it is not objectionable as being based upon an unreasonable classification. There is no general rule by which to distinguish a reasonable from an unreasonable classification, the question being a practical one varying with the facts in each case. Where the reasonableness of the classification is fairly debatable the courts will uphold the classification. The burden of showing that the classification does not rest upon a reasonable basis is upon the party attacking the statute. Id. at 442 (citations omitted). The record does not contain any evidence to support either a reasonable or unreasonable classification, as there was never a hearing on this issue. The defendants simply argue in their brief to this Court that there is no rational basis for distinguishing between a county of between 32,600 and 32,700 residents and a county of either 32,599 or 32,701 residents. However, as we noted previously, Warren County was the only county which met the population requirements of the statute when the statute when into effect. Warren County and Van Buren County together make up the thirty-first judicial district. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 16-2-506(31)(A) (1994). A single judge sits as the chancellor, circuit court judge and criminal court judge for both counties. Id. As the Attorney General argues in his brief to this Court, granting the general sessions court jurisdiction over workers' compensation cases more reasonably allocates the caseload among the available judges. Accordingly, we hold that the defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing that the classification does not rest upon a reasonable basis.