Court Opinion

ID: 9409574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-18 18:06:20.714797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:33.497198
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                            Jul 18, 2023
                                                                                           12:31 PM(CT)
                                                                                            TENNESSEE
                                                                                       WORKERS' COMPENSATION
                                                                                          APPEALS BOARD

             TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
                WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Alice Baugus                                       )   Docket No.        2022-05-1109
                                                   )
v.                                                 )   State File No. 59724-2021
                                                   )
Tennessee Farmers Mutual Ins. Co., et al.          )
                                                   )
                                                   )
Appeal from the Court of Workers’                  )
Compensation Claims                                )
Dale A. Tipps, Judge                               )

                                Affirmed and Certified as Final

In this appeal, the employee contends the trial court should set aside an order approving
the settlement of her workers’ compensation claim because she did not have the
emotional or mental capacity to enter into the settlement agreement. Following a
hearing, the trial court concluded the employee failed to provide grounds for relief by
clear and convincing evidence. The employee has appealed. Having carefully reviewed
the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision and certify it as final.

Judge Pele I. Godkin delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in which Presiding
Judge Timothy W. Conner and Judge Meredith B. Weaver joined.

Alice Baugus, Mt. Pleasant, Tennessee, employee-appellant, pro se

Gordon C. Aulgur, Nashville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee, Tennessee Farmers
Mutual Insurance Company

                                     Memorandum Opinion 1

       Alice Baugus (“Employee”) and Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company
(“Employer”) entered into a settlement agreement on November 14, 2022, which
resolved Employee’s workers’ compensation claim against Employer. The settlement
was approved by the court and contained a provision noting that:
1
 “The appeals board may, in an effort to secure a just and speedy determination of matters on appeal and
with the concurrence of all judges, decide an appeal by an abbreviated order or by memorandum opinion,
whichever the appeals board deems appropriate, in cases that are not legally and/or factually novel or
complex.” Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-22-.03(1) (2020).
                                                   1
      The parties entered into this voluntary settlement of all issues with full
      knowledge of their rights and responsibilities, including the right to be
      represented by an attorney. Employee acknowledges by signature that
      Employee is not obligated to enter this agreement and has the right to a
      compensation hearing but waives that right.

The terms of the agreement provided that Employee had been diagnosed with bilateral
carpal tunnel syndrome, received medical care for her condition from Dr. Alton Lee
Hunter, Jr., and retained a 2% permanent medical impairment rating. It further provided
she was being paid permanent partial disability benefits pursuant to Tennessee Code
Annotated section 50-6-207(3)(A). The settlement reflected that Employer had paid past
medical expenses and agreed to pay for reasonable and necessary authorized future
medical expenses for treatment directly related to the work injury as provided in
Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204.

        Thereafter, on December 2, 2022, Employee filed a petition for benefit
determination and requested that her workers’ compensation case be “reviewed/re-
evaluated” in order to “come to a better agreement on behalf of the condition of my
hands.” Employee stated that she was “severely distressed with life situations . . . was
under severe mental stress, anxiety, overwhelmed, medicated, etc.” and did not believe
she “should have made any decisions that particular day due to my mental and emotional
state. My mind was in overload and I made a mistake.” Employee also noted she had a
crisis with her husband the night before and was up until 12:30 a.m. In addition,
Employee asserted she continued to receive medical treatment and was under the care of
a new doctor who had assigned a higher impairment rating. She requested compensation
for lost income as a result of missing work.

        On January 27, 2023, the trial court issued an order stating that it would treat
Employee’s request for an expedited hearing as a motion to set aside pursuant to Rule
60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Employer filed a response opposing the
motion, and the court held a hearing on March 30, 2023. On April 4, 2023, the trial court
entered an order declining to set aside the settlement order, reasoning that Employee did
not offer clear and convincing evidence of mental incapacity at the time of the settlement,
that there was no proof she was induced to agree to a settlement while ignorant of her
legal rights, and that there was no evidence she was unable to understand the nature of
the settlement proceeding. Employee has appealed.

        On appeal, Employee asserts her “mental [and] emotional state w[ere] obscured by
medication, enormous stress, anxiety” and that her “hand conditions [were] worsening.”
She further contends the trial court erred by not considering her doctor’s statement and
second impairment rating, asserting “[e]verything was focused on my spouse when my
brief, affidavit, and all was [sic] clear on my status. This order is based on information
clearly taken out of context.” In response, Employer contends the trial court was correct

                                            2
in denying Employee’s motion because she failed to produce clear and convincing
evidence she was entitled to relief, “and she did not show the facts of the case constituted
the ‘most extreme, unique, exceptional, or extraordinary case,’ as required under the
ruling in Johnson [v. Pilgrim’s Pride].” We agree.

       Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in part:

       On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or
       the party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding
       for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable
       neglect; (2) fraud . . . , misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse
       party; (3) the judgment is void; (4) the judgement has been satisfied,
       released or discharged, or a prior judgement upon which it is based has
       been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that a
       judgment should have prospective application; or (5) any other reason
       justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.

As we have noted previously, the Tennessee Supreme Court has explained that relief
from a judgment under Rule 60.02 is “rare and disfavored” and is “an exceptional
remedy.” Johnson v. Pilgrim’s Pride, Inc., No. 2015-01-0273, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp.
App. Bd. LEXIS 20, at *10 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Apr. 27, 2016) (internal
citations omitted). We went on to observe:

       With respect to subparagraph (5), the Court further reasoned that Rule
       60.02(5) does not relieve a party from his or her free, calculated, and
       deliberate choices. Moreover, the rule affords relief in the most extreme,
       unique, exceptional, or extraordinary cases.

Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). In addition, an employee seeking to
set aside an order approving a workers’ compensation settlement in accordance with Rule
60.02 must present clear and convincing evidence supporting a basis to set aside the
order. On appeal, the trial court’s decision to grant or deny such a motion will be upheld
absent an abuse of discretion. Henderson v. SAIA, Inc., 318 S.W.3d 328 (Tenn. 2010). A
trial court abuses its discretion when it applies an incorrect legal standard, reaches an
illogical or unreasonable decision, or bases its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment
of the evidence, resulting in an injustice to the complaining party. See, e.g., State v.
Ostein, 293 S.W.3d 519, 526 (Tenn. 2009).

       Here, Employee was provided an opportunity to review the settlement documents
with Employer’s counsel. Thereafter, she signed the settlement agreement as well as the
Bureau’s Explanation of Workers’ Compensation Benefits form before appearing in front
of the trial court. Once there, Employee was questioned about the details of her claim,
and her rights were explained to her by the trial court. This included the right not to

                                             3
settle her claim and proceed to trial, as well as her right to hire an attorney. Ultimately,
the court reviewed the details of Employee’s settlement agreement, and Employee agreed
under oath that she wanted the Court to approve her settlement. 2

       Employee takes issue with the court’s purported failure to consider her more
recent doctor’s statement and new rating. However, as we stated in Johnson,

       relief under Rule 60.02 is not meant to be used in every case in which the
       circumstances of a party change after the entry of a judgment or order, nor
       by a party who is merely dissatisfied with a particular outcome. Instead,
       relief is appropriate only in those relatively few instances that meet the
       criteria of the rule . . . Rule 60.02 has been described as an “escape valve
       from possible inequity that might otherwise arise from the unrelenting
       imposition of the principle of finality imbedded in our procedural rules.”
       Out of respect for the finality afforded to legal proceedings, this “escape
       valve” should not be easily opened. Accordingly, a party seeking relief
       from a judgment under Rule 60.02 bears the burden of proving that it is
       entitled to relief by clear and convincing evidence.

Johnson, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 20, at *12-13. Thus, absent clear and
convincing evidence satisfying one of the conditions set out in Rule 60.02, it was not
error for the trial court to refuse to consider new evidence after its approval of
Employee’s workers’ compensation settlement agreement.

       Given our review of the record, we agree that Employee failed to provide clear
and convincing evidence that she was entitled to relief under Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee
Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, we affirm the trial court’s order and certify it as final.
Costs on appeal are taxed to Employee.

2
  We were not provided with a transcript of the settlement approval hearing. We have gleaned the
relevant facts regarding events at the hearing from the trial court’s order denying Employee’s motion.
                                                  4
                 TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
                   WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Alice Baugus                                           )      Docket No. 2022-05-1109
                                                       )
v.                                                     )      State File No. 59724-2021
                                                       )
Tennessee Farmers Mutual Ins. Co., et al.              )
                                                       )
                                                       )
Appeal from the Court of Workers’                      )
Compensation Claims                                    )
Dale A. Tipps, Judge                                   )

                                    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Appeals Board’s order in the referenced case
was sent to the following recipients by the following methods of service on this the 18th day of
July, 2023.

 Name                              Certified   First Class   Via   Via     Sent to:
                                   Mail        Mail          Fax   Email
 Alice Baugus                                                        X     alizbaug@gmail.com
 Gordon C. Aulgur                                                    X     gordon.aulgur@AFGroup.com
 Dale A. Tipps, Judge                                                X     Via Electronic Mail
 Kenneth M. Switzer, Chief Judge                                     X     Via Electronic Mail
 Penny Shrum, Clerk, Court of                                        X     penny.patterson-shrum@tn.gov
 Workers’ Compensation Claims

Matthew Keene
Acting Clerk, Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board
220 French Landing Dr., Ste. 1-B
Nashville, TN 37243
Telephone: 615-532-1564
Electronic Mail: WCAppeals.Clerk@tn.gov