Court Opinion

ID: 9802899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 15:02:32.66906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:02:23.229339
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                Aug 31, 2023
                                                                                09:45 AM(CT)
                                                                               TENNESSEE
                                                                          WORKERS' COMPENSATION
                                                                             APPEALS BOARD

             TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
                WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

William Jones                               )   Docket No.    2022-08-0248
                                            )
v.                                          )   State File No. 36038-2021
                                            )
Transforce, Inc., et al.                    )
                                            )
                                            )
Appeal from the Court of Workers’           )
Compensation Claims                         )
Shaterra R. Marion, Judge                   )

                                Vacated and Remanded

This interlocutory appeal involves a discovery dispute focusing on Tennessee Rule of
Civil Procedure 36. In response to the employer’s second motion to deem matters
admitted, the trial court concluded that the employee timely sent his responses to the
requests but that the employer’s counsel did not timely receive them. The court denied
the employer’s motion, and the employer has appealed. Upon careful consideration of
the record, we vacate the trial court’s order and remand the case.

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

Mackenzie Keffalos, Brentwood, Tennessee, for the appellant, Transforce, Inc.

William Jones, Olive Branch, Mississippi, appellee, pro se

                           Factual and Procedural Background

      William H. Jones, Jr. (“Employee”) alleged he suffered a work-related injury on
January 15, 2021, when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving a truck
in the course and scope of his employment with Transforce, Inc. (“Employer”).
Employer denied the claim, asserting that Employee did not provide proper notice of the
accident and that the injury did not occur in the course and scope of the employment.

       Following the issuance of a dispute certification notice, Employer sent Employee
requests for admissions pursuant to Rule 36 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.
Thereafter, in November 2022, Employer filed a motion asking the court to deem certain

                                            1
matters admitted based on the lack of timely responses from Employee. Employee
responded that the requests were sent to an email address he does not use “for his
workers’ compensation case.” Moreover, although Employee admitted that the physical
address used by Employee’s counsel was correct, he denied receiving the requests by
U.S. mail. The court denied Employer’s motion, noting that Employee listed a different
email address on his petition for benefit determination. It then directed Employee to
respond to the requests within thirty days of its order. That order was not appealed.

       Employer sent Employee a second set of requests for admissions on April 6, 2023,
which included five additional requests. On May 16, Employer filed another motion to
deem matters admitted, asserting that Employee had failed to timely respond to its
requests and that service to an opposing party’s “last known address” is sufficient service
under Rule 5.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. On this occasion, Employer
asked Employee to admit certain opinions expressed by a treating physician and to
“[a]dmit that your injury is not causally related to your employment.” Employer included
as an exhibit to its motion a USPS tracking notification indicating that the “item” had
been delivered to Employee’s Mississippi address on April 13, 2023.

        Employee responded in writing to Employer’s motion on May 19, asserting he had
sent his responses to Employer’s requests for admissions on April 27, 2023, within the
thirty-day deadline specified in Rule 36. He also asserted that “Employer cannot show
that they have been prejudiced.” He attached his responses to the requests as an exhibit
to his response to Employer’s motion. 1 He “denied” or “declined to answer” each
request. He also argued that Employer had exceeded the number of requests for
admissions allowed in Tenn. Comp. R. and Regs. 0800-02-21-.17 without leave of court. 2

      Following a telephonic motion hearing, the trial court again denied Employer’s
motion to deem matters admitted. 3 The trial court concluded that Employee “sent his
responses on April 27” but that Employer “did not receive the responses until May 19.”
Employer has appealed.

1
 It is unclear from the record whether the attachment to Employee’s motion response is a copy of the
original discovery responses he purportedly forwarded to Employer’s counsel on April 27 or whether they
were his “amended” responses. In paragraph 2 of his motion response, Employee wrote that “after talking
with the [ombudsman] attorney,” he “prepared an amended response,” which he attached but which is
unsigned and undated.
2
 The rule provides, in pertinent part, that a party may not “serve more than . . . twenty (20) requests for
admission on any party without approval of the judge. Any subpart is counted as its own request.” Tenn.
Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-21-.17(2)(b). Employer previously sent Employee sixteen separately-
numbered requests for admissions, and the more recent requests added another five.
3
 Based on the transcription of the motion hearing included in the record, there is no indication that
Employee was put under oath during the hearing or that either party offered into evidence any
documentation for the court’s consideration.
                                                    2
                                    Standard of Review

        The interpretation and application of statutes and regulations are questions of law
that we review de novo with no presumption of correctness afforded the trial court’s
conclusions. See Mansell v. Bridgestone Firestone N. Am. Tire, LLC, 417 S.W.3d 393,
399 (Tenn. 2013). However, a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a discovery motion
is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Doe 1 ex rel. Doe 1 v. Roman
Catholic Diocese of Nashville, 154 S.W.3d 22, 42 (Tenn. 2005). This standard
“contemplates that before reversal the record must show that a judge ‘applied an incorrect
legal standard or reached a decision which is against logic or reasoning that caused an
injustice to the party complaining.’” Hubbard v. Sherman-Dixie Concrete, Indus., No.
E2010-02219-WC-R3-WC, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 965, at *11 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp.
Panel Oct. 18, 2011) (quoting State v. Farrell, 277 S.W.3d 372, 378 (Tenn. 2009)). We
are also mindful of our obligation to construe the workers’ compensation statutes “fairly,
impartially, and in accordance with basic principles of statutory construction” and in a
way that does not favor either the employee or the employer. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-
116 (2022).

                                          Analysis

        Rule 36.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure allows any party to the
litigation to serve upon any other party “a written request for the admission, for purposes
of the pending action only, of the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule
26.02 . . . that relate to (a) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either;
and (b) the genuineness of any described documents.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 36.01. We
previously addressed Rule 36 in Holt v. Quality Floor Coverings, LLC, No. 2020-01-
0787, 2022 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 19 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. May
6, 2022), as follows:

       We conclude Rule 36 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure is self-
       executing. Once a party files written requests for admissions in accordance
       with Rule 36.01, those statements are automatically deemed admitted thirty
       days after the requests are served unless one of three things happens: (1) the
       party to whom the request is directed timely serves a response denying the
       request or objecting to the request; (2) the party to whom the request is
       directed timely asks the trial court to lengthen the time within which a
       response can be served and that request is granted; or (3) the party to whom
       the request is directed timely serves a response or objection and the other
       party files a motion asking the trial court to determine the sufficiency of the
       answers or objections. If none of those three things happens, the statements
       are deemed admitted and are considered conclusively established unless the
       party to whom the requests were directed later moves for withdrawal or
       amendment of the admission pursuant to Rule 36.02.

                                              3
Id. at *5-6. 4 We also stated, however, that “[a] trial court has the express authority to
shorten or lengthen the time within which a party may respond to Rule 36 requests, see
Rule 36.01, and it has the authority to allow a party to withdraw or amend any admissions
under certain circumstances, see Rule 36.02.” Id. at *7. See, e.g., Meyer Laminates (SE),
Inc. v. Primavera Distrib., 293 S.W.3d 162, 166 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (“[T]he clear
language of [Rule 36] provides the trial court discretion to allow withdrawal or
amendment.”).

       In the present case, the dispute hinges on whether Employee satisfied the
mandates of Rule 36, which requires the responding party to “serve[] upon the party
requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter, signed by
the party” within “30 days after service of the request.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 36.01 (emphasis
added). Employer asserted it served upon Employee written discovery requests,
including a second set of requests for admissions, on or about April 6, 2023, and those
documents were delivered to Employee’s Mississippi residence on April 13, 2023. In his
written response to Employer’s motion to deem the matters admitted, Employee argued
that he responded to the requests on April 27, within the thirty-day time frame required
by Rule 36. As noted above, however, Employee was not sworn in as a witness at the
motion hearing. His statements during the course of that hearing, therefore, are not
evidence. Furthermore, although Employee asserted during the motion hearing that he
had emailed his responses to Employer’s counsel, he offered no documentary evidence
supporting that statement, such as a screenshot of his “sent” folder or an email “read
receipt.” Employer’s counsel denied having received Employee’s email or his responses,
and the court specifically determined that Employer did not receive Employee’s
responses until May 19, more than thirty days after the requests were sent or delivered.

        Moreover, the copies of Employee’s responses, which Employee attached to his
written response to Employer’s motion, are unsigned in contravention of Tennessee Rules
of Civil Procedure 11.01, 26.07, and 36.01. Rule 11.01 requires “[e]very pleading,
written motion, and other paper” to be signed by an attorney representing the party or by
a self-represented party. Rule 26.07 provides that “[e]very request for discovery or
response or objection thereto” shall be signed by an attorney representing the party or by
a self-represented party. The rule further states, “[i]f a request, response, or objection is
not signed, it shall be stricken unless it is signed promptly after the omission is called to
the attention of the party making the request, response or objection.” (Emphasis added.)
Finally, Rule 36.01 requires the responses or objections to be “signed by the party.”
Thus, we conclude that Employee has, to date, offered no evidence that he timely or
appropriately responded to Employer’s second set of requests for admissions.

4
 We further note that, in circumstances where the requests for admissions are served with the summons
and complaint, the responding party has forty-five days, not thirty days, within which to respond or
object. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 36.01.

                                                 4
       Here, it is unrefuted that Employer did not receive Employee’s responses until
May 19, approximately two weeks after they were due. What is not clear, however, is
whether Employee served his responses timely. Under Bureau rules, and as pertinent to
the present case, proper “service” of a document includes “electronic mail in PDF format
(or other electronic means approved by the bureau).” Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-
21-.08.

        As we noted in Holt, we will review a trial court’s discovery orders under an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Holt, 2022 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 19, at *2.
Rule 36 authorizes a court to grant additional time for responses to requests for
admissions or, in the alternative, to allow a party to withdraw or amend any admissions.
Id. at *7. Here, Employee has not come forward with any evidence to date supporting a
conclusion that he complied with the requirements of Rule 36 by timely serving
responses to Employer’s requests, he did not sign his responses as required by Rules
36.01, 11.01, and 26.07, and he has not asked the trial court to allow him to withdraw and
amend any admissions. Thus, we vacate the trial court’s order denying Employer’s
motion, and we remand the case for any further proceedings as may be necessary. 5

                                             Conclusion

       For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the trial court’s order and remand the case.
Costs on appeal are taxed to Employer.

5
 On remand, there are several issues the court could consider, including but not limited to, whether it is
beyond the scope of Rules 36.01 and 26.02 for one party to ask another party to “admit” to a conclusion
of law, see, e.g., Old Hickory Coaches, LLC v. Star Coach Rentals, Inc., 652 S.W.3d 802, 813 (Tenn. Ct.
App. 2021) (“A party is not ordinarily bound by admission[s] or averments of legal conclusions”), and
whether a request to admit to an opinion expressed by an expert impacts the admitting party’s ability to
present evidence of contrary expert opinions. Another issue the court could consider is whether the total
number of the statements Employer has asked Employee to admit exceeds Bureau regulations and, if so,
what remedy is appropriate.
                                                    5
                 TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
                   WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

William Jones                                          )     Docket No.         2022-08-0248
                                                       )
v.                                                     )     State File No.     36038-2021
                                                       )
Transforce, Inc., et al.                               )
                                                       )
                                                       )
Appeal from the Court of Workers’                      )
Compensation Claims                                    )
Shaterra R. Marion, Judge                              )

                                   CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Appeals Board’s decision in the referenced
case was sent to the following recipients by the following methods of service on this the 31st day
of August, 2023.

 Name                              Certified   First Class    Via   Via       Sent to:
                                   Mail        Mail           Fax   Email
 William Jones                         X           X                  X       6764 Clarmore Drive
                                                                              Olive Branch, MS 38654
                                                                              jlwllm16@gmail.com
 Mackenzie Keffalos                                                   X       mckeffalos@mijs.com
 Shaterra R. Marion, 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