 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Draper v. State9/4/2003
Plaintiff, Angela Draper, parent and next friend of decedent, Bryanna Faith Draper, filed a claim against Diane Stanley and the Tennessee Department of Children's Services by lodging a claim with the State Division of Claims Administration. The claim was then transferred to the Claims Commission.
Plaintiff's claim alleges she filed a Complaint in Sullivan County Circuit Court against Blue Ridge Radiology Associates, P.C., Holston Valley Regional Medical Center, and others, for the wrongful death of her child, and that the defendants answered and alleged that Diane Stanley, an employee of the Tennessee Department of Children's Services, was assigned to investigate suspected abuse of the child and that she failed to protect the child.
The state moved to Dismiss on the grounds that the state was the only proper party before the Claims Commission. Responding to the motion, The Commissioner found there was a lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the cause of action fell outside the scope of authority vested in the Claims Commission pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §9-8-307. He also dismissed Ms. Stanley and DCS as parties, stating that pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §9-8-307(a)(1), only the state can be sued in the Claims Commission. Plaintiff has appealed these rulings.
In this case, the Commission determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claim presented. As the Supreme Court has recently explained:
A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction falls under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(1). The concept of subject matter jurisdiction involves a court's lawful authority to adjudicate a controversy brought before it. Subject matter jurisdiction involves the nature of the cause of action and the relief sought, and can only be conferred on a court by constitutional or legislative act. Since a determination of whether subject matter jurisdiction exists is a question of law, our standard of review is de novo, without a presumption of correctness.
Northland Ins. Co. v. State, 33 S.W.3d 727, 729 (Tenn. 2000).
As the Court discussed in Stewart v. State, 33 S.W.3d 785 (Tenn. 2000), in 1984 the legislature enacted Tenn. Code Ann. §9-8-307, which waived the state's sovereign immunity in certain limited situations and created the Tennessee Claims Commission. The Court explained that the legislative history behind the enactment showed that the legislature granted the Claims Commission exclusive jurisdiction to hear claims against the state, and wanted to encourage people to bring claims against the state in the Commission rather than in court. Id. The Commission has "exclusive jurisdiction" over monetary claims against the state based on the acts or omissions of state employees falling within certain categories. If the claim falls outside the categories specified, "then the state retains its immunity from suit, and a claimant may not seek relief from the state." Id. at 790; Tenn. Code Ann. §9-8-307(a)(1). The statute expresses that "It is the intent of the general assembly that the jurisdiction of the claims commission be liberally construed to implement the remedial purposes of this legislation." Tenn. Code Ann. §9-8-307(a)(3). The Court recognized, "although we have traditionally given a strict construction to the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction, we also recognize that our primary goal in interpreting statutes is `to ascertain and give effect to the intention and purpose of the legislature.'" Stewart at 791. Thus the Court determined that when deciding whether the Commission has jurisdiction to hear a claim under the statute, the courts must give a liberal construction in favor of jurisdiction "but
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|