 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Beckwith-Adams v. State5/2/2000
claim and claimant filed a response. The Claims Commissioner granted the motion finding that (1) the claimant did not allege a compensable accident, (2) the standard for summary judgment had been met, (3) claims for mental injury are compensable when the injury meets two requirements, (a) sudden in contrast to a build up of occurrence over a period of employment, and (b) the injury must be caused by an event such as fright, shock or even excessive, unexpected anxiety and the facts of the claim did not meet either of the requirements.
Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant can show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04. The non-movant is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and is entitled to all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence, discarding all countervailing evidence. Shadrick v. Coker 963 S.W. 2d 726, 731 (Tenn. 1998) (citing Byrd v. Hall 847 S.W. 2d 208, 210 - 211 (Tenn. 1993)
An appeal from a summary judgment in a worker's compensation case is not controlled by the de novo standard of review provided by the Workers' Compensation Act but is governed by Rule 56, Tenn. R. Civ. P.; Downen v. Allstate Ins. Co. 811 S.W. 2d 523 (Tenn. 1991). No presumption of correctness attaches to decisions granting summary judgment because they involve only questions of law, thus, the reviewing court must make a fresh determination concerning whether the requirements of Rule 56 have been met. Gonzales v. Alman Const. Co. 857 S.W. 2d 42 (Tenn. 1993)
Claimant filed an answer to the defendant's motion for summary judgment denying that the motion should be granted asserting that "a simple examination of the competing parties statements of facts herein incorporating Claimant's Deposition should be enough to establish that there is, obviously, a dispute."
In addition to the answer Mr. Beckwith-Adams filed a writing titled, "Rule 56 Statement, Defeating Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment"as follows:
1. Claimant seeks worker's compensation benefits for disability which arose from many varied occurrences over a 5 ½ year period of employment.
2. When placed on administrative leave claimant was threatened even though voices were never raised.
3. Subsequent meetings by telephone were very stressful due to their threatened consequences and claimant's bad health.
4. When a person is disabled, was hired as a disabled employee by the defendant, and is unable to get a job due to disabilities, then those meetings are more pronounced and fit the designation of an accident.
5. These 5 ½ years of employment are a build up to crises points which do fit the accident definition and worker's compensation rules.
I certify that on this date this was sent to the Defendant's attorney RBA 2/18/99
Respectively Richard Beckwith-Adams 1010 Burchwood Ave. Nashville, Tn 37216-3600 615-228-3809 650-9981
In addition to the pleadings, defendant relied upon the claimant's testimony in his deposition taken on the 31st day of July, 1998.
On June 27, 1997, Mr. Beckwith-Adams met with several of his superiors and claimant was placed on administrative leave. That was the meeting that claimant alleged caused injury . In his deposition Mr. Beckwith-Adams testified (page 74, lines 1 -25; page 75 lines 1-22):
Q. At the meeting on June 27th, 1997, where was that meeting held?
A. It was in the L & C Tower. I want to say the conference room. It was probably 7th, 8th floor.
Q. In the conference room
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|