 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Beckwith-Adams v. State5/2/2000
ions that a question of Claims Commission jurisdiction over retaliatory discharge was discussed during the teleconference on December 22, 1998. Responding to the circumstances alleging retaliatory discharge in the teleconference, the defendant/appellee filed on the 28th day of December, 1998 a Motion In Limine That Claims Commission Does Not have Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Amendment to Claim To Add "Whistle Blower's " Act Allegation moving the commissioner to deny claimant's motion to amend to add the Whistle Blower's Act allegation and arguing in support of denial that the claim of retaliation is not for filing a worker's compensation claim in that claimant filed his worker's compensation claim after his discharge and the Claims Commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
In the order entered on the 25th day of January, 1999 the Commission wrote:
...The argument in the State's motion in limine says, "This is a claim of retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. The claimant filed his worker's compensation claim after his discharge... the claimant ... is not contending that he was discharged for filing a worker's compensation claim." This Commission has jurisdiction over retaliatory-discharge claims only under Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a)(1)(k) and 9-8-307(a)(1)(L) - that is in connection with workers' compensation or in connection with written contracts. This claimant does not show that he fits either of these laws, and the state argues persuasively that he does not fit either of these. Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-1-304(g) does not enlarge this Commission's jurisdiction; if the legislation had intended for the Claims Commission to have this enlarged jurisdiction it easily could have said so. The state argues, "As Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 50-1-304 is written, the state is included among the types of employers subject to its general provisions. Nothing in the statute requires that, when the state is the defendant employer, it be sued... in any different forum [from] any other covered employer." The claimant seems to agree: in item 1c he says, "If the Claims Commission determines not to have jurisdiction over the whistle blower claim, the claimant will be forced to file action in Davidson County Court and Federal Court."
The Commissioner denied the motion to amend to allege whistle blower act violation citing lack of jurisdiction.
On the 26th day of January, 1999 claimant filed with the Claims Commission a motion to amend "to include retaliation discharge for attempt to file a workman's compensation claim in 1995. Under Tn Code Ann. Sec. 9-8-307(a)(1)(k) and 9-8-307(a)(1)(l)." In support of his motion claimant alleged that in 1995 after loss of his right eye because of retina detachment caused by stress at work that defendant applied undue pressure on claimant not to file for workman's compensation but to accept continued employment with sick leave and medical insurance.
The Claims Commissioner denied claimant's January 26, 1999 motion to amend his claim to allege retaliatory discharge for attempt to file a workman's compensation claim in 1995 and gave reasons as follows:
1. Tenn. Code Ann. Section 9-8-307(a)(1)(L) is not applicable because the section deals with breach of a written contract and claimant does not allege a written contract and there appears to have been no such written contract.
2. There could be no retaliation for filing a worker's compensation claim in 1995 because no such claim was ever filed.
3. It appears that retaliation against claimant was connected with "whistle-blowing" activities and not with filing a worker's compensation claim and that connecting the
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.
|
|