 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Beckwith-Adams v. State5/2/2000
retaliation with worker's compensation is simply a device to bring the retaliation allegation within Claims Commission jurisdiction.
4. Events referred to in claimant's motion happened in 1995 and are barred by the one-year statutory limitation on worker's compensation claims.
5. The motion to amend refers only to "undue pressure" and not to retaliatory discharge.
6. The amendment appears not to be just because there are no grounds to find that claimant was discharged in connection with a worker's compensation claim.
7. The Supreme Court has ruled as of the 1st of March, 1999 that this Commission has no jurisdiction over a claim by a former state employee against the state for retaliatory discharge for filing a worker's compensation claim.
The Claims Commissioner denied the motion of Richard Beckwith-Adams to amend his claim to allege violation of T.C.A. 50-1-304, Discharge for refusal to participate in or remain silent about illegal activities, or for legal use of agricultural products - Damages - Frivolous lawsuits citing lack of jurisdiction. Upon initial consideration of the motion the Claims Commissioner found that movant had not provided enough information and that T.C.A. 9-8-307(a)(1)(L) might confer jurisdiction. This section provides that the commission or each commissioner has exclusive jurisdiction and provides:
T.C.A. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(L)
Actions for breach of written contract between the claimant and the state which was executed by one (1) or more state officers or employees with authority to execute the contract;...
Movant was allowed to present circumstances to support his motion. There was no written contract and the Claims Commissioner found T.C.A. 9-8-307(a)(1)(L) not to be applicable. Upon consideration of T.C.A. 9-8-307(a)(1)(A) through (U) none were found by the commissioner to confer jurisdiction. We affirm the declination by the Claims Commissioner to allow the amendment to allege violation of T.C.A. 50-1-304.
The Claims Commission has jurisdiction to hear only the claims specifically enumerated in T.C. A. § 9-8-307.
Legislative Acts conferring jurisdiction upon this Board of Claims to adjudicate claims against the State of Tennessee are and must of necessity be strictly construed. This Board's jurisdiction is limited to the cases specified in the Act, and this limitation cannot be enlarged by implication. Hill v. Beeler 199 Tenn. 325, 238-29, 286 S.W. 2d 868, 869 (Tenn. 1956). (Citations omitted).
In Brown v. State 783 S.W. 2d 567 (Tenn. App. 1989) the Middle Section Court of Civil Appeals at page 571 wrote:
A statute permitting suit against the state must be strictly construed, and jurisdiction cannot be enlarged by implication. Stokes v. University of Tennessee Tenn. App. 1987, 737 S.W. 2d 545, cert. Den. 485 U.S. 935, 108 S. Ct. 1110, 99 L. Ed. 2d 271 (1988), Sweeney v. State Dept. of Transportation, Tenn. App. 1987, 744 S.W. 2d 905.
The final issue is whether the Claims Commissioner properly denied claimant's motion to amend his claim to allege retaliatory discharge for attempting to file a workers' compensation action in 1995. Rule 15.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
A party may amend the party's pleadings once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served... Otherwise a party may amend the party's pleadings only by written consent of the adverse party or by leave of Court, and leave shall be freely given when jurisdiction requires.
It is undisputed that the defendant/appellee filed a responsive pleading and that Richard Beckwith-Adam
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.
|
|