 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Beckwith-Adams v. State5/2/2000
s had been served a copy of that responsive pleading. The defendant/appellee did not consent to the amendment.
In Tennessee, after a responsive pleading has been served, the denial of a motion to amend the pleadings lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. It will not be reversed absent a showing of an abuse of that discretion. Merriman v. Smith 599 S.W. 2d 548, 559 (Tenn. App. 1979); Welch v. Thuan 882 S.W. 2d 792, 793 (Tenn. App. 1994). There are several considerations a trial judge should evaluate in determining whether to grant order of a motion to amend. Among these factors are undue delay in filing, lack of notice to the opposing party, bad faith by the moving party, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment. Merriman 599 S.W. 2d at 559 .
The Claims Commissioner gave reasons for his denial of the motion to amend the retaliation allegation for attempting to file a workers' compensation action in 1995. No workers' compensation action was filed by Richard Beckwith-Adams in 1995. The allegation of Mr. Beckwith-Adams was undue pressure in 1995 not to file such a claim and futility of the amendment was considered as the commissioner stated that there were no grounds to find that claimant was discharged in connection with a workers' compensation claim.
It was July 22, 1997 when Mr. Beckwith-Adams was discharged from state services. It was on or about September 8, 1997 when he filed his workers' compensation claim.
The Supreme Court of Tennessee in Anderson v. Standard Register Co. 857 S.W. 2d 55 (Tenn. 1993) clarified the elements to establish a cause for retaliatory discharge for making a workers' compensation claim. In Anderson supra, at page 558 the Court stated:
Based on the principles stated in Clanton v. Cain-Sloan Co., Chism v. Mid-South Milling Co., Inc., and Johnson v. Saint Francis Hosp., Inc., the following elements are found to establish a cause of action for discharge in retaliation for asserting a workers' compensation claim: (1) The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant at the time of the injury ; (2) the plaintiff made a claim against the defendant for workers' compensation benefits; (3) the defendant terminated the plaintiff's employment; and (4) the claim for workers' compensation benefits was a substantial factor in the employer's motivation to terminate the employee's employment.
Based upon the considerations given by the commissioner to the motion and the undisputed facts we do not find the commissioner abused his discretion in denying claimant's motion to amend.
The Claims Commission is affirmed, and costs of appeal are assessed to the appellant.
Tom E. Gray, Special Judge
Concur: Frank F. Drowota, III, Justice Samuel L. Lewis, Special Judge
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.
|
|