Tennessee § 50-6-237 - Court of workers' compensation claims.

§ 50-6-237. Court of workers' compensation claims.

There is created the court of workers' compensation claims in the bureau of workers' compensation, which shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all contested claims for workers' compensation benefits when the date of the alleged injury is on or after July 1, 2014. The administrator shall have sole administrative authority over the court including authority to appoint, and to remove, workers' compensation judges. The administrator shall promulgate rules and regulations consistent with this chapter in order to fulfill the purposes of this chapter in an orderly and efficient manner. Acts 1992, ch. 900, § 12; 2001, ch. 244, § 1; 2007, ch. 513, § 2; 2013, ch. 289, § 78; 2015, ch. 341, § 15. Compiler's Notes. Prior to the 2013 amendment, the former provisions of this section related to benefit review conferences. Acts 2013, ch. 289, § 103 provided that the act, which amended this section, shall be known and may be cited as the “Worker's Compensation Reform Act of 2013.” Amendments. The 2013 amendment, effective July 1, 2014, rewrote the section which read: “(a) A benefit review conference is a nonadversarial, informal dispute resolution proceeding designed to:“(1) Explain, orally and in writing, the rights of the respective parties to a workers' compensation claim and the procedures necessary to protect those rights;“(2) Discuss the facts of the claim, review available information in order to evaluate the claim, and delineate the disputed issues;“(3) Mediate and resolve disputed issues by mutual agreement of the parties in accordance with this chapter and the policies of the commissioner;“(4) Provide an opportunity for, but not to compel, a binding settlement of some or all of the issues present at the time;“(5) Facilitate the resolution of issues without the expense of litigation or attorneys' fees for either party; and“(6) Determine, under any proposed settlement, whether any employee is receiving, substantially, the benefits provided by this chapter.“(b) Any person charging a fee specifically for the representation of an employee in any early dispute resolution proceeding or benefit review conference under this chapter shall be an attorney licensed to practice law in the state.“(c) When a benefit review conference is held, both the employee and the employer, or the employer's insurer, shall provide that a person with the authority to settle the dispute attends the conference. Parties entering into the benefit review conference process are required to mediate in good faith. Each party must be prepared to consider offers made by the other party. When a specialist determines that a party is not prepared to mediate as required or believes a party is not mediating in good faith, the specialist shall include comments to that effect in the report of the proceeding. Failure to comply with this section may subject the party or their representative to a civil penalty of not less than fifty dollars ($50.00) nor more than five thousand dollars ($5000).” The 2015 amendment substituted “bureau” for “division” in the first sentence. Effective Dates. Acts 2013, ch. 289, § 106. July 1, 2014; provided, that, for purposes of promulgating rules and regulations, making appointments and making necessary provisions for the implementation of the act, the act shall take effect April 29, 2013. Acts 2015, ch. 341, § 19. May 4, 2015. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Decisions. An employee filed a petition alleging she suffered a mental injury as a result of work-related events in which she experienced unusual traumatic stimuli while working as a forensics technician for the employer. The employer filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that, even if a mental injury occurred, the employee failed to file her claim within the applicable statute of limitations. The employee responded by asserting that the statute of limitations was tolled, when she discovered her mental condition was causally related to her employment, or, alternatively, that her mental injury is a gradual injury to which the "last day worked" rule applies. At a hearing addressing the employer's motion, the parties agreed that the specific incidents the employee alleged to have precipitated her mental injury occurred in 2011 or earlier, prompting the trial court to question whether it had jurisdiction over the case. However, the court declined to rule on the jurisdiction issue, focusing instead on whether a genuine issue of material fact existed that precluded summary judgment. The trial court denied the employer's motion, concluding there was a disputed factual issue concerning when the employee knew or should have known that she suffered an injury. The employer has appealed. The trial court erred in ruling on the summary judgment motion prior to determining whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, the trial court's order denying employer's summary judgment motion was vacated, and the case was remanded for the trial court to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists. Nickerson v. Knox County Government, 2020 TN Wrk Comp App Bd LEXIS 18. An employee asserted he had numerous medical conditions caused by workplace exposures to asbestos, lead, and other toxins over a twenty-nine year employment period. The employer denied the claim, asserting there was no proof that occupational exposures to any toxins were the primary cause of any of the employee's alleged medical conditions. The dispute certification notice also identified as disputed issues jurisdiction, lack of proper notice, and the expiration of the statute of limitations. The employer asserted the employee had retired in June 2014. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court concluded the employee was not likely to prevail at trial on the issue of medical causation and denied the employee's claim for medical benefits. The employee appealed. The trial court’s order was vacated because the trial court should have addressed subject matter jurisdiction as a threshold issue. Wright v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water, 2020 TN Wrk Comp App Bd LEXIS 20.