Christopher Furlough v. Spherion Atlantic Workforce, LLC
2013 Tenn. LEXIS 204
Tenn.2013Background
- Employee suffered a 2001 back injury and later a 2005 injury while working for Spherion Atlantic; physicians assigned impairments and MMI occurred in 2005.
- A 2006 settlement provided $11,500 lump sum and future medical benefits, approved by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOL) under §50-6-206(c)(1)–(3) with an SD-1 form filed.
- Employee was represented by counsel at settlement, and a benefit review conference occurred preceding the department approval.
- Two years after settlement, Employee, with new counsel, sought to set aside the settlement in circuit court, alleging misrepresentation of employment status and inadequate information.
- The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel dismissed the appeal as the SD-1 form was not fully completed under §50-6-244(d) and that remedies were not exhausted.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, holding that department approval implies SD-1 form approval, and courts may not void a Department-approved settlement based on SD-1 completeness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court may set aside a Department-approved settlement for SD-1 incompleteness | Furlough: SD-1 not fully completed; settlement should not be final. | Spherion: Department-approved SD-1 may be incomplete; court can assess finality. | Court may not void Department-approved settlement for SD-1 completeness. |
| Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies was required | Employee exhausted benefit review conference process by reaching mediated settlement. | Panel found remedies incomplete; action prematurely filed. | Exhaustion satisfied; circuit court had jurisdiction to entertain petition. |
| Whether Rule 60.02 or inherent authority allowed relief to set aside the settlement | Relief based on mistake and inherent authority due to noncompliance with law. | Relief improperly sought; Rule 60.02(5) and inherent authority inapplicable. | Relief under Rule 60.02(1)/(2) or inherent authority not supported; strike down relief. |
| Whether representation by counsel at the time of approval affected the safeguards | Employee was not effectively represented; protection required for counselless status. | Employee was represented by counsel during settlement and approval; safeguards satisfied. | Employee was represented; statutory safeguards were satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dennis v. Erin Truckways, Ltd., 188 S.W.3d 578 (Tenn. 2006) (independent action relief for settlement varies by substantial factors)
- Jerkins v. McKinney, 533 S.W.2d 275 (Tenn. 1976) (independent action criteria; three-part test for relief from judgments)
- Black v. Black, 166 S.W.3d 699 (Tenn. 2005) (savings provisions and independent action clarified)
- Henderson v. SAIA, Inc., 318 S.W.3d 328 (Tenn. 2010) (Rule 60.02 relief is disfavored but available in limited contexts)
- Dennis v. Erin Truckways, Ltd., 188 S.W.3d 578 (Tenn. 2006) (reiterates independent action considerations in context)
- Tryon v. Saturn Corp., 254 S.W.3d 321 (Tenn. 2008) (meaningful return to work and cap interpretation guidance)