Lacey Chapman v. Davita, Inc., 380 S.W.3d 710

Chapman, an employee of DaVita, was injured on June 3, 2010 in DaVita’s building.
She filed a TDOL request for assistance which TDOL received September 21, 2010.
TDOL waited about six months without acting before Chapman filed suit March 17, 2011.
DaVita moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to failure to exhaust the benefit review conference (BRC) process.
The trial court denied dismissal and held the case in abeyance; TDOL eventually issued a Benefit Review Report.
The Supreme Court held the trial court lacked jurisdiction because exhaustion of the BRC process is mandatory before filing suit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction without exhaustion of the BRC	Chapman argued the act is remedial and equity should apply.	DaVita argued exhaustion is mandatory before suit.	No jurisdiction without exhaustion; dismissal affirmed.

Lynch v. City of Jellico, 205 S.W.3d 384 (Tenn. 2006) (exhaust administrative remedy before suit under 2004 reform act)
West v. Vought Aircraft Indus., Inc., 256 S.W.3d 618 (Tenn. 2008) (deadline to file is when BRC concludes without settlement)
Coe v. City of Sevierville, 21 S.W.3d 237 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (distinguishes administrative remedies where effective action is not required)