Walter Word v. Metro Air Services, Inc.
2012 Tenn. LEXIS 510
| Tenn. | 2012Background
- Walter Word sustained a work-related injury on September 7, 2010 while employed by Metro Air Services, Inc.
- Benefit Review Conference occurred on October 20, 2011 and resulted in an unresolved impasse with a Report issued at 10:24 a.m.
- Word filed a Wilson County Chancery Court complaint on October 20, 2011 at 10:22 a.m., two minutes before the Report’s issued time.
- Metro Air Services pursued a corresponding action in Davidson County Circuit Court and later re-filed after noticing the Report’s time discrepancy.
- The Wilson County Chancery Court denied the employer’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and the case proceeded to interlocutory appeal.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court held that subject matter jurisdiction premised on the Benefit Review Report is controlled by the Report’s time note, and that unambiguous complaint time stamps may not be impeached by extrinsic evidence, leading to dismissal of Word’s suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Word’s Wilson County complaint was prematurely filed, depriving jurisdiction. | Word argues exhaustion occurred when the Benefit Review Conference concluded. | Employer contends filing before exhaustion deprived Wilson County court of jurisdiction. | Premature filing denied subject matter jurisdiction; complaint must await exhaustion per statute. |
| Whether the time noted on the Benefit Review Report governs exhaustion and filing, and whether extrinsic evidence is admissible. | Word relies on potential clock synchronization issues and argues extrinsic timing could show exhaustion. | Employer argues the Report’s time note controls and extrinsic evidence is impermissible. | Time noted on the Report controls exhaustion; unambiguous timestamps cannot be impeached by extrinsic evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. Vought Aircraft Indus., Inc., 256 S.W.3d 618 (Tenn. 2008) (recognizes race to the courthouse and need for a bright-line rule for BRP timing)
- Bank of Tenn. v. Patterson, 27 Tenn. 363 (Tenn. 1847) (record evidence cannot be used to contradict sworn court filings absent fraud or surprise)
- Carnes v. State, 51 Tenn. 532 (Tenn. 1871) (affidavits cannot overcome the face of court records or attachments)