Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Precludes an Election of Remedies

By Jane Salem, staff attorney, Nashville

The Supreme Court Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel revived a case earlier this week, holding that an injured worker didn’t elect to pursue his claim in Georgia when that state’s tribunal found he didn’t have subject matter jurisdiction.

The ruling reinstates the decision of Tennessee Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims Judge Lisa Lowe, Knoxville, who denied the employer’s summary judgment motion, but the Appeals Board reversed.

In Goodwin v. Morristown Drivers Services, Charles Goodwin, a Georgia resident, was injured in an on-the-job motor vehicle accident in Tennessee. Morristown Driver’s Services filed a Tennessee First Report of Injury and paid for his emergency treatment.

Goodwin filed a claim with the Georgia State Board of Workers’ Compensation, but Morristown Driver’s Services argued Georgia didn’t have subject matter jurisdiction. He then filed a petition in Tennessee and pursued both claims concurrently. After engaging in discovery, the Georgia Board held a hearing and without ruling on the merits dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Goodwin continued to pursue the Tennessee claim. Morristown Driver’s Services moved for summary judgment, which Judge Lowe denied, reasoning that no court had addressed the merits of the claim.

Morristown Driver’s Services appealed to the Appeals Board, which reversed in a split decision.

The lead opinion concluded that Goodwin and his attorney engaged in “extensive discovery” and participated in the Georgia hearing, where he testified and introduced documentary evidence. Because he knowingly elected to pursue benefits in Georgia, his failure to establish jurisdiction there didn’t prevent the Tennessee court from applying the election of remedies doctrine. The dissent wrote that the lead opinion hinged on an “unduly strict and unnecessarily harsh” interpretation of the doctrine, leaving Goodwin without a remedy.

On May 4, the Supreme Court Panel reversed the Appeals Board decision in a six-page opinion authored by Justice Sharon Lee.

The controlling case, Gray v. Holloway Construction Co., explained the election of remedies doctrine: an employee who knowingly and voluntarily accepts workers’ compensation benefits under another state’s laws, or who “actively pursues a claim in a venue that has jurisdiction,” is barred from filing a later claim in Tennessee. Goodwin cited Gray in support of his argument that the doctrine didn’t bar his case.

In contrast, Morristown Driver’s Services relied on Bradshaw v. Old Republic Insurance Co., which held that the doctrine may bar a claim even when the employee receives no benefits. The employer also cited Eadie v. Complete Co., which held that the filing of a claim in another state, the hearing request there, and taking depositions were “affirmative acts” to serve as an election of remedies barring the Tennessee claim.

Ruling for Goodwin, Justice Lee wrote, “The election of remedies doctrine appears to be straightforward, but confusion has arisen over its application. This is partly because in stating the rule for when the election of remedies doctrine applies, Bradshaw and Eadie omitted the ‘venue with jurisdiction’ element set forth in Gray.” Venue and jurisdiction weren’t disputed in those cases. The omission of the “venue with jurisdiction” element in those cases wasn’t a modification of the doctrine as stated in Gray.

“[A]n injured employee cannot elect a remedy that is unavailable,” Justice Lee concluded. “The dismissal of Mr. Goodwin’s claim in Georgia for lack of subject matter jurisdiction established that, without regard to the merits of the claim, there was no remedy available to him in that state. Mr. Goodwin’s Tennessee claim is not barred by the election of remedies doctrine because the Georgia Board had no jurisdiction to hear the claim, and thus there was no remedy to elect in Georgia.”

The Board remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Clymatas (2)

Photo by Kim Weaver, legal assistant, Knoxville.

2 thoughts on “Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Precludes an Election of Remedies

  1. Tony Farmer says:

    Excellent and timely comment. The headnote law of the Bradshaw decision has been widely applied resulting in a number of claimants being left with no remedy at all. Justice Lee has taken the time and made the effort to examine the actual foundation of Bradshaw and given us an interpretation that is fundamentally fair to all parties and clarifies and limits the Bradshaw decision to its facts.
    Tony Farmer Law Offices of Tony Farmer and John Dreiser 1356 Papermill Pointe Way Knoxville, TN 37909

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s