By Taylor Skees, staff attorney, Memphis

The Appeals Board recently released an opinion about whether a motion for partial summary judgment is proper in the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims, and when summary judgment motions can be heard.

The case is Oldham v. Freeman Webb Company Realtors, and it provides us an opportunity for a summary judgment refresher.

Facts

In Oldham, the parties settled the case before the initial benefit period expired. Afterward, the employee filed another petition seeking increased benefits, extraordinary relief, or permanent total disability. The employer filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that as a matter of law the employee wasn’t entitled to seek either extraordinary relief or permanent total disability benefits. (Oldham also discusses the employer’s motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum, but that’s a story for another day.)

The trial court decided to hear the motion for summary judgment on the same day as the compensation hearing. The employer then filed a motion requesting either that the trial court rule on its motion for summary judgment before the compensation hearing or continue the compensation hearing. The trial court denied the motion, and the employer appealed.

The opinion

The Appeals Board affirmed in part and vacated in part, conducting an in-depth review of cases addressing motions for summary judgment. These cases provide context for summary judgment motions in our Court.

The Board first discussed Syph v. Choice Food Group, Inc., which stated that the moving party “must do more than make a conclusory assertion that summary judgment is appropriate,” and the opposing party “may not rest on mere allegations or denials,” but must state specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Then in Rye v. Calsonic Kansei North America, the Board stated that causation determinations are generally inappropriate for summary judgment motions, as they often require comparing testimony and assessing credibility. Likewise, Warren v. The Pictsweet Co. showed that a trial court didn’t err in denying summary judgment on the issue of seeking increased benefits or extraordinary relief, as that would require a “determination of fact.”

Love v. Love Management, Inc. echoed the sentiments of the cases previously discussed, saying that compensability determinations are almost always inappropriate at an interlocutory stage of the case, which includes motions for partial summary judgment.

Here however, the Board held that the employer’s questions could be addressed by the trial court.

The Board concluded that motions for partial summary judgment are not, per se, prohibited in the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims. They wrote, “Motions for partial summary judgment can be appropriately addressed in circumstances where resolving the motion does not require the trial court to consider the credibility of witnesses or make compensability determinations based on its weighing of the evidence presented to date.”

The appellate judges further explained that the employer raised two questions of law in its motion for partial summary judgment: (1) whether an employee who previously entered into a settlement agreement for permanent disability based on a medical impairment rating less than 10% can later seek an award of extraordinary relief; and (2) whether an employee who previously settled his claim for permanent partial disability benefits can later seek an award of permanent total disability.

“Neither of those questions requires the court to consider the credibility of witnesses or make preliminary compensability determinations. Indeed, the compensability of Employee’s claim was acknowledged by Employer in the original settlement agreement. Thus, we conclude the trial court could have elected to address the questions of law raised by Employer in the context of a motion for partial summary judgment.”

The judges vacated the trial court’s order to the extent it suggested a court cannot consider an employer’s motion for partial summary judgment at a preliminary stage of the case.

However, the Board also found that the trial court correctly held that a judge isn’t required to address these issues before the compensation hearing. Stated another way, a hearing on a motion for summary judgment and the compensation hearing may take place on the same day.

This is because, as pointed out in Hollis v. Komyo America, the trial court has significant discretion to determine when to conduct a hearing on a party’s motion for summary judgment. The trial court “must balance the interests of both parties, give each side a reasonable and meaningful opportunity to prepare for the motion hearing, and set the hearing as expeditiously as it deems appropriate.”

The Board concluded that the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in resetting the employer’s motion for partial summary judgment for the same day as the compensation hearing and affirmed that portion of the judgment.

The cases in Oldham, as well as the Oldham decision itself, offer valuable instruction for motions for summary judgment. They should be a useful guide for any future motions.

A recent view from Rock City–photo by the author.

And don’t forget court rules. Motions for summary judgment may only be filed after the judge in your case issues a scheduling order. Additionally, the moving party must contact the judge’s staff to obtain a hearing date for the motion for summary judgment and provide any self-represented opposing party with a copy of the rule on which the motion is based. If you’re opposing a motion for summary judgment, you have until five days before the motion hearing to submit a written response, stating your reasons for opposing the motion.