New Rules Take Effect Soon

By Judge Allen Phillips, Jackson

I admit that I’m a creature of habit, which by definition means a person who follows an unvarying routine and doesn’t function well without it. But change is inevitable, so it’s best to simply embrace it. Our weather has changed a lot in the past month, for example.

In the legal realm, the rules that guide practice change occasionally. The rules of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims are no exception. The rules are found at the Secretary of State website or for convenience on the Court’s webpage.

Rule changes aren’t undertaken lightly but rather with a thorough review of the existing rules by a committee of judges and a complete governmental approval process. The aim is to continually promulgate rules that “provide an efficient, expedient, and fair resolution of workers’ compensation disputes in accordance with the Worker’s Compensation Law.” Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-21-.01 (2023). (Incidentally, but importantly, that’s the proper citation form when citing the rules.)

With that in mind, what should practitioners know about this year’s rule changes? Taken by categories, in the order of a typical claim progression, they are:

Mediation/pre-hearing

Rule .10(8)-This new subsection is added to the rule titled “Alternative Dispute Resolution.” The change allows a mediator, on request, to allow a nonparty to attend a mediation to assist an injured worker. The nonparty cannot “actively engage in legal representation of or otherwise act on behalf of the injured worker” in any negotiation of the worker’s rights. The mediator has the final say on a nonparty’s attendance. A representative of a collective bargaining agent is specifically prohibited from engaging in the practice of law or engaging in law business as defined by Supreme Court rules.
Rule .02(13)–By definition, a dispute certification notice filed by a mediator still identifies the issues. But now: “the judge may grant the parties permission to present issues that have not been certified by the mediator.” This change makes the rule consistent with section 50-6-239(b), which allows the judge discretion to allow noncertified issues. (It’s always best to clarify the issues at mediation; but it’s not always best to have another round of mediation simply to add an issue. Thus, the judge has discretion.)
Rule .11(1)–The rule is amended to state that a judge may set a hearing “to determine the intention of the parties” in advancing a claim if no hearing request is filed within 60 days of the filing of a dispute certification notice. This changes the existing rule that the Clerk will set a show-cause hearing if neither party files a hearing request. (The practical effect is to allow judicial discretion in how to begin the case management process, but it doesn’t remove the requirement of filing a hearing request if the judge doesn’t set a hearing on their own.)
Rule .14(1)–This change removes the 60-day mandatory period for having a scheduling hearing and simply says the parties will participate in a scheduling hearing when requested. This promotes consistency with the rule regarding the timing of the initial status/show cause hearing rule above.

Hearing Procedures

Rules .15(1) and .16(2)–These rules were amended to clarify that medical records are included in the documents that are to be filed 15 days before an expedited hearing by the party filing a hearing request and 10 days before a compensation hearing.

Discovery

Rule .17(2)(b)–A clarification that subparts of a discovery request count as an interrogatory.

Motions

Rule 18(5)–When parties file a joint or unopposed motion, they shall submit a signed proposed agreement for the judge’s consideration. An attorney can’t sign for a self-represented party. This changes the existing rule that says submit a proposed order. Judges will continue to issue orders on contested motions as always.

Settlements

Rule .23(5)–This change clarifies that the parties must prepare an order approving settlement for the judge to sign. (Remember, the templates for the proper settlement forms are on the Court’s website.)
Rule .23(12)–This new subsection clarifies existing Appeals Board and Supreme Court rules that any approval of a case settled on appeal must be remanded to this Court before the judge might review it for approval.

Technical changes

Rule .02(16)-Attorneys MUST file documents via TNComp, the Court’s electronic filing system. No more emailing, mailing, faxing or hand-delivering by attorneys. A document is considered “filed” based on the date and time it was filed in the system. But self-represented parties might still use the other filing methods. (Using TNComp is better, but not all self-represented parties have the same resources as lawyers.)
Rule .20(1)-For consistency, briefs must use 14-point Times New Roman font and have one-inch margins.
Rule .13(1)-Because the Court can’t guarantee the quality of its own recordings due to occasional technical difficulties, the new rule says parties are “encouraged” to hire a professional court reporter.

And another important change: employers “shall arrange and pay for translation services of written documents as determined necessary by the presiding judge.” This is an expansion of the existing rule that employers must arrange for an interpreter at all hearings. The rule also adds the language “putative employer” to the definition.

Rule .09(4)–The administrator shall have authority to terminate the Bureau ombudsman services to any unrepresented party if they verbally or physically abuse an ombudsman or attorney advisor. (Some changes are necessary, even if the reasons behind them are unfortunate.)

Conclusion

Instead of your usual routine of reading Professor Larson’s treatise on workers’ compensation on the weekend, why not incorporate a little rules review?

Not a bad time to do so because, unlike the prognosticating rodent Punxsutawny Phil, who said we have six more weeks of winter, these Rules are effective much sooner, on March 2, 2026.