Hughes, Ralph v. Barnhart Crane and Rigging Co. , 2017 TN WC App. 54 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •              TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
    WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
    Ralph Hughes                                       ) Docket No. 2016-02-0348
    )
    v.                                                 ) State File No. 65244-2015
    )
    Barnhart Crane and Rigging Co., et al.             )
    )
    )
    Appeal from the Court of Workers’                  )
    Compensation Claims                                )
    Brian K. Addington, Judge                          )
    Affirmed and Remanded—Filed September 21, 2017
    The employee, a crane operator, sustained an injury to his right hand and wrist in the
    course and scope of his employment. After receiving the employer’s responses to his
    requests for admission, the employee filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to
    discovery and to strike the employer’s responses. The trial court denied the motion, and
    the employee appealed. We affirm the trial court’s decision and remand the case.
    Presiding Judge Marshall L. Davidson, III, delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in
    which Judge David F. Hensley and Judge Timothy W. Conner joined.
    Thomas D. Dossett, Kingsport, Tennessee, for the employee-appellant, Ralph Hughes
    Eric Shen, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee, Barnhart Crane and Rigging
    Co.
    Memorandum Opinion1
    Ralph Hughes (“Employee”) alleges suffering an injury to his hand and wrist
    when a large valve fell on him in the course of his employment with Barnhart Crane and
    Rigging Company (“Employer”) on July 17, 2015. Employee was transported to a
    hospital and treated for a laceration to his right wrist. He received authorized medical
    1
    “The Appeals Board may, in an effort to secure a just and speedy determination of matters on appeal and
    with the concurrence of all judges, decide an appeal by an abbreviated order or by memorandum opinion,
    whichever the Appeals Board deems appropriate, in cases that are not legally and/or factually novel or
    complex.” Appeals Bd. Prac. & Proc. § 1.3.
    1
    treatment and was ultimately placed at maximum medical improvement. In anticipation
    of trial, Employee served Employer with various requests for admission, to which
    Employer responded.
    Thereafter, Employee filed a “Motion to Extend [the] Deadline for Responding to
    Written Discovery and to Strike the [Employer’s] Responses to [Employee’s] Requests
    for Admissions,” asking that the “responses filed by [Employer] . . . be stricken as being
    inadequate, incomplete and not in compliance with the rules.” In its response to the
    motion, Employer contended that its responses to Employee’s requests for admission
    were “proper and complete” and, therefore, Employee’s motion should be denied. The
    trial court denied Employee’s motion on the basis that Employer’s responses complied
    with the applicable rules and that there was “no justifiable basis for extending the
    deadline for responding to written discovery.” Employee has appealed.
    Employee has provided no brief or substantive argument on appeal setting out how
    the trial court erred in ruling upon his motion. Employee did attach a two-paragraph
    document to his notice of appeal titled “statement of the issues.” However, other than
    containing conclusory statements, the document identifies no issues and offers no
    meaningful explanation for how the trial court may have abused its discretion in
    resolving the parties’ discovery dispute. As our Supreme Court has made clear, “[i]t is
    not the role of the courts, trial or appellate, to research or construct a litigant’s case or
    arguments for him or her, and where a party fails to develop an argument in support of
    his or her contention or merely constructs a skeletal argument, the issue is waived.”
    Sneed v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., 
    301 S.W.3d 603
    , 615 (Tenn.
    2010).
    Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court and remand the case.
    2
    TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
    WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
    Ralph Hughes                                             )   Docket No.   2016-02-0348
    )
    v.                                                       )   State File No. 65244-2015
    )
    Barnhart Crane and Rigging Co., et al.                   )
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Appeals Board’s decision in the
    referenced case was sent to the following recipients by the following methods of service
    on this the 21st day of September, 2017.
    Name                    Certified   First Class   Via   Fax      Via     Email Address
    Mail        Mail          Fax   Number   Email
    Thomas D. Dossett                                                  X     td@tdlaw.com
    Eric Shen                                                          X     eric.shen@libertymutual.com
    Brian K. Addington,                                                X     Via Electronic Mail
    Judge
    Kenneth M. Switzer,                                                X     Via Electronic Mail
    Chief Judge
    Penny Shrum, Clerk,                                                X     Penny.Patterson-Shrum@tn.gov
    Court of Workers’
    Compensation Claims
    Jeanette Baird
    Deputy Clerk, Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board
    220 French Landing Dr., Ste. 1-B
    Nashville, TN 37243
    Telephone: 615-253-0064
    Electronic Mail: WCAppeals.Clerk@tn.gov
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2016-02-0348

Citation Numbers: 2017 TN WC App. 54

Judges: Marshall L. Davidson III, David F. Hensley, Timothy W. Conner

Filed Date: 9/21/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/10/2021