employee claim in Tennessee

2024That order was not appealed. 3 Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., 301 S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn. 2010).

2017Moreover, the entirety of the “Argument” section of Employee’s brief consists of a single sentence, i.e., “[f]or the aforementioned reasons employee submits that [she] has carried the burden for a compensable work related claim consistent with the alternate finding[s] of the trial judge.” As stated by our Supreme Court, “[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.” Sn

2025See Rye, 477 S.W.3d at 265 .

2024See Rye, 477 S.W.3d at 264 .

2002Rather, we concluded that holding the employer responsible for the entire judgment would “ignore the clear statement of the legislature that where an employee has a claim against the Second Injury Fund, the employer and its insurance carrier are liable for payment of benefits ‘only for the disability that would have resulted from the latter injury....’” Id. at 787 (quoting Tenn.Code Ann. § 50 — 6—208(a)(1)).

1988Travelers Insurance Company v. Austin, 521 S.W.2d 783, 787 (Tenn.1975).

2022See, e.g., Kenyon, 122 S.W.3d at 753 n.7.

2020Moreover, the court considered Rule 6.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and the meaning of the term “excusable neglect.” Finally, the court analyzed the four-part test for the assessment of “excusable neglect” as stated in Williams v. Baptist Memorial Hospital, 193 S.W.3d 545, 551 (Tenn. 2006), and it concluded Employer had not met those factors. 2 Moreover, we cannot conclude the trial court reached an illogical conclusion in its assessment of the Williams court’s four-part test or other relevant considerations, or that it based its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the

2017In Lindsey v. Strohs Co’s., 830 S.W.2d 899 (Tenn. 1992), the Tennessee Supreme Court explained the concomitant duties of employees and employers with respect to authorized medical treatment: Under [Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(3)(A)(i)] the injured employee has a... duty to accept the medical benefits provided by the employer, but only if the employer provides a list of three or more physicians or surgeons from which the employee has the privilege of selecting the operating surgeon or attending physician.

2017Id. at 902-3 (Emphasis added).

2017See App. Bd. Prac. & Proc. 1.2. 5 one that is devoid of merit, Combustion Eng’g, Inc. v. Kennedy, 562 S.W.2d 202, 205 (Tenn. 1978), or one that has no reasonable chance of succeeding, Davis v. Gulf Ins.

2016As to Employee’s brief, we note that courts “routinely refuse to consider materials filed pro se by represented parties” because litigants “may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel . . . but not both.” United States v. Rohner, 634 Fed.

2000The employer further claims that its construction of TenmCode Ann. § 50-6-112(c) is consistent with the legislative intent to place the economic loss on the third-party tortfeasor as “the author of the misfortune.” Plough, Inc. v. Premier Pneumatics, Inc., 660 S.W.2d 495, 499 (Tenn.Ct.App.1983) (“By enacting [Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-112] we feel that the Legislature clearly intended to place the pecuniary loss on the author of the misfortune, thus allowing both employer and employee to benefit.”).