Candie Marie Hernandez v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., et al.

Summary

The Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board reviewed an interlocutory appeal concerning the scope of discovery in a workers’ compensation claim arising from workplace carbon-monoxide exposure. The Board held that the employee’s requests for investigative information, policies, witness identities, and related documents were relevant despite the employer’s initiation of benefits, affirmed the trial court’s discovery order, deemed the appeal frivolous, and remanded the case.

Holdings

1. Discovery concerning the circumstances, cause, intensity, and duration of the carbon-monoxide leak; subsequent investigations; involved persons; investigative reports; workplace-injury policies; and governmental communications was relevant to Hernandez's workers' compensation claim or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Wal-Mart's protective-order motions because Wal-Mart failed to establish good cause or a clearly defined injury that would result from disclosure.
3. Wal-Mart had not complied with Rule 33.01 because its interrogatory responses were not shown to have been made and sworn to by an authorized officer or agent of Wal-Mart.
4. Wal-Mart's appeal was frivolous because its arguments had no reasonable chance of succeeding and did not provide a serious basis for withholding relevant discovery or entering a protective order.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the employee's discovery requests sought information relevant to the workers' compensation claim or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 26.02.
2. Whether the employer established good cause for protective orders based on alleged confidentiality, trade-secret, burden, expense, annoyance, oppression, or potential use of the information in third-party litigation.
3. Whether the employer complied with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 33.01 by providing interrogatory answers signed and sworn to by an authorized officer or agent.
4. Whether the employer's interlocutory appeal was frivolous and warranted an award of damages, attorney fees, or costs.

Disposition

affirmed_and_remanded