CompFox AI Summary
Melvin D. Britt, an employee of Building Materials Corporation d/b/a GAF Materials Corporation, filed a workers' compensation claim for a work-related back injury. The injury, initially reported in 1997, progressively worsened, leading to surgery and Britt missing work in March 2004. The trial court dismissed the claim based on the statute of limitations, arguing it should have been filed within one year of the 1997 injury. However, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed this decision, affirming the 'last-day-worked rule' for gradually occurring injuries. The Court held that the statute of limitations for such injuries commences when the employee is prevented from working due to the injury, not when it was first reported. The Court explicitly overruled Bone v. Saturn Corp. to the extent it conflicted with this principle, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Building Materials Corp. v. Britt is a workers' compensation case decided in Tennessee Supreme Court. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Tennessee Supreme Court.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Melvin D. Britt, an employee of Building Materials Corporation d/b/a GAF Materials Corporation, filed a workers' compensation claim for a work-related back injury. The injury, initially reported in 1997, progressively worsened, leading to surgery and Britt missing work in March 2004. The trial court dismissed the claim based on the statute of limitations, arguing it should have been filed within one year of the 1997 injury. However, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed this decision, affirming the 'last-day-worked rule' for gradually occurring injuries. The Court held that the statute of limitations for such injuries commences when the employee is prevented from working due to the injury, not when it was first reported. The Court explicitly overruled Bone v. Saturn Corp. to the extent it conflicted with this principle, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.