. . . .
The trial court granted Employee's petition to set aside the settlement, citing two distinct rationales. First, the trial court premised relief on its holding that "Mr. Furlough did not receive substantial benefits provided by the workers' compensation laws." See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-206(c)(1)(B) (2008 & Supp. 2012). Second, the trial court held that because Employee was "not represented" by counsel, the settlement should have been court approved, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-206(c)(3)(B), and Employee thoroughly informed as to the benefits available under the workers' compensation law, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-206(c)(1)(B). The trial court determined that "Approving Specialist Jim McGraft [sic] did not go over with Mr. Furlough any information in the settlement statement itself."
. . . .
The Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel did not reach the merits of this dispute; instead, the Panel dismissed the appeal and vacated the trial court's judgment on a procedural issue not raised by the parties: "A settlement approved by the department shall not become final until the statistical data form required by this section is fully completed and received by the department." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-244(d) (2008 & Supp. 2012). The "statistical data form required by this section" is known as the "Form SD-1" or "SD-1 form." Corum v. Holston Health & Rehab. Ctr., 104 S.W.3d 451, 452 (Tenn. 2003). The Panel found that "many parts of the form were left blank" and held that "the proposed settlement did not become final" due to the "clear and unambiguous" language of section 50-6-244(d). While recognizing that the benefit review conference process is exhausted upon the "[r]eaching of a mediated settlement, as evidenced by a signed document executed by the proper parties," Tenn. Comp. R. & Reg. 0800-2-5-.09(1)(b) (2008), the Panel nonetheless held that the parties had failed to exhaust the benefit review conference process. . . .
. . . .
Whether a trial court has subject matter jurisdiction over a case is a question of law that we review de novo with no presumption of correctness. Word v. Metro Air Servs., Inc., 377 S.W.3d 671, 674 (Tenn. 2012). This appeal also involves an issue of statutory construction, which we review de novo with no presumption of correctness. Mills v. Fulmarque, Inc., 360 S.W.3d 362, 366 (Tenn. 2012). On the other hand, we review the trial court's factual findings "de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the finding[s], unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(2).
. . . .
Rule 27. Content of Briefs.
. . . .
(h) Citation of Authorities.
Citation of cases must be by title, to the page of the
volume where the case begins, and to the pages upon which the pertinent matter
appears in at least one of the reporters cited. It is not sufficient to use
only supra or infra
without referring to the page of the brief at which the complete citation may
be found. Citation of Tennessee cases may be to the official or South Western
Reporter or both. Citation of cases from other jurisdictions must be to the
National Reporter System or both the official state reports and National Reporter
System. If only the National Reporter System citation is used, the court rendering
the decision must also be identified. All citations to cases shall include the
year of decision. Citation of textbooks shall be to the section, if any, and
page upon which the pertinent matter appears and shall include the year of publication
and edition if not the first edition. Tennessee statutes shall generally be
cited to the Tennessee Code Annotated, Official Edition, but citations to the
session laws of Tennessee shall be made when appropriate. Citations of supplements
to the Tennessee Code Annotated shall so indicate and shall include the year
of publication of the supplement.