workers’ compensation cases by the court that has jurisdiction over the claim. See Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 50-6-204(a)(5), 50-6-225(a)(a). Because the statute relied upon by NHC, Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-124(d), does not expressly state that appeals of decisions made by an employer’s utilization review program are solely or exclusively through the Commissioner’s utilization review program, it must be construed harmoniously with the provisions that allow appeals in workers’ compensation matters. Moreover, we believe that granting employees recourse through the Commissioner in addition to judicial review is consistent with the remedial purpose of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-116 (1999); see also McCall v. Nat’l Health Corp., 100 S.W.3d 209, 213 (Tenn.2003) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we conclude that the
holding that legislature clearly intended that workers compensation act and unemployment security act be construed together thus prohibiting worker from receiving both unemployment compensation and workers compensation payments for same period holding that the provisions of the workers compensation act must be satisfied or the action is not maintainable in the courts recognizing retaliatory discharge tort implied by the workers compensation act holding that under the doctrine the district court should have stayed the diversityjurisdiction case pending the state workers compensation commissions final decision on whether the defendant properly paid certain workers compensation claims holding that the trial courts authority to initiate workers compensation benefits before the final adjudication was not divested by the legislature and was consistent with the stated purpose of the workers compensation act