Performance Food Group, Inc. appeals from the trial court’s order granting Charles G. Williams, III’s and Jonathan W. Mikula’s motion for summary judgment on Performance Food’s claim to recover benefits it paid to its employee, Jesse Gunn, under Tennessee’s workers’ compensation law. We affirm because Performance Food’s action to enforce its subrogation rights under Tennessee law is precluded by controlling authority providing that Performance Food’s subrogation rights are governed by the law of Georgia. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 c. A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Footnote omitted. Morris v. Nexus Real Estate Mortgage &c. Co. , 296 Ga. App. 477 675 SE2d 511 2009. The evidence, which is not in dispute for purposes of the issue on appeal, shows that Gunn, a Tennessee resident, was injured when the tractor trailer he was driving in the course of his employment with Performance Food collided with a vehicle owned by Mikula and driven by Williams in Gwinnett County, Georgia. Performance Food, through its program servicer, paid medical and indemnity benefits to Gunn under Tennessee’s workers’ compensation law, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 50-6-101, et seq.
Performance Food brought this action against Williams and Mikula under authority of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 50-6-112 to recover for the medical and indemnity benefits it paid to Gunn.1 The trial court subsequently granted Williams’s and Mikula’s motion for summary judgment.
