Workers' Compensation Opinions

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’
Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee
Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Employee was injured while attempting to adjust a moving conveyor belt. A post-accident drug screen of Employee revealed the presence of THC in his system. The amount of THC in Employee’s system was of such levels as to trigger the statutory presumption created by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-110(c)(1) that his drug use was the proximate cause of his injury. Employer denied Employee’s claim. The trial court found that Employee had rebutted the statutory presumption by a  preponderance of the evidence and awarded benefits. Employer has appealed the trial court’s finding that the presumption created by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-110(c)(1) had been rebutted. Employee has also appealed both the trial court’s award and denial of his motion for discretionary costs. Although we modify the denial of the motion for discretionary costs, we otherwise affirm the judgment.
 

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’  Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee filed a Request for Assistance with the Department of Labor and Workforce Development (“Department”), seeking medical treatment and temporary disability benefits for an alleged work injury. The Department ordered that treatment be provided and benefits paid. The employer filed this civil action in the Chancery Court of Bedford County against the employee and the Second Injury Fund (“Fund”). Subsequently, the Department ordered the termination of disability benefits. The employee filed her answer and a counterclaim against the employer. The Fund filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction  because the parties had not exhausted the benefit review process. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the action. The employee has appealed. We conclude tha

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’
Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn.Code
Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions
of law. In 2004, Employee was found to be permanently and totally disabled as a
result of a work-related injury. In January 2006, he died as a result of an overdose
of prescription medication. His widow sought workers’ compensation death benefits,
alleging that his death was the direct result of his prior work injury. Employer filed
a motion for summary judgment, contending that the medical evidence was insufficient. The trial court granted the motion. Employee’s widow has appealed. We reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (“COPD”) as a result of cigarette smoking. She was exposed to residual smoke and odors from a fire which occurred in the building she worked in. Shortly thereafter, she was hospitalized with acute breathing problems. She has been unable to return to work since that time. The trial court found that she had sustained a compensable aggravation of her pre-existing COPD, and awarded permanent total disability benefits. Her employer has appealed, asserting that the trial court erred in finding that she had sustained a compensable injury. We affirm the judgment on that issue. However, we reverse the trial court’s award of reimbursement of  health insurance premiums paid by employee.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee in this case alleged that he had sustained gradual injuries to his shoulders and arms as a result of his employment. Three doctors testified concerning the injuries. The two treating physicians assigned 0% impairment. An evaluating physician assigned 5% impairment to each arm, and 0% impairment for the shoulder injuries. The trial court awarded 7.5% permanent partial disability (“PPD”) to the
arms, and 15% PPD to the body as a whole. The employee has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by using the “last day worked” rule to determine the date of injury. The employer asserts that the trial court erred by awarding permanent disability benefits for the shoulder injuries. We affirm the trial court’s finding concerning the date of injury, and reverse the award of benefits for the shoulder injuries.

This appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 50-6-225(e)(3) (2008). An employee who sustained a workplace injury in 1997 but who did not miss any work filed suit in the Chancery Court for Rutherford County in 2006 seeking a reconsideration of the 2003 settlement of her workers' compensation claim arising out of that injury. In response to the employer's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the suit was time-barred under Tenn. Code Ann. _ 50-6-241(a)(2) (2008) because it was not filed within four hundred weeks following her return to work, the employee insisted that the time for seeking reconsideration should begin to run from the date in 2003 that she reached maximum medical improvement, rather than from the date she returned to work in 1997. The trial court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment, and the employee appealed. We affirm the trial court based on the plain language of Tenn. Code Ann. _ 50-6- 241(a)(2).

In this workers’ compensation action, the trial court found that the employee, Lisa Holt, had sustained a compensable injury and awarded 50% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The employer, Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., has appealed,  contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding of a  compensable injury. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.1

In this workers’ compensation action, the employee alleged that he sustained an injury to his lower back on May 1, 2002. The trial court ruled that the employee had failed to carry his burden of proving that he had sustained a compensable injury. The employee appealed,  contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Employee was injured on the job, when the dump truck he was driving overturned. Employer denied liability, asserting that the injuries were the direct result of willful misconduct by Employee. The trial court found in favor of Employer on that issue, and denied benefits. Employee has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding. We affirm the judgment.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. While at work, Employee received a message that her sister had fallen and injured herself. She started to leave for the purpose of checking on her sister. Before she reached her car, she tripped and fell in a parking lot on Employer’s premises. She sustained a broken wrist. Employer denied her workers’  compensation claim, contending that she was on a personal errand. The trial court found the injury arose from and occurred in the course of the employment, and awarded workers’ compensation benefits. Employer has appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in finding the injury to be compensable. We affirm the judgment, and find the appeal to be frivolous.

Twenty-six years after his retirement, the employee sought workers' compensation benefits from his employer for hearing loss. The trial court denied the claim. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the holding of the trial court as to causation, the judgment is affirmed.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- 225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. On appeal, Employee contends that the trial court erred in finding that Employee’s permanent partial disability award should be capped at one and one-half times his medical impairment rating. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the findings, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this workers’ compensation action, the trial court awarded benefits for a 70% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole for the combination of a lower back injury and a mental injury. The employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred in awarding benefits for the mental injury and by relying upon the evaluating physician’s impairment rating for the lower back injury. In the alternative, the employer contends that the award is excessive and that the trial court erred by finding that the employee did not have a meaningful return to work. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

In this workers’ compensation case, the employee sustained a compensable shoulder injury. She alleged that she sustained an additional injury to her back as a result of medical treatment for the shoulder injury. Her employer denied that claim. A settlement of both claims was approved by the Department of Labor. The settlement agreement stated that the back injury was being settled on a disputed claim basis, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-206(b). The employee returned to work for her employer for approximately three years. She was unable to satisfy her production quota and was eventually terminated for that reason. She sought reconsideration of both claims in the trial court. The trial court held that reconsideration of the back injury claim was barred by the terms of the settlement. It denied reconsideration of the shoulder injury claim because her
termination was for “misconduct.” Employee has appealed, contending that the trial court erred.1 We affirm the judgment.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court awarded appellee Sharon Clark’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits and held appellant Sprint PCS liable rather than Clark’s successor employer, appellee Convergys. The trial court also assessed discretionary costs against Sprint. Sprint contends that the trial court erred in (1) holding it rather than Convergys liable for Clark’s claim; (2) relying on medical depositions taken while Sprint was not a party; and (3) assessing discretionary costs against it. After our review of the record, we reverse the trial court’s judgment against Sprint and order judgment against Convergys. We remand
this matter for the reassessment of discretionary costs.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee was an LPN for a nursing home. She was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome in 2003. She was terminated, for reasons unrelated to her work injury, in 2005. She began working in a similar job for a second nursing home. In September 2006, she had surgery to treat her condition. She sued the earlier employer, but not the latter employer, seeking workers’ compensation benefits. The trial court applied the “last day worked” rule, and found that the injury occurred while she worked for the second employer. The lawsuit was dismissed. The employee has appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in its determination of the date of her injury. We affirm the judgment.

In this workers’ compensation action, the trial court found the employee had sustained an
occupational disease as the result of environmental conditions at a hazardous waste storage facility on the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Reservation. The employer has appealed on the ground that no specific irritant or contaminant was identified as having caused the employee’s illness and that the trial court was precluded from finding the employee sustained a compensable occupational disease because he suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease prior to his employment with Bechtel Jacobs Co., LLC. After review of the record, 1 we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this workers’ compensation action, the employee, Byron Smallen, alleged that he had sustained a gradual hearing loss as a result of exposure to noise in the workplace. Ownership of his employer had changed approximately one year prior to his last day worked. The trial court awarded 50% permanent partial disability to the hearing of both ears, and assigned liability to the new owner of the business, International Muffler. That party has appealed, contending that the trial court incorrectly applied the last injurious exposure rule. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. We affirm the judgment.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court denied appellant Roy Samuel Batson’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits on the basis that Mr. Batson failed to establish that his disability was caused by his work. Mr. Batson has appealed. After our review of the record, we agree with the trial court that Mr. Batson has failed to carry his burden of proof with respect to causation. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court denying Mr. Batson’s claim for benefits.

Employee sustained a compensable injury to his left knee. After surgery and recovery, his treating physician assigned 2% impairment to the left leg. At Employee’s request, an IME was conducted with the evaluating physician assigning 7% impairment. To resolve the disparity, the parties selected a neutral physician from the Medical Impairment Registry (“MIR”) to conduct an examination pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(d)(5) (2005). That physician assigned 3% impairment to the leg. Employee obtained a second medical evaluation from a fourth physician, who assigned 13% impairment. The trial court, affording the statutory presumption of correctness to the MIR physician’s rating, concluded that 3% was “the accurate impairment rating” and that this rating had not been rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. Applying the 3% impairment rating in conjunction with the statutory cap of 1½ times the anatomical impairment, the trial court awarded 4.5% permanent partial disability to the leg. On appeal, Employee contends that he successfully rebutted the statutory presumption. After review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

While working at Employer’s warehouse, Employee fell approximately ten feet from a ladder onto a metal catwalk. He was treated in an emergency room for closed head trauma and arm, hip, and neck pain. Employee sought treatment from a psychiatrist for depression and anxiety and was diagnosed with major depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and alcohol dependence in remission. Employee’s psychiatrist opined that as a result of the fall at work, Employee was unable to function within a work environment and that the impairment was permanent. The trial court awarded permanent total disability benefits. On appeal, Employer challenges the trial court’s findings with regard to both causation and vocational disability. After review, we affirm.1

This appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) (2008). While operating a forklift at her place of employment, an employee injured her back. She subsequently made a claim for workers' compensation benefits. The trial court granted an award of 30% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The employer appealed, contending that the trial court erred by (1) basing the award on an impairment rating offered by a physician who was not on the authorized list of the employer and (2) declining to apply the 1.5 multiplier cap described in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(d)(1)(A) (2008). The employee sought additional medical expenses, including mileage, and temporary total disability benefits. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed as to the award of benefits and modified to include additional medical expenses. The cause is remanded for a determination of those expenses.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Employee sustained a compensable injury to both of his shoulders in March 2005. The treating physician assigned 6% permanent anatomical impairment to the body as a whole. Employee suffered a second injury to his shoulders in February 2006. The same physician assigned an impairment of  7% to the body as a whole, which he described as a “cumulative” impairment for both injuries. Employee returned to work for Employer at wage equal to or greater than his pre-injury wage. The trial court awarded 9% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole for the first injury, and 10.5% permanent partial disability for the second injury. Employer has appealed, contending that the trial court incorrectly interpreted the medical testimony. We agree, and modify the judgment accordingly. Employee contends that the trial court erred by denying, on the basis of sovereign immunity, his motion for discretionary costs. We affirm the trial court’s ruling on this issue.

The employee worked as a long-haul truck driver for the employer, a carrier of motor freight. While operating a truck, the employee was struck in the rear of his trailer by another vehicle. Medical treatment was not deemed necessary at the time of the collision. Shortly thereafter, the employee reported pain in his neck and lower back. The trial court awarded 90% permanent partial disability.
On appeal, the employer raises the following issues: (1) whether the employee’s medical condition is causally connected to the vehicular accident; (2) whether the employee has sustained permanent impairment; (3) whether the employee is 90% disabled; and (4) whether the trial court’s award for the payment of medical expenses to Dr. Curlee, an unauthorized medical provider, is proper. The employee also appeals arguing that he is totally and permanently disabled. After review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.1

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) (2008)
for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. It involves the efforts of a retired employee of an automobile manufacturer to obtain workers’ compensation benefits for an injury to his right shoulder that was diagnosed after his retirement and also to obtain reconsideration of an earlier award of workers’ compensation benefits for a work-related injury to his left shoulder. Following a bench trial, the Circuit Court for Williamson County concluded that the retired employee had sustained a compensable injury to his right shoulder and awarded him benefits based on a thirty-two percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The trial court also determined that the employee was ineligible for reconsideration of the award for the injury to his left shoulder. On this appeal, the employer takes issue with the award for the injury to the employee’s right shoulder, and the employee takes issue with the trial court’s refusal to reconsider the award of benefits for the injury to his left shoulder. We have determined that the trial court properly declined to reconsider the award for the injury to the employee’s left shoulder. We have also determined that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s conclusion that the injury to the employee’s right shoulder was work-related. However, we have determined that the trial court erred by failing to limit the award of benefits for the injury to the right shoulder to the cap in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(d)(1)(A) (2008).