| Jerry T. Matheny v. Insurance Co. of North America
02S01-9604-CH-00034
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court inaccordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in not enlarging an award, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6- 241(a)(2). As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The injury in question occurred on September 5, 1992 to the claimant's neck. The claimant was treated by a physician who assigned a permanent impairment rating of eight percent to the body. The claimant returned to work at a wage equal to or greater than the wage he was receiving at the time of the injury and was awarded permanent partial disability benefits on the basis of two and one-half times the impairment rating, or twenty percent to the body as a whole, paid in a lump sum. The award was made on March 22, 1994. On May 9, 1994, the claimant suffered another injury to his neck at work. From that injury, superimposed upon two previous injuries, including the one in question, he was found to be one hundred percent permanently disabled and awarded benefits accordingly. Because of the disability resulting from the most recent injury, the claimant is unable to return to work. The claimant contends he is therefore entitled to have the previous award enlarged. For injuries arising after August 1, 1992, by Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-241(a)(1), in cases where an injured worker is entitled to permanent partial disability benefits to the body as a whole and the pre-injury employer returns the employee to employment at a wage equal to or greater than the wage the employee was receiving at the time of the injury, the maximum permanent partial disability award the employee may receive istwo and one-half times the medical impairment rating. By Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6- 241(a)(2), if the injured worker thereafter loses his or her pre-injury employment, the court may, upon proper application made within one year of the employee's loss of employment, and if such loss of employment is within four hundred weeks of the day the employee returned to work, enlarge the award to a maximum of six times such impairment rating, allowing the employer credit for permanent partial disability benefits already paid for the injury. The only reasonable interpretation of subsection (2) is that if the injured worker's later loss of employment is causally related to the injury for which an award has been made, the trial judge has the discretion to enlarge the award, if the application is timely made. Any other interpretation would be inconsistent with the long standing rule that an employer takes the employee as 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. J. Steven Stafford,
|
Lake County |
Workers Compensation Panel |
01/27/97 |
|
| Ronald L. Shook v. Yates Construction Co., Inc., et al.
03S01-9602-CV-00011
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employee or claimant, Shook, contends the evidence preponderate against the trial judge's finding that his psychological condition did not arise out of his employment. The panel has concluded that the judgment should be affirmed. The claimant has a long history of mental illness, including severe depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and drug and alcohol abuse. He has been hospitalized and received out-patient care since his discharge from military
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Harold Wimberley,
|
Knox County |
Workers Compensation Panel |
01/27/97 |
|
| Clifford J. Kapp v. Transway, Inc.
02S01-9606-CV-00054
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court inaccordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer contends the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the employee suffered a permanent injury arising out of the employment. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the award of permanent disability benefits should be reversed. The employee or claimant, Kapp, was employed by the employer, Transway, on September 29, 1994 as a truck driver. On that day, the claimant and a co-worker were unloading a tub from a trailer when the co-worker dropped his end, causing the claimant to fall to the floor. He received emergency care at a nearby hospital and was released the same day. Since that time, he has seen numerous doctors. Dr. Michael Smelser, a general practitioner,treated the claimant for pain on three occasions. He performed a neurological examination, which was normal. We find in the record no evidence that Dr. Smelser found any permanent injury or impairment. Dr. Joseph P. Rowland, a neurosurgeon, saw the claimant three or four times. Dr. Rowland conducted a thorough neurological examination and ordered scientific tests, the results of which were normal. Dr. Mark S. Harriman, an orthopedic surgeon, was unable to find any objective evidence of injury. He found no evidence of permanent medical impairment. Dr. Roy Page examined the claimant and found no abnormality. Dr. James H. Owens conducted an extensive examination and found no basis for the claimant's complaint of pain. The only doctor who found any permanent impairment was Dr. Stephen L. Gipson, a pain management doctor. On the basis of complaints of chronic back pain, this doctor assigned a permanent impairment rating of eleven percent to the whole body. All of the medical evidence was by deposition or written reports. The claimant has not returned to work. 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. C. Creed Mcginley,
|
Decatur County |
Workers Compensation Panel |
01/24/97 |
|
| Richard D. Roberts v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
02S01-9607-CV-00066
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employer, Goodyear, contends the evidence preponderates against the trial court's findings that (1) the employee or claimant, Roberts, did not knowingly and willfully misrepresent his physical condition in an employment application, (2) the claimant suffered a compensable injury by accident and (3) the claimant retains a twenty percent permanent partial disability of twenty percent to the body as a whole. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. From 197 until April, 1988, the claimant was employed by another employer, Carborundum, as an electrician. In April, 1988, Carborundum ceased its operations. The out-of-work claimant applied to Goodyear for a job and, in March of 1989, was called to Goodyear regarding available jobs in its production department. After an interview, he was hired subject to a medical evaluation. He completed a medical evaluation form, including the medical history portion, then was examined by a physician, in accordance with the employer's standard practice. The claimant was approved for hiring on March 13, 1989. In completing the personal medical history portion of the medical evaluation form, the claimant checked "no" in response to the question which asked whether he had any "Disorder of the musculo-skeletal system -- back trouble, knee trouble, painful or swollen joints, bone fracture, gout, arthritis, amputations, etc.?" In response to another question, however, he noted a previous broken hip and repair to his urethra during a previous injury at Carborundum, for which he asserted a claim for workers' compensation benefits in 1976. After that injury and surgery, the claimant complained from time to time about low back pain. In the pre-employment physical examination, the physician reviewed the claimant's personal medical history and questioned him regarding the broken hip and urethra repair, but did not ask about any back pain associated with the injury. None was related. The physician then conducted a physical examination of the claimant and approved him for work with no restrictions. The claimant was assigned to the production department. On April 7, 1989, while at work and changing a roll weighing approximately 12 pounds, the claimant injured his back. The injury was diagnosed as a ruptured disc and treated with open surgery. The operating surgeon assigned an eleven percent permanent whole person impairment, from appropriate guidelines. 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. W. Michael Maloan,
|
Obion County |
Workers Compensation Panel |
01/23/97 |
|
| Rhonda May v. Great Central Insurance Company
02S01-9606-CV-00060
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court inaccordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer's insurer contends the award of permanent partial disability benefits based on forty percent to the body as a whole is excessive. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The employee or claimant, May, is thirty years old and has a tenth grade education. She has no vocational training. She has worked in garment production and as a cashier and stocker for Save-A-Lot, the employer. On March 3, 1994, she felt a sharp pain in her lower back while lifting a pallet of flour at work. She has seen several doctors and received conservative care. Diagnostic tests revealed a herniated disc in her lower back, superimposed on pre-existing degenerative lumbosacral joint disease. She is overweight and has carpal tunnel syndrome, also pre-existing. One of the doctors assigned her a wholeperson permanent medical impairment rating of ten percent, using appropriate guidelines. The claimant returned to work on September 19, 1994 at the same wage she was receiving before the injury, but was medically restricted from lifting anything weighing more than twenty pounds, from standing more than forty-five minutes to one hour without a five to ten minute break, or from sitting more than forty-five minutes to one hour without a five to ten minute break. She was assigned to the meat department, where her work required her to exceed those limitations. She quit on October 3, 1994. She is presently working as a cashier for another food store, at a lower wage. The trial court awarded permanent partial disability benefits based on forty percent to the body as a whole. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6- 225(e)(2). Where the trial judge has seen and heard the witnesses, especially if issues of credibility and weight to be given oral testimony are involved, considerable deference must be accorded those circumstances on review. Humphrey v. David Witherspoon, Inc., 734 S.W.2d 315 (Tenn. 1987). For injuries arising after August 1, 1992, in cases where an injured worker is entitled to permanent partial disability benefits to the body as a whole and the pre-injury employer returns the employee to employment at a wage 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Rhonda May,
|
Benton County |
Workers Compensation Panel |
01/23/97 |
|
| Janet Carter v. Phoenix Restaurant Group of Tennessee, Inc., et al.
03S01-9602-CH-00013
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special W orkers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The plaintiff was seriously injured in a traffic crash on September 11, 1991. She settled her tort claim and proceeded to trial of this workers' compensation case which resulted in a finding that the `special errand' exception was applicable and that as a result of the accident and injuries she was 6 percent partially, permanently disabled and thus entitled to $183.34 per week during 24 weeks, temporary total benefits during 156 weeks, and medical expenses of $83,245.91. In accordance with TENN. CODE ANN. _5-6-112(c), the defendant was credited with $1,., the amount of the tort settlement, which the plaintiff insists was only partially subrogable. Both parties appeal. The employer insists that because the traffic crash was not job-related, the plaintiff failed to prove her case. The plaintiff insists that because the employer did not recognize the compensability of her claim, and because she was not made whole by the third-party settlement, the full amount thereof should not have been subrogable. The plaintiff further insists that her attorney should have been awarded a fee "out of the third-party settlement fund." She also presents for review the issues of whether a finding of 6 percent permanent partial disability is adequate, and whether certain discretionary costs should have been allowed. I The facts are not in material dispute. The plaintiff, age 31, completed the eighth grade. She had worked in restaurants most of her adult life, and on July 1, 1991 was employed by Wendy's as an assistant manager trainee assigned to work at the North Roan location in Johnson City after a six-week stint in Kingsport. On September 1, 1991, a supervisor came to the North Roan location and announced that on the following day in Kingsport all of the North Roan employees, including the plaintiff, would be given a test which was mandatory. The plaintiff advised her supervisor that September 11 was her day off; the supervisor replied that this did not matter, "that everybody had to be there and would be paid for their time there." 2
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Richard E. Ladd
|
Carter County |
Workers Compensation Panel |
01/23/97 |
|
| Janice Bruce v. Tecumseh Products Company
02S01-9604-CV-00042
This workers' compensation appeal has b een referred to the Special W ork ers ' C om pe ns atio n A pp ea ls Panel of the Supreme Co urt in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and rep orting of find ings of fa ct an d co nc lusio ns of law . This is an ap pe al by the de fen da nt/e m ploy er, Tec umseh Products Company, from a judgment in fav or o f th e p lain tiff/a pp elle e, Janice Bruce, awarding workers' compensation benefits based on 45% permanent partial disability to the body as a wh ole. The judgment also held the d efen da nt res po nsib le for m edical expenses incurred by plain tiff for the care and treatment provided by Dr. Terry O. Harrison an d D r. Ra y W . He ster, p hys ician s no t sele cted by th e d efe nd an t. The defendant presents three issues for review: 1. Did the trial co urt e rr in find ing th at th e lim itation of two and one-half (2-1/2) times the ana tomical rating set out in T. C .A . S ec tion 5 -6- 24 1(a )(1 ) did no t ap ply to th is cause? 2. Does the ev ide nc e p rep on de rat e a ga in s t the trial co urt's findin g tha t Plain tiff susta ined a forty-five (45% ) percent pe rm an en t pa rtial disa bility to the body as a whole? 3. Did the tria l cou rt err in finding that Tecumseh should be resp on sible fo r the m ed ical ex pe nse s incu rred b y Pla intiff for the care and treatm ent pro vided by D r. Terry O . Ha rrison an d D r. Ra y W . He ster? Be fore ad dre ssin g th e iss ue s, w e will discuss the evidence found in the record. The plain tiff is a lady th irty-one yea rs o f ag e a t th e tim e o f tria l. 2
Authoring Judge: F. Lloyd Tatum, Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Creed Mcginley,
|
Henry County |
Workers Compensation Panel |
01/23/97 |
|
| Vickie L. Parks v. Brother Industries, USA, Inc.
02S01-9605-CH-00046
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the injured employee or claimant, Parks, contends the evidence preponderates against the trial court's award of permanent partial disability benefits based on fifteen percent to the right arm for her repetitive trauma injury, and in favor of one based on seventy-five percent to the right arm. The panel has concluded that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The claimant is forty-one years old and has a tenth grade education and a General Education Diploma. She gradually developed right carpal tunnel syndrome from repetitive use of her right hand and wrist in a typewriter production line. After being treated or examined by six different doctors, none of whom satisfactorily diagnosed and treated her condition, she saw Dr. James T. Galyon, who surgically repaired her right wrist, returned her to work after a period of recovery, and estimated her permanent impairment at five percent to the right hand and wrist or four percent to the right upper extremity. The claimant returned to work for the employer for a year and a half, but has since quit because of another injury to another member. She later saw Dr. Joseph Boals for an evaluation. Dr. Boals assigned a permanent impairment rating of ten percent to the right upper extremity and restricted her from any work which would require repetitive use of or heavy lifting with the right arm, but otherwise encouraged her to work. The trial court found fifteen percent permanent partial disability to the right arm. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of the trial court, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(2). Once the causation and permanency of an injury have been established by expert testimony, the trial judge may consider many pertinent factors, including age, job skills, education, training, duration of disability and job opportunities for the disabled, in addition to anatomical impairment, for the purpose of evaluating the extent of a claimant's permanent disability. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-241(a)(2). From our independent examination of the record and a consideration of those factors, to the extent they were established by the proof at trial, we do not find the evidence to preponderate against the findings of the trial judge. 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Neal Small,
|
Shelby County |
Workers Compensation Panel |
01/23/97 |
|
| Lisa Whited v. Tn. Woolen Mills, Inc., et al.
01S01-9605-CH-00088
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Plaintiff injured her right arm, shoulder and neck while working on an assembly line at defendant's woolen mill. The trial court awarded her 5 percent permanent vocational disability. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. At the time of trial, plaintiff was 27 years old with a high school education and a variety of work experience, including fast food clerk, grocery store clerk, newspaper deliverer, tobacco stripper, and factory worker. All of these jobs have required steady use of her hands and arms. On August 1, 1994, plaintiff was sitting in a chair at her sewing work station when she found that a blanket she was working on was hung on a cart. As she pulled the blanket, it snagged. She pulled firmly and when the blanket came loose, she "snapped back in her chair," and felt pain in her right arm, shoulder and neck. She was referred by defendant to Dr. Johnson, who gave her physical therapy and medication and, after having no success, referred her to another company- approved physician, Dr. Roy Clarence Terry, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Terry testified by deposition that he performed an arthroscopy and removed the ends of two bones in plaintiff's shoulder which were impinging on each other. Although plaintiff improved after surgery, she remained unable to fully raise her right arm, to lift things above her head, or to move her arm in all directions. She has continued to have severe pain in the arm. Dr. Terry discovered that she also had a symptomatic disc herniation in her neck, caused by the same accident. He assessed nine percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. She was totally unable to work when he last saw her, in June 1995, but he expected that with time she would be able to work with limitations. Defendant asked Dr. Leon Ensalada, a medical doctor who is board-certified 2
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers
Originating Judge:Hon. C. K. Smith
|
White County |
Workers Compensation Panel |
01/17/97 |
|
| Larry R. Williams v. Scott Bolt & Screw Co., et al.
01S01-9604-CH-00077
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that a brown recluse spider bit him while he was at work on April 15, 1993. The trial court denied his claim. Because the evidence does not support the plaintiff's claim, the trial court decision is affirmed. The plaintiff testified that his left leg started itching at work at about 2: p.m. on April 15 or maybe April 19, he is not sure which. At any rate, in his deposition the plaintiff testified that the next thing he noticed was a sore knee the following morning, but he did not pay much attention to it. He testified differently at trial. The plaintiff and his live-in girlfriend both testified they saw a red mark on his knee when he undressed after work the afternoon the itching stared. In any event, the pain started the next morning. The plaintiff went to work and worked almost all day. The pain got bad toward quitting time, and the employer encouraged the plaintiff to see a doctor. He did, and eventually came under the care of two Vanderbilt doctors, Phillip Wolinsky, an orthopedic surgeon, and Bruce Shack, a plastic surgeon. Neither of them know whether a brown recluse spider bite caused the plaintiff's wound. But it was serious whatever caused it, and the plaintiff suffers permanent impairment as a result of it. The doctors' testimony contradicts the plaintiff's claim that a brown recluse spider bit him at work. Dr. Wolinsky does not know much about brown recluse spider bites, and what little he does know and shared in his deposition does not support the plaintiff's claim. According to Wolinsky, the literature referred to by the plaintiff's counsel indicates that while a bite may not cause any immediate pain, some localized pain develops within an hour or so. -2-
Authoring Judge: Robert S. Brandt, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Ellen Hobbs Lyle,
|
Davidson County |
Workers Compensation Panel |
01/17/97 |
|
| Barbara Jenkins v. Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company
01S01-96021-CR-00036
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge William S. Russell
Originating Judge:Hon. J.O. BOND, JUDGE
|
Macon County |
Workers Compensation Panel |
01/17/97 |
|
| Randy Wilson v. Eaton Corporation
01S01-9605-CH-00107
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial judge awarded the plaintiff 5% permanent partial disability to the right hand. He refused to award temporary total disability benefits because plaintiff had lost no wages during his period of temporary total disability. Appellant challenges the trial court's findings that plaintiff sustained a work- related injury by accident to his right thumb in August 1992, that plaintiff gave notice of such an injury and that this claim is not barred by the statute of limitations. Appellee challenges the trial court's refusal to award temporary total disability benefits. Appellee also argues that the appellant should be estopped from pleading the affirmative defenses relied upon for failure to show proper and timely filing of the required notice of controversy. We affirm the trial court's judgment. Plaintiff, 4 at the time of trial, has his high school diploma. He has worked primarily in factories; he also worked as a patrolman for two-and-a-half years. He has worked for the appellant since 1984. He now works as a gear lab technician, which requires lifting and grasping of parts ranging from 3 to 4 pounds apiece. In August 1992 he developed a knot on the outside of his thumb and began having stiffness and pain in his thumb and difficulty grasping objects. A few weeks later, a part overturned in his hand and "snapped [his] thumb out." Plaintiff testified that he reported his injury the next day, August 21, 1992, to the plant nurse. She asked him if he had ever hurt his thumb before, and he told her the only time he had ever hurt it before would have been in 1988 when he had fallen. He testified that the nurse told him that she thought his problem with his thumb had something to do with his 1988 fall. In the 1988 fall, plaintiff hit his left hand against a railing and strained three of his fingers on his left hand; he also jammed the thumb on his right hand, but there is no record of a complaint about the 2
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers
Originating Judge:Hon. Tyrus H. Cobb,
|
Wilson County |
Workers Compensation Panel |
01/17/97 |
|
| Martha Ann Boyd v. Lincoln Brass Works, Inc.
01S01-9604-CV-00062
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge William S. Russell
Originating Judge:Hon. WILLIAM B. CAIN, JUDGE
|
Wayne County |
Workers Compensation Panel |
01/17/97 |
|
| Karen J. Baker v. Hca Health Services of Tn.
01S01-9605-CV-00098
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Plaintiff sought benefits for an occupational disease. The trial court granted defendant's summary judgment based on TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-36, finding that plaintiff failed to file her complaint within the one-year statute of limitations. We reverse the trial court's decision and remand the case to the trial court for a hearing on the merits. Plaintiff is a registered nurse who has worked for defendant for over twenty years. In the spring of 1992, while working as a post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) nurse, she began experiencing symptoms of what was diagnosed in the summer of 1992 as a sensitivity to latex. She was required to wear latex gloves and work around them daily, but because she wanted to continue to work, she tried, with the help of her employer, to avoid latex exposure at work. These efforts were unsuccessful, and she continued to have allergic reactions when she was near latex. Injury reports were filed by her supervisor on several occasions, including June 3, 1992, January 26, 1994 and March 31, 1994, when plaintiff had these allergic reactions to latex at work. On April 5, 1994, plaintiff's physician told her that she could no longer work as a PACU nurse because of her allergy to latex, which was becoming more severe, and because she could not avoid exposure with that job. In May, 1994, her employer placed her in a new position as admission assistant nurse, at the same wage, where she would not be in contact with latex. However, this position was eliminated In December, 1994 and she was then placed in an administrative position at a lower wage. Plaintiff filed her complaint on November 14, 1994. The trial court held: 2
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers
Originating Judge:Hon. Barbara Haynes
|
Davidson County |
Workers Compensation Panel |
01/17/97 |
|
| Premier Manufacturing, et al. v. Patricia Cothran
01S01-9605-CV-00102
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found that the plaintiff failed to carry her burden of proving that she sustained a permanent disabling injury, a finding based upon assessing the credibility of the witnesses. Given the considerable deference we must give to the trial court's credibility determinations, McCaleb v. Saturn Corp., 91 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1995) and the presumption of correctness of the trial court's findings, Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2), we affirm the trial court's decision. The plaintiff worked for Premier Manufacturing Support Services, Inc., a contractor at the Spring Hill Saturn automobile assembly plant. The company performed a variety of services for Saturn, including cleaning the interiors of buildings and maintaining the grounds. The plaintiff worked at several inside and outside jobs before she sought and received a job driving cars off the assembly line. On January 14, 1994, the car the plaintiff was driving backed into a light pole. She was taken to a Columbia hospital where she was treated and released. The company sent the plaintiff to Dr. Larry Laughlin, an orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed her as having back and neck strain. He referred her to Pinnacle Rehabilitation for physical therapy. On the plaintiff's second visit to Laughlin, he conducted a test that indicated that the plaintiff was magnifying her symptoms. The finding of a MRI was normal. Pinnacle conducted a symptom magnification test on the plaintiff, and she scored a four out of five, which means positive for symptom magnification. Laughlin testified that he could not find any significant problems with the plaintiff and he found no permanent impairment. He placed no physical restrictions on her work. -2-
Authoring Judge: Robert S. Brandt, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. William B. Cain,
|
Maury County |
Workers Compensation Panel |
01/17/97 |
|
| Mary Potts v. Tridon, Inc. & Royal Ins. Co.
01S01-9604-CH-00064
This case is before the Court upon a motion for review pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 50-6-225(e)(5)(B), the entire record, including the order of referral to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel, and the Panel's Memorandum Opinion setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are incorporated herein by reference
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Originating Judge:Hon. William B. Cain, Judge
|
Lawrence County |
Workers Compensation Panel |
01/03/97 |
|
| Emma J. Toy v. American General Life & Accident Ins. Co. and National Union Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh
01S01-9604-CH-00071
This case is before the Court upon the entire record, including the order of referral to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel, and the Panel's Memorandum Opinion setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are incorporated herein by reference.
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Originating Judge:Hon. Irvin H. Kilcrease,
|
Davidson County |
Workers Compensation Panel |
01/03/97 |
|
| Connie Drennon v. Waldenbook, Inc.
01S01-9510-CV-00184
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge William S. Russell
Originating Judge:Hon. ROBERT E. CORLEW
|
Rutherford County |
Workers Compensation Panel |
01/03/97 |
|
| Wesley Eddins, Sr. v. North American Rayon Corporation
03S01-9602-CH-00016
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employer, North American Rayon Corporation, has appealed from the trial court's award of permanent disability benefits to plaintiff, Wesley Eddins, Sr. The Chancellor fixed the award at 45% to the body as a whole. Two issues are presented on appeal. First, the employer contends the trial court was in error in allowing temporary total disability benefits. Second, it is argued plaintiff did not incur any permanent disability as a result of the alleged work-related injury. Plaintiff is 29 years of age and is a high school graduate. He has been going to college for about two years attempting to rehabilitate himself for other types of employment. His college work would classify him as a sophomore. On about October 11, 1991, he was injured while at his work station when the floor gave away causing him to fall some distance below. He said the fall injured his back and he had immediate pain up and down his spinal cord and pain in his neck and legs. He continued to work for about two weeks until his condition became worse; at one point, he testified, he could not move his legs; the company doctor took him off work duties on about November 8, 1991, and he had not returned to work as of the date of the trial on September 25, 1995; his chief complaint has been massive muscle spasms; he told the court his condition did not improve much until August-September 1994. The record indicates he has seen many doctors, some have testified extensively in this proceeding and others appear in the record by medical reports, letters, etc., identified as collective exhibit #1. The review of the case is de novo accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings of fact unless we find the preponderance is otherwise. T.C.A. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). 2
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. J. Richard Johnson,
|
Washington County |
Workers Compensation Panel |
12/19/96 |
|
| Richard Caldwell v. Activated Metals & Chemicals, Inc., et al.
03S01-9602-CV-00015
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court awarded plaintiff 35% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. Defendant challenges the trial court's finding that plaintiff's impairment arose out of a work-related injury and the trial court's consideration of the testimony of the plaintiff's expert witness. Plaintiff, 43, finished the eleventh grade. He has a varied work experience, having worked in restaurants, construction, as a stockboy, a janitor/security guard and as a salesperson of draperies and linens. He testified that he suffered an injury in the nature of an occupational disease from inhaling aluminum oxide dust and the dust of a nickel aluminum alloy at his workplace, resulting in his having to stop working and seeking medical care on July 28, 1993. He began working for defendant in January 1993. Plaintiff was referred to Barry Frame, M.D., a specialist in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, who testified in this case by deposition. He diagnosed pneumonia with complicating empyema (or lung abscess). Apparently, plaintiff suffered a pneumothorax, or puncturing of the lung. Dr. Frame opined that this pneumothorax was the result of infection, a pneumonia resulting from the aspiration of some anaerobic organism. No organism was cultured. When asked if plaintiff told him that his condition started as a result of exposure to a metal compound at work, Dr. Frame testified that he was aware that there was some consideration of an occupational factor, but that plaintiff should be referred to a pulmonologist to evaluate that; he had been concerned with dealing with the pneumonia and its complications. Chaim Cohen, M.D., a specialist in occupational medicine, examined the plaintiff at the request of his attorney. He examined plaintiff, reviewed material safety data sheets for compounds to which plaintiff had been exposed, reviewed 2
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Ben W. Hooper, Ii,
|
Knox County |
Workers Compensation Panel |
12/19/96 |
|
| Theresa Webb v. The Quaker Oats Company
02S01-9603-CH-00029
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation. Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Authoring Judge: F. Lloyd Tatum, Special Judge
|
Madison County |
Workers Compensation Panel |
12/19/96 |
|
| Timothy Crabtree v. Apac Tennessee, Inc.
03S01-9603-CH-00035
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial judge found the plaintiff had sustained an injury to his knee and back arising out of and in the course of his employment with the defendant. The trial court awarded the plaintiff 3% permanent partial disability to the leg as a result of the knee injury and 25% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole as a result of the back injury. The defendant says the trial judge erroneously found the plaintiff had given notice of an accidental injury to his back and says, also, that the awards for the injuries were erroneous. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Injury to the Knee During March 1992, the plaintiff injured his right knee. He was treated by Dr. Paul Naylor for this injury. Dr. Naylor performed surgery on the plaintiff's knee on October 13, 1992 to repair the damage sustained by the plaintiff. Dr. Naylor testified the plaintiff had a 12% medical impairment to his knee as a result of the accident, which the defendant does not dispute. We find the evidence does not preponderate against the evidence of 3% permanent partial disability to the leg found by the trial judge, and we affirm the judgment thereon. T.C.A. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Injury to the Back The plaintiff testified he injured his back in April 1993 when he reached back to lock the tailgate of a truck he was driving in the course of his employment. He testified he gave notice of the injury to his supervisor, James Hawkins, and the safety director, Steve Bell. Hawkins and Bell testified the plaintiff did not give them notice of an accidental injury as he testified. They testified the plaintiff related that the back pain he was having was connected to, or was a result of, the knee injury. 2
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers
Originating Judge:Hon. H. David Cate
|
Knox County |
Workers Compensation Panel |
12/19/96 |
|
| Johnny Ownby v. National American Insurance Company
03S01-9604-CV-00037
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court awarded plaintiff 48% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole at a compensation rate of $266.66 per week. Defendant challenges the amount of disability awarded, the compensation rate applied and certain discretionary costs awarded. Plaintiff, 37, graduated from high school. Most of his work experience has been in heavy construction labor. He testified that he injured his lower back on July 4, 1994, while digging up an asphalt driveway and loading the asphalt chunks onto a truck for defendant's insured. He worked on light duty until October but has not worked since October.1994. Plaintiff was treated by Alan L. Whiton, M.D., an orthopedist, who testified in this case by deposition. He opined that plaintiff had a disruption or internal cracking of L4-L5 based upon the results of a discogram. He assigned plaintiff a five percent permanent impairment rating to the body as a whole according to the AMA Guides. George B. Brooks, D.O., a family practitioner, examined the plaintiff at the request of his attorney. He diagnosed degenerative disc disease with radiculopathy at L4-5 by history. He assigned a ten percent impairment rating according to the American Orthopedic Academy guidelines. He testified that he would not disagree with Dr. Whiton's five percent impairment rating but that he also considered that plaintiff had over six months of subjective complaints of pain. He further testified that some portion of his impairment rating was attributable to degenerative changes that predated plaintiff's work-related injury, but he could not apportion it. Fred A. Killefer, M.D., neurosurgeon, examined plaintiff at the request of the defendant. He found no objective signs of a permanent injury and opined that plaintiff had a normal spine with subjective complaints of pain. He further opined 2
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers
Originating Judge:Hon. Rex Henry Ogle,
|
Knox County |
Workers Compensation Panel |
12/19/96 |
|
| John D. Baggett v. Firemen's Fund Insurance Company
01S01-9603-CH-00055
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The complaint alleges "[t]hat on or about the 22nd day of June, 1993, the Plaintiff, while operating a printing press, had his left thumb amputated when it became caught in the press." In point of fact, he suffered an "avulsive injury of the distal aspect of his thumb, just distal to the IP joint with nerve and vascular damage within the thumb proximal to the point of severance." The thumb fragment could not be re-attached and the amputation was surgically completed at the level of the interphalangeal joint, resulting in the loss of one-half of the thumb. The defendant admitted the material allegations of the complaint and essentially conceded that the plaintiff was entitled to recover benefits for the loss of a thumb. Notwithstanding that the complaint did not allege disability to the hand, the issue at trial was whether the injury so affected the hand as to justify an award for benefits thereto rather than for the loss of a scheduled member. The Chancellor limited benefits to the loss of the thumb; the employee appeals insisting that he is entitled to benefits for resultant partial permanent disability to his hand. The treating surgeon was Dr. Bruce Shack, a reconstructive specialist from the Vanderbilt Medical Center. He testified: Q. Now, Doctor, have you formed an opinion based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty whether or not this injury Mr. Baggett suffered will result in any permanent impairment? A. Yes, sir, I have. Q. Will you tell the Court what that opinion is, sir. A. Well, this is a relatively straight forward type of case where the amputation through the interphalangeal joint of the thumb allows us to utilize the Guides that are set forth in the American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment and basing Mr. Baggett's impairment on the loss of the thumb through the interphalangeal joint, I had rated him as 2 percent impairment of the hand. And, of course, that using the conversion tables equals an 18 percent impairment of the upper extremity and 11 percent impairment of the whole person. Q. Now, the injury to the thumb and hand as you've indicated, is that in anyway affected by the upper extremity? 2
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Robert S. Brandt,
|
Davidson County |
Workers Compensation Panel |
12/19/96 |
|
| William Valdez, & Miguel Pineda v. Lang Environmental
01S01-9605-CH-00085
This case is before the Court upon the entire record, including the order of referral to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel, and the Panel's Memorandum Opinion setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are incorporated herein by reference.
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Originating Judge:Hon. Robert S. Brandt,
|
Davidson County |
Workers Compensation Panel |
12/19/96 |
|
