Workers' Compensation Opinions

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Tennessee 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. The trial court awarded plaintiff sixty (60) percent permanent, partial vocational disability to the right leg. On appeal, the employer contends that the employee's injury did not arise out of his employment and is therefore not compensable. The employer alternatively argues that the trial court's permanent, partial vocational disability award is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Panel of the Tennessee 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. The trial court awarded Plaintiff 54 percent permanent partial disability as a
result of sustaining a latex allergy injury. Defendant contends the evidence established that Plaintiff did not have a latex allergy condition and if she did, her last employer would be responsible for compensation under the last injurious exposure rule. 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 Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for
hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial
court dismissed the complaint by sustaining a motion for summary judgment. The court held the
employee’s injury did not occur in the course of employment. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded.

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
hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial
court awarded plaintiff 100 percent permanent disability. On appeal, the employer contends the
evidence does not support a finding of total disability and that the trial court was in error in accepting the testimony of a doctor who looked at the Second Edition of the AMA Guides in an attempt to give a numerical number of impairment for a Class 2 psychiatric injury when the Fifth Edition of the Guides did not contain a numerical rating. We affirm the judgment.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Panel in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of
findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer asserts that the evidence
preponderates against the trial court’s award to the employee of 50% permanent partial disability to body as a whole. The employer also argues that the trial court erred in requiring it to pay the
employee $1,302.00 for unauthorized chiropractic treatment. We conclude that the medical evidence preponderates against the trial court’s rulings, and in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(2), reverse the judgment of the trial court as to both issues.

This workers compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Worker’s Compensation
Appeals Panel in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225 (e)(3) for hearing and
reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the
employer asserts the trial court erred in finding that the employee suffered permanent, total
disability as a result of an injury, which occurred on April 15, 1993, during the course of his
employment with Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. We conclude that the evidence presented supports the findings of the trial judge and, in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated §50-6-225(e)(2), affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensaton
Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. §50-6-225(e)(3) for
hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this
appeal, the employee asserts the trial court erred in finding that the employee's back surgery and
resulting disability were not causally related to the February 28, 2002, work injury. We conclude that the evidence presented supports the findings of the trial judge and, in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated §50-6-225(e)(2), affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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 hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The plaintiff alleges that his employment subjected him to heavy metal dust which decreased his pulmonary function. The defendant says that the decreased pulmonary function, if any, was caused by smoking forty cigarettes a day for forty-five years, and pleads the statute of limitation of one year, and lack of proof of causation. The trial court awarded benefits based on a finding of 40 percent permanent partial disability. We reverse and dismiss.

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. In this case, the employer contends that the trial court erred in finding: 1) that the employee’s pre-existing leg condition was aggravated by his work for the employer; 2) that the employee gave proper notice of his injuries; and 3) that the employee had sustained a 90% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. For the reasons set out below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeal Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee sustained injuries to his left shoulder while working for the employer. The trial court: (1) held that the injury was compensable; (2) awarded a 45 percent vocational disability; (3) awarded the employee 45 weeks of temporary total disability benefits; (4) held that the employer denied the claim in bad faith; and (5) awarded a bad faith penalty of 25 percent of the temporary total disability award plus 25 percent of the permanent partial disability award. We affirm the trial court’s finding that the injury was compensable. We affirm the award of 45 percent to the arm. We modify the award of 45 weeks of temporary total disability to 16 weeks. We vacate the penalty for partial permanent benefits, but affirm the penalty for temporary total benefits, as modified.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer asserts that the trial court erred in awarding $12,360 in temporary total disability benefits for the period between April 5, 2000, and September 19, 2000. We conclude that the evidence presented more appropriately supported a finding that the employee was entitled to temporary partial benefits in the amount awarded by the chancellor and, in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(2), affirm the judgment of the trial court as so modified.

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 appellant, employee, argues that the trial court erred as a matter of law in finding that the employee was 100% permanently partially disabled and seeks an award of permanent total disability benefits. The appellees, the employer and the Second Injury Fund, argue that the trial court was correct in finding that the employee was not permanently and totally disabled. For the reasons stated below, the panel has concluded that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed as modified.

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 hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. After a bifurcated hearing on the issue of causation, the trial court found plaintiff’s cirrhosis of liver condition was not caused by his exposure to methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and methyl ethyl toluene (MET) and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff’s appeal challenges the ruling upon the ground the trial court failed to properly weigh the expert testimony and also upon the ground the trial court applied an incorrect standard of law to the case. We find the evidence preponderates in favor of the conclusion of the trial court and affirm the judgment in all respects.

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. In this case the employee, who had worked third shift for the employer, sustained extensive injuries from a one-car accident about twenty minutes after leaving the workplace. The employee contended that her exposure to the chemical toluene at work caused fatigue and drowsiness which led to her accident. The trial court found that the accident did not arise out of her employment and dismissed the case. For the reasons set out in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusion of law. The employee appeals the trial court’s finding of no permanent disability. We conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

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 hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court awarded plaintiff 25 percent disability to the body as a whole as a result of sustaining a neck injury but dismissed plaintiff’s claim for depression and a lung injury. On appeal plaintiff contends the court was in error in determining she had made a meaningful return to work and the award for the neck injury should have been larger. Plaintiff also cites error for dismissing the lung and depression claims. 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 Tenn. Code Ann. § 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 the employee 20 percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. Plaintiff contends he should have received an award for total permanent disability. Judgment is affirmed.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with the Tenn. Code Ann. Section §50-6-225 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellant, employer, argues that the trial court erred in finding that the employee sustained a permanently disabling condition while employed with the appellant and that if she did, the trial court’s award of 25% permanent partial disability to each arm is excessive and is contrary to the weight of the evidence.  The appellee, employee, argues that the trial court’s ruling was correct and should be affirmed. For the reasons discussed below, the panel has concluded that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in all respects.

From the determination by the trial court that the Worker sustained 28% vocational disability apportioned to the right leg, the Employer appeals. The Employer contends that the Worker’s injuries neither arose out of nor occurred in the course of his employment. We conclude otherwise and, thus, 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 the provisions ofTennessee 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 Worker, Darrell Denney, has appealed the action of the trial court, which dismissed his cause of action, finding that his injury was entirely degenerative in nature, and was not caused by his employment, nor was it aggravated or exacerbated by his employment sufficient to cause the claim to be compensable under the terms of the Worker's Compensation law. Upon our consideration of all of the evidence, we find that the evidence preponderates in favor of a finding of an exacerbation of the Worker's underlying condition, to cause the injury to be compensable. Thus, we find that the decision of the trial court should be reversed, that the Worker is entitled to an order holding him harmless frommedical expenses incurred, that he is entitled to an award of temporary total disability fromthe date he left his employer until the date when he returned to work, and that the Worker should be compensated in a sum of 70% vocational disability apportioned to the right arm. We remand the case to the trial court for determination of remaining issues, including commutation of the award, to the extent it has not fully accrued, any offsets which may be applicable, collection of costs, and such further matters which arise in accordance with the terms of this opinion.

This case is before the Court upon the entire record, including the order of referral to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel, in compliance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Mr. Hopper injured his back February 19, 1996 while working in the warehouse of his employer. On November 17, 1997 Mr. Hopper settled this claim for 20% vocational disability. All told, Mr. Hopper initiated four workers’ compensation claims during his employment with OshKosh resulting in 100% vocational disability. Several years later, after he lost his job with OshKosh, Mr. Hopper filed a motion to reconsider his earlier settlement of the February 19, 1996 claim against the Second Injury Fund only. The trial court granted this relief, increased Mr. Hopper’s vocational disability by 30%, and assigned liability to the Second Injury Fund. The Second Injury Fund appeals on the grounds that the employee’s motion was untimely, that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the employee had suffered subsequent injuries, and that the evidence preponderated against increasing the employee’s vocational disability. After carefully reviewing the record, we reverse the trial court’s judgment.

This case is before the court upon the entire record including the Order of Referral to the Special Workers’ Compensation Panel, in compliance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Dianna Gail Thompson suffered a work-related injury to her back and neck as a result of her attempt to move a wooden pallet during the course and scope of her employment as a relief operator. Ms. Thompson promptly reported her injury to her supervisor and sought medical care. The treating physician concluded that Ms. Thompson had a strained back and found no permanent impairment. Ms. Thompson thereafter sought other physicians who treated her condition. Thereafter a doctor performing an independent medical evaluation, assigned a 5% impairment to the body as a whole for her back injury. The trial court, in determining whether the employee’s injury was permanent, considered this conflicting medical testimony and after evaluating that medical testimony, awarded Ms. Thompson a 12.5% permanent impairment to the body as a whole and the benefits associated therewith. The employer in this appeal contends that the trial court erred in accrediting the independent medical evaluation over that of the treating physician’s evaluation of Ms. Thompson’s injury. The employer also contends that the trial court erred when it ordered the employer to pay 6.4 weeks of temporary total disability based on records submitted after the proof had closed. Therefore, this appeal is limited to whether the trial court’s award of permanent partial disability benefits was excessive and whether the award of 6.4 weeks of temporary total disability benefits was based on sufficient proof. After carefully considering the record, we affirm the trial court’s determination of 12.5% permanent partial disability and reverse the trial court’s award of 6.4 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, finding that the trial court impermissibly reopened proof and accepted inadequate evidence for a finding of temporary total disability award. We, therefore, affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court’s determination.

This case is before the Court upon the entire record, including the order of referral to the Special Workers’ Compensation Panel, in compliance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Terry Brown sustained a work-related left knee injury on November 4, 2000, when he slipped on a plastic bag and fell on a concrete floor, landing primarily on his left knee. This incident occurred within the scope and course of his employment and was observed by his supervisor. Mr. Brown reported his injury and sought medical care from Dr. Bowdoin Smith with the approval of his employer. Dr. Smith administered nonsurgical treatment for pain and recommended that Mr. Brown receive an MRI scan and returned him to work. The treating physician’s recommendation of an MRI was not carried out and he made no impairment rating. Thereafter, a doctor preforming an independent medical evaluation assigned a 5% impairment to Mr. Brown’s left lower extremity. A second independent medical evaluation assigned a 1% impairment to the left lower extremity for this same injury. Unfortunately for Mr. Brown, on June 7, 2001, he sustained work-related injuries to both of his arms. Mr. Brown filed a complaint for workers’ compensation benefits on June 18, 2001 for all these injuries which was ultimately amended and later settled his claims related to both arm injuries. This settlement order retained as the only issue for ultimate decision, Mr. Brown’s claim for left lower extremity injury.  The trial court, after considering the medical and lay evidence, awarded Mr. Brown 45% permanent partial disability to his left lower extremity and the benefits associated therewith. The employer has appealed this decision asserting that this award is excessive and takes into account subsequent injuries to the arms. Therefore, this appeal is limited to whether the trial court’s award was excessive. After carefully considering the record, we find that although the award of the trial court is generous, we affirm the trial court’s determination.

This case is before the Court upon the entire record, including the order of referral to the Special Workers’ Compensation Panel, in compliance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Donald E. Smith had suffered a number of injuries prior to and after his employment with Fleeman’s Transport, Inc., but none of these incidents resulted in a disability impairment rating or job restrictions. On November 9, 2000, Mr. Smith suffered a work-related accident which caused him to be permanently and totally disabled.  The trial court determined that Mr. Smith reached maximum medical improvement from his injuries on October 23, 2003, and based on the court’s assessments of prior work injuries, apportioned the award of workers’ compensation for the November 9, 2000 injury to both the employer and the State Second Injury Fund. Fleeman’s appeal contends that the trial court erred in assigning the date of maximum medical improvement past the date of the employee’s actual maximum recovery. The Second Injury Fund appeal contends that the trial court erred in assigning it any liability because the employer failed to establish actual knowledge of a prior disability. We find that the proof fails to preponderate against the judgment of the trial court on the date of maximum medical improvement and affirm this portion of the trial court’s decision. We also find that Fleeman’s Transport, Inc. did not establish actual knowledge of disability required for assigning liability to the Second Injury Fund.  Consequently, we reverse the trial court’s apportionment of liability for this work-related injury and modify that determination and assign all responsibility and liability for this work-related injury to Fleeman’s Transport, Inc.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employer appeals, arguing that the trial court should have granted the employer’s Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment. The trial court considered testimony that a legal assistant was given incorrect information by the clerk’s office but held that the employer failed to show grounds for excusable neglect. The Panel has concluded that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.