WORKERS COMPENSATION PANEL OPINIONS

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The issue presented in this case is whether the employee’s request for a benefit review conference was filed more than one year after the employee had knowledge that his occupational disease was caused by his employment. The trial court ruled that the employee’s request was not timely and dismissed the case. After careful review, we hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding that Employee had knowledge that his illness was related to his employment more than one year before the filing of his request for a benefit review conference. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this workers’ compensation action, the employee sustained a compensable injury to her shoulder. Her initial treating physician assigned a 9% impairment to the body as a whole. After additional surgery, her subsequent treating physician assigned a 6% impairment to the body as a whole. An evaluating physician assigned a 17%  impairment. The trial court chose the evaluating physician’s impairment, and awarded the employee 25.5% permanent partial disability (“PPD”) to the body as a whole. The employer has appealed, arguing that the evaluating physician’s rating did not comply with the AMA Guides and that the award therefore is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this Workers’ Compensation case, the trial court held that the employee had sustained a gradual injury to his lower back, and that he was permanently and totally disabled as a result of that injury. The employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by permitting the employee to use a physician who provided an impairment rating through the Medical Impairment Registry process as a medical expert on the issue of causation and by finding that the employee sustained a compensable injury. In the alternative, the employer contends that the trial court erred by awarding permanent total disability, and also in its alternative finding that the employee had proven three of the four elements set out in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-242, and was thereby able to recover a permanent partial disability award in excess of six times the medical impairment. We find no error and affirm the judgment.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee sustained an injury which resulted in a court-approved workers’ compensation settlement. His authorized physician later recommended medical treatment. The employer’s utilization review provider denied approval of the proposed treatment. The employer filed a motion for a medical examination pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(d)(1) which is required if reasonable. The trial court found the employer’s request to be unreasonable and denied the motion. The employer has appealed. We reverse the trial court’s order and remand for entry of an order granting the motion.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee suffered an injury which the employer denied was in the course of employment. The employee filed a request for assistance with the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development. The Department ordered the employer to pay temporary disability benefits and medical expenses for the employee’s injury pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-238(a)(2)(3).  Subsequently the employer, its workers’ compensation carrier and the employee entered into a compromise and release agreement in Pennsylvania pursuant to which the employee was paid $130,000. The employer filed this action against the employee and the Department of Labor requesting reimbursement of payments made pursuant to the Department’s order, as permitted by section 50-6-238(b). The trial court granted the Department’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action. We affirm the judgment.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee and his employer filed separate workers’compensation complaints on the same day at different times,in differentcourts,and in different counties. The employer filed its cause of action in McMinn County Chancery Court on April 29, 2010, at 3:53 p.m. The employee’s action was filed in Polk County Circuit Court on the same day, but the time of filing was not noted by the court clerk. The employee moved to dismiss the employer’s action on the basis of prior suit pending. The employee’s motion was supported by an  affidavitfrom his attorney’s assistant stating that the employee’s suit was filed before 3:03 p.m. on April 29, 2010 and therefore prior to the time the employer filed suit as designated by the court clerk in McMinn County. The trial court granted theemployee’s motion and dismissed the employer’s action. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The employee sustained a compensable injury to her arm in 2001. In 2003, she entered into a settlement with her employer that preserved her right to receive reasonable and necessary medical treatment for the injury. In April 2008, the employee’s authorized treating physician recommended a diagnostic test. The employer submitted the recommendation to its utilization review provider, which declined to approve the recommended test. The employee and her physician were notified of the denial in May 2008. In June 2009, the employee filed a petition for contempt seeking to have the trial court order the recommended test. The trial court treated the petition as a motion for medical treatment pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(b)(2) (2008). The trial court found the recommended test to be reasonably necessary for the treatment of the injury, ordered the employer to authorize it, and awarded the employee attorney’s fees. The employer appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The employee suffered a compensable spinal cord injury. He settled his workers’ compensation claim with his employer in 2007. The settlement provided for future medical treatment in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a) (2008). In 2009, the employee sought authorization and payment for a hydrotherapy tub. His employer declined to authorize installation of the tub. The employee filed a motion for authorization of medical care in February 2010 and supported the motion by attaching a note from his authorized treating physician that he would “benefit” from use of the tub. The trial court granted the motion. On appeal, we reverse.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee filed a Worker’s Compensation action on August 22, 2003 alleging a compensable injury in the course of his employment with his employer in December 1998. The employer filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.02. The trial court entered an order in September 2008, stating that the employer was withdrawing the motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute based upon the employee’s commitment to take a medical deposition within sixty days. A second motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute was filed and heard on March 15, 2010 because the medical deposition had not been taken. The trial court granted the motion with prejudice. The employee has appealed. We affirm the judgment.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee filed a workers’ compensation action contending his injury while cutting trees at his employer’s home was in the usual course of his employment at his employer’s floor covering business. The trial court held that employee’s work was casual employment not in the usual course of his employer’s business as defined by TCA § 50-6-106(2) and not covered by the workers’ compensation statute. We affirm the judgment.

An employee sustained an injury to his shoulder at work. After a surgical repair, he briefly returned to work but was laid off prior to reaching maximum medical improvement. He filed a complaint in chancery court seeking workers’ compensation benefits from his employer. His treating physician assigned no impairment rating and placed no restrictions on his activities. An evaluating physician assigned 6% impairment to the body as a whole and recommended that Mr. Lewis avoid certain activities. The trial court awarded 36% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The employer has appealed, contending that the award is excessive. We modify the judgment to award 24% permanent partial disability to the employee. We also conclude that local Rule 17A of the Chancery Court of the 28th Judicial District of Tennessee conflicts with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 58.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found that the employee had sustained a compensable injury. In addition, it found that the employee had a meaningful return to work, and his award of permanent partial disability (“PPD”) benefits was limited to one and one-half times his anatomical impairment pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-241(d)(1). On appeal, the employee contends the trial court erred by finding that he had a meaningful return to work. The employer contends the trial court erred by admitting a discovery deposition of an expert into evidence over its objection based upon Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 32.01(3), and finding that the injury at issue was not concurrent with injuries which were the subject of a separate lawsuit. We affirm the judgment.

An employee was struck in the back of the leg by a wooden pallet while at work. She alleged that she sustained permanent injuries to her neck, back, and foot as a result of that incident and filed a complaint against her employer in chancery court for workers’ compensation benefits. Her employer denied that she had sustained any permanent impairment or disability. The chancery court held that the employee sustained a compensable injury and awarded 20% permanent partial disability benefits. The employer has appealed. We affirm the judgment.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In 2002, the employee was involved in a motor vehicle accident in the course and scope of his employment. The employee filed suit for benefits. The employer disputed the claim, asserting that the employee had failed to give proper notice and had not sustained any permanent injury as a result of the accident. The trial court awarded benefits, and the employer has appealed. After careful review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Jeffrey White (“Employee”) sustained work-related injuries while employed by Nissan North America, Inc. (“Employer”). He returned to work after each injury and settled both claims. In 2005, he was terminated, allegedly for failure to comply with Employer’s policies concerning medical leave. He filed for reconsideration of his previous settlements, as permitted by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- 241(a)(2). Employer contended that he had been terminated for misconduct and was not eligible for reconsideration. Following a full trial, the trial court found that Employee was eligible for reconsideration, but that Employee failed to prove that his industrial disability was greater than the amount of the settlements. Employee filed a motion to alter or amend pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.04, requesting that the trial court permit the taking and presentation of additional evidence. The trial court granted the motion. After a second trial, the trial court awarded additional permanent partial disability (“PPD”) benefits. Employer has appealed. We conclude that the trial court erred in granting the motion to alter or amend and reverse the judgment.

The employee filed a pro se post-judgment petition alleging that her employer had improperly denied court-ordered medical benefits to her, and she sought damages. Her employer moved to dismiss based upon expiration of the statute of limitations and other grounds. The employee contended that she was incompetent for an extended period of time after the alleged denial of medical care and that the limitation period was therefore tolled. The trial court held that her petition was barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed it. The employee has appealed from this decision. We affirm the judgment.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee sustained a compensable injury. She returned to work for her employer in the same job, at the same hourly wage. However, her earnings were reduced because she declined offers of additional work, which she had usually accepted before her injury. She declined these offers because she could no longer safely perform them. The trial court held that she did not have a meaningful return to work, and awarded benefits in excess of one and one-half times the impairment. Her employer has appealed, asserting that the trial court erred by finding that she did not have a meaningful return to work. We affirm the judgment.

Employee, a truck driver, sustained an on-the-job injury during a motor vehicle accident. The treating physician assigned 7% anatomical impairment to the body as a whole due to the injury. Employee’s evaluating physician assigned 17%. The trial court adopted the latter impairment and awarded 60% permanent partial disability. The employer has appealed.1 We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this workers’ compensation action, the employee sustained bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of her employment. She had two surgeries on her left arm to treat the condition. Prior to reaching maximum medical improvement, she voluntarily retired. The trial court found that her retirement was reasonably related to her work injuries, and therefore the statutory limit to permanent partial disability benefits contained in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(d)(1)(A) did not apply to her award. The employer, Pinnacle Foods Group, appealed. We affirm the judgment of trial court.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Kathleen Evans (“Employee”) alleged that she sustained an injury to her knee while at work. Her employer, Shaw Industries, (“Employer”) denied the claim, contending that the injury could not have happened in the manner described by Employee. The trial court held that Employee had a compensable injury and awarded permanent partial disability (“PPD”) benefits. Employer has appealed. We affirm the judgment.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this action, Stanley Jenkins (“Employee”) sustained a compensable injury to his left leg in the course and scope of his employment with Yellow Transportation, Inc. (“Yellow Transportation”). Employee settled his workers’ compensation claim with Yellow Transportation and returned to work. A few months later, Yellow Transportation merged with another corporation to create YRC Inc. (“YRC”), a completely new corporation. After the merger, Employee was laid off due to an economic downturn and thereafter sought reconsideration of his earlier settlement. The trial court ruled that Employee was no longer employed by his pre-injury employer after the merger and was entitled to reconsideration under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241. The trial court awarded him additional permanent partial disability benefits. Yellow Transportation has appealed, arguing that Employee is not entitled to reconsideration. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. After the employee sustained an on the job injury, she sued her employer for workers’ compensation benefits. She alleged that her employer was a subcontractor for the principal contractor but she sued only the employer, not the principal contractor. Nearly two years later, the employee requested and received the trial court’s permission to amend her complaint to add the principal contractor as a defendant. The principal contractor filed a motion to dismiss based upon the expiration of the applicable statute of  limitations. The trial court granted the motion. After a trial, the trial court awarded the employee judgement for workers’ compensation benefits against the employer. The employee appealed, contending that the trial court erred by granting the principal contractor’s motion to dismiss. We affirm the judgment.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee sustained a work-related injury to his back in 1988. The settlement of his claim included the right to future medical treatment. During the subsequent years, he received treatment from various physicians for his back. In 2006, his treating physician recommended a spinal fusion. His employer’s insurer, Liberty Mutual, denied that the proposed surgery was necessary for the treatment of the1988 injury. The employee filed a motion to compel the insurer to pay for the proposed surgery, which was granted by the trial court. The insurer has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s decision. We affirm the decision.

The employee alleged that he sustained a lower back injury as a result of his job. His employer denied the claim based upon findings by its work site medical staff. An evaluating physician opined that the employee’s job had caused an aggravation of a pre-existing degenerative disc disease. The trial court found that the employee had sustained a compensable injury and awarded benefits. The employer appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding. We affirm the judgment, but we decline the employee’s request to find the appeal to be frivolous.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Ricky D. Garrett (“Employee”) was injured when he fell from the roof of a barn during the course and scope of his employment as a handyman for William David Brown (“Employer”), a farmer who carried worker’s compensation insurance. Subsequently, Employee filed a complaint for worker’s compensation benefits against Employer and Employer’s insurance carrier. Employee also named the Second Injury Fund (“the Fund”) as a defendant and alleged that the injury he sustained in the fall in combination with his pre-existing disabilities rendered him totally disabled. The trial court agreed that Employee was permanently and totally disabled as a result of the injury sustained in the fall combined with the pre-existing disabilities and awarded Employee full benefits with 40% liability for the award assigned to Employer and 60% assigned to the Fund. The Fund appealed, asserting, 1) that Employer does not meet the definition of “employer” for purposes of the Second Injury Fund statute; 2) that the proof is insufficient to show that Employer had knowledge of Employee’s pre-existing disabilities; and 3) that the judgment awarded Employee was incorrectly apportioned between the Fund and the Employer. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.