WORKERS COMPENSATION PANEL OPINIONS
| Sheree Sapp v. Covenant Transport, Inc., M2000-00681-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: Loser, Sp. J Trial Court Judge: J. O. Bond, Judge This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to theSpecial 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. In this appeal, the employer and its insurer contend: (1) the trial court erred in finding the employee's carpal tunnel syndrome to be work-related; (2) the trial judge's comments concerning a potential expert and matters not in evidence demonstrated bias and lack of impartiality; (3) the trial court erred in not finding the employee's unilateral initiation and selection of medical treatment and refusal to report for light duty barred any claim for temporary total, permanent partial and/or medical benefits; (4) the trial court erred in finding that adequate and proper notice of a workers' compensation claim was provided; (5) the trial court erred in assessing bad faith penalties on outstanding medical expenses, temporary total disability benefits and accrued permanent partial disability benefits; (6) the trial court erred in finding that it was appropriate that the employee's attorney put in the record counsel's attendance at the employer's medical examination, and thus attempting to bolster the testimony of the employee; and (7) the trial court's award of permanent partial disability benefits was excessive. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the trial court erred in assessing a 25 percent penalty on accrued permanent partial disability benefits and in assessing a penalty on unpaid medical benefits, but that the judgment should otherwise be affirmed. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed in part; Reversed in part; Modified in part. LOSER, SP. J, in which BIRCH, J. and PEOPLES, SP. J., joined. Robert J. Uhorchuk, Spicer, Flynn & Rudstrom, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellants, Covenant Transport, Inc. and Travelers Insurance Companies. William Joseph Butler, Debbie C. Holliman, Farrar & Holliman, Lafayette, Tennessee, for the appellee, Sheree Sapp. MEMORANDUM OPINION At the time of the trial on February 1, 2, the employee or claimant, Sheree Sapp, was 43 years old and a high school graduate with experience as a convenience store worker and truck driver. After previously working for Covenant, she returned to work there in late May 1977. At the time, she was having general aches and pains in her hands, but had never experienced any tingling and numbness. She passed a physical examination before returning. Her duties required her to drive a truck and to help load, unload and drop trailers and refuel the tractor. By January of 1998, she was having pain, tingling and numbness in both hands. She reported the problems to her dispatcher at Covenant. She was eventually referred to Dr. Paul Abbey, whom she visited on June 12, 1998. On the same day, she notified her employer that she believed the condition was work related. The employer filed a First Report of Work Injury with the workers' compensation division of Tennessee on the same day. The employer told the claimant that she would be required to go to Chattanooga to be evaluated by a workers' compensation insurance company physician, stay in a motel and work in Covenant's offices in Chattanooga to have any chance of collectingworkers' compensation benefits. The claimant lives in Smith County, a drive of more than 15 miles from Chattanooga. She refused to drive to Chattanooga for an examination and evaluation. She received a letter from John Orum, a claims representative representing Covenant, denying workers' compensation benefits because, he said, ". . . After a careful review of your claim for Workers' Compensation benefits, we have determined that your carpal tunnel syndrome did not arise out of your employment with Covenant Transport, Inc." The letter was dated July 13, 1998. It is undisputed in the record that the claimant told Sheila Simpson-Murray, workers' compensation manager for Covenant, on June 12, 1998, that she had a work-related injury. At trial, Mr. Orum admitted that he actually made no investigation of the claim and that normally he would call the employee, the employer and the physician. He did not call Ms. Sapp or Dr. Abbey before denying this claim. The record contains conflicting evidence as to whether Ms. Murray offered the claimant a panel of three physicians from which to choose a treating one. The claimant says she did not; Ms. Murray says she did, but concedes all three were in Chattanooga, and admits she never offered the name of a treating physician as close to Smith County as Nashville, all on the advice of Orum. Additionally, the only light duty offered to the claimant was in Chattanooga. The claimant did not wish to drive all the way to Chattanooga for light duty work or medical care. Dr. Abbey continued to treat the claimant and eventually performed carpal tunnel surgery on both arms. She continued to have problems after surgery. The doctor's testimony regarding causation, though equivocal, was that the claimant's condition could have been work-related. Our independent examination of the record reveals no evidence that the injury resulted from an occurrence that was not work-related. Dr. Cornelius J. Mance, a neurologist, examined the claimant and found no evidence of carpal tunnel syndrome, but said he regularly saw truck drivers with the condition and would defer -2- |
Smith County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Harold Liford v. Afg Industries, Inc., E2000-01474-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: Thayer, Sp. J. Trial Court Judge: Ben K. Wexler, Circuit Judge The employer and insurance company have appealed from an award of permanent total disability insisting the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding the employee's leg condition was causally related to his work injury. The employee contends the award of disability should have been determined to be of a permanent partial nature so that he would qualify for benefits under Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-242. Judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Bruce Hardin v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of Illinois W2000-01966 WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: W. Michael William Michael Maloan, Special Judge Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris, Chancellor This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court pursuant to 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 defendant, Travelers Indemnity Co. of Illinois (Travelers) appeals that part of the trial court's judgment which ordered Travelers to pay to the plaintiff, Bruce Hardin (Hardin) and his attorney, $28,652.23 the total of Hardin's medical expenses and required Hardin's attorney to satisfy Blue Cross and Blue Shield's subrogation lien. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we reverse the judgment of the trial court requiring the payment of the total medical expenses and remand for a determination of the amount of medical expenses paid by Hardin. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Reversed and Remanded W. MICHAEL MALOAN, SP. J., in which JANICE M. HOLDER, J. and JOE C. LOSER, JR. SP. J., joined. Mary Peterson, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Travelers Indemnity Co. of Illinois. Ricky Boren, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellee, Bruce Hardin. MEMORANDUM OPINION The relevant facts are not in dispute. Hardin filed a claim for workers' compensationbenefits for an April 1998 fall at his place of employment, Young Radiator. The employer's insurance carrier, Travelers, provided benefits including medical treatment for some period of time but, after an investigation, denied liability and ceased any benefits. Hardin continued to receive medical treatment which was paid in part by him and by his group health insurance carrier, Blue Cross and Blue Shield. At trial, the parties stipulated Hardin's total medical expenses of $28,652.23 were reasonable and necessary. The trial court found Hardin's claim to be compensable and awarded permanent partial disability benefits of forty-three (43) percent to the body as a whole. Further, the trial court ordered Travelers to pay to Hardin and his attorney the total of his medical expenses of $28,652.23 and for them to satisfyBlue Cross and Blue Shield'ssubrogation interest. Travelers appeals this part of the trial court's order. The scope of review of questions of law is de novo with no presumption of correctness. Cunningham v Shelton Sec. Services, Inc., 958 S.W.2d 338, 34 (Tenn. 1997). The sole issue of this appeal is the authority of the trial court to order Travelers to paythe total medical expenses to Hardin and his attorney. This issue was considered in the recent case of State Auto Mut. Ins. Co. v Hurley, 31 S.W.3d 562, 565 (Tenn. Sp. Workers' Comp. 2). The Special Workers' Compensation Panel of the Supreme Court held as follows: We find this issue is controlled by the language of Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-24(a)(1) and by the Tennessee Supreme Court decision of Staggs v National Health Corp., 924 S.W.2d 79, 81 (Tenn. 1996). Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-24(a)(1) provides in part: The employer or employer's agent shall furnish free of charge to the employee such medical and surgical treatment, medicine, medical and surgical supplies, . . . made reasonably necessary by accident, . . . as may be reasonably required;. . . . In Staggs, 924 S.W.2d at 81, the Supreme Court held as follows: An employee is not entitled to personally receive payment for medical expenses unless he or she personally paid the medical expenses and is due reimbursement. Instead, employers must pay the providers of medical care directly for incurred medical expense. State Auto Mut. Ins. Co., 31 S.W.3d at 565. Hardin attempts to distinguish the present case from State Auto by the fact he paid a portion of the premiums to his group health insurance carrier, Blue Cross and Blue Shield. He relies on the following language in Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-114(b): (b) However, any employer may set off from temporary total, temporary partial, and permanent partial and permanent total disability benefits any payment made to an employee under an employer funded disability plan for the same injury; provided, that the disability plan permits such an offset.... -2- |
Hardin County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| M.S. Carriers, Inc. v. Robert Wood W2000-00841-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: L. Terry Lafferty, Senior Judge Trial Court Judge: Karen R. Williams, Judge This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. As discussed below, we affirm the trial court's judgment. FACTUAL BACKGROUND At trial, Robert Wood, age forty-nine (49), a resident of Clinton, Arkansas, testified that he had finished the 1th grade, but he has not received a GED. Until his truck accident, the Respondent had been employed by M.S. Carriers, Inc. ("Carriers"), as an over-the-road truck driver for three and one-half (3_) years. He stated that on June 25, 1996, during the early morning hours, he entered an on ramp on an interstate in Perryville, Maryland, when "I had a paper load that shifted, and it took me off -- laid the tractor and trailer over on its side." Carriers assisted him in returning to Memphis, Tennessee, where he was seen by Dr. Bruce Randolph on June 27, 1996. Dr. Randolph set the Respondent up for physical therapy. Next, the Respondent saw a Dr. Thomas Eans, in Little Rock, Arkansas, with the permission of Carriers. After an MRI, Dr. Eans referred the Respondent to Dr. Blankenship. Here, the Respondent testified that he wanted to see a Dr. Peek, from a list of doctors furnished by Carriers, but Carriers refused and wanted him to be seen by Dr. Scott Schlesinger. Dr. Schlesinger ordered no tests but set the Respondent up with a work hardening program and FCE (functional capacity evaluation). After two visits, Dr. Schlesinger released the Respondent in November of 1996. The Respondent testified that he returned to see Dr. Eans in January 1997. In the interim, Carriers had notified the Respondent that he would not be receiving any more medical treatment or be able to see any more doctors, and that they were not authorizing it, although he had requested additional treatment. According to the Respondent, Dr. Eans referred him to Dr. Schock, an orthopedic surgeon and back specialist. After a discogram, Dr. Schock operated on the Respondent for two herniated discs in July of 1997. Since his surgery, the Respondent has attempted to find employment at various places, but has been unsuccessful. The Respondent testified1 that he still has trouble with too much sitting or standing, and is somewhat incapable of really bending or stooping. He estimates that he can lift between ten (1) or fifteen (15) pounds without too much discomfort. During cross-examination, the Respondent conceded that he was upset and thought that it was somewhat unfair for Carriers to terminate him as a result of the accident. Also, after release from Dr. Schlesinger, Respondent did not speak to Pat Aeschliman, a workers' compensation adjuster for Carriers about continuing medical treatment from Dr. Eans, or surgery performed byDr. Schock. Mrs. Halle S. Wood, wife of the Respondent, testified that they have been married twenty- seven (27) years, and prior to his surgery her husband was in an extreme amount of pain, and had problems walking and getting around. She stated that since the surgery, her husband is doing much better. 1Wood's injury occurred on June 25, 1996. The trial of this action was held on March 1, 1999, and the case was taken under advisement. The trial court's order was entered on March 1, 2. We point out that workers' compensation cases are granted priority over all other cases on both the trial and appellate dockets. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(f)(1). -2- |
Shelby County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Everett E. Hollingsworth v. Crouch Lumber Company W2000-01214-SC-WCM-CV Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J. Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley, Judge In this appeal, the employer insists the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the employee is permanently and totally disabled and in favor of a minimal award of permanent partial disability benefits. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. |
Benton County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Danny Hudson v. Farmers Insurance Group of Companies W2000-00342-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: C. Creed Mcginley, Sp. J. Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris, Jr., Chancellor The plaintiff, Danny Hudson, appeals the judgment of the trial court that found that the plaintiff had failed to carry his burden of proof in establishing that his medical condition was caused by the work-related accident of August 21, 1996 and dismissed his claim. For the reasons stated in this opinion, We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Paul Rodgers v. Marvin Windows of Tennessee, W1999-01852-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: Robert L. Childers, Sp. J. Trial Court Judge: Martha Brasfield, Chancellor The appellant presents the following issues for review: (1) Whether the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the plaintiff sustained a work related injury that resulted in a permanent disability to the plaintiff, and; (2) Whether the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the Plaintiff had a 15% permanent partial disability. After a review of the entire record, briefs of the parties and applicable law, we affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Lauderdale County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| William Harper v. Nestaway W2000-02824-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J. Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley, Judge In this appeal, the employee insists the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the proof failed to establish permanency by a preponderance of the evidence. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. |
Carroll County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Linda Harris v. Heritage Manor of Memphis W2000-00081-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: J. Steven Stafford, Special Judge Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans, Chancellor The trial court determined that the plaintiff had suffered a 2% vocational impairment to the left arm and a 1% vocational impairment to the right arm as the result of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff failed to prove her injury arose out of and within the course and scope of her employment; that she failed to give proper notice of her injury to the defendant; and that the evidence does not support the amount of vocational disability awarded. For the reasons set forth below, We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Pamela Thomas v. Murray, Inc. W2000-01280-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J. Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn, Judge In this appeal, the employer insists the award of permanent partial disability benefits based on 3 percent to the right arm and 15 percent to the left arm is excessive and should be reduced to one based on 1 percent to the right arm and 5 percent to the left. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the award of permanent partial benefits should be modified to one based on its functional equivalent, 22.5 percent to both arms, and affirmed. |
Carroll County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Brenda Thompson v. Ameristeel Corporation W1999-01466-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: J. Steven Stafford, Special Judge Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris, Chancellor The trial court determined that the plaintiff suffered a 24% vocational impairment to the whole body. On appeal, the defendant submits that the plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained a vocational impairment as the result of her work with the defendant. The defendant also submits that the award of 24% to the whole body is excessive. For the reasons set forth below, We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Forrest L. Holder v. Terminex International Company, W1999-01040-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: Robert L. Childers, Sp. J. Trial Court Judge: George Brown, Judge The appellant presents the following issues for review: (1) Whether the trial court correctly found that Mr. Holder did not give notice of a job injury or adequately disclose his condition; (2) Whether Mr. Holder permanently aggravated an underlying or pre-existing condition; (3) Whether Mr. Holder sustained any permanent partial disability as a result of his employment. After a review of the entire record, briefs of the parties and applicable law, we affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Shelby County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Ansley Darlene Eldridge v. Tri-State Comprehensive E2000-00564-WC-R3 Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J. Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White, Chancellor The trial court found the plaintiff had suffered a permanently disabling injury in the course and scope of her employment that rendered her permanently and totally disabled with a combined physical and psychological impairment of forty-five percent. We affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand the case thereto for entry of any order necessary to carry out the judgment set forth in this opinion. |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Arlanda Haynes v. Steel Fabricators, Inc., W2000-00329-SC-WCM-CV Authoring Judge: Wil V. Doran, Sp. J. Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris, Chancellor The appellant presents the following issues for review: (1) Does the evidence preponderate against the trial court's ruling that the plaintiff failed to give proper notice to his employer of his gradually occurring injury to his right arm and back?; (2) Does the evidence preponderate against the trial court's ruling that the plaintiff has no permanent disability? After a review of the entire record, briefs of the parties and applicable law, we affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Madison County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Hae Suk Holder v. Whirlpool Corporation M2000-01368 WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: Catalano, Sp. J. Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Corlew, III Chancellor This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The defendant, Whirlpool Corporation, appeals the judgment of the Chancery Court of Rutherford County where pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-241(a)(2) the trial court allowed reconsideration of the plaintiff's industrial disability and found that the plaintiff was entitled to receive an additional award of six percent (6%) to the body as a whole in addition to the previous award of eight percent (8%) made in accordance with the original settlement order between the parties filed in the Chancery Court of Davidson County. The defendant submits that the trial court erred in finding that the plaintiff, who was terminated for personal misconduct, was entitled to reconsideration pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-241(a)(2), resulting in enhancement of a prior disability. Under the recent ruling of the Tennessee Supreme Court in Freeman v. Marco Transportation Co., 27 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2), in which the Court held that a request for reconsideration brought pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-241(a)(2) must be filed in the same court that exercised jurisdiction over the original workers' compensation claim, we do not reach the issue raised by the defendant and find that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause dismissed without prejudice. Under the savings statute, the plaintiff can refile her request for reconsideration in the Chancery Court of Davidson County within one year of the date of the judgment that is the final disposition in this case. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225 (e)(2) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Reversed and Dismissed. CATALANO, SP. J., in which BIRCH,J. and WEATHERFORD, SR. J., joined. David T. Hooper, Brentwood, Tennessee for the appellant, Whirlpool Corporation. Christopher K. Thompson, Murfreesboro, Tennessee for the appellee, Hae Suk Holder. MEMORANDUM OPINION In 1995, Hae Suk Holder injured her right shoulder while working for Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool). She returned to work in February 1996 making the same wage she had been earning prior to her injury. On October 23, 1996, the ChanceryCourt of Davidson County approved a lump- sum settlement between the parties awarding Ms. Holder an eight percent (8%) permanent partial impairment to the body as a whole. The order also provided that Whirlpool was "relieved of any further liability to [Ms. Holder] under the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Law or otherwise, except for the obligation of the defendant to provide future medical benefits attributed to this injury...." The order did not contain any provisions regarding the right to reconsideration under Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6- 241(a)(2). Ms. Holder continued to work for Whirlpool until June of 1998 when she had a physical altercation with another employee that resulted in her termination. On August 7, 1998, Ms. Holder filed a complaint in the Chancery Court of Rutherford County seeking additional workers' compensation benefits by a reconsideration of her industrial disability pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-241(a)(2). The trial court found that Ms. Holder had sustained a fourteen percent (14%) vocational disability (an additional award of six percent (6%) to the original settlement award of eight percent (8%) vocational disability). ANALYSIS Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-241(a)(2) provides in pertinent part: In accordance with this section, the courts may reconsider, upon the filing of a new cause of action, the issue of industrial disability. Such reconsideration shall examine all pertinent factors, including lay and expert testimony, employee's age, education, skills and training, local job opportunities, and capacity to work at types of employment available in claimant's disabled condition. Such reconsideration may be made in appropriate cases where the employee is no longer employed by the pre-injury employer and makes application to the appropriate court within one (1) year of the employee's loss of employment, . . . . Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-241(a)(2). In the recent case of Freeman v. Marco Transportation Co., 27 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2), our Supreme Court held that a request for reconsideration pursuant to Tennessee Code -2- |
Rutherford County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Dorothy Bond v. Murray, Inc. W2000-01830-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J. Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris, Chancellor This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer insists the trial court erred in finding that the employee's disability to her left arm was work-related. No issue is made with respect to the right arm. The trial court treated the gradual injury as two separate injuries and awarded permanent partial disability benefits based on 38 percent to the right arm and 3 percent to the left arm. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the award should be modified, by converting it to one based on 34 percent to both arms, and affirmed. |
Madison County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Viki Parker v. WaUSAu Insurance Companies. W2000-01517-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: L. Terry Lafferty, Senior Judge Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis, Judge After a detailed analysis of the evidence in the trial record, the trial court found the plaintiff sustained a 45 percent permanent partial disability to the right and left arms. However, the trial court denied the request for a lump sum. The defendant, Wausau Insurance Companies, appeals and presents one issue for appellate review: Whether the trial court's award of 45 percent permanent partial disability to each of the plaintiff's arms is excessive and not supported by a preponderance of the evidence? From our review of the entire record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed for the reasons set forth below. |
Crockett County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Muriel C. Warren v. Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc., W2000-01387-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: L. Terry Lafferty, Senior Judge Trial Court Judge: Ron E. Harmon, Chancellor The employer has appealed two issues from the trial court: (1) Whether the ten percent (1%) of the anatomical rating provided by Plaintiff's evaluating physician should have been assigned to Plaintiff's thumbs rather than to the arms; and (2) Whether the preponderance of the evidence supports the trial court's award of ninety percent (9%) permanent partial disability to the right arm and fifty percent (5%) permanent partial disability to the left arm. From our review of the record, we affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Warren County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Donald L. Hughes v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water, et al. W2000-01056-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J. Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr., Chancellor The employer insists (1) the trial court erred in finding a causal connection between the injury and the employment and (2) the trial court violated Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.2 by filing findings of fact and conclusions of law after entry of final judgment. The Second Injury Fund insists the award of permanent partial disability benefits based on 85 percent to the body as a whole is excessive. The employee insists that the Second Injury Fund lacks standing in this tribunal because it did not file a notice of appeal, that the award is inadequate and that the appeal is frivolous. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. |
Shelby County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Danny Bell v. Emerson Electric Company W1999-00988-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J. Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis, Chancellor The trial court found the plaintiff sustained a seven and one-half percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole as a result of an on-the-job injury to his left shoulder. The defendant says the evidence does not support the finding. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Gibson County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Jhy D. Johnson v. Lojac Materials, Inc. M2000-01811-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J. Trial Court Judge: C. K. Smith, Chancellor This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to theSpecial 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. In this appeal, the employer insists the award of permanent partial disability benefits based on 5 percent to the left hand is excessive. The employee contends the award is inadequate. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed. JOE C. LOSER, JR., SP. J., in which FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, J., and JOHN K. BYERS, SR. J., joined. James H. Tucker, Jr., Manier & Herod, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Lojac Materials, Inc. William E. Farmer, Lebanon, Tennessee, for the appellee, Jhy D. Johnson. MEMORANDUM OPINION The employee is 26 years old and a high school graduate with some experience as an unskilled laborer. While at work on June 1, 1999, the employee or claimant, Johnson, caught his hand in a machine, fracturing the third and fourth metacarpals. He underwent surgery and was released to return to work without any permanent restrictions on July 27, 1999. He did not return to Lojac, but did return to work. The surgeon assessed his permanent impairment at 2 percent to the hand. An independent medical examiner assessed his permanent impairment at 3 percent to the hand. The injured worker says he cannot do some things he did before the injury. Upon the above summarized evidence, the trial judge awarded permanent partial disability benefits based on 5 percent to the hand. 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. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). The panel is not bound by the trial court's findings but conducts an independent examination of the evidence to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies. |
Johnson County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Leta Johnson v. Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc., W1999-00408-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: Robert L. Childers, Sp. J. Trial Court Judge: Julian Guinn, Judge The appellant presents the following issues for review: Whether the evidence preponderates against the trial court's determination of permanent partial disability. After a review of the entire record, briefs of the parties and applicable law, we affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Johnson County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Freida Boyle v. The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing W2000-00064-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: C. Creed Mcginley, Sp. J. Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris, Chancellor The employer contends the trial court erred in determining that the employee's injury was causally connected to her employment and that the employee complied with statutory notice provision pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 55-6-21. It also contends that the award of 4% permanent partial disability to the body was excessive. As discussed below, the panel concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. |
Madison County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Allen Seratt v. Neo Products Corporation, W1999-01246-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: Henry D. Bell, Special Judge Trial Court Judge: Hon. Joe C. Morris, Chancellor The defendants Neo Products Corporation and State Auto Insurance Company appeal the judgment of the Chancery Court of Chester County awarding plaintiff permanent partial disability of ten (1%) percent to the body as a whole. For the reasons stated in the opinion we affirm the judgment. |
Chester County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Bobbie Hicks v. WaUSAu Insurance Companies, W2000-01009-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J. Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris, Chancellor In this appeal, the Second Injury Fund insists (1) the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the employee suffered a compensable injury on January 14, 1997, (2) the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the testimony by deposition of a vocational expert and (3) the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the employee is permanently and totally disabled. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. |
Madison County | Workers Compensation Panel |