Richard Hitchcock v. WaUSAu Insurance Companies, et al.

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 Second Injury Fund (the fund) contends (1) the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the claimant is permanently and totally disabled, and (2) that it was error to approve a settlement between the employee and employer under the circumstances. The claimant contends the objection to the settlement comes too late. As discussed below, the panel has concluded both judgments should be vacated and the case remanded for further consideration. The employee or claimant, Hitchcock, is forty-two and a high school graduate. On October 14, 1993, he suffered a compensable back injury while employed as a warehouseman for the employer, Service America. He has since had three back operations. The operating surgeon has released him to return to work with lifting, twisting and bending restrictions and assigned a permanent impairment rating of twelve percent to the whole body. On September 5, 1995, the trial court approved a settlement between the claimant and his employer, whereby the claimant received permanent partial disability benefits based on forty-five percent to the body as a whole, paid in a lump sum. The fund did not participate in the settlement. The claimant's return to work has been complicated by two pre- existing conditions, blindness in one eye and limited side vision in the other, and a prior carpal tunnel release. A vocational expert testified the claimant is capable, in his disabled condition, of performing medium or light sedentary work. At the time of the trial, the claimant was in fact employed by Opryland as a cashier. After a trial in which the Second Injury Fund was the only defendant, the trial court found the claimant to be permanently and totally disabled and found the fund liable, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6- 28(a), for benefits at the claimant's compensation rate from the date the claimant reached maximum medical improvement from the injury until the claimant reaches age sixty-five. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(2). This tribunal is required to conduct an independent examination of the evidence to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.