Fayette Tubular Products, Inc., et al. v. Anthony S. Belli

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 and its insurer contend the claim should be disallowed because the employee engaged in willful misconduct or willfully failed to use a safety appliance. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. At the time of his injury, the employee or claimant, Belli, was working on a bender, a machine designed to bend and contour parts. The machine was equipped with a light curtain, which is a safety device designed to prevent the machine from operating if the beam of light is broken. When the machine did not work properly, the claimant reached over the light beam to press the reset button. He inadvertently pressed the wrong button and his hand became caught in the machine, injuring him. The chancellor found the claim to be compensable. 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). Where the trial judge has seen and heard the witnesses, considerable deference must be accorded those circumstances on review. McCaleb v. Saturn Corp., 91 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1995). An employer may refuse to pay compensation benefits for an injury resulting from a claimant's willful or intentional misconduct or self-inflicted injury, or because of intoxication or willful failure to use a safety appliance or perform a duty required by law. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-11(a).1 The burden of proof to establish such defense(s) is on the employer. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-11(b).2 The defense of willful misconduct is generally limited to deliberate and intentional violations of known regulations. See Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law (1979) section 32. The essential elements of the defense are (1) an intention to do the act, (2) purposeful violation of orders and (3) an element of perverseness. Rogers v. Kroger Co., 832 S.W.2d 538 (Tenn. 1992). 1 5-6-11. Injuries not covered -- Drug and alcohol testing. -- (a) No compensation shall be allowed for an injury or death due to the employee's willful misconduct or intentional self-inflicted injury, or due to intoxication or illegal drugs, or willful failure or refusal to use a safety appliance or perform a duty required by law. 2 (b) If the employer defends on the ground that the injury arose in any or all of the above stated ways, the burden of proof shall be on the employer to establish such defense. 2