Jacqueline Marie Redden v. Synthetic Industries and The Home Insurance Company

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special 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. This appeal has been perfected by plaintiff, Jacqueline Marie Redden, from the trial court's decision in declining to increase an original award of 2% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole after a reconsideration hearing conducted pursuant to the provisions of T.C.A. _ 5-6-241(a)(2). Plaintiff contends the evidence preponderates against the finding of the trial court. Defendants, Synthetic Industries and The Home Insurance Company, argue the evidence before the court was insufficient to support an increased award. The facts are not in great dispute. Employee Redden sustained a work- related injury on August 9, 1992, while pushing a dolly loaded with yarn. The injury was to her low back. A final decree was entered in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County on January 19, 1995, approving a settlement agreement providing for a 2% permanent partial disability award to the body as a whole. Since the accident occurred shortly after the effective date of the 1992 amendments to the W orkers' Compensation Act and the employee had returned to work at a wage equal to or greater than that received before the accident, the award was capped at 2 _ times the medical impairment rating of 8%. Upon returning to work, plaintiff was given a job "reeling denies", which she testified involved hooking yarn to a machine and was lighter duty work. However, this job was only of a temporary nature. Later she was asked if she could do office work to which she replied she could perform. A job of this nature never materialized. She was later offered a job "doffing" and was told that this was all the company had to offer. The job involved considerable physical activity and defendant employer sent her to see a physical therapist for the purpose of determining whether she could perform the required duties of bending, lifting, etc. The therapist concluded she was not able to do this type of work because of her injury. Since there was no other job available that she could handle with her restrictions, she was eventually terminated. The record is silent as to the exact termination date but it was sometime during or after February, 1995. 2