Peggy Mallicoat v. C. R. Daniels, Inc.

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. Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2); Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court in a workers' compensation case. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). The plaintiff filed a complaint seeking reconsideration of her industrial disability under Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-241(a)(2). She had previously entered into a court-approved settlement agreement that awarded her 25 percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. After a hearing, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint because she failed to prove any increase in her disability. The plaintiff appeals and raises the following issue: "Did the trial court err in its refusal to reopen and reexamine the vocational disability of the Plaintiff/Appellant pursuant to T.C.A. _ 5-6-421 [sic] when its refusal was based solely on the fact that there was no additional medical testimony in support of such claim of further disability." We affirm the judgment of the trial court. BACKGROUND The plaintiff, age 46 at the time of trial, left high school in the twelfth grade and had no vocational training. Her employment history includes working in furniture factories, working as a cook and waitress in restaurants, and working on a farm. In February 1993, the plaintiff began working for the defendant in the stenciling department. In a short time, she was transferred to working on an upright sewing machine, which required her to stand on one foot while pressing a pedal with the other foot during the length of her eight hour shift. The plaintiff testified that she injured her back while working for the defendant on September 1, 1993. She said she bent over to pick up a hamper, which weighed 15 to 2 pounds, felt and heard a "pop" in her back, and could not straighten up. 2