Special Judge Hamilton v. Gayden, Jr.

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 issue for review is whether the claim is barred by Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-23, a statute of limitations. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The trial court overruled the employer's pre-trial motion for summary judgment and, after a trial, found that the injury did not manifest itself until March of 1993 and awarded benefits to the injured employee. 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). It is undisputed that the action was commenced on June 23, 1993. The employee or claimant, Valentine, was 5 years old at the time of the trial. She has a ninth grade education and has worked for the employer, Heekin, as a packing machine operator since 1984. In June of 1991, she twisted her neck and arm while pulling cans from the line. She immediately notified a supervisor but he did not complete a work related injury report because there was no visible evidence of injury. Instead, the employer filed a health insurance claim. The next week, Valentine took a vacation, but continued to have neck and arm pain. She went to a medical clinic, where she received pain medication and a soft neck collar. She returned to work following the vacation, but her neck and arm still hurt, so she reported the injury to a plant manager, who attributed the problem to "old age" and refused to complete a work related injury report. Concerned with the financial strain of the copayment requirement of her health insurance coverage, the claimant spoke directly to the secretary who handled workers' compensation claims for the employer. The secretary, in her trial testimony, admitted the claim was mishandled, but testified also that she only designated claims as workers' compensation claims when instructed to do so by a supervisor. 2