Walden v. New Life Ministries

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. The employer, New Life Bible Church, Inc., has perfected this appeal from a ruling of the trial court in awarding the employee, William E. W alden, a judgment in the sum of $34,187.64 representing a recovery for unpaid medical expenses in the sum of $33,193.69 and for reimbursement of travel expenses in the sum of $993.95. The trial court found plaintiff's claim compensable and fixed an award of permanent partial disability at 5% to his right arm. In addition, the court allowed certain discretionary costs and fixed attorney's fees. On appeal there is no dispute concerning the 5% award, the allowance of discretionary costs or the award of attorney's fees. The sole issue relates to that portion of the judgment awarding plaintiff a monetary judgment for medical expenses incurred but remaining unpaid at the time of the trial. Defendant employer argues the judgment should have directed it to pay the various health care providers and it was error to allow the employee to recover same without having paid the medical expenses. In support of this contention, the employer cites and relies on the holdings of the Supreme Court in the case of Staggs v. National Health Corp., 924 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. 1996); West Insurance Company v. Montgomery, 861 S.W.2d 23 (Tenn. 1993) and a Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel decision in the case of Moody v. Phelps Security, Inc., No. 2S1-959- CV- 8, filed August 3, 1996 at Jackson, and adopted and affirmed by the Supreme Court. On appeal plaintiff does not address the issue before the court in his brief but merely concedes awarding a monetary judgment for unpaid medical expenses was not proper and the brief alleges that the appeal of the case is frivolous as counsel agreed to modify the judgment conforming it to the relief sought by the appeal and that this occurred several months prior to the filing of the brief. Defendant has made no response to this allegation. 2