James v. Travelers Ins. Co.

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 trial court awarded the plaintiff 55 percent vocational disability to the left leg. The defendant raises the following issues: I. Whether the evidence preponderates against the trial court's determination that plaintiff sustained vocational disability of 55% to the leg, where no medical restrictions were imposed on his activities, he was able to resume and sustain his pre-accident employment, and retained the ability to perform other pre-accident employments. II. Whether the evidence preponderates against the trial court's determination that plaintiff sustained vocational disability in the amount of 55% to the leg, where its decision was based on findings of fact that were either improper to consider or not supported by a preponderance of evidence. We affirm the judgment. The plaintiff, age 57 at the time of trial, graduated from high school and received vocational training as a hydraulic mechanic while serving in the U.S. Air Force. His employment history includes working as a roustabout, a truck crane oiler, a machine operator, a fork crane operator, and a tractor-trailer truck driver. In March 1975, he went to work for the predecessor of Titan Tire or Dico Tire, where he still works as a spray operator or green tire sprayer. The plaintiff testified that on May 21, 1996 the sprayer he was using malfunctioned and began spraying paint on the floor. He explained that he continued to work until his feet got twisted around and he fell with his left leg beneath 2