Harris v. Sabh-Mor Flo

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 employee, Geraldine Harris, has appealed from the action of the trial court in dismissing her claim against her employer, Sabh-Mor Flo Industries. Plaintiff sustained a work-related injury during October 1994 to her arm and shoulder. After receiving some treatment, she returned to work at a wage equal to or greater than she had been receiving prior to the accident. In determining her entitlement to permanent disability benefits, the trial court found her return to work was meaningful within the scope of our statute, T.C.A. _ 5-6-241(a)(1), and that since her medical impairment rating was 11%, the award of permanent disability was capped at 2 _ times the medical impairment, which resulted in a 27.5% disability award to the body as a whole. Upon her return to work, she was given another job where she worked for four or five weeks. When this job ended, she was assigned a job classified as a "service agent." This position involved her understanding the basic parts of a water heater in order to handle telephone customer complaints. She was also required to operate a computer. She received several weeks of training and attempted to perform her new duties. The record is quite clear she did not perform satisfactorily. She testified she could not do the work and needed more training and her employer also felt she could not do the work. She testified that after several days attempting to do the work, she was called to the office and was told, "we don't think you are going to make it." She was terminated on April 3, 1997 which was less than two months after the February 13th trial. The present action seeking a reconsideration of the original award of 27.5% disability under T.C.A. _ 5-6-241(a)(2) was instituted on May 2, 1997. At this hearing there was a dispute between the parties as to the exact reason for plaintiff 's discharge. Plaintiff contended she was terminated because she could not perform the duties she was asked to do. Defendant-employer contended she fell asleep on the job and was terminated for refusing to obey a direct order. 2