Jack Mason Clarke v. Protection Services, Inc,

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found the plaintiff suffered a compensable injury and entered a judgment which found he had sustained a sixty-nine percent vocational impairment to the body as a whole. The trial judge also awarded temporary total disability benefits and medical benefits. We reverse judgement of the trial court. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court is Reversed JOHN K. BYERS, SR. J., in which FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, J. and TOM E. GRAY, SP. J., joined. Richard E. Spicer, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Protection Services, Inc. and The Travelers Insurance Company. Tonya Crownover, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Jack Mason Clarke. OPINION The controlling issue in this case is whether the evidence supports the finding that the plaintiff suffered a compensable injury.1 Facts On February 24, 1997, the plaintiff left work as scheduled. He was scheduled to be off the following morning. However, the branch manager for the defendant, Jeff Lang, discovered the plaintiff was needed at work on the following day. Mr. Lang called the plaintiff at approximately 4: p.m. and asked him to come to work. The plaintiff refused to come to work and according to Lang, refused to tell him why he would not do so. Because of this incident, Lang fired the plaintiff. Later, the defendant learned that plaintiff was required to be in court on the morning of February 25th to respond to a speeding ticket he had received while operating a company truck. The ticket was the second ticket the plaintiff had received while operating a company truck. Under the company policy, the plaintiff would have been discharged as a result of the second ticket. The plaintiff testified at trial he told Lang he had to go to court. The plaintiff called Lang back several times and testified that in one conversation he said to Lang: [a]nd I said some unpleasant words to him and I told him what I 1 The defenda nt also raised the following issues: The trial court erred when it awarded plaintiff permanent partial disab ility benefits because plaintiff failed to estab lish any p ermanent voca tional disability; alternatively, plaintiff's award was excessive. The trial court erred wh en it awarde d plaintiff temp orary total disa bility benefits during a period when plaintiff was working and because there was no medical proof to support total disability after plaintiff was terminated. The trial court erred when it awarded plaintiff reimbursement for COB RA benefits, and when it awarded plaintiff, not the health care provided, unpaid medical expenses. The trial court erred when it found that plaintiff had given adequate notice as required by Tennessee Workers' Compensation law. The trial court erred when it failed to c onsider fac ts that show plaintiff has been less than truthful in matters rela ted to his wor kers' comp ensation claim and that plaintiff was motivated by revenge and anger, not an actual work-related injury, to pursue this claim. -2-