Hae Suk Holder v. Whirlpool Corporation

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 defendant, Whirlpool Corporation, appeals the judgment of the Chancery Court of Rutherford County where pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-241(a)(2) the trial court allowed reconsideration of the plaintiff's industrial disability and found that the plaintiff was entitled to receive an additional award of six percent (6%) to the body as a whole in addition to the previous award of eight percent (8%) made in accordance with the original settlement order between the parties filed in the Chancery Court of Davidson County. The defendant submits that the trial court erred in finding that the plaintiff, who was terminated for personal misconduct, was entitled to reconsideration pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-241(a)(2), resulting in enhancement of a prior disability. Under the recent ruling of the Tennessee Supreme Court in Freeman v. Marco Transportation Co., 27 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2), in which the Court held that a request for reconsideration brought pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-241(a)(2) must be filed in the same court that exercised jurisdiction over the original workers' compensation claim, we do not reach the issue raised by the defendant and find that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause dismissed without prejudice. Under the savings statute, the plaintiff can refile her request for reconsideration in the Chancery Court of Davidson County within one year of the date of the judgment that is the final disposition in this case. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225 (e)(2) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Reversed and Dismissed. CATALANO, SP. J., in which BIRCH,J. and WEATHERFORD, SR. J., joined. David T. Hooper, Brentwood, Tennessee for the appellant, Whirlpool Corporation. Christopher K. Thompson, Murfreesboro, Tennessee for the appellee, Hae Suk Holder. MEMORANDUM OPINION In 1995, Hae Suk Holder injured her right shoulder while working for Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool). She returned to work in February 1996 making the same wage she had been earning prior to her injury. On October 23, 1996, the ChanceryCourt of Davidson County approved a lump- sum settlement between the parties awarding Ms. Holder an eight percent (8%) permanent partial impairment to the body as a whole. The order also provided that Whirlpool was "relieved of any further liability to [Ms. Holder] under the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Law or otherwise, except for the obligation of the defendant to provide future medical benefits attributed to this injury...." The order did not contain any provisions regarding the right to reconsideration under Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6- 241(a)(2). Ms. Holder continued to work for Whirlpool until June of 1998 when she had a physical altercation with another employee that resulted in her termination. On August 7, 1998, Ms. Holder filed a complaint in the Chancery Court of Rutherford County seeking additional workers' compensation benefits by a reconsideration of her industrial disability pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-241(a)(2). The trial court found that Ms. Holder had sustained a fourteen percent (14%) vocational disability (an additional award of six percent (6%) to the original settlement award of eight percent (8%) vocational disability). ANALYSIS Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-241(a)(2) provides in pertinent part: In accordance with this section, the courts may reconsider, upon the filing of a new cause of action, the issue of industrial disability. Such reconsideration shall examine all pertinent factors, including lay and expert testimony, employee's age, education, skills and training, local job opportunities, and capacity to work at types of employment available in claimant's disabled condition. Such reconsideration may be made in appropriate cases where the employee is no longer employed by the pre-injury employer and makes application to the appropriate court within one (1) year of the employee's loss of employment, . . . . Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-241(a)(2). In the recent case of Freeman v. Marco Transportation Co., 27 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2), our Supreme Court held that a request for reconsideration pursuant to Tennessee Code -2-