Hershel Willard Hill v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co.,

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) (22 Supp.) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court ruled as a matter of law that the employee's request for reconsideration under Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-241(a)(2) (21 Supp.) was barred because (1) his initial award was below the two and one-half times multiplier cap and (2) his employment was not terminated. The employee contends that the trial court erred on both grounds. As discussed below, the panel has concluded that _ 5-6-241(a)(2) requires neither a capping at two and one-half times the initial award nor a termination. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (21 Supp.) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Vacated and Remanded JOE C. LOSER, JR., SP. J., in which JANICE M. HOLDER, J., and JAMES L. WEATHERFORD, SR. J., joined Russell D. Hedges, Moore & Hedges, Tullahoma, Tennessee, for the appellant, Hershel Willard Hill Edward A. Hadley, Gideon & Wiseman, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellees, Wilson Sporting Goods Company and Kemper Insurance Company MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-241(a)(2), the employee or claimant, Hershel Hill, initiated this civil action for reconsideration of a previous award of permanent partial disability benefits for injuries suffered in a work-related accident on April 23, 1997. After a hearing, the trial court disallowed reconsideration because (1) the previous award was less than two and one-half times the highest impairment rating and (2) the claimant had not been discharged by the employer. The claimant has appealed. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2) (21 Supp.). Conclusions of law are subject to de novo review on appeal without any presumption of correctness. Nutt v. Champion Intern. Corp., 98 S.W.2d 365, 367 (Tenn. 1998). Issues of statutory construction are solely questions of law. Bryant v. Genco Stamping & Mfg. Co., 33 S.W.3d 761, 765 (Tenn. 2). Workers' compensation laws must be construed so as to ensure that injured employees are justly and appropriately reimbursed for debilitating injuries suffered in the course of service to the employer. Story v. Legion Ins. Co., 3 S.W.3d 45, 454 (Tenn. 1999). Mr. Hill worked for the employer, Wilson Sporting Goods, for more than thirty years until his retirement in 1999. On April 23, 1997, he had a collision with an electric cart at work. The resulting back injury was initially treated by Dr. Richard A. Bagby and Dr. Robert M. Dimick. Both physicians assigned a zero permanent impairment rating for the claimant's injury. A third physician, Dr. Richard Fishbein, evaluated the claimant and assigned a permanent impairment rating of five percent to the whole person. On May 5, 1997, the claimant returned to his job at Wilson at a wage equal to or greater than his wage before the injury. Accordingly, by Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-241(a), his potential permanent disability award was limited to two and one-half times his medical impairment rating. On October 23, 1998, the trial court awarded benefits based on 7.5 percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole, or one and one-half times the impairment rating assigned by Dr. Fishbein. In the year that followed, the claimant continued to work at Wilson while suffering from back pain. His last day at work was October 26, 1999, after which he took sick leave. On October 27, 1999, he visited Dr. Paul McCombs, who informed Mr. Hill that surgery was not an option for his back condition. With the assistance of Dr. McCombs, the claimant obtained social security disability benefits. He also retired from Wilson under its disability plan. At the trial of this cause, the claimant testified that the pain in his back worsened in the time following the first hearing, but the nature of the pain did not change. The trial court declined the invitation to reconsider Mr. Hill's claim based on two independent and unrelated grounds. First, the court held that reconsideration was appropriate only where the initial award was capped by the two and one-half multiplier limit. Second, the court held that an employee must be terminated in order to be eligible for reconsideration of the initial award. Thus, the trial court concluded, because the initial award was less than two and one-half times Dr. Fishbein's rating and the claimant had not been terminated, Mr. Hill's application for reconsideration was rejected as a matter of law. According to Tennessee Code Annotated section 5-6-241(a)(1), [f]or injuries arising on or after August 1, 1992, in cases where an injured employee is eligible to receive any permanent partial disability benefits, pursuant to _ 5-6-27(3)(A)(i) and (F), and the -2-