Ralph Laverne Gholston v. Brown Chain Link Fence

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. In this appeal, the employer insists (1) the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding of permanent and total disability and (2) the trial court erred by ordering the non-commuted benefits to be paid over a shortened period of time. As discussed below, the panel finds no reversible error in the record, but modifies the judgment with respect to the second issue, there being no objection to it. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (22 Supp.) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed as Modified JOE C. LOSER, JR., SP. J., in which FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, C. J., and JAMES L. WEATHERFORD, SR. J., joined. Randolph A. Veazey, Glasgow & Veazey, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Brown Chain Link Fence Construction Co., Inc. and Westfield Companies Edwin Z. Kelly, Jr., Kelly & Kelly, Jasper, Tennessee, for the appellee, Ralph Laverne Gholston Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter, and E. Blaine Sprouse, Assistant Attorney General, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Second Injury Fund MEMORANDUM OPINION The employee or claimant, Mr. Gholston, initiated this civil action to recover workers' compensation benefits for an injury by accident arising out of his employment. His amended complaint named the employer, Brown Chain Link Fence Construction Co., Inc., the employer's insurer, Westfield, and the Second Injury Fund as defendants. After a trial, the trial court found the employee to be permanently and totally disabled and apportioned the award between the employer and the Second Injury Fund. The employer and its insurer have 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) (22 Supp.). The reviewing court is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.