Rutherford v. Cross

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 plaintiff filed this workers' compensation claim on July 29, 1993, alleging that on April 15, 1991 he discovered that he was permanently and totally disabled from work due to coal workers' pneumoconiosis ["black lung disease"]. The defendants answered that the plaintiff had retired from their employ on February 6, 1991 under their regular old age retirement program and they had no information about any alleged work related disability. After a hearing on the merits, the trial court found the plaintiff "had not sustained his burden of proof of establishing his claim for occupational disease benefits arising out of his black lung condition" and dismissed the complaint. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The plaintiff is now 69 years old. He has been receiving old age retirement benefits from the Social Security Administration and from the defendants since February 6, 1991. He has applied for black lung benefits from the U. S. Department of Labor on three occasions. Two of those applications were denied. The defendants sought, by Motion to Consider Post-Judgment Facts in this case, to have the results of the third Department of Labor adjudication admitted as evidence; however, the Motion was denied as inappropriate under RULE 14(a), TENN. R. APP. P. The plaintiff contends that the medical evidence proves that he was totally and permanently disabled from work at the time of his retirement under old age programs, notwithstanding the fact that he was working full-time up to the day he retired. To support this claim, he introduced at trial the medical evidence previously submitted to the Department of Labor in his black lung claims; his testimony and that of his wife; an independent medical evaluation by Dr. Glen Baker performed on October 6, 1993; and the testimony of Dr. Norman Hankins and Ms. Kelly Lenz, vocational experts who performed a vocational evaluation in October 1994. The thrust of plaintiff's argument for award of workers' compensation benefits is that the trial court and this Panel are required to apply federal standards in making our determinations and that under 2 C. F. R. _ 718.34, he is irrebuttably presumed 2