Thomas Richard Cate v. Charles Tooley, d/b/a Tooley Automatic Transmission Service 03S01-9810-CV-00118
Authoring Judge: Howell N. Peoples, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Richard R. Vance,
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 employee appeals the dismissal of his claim for workers' compensation benefits. The trial court found (1) that Thomas Richard Cate was not acting in the course and scope of his employment with Charles Tooley d/b/a Tooley Automatic Transmission Service (hereafter "Charles Tooley") when he was injured, and (2) that Mr. Cate failed to give the required statutory notice of the injury to his employer. We affirm.
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
Judy Ann Walker v. Kingston Warren Corporation and Hartford Casualty Insurance Company 03S01-9902-CV-00025
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Ben K. Wexler, Circuit Judge
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 trial court awarded plaintiff, Judy Ann Walker, 56% permanent disability benefits to the body as a whole. In ruling on the issues, the court found plaintiff had sustained two ruptured discs and held the first injury was compensable but the second injury was not work-related. The employer, Kingston Warren Corporation, has appealed insisting the trial court was in error in holding the first ruptured disc was work-related and also raising a notice question regarding the first injury. The employee also appeals arguing the award for the first injury should be increased and that the second injury was work-related. We have carefully examined the record and must conclude the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the trial court. Plaintiff was 5 years of age and had been working for Kingston several years. She was assigned to new work duties about two weeks before the day in question. The new job required her to operate a molding machine. She stated the machine was new and it was difficult to open and close and it involved a great deal of movement of her arms to operate it correctly. She testified that on Friday, April 26, 1996, while working at the machine, she began to experience pain in her back; she started perspiring and became nauseated. She testified she finished the work shift and was not feeling any better as she left work; that she thought she had a kidney infection as she had these same symptoms before with an infection of this nature. Plaintiff testified that upon reaching her home, she could not get out of the car and she sounded the horn until her husband came out and assisted her into the house. At this time she said she was having severe muscle spasm along with back and leg pain. On Monday, April 29, 1996, she stated she called the company nurse and told her she was sick and that she had started having a backache at work but thought she just had a kidney infection. Sometime later she applied for short- term disability insurance benefits and indicated on the application the event was not work- related. 2
Dexter Williams vs. State E1999-00871-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young
Blount
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Laconia Lamar Bowers E1999-00170-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Baumgartner
Knox
Court of Criminal Appeals
Lana R. Woods v. Modine Manufacturing Company 03S01-9807-CH-00143
Authoring Judge: Howell N. Peoples, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Jean A. Stanley
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. Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225(e)(2); Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial courts in workers' compensation cases. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). At the time of trial, the plaintiff was 24 years of age. He had a high school diploma and some college hours. Prior to working for the defendant, the plaintiff worked as a salesperson in retail stores.
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
Oca Crai v. Thomas & Betts Corporation 03S01-9903-CV-00026
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Lawrence Puckett,
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 employer, Thomas & Betts Corporation, has appealed from the action of the trial court in awarding plaintiff, Oca Crain, 1% permanent disability to her right foot. The only issue is whether the 1% award to the foot is excessive. Mrs. Crain sustained a work-related injury on July 9, 1996, when a forklift truck ran over her foot and then backed up and ran over the foot a second time. She was 63 years of age at the time of the accident and 65 years old at the time of the trial. She completed the 1th grade and had worked for defendant for about 27 years. At the time of her injury, she was working as an "assembler" which required standing on her feet most of the time. After being off work for about three months, she returned to light duty work. The defendant attempted to accommodate her work restrictions and changed her job to a "bagger" which permitted her to sit down and afforded her an opportunity to elevate her injured foot. She worked at this job for about nineteen months until she fell at home and injured her shoulder. At the trial below, she had not returned to work and did not think she could return. She testified that after returning to work from the foot injury, she still had problems with her foot such as pain, swelling, tingling toes and numbness; that she had to keep her foot elevated 75% of the time and that her production rate was not at the required level; that she could not do her housework, mow her yard and many other things she enjoyed doing before the accident. She said she had planned to continue working as long as she could as her income was limited since she lived by herself. Plaintiff came under the care of Dr. William J. Drury, an orthopedic surgeon, who testified by deposition. He saw her eleven times during the seven month period of treatment. Dr. Drury testified she had a severely crushed foot with fractures of two toes; that the fractures did not heal and probably would not heal properly due to poor circulation in her foot; that this resulted because blood vessels were severely damaged and surgery would not be helpful. His prognosis was that although the bad 2
