Richard Lee Bennett v. Bridgestone, U.S.A., Inc. 01S01-9710-CH-00236
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. James Weatherford,
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 issue in this case is whether the trial judge properly dismissed the complaint owing to the failure of the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of all the evidence that his disability was job-related. 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). I The complaint alleged that the plaintiff experienced a `work-related event' in November 1994 which worsened a `progressively deteriorating back disease.' He is 44 years old and has worked at Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. continuously from 1985 through April 2, 1996. The onset of back problems was traced to 1988, with no history of a specific injury at any time. On November 5, 1994, he was working in the curing department at Bridgestone when he suddenly could not lift any more tires. At his request, his supervisor helped him complete his work that shift, and he took a vacation day the following day. No particular event or incident caused his inability to work, although two days earlier he had presented himself at the Health Unit at Bridgestone, where he gave a history of back pain for three years and that the pain originally began on "4/11/88." Four days later he again visited the Health Unit for ongoing back pain. Plaintiff first saw Dr. Gregory Lanford on November 14, 1994, to whom he gave a history of three years of back pain with no precipitating trauma. He 2
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
Sandra Gail Holmes V Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. 01S01-9710-CH-00237
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Robert E. Corlew, III
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 sought workers' compensation benefits for plantar fasciitis, which she alleged was caused by standing on a concrete floor at work for twelve hours shifts. The defendant argued that plantar fasciitis is not caused by standing for long periods and therefore plaintiff's job did not cause her condition. The trial court, in a comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion, found the preponderance of the evidence proved the condition to be work-related and awarded benefits, which the defendant appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Sandra Gail Holmes ["Employee"] began working for Bridgestone ["Employer"] in 1987. Her job as a tire builder consisted of twelve hour shifts during which she stood on a concrete floor on a 1/4" rubber mat while building tires. She was not permitted to sit unless she was on break. In 1994 she began complaining of her feet, and on August 22, 1994, requested medical treatment at work owing to burning pain shooting through her heel and arc of her left foot, up through the calf muscle, and lesser symptoms in her right foot. The employer's on-site physician, Dr. Flynn, sent her to Dr. Mark Christofersen, an orthopedic surgeon, whom employee testified she saw once, for ten or 15 minutes, on September 1, 1994. Dr. Christofersen examined employee and found excellent joint motion and no swelling but with tenderness to palpation at the origin of the plantar fascia and arch on the left and to a lesser extent on the right. She had been on a 2
Rutherford
Workers Compensation Panel
Richard May v. Liberty Mutual Insurance & Southern Manufacturing 01S01-9709-GS-00193
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Barry Medley
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. Richard May filed this complaint alleging permanent partial disability after a mold dropped on his left hand at work, causing a crush injury. The trial court found he had sustained 45% permanent partial disability to the left arm and awarded temporary total, permanent partial, mileage and medical benefits, as well as discretionary costs. Southern Manufacturing Group ["Southern"] appeals and presents for our review the issues of (1) whether the preponderance of the evidence supports a lesser amount of permanent partial disability, and (2) whether the weekly benefit rate should be $24.76 rather than $226.52. On May 6, 1996, Mr. May was injured while working for Southern when his hand was crushed between two halves of a large metal mold weighing approximately 15 pounds. He notified his employer immediately and went to see Dr. Gregory Wiley, whom he selected from the employer's list of approved physicians. After a brief period of conservative treatment, Dr. Wiley referred Mr. May to Dr. Ramotsumi Makhene, a board-eligible plastic surgeon who also practices reconstructive surgery with a subspecialty in hand surgery. Dr. Makhene saw Mr. May on July 31, 1996 and noted swelling of his left hand and a nodule on the back of his hand above the knuckle, along with limited range of motion. He diagnosed tendinitis and prescribed a splint, anti- inflammatory medication, and occupational therapy. 2
Warren
Workers Compensation Panel
Danny E. Ray v. The Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company 01S01-9710-CH-00223
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Lee Russell
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. I The plaintiff seeks an enlargement of a prior award for workers' compensation benefits, as allegedly provided by T.C.A. _ 5-6-241(a)(2). The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted. Appeal from a summary judgment order in a workers' compensation case is not controlled by the de novo standard of review, but is governed by Rule 56, Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Downen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 811 S.W.2d 523 (Tenn. 1991). Further, no presumption of correctness attaches to decisions granting summary judgment because they involve only questions of law; thus on appeal the reviewing court must make a fresh determination concerning whether the requirements of Rule 56 have been met. Gonzales v. Alman Constr. Co., 857 S.W.2d 42 (Tenn. 1993). II The petitioner suffered a sprained shoulder on November 11, 1994, during the course of his employment by Kantus Corporation. He sustained a seven percent permanent partial impairment as a result of the accident and returned to work after recuperation. His claim for benefits for partial permanent whole body disability was settled on the basis of 17.5 percent, or seventy weeks, arrived at by multiplying his anatomical impairment by 2.5, as directed by T.C.A. _ 5-6-241(a)(1). The settlement was approved on June 3, 1995, upon the joint petition of Kantus Corporation and its insurer, The Yasuda Fire 2
Marshall
Workers Compensation Panel
Kenneth M. Ward v. Tangent Industries 01S01-9710-CH-00235
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Don R. Ash
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 issues are whether the leg injury suffered by the plaintiff was properly apportioned to the body as a whole and whether the Court correctly ordered the award to be paid in a lump sum. A non-issue is whether the trial judge properly awarded interest on the judgment.1 The plaintiff is a 41-year-old single man whose testimony that he finished eighth grade was so suspect as to move the Chancellor to observe "I don't mean to disrespect you Mr. Ward, [but] you probably don't have an eighth grade education," and who is by virtue of that fact and other limitations capable only of basic manual and menial labor. On December 8, 1993 during the course of his job, a heavy bundle of steel fell from a forklift and crushed his left leg and foot. He was initially treated by Dr. Charles Emerson of Murfreesboro, and later by Dr. Joe Luna of Maryville, which was made necessary because he moved to the home of his sister in Blount County. Dr. Luna referred the plaintiff to Dr. Turner, under whose care he remains. To comply with an order to prosecute, the plaintiff was evaluated by an independent medical examiner, Dr. Steven C. Weissfield, on July 28, 1997, who graphically described the crushing injury. Reduced to the necessary, the leg bones were multi-fractured, refused to heal, pieces of them were removed subsequently, screws and pins were inserted; the lower portion of his leg filled with fluid which the experts could not alleviate. Four or more 1Much of the oral argum ent was given over to the propriety of the Court's action in awarding statutory interest on the "full amount," which the Court did not do. The issue of interest was neither raised nor addressed by the trial Court. The subject appeared, for the first time, in the brief of the appellee. 2
