Sharon Gail Jones v. Modine Manufacturing Company and Sentry Insurance Company 03S01-9703-CV-00028
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. James B. Scott,
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 appeal has been perfected by defendants, Modine Manufacturing Company and Sentry Insurance Company, from a decision of the trial court awarding plaintiff, Sharon Gail Jones, 45% permanent partial disability to her right arm. Two issues are being raised by the employer and insurance company. First, it is argued the award is excessive. Second, it is insisted the trial court was in error in holding defendants liable for charges and expenses of Dr. Paul T. Naylor, an orthopedic surgeon. Plaintiff is 42 years of age and a high school graduate. During September 1995 she began to have problems with her hand and arm tingling and being painful. She reported the problem to her employer and was sent to see Dr. R. Alan Rice, a family practitioner. Dr. Rice eventually referred her to Dr. Joseph C. DeFiore, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. DeFiore saw her three times. One visit was during November 1995 and the other two visits were during December of the same year. Plaintiff testified that all he did was to give her a cortisone shot and advised her to return to light duty work. She returned to work but still had the same problems. At her last visit, she said he advised her to change jobs and released her. The doctor testified she had a carpal tunnel syndrome injury and was of the opinion she had no medical impairment. He admitted releasing her and recommending that she should not do repetitive work as she had performed in the past. Plaintiff testified she was laid-off about January 1996 and was never called back to work. During this month, counsel filed a motion requesting her employer to designate a panel of three orthopedic surgeons for treatment. Plaintiff continued to have problems with her injury while off from work and sought treatment from Dr. Paul T. Naylor, another orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Naylor saw her three times also: April 18, 1996, September 19, 1996 and October 14, 1996. He also found she was suffering from a carpal tunnel syndrome injury and told plaintiff that surgery was necessary to relieve some of her problems. The doctor was 2
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
Jacqueline Marie Redden v. Synthetic Industries and The Home Insurance Company 03S01-9703-CV-00025
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Arnold A. Stulce, Jr.
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. This appeal has been perfected by plaintiff, Jacqueline Marie Redden, from the trial court's decision in declining to increase an original award of 2% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole after a reconsideration hearing conducted pursuant to the provisions of T.C.A. _ 5-6-241(a)(2). Plaintiff contends the evidence preponderates against the finding of the trial court. Defendants, Synthetic Industries and The Home Insurance Company, argue the evidence before the court was insufficient to support an increased award. The facts are not in great dispute. Employee Redden sustained a work- related injury on August 9, 1992, while pushing a dolly loaded with yarn. The injury was to her low back. A final decree was entered in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County on January 19, 1995, approving a settlement agreement providing for a 2% permanent partial disability award to the body as a whole. Since the accident occurred shortly after the effective date of the 1992 amendments to the W orkers' Compensation Act and the employee had returned to work at a wage equal to or greater than that received before the accident, the award was capped at 2 _ times the medical impairment rating of 8%. Upon returning to work, plaintiff was given a job "reeling denies", which she testified involved hooking yarn to a machine and was lighter duty work. However, this job was only of a temporary nature. Later she was asked if she could do office work to which she replied she could perform. A job of this nature never materialized. She was later offered a job "doffing" and was told that this was all the company had to offer. The job involved considerable physical activity and defendant employer sent her to see a physical therapist for the purpose of determining whether she could perform the required duties of bending, lifting, etc. The therapist concluded she was not able to do this type of work because of her injury. Since there was no other job available that she could handle with her restrictions, she was eventually terminated. The record is silent as to the exact termination date but it was sometime during or after February, 1995. 2
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
Larry Sizemore v. City of Dickson 01S01-9701-CV-00022
Authoring Judge: William Michael Maloan, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Allan Wallace,
This workers' compensation appeal from the Dickson County Circuit Court 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. In this appeal, the plaintiff contends the panel should reverse the trial court's grant of summary judgment. We conclude summary judgment to be appropriate and affirm the trial court. The plaintiff, Larry Sizemore, is a policeman for the City of Dickson. He was on vacation for approximately two weeks when he sustained a heart attack while watching television at home on August 15, 1994. The plaintiff filed suit for worker's compensation benefits specifically relying on the statutory presumption of compensability afforded law enforcement personnel in T.C.A. _7-51- 21, which states: ...there shall be and there is hereby established a presumption that any impairment of health of such law enforcement officers caused by hypertension or heart disease resulting in hospitalization, medical treatment or any disability, shall be presumed (unless the contrary is shown by competent medical evidence) to have occurred or to be due to accidental injury suffered in the course of employment.... The defendant answered and denied the plaintiff had sustained a compensable injury. The defendant further filed a motion for summary judgment supported by portions of depositions of the plaintiff and of Dr. Taylor Malone Wray who gave the following testimony: A. My opinion is there is no causal relationship between his work as a police officer and his subsequent heart attack. Q. Do you have an opinion within a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to what did cause his heart attack? A. Well, the heart attack was caused by coronary atherosclerosis, which is a buildup of fatty plaque in the heart arteries. The plaintiff responded with the counter affidavit of Dr. Marshall Crenshaw which states, in part: Mr. Sizemore's coronary artery disease developed in the setting of several risk 2
Karen Farmer v. Zurich-American Insurance Co. 01S01-9706-CV-00135
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Ernest Pellegrin,
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 alleged that during the course of her employment by Porter Paints she contracted asthma, an occupational disease, which resulted in partial, permanent physical disability, all of which was denied by the defendant. The trial judge found that the plaintiff suffered occupational asthma, causing her to be 5 percent permanently partially disabled and benefits were awarded accordingly. The issue presented for review is whether the finding of job-related asthma is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. I The plaintiff was initially employed by Porter paints in 1991 as a decorator. About one year later, she was transferred to a Broadway store in Nashville, which catered to commercial customers. This store prepared two- part industrial paints, referred to as epoxies, one part of which, hythane, contained a chemical known as hexamethylene diisocyanate [HDI]. an isocyanate. In 1993, the Broadway store compounded a large quantity of hythane for a customer who had contracted with Vanderbilt University to paint its stadium. The plaintiff became ill, attended by coughing and wheezing, shortness of breath and congestion. Her family physician diagnosed bronchitis, prescribed antibiotics, and recommended absence from work for one week. Upon her return, she experienced a severe episode of wheezing and shortness of breath and was instructed to leave the store. She was thereupon referred to a pulmonary specialist, Dr. Eric Dyer, who made a tentative diagnosis of asthma caused by exposure to TDI, an isocyanate commonly found in paints. 2
Davidson
Workers Compensation Panel
Carl W. Sides v. Insurance Company of North America 03S01-9703-CV-00031
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.,
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 suit and alleged he had sustained permanent impairment to his eyes as the result of an injury in the course of his employment with the defendant. The trial judge awarded the plaintiff a recovery in the amount of 3% permanent partial disability to both eyes. The defendant says the evidence preponderates against the judgment of the trial court. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The plaintiff was age 6 at the time of trial. He had a high school education and was trained as a machinist and welder. The plaintiff alleged he was injured by a welding arc on or about February 5, 1993. The plaintiff did not see a doctor until some three days after the alleged injury, when he was sent by the defendant to Dr. Louis Haun, an ophthalmologist. Dr. Haun was of the opinion the plaintiff had not been injured by a welding arc. Dr. Haun suspected the plaintiff's eye problem was caused by exposure to chemicals and inquired of the plaintiff concerning exposure thereto. From this time, the case was tried by the plaintiff and defendant on the theory that the plaintiff was suffering from a condition known as dry eyes.1 The evidence of whether the injury to the plaintiff's eyes was causally connected to the exposure to chemicals at work is based upon the testimony of the plaintiff and three doctors. The plaintiff testified that after Dr. Haun asked him to remember whether he had been exposed to any chemicals at work, he recalled coming into contact with chemicals specifically in the course of fluidizing a piece of equipment called a bed, which is used in the manufacturing process. 1 The plaintiff never filed an amendment to his petition to aver his injury was caused by chemical exposure. However, both parties tried the case on the theory of whether a chemical exposure did or did not cause the plaintiff's dry eyes. See Rule 15.2 Tenn. R. Civ. Proc. 2
Order on Petition To Rehear Upon consideration of the petition to rehear filed by the appellants Davey Joe Vineyard and Jimmy Lee Cockburn, this Court is of the opinion that the petition should be and the same is hereby denied.
