Geyer vs. Geyer 01A01-9707-CH-00372
Trial Court Judge: Gerald L. Ewell, Sr.
Coffee
Court of Appeals
Dennis O'Neal Milligan v. Ten-State, Inc . 02S01-9612-CV-00110
Authoring Judge: Robert A. Lanier, Circuit Judge
Trial Court Judge: Lanier, Judge
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated Section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. On or about July 9, 1993, while employed by the defendant, the claimant was attempting to move a mobile home with the assistance of fellow employees when his foot slipped and he was caused to twist and fall to his knee. He felt a burning sensation in his lower back shortly thereafter and reported this to his supervisor. The company referred him to a Dr. Howard Thomas, who in turn referred him to Dr. R. J. Hornsby. In the course of his examinations and treatments by these physicians, he underwent not only an MRI, an EMG and nerve conduction study, but also an epidural block and myelogram, which gave him a severe spinal headache. Because he continued to complain of pain in the low back upon examination, he was also evaluated by a physical therapist, who reported, ". . . he was totally inconsistent in every test and no impairment was noted that was consistent." (Notes of Dr. Hornsby). No permanent disability rating was given by either Dr. Hornsby or Dr. Thomas. However, claimant was referred by his attorney on October 4, 1994 to Dr. Robert Barnett, for an evaluation. Dr. Barnett saw him one time. Dr. Barnett said that he "thought that he had some lumbar radiculopathy, probably aggravation of preexisting degenerative changes." Dr. Barnett was also of the opinion that the claimant has a permanent impairment of ten percent (1%) of the whole body. When asked what the opinion was based upon, the doctor replied, Medically documented injury with the pain and stiffness, with some radiculopathy, and some limited motion, [giving a reference to the AMA guides]. (Deposition of Dr. Barnett, page 9). The doctor was then asked whether or not the history of claimant injuring himself in July of 1993 on the job "was consistent" with his diagnosis of lumbar radiculopathy and a ten percent (1%) permanent impairment to the body as a whole. The doctor 2
Freddie Jane Cook v. Monroe Farmers Coop. 03S01-9707-CV-00090
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Earl Murphy,
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 resulted from a decision of the trial court to dismiss the complaint. The Circuit Judge found the employee had failed to establish she had sustained an injury as a result of her work activities on January 12, 1994. Plaintiff, Freddie Jane Cook, age 55 years, had been employed by defendant, Monroe Farmers Cooperation, for about 6 _ years. She worked as a cashier which involved waiting on customers, stocking, etc. On the day in question, she was walking through a door carrying a gasoline can when she stepped on the threshold board of the door and lost her balance causing her to twist her body. She testified her knees buckled but she did not fall to the floor. She reported the incident to her employer and was referred to a doctor who returned her to work. She continued to work until about January 22. On January 28th she was admitted to a hospital for treatment of depression and anxiety. She remained in the hospital for about thirteen days. She testified the incident at work caused her to suffer neck, arm and knee pain. On cross-examination she admitted having prior problems with depression and anxiety. She said she found it stressful waiting on customers and dealing with her boss; that on occasion she became so nervous she would get physically ill at work and have to stay at home a day or two; that she had sexual and emotional abuse during childhood; had been involved in a series of abusive marriages; she was presently dealing with a husband who had been unfaithful and had a drinking problem; she had been subject to a criminal assault by a step-daughter and she had been convicted of an aggravated assault of a prior husband's girlfriend. Plaintiff's psychiatrist, Dr. Jeffrey D. Greenwood, testified by deposition. He had seen her for several years prior to the incident at work. He stated he hospitalized her during January 1994 for recurrent depression and generalized anxiety problems which was the same diagnosis as in previous visits. When asked if the incident at work was the proximate cause of her hospitalization, he declined to say it was but preferred to say it was "related" to her hospitalization. He was of the opinion the marital infidelity was a large part of the reason for hospital treatment. He also felt her problems with other family members, the history of abuse, etc. all related 2
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
Gwendolyn Sue Mulkey v. Palm Beach Company 03S01-9706-CV-00069
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Harold Wimberly,
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 the employee, Gwendolyn Sue Mulkey, from a decision of the trial court resulting in a dismissal of the complaint. The Circuit Judge found the employee had failed to establish she had sustained an injury as a result of her work activities on August 13, 1993. Plaintiff, age 42 years, had worked for defendant, Palm Beach Company, for a number of years. She was engaged in sewing work when she said she was lifting a bundle of coats and felt something pull in her neck. Later the same day, she testified she was lifting above her head and felt a pull in her low back. She went to see a doctor furnished by her employer and was returned to light duty work. She continued working until January 31, 1994, when she was terminated because the employer concluded there was no work available under the restrictions imposed by the doctor. She eventually found other employment and was working 2-22 hours a week as a janitor. She testified this type of work caused her neck and back to hurt. The record indicates that she had sustained several work-related injuries in previous years and had been treated for a rib injury, a carpal tunnel syndrome injury and a shoulder injury. All of the expert medical testimony was by deposition. Dr. Jonathan N. Degnan, an orthopedic surgeon, first saw plaintiff on March 17, 1994, which was about seven months after the activities in question. He testified she complained of neck pain on the initial visit but did not complain of low back problems until the September 1994 visit. He found degenerative disc disease which was not work-related. He gave her a 9% impairment to the body as a whole and related the injury to her work duties upon the assumption the history given to him was accurate. In giving the history, she told the doctor she had recovered from all prior injuries and was not suffering from neck and back pain before August 1993. Dr. Robert E. Finelli, a neurosurgeon, testified he had treated plaintiff for some of her prior injuries. He saw her during March 1993 (about 5 months before incident) and she had complaints then of neck and arm pain. He next saw her on 2
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
Freda Pack v. Cigna Property & Casualty Co. 03S01-9706-CV-00066
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. W. Dale Young,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with T.C.A. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Because arthritis is not an occupational disease and is normally not caused by trauma but is part of the aging process and thus not within the ambit of the Workers' Compensation Law, this case is not without its difficulties as a matter of law. The plaintiff is 54 years old and at the time of trial had been employed by the defendant in a non-skilled position for 17 years. she has a litany of health problems not relevant to this case, which arises from a job-related accident on October 24, 1991 and a second job-related accident on October 5, 1993, involving injuries to her left knee. The first accident occurred when the plaintiff twisted her left knee in a misstep. She was treated by a panel physician who referred her to an orthopedic specialist, Dr. Bryan Smalley, who diagnosed an internal derangement of hr knee and performed a diagnostic arthroscopy on December 9, 1991. Because her rehabilitation was slow, the plaintiff was referred to Dr. William Hovis, who also performed an arthroscopy which diminished pain and soreness. She returned to work with limitations on climbing or kneeling. On July 9, 1993, Dr. Hovis opined that the plaintiff had a five percent disability to her left leg due to the aggravation of an arthritic condition. As stated, the plaintiff suffered another injury to her left leg on October 5, 1993 when she slipped while pushing a heavy buggy causing her to hyper- extend her left knee in a backward manner. For this injury she was treated by Dr. William K. Bell, an orthopedic surgeon in Maryville. He found that the 2
