Joseph Craig v. Murray Guard, Inc., et al. 01S01-9612-CH-00251
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Walter C. Kurtz,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer and its insurer contend the injury did not arise out of the employment and that the award of permanent partial benefits is excessive. The employee contends the award is inadequate. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The employee or claimant, Joseph Craig, was sixty-eight years old at the time of the injury. He has a college degree in engineering but has never been employed in that field. On March 12, 1995, while working as a security guard for Murray, he slipped and fell to a linoleum floor, fracturing his left hip. The employer's contention is that the injury is not compensable because the proof does not establish that there was any slippery substance on the floor. The injured hip was surgically repaired by Dr. Daniel Phillips, who assigned no permanent impairment or limitations. Another orthopedic surgeon, Dr. John McInnis, examined the claimant and opined he would retain a permanent impairment of five percent to the whole body and advised that the claimant limit his activities to minimal squatting and walking and not more than two or three hours of standing per day. The claimant returned to work on May 5, 1995 at his previous salary. The trial court found the injury to be compensable and awarded permanent partial disability benefits based on five percent to the body as a whole. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6- 225(e)(2). Where the trial judge has seen and heard the witnesses, especially if issues of credibility and weight to be given oral testimony are involved, considerable deference must be accorded those circumstances on review. McCaleb v. Saturn Corp., 91 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1995). In a workers' compensation case, the claimant is not required to establish any degree of fault by the employee, merely that the injury resulted from an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. An injury arises out of the employment when there is apparent to the rational mind, upon a consideration of all the circumstances, a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and the resulting injury. Fink v. Caudle, 856 S.W.2d 952 (Tenn. 1993). The employer's contention that the fall was idiopathic is based entirely on the circumstance that no slippery substance was found on the floor where the claimant fell. The claimant was alone at the time and was not found 2
Davidson
Workers Compensation Panel
Abigail Hackett v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, et al. 01S01-9701-CH-00003
Authoring Judge: Robert S. Brandt, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. C. K. Smith,
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 of findings of fact and conclusions of law. This case presents the issue of whether permanent partial disability ("PPD") awards of 5% and 25% are excessive in light of anatomical disability ratings of 12% and 5%. We conclude that the awards were not excessive and affirm the trial court's decision. The employee/appellee, Abigail Hackett, slipped and fell while coming off her shift at her employer's factory. She suffered extensive injury to both knees. Dr. Robert Landsberg, the orthopaedic surgeon who operated on her knees, testified that she had a 12% impairment in her left leg and a 5% impairment in her right leg. Hackett, age 44, has a GED and has worked in the past as a maintenance worker, school bus driver and sewing machine operator. As a result of the injuries to her knees, she can no longer perform these jobs. After the surgery, Hackett returned to work as a fork lift driver. The employer, G.F. Office Furniture, has accommodated her disability by modifying assembly line procedures. The trial court awarded Hackett a lump sum of $41, 35.5, which represented a PPD assessment of 5% to her left leg and 25% to her right leg. The employer/appellant argues that the trial court's award was excessive 2
Wilson
Workers Compensation Panel
Brenda Gail Howell v. Murray Ohio Manufacturing Co. 01S01-9609-CH-00176
Authoring Judge: Robert A. Lanier, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. James L. 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. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellant employer insists (1) the award of permanent partial disability benefits based on sixty percent to the body as a whole is excessive, (2) the trial court applied an incorrect compensation rate, and (3) the trial court erred in commuting the award to a lump sum. The lump sum issue was withdrawn during oral argument. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the award of permanent partial disability benefits and the compensation rate should be modified. Because both issues are fact driven, appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(2). This tribunal is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
Hardeman
Court of Criminal Appeals
Jerel Hughes v. Dept. of Correction M2001-00074-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
Petitioner, a state inmate, filed the underlying action seeking review of actions taken by the Tennessee Department of Correction and the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole, including the decision of the Board to deny parole and set the next parole hearing two years later. Petitioner had been convicted of an additional felony while on parole from a previous felony conviction. The trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
Glover v. Philips 03S01-9607-CV-00076
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Ben K. Wexler,
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, who was 38 years of age at the time of this trial and who has a meager education, testified she fell over a fan on September 15 or 16, 1993 while working for the defendant and injured her back. The trial judge awarded 31% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. We affirm in part and reverse in part. The plaintiff testified she told her supervisor at the time of the fall that she was injured. The supervisor denied he received this report. The dispensary nurse at the plant notes that on September 16 at 3:45 p.m., the plaintiff came to the dispensary and complained of back pain which, the note showed, was reported to be the result of a fall three years previously. There is no indication the nurse in the dispensary referred the plaintiff to an approved physician for treatment or evaluation of work injuries. The entry shows the plaintiff was sent home and ordered to take Advil for the pain. On September 17, 1993, the plaintiff was seen by Dr. Stanley of the Takoma Medical Group. Medicine for pain and muscle relaxers were prescribed for the plaintiff. The plaintiff was next seen in March 1994 by the group, then June 13, 1994, July 2, 1994, October 4, 1994, November 1, 1994 and March 1995. The testimony concerning the plaintiff's treatment and depression was given by Dr. Richard J. Aasheim, a family practitioner. The testimony reveals the plaintiff had a plethora of ailments, many attributable to her general physical condition, which showed a person 5'2" who weighed more than 18 pounds and was moderately obese. We need not go into great detail concerning the overall medical findings concerning the plaintiff. The pertinent parts of the doctor's testimony for the purpose of this case is his finding the plaintiff had lower back pain and muscle spasm as a result of the fall she related to him, with underlying chronic back pain prior to the fall. He testified that the fall aggravated and advanced pre-existing chronic back pain. 2
