Workers' Compensation Opinions

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated
section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and
conclusions of law. The trial court awarded Plaintiff 100 percent permanent disability. On appeal,
Defendants contend the trial court erred in (1) finding Plaintiff’s stroke was work-related, (2) in
awarding Plaintiff 100 percent disability, and (3) in allowing medical expenses for treatment at the
VA Hospital. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Panel in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to
the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Chancellor determined that the
plaintiff was permanently and totally disabled as a result of his work-related injury. The defendant
appeals, arguing that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s determination of disability. After careful review of the record and applicable authorities, we find no error and affirm the judgment.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated
section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and
conclusions of law. The defendant, Corrections Corporation of America, has appealed the trial
court’s award of 60% whole body impairment to the plaintiff, Mr. Craven. Corrections Corporation
of America contends that the trial court erred in finding that Mr. Craven sustained a compensable
psychological workers’ compensation injury, in permitting Dr. Randall Moskovitz and Dr. David
Strauser to testify as experts, and in finding that Mr. Craven gave proper notice of the work-related
injury. Corrections Corporation of America also contends that the award of temporary total  disability benefits was in error and that the award of 60% permanent partial impairment to the body as a whole was excessive. After carefully considering the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. We remand the case for a determination of the personal representation of Mr. Craven and a determination as to the effect of his death on the award.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated
section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and
conclusions of law. The trial court awarded the Employee 85 percent permanent partial disability
as a result of metal poisoning at his workplace. The Employer contends the action should be
dismissed because notice of injury was not timely given and because the evidence was insufficient to establish causation of injury. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court awarded the plaintiff 76 percent permanent partial disability to the body as whole and 39 additional weeks of temporary total disability benefits. On appeal, the defendant contends that the award of permanent partial disability was excessive; that the award of temporary total disability was not warranted; and the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of a vocational expert. After carefully reviewing the record and applicable authorities, we find no error and affirm the judgment.

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 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employee insists the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding that he knew or should have known he had a compensable injury more than a year before the action was commenced. As discussed below, the Panel concludes that the evidence preponderates against the finding of the trial court. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated
section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and
conclusions of law. On appeal, the employee contends that the trial court erred in granting the
employer’s motion for summary judgment with regard to the employee’s back injury claim based
upon the expiration of the statute of limitations. The employee further contends that the trial court
erred in dismissing her carpal tunnel claim at the conclusion of trial after finding that the claim was untimely and that the employee failed to provide the employer with proper notice. We conclude that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment regarding the employee’s claim for her back injury because there are material issues of fact as to when the employee leaned of the nature and extent of her back injury and the relationship of the injury to her work activity. We further conclude that the employee met the statute of limitations and notice requirements with regard to her carpal tunnel injuries. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer's insurer insists the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the employee's injury was not proximately caused by intoxication from the use of an illegal drug, marijuana. The panel has concluded the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated §50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employer contends the trial court erred in (a) finding employee’s claim for latex allergy to be compensable, (b) failing to impose liability on a subsequent employer, and (c) awarding 50 percent vocational disability. We affirm.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer insists the evidence preponderates against the trial court's findings as to causation and extent of permanent partial disability. The employer further insists the claim should have been dismissed by the trial court because the injured worker failed to give timely written notice. We conclude the trial court’s judgment should be affirmed.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated
section 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law.
William Eric Brewer suffered a work-related injury December 17, 2001, while employed at the
Courier Chronicle. The Hartford, the defendant, is the workers’ compensation insurance carrier
of the employer and has litigated this case in its individual name. The defendant contends that the
trial court erred when it failed to find that Mr. Brewer’s injury was proximately caused by his
voluntary intoxication. After carefully considering the record, we affirm the trial court and
conclude that the defendant failed to prove that the voluntary intoxication was a proximate cause
of Mr. Brewer’s accident.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated
section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and
conclusions of law. The plaintiff, Phillip Brow, has appealed the trial court’s dismissal of his
workers’ compensation claim. He contends that the trial court erred when it failed to award him
workers’ compensation benefits as a result of a fall at work that he contends aggravated a
pre-existing shoulder condition. After carefully considering the record, we affirm the judgment of
the trial court.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Tennessee Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found the plaintiff was an independent contractor and dismissed his complaint. The trial court further denied the counter-complaint of Travelers Insurance Company and dismissed Travelers Insurance Company's third party complaint against Joey Helton a/k/a Joey Hilton. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, and we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated §50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee contends the trial court erred in finding that he made a meaningful return to work requiring the award to be capped at two and one-half times the medical impairment. We modify the award.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court in accordance with the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Defendant Second Injury Fund has appealed the findings of the trial court, which determined that the Employee is entitled to recover permanent total disability until age sixty-six. We find that Employee is not permanently and totally disabled, and we therefore modify the decision of the trial court.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer insists the evidence preponderates against the trial court's findings that the employee’s back and arm injuries were causally related to his work The employer also insists the trial court erred in making a single award for separate accidental injuries occurring at different times. As discussed below, the Panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed in part and remanded to the trial court for separate awards for the back and hand injuries.

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 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Appellee/Plaintiff, Timothy L. Bingham ("Employee"), alleges that while on a boy scout camping trip he received a tick bite, resulting in Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever ("RMSF"). Employee was diagnosed with severe septic shock, pancreatitis, necrosis in the foot, acute renal failure, dehydration, hepatitis B, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and HIV. The trial court found Employee's medical condition of acute pancreatitis was caused by the tick bite and that Employee was totally and permanently disabled. Appellant/Defendant, Chickasaw Council, Boy Scouts of America ("Employer"), appeals challenging the ruling of the trial court upon the grounds that medical evidence preponderates against the findings of the trial court. We find the evidence preponderates against the findings of the trial court and reverse the trial court.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court findings of fact and conclusions of law. Kenneth Bialecke was killed in a car wreck while going to work early one morning. His widow and minor children sued his employer and its insurance carrier seeking workers' compensation death benefits. After hearing the proof presented at trial, the Chancellor dismissed the cause of action, finding that Mr. Bialecke's death did not arise out of and did not occur in the course of his employment, because the fatal accident occurred as the employee was on his way to his place of employment and, therefore, he had not yet begun his work day. After carefully reviewing the record and applicable authorities, we conclude that the Chancellor's judgment should be affirmed.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated
section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and
conclusions of law. In 1999 the Employee injured his cervical spine and was awarded benefits,
including lifetime medical benefits. During the succeeding years he experienced various problems with his neck. In May 2003, the Employee struck a bay pole while operating a tow motor and claims an injury to his neck as a result of this incident. The treating neurosurgeon, Dr. Zellem, testified that the Employee suffered no new injury. An independent medical examiner, Dr. George Gaw, testified that the tow motor incident was a new injury. The trial judge accepted the opinion of Dr. Zellem and dismissed the Employee’s complaint. We affirm the judgment of the trial judge.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated
section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and
conclusions of law. In this appeal, the appellants contend that the trial court erred in finding that the employee is permanently and totally disabled and in refusing to limit the employee’s aware to 400 weeks. We conclude that the record supports the trial court finding of permanent and total disability. Therefore, under the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(4)(A)(I) (Supp. 1996), total disability benefits are payable to age sixty-five without regard to the monetary cap imposed by the 400-week maximum total benefit provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(a)(6) (Supp. 1997). We further conclude that the trial court’s allocation of the
responsibility for the payment of these benefits between the employer and the Second Injury Fund
was proper. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated Section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer insists the trial court erred in finding that the claimant gave proper notice of his injury, in finding the claimant suffered an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the defendant and in awarding permanent partial disability benefits based on thirty percent to the body as a whole. The Panel has concluded the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated
section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and
conclusions of law. The Employee asserts that the trial court erred in finding that she did not sustain injuries arising out of and in the course and scope of her employment with Employer as a result of an incident occurring on December 14, 2000, and also asserts that the trial court erred in assessing court costs against her. We agree with the findings of the trial court and affirm the judgment.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated §50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions
of law. The trial court dismissed the complaint finding Plaintiff had failed to establish he suffered
an aggravation of a pre-existing fracture to his left wrist. On appeal, Plaintiff argues the medical
evidence preponderates against the court’s dismissal of the action. Defendant seeks recovery of
discretionary costs and also seeks to have the costs of preparing the transcript of the evidence taxed as appellate costs. We affirm the dismissal of the action and remand the issue of discretionary costs to the trial court.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court awarded plaintiff thirty (30) weeks of permanent disability for the loss of his right, great toe. On appeal, the employee contends that his injury was not limited to the scheduled member but that he is entitled to an award of permanent, partial vocational disability to the body as a whole. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.