Workers' Compensation Opinions

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of the findings of fact and conclusions of law. The issues of this case are as follows: (1) whether the trial court erred in finding medical causation; and (2) whether the trial improperly denied employer's motion in limine to exclude the testimony of George Barnard and Dr. David Bradley Seitzinger. We find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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 trial court found the employee failed to prove his chronic lung problems were related to his occupational exposure. We affirm.

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) (2003) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court determined that the plaintiff-employee suffered a 60% vocational disability to her right upper extremity and a 30% vocational disability to her left. From these determinations, the trial court awarded a 45% disability to both hands. The defendant-employer asserts that the trial court award was excessive under the facts and applicable law. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court

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 to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court determined that the employee retained a 28% permanent disability to both arms. The employer asserts that the evidence presented at trial shows that the employee suffered no injury to his left arm in 2001. Additionally, the employee asserts that the amount of vocational disability awarded is inadequate. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I respectfully dissent from the opinion filed by the other members of the Panel.

Mr. Thetford had a pre-existing arthritic condition. I find the evidence presented in this case preponderates against a finding that his pre-existing condition was advanced and anatomically changed by his work for Tower.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to this panel in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law.  The employer insists the award of 15% whole body disability is against the preponderance of the evidence since the treating physician found no impairment. We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the award and affirm the judgment of 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. This case was previously before the Panel in Foster v. Morrow Trucking, et al, No. W2002-0041-WC-R3-CV (Foster I). In that appeal, the Panel remanded the case to the trial court for specific findings of fact regarding the percentage of disability that would have resulted from employee’s November, 1999 injury without consideration of his pre-existing diabetic neuropathy. Upon remand the trial court fixed the permanent partial disability resulting from the November, 1999 work related injury at 50% to the body as a whole without any consideration of his pre-existing disease. As discussed below, the Panel concludes that the evidence does not preponderate against that finding and, accordingly, affirms the judgment of the trial court.

TThis workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to this 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. Employee appeals the trial court’s finding of no permanent disability as being against the preponderance of the evidence and asserts error in the admission of medical evidence due to leading questions. We find the trial court did not commit harmful error in overruling objections to leading questions propounded to the medical expert. We further find that the finding of no permanent disability is against the preponderance of the evidence and fix the employee’s permanent disability at 30% to the left leg.

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. In this appeal, the plaintiff/employee insists the trial court erred in disregarding the testimony of Dr. Jay Segarra, the plaintiff’s medical expert and in making a conditional award of only 10 percent to the body as a whole. The employers contend the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the opinion testimony of Dr. Segarra because Dr. Segarra is not licensed in Tennessee and because the doctor committed a crime by providing medical service to the plaintiff in Tennessee. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the trial court committed no reversible error and that the evidence fails to preponderate against the findings of 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. In this appeal, the employer insists the trial court’s award of disability benefits based on a percentage of disability to the hand is excessive because there was no evidence of any unusual or extraordinary effect on the hand. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the evidence fails to preponderate against the findings of 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. _ 5-6- 225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court awarded the 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 the employee 55 percent permanent partial disability for the loss of one arm and one leg, a combined scheduled injury, without separately computing each scheduled injury award.  Defendants insist it was error to award benefits in this manner. Judgment of the trial court is affirmed.