Please enter some keywords to search.
| Jack v. Delany
03S01-9808-CV-00077
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer contends (1) the employee failed to give notice of her injury, (2) the claimant's injury did not arise out of the employment relationship and (3) the award of permanent partial disability benefits is excessive. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The claimant initiated this action on May 23, 1997 to recover workers' compensation benefits for her injuries. By its answer, the employer admitted the claimant had, in December of 1995, "complained of an injury to her right arm," but denied "that she complained of an injury to her left arm." It affirmatively averred that it provided her with a panel of three physicians, from which she chose Dr. Randall Robbins; and that Dr. Robbins treated her, referred her to other specialists, and performed surgery on her in April of 1996. The employer did not raise the issue of lack of written notice in its answer. The case was tried on May 29, 1998, when, according to the judgment, the only issues submitted to the trial court were "the extent of permanent, partial disability to be awarded to the plaintiff's right arm and whether the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment for a permanent, partial disability to the left arm, and whether the defendant should reimburse unto the plaintiff and her attorney a portion of the pretrial expenses incurred in preparing this matter for trial, and whether Roger L. Ridenour should receive his attorneys fees in a lump sum." After a trial, the court awarded, inter alia, permanent partial disability benefits based on eighty-five percent to the right arm and sixty percent to the left arm, which equates to or seventy-two and one-half percent to both arms. We have reviewed the case 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, as required by Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). The employee or claimant, Ms. Russell, is fifty-two years old with a tenth grade education and experience as a factory assembler, first at Burlington Hosiery, then Robbins Seat Belt Company, then at Oliver Springs Apparel and finally with this employer, Advance Transformer Company. She gradually developed disabling pain in both arms, but has continued to work. 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. James B. Scott, Jr., |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/24/99 | |
| Fann v. Advance Transformer Co.
03S01-9811-CH-00124
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. Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6- 225(e)(2); Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court in a workers' compensation case. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). The trial judge found the plaintiff had suffered 4 percent permanent partial disability to both upper arms. The defendant raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial judge erred in awarding disability benefits against the defendant and (2) whether the award of disability benefits to the plaintiff was contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. We affirm the judgment. The plaintiff began employment with the defendant in July or August of 1996. The plaintiff used computers, calculators, typewriters, word processors, fax machines, copiers, forklifts, micrometers, calipers, and other gauges in various jobs he performed for the defendant. In November 1996, the plaintiff began to experience problems with his hands. Dr. Cletus J. McMahon treated the plaintiff and in July 1997 did carpal tunnel surgery on both arms. After the surgery, the plaintiff returned to work for the defendant but was laid off two days later. The plaintiff was not recalled when other employees were recalled to work by the defendant. 2
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Frank V. Williams, III, |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/24/99 | |
| Woods v. Modine Appeal
03S01-9807-CH-00086
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with T.C.A. Section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The plaintiff, Doug Black, appeals a determination that his disability is limited to 35 percent to the leg because of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The defendant, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (carrier for Roadway Express), asserts the award is excessive in that plaintiff sustained no vocational disability. Both parties assert there is no legal basis for the trial court to retain jurisdiction to modify the award if a court determines that the ADA does not apply. We agree that the result of a separate proceeding under the ADA has no bearing on the disability of the employee and accordingly modify the award. Doug Black was employed by Roadway Express as an over the road truck driver. On September 22, 1995, he injured his left leg as he was exiting his truck. Dr. Joe Luna, an orthopedic surgeon, treated the injury, found torn cartilage in the knee, and did arthroscopic surgery. After the surgery, Mr. Black continued to have mechanical symptoms and giving-away of the leg. In July 1996, a MRI revealed a possible torn anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). Mr. Black had returned to work and postponed further surgery until November 1996. Dr. William L. Johnson, a partner of Dr. Luna, did a reconstruction of the torn ACL. Mr. Black recovered well from the second surgery, but had a cartilage deficit on the weight- bearing surface of the bone and underwent a third surgery for debridement and drilling of that region of his knee. Dr. Johnson testified, by deposition, that Mr. Black has an 18 percent permanent impairment to his leg as a result of the injury; the only permanent work restriction placed on him was that "he should have a cruise control on his truck, and that was primarily as a safety issue in controlling the foot pedals." Dr. Howard Brown, also an orthopedic surgeon, saw Mr. Black on May 22 and June 23, 1997 for a second opinion. Dr. Brown opined that he has a 1 percent permanent medical Black v Liberty Mutual Page 2
Authoring Judge: Howell N. Peoples, Special Judge
Originating Judge:The Honorable |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/24/99 | |
| Dana Story v. Legion Insurnace Company
02S01-9807-CH-00075
Authoring Judge: J. Steven Stafford, Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Joe C. Morris, |
Madison County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/20/99 | |
| Sonny Luther Johnson v. Transportation Unlimited, Inc.
01S01-9804-CH-00079
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the defendant or employer, Transportation Unlimited, insists the trial court erred in
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Jim T. Hamilton |
Johnson County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/20/99 | |
| John Matthews v. American Manufacturers Mutual Inc. Co.
02S01-9809-CH-00085
This workers' compensation appeal was referred to the Special W orkers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _5-6- 225(e)(3) (Supp. 1998) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. This case was tried on June 25, 1998. The trial court found that the plaintiff suffered a work-related injury on June 27, 1997, and awarded the plaintiff forty-five percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The court stated that the plaintiff's present disability, whether due to a heart attack or from heart disease, was caused by the exertion and strain of lifting fifty-pound buckets in 9-degree weather in the course of his employment duties. The defendant, American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company, has appealed the trial court's decision. After a careful review of the record, we find that the judgment of the trial court must be reversed. At the time of trial, the plaintiff, John Matthews, testified that he was 47 years of age, had a bachelors degree in archeology, and had completed approximately one-half of his studies toward a masters degree in anthropology and archeology. Before pursuing his studies in archeology, the plaintiff did carpentry work, served in the military, and was employed as a service writer for a tire company. After receiving his degree in archeology, the plaintiff was employed by Brockington and Associates, the defendant's insured, as an archeologist from February of 1997 until the alleged injury in June of 1997. At the time of trial, he was working as an instructor at a job-training facility for the handicapped. On Friday, June 27, 1997, the plaintiff was working outside with his supervisor at the site of a proposed guitar company in a heat index of 14 degrees. Their job was to uncover archeological artifacts by removing five-gallon buckets of mud, weighing forty to fifty pounds each, from a six-foot deep trench. The plaintiff recalled that he was perspiring heavily. At approximately 3: p.m., the plaintiff felt a tightness with a little pain below his collarbone and was short of breath. Thinking that it was the heat, he took breaks to cool off and continued to work after drinking some water. He testified that he had no prior history of chest pain or heart disease. He was able to finish the day's work, and the chest pain eased by approximately 6: p.m. Over the weekend, the plaintiff worked in the yard 2
Authoring Judge: L. Terry Lafferty, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Joe C. Morris |
Henderson County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/07/99 | |
| Jimmy C. Wardlaw v. Standard Coffee Service Co., Etc.
02S01-9807-CV-00063
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 found that the plaintiff's injury arose out of and in the course and scope of his employment, resulting in a twenty-five percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. We affirm.
Authoring Judge: L. Terry Lafferty, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Kay S. Robilio, Judge |
Shelby County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/07/99 | |
| Imogene Dixon v. State
03S01-9810-BC-00111
Authoring Judge: Howell N. Peoples, Special Judge
Originating Judge:The Honorable |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | 08/30/99 | |
| Rita L. England v. Cigna Insurance Co.
01S01-9804-CH-00082
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Originating Judge:Hon. Irvin H. Kilcrease |
Davidson County | Workers Compensation Panel | 08/30/99 | |
| Jones v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.
03S01-9806-CV-00057
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 insurance carrier, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, has appealed the trial court's award of 6% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. Since the award did not result in invoking any provision of the second injury fund statute, T.C.A. _ 5-6-28, the case against the state fund was dismissed. The trial commenced on August 16, 1996 and continued through several hearings until a final hearing on March 6, 1998. While there were many issues at the trial stage, the appeal only involves two issues. The insurance company contends (1) the evidence preponderates against the award of 6% permanent disability and (2) the evidence preponderates against the trial court's ruling that the employee was entitled to temporary total disability benefits up to December 1, 1997. We have carefully examined the lengthy record and are of the opinion the judgment entered below should be affirmed. The employee, Robert Jones, sustained a work-related back injury on July 2, 1994 when he fell from standing on a five gallon barrel or drum. At the date of the initial hearing, he testified he was 4 years of age, had a G.E.D. certificate and had received some vocational training. He contends he sustained physical and mental injuries as a result of the accident. Prior to the accident in July 1994, plaintiff had received several warnings concerning unexcused absences from work and was eventually terminated after the accident during March or April 1995. He told the trial court he had missed several days work due to doctor visits and upon returning to work was told he did not have authority to be absent and he was terminated. He stated he had not worked since the termination and that he was not able to work; that he still endured a lot of pain and felt he was 1% disabled. His testimony also indicates that after the accident in question, he became separated and divorced from his wife, lost his house due to a fire and was caring for his two small children. 2
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. John J. Maddux, |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | 08/27/99 | |
| M. S. Carriers, Inc. v. William Oringe
02S01-9804-CV-00042
This workers' compensation appeal was referred to the Special W orkers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6- 225(e)(3) (Supp. 1998) for a hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The plaintiff/counter-defendant employer in this case, M.S. Carriers, Inc., originally filed a petition against the defendant/counter-plaintiffemployee, William Oringe, requesting a dismissal of Mr. Oringe's workers' compensation claim for an injury that the company alleged was not work-related. Mr. Oringe filed an answer and counter-complaint for benefits against the company. To avoid confusion on appeal, we will refer to Mr. Oringe as "the claimant" and to M.S. Carriers, Inc., as "the employer." The case was tried on March 9, 1998. The trial judge found that the claimant failed to prove that his injury arose out of and in the course of employment with M.S. Carriers, Inc., on January 16, 1997. The claimant presents several issues on appeal that can be summarized as follows: (1) Whether the trial court erred in allowing a computer printout surrounding the date in question to be used in the testimony of David Work, the claimant's supervisor at the time of the accident; and (2) whether the trial court erred in finding that the claimant did not sustain a work-related injury. After a careful review of the record, we find that the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed. At the time of trial, the claimant testified that he was a 33-year-old high school graduate with some vocational training in welding and truck driving, as well as experience as a supply clerk in the National Guard. He worked for the employer, M.S. Carriers, Inc., as an over-the-road truck driver from October of 1991 until January of 1997. In addition to driving a truck, the claimant was responsible for loading and unloading various types of cargo at their destinations. He testified that he had sustained two previous injuries to his back while working for the employer. The first injury occurred in 1993 or 1994 and healed normally. The second injury occurred on October 18, 1996, while the claimant was unloading a refrigerator from a truck with a two-wheeler, and his back "popped." He was treated by his family physician, Dr. James R. Jacobs, who referred him to a neurosurgeon, Dr. Gregory F. Ricca. An MRI revealed a bulging disc, and the claimant was released from 2
Authoring Judge: L. Terry Lafferty, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. James F. Russell, Judge |
Shelby County | Workers Compensation Panel | 08/27/99 | |
| Brenda Rainey v. Cleo, Inc.
02S01-9802-CV-00018
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. Plaintiff, Brenda Rainey, has appealed from the judgment of the trial court denying her claim for workers' compensation on the grounds that she failed to carry her burden of proof that she sustained a work-related injury in the course and scope of her employment and that she sustained a permanent anatomical impairment as a result of a work- related injury. On appeal, the only issue presented by the plaintiff is whether the evidence preponderates against the judgment of the trial court. For the reasons hereinafter stated, we find that it does not, and, therefore affirm the trial court's judgment. At the time of trial, the plaintiff testified she was a single mother with two adult children, an eighth grade education, and a previous work history consisting of factory jobs and a nursing home position. The plaintiff testified she worked for the defendant as a bow inspector in November, 1995. The plaintiff's job was to watch 2-3 gift bows go by on a conveyor belt and "pick them out." While observing the conveyor line and bows, the plaintiff testified that her hands began hurting, and she notified her supervisor/line leader.1 The line leader replied, "Well, you'll be okay," and told the plaintiff that the absence would count against her if she left work. The plaintiff had previously complained about her left wrist while employed with another employer. She was seen by Dr. James Crenshaw and treated with wrist bands and medication. On November 4, 1995, the defendant notified the plaintiff that she was being laid off and subsequently closed the factory without notice. The plaintiff testified she was not furnished a panel of physicians from the defendant's compensation carrier until her attorney got approval for her to see Dr. Michael Cobb. The plaintiff lived in Humboldt, Tennessee, and Dr. Cobb's office was in Jackson, Tennessee. The plaintiff testified that 1In her complaint, the plaintiff stated that the date of injury was November 11, 1995, and the defendant's answer acknowledged that notice of an injury was given on November 4, 1995. Plaintiff later amended her complaint to allege the injury was gradually occurring with the last occurrence on November 11, 1995. 2
Authoring Judge: L. Terry Lafferty, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. C. Creed Mcginley, Judge |
Hardin County | Workers Compensation Panel | 08/27/99 | |
| Michael Paul Watson v. Plumley Rubber Co., Inc., Itt Hartford Ins. Grp.
02S01-9807-CV-00067
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 defendant, Plumley Rubber Company, Inc., and its workers' compensation insurance carrier, ITT Hartford Insurance Company, have appealed from a judgment of the trial court awarding plaintiff workers' compensation on the basis of twenty- five percent permanent partial vocational disability to both arms. On this appeal, the defendants present three issues: (1) whether the plaintiff sustained a compensable injury; (2) whether the trial court erred in ordering the employer to pay for unauthorized medical expenses when the plaintiff refused a panel of physicians offered him; and (3) whether the trial court's award is excessive. After a careful review of the record, we find that we must affirm the judgment of the trial court. The plaintiff testified that he was born August 2, 1955 and was the father of two minor children living at home. He had a high school education and, through Army training, was qualified as a biomedical repairman and in aircraft maintenance. He worked in maintenance for Plumley on two occasions: from 1987 to 199 and then from 1993 to June 12, 1996. He testif ied that, while working for Plumley, he did various types of work. He changed molds, as well as working on machines and setting up machines. He worked with lasers and robots. He testified that he worked "ten, twelve, sixteen hours" each day. He testified that he used wrenches constantly, loosened and tightened bolts. He tightened small bolts and large bolts, and much of this work was strenuous. He testified that he had no difficulty with his hands before he went to work for Plumley in 1993. Around June 15, 1995, while breaking a bolt loose, he felt his right wrist "give." The plaintiff testified that he reported this incident to his supervisor, and the supervisor sent him to Dr. Terry O. Harrison, a panel doctor for the defendant. Dr. Harrison diagnosed the plaintiff's condition as carpal tunnel syndrome and told him to use his left hand to perform his job. The plaintiff testified that he complied with Dr. Harrison's 2
Authoring Judge: F. Lloyd Tatum, Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Julian P. Guinn, |
Henry County | Workers Compensation Panel | 08/23/99 | |
| Ladonna Moore v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
02S01-9806-CH-00056
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 is an appeal by the employee/plaintiff, LaDonna Moore, from a decision of the Chancery Court of Madison County holding that plaintiff failed to prove that her carpal tunnel syndrome arose out of and in the course of her employment for defendant's insured, Latham's Meat Market. On this appeal, she presents two issues: (1) the preponderance of the evidence established that her carpal tunnel syndrome was causally related to her work for Latham's Meat Market, and (2) the last injury rule is applicable, in that the defendant is liable for the carpal tunnel injury, even if her injury may have begun at a former employment. After reviewing the record, we find that the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed. The plaintiff testified that she was 31 years of age and was working at that time for Pierce Distribution Company. She had a tenth grade education. She first had symptoms with her left arm in the early 199s while working for Ekco/Glaco, where she assembled bread pans that involved repetitive type work with her hands. She testified that her left hand went numb and that it felt like a sprain to her wrist. She went to her family doctor, Dr. Murphy, and missed about one week of work. She saw Dr. Murphy two or three times before he sent her to a nerve specialist. A brace was prescribed for her left arm. When she was released by her doctor to return to work, she left the employment of Ekco/Glaco "because [her] wrist was still bothering her," and she "felt she couldn't do the job" due to her wrist pain. After working at several other jobs without difficulty, she began working for Latham's Meat Market in 1993 as a "cashier, cook, just anything." She testified that she cooked, made and wrapped sandwiches, wrapped meat, washed dishes by hand, used a can opener, and sliced ten pounds of potatoes, two bags of carrots, and six or seven onions each day. She testified that she began having problems with her left hand after working at 2
Authoring Judge: F. Lloyd Tatum, Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Joe C. Morris, |
Moore County | Workers Compensation Panel | 08/23/99 | |
| Glenda Johnson v. North Park Hospital
03S01-9803-CH-00031
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special W orkers' 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. Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6- 225(e)(2); Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court in a workers' compensation case. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). The trial judge found the plaintiff to be permanently disabled and ordered payments to be made until the plaintiff reaches the age of 65 years. This case has some convoluted proceedings in the trial court, as well as in the filing of the appeal. However, the essential matters for us to determine are whether the trial judge's finding that the plaintiff suffered permanent vocationaldisability and whether the trial court properly ordered the defendant to pay a medical bill in the amount of $7,84.6.1 We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. R. Vann Owens, |
Johnson County | Workers Compensation Panel | 08/19/99 | |
| Joseph D. Mcewen v. Herman Jenkins Motors, Inc
02S01-9804-CH-00041
Authoring Judge: J. Steven Stafford, Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. William Michael Maloan, |
Obion County | Workers Compensation Panel | 08/13/99 | |
| Clara Scruggs v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
W1999-01092-SC-WCM-CV
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special W orker's Compensation Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-225(e) for a hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court, in its findings of fact and conclusions of law, determined that the plaintiff had a gradually occurring injury, and the statute of limitations was not tolled when she gave sufficient notice on September 29, 1997, the date of her lawsuit. Likewise, the trial court found the plaintiff suffered a thirteen (13) percent permanent partial disability to each upper extremity.1 We will determine if the record supports the trial court's conclusions. The defendant presents three appellate issues for review: 1. Whether the trial court erred in holding that the plaintiff's claim was not barred by expiration of the statute of limitations? 2. Whether the trial court erred in holding that the plaintiff incurred a permanent impairment? 3. Whether the trial court's disability award was excessive? Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2); Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court in a workers' compensation case. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). However, considerable deference must be given to the trial court, who has seen and heard the witnesses, especially where issues of credibility and weight of oral testimony are involved. Jones v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 811 S.W.2d 516, 521d (Tenn. 1991). After a review of the record in this cause, the briefs of the parties and appropriate law, we AFFIRM the trial court's judgment. 1The correct method of assigning disability in a case like this is give one rating to both arms, rather than to each arm. However, in this case, the result is the same as that reached by the trial court. 2
Authoring Judge: L. Terry Lafferty, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Joe C. Morris |
Madison County | Workers Compensation Panel | 08/13/99 | |
| Clarice Talley v. Sumner County, Tennessee
01S01-9807-CH-00143
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Originating Judge:Hon. J.O. Bond |
Sumner County | Workers Compensation Panel | 08/09/99 | |
| Ronalt Tate v. Travelers Ins.
03S01-9809-CH-00106
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Originating Judge:Hon. Frederick D. Mcdonald |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | 08/04/99 | |
| Ronald Vandergriff v. Nat'L. Service
03S01-9807-CH-00079
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 plaintiff 75 percent permanent partial impairment to the body as a whole. The defendant says the evidence preponderates against this finding. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.1 Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6- 225(e)(2); Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court in a workers' compensation case. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). On November 16, 1994, while in the course of his employment with the defendant, the plaintiff sustained a back injury. The plaintiff had a previous back injury in 1992 and was paid workers' compensation benefits in the amount of 7 percent to the body as a whole. The resolution of this appeal depends upon the evaluation of the value of the medical testimony, which was given by deposition. In a findings of fact and memorandum of law, the trial judge reviewed the findings of Dr. William Kevin Bailey, an orthopedic surgeon, who saw the plaintiff twice after taking over the plaintiff's case upon the death of Dr. John Bell, the original treating physician. The trial judge also reviewed the findings of Dr. Gilbert L. Hyde, an orthopedic surgeon, who saw the plaintiff for purpose of evaluation, and the testimony of Norman E. Hankins, a vocational expert. 1 The Second Injury Fund was originally a defendant. The Fund was dismissed in the trial court. 2
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. H. David Cate, |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | 08/04/99 | |
| Deborah Barnes v. Rittenhouse
03S01-9804-CV-00043
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 employer, Rittenhouse, Inc., has appealed from the trial court's award of permanent disability to each arm. The award was fixed at 75% to the right arm and 6% to the left arm. The employee, Deborah Barnes, was 46 years of age and is a high school graduate. She had worked for Rittenhouse for a number of years when she began to develop numbness and tingling in her hands. She was diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and had surgery on each hand. After some period of recovery, she returned to work and was working at the time of the trial. She testified that surgery helped to some extent but she was still experiencing problems especially with her right hand. She said she still had a great deal of pain, finger numbness and trouble holding objects unless she used both hands. She said she could not do much housework and that co-workers assisted her in performing work duties. She also complained that her treating doctor (Dr. Ambrosia) did not want to listen to her about what her work duties required and that he released her to return to work without notifying her about the release and that he also released her to return to work without any physical restrictions. The medical notes of Dr. John M. Ambrosia were filed in evidence. He performed the surgical procedures on each hand and gave a 4% medical impairment to each arm. His medical notes seem to support plaintiff's contention she was released to work without any restrictions on her work activity. Dr. Wayne C. Page, a family practice doctor specializing in occupational medicine, examined plaintiff. He testified by deposition and gave a diagnosis of (1) bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome with residual symptoms and (2) tendinitis, hands and wrists. He opined she had 36% impairment to her right arm and 28% impairment to the left arm. He was also of the opinion she should not do any repetitive tasks with her hands and imposed restrictions of lifting, etc. 2
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Rex Henry Ogle, |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | 08/04/99 | |
| C. Douglas Gibson v. Morristown Drivers
03S01-9806-CV-00064
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 employee, C. Douglas Gibson, has appealed from the action of the trial court in dismissing his claim for permanent disability benefits. The sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence preponderates against the conclusion of the trial court. Plaintiff was 47 years of age and had completed the 9th grade. He was employed by defendant, William Gibson, as a truck driver. On August 9, 1995, he fell while descending from his truck. He testified he felt immediate pain in his low back and felt it resulted more from the twisting movement of his body rather than the impact with the ground. He reported the incident to his employer, saw a doctor shortly thereafter and was eventually seen by several doctors between the date of the accident and the trial during September 1997. Plaintiff's wife and daughter testified as to his physical limitations since the incident and the record indicates plaintiff never returned to work for defendant. Dr. Christopher R. Morris, a physician specializing in internal medicine and rheumatology, first saw plaintiff on October 24, 1995 and found some tenderness in his back muscles but thought he had a good range of motion. He saw him on several occasions and testified by deposition stating that all studies (x-ray and C.T. Scan) were normal. He felt his back pain was of a chronic nature and opined he had some permanent impairment but did not have an opinion as to any percentage of impairment. Dr. John M. Marshall, a physical medicine and rehabilitation doctor, first saw plaintiff on December 6, 1995 upon referral by Dr. Morris. He testified by deposition and stated there were no positive findings from his examination and the various studies performed. He was of the opinion he probably had a strain which would eventually clear up. He could not relate any of his symptoms to the incident at work and stated there was no permanent impairment. 2
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Ben K. Wexler, |
Gibson County | Workers Compensation Panel | 08/04/99 | |
| Linda Gray v. Tn Restaurant Assoc.
03S01-9807-CH-00075
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. Plaintiff, Linda Gray, has appealed from the action of the trial court in dismissing her claim by sustaining a motion for summary judgment filed by defendants. The complaint alleges plaintiff was injured on June 26, 1995, while on the business of her employer, when she was severely burned by hot coffee and that the burn caused permanent physical injury and psychological injury. The summary judgment record consists of the plaintiff's deposition, numerous expert medical depositions of doctors seeing plaintiff both before and after the event in question, and other records. Plaintiff's deposition states that on June 26, 1995, while at her business office, she realized she had left a map at home which she needed to assist her in obtaining a city permit to build a gazebo for weddings; that while she was in route to obtain the map, she stopped at a McDonald's restaurant to purchase coffee; that she remembered getting the coffee and putting it in a coffee holder in her car and then "going back to the road and making a right turn on the main road to Pigeon Forge and then I started feeling sick and I pulled over and that's all I remember until I get to Vickie's office." She stated she had not worked since being injured and that she is not able to work. The record indicates there was no eyewitness to the event and she had been treated for epileptic-like seizures and psychological difficulties prior to the time in question and she continues to experience such problems. Plaintiff contends there is medical evidence in the record indicating she spilled the coffee on herself and then blacked out as a result of the pain produced by the coffee spill; that when the record is considered in its most favorable light to her, summary judgment should not have been granted; and that the trial court was in error in weighing evidence in order to reach its conclusion. Defendants contend she had an idiopathic seizure and then spilled the coffee as a result of the seizure; that the court acted properly in sustaining the motion as 2
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Teleford E. Forgety, |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | 08/04/99 | |
| Scott Mckeehan v. White Cons.
03S01-9806-CH-00056
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. Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6- 225(e)(2); Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court in a workers' compensation case. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). The trial judge found the plaintiff sustained an accident in July 1988 and was 1 percent permanently vocationally impaired. As a result, the defendant was ordered to pay 96 percent of the award and the Second Injury Fund was ordered to pay 4 percent of the award. The plaintiff appeals and asserts the date of the industrial accident should be fixed as August 25, 1995. The defendant and the Second Injury Fund appeal also and say the trial court erred in finding the plaintiff 1 percent totally and permanently disabled. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The plaintiff, Scott McKeehan, was 37 years old at the time of the trial. Mr. McKeehan has a high school education and received a special vocational course through his employer, Athens Products. He has an employment history of heavy manual labor. In 1987, Mr. McKeehan injured his back in an automobile accident, and surgery for a herniated disc was done. No workers' compensation award was sought because this was a non-work related injury. Mr. McKeehan testified that he reinjured his back on July 2, 1988 while tightening a bolt in the course and scope of his employment. An MRI performed at that 2
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Earl H. Henley, |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | 08/02/99 | |
| John O. Peoples v. A&M Express, Inc. & Lumbermen's Underwriting Alliance
01S01-9801-CH-00007
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Originating Judge:Hon. Tyrus |
Bedford County | Workers Compensation Panel | 07/27/99 |