WORKERS COMPENSATION PANEL OPINIONS
| Donald Groton, Etc. v. Traverlers Insurance Co. 01S01-9607-CV-00154 Authoring Judge: Robert S. Brandt, Senior Judge Trial Court Judge: Hon. Bobby Capers, 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 Court is once again called upon to decide wither an injury sustained en route to work is compensable. We conclude that it is not and reverse the trial court's finding that it is. Regrettably, this case involves more than an injury. Donald Groton died from injuries he sustained in a car wreck while traveling to work on January 14, 1994. He worked for John Coleman Hayes, P.C. an engineering firm under contract with Nashville's airport authority to supervise noise abatement modifications being made to homes in the Antioch and Donelson neighborhoods close to the airport. Groton was one of two inspectors who examined the work of the contractors. He used his own vehicle in his work. The employer paid Groton mileage for driving from the office to job sites and from one job site to another. The employer did not pay Groton for driving from his home to the office or to the first job site of the day if Groton went there first. Likewise, the employer did not pay Groton for travel away from the office or from the last job site at the end of the work day. On the date of the accident, Groton did not report for duty at either the office or a job site as usual. James Michael Smith, John Coleman Hayes's construction manager, called Groton the day before and instructed him to go to a job site of a sister company, John Coleman Hayes Construction Company. Smith needed some surveying work done and Groton knew how to do it. -2- |
Wilson County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Franklin Hartsell v. Dallas & Mavis Forwarding Co., et al. 01S01-9608-CH-00164 Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge Trial Court Judge: Hon. Ellen Hobbs Lyle, 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, age 54, suffered a job-related myocardial infarction on March 1, 1994. A coronary arteriogram revealed an 8% blockage of his left anterior descending artery which was alleviated by an angioplasty procedure which reduced the blockage to less than 15%. Conservative treatment followed, and he was released to return to full employment on January 1, 1994. From that day forward, the plaintiff has worked steadily and without incident. In July 1991, the plaintiff was hospitalized with chest pains. A cardiac catheterization was performed, which revealed a serious lesion in his left circumflex coronary artery at the left ventricular ridge, with another lesion in his left anterior descending coronary artery. After the 1994 infarction, the lesion in the left anterior artery was substantially worsened. The employer insists that the award is excessive because it was improperly onerated with liability for impairment resulting from pre-existing coronary artery disease. Liability for benefits resulting from impairment as a consequence of the myocardial infarction is conceded. The dispositive issue at trial was the extent of the plaintiff's partial permanent disability. The Chancellor found that the plaintiff had a 5% permanent partial disability and awarded benef its accordingly. Our review is de novo on the record, accompanied by the presumption that the trial court's judgment is correct unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. T.C.A. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). The treating physician, Dr. K.P. Channabasappa, testified that the plaintiff's impairment was 29%, which may be extrapolated to Category II of the AMA Guidelines. He stated in a pre-deposition letter that "it is 29%" and on direct examination testified that the impairment was 29%. There was no countervailing testimony offered. 2 |
Franklin County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Margaret Ann Scruggs v. National Health Corp. 01S01-9504-CH-00052 Authoring Judge: John Maddux, Special Judge Trial Court Judge: Hon. Tyrus H. Cobb, 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. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. The plaintiff, Margaret Ann Scruggs, injured her neck on December 25, 1991, while employed as a nurse's aid by the defendant, National Healthcorp, L.P., d/b/a/ Merihil Health Care Center, Inc. The plaintiff, was 52 years old at the time of trial. She did not finish the seventh grade. Her employment history consists of working as a private sitter and in various restaurants and factories. She has had training as a nurse's aide. Plaintiff was first treated for her work-related neck injury by Dr.Kenneth J. Phelps. She informed Dr. Phelps that she was experiencing pain from her neck that was radiating down into her left arm causing loss of grip strength in her hand. Dr. Phelps confirmed plaintiff's complaint of pain and loss of grip strength, scheduled physical therapy and imposed lifting restrictions. Dr. Phelps continued to see plaintiff through October, 1992, because she continued to complain of symptoms similar to those she had complained of after the accident. She also indicated she had additional problems such as pain down her back and into her left leg, spasms in her back, difficulty sleeping and panic attacks. From January of 1993 through January of 1994, plaintiff was treated by Dr. Richard Fishbein, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Fishbein diagnosed plaintiff as 2 |
Marshall County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Michael Siniard v. Saturn Corporation 01S01-9609-CV-00175 Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge Trial Court Judge: Hon. Jim T. Hamilton, 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, age 43, remains employed by Saturn Corporation, where he began in 199. He developed carpal tunnel syndrome in both wrists in 1994 and was provided with splints, medication, and access to physical therapy. In time the plaintiff was referred to Dr. James W iesman, an orthopedic surgeon, who performed a carpal tunnel release on his right hand. He returned to work for Saturn which assigned him a job not involving repetitive use of his hands. The plaintiff filed this complaint seeking benefits for a permanent partial disability occasioned by the asserted impairment caused by the carpal tunnel syndrome. The trial judge awarded benefits based on a finding of ten percent permanent partial disability to his right arm. The plaintiff appeals, insisting the award is inadequate for the reasons hereafter discussed. The treating physician testified that the release surgery was successful and that the plaintiff retained a two (2) percent impairment to his right arm. The plaintiff was referred by his attorney to Dr. David W. Gaw, also an orthopedic surgeon, for evaluation. Dr. Gaw saw the plaintiff only on one occasion. He conducted various tests and concluded that the plaintiff had a ten percent permanent partial impairment to his right arm. He disdained as unauthorized by the AMA Guides an evaluation of two (2) percent impairment as found by Dr. Wiesman. Our 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 finding, 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 584 (Tenn. 1991). The plaintiff criticizes Dr. Wiesman for his alleged failure to use the AMA Guides. While Dr. Wiesman apparently was not enamored by the Guides, he testified that "I used those Guides," and that "I did the impairment rating based on 2 |
Maury County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Smith County | Workers Compensation Panel | |||
| Carrier Air Conditioning, et al. v. Henry Maguffin 01S01-9607-CV-00135 Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge Trial Court Judge: Hon. Gerald L. Ewell, Sr., 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 employee or claimant, Maguffin, contends the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that he did not suffer an injury by accident. The panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The claimant was working for Carrier in August of 1993 when he sprained his wrist while operating an air gun, thereby aggravating a pre- existing fracture, or "non-union of the scaphoid bone." His wrist swelled and he felt immediate pain. He received first aid from the company nurse, but continued to work. Almost a year later, because of continuing complaints of pain, he was referred by the employer to an orthopedic surgeon. The doctor operated and returned the claimant to work with some restrictions. In his deposition, the doctor opined that the injury aggravated the pre-existing condition by increasing pain, but did not create any permanent anatomical change. The surgeon was properly paid by the employer. The trial court found that the claimant had not suffered an injury by accident as contemplated by the Workers' Compensation Act. 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). Under the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Law, injuries by accident arising out of and in the course of employment which cause either disablement or death of the employee are compensable. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-12(a)(5). An accidental injury is one which cannot be reasonably anticipated, is unexpected and is precipitated by unusual combinations of fortuitous circumstances. See Fink v. Caudle, 856 S.W.2d 952 (Tenn. 1993), and cases cited therein. An employer takes its employee with all pre-existing conditions, and cannot escape liability when the employee, upon suffering a work related injury, incurs disability far greater than if he had not had the pre-existing condition; Rogers v. Shaw, 813 S.W.2d 397 (Tenn. 1991); but if work aggravates a pre-existing condition merely by increasing pain, there is no injury by accident. Townsend v. State, 826 S.W.2d 434 (Tenn. 1992). The undisputed medical proof from the operating surgeon is that this claimant's aggravation of a pre-existing condition merely increased his pain 2 |
Coffee County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Clarence Wayne Dunn v. Sequatchie Concrete Services, et al. 01S01-9606-CV-00121 Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge Trial Court Judge: Hon. Lee Russell, 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 is seeking review of the findings of the trial court with respect to the following issues: (1) Whether the employee's claim against it is barred by Tenn Code Ann. section 5-6-23, a one-year statute of limitations1; (2) Whether the claim should be disallowed for the employee's failure to give timely written notice of his claim, as required by Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-21; (3) Whether the appellee was an employee of the RDF at the time of the injury; (4) Whether the award of permanent partial disability benefits is excessive; and (5) Whether the trial judge abused his discretion by commuting permanent partial disability benefits to a single lump sum. The employee contends the appeal is frivolous. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The employee or claimant, Dunn, is thirty-eight years old and has an eighth grade education. He has a commercial driver's license and has worked as a truck driver for some ten years. He gradually developed a ruptured disk in his lower back while driving a truck owned by the employer, RDF Transportation, Inc. After back surgery, he returned briefly to work for the appellant but resigned because the work exceeded his medical limitations. As to issues (1) through (4), this appeal turns on factual determinations. Appellate review is therefore 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. |
Wayne County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Patricia Dunn v. H.D. Lee Co. 01S01-9604-CH-00061 Authoring Judge: Per Curiam Trial Court Judge: PER CURIAM This case is before the Court upon motion for review pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 50-6-225(e)(5)(B), the entire record, including the order of referral to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel, and the Panel's Memorandum Opinion setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law in dismissing as untimely plaintiff's claim for workers' compensation benefits. |
Lincoln County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Warren County | Workers Compensation Panel | |||
| Randy F. Shadden v. ITT Hartford Ins. Co., et al. 01S01-9607-CH-00148 Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge Trial Court Judge: Hon. Billy Joe White, 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's insurer, Hartford, argues (1) the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the employee or claimant, Shadden, suffered a work related injury, (2) the evidence preponderates against the trial court's award of permanent total disability benefits and (3) the trial court erred in awarding medical expenses not disclosed in response to discovery requests and not "properly proven at trial." The Second Injury Fund (the Fund), which was made a party by an amended complaint, contends the evidence preponderates against the trial judge's finding that the claimant is permanently and totally disabled. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. As a result of a previous compensable injury in 1984, while working for another employer in another state, the claimant was awarded benefits equating to fifty-three percent to the body as a whole. In a vehicular accident in 1989, which was not work related, he suffered spinal injuries which necessitated the insertion of metal rods in his back. The rods were removed in 1994. The employer at all relevant times knew of his pre-existing disabilities. He continued to work with pain and received a number of awards for sales excellence. In January of 1995, he was sales manager for a company in Cookeville which sold copiers. There is conflicting evidence with respect to the exact date of the occurrence, but during the week of January 9, 1995, the claimant noticed a truck driver unloading a large copier, weighing over six hundred pounds, from a truck. He attempted to assist the driver with the unloading when something "popped" in his back and he felt immediate pain. He told a co-worker immediately about the occurrence and had her write it down. He also gave timely written notice. The co-worker testified she had seen the claimant with his hands on the copier, one hand on the side and one on the bottom. The same day, the claimant drove to Fentress County General Hospital's emergency room where he received a shot to relieve his pain. He may or may not have also played racquetball that afternoon, but there is no medical evidence that his new injury was from something other than the lifting incident. He also worked for a few days immediately following the injury but was soon forced to quit because of severe pain. The treating physician, Dr. Leonard Carroll, who was familiar with the claimant's medical history, testified the claimant suffered a new spinal cord injury causally related to the lifting incident and an exacerbation of the pre- existing conditions and that, as a result, he developed, in addition to severe low back pain, bladder incontinence and depression to the extent of being suicidal. 2 |
Fentress County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Rutherford County | Workers Compensation Panel | |||
| Carolyn F. Humphries v. KFC USA, Inc . O1S01-9607-CH-00147 Authoring Judge: Senior Judge James L. Weatherford Trial Court Judge: Hon. Robert S. Brandt, This case is before the Court upon the entire record, including the order of referral to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel, and the Panel's Memorandum Opinion setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are incorporated herein by reference. |
Davidson County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Carolyn F. Humphries v. KFC USA, Inc . 01S01-9607-CH-00147 Authoring Judge: Senior Judge James L. Weatherford Trial Court Judge: Hon. Robert S. Brandt, This case is before the Court upon the entire record, including the order of referral to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel, and the Panel's Memorandum Opinion setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are incorporated herein by reference. |
Davidson County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Agatha Lawrence v. Findlay Industries 01S01-9605-GS-00086 Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge Trial Court Judge: Hon. J. Richard Mcgregor, 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. I The plaintiff alleged that she suffered a series of injuries in April, June and August 1992 which aggravated an undescribed condition, and as of January 13, 1993 suffers from bilateral hand pain and numbness with cervical radiculopathy and carpal tunnel syndrome with specific thumb involvement. This case was filed in the General Sessions Court of Warren County, and was, by agreement, heard by the Clerk and Master, "acting as Judge of the General Sessions Court," on October 4, 1995. The trial court found that the plaintiff had a 4 percent permanent partial disability to her left arm, and a 24 percent permanent partial disability to her whole body as a result of a cervical injury. The employer appeals, (1) questioning the finding of a cervical injury, and (2) whether the award of benefits is excessive. II The plaintiff testified that she was, at trial date, "a young 65," who entered the labor market at age 15 or 16 as a sewing machine operator, where she remained 25 years. She obtained another job in the textile industry which required repetitive hand movements, following which she became an entrepreneur, operating a small grocery for three years. She testified that the grocery business also required repetitive movements. After her entreprenurial stint was over, she obtained a job as a school bus driver for ten years, followed by a series of three jobs in the textile industry, the final of which was with the defendant which, we infer, was of short duration. While employed by Easyware (the second of these employers after her bus- driver job) she had a successful carpal tunnel release performed on her right hand. 2 |
Lawrence County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Wilda G. Mccarty v. Fast Food Merchandisers, et al. 01S01-9510-CH-00186 Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers Trial Court Judge: Hon. Billy Joe White, 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 sustained a work-related injury to her right arm, and the trial court found she suffered a 33% vocational disability to the right arm as a result of the injury or 16.5% to the body as a whole. See Thompson v. Leon Russell Enterprises, 834 S.W.2d 927 (Tenn. 1992). The plaintiff had been injured in a non-work-related car accident in 1978, and she had injured her back in a work-related accident in January of 1991. The injury to the plaintiff's back resulted in a court-approved workers' compensation award of 36.5% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The injury to the plaintiff's right arm, the January 1991 injury to the plaintiff's back and the injury received in the 1978 automobile accident combined resulted in the plaintiff being found permanently and totally disabled. The trial court held under the provisions of T.C.A. _ 5-6-28(a), the plaintiff was to be compensated by the employer for the 16.5% whole body disability as a result of the injury to her arm on July 1991 and by the Second Injury Fund for 83.5% whole body disability. Because of the plaintiff's low rate of pay, the trial court, applying T.C.A. _ 5-6-27(4)(A), found the plaintiff to be entitled to receive payment for 55 weeks rather than 4 weeks, the permanent total disability benefits normally applicable. The trial judge assessed all of this extra 15 weeks to the Second Injury Fund. Our standard of review is de novo on the record, accompanied by the presumption that the trial court's findings of fact are correct, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. T.C.A. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Where the issue is one of law, our standard of review is de novo without a presumption of correctness. Bradshaw v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 922 S.W.2d 53, 53 (Tenn. 1996). 2 |
Fentress County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Mary W. Scott v. Kenny Pipe & Supply, Inc., et al. 01S01-9607-CV-00140 Authoring Judge: Robert S. Brandt, Senior Judge Trial Court Judge: Hon. Marietta M. Shipley, 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. The only issue raised in this appeal is whether the evidence supports the trial court's award of permanent partial disability. We conclude that it does and affirm the decision. The plaintiff, Mary W. Scott, a then fifty-six-year-old clerical worker, injured herself in September 1992 when she fell because the back of her secretarial chair came off. She came under the care of Dr. Greg Lanford, a neurosurgeon. He hospitalized her for a few days and then treated her conservatively. She returned to work for several months and then left her job, but there is no explanation in the record as to the cause of her termination. Dr. Lanford had treated the plaintiff before for the same condition. In fact, he operated on her back in October 1991 to attempt to repair degenerative changes in discs C3 through C7. Following that surgery, the plaintiff returned to work. The employer's argument is straightforward. The plaintiff's condition was no worse after the fall than it was before the fall. Dr. Lanford found the plaintiff to be in about the same condition after the fall as she was before the fall. When asked to compare the plaintiff's condition on July 3, 1992 - the last time he saw her before her work injury - to her condition on August 3, 1993 - the last time he saw her after the work injury - the doctor responded: "I really don't see a lot of difference in the two visits." Dr. Lanford concluded that she had a 14% impairment before the fall and a 14% impairment after the fall. -2- |
Scott County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Transportation Insurance Co., et al. v. Clayton B. Rees 01S01-9606-CV-00123 Authoring Judge: Robert S. Brandt, Senior Judge Trial Court Judge: Hon. J. Russell Heldman, 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 question of whether an employee's possession or business use of a portable telephone converts an otherwise noncompensable injury into a compensable one. We conclude that it does not and affirm the trial court's denial of benefits. The employee, Clayton Rees, had been employed by Rock Harbor Marina in Nashville for only four weeks when he was injured while driving to work. He was a commission boat salesman. Rock Harbor paid Rees a draw against future commissions, but at the time of the injury, he had yet to sell a boat for Rock Harbor. Rees lived in Tullahoma, about equal distance between Nashville where he worked and Chattanooga where his fianc_ lived. On the morning of March 12, 1994, while commuting to work from Tullahoma to Nashville in his own truck, Rees was injured in a vehicle collision on US 231 just north of Shelbyville. A drunk driver caused the collision. To be covered by workers' compensation, the injury must arise out of and in the course and scope of employment. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-13. An injury sustained en route to or from work is not considered in the course of employment. Lollar v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 767 S.W.2d 143, 144 (Tenn. 1989). There are exceptions to this rule, such as when the employee is on the employer's premises, Id. 15, but none of the exceptions apply here. Rees seeks to avoid this firm and long-standing rule because he had a portable telephone with him on his commute and, according to him, was -2- |
Davidson County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| State of Tennessee v. Nathan Allen Callahan 03C01-9507-CC-00203 Authoring Judge: David H. Welles, Judge Trial Court Judge: Hon. R. Jerry Beck This is an appeal as of right pursuant to Rule 3, Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Defendant, Nathan Allen Callahan, was convicted by a Sullivan County jury of one count of first-degree murder and one count of second-degree murder, respectively, for the shooting deaths of his mother and younger sister. The jury set punishment for the first-degree murder conviction at life imprisonment and fined the Defendant $47,. for the count of second- degree murder. The trial court ordered twenty-two years imprisonment on the conviction for second-degree murder to be served concurrently with the life sentence. |
Sullivan County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Carolyn Marie Drake v. David Carl Drake 03A01-9610-CV-00312 Authoring Judge: HERSCHEL P. FRANKS, J. Trial Court Judge: HON. ROBERT M. SUMMITT Petitioner and Respondent are sister and brother, and the Trial Court issued an order of protection in response2 to the petition filed, following an abbreviated trial. On appeal, respondent insists the Trial Court did not have jurisdiction pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated _36-3-61, et seq., or that the Court refused to permit respondent to present his evidence. |
Hamilton County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Blanken v. Philips 03S01-9607-CV-00081 Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers Trial Court Judge: 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 injured her left arm at work on February 28, 1992. W hen surgery did not improve the condition or decrease her pain she became markedly depressed. The trial court found that plaintiff's depression was related to her arm injury and awarded her 1 percent permanent total disability based on the two conditions. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Plaintiff injured her left arm gradually at work in February, March and April of 1992. She was left hand dominant and her work required that she use a staple gun repetitively. Dr. Joseph C. DeFiore, Jr., orthopedic surgeon, treated her left elbow and shoulder from April 13, 1992 through January 24, 1994. When Dr. DeFiore first saw plaintiff, he found tenderness over the left lateral epicondyle area and in her left shoulder, with no specific abnormalities on x- ray. He diagnosed tendinitis of the left shoulder and lateral epicondylitis, or tennis elbow. Plaintiff also reported being extremely depressed, primarily because of the elbow problem. A work-related low back injury contributed to her depression, but we do not consider that injury, which was non-suited at trial. Dr. DeFiore advised plaintiff to avoid use of a staple gun at work, which he thought was causing some of her irritation, gave her a TENS unit for pain control and prescribed exercises. Plaintiff returned to work with the limitation that she do only nonrepetitive, non-overuse work with the left upper extremity. The work she was assigned, though much less harmful according to Dr. DeFiore, still required her to constantly reach with her left hand and arm in order to spray television cabinets with an air pressure gun. Plaintiff continued to have pain in the elbow and therefore had cortisone injections on three occasions, with no improvement. Bone scan found arthritis in the shoulder joint. Plaintiff was deposed by defendant on October 19, 1992, and it was apparently here that both parties' counsel learned from plaintiff about antidepressant medications given to her by her family physician on a continuing basis since her first 2 |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Stone Container Corporation v. Neil Griffith 03S01-9609-CV-00094 Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge Trial Court Judge: Hon. William L. Brown, 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, Stone Container Corporation, has perfected this appeal from a decision of the trial court to award the employee, Neil Griffith, 1% permanent partial disability benefits to the body as a whole. Temporary total disability benefits were paid until the employee returned to work during January, 1995, and the payment of medical expenses is also not an issue. The employer insists the evidence preponderates against a finding of permanent injury or disability. The short record contains the oral testimony of the employee, and the depositions of three orthopedic surgeons. Employee Griffith had worked for Stone Container Corporation for about twenty-five years when he sustained a work-related injury on November 28, 1994. On this day he was reaching down to pick up a heavy pallet when he felt pain across the top of his shoulder. The next morning he had pain in his left arm and was hospitalized a few days to determine if he was having or had a heart attack. Testing for this condition was negative and he was released. He first came under the care of Dr. Lester F. Littell III, who was one of the three designated physicians of the employer. He found he had sustained a work- related injury but was of the opinion it would eventually clear up. He found no permanent impairment and did not place any restrictions on the patient. Becoming dissatisfied with Dr. Littell, employee Griffith requested the company to furnish another physician for a second opinion. He was then seen by Dr. Neil H. Spitalny who found mild disc bulging at several levels as reported on a MRI report and said this was consistent with normal degenerative aging process of the cervical spine and discs. He was of the opinion there was no medical impairment. We do note his testimony indicates he saw him again on January 22, 1996, when he was still complaining of left shoulder pain and discomfort in the neck musculature. 2 |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Johnson v. Goodwill 03S01-9610-CV-00101 Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge Trial Court Judge: Hon. James B. Scott, Jr. 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 the action of the trial court in dismissing the employee's claim for benefits. The Circuit Judge found plaintiff had failed to establish her injury was caused by an accident which arose out of and in the course of her employment. The sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence preponderates against the conclusion of the trial court. Plaintiff, Joy G. Johnson, testified on October 2, 1993, she stepped into a drainage hole while performing her work-related duties. She reported the incident to several management representatives and signed an accident report which indicated she did not receive any treatment for an injury. She did not miss any work and did not see a doctor until July 1994. Her family doctor then referred her to Dr. Gregory M. Mathien, an orthopedic surgeon. She saw Dr. Mathien on September 15, 1994, which was almost a year after the incident at work. In giving a history, she said she fell about a year earlier and had a second fall about eight months earlier. She never indicated either fall occurred at work. Dr. Mathien's testimony was by deposition and his diagnosis was a torn meniscus with secondary tendinitis. He said the articular cartilage lesion was not work-related but was due to the degenerative process. As to the torn meniscus, he testified causation was hard to say; she only told him she had pain about two and one-half months prior to seeing him, and he could not determine which fall caused the problem or if either event was the cause. Dr. Mathien performed surgery and continued to see her saying the result was not as good as expected. He did not assess any medical impairment as he had no reason to do so. The record indicates plaintiff incurred substantial medical expenses and all bills were submitted to her husband's medical insurance carrier. No medical expenses were ever submitted to defendant employer. She also admitted she never 2 |
Johnson County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Brackins v. Sevier 03S01-9607-CV-00083 Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge Trial Court Judge: Hon. Ben Hooper, Ii, 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 judge found that plaintiff was 5% permanently partially disabled as a result of his work-related injury by accident. He further found that the workers' compensation carrier was entitled to a credit of $14,43.64, plaintiff's net recovery for his third-party tort settlement. He held that he could not exclude recovery for loss of consortium from plaintiff's net recovery because no specific amount of that recovery was apportioned to loss of consortium. He limited the recovery for medical expenses to plaintiff's out-of-pocket expenses. He granted the plaintiff's attorney a 2% fee from the medical expenses awarded and stated that plaintiff's attorney may have to look to plaintiff's attorney in the third-party action for the rest of his fee. The plaintiff below appeals the trial court's judgment raising the following issues: 1) Whether the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that plaintiff retains 5% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. 2) Whether the trial court erred in allowing the defendant a credit against the portion of the third-party tort recovery which is attributable to plaintiff's spouse's recovery for loss of consortium. 3) Whether the trial court erred by not crediting the full amount of medical expenses against the net recovery because the plaintiff's group hospitalization insurer had not filed a subrogation claim. 4) Whether the trial court should have required the defendant to pay the plaintiff's attorney's fees. We affirm the judgment of the trial court except as to the issue of medical expenses, for which the defendant is liable in full. The plaintiff was injured in a car accident on August 1, 199 while he was traveling in the course of his employment with the Sevier County Board of Education. The plaintiff, who was 53 years of age at the time of trial, continues to work for the 2 |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Charlotte Freeman v. Cpq Colorchrome, Inc. 03S01-9608-Ch-00089 Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers Trial Court Judge: EARL H. HENLEY, Chancellor 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. While lifting a machine at work, plaintiff heard or felt a "pop" in her neck and experienced a slight tingling in her hands. Because she felt little or no pain at that time, she did not immediately suspect that the "pop" and the tingling might be symptomatic of serious injury. When she developed pain in the neck a few days later after sleeping on the arm, she sought medical care and found that she had herniated two cervical disks. The trial court found the plaintiff had proved that her neck injury was caused by her work and awarded her 4 percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The defendant appeals, insisting that plaintiff has not met her burden of proving that her work caused injury. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Plaintiff, 46 years old with a G.E.D. diploma, began working for defendant's predecessor in 1986. While refinishing photo negatives on February 15, 1994, she lifted a 29-pound machine and felt or heard a "pop" in her neck and a slight tingling in her right arm. She didn't have much, if any, pain, and didn't think much about it. Plaintiff went to the work site within the next three days and, in conversation with her supervisor and two other employees, said that she thought her injury was caused by lifting the machine at work. The supervisor, Kathy Quintard, who was in- and-out of the room during this conversation, thought this was only "chit-chat" among friends. Although she heard plaintiff discuss the injury, she did not consider this to be her official notice of work-related injury, and so Ms. Quintard did not make a report of it. The evidence indicates Ms. Quintard thought that unless plaintiff came to her office and made an "official" statement, she would not be entitled to workers' compensation coverage. On February 17, 1994, plaintiff awoke with arm pain after having slept on the arm. She went to an emergency clinic that day and again on February 2, 1994, 2 |
Hamblen County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Smallman v. Shelby 03S01-9607-CV-00079 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 trial court below awarded plaintiff 17% permanent partial disability to each arm. Plaintiff appeals, arguing that the evidence preponderates in favor of a higher award. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Plaintiff, who was 44 years of age at the time of the trial, has an eighth- grade education. Her previous work history has been mostly in factory assembly work. She has worked as an upholsterer of furniture for the defendant since 1984. She testified that her work requires her to pad the furniture and then cover it with fabric of some sort, which requires her to constantly pull the fabric and tack it into place with a staple gun. In the spring and summer of 1994, plaintiff began to notice some pain and swelling in her wrists and hands. She reported her problems to her employer in August and her employer referred her to Dr. Wayne L. McLemore, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. McLemore diagnosed plaintiff with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome related to her work activities. He attempted conservative treatment but that was unsuccessful. He then performed bilateral carpal tunnel releases with satisfactory results. He assigned plaintiff a four percent permanent impairment to each upper extremity. He testified that he did not impose any restrictions upon the plaintiff because he did not want to make it difficult for her to return to work. However, he opined that she did have some restrictions: she should avoid repetitive pulling and wrist-bending activities, heavy lifting and vibrating tools. After plaintiff returned to work in February 1995, she returned to him on July 25, 1995 with complaints of continued pain and swelling. He testified that he advised her to change her employment if it became a regular problem for her. Plaintiff's attorney referred her to Dr. Gilbert Hyde, also an orthopaedic surgeon, for an independent medical evaluation. He felt that she had continued 2 |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel |