WORKERS COMPENSATION PANEL OPINIONS
| Reba Joyce Moody v. Phelps Security, Inc. and Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York 02501-9509-CV-00080 Authoring Judge: F. Lloyd Tatum, Special Judge Trial Court Judge: Hon. Robert A. Lanier, Judge This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special W ork ers ' C om pe ns atio n A pp ea ls P an el of the Su pre m e C ou rt in acc ord an ce with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and rep ort ing of fin din gs of fa ct a nd co nc lus ion s o f law . Suit was filed in the Circuit Court at Memphis b y Re ba Joyce Moody as representative of the estate of her deceased h usband, James Jun ior Mo ody, against Phelps Security, Inc., the employer, and Fid elity and Ca sualty Co. of New Y ork, the em ployer's workers' comp ensation insurance carrier. The plaintiff sued for workers' compensation benefits as a result of an accidental injury tha t alle ge dly caused th e d ea th o f Jam es Jun ior M oo dy, in clud ing a po rtion o f the medical ex pe ns es inc urr ed . T he de fen da nts filed an an sw er a dm ittin g that Jam es Jun ior M oo dy s us taine d a ccid en tal inju ries g row ing o ut o f and in the cou rse of h is em ploy m en t, but they denied that these injuries resulted in the de ath of Ja m es Jun ior M oo dy. The answ er also stated that the insurance carrier had paid that portion of the medical expenses which w ere rela ted to th e in jurie s s us tain ed by James Junior Moody on or a bo ut N ov em be r 7, 1 99 2, th e d ate of th e a ccid en t. The de fen da nts filed a suggestion of death showing that Reba Joyce Moody, Administratrix, died on September 19, 1 994. James Moo dy and Deborah Ann Wolfe were appointed as successor Co - Administrators of the estate. The trial judge found in fav or o f the plain tiff and aw ard ed w ee kly be ne fits from the date of the death of the deceased on January 13, 1993 to the widow's death on September 19, 1994. The total medical expenses owing was Two Hundred and Fifty-Seven Thousand, Three 2 |
Shelby County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Debra Michelle Lambert v. Famous Hospitality, Inc. 02S01-9511-CV-00112 Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers Trial Court Judge: Hon. Joe C. Morris 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 was working at Bruce Hardwood Floors when she injured her right shoulder in October of 1991 while lifting pieces of wood from a conveyor belt. In May of 1992, she complained to her treating physician of pain in her hands and wrists. She alleged work-related permanent disability as a result of these conditions. The trial court awarded plaintiff 33 percent permanent partial disability to each arm. We find the plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of proving permanent partial disability and therefore reverse the decision of the trial court and dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff testified that she was removing thin or short wood from a conveyor belt and lifting 4 to 5 pounds frequently when her right shoulder started bothering her, sometime in October or before October. The employer referred her to Convenient Care Clinic, then referred her to Dr. Alan Pechacek, board-certified orthopedic surgeon, at Jackson Clinic. Dr. Pechacek's examination and x-ray on November 11, 1991 gave him the impression that plaintiff's right shoulder pain was due to some irritation or inflammation of the rotator cuff tendons. He prescribed physical therapy, exercises, pain medication and work restrictions, which improved plaintiff's condition. In January of 1992, Dr. Pechacek told plaintiff she could return to full work with no restrictions. He continued to see her for renewal of prescriptions but felt she was "basically functional, as far as being able to do her job." In May of 1992, plaintiff returned to Dr. Pechacek complaining of shoulder pain and also bilateral wrist and hand pain and numbness. She said this bothered her both at work and at home at night. At her June, 1992 office visit, Dr. Pechacek stated that plaintiff's symptoms were "mild and vague," and he gave her splints to wear on her wrists. She was no longer working because of some dispute with her employer, and he thought she could control her hand activity at home. In July 1992, she returned still complaining of discomfort, so Dr. Pechacek ordered nerve conduction studies, which showed mild changes in the median nerve 2 |
Smith County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Blanche Rene Smith v. Bruce Hardwood Floors 02S01-9512-CH-00130 Authoring Judge: Per Curiam Trial Court Judge: Hon. Joe C. Morris, Chancellor This case is before the Court upon a motion for review purAppellate suant to C ourt Tenn.Clerk Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(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, which are incorporated herein by reference; Whereupon, it appears to the Court that the motion for review is not well- taken and should be denied; and It is, therefore, ordered that the Panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law are adopted and affirmed, and the decision of the Panel is made the judgment of the Court. Costs will be paid by the plaintiff-appellee, for which execution may issue if necessary. |
Smith County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Joe Boatman v. Ww of Memphis, Inc. D/B/A. Advance Muffler & Auto Service and Amerisure Insurance Company 02S01-9508-CV-00065 Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judg Trial Court Judge: Hon. James E. Swearengen 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 plaintiff 5% permanent partial disability to each arm. Defendant challenges 1) the finding of permanent vocational disability to the right arm and 2) the finding of 5% permanent partial disability to each arm. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Plaintiff, 54 at the time of trial, has a high school degree and some college education, sufficient at least to be certified as a junior high school shop teacher in Texas. He taught for about two years. He has also been certified in mechanics by a vocational-technical school in Memphis. His work history includes work as a military supply clerk, factory worker, supervisor of inmates and of youths in juvenile detention and mechanic. Plaintiff worked for defendant-employer as an installer of brakes and mufflers and as a manager. On November 4, 1992, he slipped on some oil while guiding a car into the shop and fell into the pit, about eight feet down, head first. He tried to catch himself with his hands. Dr. Phillip Wright, an orthopedic surgeon, testified by deposition. He testified that plaintiff was diagnosed with a fracture of the left radial styloid (in the wrist), a fracture of the proximal phalanx of the left thumb and carpal tunnel syndrome in his right arm. Surgery was performed and a pin was temporarily placed in his left wrist. Plaintiff was given a splint for his right wrist and, in March 1993, was given a cortisone shot. After the shot, Dr. Wright did not testify to any complaints by plaintiff concerning his right arm. Dr. Wright assigned ten percent permanent impairment to the plaintiff's left upper extremity. He testified that, if plaintiff continued to have the same symptoms in his right arm, plaintiff would have a ten percent impairment to his right upper extremity. 2 |
Shelby County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Jimmy Mccarver v. Tecumseh Products Company 02S01-9512-CV-00124 Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge Trial Court Judge: Hon. Julian P. Guinn, 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, Tecumseh, contends that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the employee's disability arose out of the employment. The panel agrees. On October 1, 1993, the employee or claimant, McCarver, while working for the employer, bumped his leg against a metal container and felt immediate pain. He was referred to a doctor, who diagnosed a bruised leg and arthritis. When the pain persisted, the claimant was referred to another doctor, who made a similar diagnosis. The claimant testified that he has difficulty standing, walking, squatting, sitting and sleeping that he did not have before the accident, and that he is no longer able to work. His condition interferes with his hunting and fishing. Doctors have determined that he has degenerative joint disease and synovitis of the left knee. There is no medical evidence that his condition is causally connected to the work-related accident of October 1, 1993. The trial court awarded permanent partial disability benefits on the basis of seventy-five percent to the left leg. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(2). Unless admitted by the employer, the employee has the burden of proving, by competent evidence, every essential element of his claim. Mazanec v. Aetna Ins. Co., 491 S.W.2d 616 (Tenn. 1973). He must prove, among other things, that his injury arose out of his employment. In order to establish that an injury was one arising out of the employment, the cause of the injury must be proved. In all but the most obvious cases, causation may only be established by expert medical testimony. Orman v. Williams Sonoma, Inc., 83 S.W.2d 672, 676 (Tenn. 1991). In the present case, there simply is no medical evidence either that the accident at work caused the injury or that it aggravated a pre-existing condition, causing the disability. Moreover, the causal connection is not obvious from the circumstances. We therefore find that the evidence preponderates against any award of permanent disability benefits. 2 |
Henry County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Jimmy Mccarver v. Tecumseh Products Company 02S01-9512-CV-00124 Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge Trial Court Judge: Hon. Julian P. Guinn, 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, Tecumseh, contends that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the employee's disability arose out of the employment. The panel agrees. On October 1, 1993, the employee or claimant, McCarver, while working for the employer, bumped his leg against a metal container and felt immediate pain. He was referred to a doctor, who diagnosed a bruised leg and arthritis. When the pain persisted, the claimant was referred to another doctor, who made a similar diagnosis. The claimant testified that he has difficulty standing, walking, squatting, sitting and sleeping that he did not have before the accident, and that he is no longer able to work. His condition interferes with his hunting and fishing. Doctors have determined that he has degenerative joint disease and synovitis of the left knee. There is no medical evidence that his condition is causally connected to the work-related accident of October 1, 1993. The trial court awarded permanent partial disability benefits on the basis of seventy-five percent to the left leg. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(2). Unless admitted by the employer, the employee has the burden of proving, by competent evidence, every essential element of his claim. Mazanec v. Aetna Ins. Co., 491 S.W.2d 616 (Tenn. 1973). He must prove, among other things, that his injury arose out of his employment. In order to establish that an injury was one arising out of the employment, the cause of the injury must be proved. In all but the most obvious cases, causation may only be established by expert medical testimony. Orman v. Williams Sonoma, Inc., 83 S.W.2d 672, 676 (Tenn. 1991). In the present case, there simply is no medical evidence either that the accident at work caused the injury or that it aggravated a pre-existing condition, causing the disability. Moreover, the causal connection is not obvious from the circumstances. We therefore find that the evidence preponderates against any award of permanent disability benefits. 2 |
Henry County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Sandra Whitehead v. Express Services, Inc. 02S01-9511-CH-00118 Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge Trial Court Judge: Hon. Dewey C. Whitenton 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, Express Services, contends the trial court's award of permanent partial disability benefits on the basis of eighty percent permanent partial disability to the left arm is excessive. The panel has concluded that the award should be modified to provide permanent partial disability benefits on the basis of fifty percent to the left arm. At the time of the trial, the claimant, Sandra Whitehead, was thirty- five years old and had a GED. She has worked on an assembly line and as a sewing machine operator. She began working for the employer as a temporary employee on June 22, 1994. On July 1, 1994, she accidentally cut her left wrist while opening boxes with a box cutter. She was first referred to Dr. Charles Stewart, who diagnosed a laceration of the left wrist. He sutured the laceration, but later referred her to Dr. Anthony Segal, a neurosurgeon, when she continued to complain. Dr. Segal conducted nerveconduction studies and found mild nerve damage and possible reflex dystrophy. Dr. Segal testified by deposition but assigned no permanent impairment. The claimant went toDr. James Varner, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Varner diagnosed a partial sensory nerve laceration of the median nerve and reflex dystrophy syndrome. He treated her condition with medication, physical therapy and a stellate block, and assessed a permanent anatomical impairment of fifteen percent to the left arm. The doctor advised her to avoid repetitive use of the left arm, but said she could perform jobs that did not require such repetitive use. He said she was not impaired from pronating and supinating her wrist. A physical therapist testified that functional capacity evaluation tests were invalid because the claimant refused to exert maximum effort. The claimant testified that her arm stays cold all the time and that she is unable to perform household chores such as twisting caps from jars and opening doors. The trial court awarded permanent partial disability benefits on the basis of eighty percent to the left arm. 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). 2 |
White County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Sandra Whitehead v. Express Services, Inc. 02S01-9511-CH-00118 Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge Trial Court Judge: Hon. Dewey C. Whitenton 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, Express Services, contends the trial court's award of permanent partial disability benefits on the basis of eighty percent permanent partial disability to the left arm is excessive. The panel has concluded that the award should be modified to provide permanent partial disability benefits on the basis of fifty percent to the left arm. At the time of the trial, the claimant, Sandra Whitehead, was thirty- five years old and had a GED. She has worked on an assembly line and as a sewing machine operator. She began working for the employer as a temporary employee on June 22, 1994. On July 1, 1994, she accidentally cut her left wrist while opening boxes with a box cutter. She was first referred to Dr. Charles Stewart, who diagnosed a laceration of the left wrist. He sutured the laceration, but later referred her to Dr. Anthony Segal, a neurosurgeon, when she continued to complain. Dr. Segal conducted nerveconduction studies and found mild nerve damage and possible reflex dystrophy. Dr. Segal testified by deposition but assigned no permanent impairment. The claimant went toDr. James Varner, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Varner diagnosed a partial sensory nerve laceration of the median nerve and reflex dystrophy syndrome. He treated her condition with medication, physical therapy and a stellate block, and assessed a permanent anatomical impairment of fifteen percent to the left arm. The doctor advised her to avoid repetitive use of the left arm, but said she could perform jobs that did not require such repetitive use. He said she was not impaired from pronating and supinating her wrist. A physical therapist testified that functional capacity evaluation tests were invalid because the claimant refused to exert maximum effort. The claimant testified that her arm stays cold all the time and that she is unable to perform household chores such as twisting caps from jars and opening doors. The trial court awarded permanent partial disability benefits on the basis of eighty percent to the left arm. 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). 2 |
White County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Joe Boatman v. Ww of Memphis, Inc. 02S01-9508-CV-00065 Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers Trial Court Judge: Hon. James E. Swearengen 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, which are incorporated herein by reference; |
Shelby County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Autto Lee Taylor, Sr. v. Bailey-Parks Urethane, Inc., 02S01-9602-CV-00018 Authoring Judge: Special Judge Billy Joe White Trial Court Judge: Hon. Robert A. Lanier, 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 5-6-225 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal the employer contends no notice was given and causation was not proven. The trial judge found proper notice and a work-related injury. This panel affirms the judgment of the trial judge. The Plaintiff testified, "A. I told him about it. He just sat there and looked at me. He didn't say nothing. Q. What did you tell him? A. I told him I hurt my back Friday. I needed to go to the doctor. Q. Did Mr. Tutor ask you any questions at that time? A. He asked me where I hurt my back. I said here at the job." (App. P. 28). Mr. Tutor testified, ". . .He had come to evidently Larry, which is his supervisor. We happened to be standing talking and he come up to us, I guess he was giving notification that he had hurt his back, that he had -- that he needed to go home or get this taken care of, but he had not said anything to Larry individually. He come up to both of us at the same time, which is the right thing for him to do. He needs to report it." (App. P. 7). The scope of review is de novo on the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the judgment of the trial court, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. T.C.A. _ 5-6-225 (e)(2). This panel finds that the preponderance of the evidence establishes notice within T.C.A. _ 5-6-21 and affirms the trial court. As to the issue of causation the treating doctor, Dr. Leventhal, testified to a history given him by the employee of a work related injury. (Leventhal Depo. P.11). |
Shelby County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Autto Lee Taylor, Sr. v. Bailey-Parks Urethane, Inc., 02S01-9602-CV-00018 Authoring Judge: Special Judge Billy Joe White Trial Court Judge: Hon. Robert A. Lanier, 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 5-6-225 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal the employer contends no notice was given and causation was not proven. The trial judge found proper notice and a work-related injury. This panel affirms the judgment of the trial judge. The Plaintiff testified, "A. I told him about it. He just sat there and looked at me. He didn't say nothing. Q. What did you tell him? A. I told him I hurt my back Friday. I needed to go to the doctor. Q. Did Mr. Tutor ask you any questions at that time? A. He asked me where I hurt my back. I said here at the job." (App. P. 28). Mr. Tutor testified, ". . .He had come to evidently Larry, which is his supervisor. We happened to be standing talking and he come up to us, I guess he was giving notification that he had hurt his back, that he had -- that he needed to go home or get this taken care of, but he had not said anything to Larry individually. He come up to both of us at the same time, which is the right thing for him to do. He needs to report it." (App. P. 7). The scope of review is de novo on the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the judgment of the trial court, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. T.C.A. _ 5-6-225 (e)(2). This panel finds that the preponderance of the evidence establishes notice within T.C.A. _ 5-6-21 and affirms the trial court. As to the issue of causation the treating doctor, Dr. Leventhal, testified to a history given him by the employee of a work related injury. (Leventhal Depo. P.11). |
Shelby County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Anthony Ray Morris v. Keebler Company, Inc., et al 02S01-9511-CV-00119 Authoring Judge: Per Curiam Trial Court Judge: Anthony Ray Morris, 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 held that plaintiff failed to provide timely notice as required by TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-21 and that he failed to meet his burden of proving that his injury arose in the course and scope of his employment. The plaintiff appeals these findings. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Plaintiff, 28 at the time of trial, worked for defendant as a route salesman. He testified that in early October 1992, he felt "a sudden pain--not pain, but tingling." He testified that he first felt this when his leg hit the ground getting out of the delivery truck he drove for defendant. After the initial onset of symptoms, plaintiff began to feel that his leg was losing strength. At one point early in the same month, his supervisor noticed him limping and asked him about it. Plaintiff reported feeling numbness and tingling in his leg and that he thought he was losing strength in his leg. The supervisor felt his leg and testified that it felt like "mush." Plaintiff did not report any injury or onset of symptoms at work at this time. Plaintiff testified that his left leg gave out on him in early November while he was shooting baskets. On November 1, 1992, he saw his wife's family practitioner, Dr. Walter Verner. He told Dr. Verner that he had pain in his left thigh and that he had been losing muscle strength in his left leg for about a month. Dr. Verner testified that his notes do not indicate a work-related injury, although that is something that he would normally record. Dr. Verner noted a marked reduction in the plaintiff's deep tendon reflex in his left knee and referred him to Dr. Barry Thompson, a neurologist. Dr. Thompson found left quadriceps weakness and ordered a variety of tests, including an EMG which indicated a possible L4-5 radiculopathy and an MRI which indicated a possible L3 herniated disc on the left. He referred plaintiff to Dr. Joseph Buchignani, a neurosurgeon. 2 |
Shelby County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Anthony Ray Morris v. Keebler Company, Inc., et al 02S01-9511-CV-00119 Authoring Judge: Per Curiam Trial Court Judge: Anthony Ray Morris, 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 held that plaintiff failed to provide timely notice as required by TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-21 and that he failed to meet his burden of proving that his injury arose in the course and scope of his employment. The plaintiff appeals these findings. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Plaintiff, 28 at the time of trial, worked for defendant as a route salesman. He testified that in early October 1992, he felt "a sudden pain--not pain, but tingling." He testified that he first felt this when his leg hit the ground getting out of the delivery truck he drove for defendant. After the initial onset of symptoms, plaintiff began to feel that his leg was losing strength. At one point early in the same month, his supervisor noticed him limping and asked him about it. Plaintiff reported feeling numbness and tingling in his leg and that he thought he was losing strength in his leg. The supervisor felt his leg and testified that it felt like "mush." Plaintiff did not report any injury or onset of symptoms at work at this time. Plaintiff testified that his left leg gave out on him in early November while he was shooting baskets. On November 1, 1992, he saw his wife's family practitioner, Dr. Walter Verner. He told Dr. Verner that he had pain in his left thigh and that he had been losing muscle strength in his left leg for about a month. Dr. Verner testified that his notes do not indicate a work-related injury, although that is something that he would normally record. Dr. Verner noted a marked reduction in the plaintiff's deep tendon reflex in his left knee and referred him to Dr. Barry Thompson, a neurologist. Dr. Thompson found left quadriceps weakness and ordered a variety of tests, including an EMG which indicated a possible L4-5 radiculopathy and an MRI which indicated a possible L3 herniated disc on the left. He referred plaintiff to Dr. Joseph Buchignani, a neurosurgeon. 2 |
Shelby County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Jeffrey Wolfe v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 02S01-9602-CV-00016 Authoring Judge: Cornelia A. Clark, Special Judge Trial Court Judge: Hon. James M. Tharpe 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. Whereupon, it appears to the Court that the Memorandum Opinion of the Panel should be accepted and approved; and It is, therefore, ordered that the Panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law are adopted and affirmed, and the decision of the Panel is made the judgment of the Court. |
Shelby County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Jeffrey Wolfe v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 02S01-9602-CV-00016 Authoring Judge: Cornelia A. Clark, Special Judge Trial Court Judge: Hon. James M. Tharpe, 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. Whereupon, it appears to the Court that the Memorandum Opinion of the Panel should be accepted and approved; and It is, therefore, ordered that the Panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law are adopted and affirmed, and the decision of the Panel is made the judgment of the Court. |
Shelby County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Larry H. Mull v. Transport South, Inc. 03S01-9512-CV-00135 Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers Trial Court Judge: Hon. L. Marie Williams 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/plaintiff injured his right arm while working as a truck driver for defendant. The trial judge awarded plaintiff 12 percent disability to the right arm. We find that the evidence preponderates against an award of 12 percent and in favor of an award of 2 percent permanent partial disability to the right arm and we affirm the judgment of the trial court as so modified. On February 19, 1993, Plaintiff was trying to pry loose a stuck fuel valve on the employer's fuel truck so that he could fill the truck with jet fuel when his wrist "popped" and started tingling. He went to the emergency room that day for treatment, where he was given a forearm splint. Three days later he saw orthopedic surgeon Dr. Alan Odom, who placed plaintiff on light duty for ten days and told him to 2 |
Hamilton County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | |||
| Joyce Jones v. New York Underwriters 03S01-9505-CH-00050 Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers Trial Court Judge: Hon. Richard E. Ladd 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 alleged injury to her back and neck at work. The trial judge awarded her 15 percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Plaintiff was working for at Arcata Graphics on March 17, 1992 when her right index finger was caught in a re-press roller. She tried to jerk her finger out of the roller, fearing her whole hand and arm would be caught, and her supervisor pushed her back from the machine while trying to turn the machine off. She was treated in the emergency room and subsequently referred to Dr. James Phillips, orthopedic surgeon. She received anti-inflammatory medication and underwent physical therapy. Two weeks later she began experiencing increasing pain, "moving up her arm and in her shoulder and neck area," and still later she began having severe headaches on the right side of her head. Dr. Gregory Corradino, a neurologist, began treating plaintiff in late 1993 and performed surgery on her cervical spine. When deposed, Dr. Phillips opined that if plaintiff's finger crush injury were accompanied by a jerking maneuver, it could have caused her disc rupture, and that this possible causal connection would be strengthened if surgery resolved her complaints. Dr. Gregory Corradino found that plaintiff had a herniated cervical disc at C4/5 and performed surgical removal of the disc. W hen asked whether the disc herniation had been caused by plaintiff's jerking her finger out of the press at work, he opined that such motion could cause a disc herniation. Dr. John Marshall, physiatrist, evaluated plaintiff for defendant and treated her for nine months. He opined that although the jerking motion could herniate a disc, he did not think that it had done so in this case. Plaintiff testified that she jerked her head and neck hard to remove her finger from the press. She further said that prior to the injury at Arcata Graphics, she had |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Thomas E. Roddy v. Beaman Bottling Company 01S01-9511-CH-00194 Authoring Judge: Per Curiam Trial Court Judge: Hon. Don R. Ash, This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special 1 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. Defendant, Beaman Bottling Company of Nashville, had appealed from the action of the trial court in awarding plaintiff, Thomas E. Roddy, 33% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. On November 12, 1992, plaintiff was injured during the course and scope of his employment with the defendant. After having surgery for a rotator cuff injury, he returned to work on about August 1, 1993, at a wage equal to or greater than that he was receiving prior to his injury. In the spring of 1994, defendant company was sold to Pepsico, the parent company for Pepsi-Cola. Plaintiff continued to work for new owner Pepsico until September 9, 1994, when his job classification was eliminated and he was terminated. There is some dispute concerning the medical impairment to the body as a whole. At issue is whether plaintiff sustained a 7% or 11 % impairment to the body as a whole. We conclude that the finding of 11% impairment to the whole body is the proper finding of medical impairment. The primary issue is whether the award of disability is limited to two and a half times the medical impairment rating provided in TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6- 241(a)(1) or whether the award may be fixed up to six times the medical impairment rating as provided in TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-241(b). Under subsection (a)(1), an injured employee's recovery is limited to two and a half times the employee's medical impairment rating if the pre-injury employer returns the employee to work at a wage equal to or greater than that received prior to the injury. Subsection (a)(2) provides that the industrial disability award may be reconsidered by the court when the employee is no longer employed by the pre- injury employer, the loss of employment occurs within 4 weeks of the day the employee returned to work, and a new cause of action is filed within one year of the 2 |
Rutherford County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Thomas E. Roddy v. Beaman Bottling Company 01S01-9511-CH-00194 Authoring Judge: Per Curiam Trial Court Judge: Hon. Don R. Ash, This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special 1 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. Defendant, Beaman Bottling Company of Nashville, had appealed from the action of the trial court in awarding plaintiff, Thomas E. Roddy, 33% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. On November 12, 1992, plaintiff was injured during the course and scope of his employment with the defendant. After having surgery for a rotator cuff injury, he returned to work on about August 1, 1993, at a wage equal to or greater than that he was receiving prior to his injury. In the spring of 1994, defendant company was sold to Pepsico, the parent company for Pepsi-Cola. Plaintiff continued to work for new owner Pepsico until September 9, 1994, when his job classification was eliminated and he was terminated. There is some dispute concerning the medical impairment to the body as a whole. At issue is whether plaintiff sustained a 7% or 11 % impairment to the body as a whole. We conclude that the finding of 11% impairment to the whole body is the proper finding of medical impairment. The primary issue is whether the award of disability is limited to two and a half times the medical impairment rating provided in TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6- 241(a)(1) or whether the award may be fixed up to six times the medical impairment rating as provided in TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-241(b). Under subsection (a)(1), an injured employee's recovery is limited to two and a half times the employee's medical impairment rating if the pre-injury employer returns the employee to work at a wage equal to or greater than that received prior to the injury. Subsection (a)(2) provides that the industrial disability award may be reconsidered by the court when the employee is no longer employed by the pre- injury employer, the loss of employment occurs within 4 weeks of the day the employee returned to work, and a new cause of action is filed within one year of the 2 |
Rutherford County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Thomas E. Roddy v. Beaman Bottling Company 01S01-9511-CH-00194 Authoring Judge: Per Curiam Trial Court Judge: Hon. Don R. Ash, This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special 1 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. Defendant, Beaman Bottling Company of Nashville, had appealed from the action of the trial court in awarding plaintiff, Thomas E. Roddy, 33% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. On November 12, 1992, plaintiff was injured during the course and scope of his employment with the defendant. After having surgery for a rotator cuff injury, he returned to work on about August 1, 1993, at a wage equal to or greater than that he was receiving prior to his injury. In the spring of 1994, defendant company was sold to Pepsico, the parent company for Pepsi-Cola. Plaintiff continued to work for new owner Pepsico until September 9, 1994, when his job classification was eliminated and he was terminated. There is some dispute concerning the medical impairment to the body as a whole. At issue is whether plaintiff sustained a 7% or 11 % impairment to the body as a whole. We conclude that the finding of 11% impairment to the whole body is the proper finding of medical impairment. The primary issue is whether the award of disability is limited to two and a half times the medical impairment rating provided in TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6- 241(a)(1) or whether the award may be fixed up to six times the medical impairment rating as provided in TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-241(b). Under subsection (a)(1), an injured employee's recovery is limited to two and a half times the employee's medical impairment rating if the pre-injury employer returns the employee to work at a wage equal to or greater than that received prior to the injury. Subsection (a)(2) provides that the industrial disability award may be reconsidered by the court when the employee is no longer employed by the pre- injury employer, the loss of employment occurs within 4 weeks of the day the employee returned to work, and a new cause of action is filed within one year of the 2 |
Rutherford County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Vickie Winningham v. Masters Health Care Center 01S01-9510-CV-00177 Authoring Judge: Per Curiam Trial Court Judge: Hon. John Turnbull, 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, Masters Health Care Center, contends (1) that the evidence preponderates against the trial judge's finding that the claimant suffered any permanent partial disability from her injury, and (2) that the evidence preponderates against an award of fifty- five percent to the body as a whole. The panel concludes the judgment of the trial court should be modified as provided herein. The claimant, Vickie Winningham, is thirty-nine years old and a high school graduate. She has experience in a variety of unskilled jobs and has worked for this employer since April of 1989 as a nursing assistant. On October 27, 1991, she strained her back while lifting and turning a patient. She went first to Dr. Lloyd Hassler, who prescribed physical therapy. The claimant was referred by a representative of Crawford and Company to three physicians, Dr. James Talmadge, Dr. Arthur Gernt Bond and Dr. Michael Moore. All three testified at the trial by deposition. All three of them found her to be deconditioned from smoking and being overweight. She is five feet, three inches tall and weighs approximately two hundred fifty pounds. Dr. Talmadge diagnosed mild low back strain, symptom magnification and incontinence. Only the back sprain was, according to his testimony, causally related to the injury at work. He estimated her permanent impairment from the injury at none. Dr. Bond's diagnosis was essentially the same, except that he diagnosed degenerative changes unrelated to the injury at work. He agreed that the claimant is not permanently impaired as a result of any work related injury. Dr. Moore diagnosed mechanical low back syndrome and symptom magnification. He assessed her permanent impairment at seven percent to the whole body using the third edition of American Medical Association guidelines and at five percent using the fourth edition, from her injury. The claimant returned to work for two and one-half days, then quit, because of discomfort. She has not looked for other work, but acknowledged that she is able to work and her intent to do so when her claim is finally resolved. She can walk for thirty minutes, but has gained fifty pounds. 2 |
Putnam County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Vickie Winningham v. Masters Health Care Center 01S01-9510-CV-00177 Authoring Judge: Per Curiam Trial Court Judge: Hon. John Turnbull, 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, Masters Health Care Center, contends (1) that the evidence preponderates against the trial judge's finding that the claimant suffered any permanent partial disability from her injury, and (2) that the evidence preponderates against an award of fifty- five percent to the body as a whole. The panel concludes the judgment of the trial court should be modified as provided herein. The claimant, Vickie Winningham, is thirty-nine years old and a high school graduate. She has experience in a variety of unskilled jobs and has worked for this employer since April of 1989 as a nursing assistant. On October 27, 1991, she strained her back while lifting and turning a patient. She went first to Dr. Lloyd Hassler, who prescribed physical therapy. The claimant was referred by a representative of Crawford and Company to three physicians, Dr. James Talmadge, Dr. Arthur Gernt Bond and Dr. Michael Moore. All three testified at the trial by deposition. All three of them found her to be deconditioned from smoking and being overweight. She is five feet, three inches tall and weighs approximately two hundred fifty pounds. Dr. Talmadge diagnosed mild low back strain, symptom magnification and incontinence. Only the back sprain was, according to his testimony, causally related to the injury at work. He estimated her permanent impairment from the injury at none. Dr. Bond's diagnosis was essentially the same, except that he diagnosed degenerative changes unrelated to the injury at work. He agreed that the claimant is not permanently impaired as a result of any work related injury. Dr. Moore diagnosed mechanical low back syndrome and symptom magnification. He assessed her permanent impairment at seven percent to the whole body using the third edition of American Medical Association guidelines and at five percent using the fourth edition, from her injury. The claimant returned to work for two and one-half days, then quit, because of discomfort. She has not looked for other work, but acknowledged that she is able to work and her intent to do so when her claim is finally resolved. She can walk for thirty minutes, but has gained fifty pounds. 2 |
Putnam County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Bill Purcell v. The Lilly Company and Federated Insurance Company 02S01-9508-CV-00073 Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge Trial Court Judge: Hon. George H. Brown, 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. 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, Purcell, contends that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's findings (1) that he did not have a reasonable excuse for failure to give the written notice required by Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-21 and (2) that there was insufficient proof of a causal connection between his injury and a work- related accident. The panel has concluded that the judgment should be affirmed. The claimant worked for the employer, The Lilly Company, as a field service battery technician, replacing or servicing heavy duty batteries. In November of 1992, during a week-long trip servicing customers in the Tupelo, Mississippi area, he awoke with pain in his right buttock and leg. The pain subsided after about half an hour. The claimant later was diagnosed with a ruptured disk. There is no evidence that the pain was precipitated by any particular fortuitous occurrence, but the claimant's own testimony was that "I thought maybe I just bumped myself on some equipment the day before at the customer's location...." He told his supervisorabout the pain but gave no written notice and said nothing about his thought concerning the source of it. In fact, he filed a claim with his health insurance carrier on January 27, 1993, claiming that the injury was work-related, although he had never made such a claim to the employer. It was also during that month that his doctors had told him his injury could be work-related. He had been terminated by the employer on January 15, 1993, and had consulted an attorney,because he suspected he had a workers'compensation claim. The employer did not know of any claim that the injury was work-related until April 8, 1993, when it received written notice, dated two days earlier, from the claimant's attorney. The trial judge dismissed the case for failure of notice, or a reasonable excuse for such failure, and because the proof failed to establish that the claimant's injury was one arising out of and in the course of the employment. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(2). Immediately upon the occurrence of an injury, or as soon thereafter as is reasonable and practicable, an injured employee must, unless the employer 2 |
Shelby County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Bill Purcell v. The Lilly Company and Federated Insurance Company 02S01-9508-CV-00073 Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge Trial Court Judge: Hon. George H. Brown, 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. 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, Purcell, contends that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's findings (1) that he did not have a reasonable excuse for failure to give the written notice required by Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-21 and (2) that there was insufficient proof of a causal connection between his injury and a work- related accident. The panel has concluded that the judgment should be affirmed. The claimant worked for the employer, The Lilly Company, as a field service battery technician, replacing or servicing heavy duty batteries. In November of 1992, during a week-long trip servicing customers in the Tupelo, Mississippi area, he awoke with pain in his right buttock and leg. The pain subsided after about half an hour. The claimant later was diagnosed with a ruptured disk. There is no evidence that the pain was precipitated by any particular fortuitous occurrence, but the claimant's own testimony was that "I thought maybe I just bumped myself on some equipment the day before at the customer's location...." He told his supervisorabout the pain but gave no written notice and said nothing about his thought concerning the source of it. In fact, he filed a claim with his health insurance carrier on January 27, 1993, claiming that the injury was work-related, although he had never made such a claim to the employer. It was also during that month that his doctors had told him his injury could be work-related. He had been terminated by the employer on January 15, 1993, and had consulted an attorney,because he suspected he had a workers'compensation claim. The employer did not know of any claim that the injury was work-related until April 8, 1993, when it received written notice, dated two days earlier, from the claimant's attorney. The trial judge dismissed the case for failure of notice, or a reasonable excuse for such failure, and because the proof failed to establish that the claimant's injury was one arising out of and in the course of the employment. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(2). Immediately upon the occurrence of an injury, or as soon thereafter as is reasonable and practicable, an injured employee must, unless the employer 2 |
Shelby County | Workers Compensation Panel |