Margaret J. Ballinger v. Decatur County General

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-225(e) (3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Employee entered a court-approved settlement of her workers' compensation claim relating to an injury that occurred while she was in the course and scope of her employment. After the settlement, Employee sustained a new injury that arose out of the treatment she received for the injury encompassed by the settlement. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Employer, finding that Employee's injury was not a subsequent or second injury that is compensable under Tennessee Code Annotated section 5-6-28. We affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (2 Supp.) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed Allen W. Wallace, Sr.J., in which Janice M. Holder, J. and E. Riley Anderson, J., joined. James S. Higgins, Nashville, Tennessee, for appellant, Margaret Ballinger. John Dean Burleson, Jackson, Tennessee, for appellees, Decatur County General Hospital and Virginia Insurance Reciprocal. Juan G. Villasenor, Assistant Attorney General, Nashville, Tennessee, for appellee, Department of Labor, Second Injury Fund. MEMORANDUM OPINION FACTS The facts of this case are not in dispute. On November 16, 1999, Employee entered a joint petition for approval of a settlement of her workers' compensation claim relating to a low back injury that occurred while she was in the course and scope of her employment with Decatur County Hospital. Said settlement provided for compensation based upon a seventy-two percent partial disability to the body as a whole, and also provided future medical treatment. Under the settlement agreement, Employee agreed, as set out in the order of the Court, as follows: IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the agreement reached between the parties that all claims which the employee might have, now or in the future, under the Worker's Compensation law, for temporary and permanent disability, medical expenses, including future medical expenses, or any other benefit whatsoever under the Worker's Compensation Law of Tennessee, resulting from or connected with any injury or injuries arising from an accident which occurred on or about [January 24, 1997] or at any time while employed by the employer, be compromised, settled and satisfied by the payment of $81, to the employee, including $2,48.4 which has previously been paid for permanent partial disability, and the agreement of the insurer to be contingently liable for future medical expenses with the agreement that payments of authorized and approved medical expenses are to be made as set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-24 to Dr. William R. Schooley, or to whomever else he may refer her, for treatment related to the employee's alleged on the job injury and the same is hereby in all respects ratified, confirmed and approved. . . . Subsequent to the above referenced settlement, Employee received further medical treatment for her injuries arising out of her injuries of January 24, 1997, the basis of the above settlement agreement. Due to pain from her injuries, a morphine pump was placed to help her low back pain. This procedure resulted in an allergic reaction to the morphine pump. She became ill and this caused her to have a severe cough and to vomit, resulting in a ruptured disc in her upper back at the C-6 level of the spine. Employee required surgery and other treatment for this injury. ANALYSIS The trial court granted Employer's Motion for Summary Judgment. Therefore, appellate review is controlled by Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The pleadings and evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Summary Judgment is to be rendered only when it is shown that there is no genuine issue to a material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56; Hilliard v. Tennessee State Home Health Serv., Inc., 95 S.W.2d 344, 345 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. Panel 1997); Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 28 (Tenn. 1993). Rarely are such motions an option in workers' compensation cases. Berry v. Consolidated Systems, Inc., 84 S.W.2d 445 (Tenn. 1991). Summary judgment should be granted -2-