Wade Nance v. State Industries,

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 to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. This matter was initially tried by the trial court on November 29, 1999, and the trial court found in favor of employer/defendant State Industries due to employee's failure to use a mandated safety procedure. On appeal, the Workers' Compensation Panel articulated a new four-prong standard to be applied when employers assert the affirmative defense of willful failure or refusal to use a safety appliance. This case Wade Nance v. State Industries, Inc. and ITT Hartford Insurance Co., 33 S.W.3d 222 (Tenn. 2). The four prong test enumerated is as follows: (1) at the time of the injury the employer had in effect a policy requiring the employee's use of a particular safety devise; (2) the employer carried out strict, continuous and bona fide enforcement of the policy; (3) the employee had actual knowledge of the policy, including a knowledge of the danger involved in its violation, through training provided by the employer; and (4) the employee willfully and intentionally failed or refused to follow the established policy requiring use of the safety appliance. The panel concluded that the employer had carried its burden of proof on elements (1), (3) and (4), and remanded the case for a new trial on element (2), all as set out above. On July 15, 22, the case was tried again before the same judge and the court determined State Industries, employer, had satisfied its burden of proof on this issue, i.e. the employer carried out a strict, continuous and bona fide enforcement policy. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's finding and we affirm. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (2 Supp.) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed ALLEN W. WALLACE, SR. J., in which ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., J. and Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J., joined. Donald D. Zuccarello, Nashville, Tennessee and Marcia D. McShane, Nashville, Tennessee, for appellant, Wade Nance Cynthia Debula Baines, Nashville, Tennessee, John Thomas Feeney, Nashville, Tennessee, and Shannon Elisabeth Poindexter, Nashville, Tennessee, for appellees, ITT Hartford Insurance Co. and State Industries, Inc. MEMORANDUM OPINION FACTS On June 7, 1998, complainant, employee, while performing his duties for employer as a greaser and oiler, suffered a fractured right ankle. Employee had positioned himself on a ladder approximately four to five feet off the floor and was attempting to grease a turn-roller machine located in the employer's paint shop. Another employee unexpectedly activated the turn-roller, causing the employee to fall, injuring his ankle. Employer required lock-out/ tag out safety procedure, and employee failed to use the procedure. The purpose of the lock- out/tag out procedure is to prevent a machine from being activated while being cleaned or otherwise maintained. Employer had such a safety procedure in their training manual which was disseminated to its employees. They further had training classes, and employee had received training on this procedure. Evidence in this case indicated some employees did not use this safety procedure even though they had a device on their person to initiate the procedure. Employer had in place a procedure for disciplinary violations ranging from a written reprimand to termination. ANALYSIS 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. _ 5-6-225(e)(2) (22 Supp.). The reviewing court is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.