Shelby Williams Industries v. Alton Sane 03S01-9601-CH-00004
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Dennis H. Inman,
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, Shelby Williams Industries, Inc., instituted suit against Defendant, Alton Sane, seeking a determination as to whether the defendant had sustained a work-related injury which was compensable. The Chancellor found the claim to be compensable and fixed defendant's permanent partial disability at fifty percent to the body as a whole. The employer has appealed insisting the evidence is not sufficient to support the award and that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's findings. The employee is forty years old and has a twelfth-grade education. He testified he sustained an injury on July 12, 1994, while assembling chair backs; he was using a two-wheel dolly and, as he rolled it, a chair frame started to slide off and he attempted to catch it with the dolly in one hand and the frame in the other hand; while in this position, he felt a jolt in his low back; the next morning his legs tingled, and there was a numb feeling. He was seen at the hospital emergency room and was released; he also saw the company physician and later an orthopedic surgeon; he returned to work on August 3, 1994. The employee told the court he was injured again on October 7, 1994, while doing the same type work; he said, while in a twisted position, he bent over to get a chair seat; as he was reaching for the seat, he sneezed, and it felt like he had been shot; he saw the company doctor again and the orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed the problem as a ruptured disc; surgery was performed during November, 1994; and he had not been released to return to work as of the date of the trial on August 31, 1995. Dr. William Foster, an orthopedic surgeon, testified by deposition and stated he saw defendant shortly after both the July and October incidents; his opinion in July was that he had suffered a lumbar strain with a possible ruptured dis,c but he did not do further testing as his patient seemed to improve and returned to work; he 2
Hamblen
Workers Compensation Panel
Vanessa Phillips v. Pennsylvania National Insurance Company 03S01-9512-CV-00128
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Ben W. 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. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer contends (1) that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the employee suffered an injury by accident in the course of her employment, (2) that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the employee's permanent impairment is causally related to her employment, (3) that the trial court erred in awarding medical expenses of an unauthorized provider, and (4) that the trial court abused its discretion with respect to the award of discretionary costs. The panel concludes that the judgment should be reversed, for the reasons set forth below. The employee or claimant, Vanessa Phillips, now Vanessa Dunkhase, is a thirty-three year old graduate of Jefferson County High School, who was employed as a boarder for Tennessee Machine & Hosiery. The employer manufactures socks, among other things. In the production process, damp socks are delivered in boxes or buggies to a pressing machine, where boarders remove them one at a time and place them on a form to be machine dried and pressed before being packaged for delivery and sale. On February 2, 1993, the claimant was treated by a dentist for an abscessed tooth. The next day, she asked to be excused from work, but the request was denied by the employer. After working a full shift for another employer, Hardee's, she reported to work at approximately 3:3 p.m. About an hour later, she ran to the bathroom crying. Another employee checked on her but she did not claim any work related injury. The co-worker summoned the claimant's supervisor, Jim Sullivan. The claimant told Sullivan that she was sick with an upset 2
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
Vanessa Phillips v. Pennsylvania National Insurance Company 03S01-9512-CV-00128
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Ben W. 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. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer contends (1) that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the employee suffered an injury by accident in the course of her employment, (2) that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the employee's permanent impairment is causally related to her employment, (3) that the trial court erred in awarding medical expenses of an unauthorized provider, and (4) that the trial court abused its discretion with respect to the award of discretionary costs. The panel concludes that the judgment should be reversed, for the reasons set forth below. The employee or claimant, Vanessa Phillips, now Vanessa Dunkhase, is a thirty-three year old graduate of Jefferson County High School, who was employed as a boarder for Tennessee Machine & Hosiery. The employer manufactures socks, among other things. In the production process, damp socks are delivered in boxes or buggies to a pressing machine, where boarders remove them one at a time and place them on a form to be machine dried and pressed before being packaged for delivery and sale. On February 2, 1993, the claimant was treated by a dentist for an abscessed tooth. The next day, she asked to be excused from work, but the request was denied by the employer. After working a full shift for another employer, Hardee's, she reported to work at approximately 3:3 p.m. About an hour later, she ran to the bathroom crying. Another employee checked on her but she did not claim any work related injury. The co-worker summoned the claimant's supervisor, Jim Sullivan. The claimant told Sullivan that she was sick with an upset 2
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
Shelby Williams Industries v. Alton Sane 03S01-9601-CH-00004
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Dennis H. Inman,
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, Shelby Williams Industries, Inc., instituted suit against Defendant, Alton Sane, seeking a determination as to whether the defendant had sustained a work-related injury which was compensable. The Chancellor found the claim to be compensable and fixed defendant's permanent partial disability at fifty percent to the body as a whole. The employer has appealed insisting the evidence is not sufficient to support the award and that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's findings. The employee is forty years old and has a twelfth-grade education. He testified he sustained an injury on July 12, 1994, while assembling chair backs; he was using a two-wheel dolly and, as he rolled it, a chair frame started to slide off and he attempted to catch it with the dolly in one hand and the frame in the other hand; while in this position, he felt a jolt in his low back; the next morning his legs tingled, and there was a numb feeling. He was seen at the hospital emergency room and was released; he also saw the company physician and later an orthopedic surgeon; he returned to work on August 3, 1994. The employee told the court he was injured again on October 7, 1994, while doing the same type work; he said, while in a twisted position, he bent over to get a chair seat; as he was reaching for the seat, he sneezed, and it felt like he had been shot; he saw the company doctor again and the orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed the problem as a ruptured disc; surgery was performed during November, 1994; and he had not been released to return to work as of the date of the trial on August 31, 1995. Dr. William Foster, an orthopedic surgeon, testified by deposition and stated he saw defendant shortly after both the July and October incidents; his opinion in July was that he had suffered a lumbar strain with a possible ruptured dis,c but he did not do further testing as his patient seemed to improve and returned to work; he 2
Hamblen
Workers Compensation Panel
Greene County, Tennessee v. Lisa Ward, Jarrod Ward and Jordan Ward 03S01-9510-CH-00116
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Dennis H. Inman
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. These cases were instituted by Greene County, Tennessee, plaintiff, against the dependents of William Guy Ward, deceased, and Robert John Desormeaux, deceased, defendants, to determine whether the deaths of the two individuals are compensable under the Workers' Compensation laws of our state. The trial court determined the claims were not compensable as their deaths did not arise out of and in the course of their employment. Defendants have appealed insisting the evidence preponderates against this finding. William Guy Ward and Robert John Desormeaux were part-time auxiliary officers of the Greene County Sheriff's Department. They died as a result of an airplane crash on the night of July 11, 1994, at about 11: p.m. The airplane was being operated by Officer Desormeaux and Officer W ard was riding as a passenger. The record indicates auxiliary officers received limited training as compared to the training of a regular certified deputy sheriff. As auxiliary officers, they were scheduled to work twice a month for 8-16 hours, and this assignment was on weekends because the Sheriff's Department was usually busier at this time during the week. Auxiliary officers were always assigned to work with a regular certified deputy sheriff on patrol and were paid $5. per hour when performing scheduled work. The evidence indicates an auxiliary officer could work at other times with permission but would not be compensated for this work activity. Officers Ward and Desormeaux had been auxiliary officers for about one year, and their work activity with the Sheriff's Department had been riding with and assisting a regular deputy on patrol. As auxiliary officers, they were bonded deputies. The Auxiliary Organization Manual Of The Greene County Sheriff's Department provided auxiliary personnel shall follow the direction of full-time 2
This is a declaratory judgment action. In the complaint, Wendy Setters (Mrs. Setters) seeks a declaration that an exclusion in her automobile insurance policy is invalid as against public policy; and, alternatively, that the exclusion, due to an ambiguity in the insurance policy, is unenforceable against her. The subject provision excludes the extension of liability coverage to an insured when that person's negligence causes injury to a family member. Relying on this exclusion, the defendant, Permanent General Assurance Corporation (Permanent General), denied coverage with respect to claims asserted by Mrs. Setters individually and on behalf of her children arising solely out of injuries sustained by the children in an automobile accident. The accident was caused, in part, by the negligent driving of her husband. The trial court granted Permanent General's motion for judgement on the pleadings, finding the exclusion to be valid, enforceable and not violative of the public policy" of Tennessee. Plaintiff appeals, raising two issues that present the following questions:
1. Is a provision in an automobile insurance policy excluding coverage for liability to a "family member" violative of the public policy of Tennessee?
2. Is the liability coverage in the subject policy ambiguous so as to warrant a strict constructino against Permanent General?
