Ebasco v. Rice 03S01-9701-CH-00009
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Jeffrey F. Stewart,
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 paraphrased issue in this case is whether the finding of 15% permanent partial disability is supported by a preponderance of the evidence under our standard of review as mandated by Rule 13(d), T.R.A.P. and T.C.A. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). It is not disputed that the appellee suffered a job-related accidental back injury on August 12, 1993, while using a 2-pound drill with one hand because of close working quarters. Officially, he lost no time from work but was assigned to lighter duties until he was laid off in July 1994. He testified that during the year following his injury, he missed about 25-3 days because of back pain. In October 1994 he was employed by another company as a pipefitter but was laid off after only three weeks because he could not do heavy lifting. He took re-training courses in valve technology and obtained satisfactory employment not involving the lifting of heavy materials. He testified that he can no longer engage in physical activities which require heavy lifting. Dr. Herbert Dodge was his treating physician. He initially prescribed conservative treatment for a spondylolisthesis at the lowest part of the low back, with accompanying muscle spasms. He did not relate the spondylolisthesis to an injury, because it was congenital, but said the muscle spasm was caused by trauma. Dr. Dodge continued to see the appellee who complained of pain but followed instructions with respect to light work. He opined that the appellee had a three (3%) percent medical impairment to his whole body as a result of his injury. Dr. Lester Littell examined the appellee on one occasion, March 2, 1994, for the purpose of evaluation. He concurred in the diagnosis of spondylolisthesis and testified that if the condition is symptomatic, i.e., if the patient suffered a reported injury which was documented and if he complains of pain, the AMA Guidelines call for a seven (7%) percent impairment rating. 2
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
Mcdaniel v. Universal 03S01-9612-CV-00121
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, 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. T. C. A. _ 5-6-241(a)(2) authorizes the Court to "reconsider upon the filing of a new cause of action the issue of industrial disability" and enlarge a previous award in appropriate cases where the employee is no longer employed by the pre-injury employer and files a timely application for an increase in benefits. This complaint was filed September 1, 1994. The plaintiff alleged that she had suffered a job-related back injury in 1993 which was resolved under the workers' compensation law on July 18, 1994 by a judgment approving a lump-sum settlement based on a finding of 2 percent vocational disability, with the proviso that she be allowed to return to work "within her medical restrictions."1 The judgment provided for the payment of future medical expenses provided the plaintiff consulted the defendant before seeking treatment from an authorized medical provider. She further alleged that she returned to work on July 11, 1994 and on August 17, 19942 during the course of her employment she again injured her back which resulted in total disability for which she sought an enlargement of the previous award. The plaintiff's job was sedentary. It involved "putting screws in bags." Upwards of eight one-inch screws were placed in a small glassine bag, total weight less than one ounce. She testified that owing to the laziness of fellow workers she occasionally had to stretch her arms in order to reach the materials and on August 17, 1994 "pulled her back" resulting in the alleged new injury and increased disability. The defendant denied that the plaintiff was injured as alleged and asserted that her anatomical impairment was no greater than as found by the Court on July 18, 1994. The trial judge found that this was not "an appropriate case under the provisions of T. C. A. _ 5-6-241(a)(2)" and dismissed the case. The plaintiff 1These "medical restrictions" are not otherwise defined or explicated. 2Twenty-nine days after the settlement. 2
Ronald Wade Allen v. Bosch/General Electric d/b/a B.G.A.M., Inc. 01S01-9504-CH-00062
Authoring Judge: John Maddux, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Tom E. Gray,
This workers' compensation appeal from the Sumner County Chancery Court has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _5-6-225(e) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The dispositive issue before us is whether the chancellor erred in dismissing plaintiff's suit for benefits due to plaintiff's failure to provide timely notice of his injury to the employer as required by Tenn. Code Ann. _5-6-21. For the reasons set forth below, We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The plaintiff, Ronald Wade Allen, began working for the defendant, Bosch/General Electric, d/b/a B.G.A.M., Inc., on November 8, 199. Plaintiff claims that on December 2, 199, he was lifting a tray of motors with two other employees, Clara Branham and Marilyn Rogan, when he felt a sharp pain and burning sensation in his back. According to plaintiff, he put the motors down and told Branham and Rogan that he had hurt his back. He then left the employer's place of business and went home without telling the employer's nurse or the plaintiff's supervisors about the injury. Plaintiff testified that on the following day, December 21, 199, he told his supervisors, Donald Felts and Cornise Gillespie, about the incident lifting the motors the day before. Gillespie purportedly told plaintiff that he needed to see Jill Richardson, the company nurse. According to plaintiff, he saw Richardson who gave him ice packs for his back. Rogan, one of the employees working with plaintiff at the time he claims 2
Sumner
Workers Compensation Panel
Beard v. Quadrex 03S01-9610-CH-00109
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Frank V. Williams, III,
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. Defendants, Quadrex Corporation and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, have appealed from the trial court's award of 5% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. They contend the court was in error in fixing any disability for plaintiff's psychological injury and that the award exceeded the statutory cap of six times the medical impairment rating of 5%. Plaintiff, Timmy Ray Beard, sustained a low back injury in a work-related accident on December 13, 1993. He was 36 years of age at the time of the trial and had completed the 11th grade. He was qualified to do manual labor jobs. He returned to work during June 1994 but had to stop working because he said he was hurting so much he could not work. He has not returned to work. Plaintiff came under the care of Dr. Donald D. Dietze, a neurosurgeon, who testified by deposition. He stated the lumbosacral injury resulted in a 5% medical impairment. Plaintiff was treated with medication and therapy followed by a work- hardening program. The doctor placed certain restrictions on his lifting, standing, stooping, etc. activities. Plaintiff eventually was seen by Dr. Catherine E. Gyurik, a psychiatrist, whose testimony was presented by two depositions. The first deposition was taken on December 4, 1995 and the second deposition was recorded on June 27, 1996. Dr. Gyurik first saw plaintiff on June 12, 1995, which was about eighteen months after the accident. She told the court plaintiff had gained about fifty pounds; he was not sleeping; he was not socially active; and he was irritable and agitated. She gave a diagnosis of classical depression with moderate impairment, which meant he was greatly impaired in connection with his vocational ability. She said this would result in a 25-5 percent impairment for his psychological condition. The doctor prescribed anti-depressant medication and was of the opinion the depression was due to the physical injury he had sustained on the job. 2
