Norma J. Baker v. Sally Beauty Supply and The Travelers Insurance Co. 02S01-9709-CH-00078
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
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. The trial judge found the plaintiff had suffered a 55 percent vocational impairment to her left leg and also awarded medical expenses in the amount of $1,112., which the defendant says were unauthorized. The defendant raises the following issues: I. Whether the evidence presented at trial preponderates against the trial court's award of 55% permanent partial disability to plaintiff's left lower extremity as a result of plaintiff's work related accident? II. Whether the medical expenses incurred by the plaintiff were reasonable, necessary and causally related to an injury arising out of the course and scope of employment? We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The plaintiff was injured on December 14, 1994 when a car backed into her and penned her legs between the bumpers of two cars. The plaintiff was performing duties in the course of her work for the defendant when this occurred. The plaintiff had significant injuries to her left leg. As near as we can tell from this record, the plaintiff was absent from work for a week. W hen she wished to return to work, the employer told her she would have to have a release from a physician to return. The employer had not then, nor so far as this record shows never, furnished the plaintiff with a panel of doctors for examination or treatment. The plaintiff was 53 years of age at the time of trial, has a high school education, and has nine months of beauty training. She testified that she continued to work for the defendant for one and a half years after her injury but had difficulty in doing the work because she could not stand for long periods of time and had trouble stooping and bending. We are of the opinion that the resolution of this case turns upon whether the medical evidence offered by the defendant was admissible. The defendant offered as medical proof a memorandum report by James G. Warmbrod, an orthopedic surgeon, as well as various reports from physical 2
Madison
Workers Compensation Panel
Linda Butler v. Lumbermen's Mutual Ins. 01S01-9709-CH-00192
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 Chancellor found that the plaintiff sustained an injury to her left foot which resulted in a 3 percent vocational impairment. This finding is challenged on appeal. Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The plaintiff is 59 years old. She finished the 11th grade and has extensive industrial training. She was employed by Lanier Clothes, a textile manufacturer in Franklin County, for 22 years. Her duties required a substantial amount of walking. In April 1995, she developed a problem with her left foot, caused by a calcaneal spur. Her attending physician, Dr. Richard Bagby, prescribed custom molded inserts for her shoes, with anti-inflammatory medication. The footware was modified from time to time. She never missed work at Lanier, which closed its factory in October, 1995. About ten weeks later, the plaintiff was employed by Wal-Mart, where she functions satisfactorily so long as she utilizes the orthotic inserts. Dr. Bagby assessed her impairment at five percent to her left foot. He imposed no restrictions but thought she could experience some difficulty if she stood on hard surfaces all day. 2
Franklin
Workers Compensation Panel
Connie Covington v. Nagle Industries, Inc. 01S01-9709-CH-00183
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Robert E. Burch
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. In this case the plaintiff ran afoul of the well-settled principle that the issues in a workers' compensation case, like any other, must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial judge ruled that the appealing plaintiff failed to carry her burden of proving causation and dismissed her claim for permanent, partial disability benefits. Our review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The plaintiff alleged that on September 9, 1993 she sustained an injury to her elbow, arm, and both wrists, diagnosed as bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome which in the passage of time resulted in permanent, partial disability. The defendant filed its answer admitting that the "plaintiff sustained an injury in the course and scope of plaintiff's employment,"1 and denying all other allegations. The plaintiff testified that she began working for the defendant in May, 1991, doing assembly line work which she described as repetitive.2 After four or five months "into the job," her hands became swollen at the end of the 1But wh en the case was called for trial, the parties stipulated that causatio n was an issue. It prov ed to be dispositive. The answer was not amended, but the case was tried as if the defendant denied causation. 2Likely over-done, since she testified that she processed 8 parts per day. 2
Houston
Workers Compensation Panel
Bruce W. Link v. The Aerostructures 01S01-9710-CH-00217
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Carol L. Mccoy,
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. A finding of 12 percent disability to the plaintiff's left leg is derided by the employer who strenuously argues that the evidence strongly weighs against the judgment and that the claim for permanent, partial disability should be denied. The plaintiff is 56 years old, and is a resident of Bowling Green, Kentucky. His vocational history reveals his talents for things mechanical: mill operator, aircraft assembler, machine shop supervisor, fabricator, turbine repair, back dump operator, precision grinder. He has also worked as an insurance salesman, automobile salesman and manager of a truck stop. He is experienced in computer fundamentals, blueprint and problem solving. All of this by way of his own testimony. He alleged that he injured his left knee and hip as a result of slipping which jammed his knee into a machine. His testimony was divergent; he testified that he slipped on a "metal thing" and fell, and complained only of his left knee. The first report of work injury recites that the plaintiff reported a twinge in his left knee while stepping down from a machine on October 12, 1994. Several months earlier, in April, he complained of slipping and striking a fixture. He was treated by Dr. William Gavigan, an orthopedic specialist, who testified that x-rays of the plaintiff's knee were normal and an MRI study revealed no problems. An arthroscopic examination revealed no evidence of a 2
Davidson
Workers Compensation Panel
William Mcdowell v. Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc. and Royal Insurance Co. 02S01-9710-CV-00088
Authoring Judge: F. Lloyd Tatum, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. C. Creed Mcginley, Judge
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 judge found that the plaintiff had sustained thirty percent permanent partial disability to each arm and entered judgment accordingly. The defendant employer, Henry I. Siegel Company, Inc. (HIS), and its insurance carrier, Royal Insurance Company, present issue that the thirty percent permanent partial disability to each arm is excessive and should be reduced to approximately ten percent permanent disability to each arm. It was stipulated before trial that the plaintiff had a gradually occurring injury in both arms. The only question that was presented to the trial court was the extent of the disability. The plaintiff testified that he is a high school graduate. He was 47 years of age at the time of his injury. He has worked for the defendant since May, 1967 and continues to work for the defendant as a "packer." The plaintiff testified that in October, 1994 his hands and wrists began hurting. His right hand and wrist hurt more than the left. His hands and wrists continued to hurt, but he continued to work until he had surgery on the right hand on January 9, 1995. After surgery to his right hand, his left hand and arm became much worse. Ultimately he had surgery on the left hand and arm on February 8, 1995. After the surgery on his left hand, both hands continued to pain but the left hand was much worse than the right hand. He went to see Dr. Eugene F. Gulish who performed a second surgery on the left hand on March 12, 1996. Plaintiff testified that after the repeat surgery on the left hand, it improved. However, he continued to have wrist pain and tingling running down three fingers. It was not as bad at the time of trial as before the second surgery, but at times he could not pick up a cup of coffee, open cans of Coke, or open jars. He does not have the grip strength he once had in the left hand. 2
