Please enter some keywords to search.
| 01A01-9602-CH-00054
01A01-9602-CH-00054
Originating Judge:Robert S. Brandt |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 09/13/96 | |
| 02A01-9505-CH-00104
02A01-9505-CH-00104
|
Court of Appeals | 09/13/96 | ||
| 02A01-9504-CV-00068
02A01-9504-CV-00068
Originating Judge:James T. Allison |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 09/13/96 | |
| 02A01-9510-CV-00217
02A01-9510-CV-00217
Originating Judge:D'Army Bailey |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 09/13/96 | |
| Cyril v. Fraser
01C01-9510-CC-00352
Originating Judge:Cornelia A. Clark |
Hickman County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 09/13/96 | |
| 03S01-9509--CV-00112
03S01-9509--CV-00112
|
Supreme Court | 09/13/96 | ||
| 02A01-9504-CV-00095
02A01-9504-CV-00095
Originating Judge:D'Army Bailey |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 09/12/96 | |
| 02A01-9506-CH-00128
02A01-9506-CH-00128
Originating Judge:George R. Ellis |
Gibson County | Court of Appeals | 09/12/96 | |
| 01A01-9601-CV-00038
01A01-9601-CV-00038
Originating Judge:Thomas Goodall |
Sumner County | Court of Appeals | 09/11/96 | |
| 01A01-9603-CH-00125
01A01-9603-CH-00125
Originating Judge:Henry Denmark Bell |
Williamson County | Court of Appeals | 09/11/96 | |
| 01A01-9602-CV-00078
01A01-9602-CV-00078
Originating Judge:Donald P. Harris |
Williamson County | Court of Appeals | 09/11/96 | |
| 01A01-9511-CH-00501
01A01-9511-CH-00501
Originating Judge:Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr. |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 09/11/96 | |
| 02A01-9504-CH-00080
02A01-9504-CH-00080
Originating Judge:D. J. Alissandratos |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 09/11/96 | |
| 02C01-9509-CR-00255
02C01-9509-CR-00255
|
Shelby County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 09/11/96 | |
| 02C01-9510-CR-00322
02C01-9510-CR-00322
|
Shelby County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 09/11/96 | |
| 01A01-9601-CV-00038
01A01-9601-CV-00038
|
Court of Appeals | 09/11/96 | ||
| 03S01-9511-CH-00122
03S01-9511-CH-00122
Originating Judge:John K. Byers |
Supreme Court | 09/11/96 | ||
| Larry Coleman v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation
02S01-9602-CV-00021
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 the award of permanent partial disability benefits is excessive and that the trial judge "erred in failing to use the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fourth Edition, to review the anatomical impairment assigned by" the operating surgeon. The employee contends the award is inadequate. The panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed as modified herein. The employee or claimant, Larry Coleman, is 52 and a high school graduate with no other training or education. He has worked all his adult life as an unskilled worker. On November 17, 1992, the fork lift which he was operating for the employer fell out of a truck bed to a parking lot, injuring him. He was treated and released at an emergency room and returned to work with pain. He ultimately was referred to a neurosurgeon, whom he first saw on January 26, 1993. The doctor diagnosed a herniated lumbar disc and prescribed an epidural block for the relief of pain. When conservative care no longer relieved the claimant's pain, surgery was performed. Since the surgery, he has continued to have disabling leg and back pain and numbness. The operation was the claimant's second for a ruptured disc in the low back, the other having occurred some seventeen years earlier. The claimant cannot sit or stand for long periods of time and has severely limited ability to bend forward. The operating surgeon assigned a permanent impairment rating of eighteen percent to the whole body, from the injury and surgery superimposed on his pre-existing spinal stenosis, using the AMA guidelines. Mr. Coleman does not think he can return to any kind of work. He has not worked since the surgery. A vocational expert examined the claimant and his medical records. The expert opined that the claimant has no transferable job skills and that he has no employability. The expert's opinion is based in part, however, on a hip problem which is not shown to have pre-existed the injury at work or to have been caused by the injury at work. We find no countervailing medical or vocational testimony in the record. The trial judge found the claimant's permanent industrial disability to be eighty-eight percent to the body as a whole and awarded benefits on that basis. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Kay S. Robilio, |
Shelby County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/11/96 | |
| Larry Coleman v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation
02S01-9602-CV-00021
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 the award of permanent partial disability benefits is excessive and that the trial judge "erred in failing to use the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fourth Edition, to review the anatomical impairment assigned by" the operating surgeon. The employee contends the award is inadequate. The panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed as modified herein. The employee or claimant, Larry Coleman, is 52 and a high school graduate with no other training or education. He has worked all his adult life as an unskilled worker. On November 17, 1992, the fork lift which he was operating for the employer fell out of a truck bed to a parking lot, injuring him. He was treated and released at an emergency room and returned to work with pain. He ultimately was referred to a neurosurgeon, whom he first saw on January 26, 1993. The doctor diagnosed a herniated lumbar disc and prescribed an epidural block for the relief of pain. When conservative care no longer relieved the claimant's pain, surgery was performed. Since the surgery, he has continued to have disabling leg and back pain and numbness. The operation was the claimant's second for a ruptured disc in the low back, the other having occurred some seventeen years earlier. The claimant cannot sit or stand for long periods of time and has severely limited ability to bend forward. The operating surgeon assigned a permanent impairment rating of eighteen percent to the whole body, from the injury and surgery superimposed on his pre-existing spinal stenosis, using the AMA guidelines. Mr. Coleman does not think he can return to any kind of work. He has not worked since the surgery. A vocational expert examined the claimant and his medical records. The expert opined that the claimant has no transferable job skills and that he has no employability. The expert's opinion is based in part, however, on a hip problem which is not shown to have pre-existed the injury at work or to have been caused by the injury at work. We find no countervailing medical or vocational testimony in the record. The trial judge found the claimant's permanent industrial disability to be eighty-eight percent to the body as a whole and awarded benefits on that basis. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Kay S. Robilio, |
Shelby County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/11/96 | |
| Anthony S. Hopson v. Protein Technologies
02S01-9603-CV-00027
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 only that the award of permanent partial disability benefits on the basis of fifty percent to the arm is excessive. The panels finds the award should be reduced to one based on thirty-five percent to the arm. The employee or claimant, Hopson, is forty-three with a high school education, one year of college and three years of military service as an aviation ordinance mechanic. On April 14, 1994, while working for Protein Technologies, he injured his left arm lifting a product weighing forty-four pounds. His doctor diagnosed lateral epicondylitis and acute olecranon bursitis, and prescribed injections, medication and physical therapy. The claimant reached maximum medical improvement on August 1, 1994, when the doctor assessed his permanent impairment at five percent to the left arm and released him to return to work with a weight lifting restriction of twenty pounds. The claimant first returned to light duty, then to a position earning as much as or more than before the injury. The trial judge awarded, among other things, permanent partial disability benefits based on fifty percent to the arm. 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. section 5-6-225(e)(2). Once the causation and permanency of an injury have been established by expert testimony,the courts may consider many pertinent factors, including age, job skills, education, training, duration of disability, and job opportunities for the disabled, in addition to anatomical impairment, for the purpose of evaluating the extent of a claimant's permanent disability. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-241(a)(2); McCaleb v. Saturn Corp., 91 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1995). From a consideration of the pertinent factors established by the proof in this case, the panel finds that the evidence preponderates against an award based on fifty percent to the arm and in favor of one based on thirty- five percent to the arm. The judgment of the trial court is modified accordingly, but otherwise affirmed. Costs on appeal are taxed to the plaintiff-appellee. 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Anthony S. Hopson, |
Shelby County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/11/96 | |
| Anthony S. Hopson v. Protein Technologies
02S01-9603-CV-00027
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 only that the award of permanent partial disability benefits on the basis of fifty percent to the arm is excessive. The panels finds the award should be reduced to one based on thirty-five percent to the arm. The employee or claimant, Hopson, is forty-three with a high school education, one year of college and three years of military service as an aviation ordinance mechanic. On April 14, 1994, while working for Protein Technologies, he injured his left arm lifting a product weighing forty-four pounds. His doctor diagnosed lateral epicondylitis and acute olecranon bursitis, and prescribed injections, medication and physical therapy. The claimant reached maximum medical improvement on August 1, 1994, when the doctor assessed his permanent impairment at five percent to the left arm and released him to return to work with a weight lifting restriction of twenty pounds. The claimant first returned to light duty, then to a position earning as much as or more than before the injury. The trial judge awarded, among other things, permanent partial disability benefits based on fifty percent to the arm. 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. section 5-6-225(e)(2). Once the causation and permanency of an injury have been established by expert testimony,the courts may consider many pertinent factors, including age, job skills, education, training, duration of disability, and job opportunities for the disabled, in addition to anatomical impairment, for the purpose of evaluating the extent of a claimant's permanent disability. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-241(a)(2); McCaleb v. Saturn Corp., 91 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1995). From a consideration of the pertinent factors established by the proof in this case, the panel finds that the evidence preponderates against an award based on fifty percent to the arm and in favor of one based on thirty- five percent to the arm. The judgment of the trial court is modified accordingly, but otherwise affirmed. Costs on appeal are taxed to the plaintiff-appellee. 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Anthony S. Hopson, |
Shelby County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/11/96 | |
| Charles E . Carey v. Carolina Freight Carriers
02S01-9506-CH-00050
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In its appeal, the employer contends that the evidence does not support the trial court's award of seventy percent (7%) to the lower extremity and that the trial court erred in computing the employee's average weekly wage at $273. instead of $22.21 per week. The panel concludes that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's assessment of permanent disability and modifies th e award to thirty-five percen t (35%) to the lower e xtremity. Prope rly computed, the employee's average weekly wage is $22.21 per week. Charles E. Carey ("Carey") was injured on December 27, 1991, when a bank vault weighing five hundred pounds fell off a fork lift and struck the front part of his left thigh. He was initially treated by Dr. R. Michael Cobb, an orthopedic surgeon, who suspected a torn ligament in Carey's knee. Dr. Cobb later concluded, however, that the ligament was not torn and that surgery was not needed. In February, 1992, Carey began to complain of numbness in his toes, although Dr. Cobb was unable to find any indication of injury to the sciatic nerve, which provides feeling to the toes. Carey was given a note to return to work on March 1, 1992. Upon examination on March 16, 1992, Carey's range of motion was excellent and his strength appeared to be normal. He advised Dr. Cobb that he was hav ing no pro blem at w ork. A ne rve cond uction study, pe rformed as a result of the c ompla ints of to e num bness, s howe d no sig n of inju ry to the sc iatic nerv e. Carey was given no permanent physical anatomical impairment and was discharged from Dr. Cobb's care on March 16, 1992. When he returned to work in March, Carey performed the same duties that 2
Authoring Judge: Janice M. Holder, Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Joe C. Morris, |
Madison County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/09/96 | |
| Jimmy Johnson v. WaUSAu Insurance Company
02S01-9601-CH-00008
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. Jimmy Johnson ("plaintiff") has appealed the trial court's dismissal of his suit for workers' compensation benefits on the grounds that plaintiff failed to prove that he sustained an injury arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment by preponderance of the evidence. Plaintiff was employed by Gurien Finishing Corporation ("Gurien"), who was insured by defendant, Wausau Insurance Company. For the foregoing reasons, we find no error and affirm. Plaintiff was employed at Gurien as a washer operator as part of Gurien's manufacturing process of stonewashed jeans. Plaintiff alleges that on August 1, 1993, he injured his lower back while pulling open a washer door that had been jammed with a rock. He stated that he did not report the injury at the time of the accident because it felt more like a cramp. When he woke up in pain the following morning, plaintiff testified that he reported the accident to his shift manager, Cindy Long. He stated that he advised Long that he hurt himself jerking on a washer door. Plaintiff was treated by his personal physician, Dr. Philip Sherman, on August 16, 1993. He gave Dr. Sherman a history of hurting his back while pulling machines at work. Plaintiff complained to Dr. Sherman of low back pain with some pain radiating into his legs, with the pain being worse in his left leg than his right. Dr. Sherman diagnosed pl aintiff as suffering from lumbosacral strain and prescribed pain medication. In November 1993 plaintiff returned to Dr. Sherman with compl aints of 2
Authoring Judge: Hewitt P. Tomlin, Jr., Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. William Michael Maloan, |
Johnson County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/09/96 | |
| Jimmy Johnson v. WaUSAu Insurance Company
02S01-9601-CH-00008
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. Jimmy Johnson ("plaintiff") has appealed the trial court's dismissal of his suit for workers' compensation benefits on the grounds that plaintiff failed to prove that he sustained an injury arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment by preponderance of the evidence. Plaintiff was employed by Gurien Finishing Corporation ("Gurien"), who was insured by defendant, Wausau Insurance Company. For the foregoing reasons, we find no error and affirm. Plaintiff was employed at Gurien as a washer operator as part of Gurien's manufacturing process of stonewashed jeans. Plaintiff alleges that on August 1, 1993, he injured his lower back while pulling open a washer door that had been jammed with a rock. He stated that he did not report the injury at the time of the accident because it felt more like a cramp. When he woke up in pain the following morning, plaintiff testified that he reported the accident to his shift manager, Cindy Long. He stated that he advised Long that he hurt himself jerking on a washer door. Plaintiff was treated by his personal physician, Dr. Philip Sherman, on August 16, 1993. He gave Dr. Sherman a history of hurting his back while pulling machines at work. Plaintiff complained to Dr. Sherman of low back pain with some pain radiating into his legs, with the pain being worse in his left leg than his right. Dr. Sherman diagnosed pl aintiff as suffering from lumbosacral strain and prescribed pain medication. In November 1993 plaintiff returned to Dr. Sherman with compl aints of 2
Authoring Judge: Hewitt P. Tomlin, Jr., Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. William Michael Maloan |
Johnson County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/09/96 | |
| Charles E . Carey v. Carolina Freight Carriers
02S01-9506-CH-00050
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In its appeal, the employer contends that the evidence does not support the trial court's award of seventy percent (7%) to the lower extremity and that the trial court erred in computing the employee's average weekly wage at $273. instead of $22.21 per week. The panel concludes that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's assessment of permanent disability and modifies th e award to thirty-five percen t (35%) to the lower e xtremity. Prope rly computed, the employee's average weekly wage is $22.21 per week. Charles E. Carey ("Carey") was injured on December 27, 1991, when a bank vault weighing five hundred pounds fell off a fork lift and struck the front part of his left thigh. He was initially treated by Dr. R. Michael Cobb, an orthopedic surgeon, who suspected a torn ligament in Carey's knee. Dr. Cobb later concluded, however, that the ligament was not torn and that surgery was not needed. In February, 1992, Carey began to complain of numbness in his toes, although Dr. Cobb was unable to find any indication of injury to the sciatic nerve, which provides feeling to the toes. Carey was given a note to return to work on March 1, 1992. Upon examination on March 16, 1992, Carey's range of motion was excellent and his strength appeared to be normal. He advised Dr. Cobb that he was hav ing no pro blem at w ork. A ne rve cond uction study, pe rformed as a result of the c ompla ints of to e num bness, s howe d no sig n of inju ry to the sc iatic nerv e. Carey was given no permanent physical anatomical impairment and was discharged from Dr. Cobb's care on March 16, 1992. When he returned to work in March, Carey performed the same duties that 2
Authoring Judge: Janice M. Holder, Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Joe C. Morris, |
Madison County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/09/96 |