WORKERS COMPENSATION PANEL OPINIONS

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Employee suffered work-related injuries to his knees prior to 2003 and underwent numerous surgeries. He entered into two settlements that obligated Employer to pay all future medical expenses arising from those injuries. In 2004, Employee fell at home and reinjured his right knee. He sought workers' compensation benefits, claiming that the 2004 injury was a natural consequence of his prior compensable knee injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment to Employer, finding that Employee's injury was not a natural consequence of the prior on-the-job knee injuries. We affirm the judgment as to Employee’s claims for permanent partial disability benefits, and certain temporary total disability benefits. We reverse as to Employee’s claims for medical benefits and certain temporary total disability benefits because there are disputed material facts that could allow Employee to prove his 2004 injury was a natural consequence of his prior compensable knee injuries. We affirm the trial court's dismissal of several collateral issues raised by employee.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel. An employee who sustained a compensable injury to his left knee in 2006 filed suit in the Chancery Court for Wilson County seeking to recover benefits for an additional injury to his right knee allegedly caused by over-reliance on his right leg as a result of the earlier injury to his left knee. The employer denied liability and sought to introduce at trial a Medical Impairment Registry (“MIR”) report prepared in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(d)(5) (Supp. 2009). The trial court sustained the employee’s objection to the introduction of the MIR report. Following a bench trial, the trial court determined that the 2006 injury to the employee’s left knee was compensable and awarded the employee 27% permanent partial impairment to each leg. On this appeal, the employer asserts that the trial court erred by excluding the MIR report, by finding that the injury to the employee’s right knee was a new, compensable injury, and by basing its award on the impairment rating of the employee’s physician. We affirm the judgment.

In this workers’ compensation action, the employee, Linda Princinsky, sought reconsideration for a compensable injury that she sustained in 2002. Following the injury, she was able to return to work for her pre-injury employer. Her workers’ compensation claim was settled for two and one half times the anatomical impairment in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- 241(a). In 2005, she sustained another work-related injury, and was unable to return to her job. She entered into a court-approved settlement of that claim based upon 40.5% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. She then sought reconsideration, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(a)(2), of the settlement of her 2002 injury. The trial court found that she was permanently and totally disabled as a result of that injury and awarded benefits accordingly. Employer and the Second Injury Fund have appealed.  We affirm the trial court’s finding that Ms. Princinsky was rendered permanently and totally disabled by her 2002 injury, but conclude that the trial court erred in failing to offset from its award 272 weeks of benefits previously paid by the employer for the 2002 and 2005 injuries. We, therefore, modify the award and remand the case to the trial court for the entry of an appropriate judgment consistent with this opinion.

The employee, Paul Douthit, sustained a compensable injury to his left knee, which resulted in an anatomical impairment of 2% of the leg. He was able to return to his prior employment, and his claim was settled for 3% permanent partial disability to the leg, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(d)(1)(A). He subsequently had a second injury. A committee composed of his peers determined that both injuries were preventable, which led to his termination for violation of a company rule. He filed this petition for reconsideration in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- 241(d)(1)(B)(ii). The trial court found that Mr. Douthit’s termination was not the result of intentional misconduct, that his conduct did not rise to the level of ordinary negligence, and that he was eligible for reconsideration. The trial court awarded an additional 9% permanent partial disability to the leg. The employer, Griffin Industries, has appealed, contending that “intentional misconduct” is an incorrect standard, that the findings of the peer committee are not reviewable, and that the trial court, therefore, erred in reconsidering the settlement. We agree that the “intentional misconduct” standard is not in conformity with existing case law, but affirm the trial court’s determination that the employee was eligible to seek reconsideration.

After a plant closure, employee sought reconsideration of a prior workers’ compensation settlement for right shoulder and elbow injuries in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 241(a)(2) (2008). Employer denied that he was entitled to reconsideration of the elbow injury because it was a separate injury to a scheduled member. Id. § 50-6-241(a)(1). The trial court found that the two injuries were concurrent and that employee was entitled to receive reconsideration as to both. It further found that employee had proven three of the four factors set out in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-242(a) (2008) by clear and convincing evidence and was therefore not limited by the six times impairment cap. The trial court awarded 57.5% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. On appeal, employer contends that the trial court erred by finding the injuries to be concurrent and by finding that employee had satisfied the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-242(a). We affirm the holding that the injuries were concurrent but find that employee did not satisfy his burden of proof under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-242(a). We modify the judgment accordingly.

The sole issue presented in this workers’ compensation claim is whether a corporate transaction involving the sale of the employer amounted to a loss of employment for purposes of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(d). The trial court found that it did and awarded permanent disability benefits in excess of one and one-half times the anatomical impairment. On appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
 

The employee sustained two compensable injuries on the same day. Before he reached maximum medical improvement, all of the stock in his employer was sold to another corporation. The trial court held that this transaction caused a loss of employment for purposes of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(d) and awarded 33% permanent partial disability to the left arm, an amount in excess of one and one-half times the anatomical impairment. On appeal, the employer contends that the trial court erred in finding that a loss of employment occurred as a result of the change of ownership and that the award is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Employee suffered a compensable back injury in the course of his employment for the State of Tennessee. The Claims Commission found that he was permanently and totally disabled. On appeal, the State contends that the evidence preponderates against the finding of permanent total disability. We affirm the judgment.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51 for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Lori Turner (“Employee”) sought reconsideration of her prior workers’ compensation settlement pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(a)(2). Her claim had been settled for 14% permanent partial disability (“PPD”) to the body as a whole, based upon a 7% anatomical impairment. Upon reconsideration, the trial court awarded an additional 21% PPD, for a total of 35% PPD to the body as a whole. Masterbrand Cabinets, Inc. (“Employer”) has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the amount of the award. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee alleged that he sustained a compensable injury to his left arm. His employer denied the claim, contending that the injury was not caused by the employment, and also that the employee had failed to provide notice of his injury as required by the workers’ compensation statute. The trial court found that the injury was work-related, and awarded 60% permanent partial disability (“PPD”) to the left arm. On appeal, the employer argues that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings on these issues, and that the trial court erred by failing to apply the missing witness rule as to the potential testimony of the treating physicians. We find no error, and affirm the judgment.

In this workers’ compensation action, the trial court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the employee’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations, Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-203, because the employee had not filed a request for benefit review conference within one year of the date of injury. The employee, Joe Lynn Hughes, has appealed, contending that the statute was tolled by his timely filing of a request for assistance. We agree, reverse the grant of summary judgment, and remand the case to the trial court

Employee developed carpal tunnel syndrome while employed as a factory worker by Johnson Controls, Inc. (“JCI”). After employee gave notice of her injury and received some treatment, Manufacturers Industrial Group (“MIG”) bought the factory and became her employer. She had surgery on both arms and returned to work, but was then permanently laid off. Employee brought an action against both JCI and MIG for workers’ compensation benefits due to injuries sustained to her right and left hands and wrists. JCI and MIG each argued that the other should be liable for her workers’ compensation benefits. The trial court found that MIG was liable and awarded 48% permanent partial disability to both arms. MIG appealed. It contends that the trial court erred by assigning liability to it  and by adopting theimpairment rating of a physician chosen through the Medical Impairment Registry. MIG further argues that the award was excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Ricky Mayes (“Employee”) sustained a compensable injury to his spine. His claim against Peebles, Inc. (“Employer”) was settled in accordance with the workers’ compensation statute. His authorized treating physician subsequently recommended a surgical procedure. Employer’s medical utilization review provider declined to approve the procedure. After an initial administrative appeal was denied, Employee filed a motion in the trial court, seeking to compel Employer to authorize the procedure. The trial court granted the motion, and awarded attorney’s fees to Employee. On appeal, Employer argues that the trial court did not have jurisdiction, because Employee did not exhaust his administrative appeals, and that the trial court erred by awarding attorney’s fees. We affirm the judgment.

The employee filed a workers' compensation claim against her employer for back pain resulting from the aggravation and advancement of her degenerative disc disease, which she claimed had occurred from her injury while working on a brake line assembly. The trial court found that the employee had not carried her burden of proof, and the employee appealed. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of fact made by the trial court, the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel, sitting in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) and Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, affirms the judgment.

The owner and operator of a tractor-trailer filed a workers' compensation claim against a common carrier for injuries that he incurred while attempting to verify a load to transport to another location. The trial court ruled that the owner/operator, while an independent contractor, was entitled to workers' compensation benefits by virtue of a written contract between the parties extending coverage, as permitted by statute. The trial court reserved judgment on the award and permitted an interlocutory appeal. The Supreme Court granted the appeal and referred it to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) and Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of fact made by the trial court, the judgment is affirmed. The cause is remanded to the trial court for the disposition of the remaining issues.

In this workers’ compensation action, employee sought benefits for injuries to his hips, shoulders, and feet. The trial court awarded benefits for injuries to his shoulders and feet but found that he failed to give timely notice of his bilateral hip injuries to his employer and dismissed those claims. Employee has appealed, contending that the trial court erred in finding that he did not provide timely notice of his hip injuries and that the complaint is barred by the statute of limitations. He requests that temporary disability, medical, and permanent disability benefits be awarded for those claims. Employer argues that the trial court erred in its calculation of the amount to be set off for social security retirement benefits. We conclude that the employee gave sufficient notice of his hip injuries to satisfy the requirements of the workers’ compensation statute. However, we find that those claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

The trial court granted the employee’s post-judgment motion to compel his employer to provide certain medical treatment. The employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by finding that the proposed treatment was related to the work injury. We affirm the judgment.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Emory Pegram (“Decedent”) was the President of Findley & Pegram Company, Inc. (“Employer”). He died as a result of a motorcycle accident. Approximately ten minutes before the accident, he had made a bank deposit for the business. He thereafter drove past his office and home. Employer had no active projects in the direction Decedent was traveling at the time of the accident. There was, however, a potential future project in that direction. Decedent had not informed any co-workers or employees where he was going or for what purpose. He was carrying business documents, a business cell phone, and a tool. The trial court concluded that he was a traveling employee at the time of the accident, and awarded workers’ compensation death benefits to his widow. The trial court also awarded post-judgment interest for the five-month period between the announcement of the court’s decision and entry of the judgment. Employer has appealed. We conclude that Decedent was not a traveling employee, but was acting in the course of his employment at the time of the accident. We further conclude that the workers’ compensation statute does not authorize an award of interest prior to entry of the judgment. The judgment is modified to remove the award of post-judgment interest. It is otherwise affirmed.

The employee alleged that he had sustained a compensable injury to his back. His employer denied the claim due to discrepancies between his account of the event that caused the injury and certain medical records. The trial court found that the employee had failed to sustain his burden of proof, and dismissed the complaint. The employee appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against that finding. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Employee alleged that he sustained hearing loss as a result of his work for employer. He filed a civil action 94 days after an impasse was reached at a benefit review conference. The trial court granted employer’s motion to dismiss on the basis of the 90-day statute of limitations, Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-203(g)(1) (2008). On appeal, employee contends that the report of the benefit review conference was never “filed with the commissioner” of Labor and Workforce Development as required by the statute and that the 90-day limitation period therefore never began to run. We affirm the judgment.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee alleged that she sustained a repetitive motion injury to her chest and back. Her employer denied liability. Three doctors testified concerning the issues of causation and permanency. The trial court found that the employee had sustained a compensable injury, and awarded 16% permanent partial disability (“PPD”) benefits to the body as a whole. On appeal, the employer contends that the trial court erred by awarding any benefits. The employee contends that the award is inadequate. We agree with the employee and increase the award to 30% PPD to the body as a whole and otherwise affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In 2001, the trial court found that Employee's coronary artery disease had been advanced by his employment. Medical benefits were awarded in accordance with the workers' compensation law. In 2007, a dispute arose between Employee and Employer as to whether certain medications and tests were related to the work injury. Employee filed a motion to compel Employer to provide the medications under the 2001 judgment. The trial court granted the motion, and ordered Employer to provide all of the medications at issue. On appeal, we conclude that the trial court erred by requiring Employer to provide medications for Employee's diabetes. We otherwise affirm the order.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Vicky Benson (“Employee”) developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome in 2002, as a result of her work for New Gray Cemetery (“Employer”). Her claim was accepted. She had surgery on her right arm in 2004 and returned to work. After her return, she was terminated for reasons not related to her injury. She continued to receive conservative medical treatment from time to time. She found new employment in 2006. In September 2007, her treating physician recommended surgery for her left arm. Employer denied the claim, contending that her subsequent employer was liable for the condition and its effects. The trial court ruled that Employee’s condition had been worsened by her later employment, and dismissed the claim. On appeal, Employee contends that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding. We affirm the judgment.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Wendy Blair (“Employee”) sustained injuries as a result of a fall which occurred in the course of her work as a sales agent for Wyndham Vacation Ownership (“Employer”). The trial court found that she suffered permanent injuries to her neck and lower back due to the fall and that she had not made a meaningful return to work. The trial court awarded Employee 78% permanent partial disability (“PPD”) benefits to the body as a whole. Employer has appealed from that judgment. We conclude that the trial court erred in its finding that Employee did not have a meaningful return towork. Consequently, we modify the judgment to award 19.5% PPD to the body as a whole.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee alleged a compensable injury to his right shoulder and a compensable mental injury. His employer denied that the alleged mental injury was compensable. The trial court found both injuries to be compensable and awarded 50% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. On appeal, the employer contends that the trial court erred by awarding benefits for the mental injury and by finding that the employee did not have a meaningful return to work. The employee contends that the trial court erred by accepting the impairment rating of the Medical Impairment Rating Registry physician and in the trial court’s application of the concurrent injury rule. We conclude that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding that the employee sustained a compensable mental injury and modify the judgment accordingly.