WORKERS COMPENSATION PANEL OPINIONS

In this workers’ compensation action, the employee alleged that he sustained injuries to his back and neck. He reported two separate injuries, about a month apart, that occurred in different counties. The employer accepted the back injury as compensable, but denied the neck injury. The trial court found both the back and neck injuries to be compensable, that the claim was not barred by the statute of limitations, and that venue was proper in the county of the first injury. The employer has appealed, alleging the trial court’ findings were in error.1 We affirm the judgment.

In this workers’ compensation case, the employee, Margaret Gail Moore, while working as a fuel clerk at a truck stop, was attacked and beaten during a robbery, suffering multiple injuries. Ms. Moore sought permanent disability benefits for physical and mental injuries. She presented testimony of two evaluating physicians, who estimated her total anatomical impairment at 62% to 82% to the body as a whole. The employer, Mountain Empire Oil Company, presented testimony of two evaluating physicians who estimated her impairment to be 14.5%. The trial court awarded 93% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by basing its award on the testimony of the evaluating physicians presented by the employee.1 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 Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Employee alleged that she developed carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of her work as an aesthetician. She was referred to an orthopaedic surgeon, who concluded that her condition was not related to her employment. She had surgery on both arms. An evaluating physician testified that her condition was caused by her employment. The trial court ruled that she failed to sustain her burden of proof with regards to causation. On appeal, she contends that the evidence preponderates against that finding. We affirm the judgment.

Employee was a passenger in an automobile, which was involved in a collision. It is undisputed that the accident arose from and occurred in the course of his employment. The trial court awarded future medical benefits but declined to award permanent disability benefits. We affirm the judgment.1

Employee was injured when lifting a can of paint at work. Employee’s treating physicians
recommended surgery, but Employee refused surgical treatment. The trial court found that
Employee had sustained a 60% permanent partial disability (“PPD”). The court also found that the date of maximum medical improvement (“MMI”) was January 26, 2007, and that Employee was entitled to temporary total disability (“TTD”) until that date. Employer appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in its determination of the date of MMI and that the award of PPD is excessive. We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings concerning the impairment rating and vocational disability. We reverse the trial court’s finding as to the date of maximum medical improvement.1

Employee alleged that he sustained a compensable injury to his wrist. There was conflicting medical evidence concerning causation and impairment. The trial court ruled that Employee had sustained a compensable injury and assigned 10% permanent partial disability to the right arm. On appeal, Employer contends that the trial court erred by admitting the testimony of Employee’s medical expert and by finding that Employee sustained a compensable injury and permanent disability. We affirm the judgment.1

Employee had a heart attack in 1996. He and Employer entered into a court-approved settlement of the claim, requiring Employer to provide future medical treatment for the injury. In 2000, Employee experienced additional coronary problems, which required bypass surgery. The trial court denied his petition to require Employer to pay for that medical care. We affirm the judgment.1

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court held that Employee suffered a compensable injury to her left shoulder; that she did not make a meaningful return to work and the statutory cap therefore did not apply; and awarded her benefits based upon a vocational disability of 35% to the body as a whole. Employer and its insurance company appealed. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensatiom Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court ordered Employer to provide pain management treatment to Employee. Employer has appealed, contending that the proposed treatment was made necessary by a pre-existing condition, an independent intervening cause, or both, rather than Employee’s work injury. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Employee suffered a significant work-related injury to his left shoulder. An attempt to repair the injury by surgery failed. Employee had sustained a previous injury to his right shoulder. After the left shoulder injury occurred, he reported symptoms of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The trial court found him to be permanently and totally disabled. It determined that his earlier injury had caused a disability of 15% to the body as a whole. On that basis, it assigned 85% of the liability for the present injury to Employer and 15% to the Second Injury Fund. Employer has appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by finding that Employee was permanently and totally disabled. Employer and the Second Injury Fund also contend that the trial court erred in its method of apportioning the
award. We affirm the finding of permanent and total disability. We agree that the method  used to apportion the award was incorrect and remand the case for additional proceedings on that issue.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’  Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) (2008) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. An employee sustained a workrelated repetitive exposure hearing loss injury. After he retired for reasons unrelated to the injury, he filed suit in the Criminal Court for Wilson County seeking workers’ compensation benefits. Following a bench trial, the trial court (1) determined that the injury should be assigned to the scheduled member (hearing) rather than to the body as a whole, (2) awarded 50% permanent partial disability to that member, and (3) set the date of injury as the date that the employee first gave notice to the  employer of the injury. The employer appealed arguing that injury should have been assigned to the body as a whole and that the award was excessive. While disagreeing as to the proper date, both the employer and employee argue that the trial court erred in setting the date of injury. We affirm the trial court’s decision to assign the award to the scheduled member (hearing). However, we find that the award was excessive and modify it to 5% permanent partial disability to the hearing of both ears. We have also determined that the trial court erred with regard to its determination of the date of the injury.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Employee injured his back and knees at work. While he was receiving medical treatment, Employee offered a special retirement incentive package to decrease its workforce. Employee chose to accept this plan and retired while he was still receiving medical treatment. At trial, he contended that he was permanently and totally disabled. The trial court found that he was not permanently and totally disabled. The trial court also found that Employee’s recovery was limited to one and one-half times his anatomical impairment. Employee has appealed, and on appeal, Employee asserts that the trial court erred in finding that he was not permanently and totally disabled. In the alternative, he asserts that the trial court erred in applying the one and one-half times “cap.” We affirm the judgment.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) (2008) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. After sustaining injuries to his head and leg in a work-related motor vehicle accident, the employee filed suit seeking workers’ compensation benefits in the Chancery Court for Rutherford County. Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded the employee a 14% permanent partial disability to the leg and an additional 2% to the body as a whole due to chronic headaches. The employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred in awarding benefits for the headaches. We disagree and 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 Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. On appeal, Employee contends that the trial court erred in two ways: first, in finding that Employee’s permanent partial disability award should be capped at one and one-half times her medical impairment rating; and second, in finding that Employee is not entitled to reconsideration of a prior injury to her left shoulder. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the findings, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Employee sought benefits for a right shoulder injury, which occurred after he had ceased working for Employer. He contended that his employment had caused a weakening of the structures of his shoulder, which contributed to his eventual injury. The trial court ruled that he did not sustain his burden of proof and entered judgment for Employer. On appeal, Employee asserts that the trial court erred in its ruling. We affirm the judgment.

In 2005, the employee, a truck driver, sustained a compensable injury to his right leg that also aggravated a pre-existing low back condition. As a result of childhood polio, the employee’s left leg and foot were substantially smaller and weaker than his right leg and foot. The employee reported this pre-existing condition to the employer when hired in 2003. Medical proof established the employee’s combined anatomical impairment at 14% to the body as a whole. The trial court found that the employee was permanently and totally disabled. The trial court assigned 84% of the award to the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, Cherokee Insurance Company, and 16% to the Second Injury Fund. The employer appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by finding the
employee to be permanently and totally disabled. The Second Injury Fund appealed, arguing that it is without liability because the employee performed his truck-driving duties without restrictions or accommodations, thus, the employer did not have “actual knowledge” of the employee’s prior disability. Alternatively, the Second Injury Fund contends that the trial court’s award of permanent and total disability is not supported by the evidence. After review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.1

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) (2008) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. After sustaining a workrelated injury to his back, the employee filed a complaint seeking workers’ compensation benefits in the Chancery Court for Marion County. Following a bench trial, the trial court found the employee to be totally and permanently disabled. The employer appealed, contending that the employee’s continuing employment as a pastor precluded a finding of total and permanent disability. An Appeals Panel reversed the trial court’s conclusion that the employee was totally and permanently disabled and modified the award to seventy-two percent (72%) permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. Conaway v. U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co., No. M2006-01177-WCR3-WC, 2007 WL 2141537 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel July 26, 2007). The employee, who had resigned as a pastor before the Appeals Panel decision was issued, filed a motion for modification pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-231(2) (2008). Following a second evidentiary hearing, the trial court again found that the employee is permanently and totally disabled. The employer appeals contending that the employee failed to present sufficient proof that he sustained an increase of incapacity solely as a result of his work-related injury. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’  Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 506-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Employee sought permanent disability benefits for separate injuries, one to his neck and left shoulder and the other to his right knee. His authorized treating physician initially opined that he had sustained permanent impairment as a result of his work injuries. However, on cross-examination, the doctor stated that he was unaware that Employee had been receiving treatment for neck and shoulder symptoms for more than ten years prior to the work injury. He testified that, if true, such information would change his opinion. He also testified that a comparison of pre- and post-injury MRI’s of the right knee left him unable to opine with reasonable medical certainty concerning that injury. A second doctor,  who later performed surgery on the knee, opined that Employee had a work-related injury. The trial court found that Employee had failed to sustain his burden of proof. Employee has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings. We affirm the judgment as to the alleged neck and shoulder injury and reverse as to the knee injury.

This workers compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers Compensation Appeals Panel fo the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated ' 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Employee alleged that he sustained injuries to both knees as a result of an accident at work. The trial court found that he had sustained an injury, but did not have permanent impairment or disability as a result of the injury. Employee appeals, contending that the evidence demonstrates that he sustained permanent disability. He also contends that the trial court erred by ordering that he was not entitled to future medical treatment for he knees. Employer contends that the trial court erred by finding that Employee sustained a compensable injury. We affirm the trial courts finding that Employee did not sustain a permanent disability, but conclude that the portion of the judgment concerning future medical treatment was premature, and modify the judgment accordingly.

This appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) (2008). While serving as a police officer, an employee developed coronary artery disease and made a claim for workers' compensation benefits. The trial court granted an award of permanent and total disability. The City appealed, contending that the trial court erred (1) by holding that the employee's claim not to be barred by a prior settlement agreement, (2) by permitting hearsay testimony to be admitted as parol evidence, and (3) by calculating the rate of compensation based on when the coronary artery disease became disabling, rather than on the condition addressed by the prior settlement. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’  Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee
Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee alleged that he sustained a compensable neck
injury. His employer denied the claim. The trial court found for the employee and
awarded 40% permanent partial disability (“PPD”). The employer has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding that the employee’s injury occurred at work. In addition, the employer asserts that the trial court erred by directing a written inquiry concerning causation to be sent to the treating physician and by considering the response to that inquiry. 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 Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee alleged that she sustained a gradual injury to her hip as a result of her work. She ultimately required a total hip replacement. The doctor who performed that surgery testified that she had a congenital condition which caused the hip to become arthritic, and which usually caused the need for hip replacement surgery. He gave conflicting testimony concerning the effect of her employment on the condition. The trial court held that she had sustained a compensable aggravation of the congenital condition and awarded 22.5% permanent partial disability. Employer has appealed,  contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s decision. We affirm the judgment.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) (2008) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. An employee who experienced both hearing loss and tinnitus filed suit in the Criminal Court for Wilson County seeking workers’ compensation benefits. Following a bench trial, the trial court assigned the injury to the employee’s hearing as a scheduled member and awarded the employee a 33a% permanent partial disability to his hearing. The employer asserts on appeal that the trial court erred by assigning the injury to the employee’s hearing rather than to the body as a whole. We agree with the employer and reverse the trial court’s decision to assign the injury to the employee’s hearing rather than to the body as a whole.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers'
Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennesse
Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact
and conclusions of law. After review, we conclude that an employee may seek reconsideration under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-231 by either filing a
motion in the original proceeding or by filing a new action in the same court and
county in which the original was entered. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’
Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee
Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Employee was injured while attempting to adjust a moving conveyor belt. A post-accident drug screen of Employee revealed the presence of THC in his system. The amount of THC in Employee’s system was of such levels as to trigger the statutory presumption created by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-110(c)(1) that his drug use was the proximate cause of his injury. Employer denied Employee’s claim. The trial court found that Employee had rebutted the statutory presumption by a  preponderance of the evidence and awarded benefits. Employer has appealed the trial court’s finding that the presumption created by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-110(c)(1) had been rebutted. Employee has also appealed both the trial court’s award and denial of his motion for discretionary costs. Although we modify the denial of the motion for discretionary costs, we otherwise affirm the judgment.