WORKERS COMPENSATION PANEL OPINIONS

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 slipped and fell in the course of her employment as a cafeteria worker. She was subsequently diagnosed with fibromyalgia. The trial court found that condition was caused by the work injury, and awarded benefits for permanent total disability. Employer has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's findings as to causation and also as to the extent of Employee's permanent disability. Employer further contends that the trial court erred in ordering accrued benefits to be paid in a lump sum. Employee contends that the trial court incorrectly based her average weekly wage upon a calendar year rather than a school year. We affirm the judgment in all respects.

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) (2005 & Supp. 2007).  Employee alleged that she had sustained a permanent disability as a result of exposure to mold at her place of work. The trial court found in her favor and awarded benefits for 35% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. Employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by finding that Employee had sustained a permanent injury or contracted an occupational disease, by finding that her condition was permanent, and by awarding an impairment rating in conflict with the AMA Guidelines. Because the evidence preponderates against the finding that Employee sustained a compensable injury or contracted an occupational disease, the judgment of the trial court is reversed.

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, Lee Nora Hunter, alleged that she sustained a compensable neck injury resulting in permanent disability. The employer, Williams-Sonoma Direct, Inc., admitted that an injury occurred, but denied that it caused permanent disability. Ms. Hunter represented herself at trial. She introduced no medical evidence.  The trial court granted Williams-Sonoma’s motion for involuntary dismissal. Ms. Hunter has appealed. We affirm the judgment.

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 parties stipulated that appellee Susan Randolph (“Employee”) suffered bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome as a workplace injury during her employment with appellant Fleetguard, Inc. (“Employer”). The parties also stipulated as to her rate of compensation, impairment, and vocational disability. At trial, the only disputed issue was whether Employee gave Employer actual notice of her injury prior to July 1, 2004. The trial court held that Employee did and Employer has appealed. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for further proceedings.

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. This is an action for workers’ compensation benefits brought by the Appellant, Ronald L. Stief. The trial court granted summary judgment to Appellees, Madaris Exteriors, Inc. and Builders Mutual Insurance Company, on the ground Mr. Stief was an independent contractor, and dismissed the case. Mr. Stief has appealed. We find that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for further proceedings.

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 sustained an injury to her lower back in the course of her employment as a pilot. Her treating physician placed permanent restrictions upon her activities which prevented her from returning to that job. While recovering from her injury, she obtained three licenses concerning sale and appraisal of real estate in California. She testified that she was unable to work in that field because the physical demands conflicted with her restrictions. The trial court awarded permanent total disability benefits. The trial court also declined to grant Employer a set-off pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-114(b) for payments made pursuant to its long-term disability plan.  Employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred in awarding permanent total disability and also in declining to grant a set-off. We agree and modify the judgment accordingly.

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 a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Troy Sepulveda ("Employee") sustained an injury to his lower back while sleeping in the cab of his truck while waiting to make a delivery. The trial court found that he was a "traveling employee," found the injury to be compensable and awarded permanent partial disability benefits. Western Express, Inc. ("Employer") has appealed, contending that the injury did not arise from the employment. 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 hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. On appeal, M-Tek, Inc. ("Employer") contends that the trial court erred in finding that Ida Cummings ("Employee") sustained a compensable permanent partial right shoulder disability. In the alternative, Employer contends that the trial court erred in relying on the evaluating physician's impairment rating instead of the rating given by the treating physician, and in awarding Employee a 27.5% impairment to the body as a whole. 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 Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The issue presented by this appeal is whether the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding under TCA 50-6-207 (4) (B) that the employee is totally incapacitated from working at an occupation that brings the employee an income and the resulting award of one hundred percent permanent and total disability when the collective evidence of all the vocational experts was a vocational impairment ranging from 55% to a maximum of 80%. We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding, and award 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 a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the trial court was correct in awarding benefits for 50% permanent partial disability to a scheduled member, i.e. hearing loss, rather than the body as a whole. We hold that the award should have been apportioned to the body as a whole and therefore capped at two and one half times the anatomical impairment. We modify the judgement accordingly.

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. Employee alleged that he sustained a permanent injury to his lower back as a result of a fall. Employer took the position that Employee did not sustain a permanent injury. At trial, an evaluating physician testified that Employee had a 7% permanent impairment to the body as a whole; two physicians who examined Employee shortly after the accident testified that he had no impairment. The trial court awarded benefits for 33% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. Employer has appealed, asserting that the trial court erred in finding that Employee had sustained a permanent injury. We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the decision of the trial court 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 § 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee, Lynn Adams, injured his lower back in the course of his employment in October 2002. The employer, Ace Trucking Company, accepted the injury as compensable. Mr. Adams received temporary total disability benefits and medical treatment. He was released to full duty in February 2003. However, he was unable to return to work for reasons unrelated to his employment. In April 2004, he sought, and received, additional medical treatment for his back injury. He was referred to a neurosurgeon, who concluded that his symptoms were not caused by his work injury. Mr. Adams had an independent medical examination in August 2005. The evaluating physician concluded that Mr. Adams had sustained a permanent impairment of 8% to the body as a whole as a result of the October 2002 injury. The trial court found that Mr. Adams had suffered a permanent injury, and awarded 20% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. Ace Trucking appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding. 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. The trial court found that the employee had sustained a permanent disability as a result of his work injury and awarded benefits for 80% permanent partial disability. The employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred in finding that the employee’s permanent disability was work-related and, in the alternative, that the award was excessive. The employee contends that the trial court should have found him to be permanently and totally disabled. 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 § 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee, Dennis F. McGuire, alleged that he had sustained a compensable aggravation of a previous work-related back injury. The employer, Aerostructures Corporation (Aeorostructures), took the position that the pre-existing condition had not been advanced or accelerated by the claimed work injury.  The trial court found that Mr. McGuire failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he had aggravated or advanced his pre-existing back injury, and granted Aerostructures’s motion for involuntary dismissal at the conclusion of the proof. Mr. McGuire has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the judgment of the trial court. We disagree, and so we affirm.

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 sought workers' compensation benefits for a June 2000 injury to his right shoulder and a November 2000 injury to both shoulders. He had surgery to repair a torn labrum of the right shoulder in November 2003. The trial court dismissed the November 2000 claim based upon the statute of limitations, and found that the labral tear was not caused by the June 2000 injury. Employee 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 Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Employee developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of her employment. The trial court awarded 55% permanent partial disability to the right arm and 35% permanent partial disability to the left arm.  Her employer has appealed, contending that the award is excessive. We conclude that the evidence in the record does not preponderate against the trial court’s award, and affirm the judgment.

Respectfully, I would find that the preponderance of the evidence does not support a causal relationship between Employment and the Employee's gradual injury which did not manifest itself until fifty-one weeks after she left work for the Employer.

In this case, the employer appeals the judgment of the trial court, which awarded a twelve percent permanent partial disability to the employee’s left arm and found that the employee provided timely notice of her injury pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-201(b)(1). At trial, the employee contended that she sustained a gradually occurring injury from her work with the employer over a fifteen-year period, causing ulnar nerve neuropathy in her left elbow. The employer argues on appeal that the employee failed to carry her burden of proof as to causation and did not provide timely notice of the injury to the employer. After careful consideration of the record in this case, 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. The employee, David Rader, sustained a permanent hearing loss, which he alleged was caused by his work. The only doctor to testify completed a C-32 which stated that the hearing loss was more probably than not related to Mr. Rader’s work, but had no specific knowledge of noise levels at Mr. Rader’s workplace other than Mr. Rader’s subjective statements. The trial court ruled that Mr. Rader failed  to sustain his burden of proof, and entered judgment for the employer, Aerostructures Corporation.  Mr. Rader has appealed. We reverse the judgment of the trial court, and award 15% permanent partial disability to his binaural hearing.

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, the employee, Harry P. York, contends that the trial court erred in holding that he had a 13%, rather than a 30%, impairment rating to the body as a whole. Because the evidence does not preponderate against this finding, 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. The employee, William Rainey, reported a gradual injury to his arms in August 2000. He received medical treatment for arm and neck symptoms through workers’ compensation and returned to work. Mr. Rainey alleged that he sustained a second injury, to his neck, in May 2002. Tennsco denied that a new injury was reported. Mr. Rainey was examined by two doctors through workers’ compensation.  Neither doctor considered him to be a surgical candidate. Mr. Rainey sought additional treatment on his own. Eventually, surgery was performed on his cervical spine. At trial, the employer, Tennsco Corporation (Tennsco) denied that Mr. Rainey had sustained a permanent disability as a result of his work injury. The trial court awarded 50% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. Tennsco has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the award. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Panel in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3). The trial court held that (1) Employee's job caused her injuries, (2) Employee’s delayed notice did not prejudice Employer, (3) Employee sustained a 60% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole, and (4) Employer should pay Employee’s discretionary costs pursuant to Rule 54.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Employee appeals the award of permanent partial disability benefits, contending she is permanently and totally disabled. Employer contends that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings concerning causation and notice, and that sovereign immunity bars the award of discretionary costs. We reverse the trial court’s ruling on the assignment of discretionary costs and affirm all of the trial court’s other rulings.

This worker's compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Worker's Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Employee alleged that he had sustained a compensable aggravation of a pre-existing condition as a result of his employment. The trial court found that he failed to sustain his burden of proof on causation and dismissed his claim. Employee has appealed; he contends that the trial court erred in holding that he had not sustained a compensable injury. We affirm the trial court's 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. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in finding that plaintiff sustained a workrelated injury to her right shoulder, in finding that plaintiff timely notified defendant of her injury, in awarding plaintiff fifty-two weeks temporary total disability benefits, and in determining that she suffered a 16% vocational impairment as a result of her injury. We disagree and therefore affirm the trial court’s decision.

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, Roy Clardy, alleged that he had sustained gradual injuries to his right shoulder, right arm and thumb, and left arm. The trial court awarded 22.5% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole for the shoulder injury, 75% permanent partial disability to the right arm and 55% permanent partial disability to the left arm. The employer, TRW Commercial Steering Division (TRW), has appealed that ruling, asserting that the trial court erred by making separate awards, rather than a single award to the body as a whole; that the award is excessive; that the trial court erred in excluding portions of Mr. Clardy’s discovery deposition from evidence; and that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter. We conclude that a single award should have been made in accordance with the concurrent injury rule and modify the award to 45% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole for the combined injuries. We also hold that the trial court erred in excluding Mr. Clardy’s deposition testimony. Finally, we hold that the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.