Joe Rines v. Mahle, Inc. and Royal Insurance Company

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. This appeal results from the refusal of the trial court to modify a judgment entered April 2, 1993 that the employee sustained no permanent disability as a result of a job-related injury in 199 but was entitled to future medical expenses associated with any spinal fusion he elected to undergo. The petition to modify was filed November 23, 1994. The plaintiff alleged that he "has increased disability from surgery performed by Dr. Wallace over and above that which he had when this matter was previously heard." The defendants [hereafter "employer"] moved to dismiss, alleging that the "Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Petition filed on behalf of the plaintiff or to award him any relief and, further, that neither the provisions of T.C.A. _ 5-6-231 nor of Rule 6.2, TENN. R. CIV. P., are applicable herein." Thereafter, the plaintiff announced that he was relying exclusively upon T.C.A. _ 5-6-231, which provides: 5-6-231. Lump payments final -- Modification of periodic payments for more than six months. -- All amounts paid by employer and received by the employee or the employee's dependents, by lump sum payments, shall be final, but the amount of any award payable periodically for more than six (6) months may be modified as follows: (1) At any time by agreement of the parties and approval by the court; or (2) If the parties cannot agree, then at any time after six (6) months from the date of the award an application may be made to the courts by either party, on the ground of increase or decrease of incapacity due solely to the injury. In such cases, the same procedure shall be followed as in _ 5-6-225 in case of a disputed claim for compensation. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that since there was no "award payable periodically for more than six (6) months" the statute was inapplicable. On appeal the plaintiff argues that the award of future medical expenses qualifies as an "award payable periodically" within the purview of the statute, as contrasted to the argument of the employer that "an award payable periodically"