Phillip W. Lee v. Shoney's, Inc.

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. The appeal has resulted from a finding by the trial court that Defendant, Charles A. Hixon, was entitled to permanent disability benefits of 17.5% to the body as a whole. The Chancellor was of the opinion the award was limited to 2-1/ 2 times the medical impairment rating of 7% pursuant to T.C.A. _ 5-6-241(a)(1). On appeal the employee has raised numerous issues regarding the limit of the award. It is insisted the court was in error in not applying subsection (b) of the statute, which would fix the limit of the award at 6 times the medical impairment rating; that the court failed to apply subsection (a)(2) which would have permitted an increased award; that the court should have allowed greater benefits pursuant to T.C.A. _ 5-6- 242; that subsection (a)(2) is unconstitutional as it requires an employee to file a new cause of action when the employee may not have received an initial award of benefits prior to the expiration of the one year period of time. The employer, Lea Industries, raises an issue concerning causation of the injury. It is insisted the preponderance of the evidence does not support the trial court's finding the ruptured disc was caused by the incident at work. Employee Hixon is 49 years of age and completed the 9th grade. Most of his work experience has been in the furniture construction industry. On November 6, 1992, he was bending down to pick up some lumber when he felt pain in his back. He was taken to the hospital where he was admitted and stayed for a period of five days. About ten days after being released, he returned to work at the same rate of pay. He told the court he continued to have pain and worked under restrictions of not bending over; and not being on his feet or sitting for long periods of time. He continued like this until July 22, 1993, when he left work saying his physical condition would not permit him to continue. There is no other evidence in the record disputing his reason for leaving his employment. 2