Jones v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.

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 insurance carrier, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, has appealed the trial court's award of 6% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. Since the award did not result in invoking any provision of the second injury fund statute, T.C.A. _ 5-6-28, the case against the state fund was dismissed. The trial commenced on August 16, 1996 and continued through several hearings until a final hearing on March 6, 1998. While there were many issues at the trial stage, the appeal only involves two issues. The insurance company contends (1) the evidence preponderates against the award of 6% permanent disability and (2) the evidence preponderates against the trial court's ruling that the employee was entitled to temporary total disability benefits up to December 1, 1997. We have carefully examined the lengthy record and are of the opinion the judgment entered below should be affirmed. The employee, Robert Jones, sustained a work-related back injury on July 2, 1994 when he fell from standing on a five gallon barrel or drum. At the date of the initial hearing, he testified he was 4 years of age, had a G.E.D. certificate and had received some vocational training. He contends he sustained physical and mental injuries as a result of the accident. Prior to the accident in July 1994, plaintiff had received several warnings concerning unexcused absences from work and was eventually terminated after the accident during March or April 1995. He told the trial court he had missed several days work due to doctor visits and upon returning to work was told he did not have authority to be absent and he was terminated. He stated he had not worked since the termination and that he was not able to work; that he still endured a lot of pain and felt he was 1% disabled. His testimony also indicates that after the accident in question, he became separated and divorced from his wife, lost his house due to a fire and was caring for his two small children. 2