Dianna Gail Thompson v. Travelers Indemnity Co., Charter Oakfire Insurance Co., and Toshiba American Consumer Products, Inc.

This case is before the court upon the entire record including the Order of Referral to the Special Workers’ Compensation Panel, in compliance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Dianna Gail Thompson suffered a work-related injury to her back and neck as a result of her attempt to move a wooden pallet during the course and scope of her employment as a relief operator. Ms. Thompson promptly reported her injury to her supervisor and sought medical care. The treating physician concluded that Ms. Thompson had a strained back and found no permanent impairment. Ms. Thompson thereafter sought other physicians who treated her condition. Thereafter a doctor performing an independent medical evaluation, assigned a 5% impairment to the body as a whole for her back injury. The trial court, in determining whether the employee’s injury was permanent, considered this conflicting medical testimony and after evaluating that medical testimony, awarded Ms. Thompson a 12.5% permanent impairment to the body as a whole and the benefits associated therewith. The employer in this appeal contends that the trial court erred in accrediting the independent medical evaluation over that of the treating physician’s evaluation of Ms. Thompson’s injury. The employer also contends that the trial court erred when it ordered the employer to pay 6.4 weeks of temporary total disability based on records submitted after the proof had closed. Therefore, this appeal is limited to whether the trial court’s award of permanent partial disability benefits was excessive and whether the award of 6.4 weeks of temporary total disability benefits was based on sufficient proof. After carefully considering the record, we affirm the trial court’s determination of 12.5% permanent partial disability and reverse the trial court’s award of 6.4 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, finding that the trial court impermissibly reopened proof and accepted inadequate evidence for a finding of temporary total disability award. We, therefore, affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court’s determination.