Please enter some keywords to search.
| Lawson vs. Lear
03S01-9509-CV-00105
|
Supreme Court | 04/21/97 | ||
| Smallman v. Shelby
03S01-9607-CV-00079
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 trial court below awarded plaintiff 17% permanent partial disability to each arm. Plaintiff appeals, arguing that the evidence preponderates in favor of a higher award. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Plaintiff, who was 44 years of age at the time of the trial, has an eighth- grade education. Her previous work history has been mostly in factory assembly work. She has worked as an upholsterer of furniture for the defendant since 1984. She testified that her work requires her to pad the furniture and then cover it with fabric of some sort, which requires her to constantly pull the fabric and tack it into place with a staple gun. In the spring and summer of 1994, plaintiff began to notice some pain and swelling in her wrists and hands. She reported her problems to her employer in August and her employer referred her to Dr. Wayne L. McLemore, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. McLemore diagnosed plaintiff with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome related to her work activities. He attempted conservative treatment but that was unsuccessful. He then performed bilateral carpal tunnel releases with satisfactory results. He assigned plaintiff a four percent permanent impairment to each upper extremity. He testified that he did not impose any restrictions upon the plaintiff because he did not want to make it difficult for her to return to work. However, he opined that she did have some restrictions: she should avoid repetitive pulling and wrist-bending activities, heavy lifting and vibrating tools. After plaintiff returned to work in February 1995, she returned to him on July 25, 1995 with complaints of continued pain and swelling. He testified that he advised her to change her employment if it became a regular problem for her. Plaintiff's attorney referred her to Dr. Gilbert Hyde, also an orthopaedic surgeon, for an independent medical evaluation. He felt that she had continued 2
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Ben K. Wexler, |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | 04/21/97 | |
| Mynatt vs. State
03C01-9606-CR-00218
Originating Judge:Mary Beth Leibowitz |
Knox County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 04/21/97 | |
| Grooms vs. State
03C01-9603-CC-00136
Originating Judge:William R. Holt |
Cocke County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 04/21/97 | |
| State vs. William Whitt
02C01-9704-CC-00140
|
Lake County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 04/21/97 | |
| Terry L. Hicks vs. State
02S01-9607-CC-00063
|
Madison County | Supreme Court | 04/21/97 | |
| X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Knox County | Court of Appeals | 04/21/97 | |
| 03S01-9607-CV-00079
03S01-9607-CV-00079
|
Court of Criminal Appeals | 04/21/97 | ||
| Brady vs. State
03C01-9604-CR-00166
Originating Judge:Douglas A. Meyer |
Hamilton County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 04/21/97 | |
| Gilliam vs. Gilliam
01A01-9609-CV-00414
|
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 04/18/97 | |
| Roy Rose vs. Tipton Co. Public Works Dept., et al
02A01-9608-CV-00189
Originating Judge:Joseph H. Walker, III |
Tipton County | Court of Appeals | 04/18/97 | |
| Hand vs. Hand
01A01-9607-CH-00325
Originating Judge:Allen W. Wallace |
Humphreys County | Court of Appeals | 04/18/97 | |
| Collins vs. Metro Gov't
01A01-9607-CV-00339
Originating Judge:Walter C. Kurtz |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 04/18/97 | |
| Robert Rayford vs. State
02C01-9701-CC-00011
Originating Judge:Joe G. Riley. Jr. |
Lauderdale County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 04/18/97 | |
| Mahler vs. Mahler
01A01-9507-CH-00303
Originating Judge:Henry Denmark Bell |
Williamson County | Court of Appeals | 04/18/97 | |
| Rickman, et. ux. vs. Molin, et. ux.
01A01-9609-CH-00412
Originating Judge:C. K. Smith |
Wilson County | Court of Appeals | 04/18/97 | |
| Pamela Sue Higgins v. Angelica Corporation
02S01-9605-CV-00050
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Defendant appeals from the trial court's award of 45 per cent (45%) permanent partial vocational disability of each arm, following surgery on each wrist for carpal tunnel syndrome. Defendant raises three (3) issues, that the plaintiff's injuries are not causually related to her employment and therefore, not compensable; that the plaintiff did not give proper notice as required by Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-21; and that the preponderance of the evidence does not support the trial judge's finding that the plaintiff suffered a 45 per cent (45%) permanent partial vocational disability to each arm. The panel has concluded that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The employee, Ms. Pamela Sue Higgins, is thirty-eight (38) years old, quit school in the eighth (8th) grade, and she has performed sewing work for different manufacturers for twenty (2) years. Ms. Higgins began her employment with Angelica on January 14, 1991. Shortly after going to work for Angelica she was seen by Doctor James H. Thomas, a family practitioner, with the specific complaint that her right wrist had hurt for five (5) days. Approximately two and one-half (2 l/2) months later she returned to Doctor Thomas with the same complaint. Doctor Thomas soon concluded that her problem was carpal tunnel syndrome in nature and referred her to Doctor L. David Johnson, an orthopaedic surgeon, for treatment. After treating her conservatively, excluding other possible causes of her symptoms, and based upon electrodiagnostic studies performed by Doctor Ron Bingham, on May 13, 1991, Doctor Johnson diagnosed her as having moderate carpal tunnel syndrome on the right, and severe carpal tunnel syndrome on the left. Doctor Johnson subsequently performed carpal tunnel surgeries on both right and left wrists. She was also seen by Doctors Cohn and Cramer, and Pechacek, in consultation, in the process of eliminating other causes for her symptoms and confirming her diagnosis. Doctor 2
Authoring Judge: Leonard W. Martin, Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. C. Creed Mcginley |
Hardin County | Workers Compensation Panel | 04/17/97 | |
| James Clifford Tatum v. Methodist Health Systems, et al
02S01-9609-CH-00079
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The director of the Workers' Compensation Division of Tennessee Department of Labor, as trustee for the Second Injury Fund (Second Injury Fund), appeals from the decision of the trial court. The court approved, over the objection of the Second Injury Fund, a settlement agreement between the employee, James Clifford Tatum, and the employer, Methodist Health Systems (Methodist Hospital of Dyersburg, Inc.), limiting the employer's liability to benefits based on 31 per cent (31%) permanent partial disability to the whole body. The claim against the Second Injury Fund was reserved until trial. The trial of the case was between the employee and the Second InjuryFund. Subsequently, at trial, the trial court found the employee to be permanently and totally disabled and held the Second Injury Fund liable for 6 per cent (6%) of that total disability. Because the court erred in approving the settlement over the objectionof the Second Injury Fund, the panel concludes that both judgments should be set aside, and the case remanded for a new trial on all issues. The trial court recognized its error and stated in its memorandum opinion of April 29, 1996, as follows: "This settlement was approved over the objection of the Fund. In retrospect, the Court should not have approved the settlement over the objection of the Fund, but should have tried both claims together." However, the trial court apparently believed that it had cured its error. We conclude otherwise. In a very recent case decided by the Supreme Court on December 23, 1996, the court reasoned as follows: Here, the trial court approved a settlement concerning the 2
Authoring Judge: Leonard W. Martin, Special Judge
Originating Judge:Martin, Judge |
Dyer County | Workers Compensation Panel | 04/17/97 | |
| 03S01-9511-CC-00360
03S01-9511-CC-00360
Originating Judge:R. Jerry Beck |
Sullivan County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 04/17/97 | |
| Fred Bowen vs. Billy Compton
02C01-9701-CC-00016
|
Lake County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 04/17/97 | |
| Jack v. Delany
02S01-9608-CH-00073
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer questions the award of permanent partial disability benefits as being excessive. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be modified. The employee, Scott, is forty-seven (47) years old, and has an eighth (8th) grade education. He has farmed and worked at a cotton gin. He has no specialized skills or training. He has an I.Q. of sixty-five (65) and a severe speech impediment. He worked for the defendant employer for twenty-two (22) years. During the course of his employment, he has performed various jobs and was operating a scrubber at the time of his injury. The employee was injured at work on June 4, 1994, when he was getting off of the scrubber and fell. He testified that he hurt his neck, back, and left shoulder. He was first seen by Doctor Michael Heck, who prescribed medication and returned him to work on light duty. He was then seen by Doctor Stewart, who returned him to regular duty with the defendant. Doctor Riley Jones treated the plaintiff and opined that he had a 1 per cent (1%) anatomical impairment to the left upper extremity. Dr. Jones gave him no impairment rating for his back and sent him back to regular duty. Dr. Robert Paul Christopher saw the plaintiff on July 24, 1995, for an independent medical evaluation. He opined that the plaintiff had a 1 per cent (1%) impairment to the left upper extremity, a 6 per cent (6%) impairment as a result of injury to the cervical spine, translating to a combined rating of 12 per cent (12%) to the body as a whole. 2
Authoring Judge: Leonard W. Martin, Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. J. Steven Stafford, |
Scott County | Workers Compensation Panel | 04/17/97 | |
| Gregory Turner vs. Jimmy Harrison
02C01-9701-CC-00025
|
Lauderdale County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 04/17/97 | |
| David Davison v. Tfe, Inc., et al
02S01-9609-CV-00078
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court inaccordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer and its insurer argue the employee did not suffer an injury by accident as claimed. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. For the past thirty-three years, the employee or claimant, Davison, has been an over-the-road truck driver. He worked for the employer, TFE, from July 14, 1988 until June 2, 1994. On June 2, 1994, while attempting to load some boxes that had fallen from his truck while others were being unloaded, he felt a burning sensation in his back and leg. He had not felt the leg pain before but had suffered a previous back injury. He was given nerve blocks for the second injury, without relief. When the pain persisted, he visited Dr. Joseph S. Thomas, a general practitioner, and Dr. Robert Barnett, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Barnett diagnosed an aggravation of a pre-existing degenerative condition. The same doctor had seen the claimant before the second injury and opined that the new symptoms were the result of an irritated nerve root. The record does contain other medical opinions. Dr. Cunningham, a neurosurgeon, opined the claimant was not permanently impaired from the 1994 injury, but did not rule out the occurrence of an injury. Dr. Frazier assigned a permanent impairment rating but attributed it to the previous injury. The claimant has not returned to work. He testified that he is unable to work because of pain that he did not have prior to the 1994 accident. The trial judge gave the greatest weight to the opinion of Dr. Barnett and found the injury to be compensable as an injury by accident. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(2). Where the trial judge has seen and heard the witnesses, especially ifissues of credibility and weight to be given oral testimony are involved, considerable deference must be accorded those circumstances on review. Humphrey v. David Witherspoon, Inc., 734 S.W.2d 315 (Tenn. 1987). When medical testimony differs, it is within the discretion of the trial judge to determine which expert testimony to accept. Hinson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 654 S.W.2d 675 (Tenn. 1983). 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. C. Creed Mcginley, |
Hardin County | Workers Compensation Panel | 04/17/97 | |
| State vs. Gina Merrell
02C01-9604-CC-00131
Originating Judge:Julian P. Guinn |
Henry County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 04/17/97 | |
| Norma Gail Flowers v. Emerson Motor Co.
02S01-9609-CH-00083
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court inaccordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer, Emerson Motor Company, contends the award of permanent partial disability benefits is excessive. The panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The claimant, Flowers, is 43 years old and a high school graduate. She has a certificate as a nursing assistant, but no other vocational training or education. She has worked continuously for the employer since 1972, in a variety of jobs requiring repetitive use of her hands. On December 6, 1993, the claimant slipped and fell at work, landing on the palms of her hands. Although her wrists and hands had bothered her before the fall, she was not disabled and had not seen a doctor. Following the fall, she saw Dr. Ronald Bingham, who ordered NCS/EMG studies and diagnosed bilateral carpaltunnel syndrome, moderate on the left and moderate to moderately severe on the right. Another doctor diagnosed, in addition to bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, carpometacarpal subluxation and arthritis of the right thumb. Her carpal tunnel syndrome was found to be caused by repetitive use of her hands and wrists at work and the subluxation caused and the arthritis aggravated by the fall at work. Dr. Bourland assigned a permanent impairment rating of 15.8% to the claimant's right arm and none to the left. Dr. Joseph Boals assigned permanent impairment ratings of 2% to each arm. She is unable to perform her former duties for the employer and has pain and numbness in both hands. She cannot operate a keyboard. One vocational expert estimated her industrial disability at 6-65%; another opined she would be eligible for fewer than 25% of all available jobs. The chancellor awarded permanent partial disability benefits based on 5% to both arms. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(2). The extent of an injured worker's disability is an issue of fact. Jaske v. Murray Ohio Mfg. Co., 75 S.W.2d 15 (Tenn. 1988). The extent of an injured worker's vocational disability is a factual 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. George R. Ellis, |
Gibson County | Workers Compensation Panel | 04/17/97 |