Please enter some keywords to search.
| Insurance Company of North America v. Ronnie Storie
01S01-9602-CV-00037
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 of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The issue presented by this appeal is whether the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the employee's injury was proximately caused by intoxication. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be reversed and the case remanded for an award of benefits. The claimant or employee, Storie, is forty-five years old and has an eighth grade education. On March 18, 1993, he reported to work at 6:3 p.m. at Kentucky Apparel to perform his usual duties as a maintenance mechanic. During the course of the shift, he needed to obtain some copper tubing and light bulbs to perform his duties. Those supplies were stored above a dropped ceiling above the maintenance office and accessible by a ladder and some loose boards. The claimant negotiated the ladder without a problem, but slipped and fell when one of the loose boards moved. He fell through the ceiling and onto a concrete floor in the men's rest room below, frightening a user, who beat a hasty exit and reported the accident. The claimant suffered multiple injuries, including a broken arm and back injury. We find in the record no direct evidence the claimant was intoxicated at the time. In fact, he had apparently performed his duties satisfactorily until the accident occurred. The injurious accident occurred shortly before 2:45 a. m. on March 19th. After some delay, he was driven to the Fentress County Hospital by a co-worker, arriving at about 3: a. m. When no doctor was available to treat his arm injury, he was transported to the Putnam County Hospital. When he arrived there at about 6:3 a. m., he smelled of alcohol and a blood alcohol test revealed an alcohol content of approximately .2 percent. The claimant insists he consumed the alcohol, retrieved from his own vehicle at the plant and provided by a friend while waiting for medical attention, after the accident, to help relieve pain associated with his injuries. The trial court disallowed the claim as being proximately caused by intoxication. 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). This tribunal is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Conrad E. Troutman, |
Fentress County | Workers Compensation Panel | 10/22/96 | |
| State v. Roger Dale Hill, No. 01C01-9508-Cc-00267 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 20, 1996),
02C01-9610-CC-00338
|
Lake County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/22/96 | |
| Robert Lively v. Textron, Inc.
01S01-9604-CH-00070
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 of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The plaintiff appeals from the trial court's finding that the permanent impairment did not result from 1992 injuries at Textron Aerostructures. Finding no error in the trial court's decision, we affirm. Dr. Wesley Coker started treating the plaintiff in March 1994 for herniated discs that were causing nerve root pressure. The plaintiff was in bad shape when he first saw him, according to Coker, as he had to be helped into the doctor's office and told the doctor about two months of excruciating pain. After switching to the care of a chiropractor, the plaintiff returned to Coker who performed surgery in June 1994. Dr. Coker testified that the plaintiff suffers a 13% whole body impairment. But Dr. Coker did not offer any testimony about what caused the plaintiff's back trouble. The issue in this case is whether the plaintiff established by a preponderance of the evidence that his impairment resulted from two injuries at Textron, one on March 5, 1992 and another on October 3, 1992. The trial court decided that the plaintiff did not prove his case, and there is ample evidence to support the decision. The plaintiff and his wife were injured in a car wreck on the way to work on the morning of February 1, 1994. The plaintiff had worked regularly before the accident, but did not work any after it. This tends to suggest that the car wreck, not the injuries years earlier, caused the back trouble Dr. Coker treated. The plaintiff called Textron following the wreck to report that he was not coming to work. The reason, he said, was that he slipped a disc in his back while -2-
Authoring Judge: Robert S. Brandt, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Robert E. Corlew, III, |
Rutherford County | Workers Compensation Panel | 10/22/96 | |
| Stephen Baxendale v. Universal Underwriters Insurance
01S01-9605-CH-00097
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 of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employee or claimant, Baxendale, contends (1) the award of permanent partial disability benefits is inadequate and (2) the trial court erred in computing his compensation rate. The employer and its insurer contend the trial court erred in finding the employee suffered a compensable injury by accident on June 6, 1994. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the award of permanent partial disability benefits should be modified and the judgment otherwise affirmed. The claimant is a thirty-five year old laborer with a ninth grade education. He failed a test for a GED. At the time of the claimed injury, he was earning $6.39 per hour. Beginning in October of 1992, he suffered back pain at work, but continued working while being conservatively treated for pain. At one time the treating physician assigned to him a four percent permanent whole person impairment rating. He was awarded permanent partial disability benefits based on ten percent to the body as a whole and returned to work as a laborer at the same wage rate he was earning before the injury. On June 6, 1994, he became disabled to work because of severe back pain and was diagnosed as having suffereda gradually developing ruptured disc. The doctor surgically removed the ruptured disc and estimated his permanent whole person impairment at nine percent, from appropriate guidelines. After recovering from the surgery, the claimant again returned to work at the same wage as before the disabling injury, but with significant lifting, bending, stooping and twisting restrictions. Another orthopedic surgeon evaluated the claimant and assigned a whole person impairment rating of ten percent, using different but equally appropriate guidelines. The claimant continued to suffer back pain while working as a warehouseman. Upon consideration of the above facts, the chancellor awarded permanent partial disability benefits on the basis of ten percent to the body as a whole for the June 6, 1994 injury, and fixed the claimant's compensation rate at $159.47 per week. 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). This tribunal is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Irvin H. Kilcrease, |
Davidson County | Workers Compensation Panel | 10/22/96 | |
| X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | 10/22/96 | ||
| X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Hawkins County | Court of Appeals | 10/22/96 | |
| X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | 10/21/96 | ||
| X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | 10/21/96 | ||
| State v. Roger Dale Hill, No. 01C01-9508-Cc-00267 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 20, 1996),
02C01-9610-CC-00335
|
Lake County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/21/96 | |
| 03A01-9607-CV-00227
03A01-9607-CV-00227
Originating Judge:Inman |
Court of Appeals | 10/21/96 | ||
| X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Hamilton County | Court of Appeals | 10/21/96 | |
| X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | 10/21/96 | ||
| In April 1989. In The Present Appeal, The Petitioner, Relying In Part Upon State v. Roger
02C01-9610-CC-00333
|
Lake County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/21/96 | |
| Honorable Hamilton v. Gayden, Jr., Judge
01A01-9605-CV-00201
Originating Judge:Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr. |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 10/18/96 | |
| 03C01-9512-CC-00381
03C01-9512-CC-00381
|
Sevier County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/18/96 | |
| 01A01-9602-CV-00070
01A01-9602-CV-00070
Originating Judge:Thomas W. Brothers |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 10/18/96 | |
| 01A01-9604-CH-00181
01A01-9604-CH-00181
Originating Judge:Gerald L. Ewell, Sr. |
Coffee County | Court of Appeals | 10/18/96 | |
| 03C01-9506-CR-00169
03C01-9506-CR-00169
Originating Judge:James C. Witt |
Campbell County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/18/96 | |
| 01A01-9603-PB-00093
01A01-9603-PB-00093
Originating Judge:James R. Everett |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 10/18/96 | |
| State vs. John Wayne Slate
03C01-9511-CC-00352
|
Sevier County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/18/96 | |
| 01A01-9604-CH-00149
01A01-9604-CH-00149
Originating Judge:Ellen Hobbs Lyle |
Court of Appeals | 10/18/96 | ||
| 01A01-9604-CH-00191
01A01-9604-CH-00191
Originating Judge:Ellen Hobbs Lyle |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 10/18/96 | |
| State vs. John Wayne Slate
03C01-9511-CC-00352
|
Sevier County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/18/96 | |
| 02A01-9508-CV-00175
02A01-9508-CV-00175
|
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 10/17/96 | |
| Shirley Diane Trail v. Royal Insurance Company and Ckr Industries, Inc.,
01SO1-9505-CH-00071
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. Our review is de novo on the record accompanied by the presumption that the findings of fact of the trial court are correct unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). The trial court awarded Ms. Trail $19,421. permanent partial disability benefits, representing one-hundreed (1) weeks at the benefit rate of $194.21 per week, or twenty-five percent (25%) to the body as a whole; and future medical benefits pursuant to the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act. The trial court also allowed attorneys fees of twenty percent (2%) of the award, in the amount of $3,884.2, to be paid in a lump sum. The Appellant contends that the trial court erred in: 1. Finding that a vocational disability based upon a permanent medical restriction, with medical testimony of no medical impairment rating in accordance with the A.M.A. Guidelines for Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, constitutes a compensable permanent partial disability under the Workers' Compensation Act. 2. Awarding permanent partial disability benefits to the Plaintiff that were excessive and against the weight of the evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Ms. Trail filed her complaint in the Chancery Court for Franklin County, Tennessee, against her employer, Defendant CKR Industries, seeking to recover unpaid benefits under the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act for work-related injuries. Ms. Trail alleged that she suffered injuries as a result of exposure to chemicals in use at the CKR Plant. The case was consolidated with three (3) other cases for trial due to significant similarities in the cases. The opinion of the Court on the first issue is contained in the case of Angela K. Hill v. Royal Insurance Company and CKR Industries, Inc., No. 1S1-955-CH-71, filed simultaneously with this opinion. The Court held that the trial court did not err in finding that a vocational disability existed based upon the testimony of the medical experts that a permanent medical restriction existed which constitutes a permanent partial disability under the Worker's Compensation Act, even though no medical impairment rating was given by any of the
Authoring Judge: Robert L. Childers, Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Jeffrey F. Stewart |
Franklin County | Workers Compensation Panel | 10/17/96 |