Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee alleged that she sustained a repetitive motion injury to her chest and back. Her employer denied liability. Three doctors testified concerning the issues of causation and permanency. The trial court found that the employee had sustained a compensable injury, and awarded 16% permanent partial disability (“PPD”) benefits to the body as a whole. On appeal, the employer contends that the trial court erred by awarding any benefits. The employee contends that the award is inadequate. We agree with the employee and increase the award to 30% PPD to the body as a whole and otherwise affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In 2001, the trial court found that Employee's coronary artery disease had been advanced by his employment. Medical benefits were awarded in accordance with the workers' compensation law. In 2007, a dispute arose between Employee and Employer as to whether certain medications and tests were related to the work injury. Employee filed a motion to compel Employer to provide the medications under the 2001 judgment. The trial court granted the motion, and ordered Employer to provide all of the medications at issue. On appeal, we conclude that the trial court erred by requiring Employer to provide medications for Employee's diabetes. We otherwise affirm the order.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Vicky Benson (“Employee”) developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome in 2002, as a result of her work for New Gray Cemetery (“Employer”). Her claim was accepted. She had surgery on her right arm in 2004 and returned to work. After her return, she was terminated for reasons not related to her injury. She continued to receive conservative medical treatment from time to time. She found new employment in 2006. In September 2007, her treating physician recommended surgery for her left arm. Employer denied the claim, contending that her subsequent employer was liable for the condition and its effects. The trial court ruled that Employee’s condition had been worsened by her later employment, and dismissed the claim. On appeal, Employee contends that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding. We affirm the judgment.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Wendy Blair (“Employee”) sustained injuries as a result of a fall which occurred in the course of her work as a sales agent for Wyndham Vacation Ownership (“Employer”). The trial court found that she suffered permanent injuries to her neck and lower back due to the fall and that she had not made a meaningful return to work. The trial court awarded Employee 78% permanent partial disability (“PPD”) benefits to the body as a whole. Employer has appealed from that judgment. We conclude that the trial court erred in its finding that Employee did not have a meaningful return towork. Consequently, we modify the judgment to award 19.5% PPD to the body as a whole.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee alleged a compensable injury to his right shoulder and a compensable mental injury. His employer denied that the alleged mental injury was compensable. The trial court found both injuries to be compensable and awarded 50% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. On appeal, the employer contends that the trial court erred by awarding benefits for the mental injury and by finding that the employee did not have a meaningful return to work. The employee contends that the trial court erred by accepting the impairment rating of the Medical Impairment Rating Registry physician and in the trial court’s application of the concurrent injury rule. We conclude that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding that the employee sustained a compensable mental injury and modify the judgment accordingly.

Employee alleged that she sustained a compensable injury to her back. Employer referred her to a physician who opined that her condition was not work-related, and her claim was thereafter denied. After trial, the court found that Employee’s condition was compensable and awarded 65% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole and temporary total disability benefits. Employer has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding that a compensable injury occurred, or alternatively in ordering payment of temporary total disability benefits. We modify the award of temporary total disability benefits but otherwise affirm the judgment.

Employee alleged that he sustained two compensable injuries to his left knee. The first injury occurred on December 12, 2004, was accepted as compensable by employer, and resulted in an award of 15% permanent partial disability to the left leg. That award is not contested on appeal. Employee alleged that a second injury occurred on September 26, 2006. Employer denied liability for that injury. The trial court found that Employee sustained a second injury and awarded 30% permanent partial disability to the left leg. On appeal, Employer asserts that the trial court erred by finding that a compensable injury occurred, or in the alternative, that Employee sustained a permanent disability as a result of the injury. We conclude that the record contains no medical evidence of a causal nexus between the second injury and the alleged disability. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case.

In this workers’ compensation action, the employee alleged that he sustained compensable injuries to his neck and lower back. His employer asserted that his injuries were the result of pre-existing degenerative conditions, or in the alternative, were worsened by an automobile accident which occurred after the alleged work injuries. The trial court found the neck injury to be compensable, but denied recovery for the alleged lower back injury. It awarded 85% permanent partial disability benefits, temporary total disability benefits, and required the employer to provide medical care for the neck injury. The employer has appealed arguing that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings. We affirm the judgment.

The employee sustained gradual injuries to his arms and shoulders as a result of repetitive motion in the course of his employment. His employer denied liability based upon the affirmative defense of misrepresentation of physical condition. Employee had sustained gradual injuries to his left shoulder and arm during a previous job. He was placed under permanent activity restrictions and received a workers’ compensation award as a result of those injuries. In applying for employment with appellant, he did not disclose the prior injuries. The trial court concluded that the employer did not prove the misrepresentation defense. Permanent total disability benefits were awarded. Employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by finding that it did not sustain its burden of proof as to the affirmative defense. Upon review, we conclude that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings and that the employee’s misrepresentation was willful, was relied upon by the employer and was causally related to his subsequent injuries. Because we find that the employer sustained its burden of proving its affirmative defense, we reverse the awarding of benefits. Finally, we conclude that the employer is not entitled to recover the cost of retaining a consulting physician to view a surgical procedure that did not take place.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Michael Hall (“Employee”) alleged that he sustained compensable injuries as a result of repetitive use of his hands and arms in the course of his employment as a butcher for Latham’s Meat Company (“Employer”). Employer denied that he had sustained a compensable injury. In the alternative, it alleged that Employee’s injuries had been caused by his part-time work for a second employer. The trial court found that Employee had sustained compensable injuries to his arms and that Employer was liable for workers’ compensation benefits arising from those injuries. It awarded 22.5% permanent partial disability (“PPD”) to both arms. On appeal, Employer contends that the trial court erred by finding that a compensable injury occurred and by finding that Employee sustained permanent disability as a result. We affirm the judgment.

These workers’ compensation appeals were consolidated for hearing and disposition by order dated May 27, 2009. The employee, Larry Beshires, settled a claim for work-related injuries to his left knee and right shoulder, based upon the two and one-half times impairment cap in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(a)(1). The settlement was approved by the Chancery Court of Fayette County. Mr. Beshires subsequently sustained a second injury, or aggravation of the previous injury, to his shoulder. He returned to work for a time, but then retired. He filed suit in the Chester County Chancery Court, seeking benefits for the new injury or, alternatively, reconsideration of his prior settlement. The reconsideration action was transferred to the Chancery Court of Fayette County. After a hearing on the merits, the Fayette County court declined to award additional benefits. The Chester County court awarded 48% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole for the later injury. Both sides have appealed, and the appeals have been consolidated by order of the Supreme Court. Mr. Beshires contends that 1 the Fayette County court erred by failing to award additional 1 Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, they were then referred to the Special Workers’ (continued...) benefits. The employer contends that the Chester County court did not have subject matter jurisdiction, because the benefit review conference process had not been exhausted. We affirm both judgments.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of  findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee fell from a platform at work. The injury was accepted by his employer as compensable. After a period of medical treatment, the authorized physicians released the employee to return to work with no permanent impairment or restrictions. The employee sought medical treatment on his own. Ultimately, he had surgery on his back and neck. He filed suit against his employer. Employee had two previous workers’ compensation awards. Several months later, he amended his complaint to add the Second Injury Fund as a defendant. After a trial on the merits, the trial court found that the employee had sustained a compensable injury which resulted in an 85% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The court apportioned the award according to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-208(b). It then dismissed all claims against the Second Injury Fund, based upon the statute of limitations. It awarded some medical expenses claimed by the employee, but denied others. On appeal, the employee asserts that the trial court erred by dismissing the claim against the Fund, by incorrectly determining the percentage of disability represented by his earlier settlements, and by declining to award all requested medical expenses. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.