Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court approved a settlement of this workers’ compensation claim. The settlement was presented to the court by means of an affidavit executed by the employee and a telephone conference between the court and the employee. Approximately six weeks later, the employee petitioned to set aside the settlement under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-206(a) and alternatively, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02. The trial court dismissed the petition for relief from Judgment. The employee has appealed. We affirm the order dismissing the petition to set the settlement aside.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) (2008) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee developed a latex allergy as a result of her employment at a hospital, and the hospital made certain accommodations that enabled the employee to continue working. However, the employee’s sensitivity to latex increased over the years, and she eventually left her job. The employee filed a petition seeking workers’ compensation benefits in the Chancery Court of Davidson County. Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded the employee 60% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. On this appeal, the employer contends that the treating physician’s impairment rating should not have been admitted into evidence because it was not in accordance with the AMA Guides. The employer also argues that a lower impairment should have been used by the trial court and that the award should have been capped. We affirm the judgment.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) (2008) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. An employee sustained a work-related repetitive exposure hearing loss injury. After he retired for reasons unrelated to the injury, he filed suit in the Criminal Court for Wilson County seeking workers’ compensation benefits. Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded 65% permanent partial disability to the hearing of both ears and set the date of injury as the date that the employee first learned of his hearing loss. The employer appealed arguing that the award was excessive and that the trial court erred in setting the date of injury. We find that the award was excessive and modify it to 15% permanent partial disability to the hearing of both ears. We have also determined that the trial court erred with regard to its determination of the date of the injury.

In this workers’ compensation action, the employee, Regina Day, sustained compensable injuries to both of her shoulders. She returned to her pre-injury job, but the holding company which owned her employer had been sold to another entity. The employer, which had been a corporation, became a limited liability company (LLC). The trial court, applying existing case law, held that she had not returned to work for her pre-injury employer and awarded permanent partial disability benefits in excess of the statutory cap contained in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(d)(1)(A). Her employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by failing to apply the cap or, in the alternative, that the award is excessive. We affirm the judgment.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found that the employee had sustained a hearing loss as a result of exposure to noise during her work from 1944 to 1989 as a telephone operator for her employer, and awarded 50% permanent partial disability (“PPD”) of the hearing of both ears. The employer has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding on the issue of causation. Alternatively, it argues that the award is excessive. We reverse the judgment and dismiss the complaint.

In this workers’ compensation case, the employee, George Cecil Resh, alleged that he sustained
hearing loss due to exposure to a harmful level of noise in his workplace. The employer, Building
Materials Corporation, denied that the employee’s hearing loss was work-related. The trial court
found in favor of the employee and awarded 50% permanent partial disability of the hearing of both ears. The employer has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding. Because we find that the expert medical evidence failed to establish that Mr. Resh’s hearing loss was work-related, we agree and reverse the judgment.1

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 trial court awarded workers’ compensation benefits for gradual injuries to the employee’s hands, arms, shoulders and left knee. On appeal, her employer asserts that the trial court erred by finding that she had complied with the notice statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-201(b), and also by finding that she had sustained her burden of proof on the issue of causation. We conclude that sufficient notice was given. In addition, we conclude that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding of a causal relationship between the employee’s work and her left knee injury. We affirm the findings of causation concerning her other injuries.

Employee sustained a compensable injury to his lower back. He alleged that he also sustained a mental injury as a result of chronic pain. His employer contended that the chronic pa in and any menta l conditions a rising f rom it we re the re sult of seve ra l previous injurie s and surge rie s. The tria l court awa rded bene fits for the menta l injury. The employe r contends tha t the trial court erred by doing so. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

The employee filed a workers’ compensation claim for neck and lower back injuries
sustained while setting up a conference room during a temporary job assignment. The trial
court found that both injuries were work-related, assigned a six percent impairment to the
neck and a five percent impairment to the back, and applied a multiplier of 2.5. Both the
employee and the employer filed appeals, which have been referred to the Special Workers’
Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code
Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Employee alleged that he injured his back in the course of his employment. Employer denied liability, asserting that Employee had not complied with the notice requirements of the workers’ compensation law. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-201. The trial court found that Employee gave sufficient notice, and awarded one hundred fifty-six weeks of permanent partial disability benefits. Employer has appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by finding that Employee provided notice of his injury, and also that the award is excessive. We affirm the judgment.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee filed an action in Chancery Court. He later filed a notice of voluntary nonsuit and immediately refiled his action in Circuit Court. An order dismissing the Chancery Court action was filed several days later. The employer moved to dismiss the Circuit Court action, noting that the Chancery Court action was still pending at the time the Circuit Court action was filed. The Circuit Court granted the motion. Employee has appealed, contending that the trial court erred in its interpretation of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41. We affirm the judgment.