TWCA determines the apportionment of liability between an employer and the Second Injury Fund

VICKI MARSH v. FARRAR HOLLIMAN AND MEDLEY ET AL. (TWCA May 12, 2012)

The only issue before the trial court was the apportionment of liability between the employer and the Second Injury Fund. The employee had two compensable injuries prior to the injury that rendered her permanently and totally disabled. The trial court found that those injuries had caused 85% permanent partial disability. Based on that finding, it held the employer liable for 15% of the award and the Second Injury Fund liable for 85% of the award. We find that the trial court incorrectly applied Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- 208(a)(1)(2008), and modify the award accordingly.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/marshv_051212.pdf

Court Reviews Jury’s Apportionment of Fault

ZULA GRAY v. JOE BEDNARZ, JR. (Tenn. Ct. App. December 17, 2010)

Plaintiff appeals a jury's determination that she was 60 percent at fault for the injuries she sustained. We find there is material evidence to support the jury's verdict. Therefore, we affirm the judgment entered in accordance with the jury's findings.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/grayz_121710.pdf

TWCA Reviews Whether Trial Court Properly Apportioned Liability in a Case Involving Permanently-Disabling Injuries

ROY T. McGAHA v. COCKE COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ET AL. (TWCA August 25, 2010)

In this workers' compensation action, the employee, Roy McGaha, sustained a work-related back injury in June 2004, while employed by the Cocke County Highway Department. He was able to return to work, and his claim for benefits was settled within the one and one-half times impairment cap contained in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(a). He alleged that he sustained a new compensable injury to his back in November 2007. The county denied the claim, asserting that Mr. McGaha did not sustain a new injury, but that his condition was the result of his earlier injury, and his remedy was, therefore, limited to reconsideration of his previous settlement.

The trial court held that a new injury occurred in 2007 and that Mr. McGaha was permanently and totally disabled as a result of it. The court assigned 76% of the liability for the award to the county and 24% to the Second Injury Fund. The county has appealed, asserting that the trial court erred by finding that Mr. McGaha sustained a new injury and by finding that he was permanently and totally disabled. The Fund asserts, on appeal, that the trial court used an incorrect method to apportion liability.

We affirm the award of benefits. We conclude, however, that the trial court did not use the correct method of apportioning liability between the Fund and the county. That portion of the order is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings with regard to that issue.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2010/mcgahar_082510.pdf