MARINE ACCESSORIES CORPORATION v. EDWINA WOODS (TWCA May 3, 2012)
In this workers’ compensation case, the employee sustained a compensable back injury for which he was prescribed medication. Approximately five weeks after his injury, the employee died from gastrointestinal bleeding. His widow sought workers’ compensation benefits, claiming that his death was compensable because it was caused by the medication he was prescribed for his work injury. The employer denied her claim, contending that the employee’s death was not caused by the medication, but was instead the result of esophageal varices caused by alcoholism and cirrhosis of the liver. The trial court held that the widow did not sustain her burden of proof, and she appeals. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/marineaccessories_050312.pdf
Showing posts with label Burden of Proof. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Burden of Proof. Show all posts
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Saturday, March 10, 2012
TWCA reviews whether employee satisfied his burden of proof as to causation
TIMOTHY BYROM v. RANDSTAD NORTH AMERICA, L.P. (TWCA March 8, 2012)
The employee fell at work. He was then diagnosed to have a brain hemorrhage. The evidence showed that the fall occurred in an open area, that it was unlikely that the employee either slipped or tripped, and that he struck his head on the floor but not upon any objects. Employee had no recollection of the fall. The employer denied the employee’s workers’ compensation claim, asserting that the fall did not arise from his employment. The trial court found that the employee did not sustain his burden of proof as to causation. Employee has appealed, arguing that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Opinion available at: https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/byromt_030812.pdf
The employee fell at work. He was then diagnosed to have a brain hemorrhage. The evidence showed that the fall occurred in an open area, that it was unlikely that the employee either slipped or tripped, and that he struck his head on the floor but not upon any objects. Employee had no recollection of the fall. The employer denied the employee’s workers’ compensation claim, asserting that the fall did not arise from his employment. The trial court found that the employee did not sustain his burden of proof as to causation. Employee has appealed, arguing that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Opinion available at: https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/byromt_030812.pdf
Monday, February 28, 2011
TWCA Reviews whether Employee Met the Burden of Proof to Prove Permanent Impairment
LINDA LEE KENNEY v. SHIROKI NORTH AMERICA, INC. ET AL. (TWCA February 28, 2011)
The employee alleged that she sustained carpal tunnel syndrome and a right shoulder injury as a result of repetitive work activities. She was examined by several doctors provided by her employer, each of whom found that she had no permanent work injury. She sought and received treatment on her own with a physician who treated her for shoulder impingement and carpal tunnel syndrome. This doctor assigned permanent impairment but also testified that those conditions were not work-related. An evaluating physician assigned permanent impairment and testified that the conditions were work-related. Employee was a part-owner of an upholstery business during a period of time prior to the onset of her symptoms. Her testimony concerning the nature of her work for that business was inconsistent. The trial court found that she had not sustained her burden of proof and entered judgment for her employer. She has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's findings. We affirm the judgment.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2011/kenneyl_022811.pdf
The employee alleged that she sustained carpal tunnel syndrome and a right shoulder injury as a result of repetitive work activities. She was examined by several doctors provided by her employer, each of whom found that she had no permanent work injury. She sought and received treatment on her own with a physician who treated her for shoulder impingement and carpal tunnel syndrome. This doctor assigned permanent impairment but also testified that those conditions were not work-related. An evaluating physician assigned permanent impairment and testified that the conditions were work-related. Employee was a part-owner of an upholstery business during a period of time prior to the onset of her symptoms. Her testimony concerning the nature of her work for that business was inconsistent. The trial court found that she had not sustained her burden of proof and entered judgment for her employer. She has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's findings. We affirm the judgment.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2011/kenneyl_022811.pdf
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Court Reviews Whether Plaintiff Satisfied his Burden of Proof in a Medical Negligence Case
ROBERT BROWN, An Incompetent, by and through next friend ANGELA ANDERSON v. STATE OF TENNESSEE (Tenn. Ct. App. December 15, 2010)
Appellant, who was not placed on fall observations until after his fall, suffered a fall while under the care of the Western Mental Health Institute. A CAT scan performed three days after the fall revealed no hemorrhaging, however, a repeat scan performed approximately one month later revealed a subdural hematoma for which Appellant subsequently underwent two surgeries.
Appellant, by and through his next friend, filed suit against the State in the Claims Commission alleging medical negligence. Following a trial, the Claims Commission found that a Western nurse breached the standard of care in completing the initial fall risk assessment, but that Appellant had failed to prove that such breach was a proximate cause of his fall. Additionally, the Commission found that Appellant had failed to prove that Western's failure to later place Appellant on fall observations was a proximate cause of his fall. Finally, the Commission found that Appellant had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Western's failure to order repeat brain imaging prior to January 26, 2006, was a breach of the standard of care. We affirm the judgment of the Commission.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/brownr_121510.pdf
Appellant, who was not placed on fall observations until after his fall, suffered a fall while under the care of the Western Mental Health Institute. A CAT scan performed three days after the fall revealed no hemorrhaging, however, a repeat scan performed approximately one month later revealed a subdural hematoma for which Appellant subsequently underwent two surgeries.
Appellant, by and through his next friend, filed suit against the State in the Claims Commission alleging medical negligence. Following a trial, the Claims Commission found that a Western nurse breached the standard of care in completing the initial fall risk assessment, but that Appellant had failed to prove that such breach was a proximate cause of his fall. Additionally, the Commission found that Appellant had failed to prove that Western's failure to later place Appellant on fall observations was a proximate cause of his fall. Finally, the Commission found that Appellant had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Western's failure to order repeat brain imaging prior to January 26, 2006, was a breach of the standard of care. We affirm the judgment of the Commission.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/brownr_121510.pdf
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
TWCA Reviews Whether Employee Met The Burden of Proof to Satisfy her Claim
BRENDA M. McGHEE v. HOLLAND GROUP OF TENNESSEE, INC. (TWCA August 18, 2010)
The Employee filed a workers' compensation claim against her Employer for back pain resulting from the aggravation and advancement of her degenerative disc disease, which she claimed had occurred from her injury while working on a brake line assembly. The trial court found that the Employee had not carried her burden of proof, and the Employee appealed.
Because the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of fact made by the trial court, the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel, sitting in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) and Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, affirms the judgment.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2010/mcgheeb_081810.pdf
The Employee filed a workers' compensation claim against her Employer for back pain resulting from the aggravation and advancement of her degenerative disc disease, which she claimed had occurred from her injury while working on a brake line assembly. The trial court found that the Employee had not carried her burden of proof, and the Employee appealed.
Because the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of fact made by the trial court, the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel, sitting in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) and Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, affirms the judgment.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2010/mcgheeb_081810.pdf
Labels:
Burden of Proof,
TWCA,
Workers' Compensation
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
TWCA Reviews Whether Employee Met the Burden of Proof in Proving that He had Compensable Injuries
OTIS PATRICK v. SAFELITE GLASS CORPORATION, ET AL. (TWCA August 17, 2010)
The employee alleged that he had sustained a compensable injury to his back. His employer denied the claim due to discrepancies between his account of the event that caused the injury and certain medical records. The trial court found that the employee had failed to sustain his burden of proof, and dismissed the complaint. The employee appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against that finding. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2010/patricko_081710.pdf
The employee alleged that he had sustained a compensable injury to his back. His employer denied the claim due to discrepancies between his account of the event that caused the injury and certain medical records. The trial court found that the employee had failed to sustain his burden of proof, and dismissed the complaint. The employee appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against that finding. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2010/patricko_081710.pdf
Labels:
Burden of Proof,
TWCA,
Workers' Compensation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)