STEPHEN D. GOOD v. SUNKOTE PLASTIC COATINGS CORPORATION ET AL. (TWCA December 19, 2012)
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 sought workers' compensation benefits, alleging that he injured his back at work on September 30, 2008, and is now totally and permanently disabled. The employer denied that the employee sustained a compensable work-related injury, but alternatively argued that the employee is not totally and permanently disabled.
The trial court concluded that the employee sustained a compensable work-related injury and awarded 80% permanent partial disability benefits. The employer has appealed, arguing that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the injury was compensable and that, even if the employee proved a compensable injury, the evidence preponderates against the award of 80% permanent partial disability benefits. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/goods_121912.pdf
Tennessee Personal Injury Law Blog - published by Bryan L. Capps and Stephen A. Burroughs. The Law Office of Stephen A. Burroughs – proudly serving clients throughout East Tennessee.
Showing posts with label Disability Benefits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Disability Benefits. Show all posts
Friday, December 21, 2012
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Court reviews whether plaintiff's misrepresentations in his application for disability benefits increased an insurance company's risk of loss
ROY L. LAWHON, v. MOUNTAIN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (Tenn. Ct. App. November 21, 2011)
Plaintiff made claim for credit disability insurance coverage after he became disabled, and defendant insurance company denied benefits on the grounds of misrepresentations in the application for insurance, which he had executed. The Trial Court ruled in favor of plaintiff on the grounds that misrepresentations in the application did not increase the risk of loss. On appeal, we reverse the Trial Court's Judgment because the misrepresentations contained in the application for insurance increase defendant's risk of loss under the statute.
Full opinion is available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/lawhonr_112111.pdf
Plaintiff made claim for credit disability insurance coverage after he became disabled, and defendant insurance company denied benefits on the grounds of misrepresentations in the application for insurance, which he had executed. The Trial Court ruled in favor of plaintiff on the grounds that misrepresentations in the application did not increase the risk of loss. On appeal, we reverse the Trial Court's Judgment because the misrepresentations contained in the application for insurance increase defendant's risk of loss under the statute.
Full opinion is available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/lawhonr_112111.pdf
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
TWCA reviews the trial court's adoption of an evaluating physician's impairment rating as the basis for an award of permanent disability benefits
MICHAEL SCHWAMB v. BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS TIRE OPERATIONS, LLC (TWCA August 10, 2011)
In this workers' compensation case, the employee had a compensable back injury in 2008. His doctor assigned 19% permanent anatomical impairment for the injury, based upon the Sixth Edition of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.
He had previously settled a claim for a compensable back injury in 1996. That injury resulted in a 15% permanent impairment according to the Fourth Edition of the Guides, then in effect.
Based upon those ratings, the treating physician for the 2008 injury apportioned 4% of the total 19% impairment to the more recent injury. An evaluating physician used the Sixth Edition to rate both injuries and opined that the impairment for the 2008 injury was 13% to the body as a whole.
The trial court adopted the evaluating physician's rating and based its award of permanent disability benefits on it. The employer has appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by adopting the evaluating physician's rating. We affirm the judgment.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2011/schwambm_081011.pdf
In this workers' compensation case, the employee had a compensable back injury in 2008. His doctor assigned 19% permanent anatomical impairment for the injury, based upon the Sixth Edition of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.
He had previously settled a claim for a compensable back injury in 1996. That injury resulted in a 15% permanent impairment according to the Fourth Edition of the Guides, then in effect.
Based upon those ratings, the treating physician for the 2008 injury apportioned 4% of the total 19% impairment to the more recent injury. An evaluating physician used the Sixth Edition to rate both injuries and opined that the impairment for the 2008 injury was 13% to the body as a whole.
The trial court adopted the evaluating physician's rating and based its award of permanent disability benefits on it. The employer has appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by adopting the evaluating physician's rating. We affirm the judgment.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2011/schwambm_081011.pdf
Monday, July 12, 2010
Worker's Compensation Panel reviews whether employee's condition was compensable
RUBY E. AUSTIN v. GENLYTE THOMAS GROUP, LLC ET AL. (TWCA July 12, 2010)
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.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2010/austinr_071210.pdf
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.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2010/austinr_071210.pdf
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
TWCA reviews trial court's apportionment of an award for permanent partial disability benefits
THOMAS E. HALL v. TRW AUTOMOTIVE, U.S., LLC, ET AL. (TWCA February 3, 2010)
In this workers' compensation action, the employee, Thomas Hall, alleged that he sustained hearing loss due to exposure to noise in the workplace. The employer, TRW Automotive U.S., LLC, contended that most of the hearing loss occurred after Mr. Hall began wearing hearing protection, and was therefore not caused by his employment. The trial court awarded 75% permanent partial disability of the hearing of both ears. TRW has appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in that it failed to apportion the award to the body as a whole, selected an incorrect injury date, declined to view a video recording of an evidentiary deposition, and made an excessive award of benefits. We conclude that the award should have been assigned to the body as a whole, and that the trial court selected an incorrect injury date. The judgment is modified accordingly.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2010/hallt_020310.pdf
In this workers' compensation action, the employee, Thomas Hall, alleged that he sustained hearing loss due to exposure to noise in the workplace. The employer, TRW Automotive U.S., LLC, contended that most of the hearing loss occurred after Mr. Hall began wearing hearing protection, and was therefore not caused by his employment. The trial court awarded 75% permanent partial disability of the hearing of both ears. TRW has appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in that it failed to apportion the award to the body as a whole, selected an incorrect injury date, declined to view a video recording of an evidentiary deposition, and made an excessive award of benefits. We conclude that the award should have been assigned to the body as a whole, and that the trial court selected an incorrect injury date. The judgment is modified accordingly.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2010/hallt_020310.pdf
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
TWCA reviews whether the trial court properly awarded permanent and total disability benefits
RAINES BROTHERS, INC., ET AL. v. BARRY WADE JOHNSON (Tenn. Work Comp. App. January 20, 2010)
This workers' compensation appeal has 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) for a hearing and report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee, Barry Wayne Johnson, sought benefits for injuries he sustained in the course and scope of his employment with Raines Brothers, Inc. The employee fell fifteen to twenty feet into an air conditioning vent shaft at a construction site, shattering the left side of his pelvis and acetabulum. Following a course of treatment, the employee returned to work and was terminated after he informed his employer that he could not perform the light-duty work assigned to him due to residual and chronic pain. The trial court awarded permanent and total disability benefits. On appeal, the employer argues that the trial court erred in awarding permanent and total disability benefits. After careful review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2010/rainesbrothers_012010.pdf
This workers' compensation appeal has 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) for a hearing and report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee, Barry Wayne Johnson, sought benefits for injuries he sustained in the course and scope of his employment with Raines Brothers, Inc. The employee fell fifteen to twenty feet into an air conditioning vent shaft at a construction site, shattering the left side of his pelvis and acetabulum. Following a course of treatment, the employee returned to work and was terminated after he informed his employer that he could not perform the light-duty work assigned to him due to residual and chronic pain. The trial court awarded permanent and total disability benefits. On appeal, the employer argues that the trial court erred in awarding permanent and total disability benefits. After careful review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2010/rainesbrothers_012010.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)