TWCA Reviews an Award of Permanent Total Disability Benefits to an Employee Whose Physician Used the Medical Impairment Registry Process

COURIER PRINTING COMPANY ET AL. v. WANDA SIMS, EX REL ROBERT STEVE BLY ET AL. (TWCA July 21, 2011)

In this Workers' Compensation case, the trial court held that the employee had sustained a gradual injury to his lower back, and that he was permanently and totally disabled as a result of that injury. The employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by permitting the employee to use a physician who provided an impairment rating through the Medical Impairment Registry process as a medical expert on the issue of causation and by finding that the employee sustained a compensable injury. In the alternative, the employer contends that the trial court erred by awarding permanent total disability, and also in its alternative finding that the employee had proven three of the four elements set out in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-242, and was thereby able to recover a permanent partial disability award in excess of six times the medical impairment. We find no error and affirm the judgment.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2011/courierprinting_072111.pdf

TWCA Reviews a Determination of Permanent Partial Disability in a Case Involving Conflicting Assessments between Several Physicians

PRIANGLAM BROOKS v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES (TWCA February 25, 2011)

Employee sustained a compensable injury to her lower back. Employer initially provided medical treatment, but Employer's insurer subsequently declined to provide additional medical treatment. Employee sought treatment on her own. Her treating physician found that she retained a 15% permanent impairment as a result of her injury. An examining physician for Employer opined that she had no impairment. A physician was selected through the Medical Impairment Registry ("MIR") process. That physician also stated that Employee had no permanent impairment.

The trial court found that Employee rebutted the presumption of correctness of the MIR physician's rating by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(d)(5) and awarded 20% permanent partial disability. Both sides appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2011/brooksp_022511.pdf

TWCA Reviews Whether the Trial Court Properly Excluded an MIR Report in a Worker’s Compensation Case

STEVEN WILLIAMS v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE ET AL. (TWCA September 28, 2010)

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel. An employee who sustained a compensable injury to his left knee in 2006 filed suit in the Chancery Court for Wilson County seeking to recover benefits for an additional injury to his right knee allegedly caused by over-reliance on his right leg as a result of the earlier injury to his left knee. The employer denied liability and sought to introduce at trial a Medical Impairment Registry ("MIR") report prepared in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 50-6-204(d)(5) (Supp. 2009).

The trial court sustained the employee's objection to the introduction of the MIR report. Following a bench trial, the trial court determined that the 2006 injury to the employee's left knee was compensable and awarded the employee 27% permanent partial impairment to each leg.

On this appeal, the employer asserts that the trial court erred by excluding the MIR report, by finding that the injury to the employee's right knee was a new, compensable injury, and by basing its award on the impairment rating of the employee's physician. We affirm the judgment.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2010/williamss_092810.pdf