TWCA reviews whether an employer was permitted to file a reconsideration action in a case in which an employee returned to his pre-injury position

LOJAC ENTERPRISES ET AL. v. LEONARD J. KANIPE (TWCA May 10, 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 was injured on the job and was able to return to his pre-injury position. His initial workers’ compensation claim was settled after a benefit review conference. As a part of his settlement he retained a right of reconsideration pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(d)(1) (2008). Subsequently, he lost his employment.

After an impasse at the benefit review conference, his employer filed this action to reconsider the employee’s benefits in the county where the injury occurred. The employee then filed a similar suit in the county of his residence.

The employee filed a motion to dismiss the employer’s action, contending that Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(d)(1)(B)(iv) does not permit an employer to file a reconsideration action. The employer contended that the statute did permit filing of a reconsideration action by an employer or in the alternative, the statute was unconstitutional. The trial court in the employer’s case granted the motion to dismiss and found the statute constitutional. The employer has appealed. We affirm the judgment.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/lojac_051012.pdf

TWCA Reviews whether an employee failed to timely file a request for a benefit review conference

DARRYL J. MAYTON v. WACKENHUT SERVICES, INC. (TWCA July 19, 2011)

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 issue presented in this case is whether the employee's request for a benefit review conference was filed more than one year after the employee had knowledge that his occupational disease was caused by his employment.

The trial court ruled that the employee's request was not timely and dismissed the case. After careful review, we hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's finding that Employee had knowledge that his illness was related to his employment more than one year before the filing of his request for a benefit review conference. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2011/maytond_071911.pdf