JANICE LACROIX, et al., v. L.W. MATTESON, INC., et al. (Tenn. Ct. App. May 29, 2012)
Deceased, a resident of Iowa, an employee of plaintiff, delivered materials to the State of Tennessee, and while the materials were being unloaded sustained injuries which resulted in his death, which arose out of the course and scope of his employment.
His widow could claim benefits either under the Iowa worker's compensation laws or the State of Tennessee worker's compensation laws, which contain essentially similar provisions. The widow claimed benefits under the Iowa worker's compensation law, and the employer under both laws was entitled to seek subrogation recovery for benefits paid from the alleged third party tort feasors. The State of Iowa would not have jurisdiction over some of the alleged tort feasors, and the employer brought his subrogation action in the State of Tennessee under the Tennessee worker's compensation statutes.
Defendants moved for summary judgment and the Trial Court concluded that since the claimant elected to sue under the Iowa worker's compensation statutory scheme, that the employer could not rely on the Tennessee worker's compensation statutes to maintain its action in Tennessee, and dismissed plaintiffs' action. On appeal, we hold that the employer was entitled to employ the Tennessee worker's compensation statute in an effort to recover subrogation benefits against the third party tort feasors.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/lacroixj_052912.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 scope of employment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label scope of employment. Show all posts
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
TWCA reviews the credibility of an employee's testimony and whether the injury arose out of the course of employment
KIEWIT-ACT, A JOINT VENTURE v. CHRIS JONES and CHRISTOPHER BRYON JONES v. KIEWIT-ACT, A JOINT VENTURE and ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY (TWCA May 20, 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 has appealed the trial court’s denial of benefits for injuries to his right shoulder purportedly caused by a fall at work. The trial court denied the claim based on a finding that the employee’s testimony was not credible and that he failed to establish that his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. The employee has also challenged the trial court’s award of $3,245.25 in discretionary costs to the employer. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/kiewitact_051012.pdf
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 has appealed the trial court’s denial of benefits for injuries to his right shoulder purportedly caused by a fall at work. The trial court denied the claim based on a finding that the employee’s testimony was not credible and that he failed to establish that his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. The employee has also challenged the trial court’s award of $3,245.25 in discretionary costs to the employer. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/kiewitact_051012.pdf
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
TWCA reviews whether an employee's injury was sustained within the scope of his employment
RONALD EADY v. COMMODORE EXPRESS, INC. ET AL. (TWCA March 8, 2012)
In this workers’ compensation suit, the employee, a truck driver, alleged that he sustained a compensable injury to his back. His employer denied that an injury occurred and further contended that, if an injury did occur, it did not arise from or in the course of his employment. The trial court held that the injury was the result of the employee’s attempted assault on a co-employee and, therefore, did not arise from his employment. The complaint was dismissed, and the employee has appealed, arguing that the trial court’s finding was in error. We affirm the judgment. Opinion available at: https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/eadyr_030812.pdf
In this workers’ compensation suit, the employee, a truck driver, alleged that he sustained a compensable injury to his back. His employer denied that an injury occurred and further contended that, if an injury did occur, it did not arise from or in the course of his employment. The trial court held that the injury was the result of the employee’s attempted assault on a co-employee and, therefore, did not arise from his employment. The complaint was dismissed, and the employee has appealed, arguing that the trial court’s finding was in error. We affirm the judgment. Opinion available at: https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/eadyr_030812.pdf
Friday, February 17, 2012
TWCA reviews whether an employee willfully violated his employer's safety rules
DANNEIL EDWARD KEITH v. WESTERN EXPRESS, INC. ET A (TWCA February 17, 2012)
The employee, a truck driver, was injured in the course and scope of his employment when his vehicle left the road and turned over. His employer denied his claim for workers' compensation benefits, contending that the accident and resulting injuries were the direct result of the employee's willful violation of the employer's safety rules. The trial court found that the employee had willfully and intentionally disregarded the safety rules and entered judgment for the employer. On appeal, the employee contends that the trial court erred because the evidence did not establish the perverseness of his conduct, a necessary element of the misconduct affirmative defense. We affirm the judgment.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2012/keithd_021712.pdf
The employee, a truck driver, was injured in the course and scope of his employment when his vehicle left the road and turned over. His employer denied his claim for workers' compensation benefits, contending that the accident and resulting injuries were the direct result of the employee's willful violation of the employer's safety rules. The trial court found that the employee had willfully and intentionally disregarded the safety rules and entered judgment for the employer. On appeal, the employee contends that the trial court erred because the evidence did not establish the perverseness of his conduct, a necessary element of the misconduct affirmative defense. We affirm the judgment.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2012/keithd_021712.pdf
TWCA reviews whether the trial court adopted the proper impairment rating and found that
LARRY KENNETH HALE v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA ET AL. (TWCA February 17, 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 fell and struck both knees on a concrete landing in the course of his employment with the employer. His left knee required surgery and his right knee received limited medical treatment. The treating physician assigned 8% permanent impairment to the left leg. Employee's evaluating physician assigned 13% impairment to the left leg and 20% impairment to the right leg. The trial court adopted the evaluating physician's opinions and awarded 50% permanent partial disability to both legs.
Employer argues on appeal that the trial court erred by finding that Employee sustained a permanent injury to his right knee, by adopting the impairment rating of Dr. Landsberg over that of Dr. Gavigan for the left knee injury, by failing to find that Employee had a meaningful return to work, and by granting an excessive award of benefits. We affirm the judgment.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2012/halel_021712.pdf
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 fell and struck both knees on a concrete landing in the course of his employment with the employer. His left knee required surgery and his right knee received limited medical treatment. The treating physician assigned 8% permanent impairment to the left leg. Employee's evaluating physician assigned 13% impairment to the left leg and 20% impairment to the right leg. The trial court adopted the evaluating physician's opinions and awarded 50% permanent partial disability to both legs.
Employer argues on appeal that the trial court erred by finding that Employee sustained a permanent injury to his right knee, by adopting the impairment rating of Dr. Landsberg over that of Dr. Gavigan for the left knee injury, by failing to find that Employee had a meaningful return to work, and by granting an excessive award of benefits. We affirm the judgment.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2012/halel_021712.pdf
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
TWCA reviews whether an employee had a meaningful return to work that would permit limiting his benefits following being fired for misconduct
DEWEY GIBSON, JR. v. HIDDEN MOUNTAIN RESORT, INC. (TWCA December 14, 2011)
The employee sought workers' compensation for a back injury which arose out of and in the scope of his employment with the employer. The trial court found that because the employee had a meaningful return to work and was subsequently dismissed for job misconduct, he was limited to benefits of 1.5 times the 20% anatomical impairment rating. The evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's factual findings; the judgment is, therefore, affirmed.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2011/gibsond_121411.pdf
The employee sought workers' compensation for a back injury which arose out of and in the scope of his employment with the employer. The trial court found that because the employee had a meaningful return to work and was subsequently dismissed for job misconduct, he was limited to benefits of 1.5 times the 20% anatomical impairment rating. The evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's factual findings; the judgment is, therefore, affirmed.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2011/gibsond_121411.pdf
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Court reviews the application of an offset provision in an uninsured motorist policy
BECKY COOPER v. JASON POWERS ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. November 29, 2011)
At its core, this case is about the application of an offset provision in an uninsured motorist ("UM") policy to an individual's claim for damages arising out of an automobile accident in the course and scope of her employment.
The plaintiff Becky Cooper's workers' compensation claim arising out of the accident, along with another workers' compensation claim, this one for injuries sustained by the plaintiff "while getting a briefcase from her car," were settled and approved by the Chancery Court for Hamilton County. The "final order" of that court recites that the court acted upon the "joint petition of the employer, ... the insurer, ... and the employee, ...for the approval of a proposed settlement under the ...Workers' Compensation [Law]." The order does not expressly state that the plaintiff was paid any benefits for the injuries sustained in the automobile accident; but it does recite that she received all of the benefits to which she was due with respect to the two claims.
The plaintiff filed the present action against the driver and owner of the other vehicle involved in the accident and served a copy of the complaint on Pacific Employers Insurance Company, the UM carrier of the company whose automobile the plaintiff was driving at the time of the accident. The UM carrier filed a motion for partial summary judgment asserting that it is entitled to an offset corresponding to the workers' compensation benefits to which the plaintiff was entitled under the Workers' Compensation Law with respect to the automobile accident.
The trial court granted the UM carrier partial summary judgment in an order that states simply, without further elaboration, "[t]his is a final order." For several reasons, we hold that the court's order is not a final order under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02. However, in the interest of the efficient administration of justice, see Tenn. R. App. P. 1, we exercise our discretion to treat this appeal as if it were before us pursuant to the provisions of Tenn. R. App. P. 9. With respect to the merits of this case, we affirm the trial court's order granting partial summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Full opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/cooperb_112911.pdf
FRANKS dissenting:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/cooper_DIS_112911.pdf
At its core, this case is about the application of an offset provision in an uninsured motorist ("UM") policy to an individual's claim for damages arising out of an automobile accident in the course and scope of her employment.
The plaintiff Becky Cooper's workers' compensation claim arising out of the accident, along with another workers' compensation claim, this one for injuries sustained by the plaintiff "while getting a briefcase from her car," were settled and approved by the Chancery Court for Hamilton County. The "final order" of that court recites that the court acted upon the "joint petition of the employer, ... the insurer, ... and the employee, ...for the approval of a proposed settlement under the ...Workers' Compensation [Law]." The order does not expressly state that the plaintiff was paid any benefits for the injuries sustained in the automobile accident; but it does recite that she received all of the benefits to which she was due with respect to the two claims.
The plaintiff filed the present action against the driver and owner of the other vehicle involved in the accident and served a copy of the complaint on Pacific Employers Insurance Company, the UM carrier of the company whose automobile the plaintiff was driving at the time of the accident. The UM carrier filed a motion for partial summary judgment asserting that it is entitled to an offset corresponding to the workers' compensation benefits to which the plaintiff was entitled under the Workers' Compensation Law with respect to the automobile accident.
The trial court granted the UM carrier partial summary judgment in an order that states simply, without further elaboration, "[t]his is a final order." For several reasons, we hold that the court's order is not a final order under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02. However, in the interest of the efficient administration of justice, see Tenn. R. App. P. 1, we exercise our discretion to treat this appeal as if it were before us pursuant to the provisions of Tenn. R. App. P. 9. With respect to the merits of this case, we affirm the trial court's order granting partial summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Full opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/cooperb_112911.pdf
FRANKS dissenting:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/cooper_DIS_112911.pdf
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
TWCA reviews whether an employee's injury fell within the scope of employment or whether it was a private activity
MICHAEL A. PARISH v. HIGHLAND PARK BAPTIST CHURCH ET AL. (TWCA October 18, 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 Employee was injured when he was thrown from a horse. He alleged that the injury arose in the course and scope of his employment. His Employer contended that the Employee was engaged in a purely private activity; therefore, the injury was not compensable. The trial court denied the claim. On appeal, the Employee contends that the trial court erred by finding his injury was not related to his employment. We affirm the judgment.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2011/parishm_101811.pdf
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 when he was thrown from a horse. He alleged that the injury arose in the course and scope of his employment. His Employer contended that the Employee was engaged in a purely private activity; therefore, the injury was not compensable. The trial court denied the claim. On appeal, the Employee contends that the trial court erred by finding his injury was not related to his employment. We affirm the judgment.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2011/parishm_101811.pdf
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Supreme Court Reviews Whether Employee's Accident Occurred within the Scope of His Employment
OMER LEE DIXON, JR. v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY (Tenn. March 3, 2011)
The primary issue presented in this appeal is whether an employee, who was injured when a tornado struck the tractor-trailer rig he was driving for his employer, has a compensable workers' compensation claim. The central dispute between the parties is whether the claim arose out of the employment relationship. After careful review, we conclude that the employee was injured when he was subjected to a hazard not common to the general public but peculiar to the nature of his employment and to the conditions under which his employment was required to be performed. Accordingly, the injury arose out of his employment. The trial court's judgment holding the employee's claim to be compensable and its award of benefits is affirmed.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC/2011/dixono_030311.pdf
The primary issue presented in this appeal is whether an employee, who was injured when a tornado struck the tractor-trailer rig he was driving for his employer, has a compensable workers' compensation claim. The central dispute between the parties is whether the claim arose out of the employment relationship. After careful review, we conclude that the employee was injured when he was subjected to a hazard not common to the general public but peculiar to the nature of his employment and to the conditions under which his employment was required to be performed. Accordingly, the injury arose out of his employment. The trial court's judgment holding the employee's claim to be compensable and its award of benefits is affirmed.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC/2011/dixono_030311.pdf
Friday, April 30, 2010
Court reviews summary judgment in wrongful death case regarding scope of employment
MICHAEL CLAWSON, ET AL. v. MICHAEL L. BURROW, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. April 30, 2010)
Rachel M. Clawson ("the Decedent") was an employee of Summers-Taylor, Inc. ("the Employer") when she was killed in a tragic automobile-pedestrian accident. A vehicle driven by Michael Burrow veered off Highway 91 in Carter County and struck her. She had concluded her job duties for the day and was at the rear of her personally-owned truck visiting with co-workers and talking on a cell phone. The Decedent's truck was parked on the side of Highway 91 in an area approved by the Employer for employee parking.
Michael Clawson and Sherry Clawson, the Decedent's parents ("the Parents"), filed this wrongful death action against Burrow and the Employer. The Employer filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that on the undisputed facts the Decedent's death arose out of and occurred in the course and scope of her employment. The trial court agreed and entered an order granting the Employer summary judgment. The Parents appeal. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/clawsonm_043010.pdf
Rachel M. Clawson ("the Decedent") was an employee of Summers-Taylor, Inc. ("the Employer") when she was killed in a tragic automobile-pedestrian accident. A vehicle driven by Michael Burrow veered off Highway 91 in Carter County and struck her. She had concluded her job duties for the day and was at the rear of her personally-owned truck visiting with co-workers and talking on a cell phone. The Decedent's truck was parked on the side of Highway 91 in an area approved by the Employer for employee parking.
Michael Clawson and Sherry Clawson, the Decedent's parents ("the Parents"), filed this wrongful death action against Burrow and the Employer. The Employer filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that on the undisputed facts the Decedent's death arose out of and occurred in the course and scope of her employment. The trial court agreed and entered an order granting the Employer summary judgment. The Parents appeal. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/clawsonm_043010.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)