Court reviews whether an Employer was entitled to use Tennessee's worker's compensation law in order to recover subrogation benefits

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

The Tennessean: Workers' Comp Changes Likely on Horizon

Tennessee companies could see a reduction in workers' compensation premiums later this year according to The Tennessean, depending on the outcome of complex negotiations over the rates doctors receive for treating workers' comp patients. Several business groups support the measure, saying that an overall rate reduction would help make Tennessee more competitive with neighboring states, but many in the health care community say cuts would hurt medical providers and even force some of them to stop treating patients. Gov. Bill Haslam chose not to tackle workers' compensation reform this year, but is exploring major changes. Many observers expect this will be a major issue for the legislature in 2013.

Read the full story at the Tennessean's website.

Court reviews a motion for a directed verdict in a medical malpractice case involving a permanent neurological impairment

DIANE R. CANNON KELLON and WILLIAM T. KELLON v. MARSHA LEE, M.D. and SEMMES-MURPHEY CLINIC (Tenn. Ct. App. May 21, 2012)

This is a medical malpractice case wherein a patient suffered permanent neurological impairment after delay of surgery to correct a ruptured disc in her spine. The patient sued the doctor who treated her at a minor medical clinic, and a neurological clinic, alleging that both failed to ensure that the patient was treated promptly. The jury found that the doctor did not breach the standard of care, but awarded damages against the neurological clinic.

The neurological clinic moved for judgment in accordance with a motion for a directed verdict on the ground that the patient failed to prove causation. The trial court granted the motion, as well as a conditional motion for new trial as to the neurological clinic only. The trial court concurred in the jury verdict in favor of the doctor.

We reverse the grant of the motion for judgment in accordance with a motion for a directed verdict and affirm the grant of a new trial as to the neurological clinic only. The jury verdict in favor of the minor medical clinic doctor, as concurred in by the trial court, is affirmed. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/kellond_052112.pdf

TWCA reviews whether an employee had a meaningful return to work an an award of temporary total disability benefits

DELTA FAUCET COMPANY v. JEFFREY NOLES (TWCA May 11, 2012)

An employee alleged that he sustained a work-related injury to his elbow and that his work aggravated his pre-existing carpal tunnel syndrome. His employer denied the claims, asserting that the employee’s elbow problem was related to a prior injury and that his carpal tunnel syndrome was not caused or worsened by his work. The trial court awarded benefits for both injuries.

The employer appealed, contending that the trial court erred in finding that the employee sustained a compensable injury to his elbow. The employer also contends that the trial court erred in finding that the employee’s carpal tunnel syndrome was compensable and that the employee gave proper notice of the carpal tunnel injury. The employer also appeals the trial court’s finding that the employee did not have a meaningful return to work, the award of temporary total disability benefits, and the amount of the award to the employee. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/deltafaucet_051112_0.pdf

Dissenting opinion:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/deltafaucet_DIS_051112_0.pdf

TWCA determines the apportionment of liability between an employer and the Second Injury Fund

VICKI MARSH v. FARRAR HOLLIMAN AND MEDLEY ET AL. (TWCA May 12, 2012)

The only issue before the trial court was the apportionment of liability between the employer and the Second Injury Fund. The employee had two compensable injuries prior to the injury that rendered her permanently and totally disabled. The trial court found that those injuries had caused 85% permanent partial disability. Based on that finding, it held the employer liable for 15% of the award and the Second Injury Fund liable for 85% of the award. We find that the trial court incorrectly applied Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- 208(a)(1)(2008), and modify the award accordingly.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/marshv_051212.pdf

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 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

TWCA reviews whether an employee gave notice of his injury to his employer in a timely manner

MELVIN HILL v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION ET AL. (TWCA May 10, 2012)

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 in accordance with Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 51.

The employee filed a complaint in the Chancery Court for Coffee County seeking workers’ compensation benefits for his loss of hearing. Following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that the employee’s hearing loss was caused by his exposure to noise at the workplace.

Accordingly, the trial court awarded the employee $68,759.73 in permanent partial disability benefits after concluding that the employee had a vocational disability of 78% to his hearing. The court also awarded the employee his reasonable and necessary medical expenses and discretionary costs.

The employer raises two issues on this appeal: (1) whether the employee gave timely notice of his alleged injury; and (2) whether the employee failed to prove that his hearing loss was work-related. We hold that the trial court did not err in finding that the employee gave timely notice and that the employee proved his hearing loss was work-related. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/hillm_051012.pdf

TWCA reviews whether a widow met the burden of proof in her request for death benefits

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

TWCA reviews an award of permanent partial disability benefits in a workers' compensation case

RANDALL NORWOOD v. MAYTAG CORPORATION d/b/a MAYTAG JACKSON DISHWASHING PRODUCTS (TWCA April 30, 2012)

In this workers’ compensation action, the employee contended that he struck his head against the casing of a conveyor belt, causing permanent and total disability due to a resulting cervical strain and mental injury. His employer denied that he sustained any permanent disability as a result of the incident. The trial court awarded 95% permanent partial disability benefits. The employer has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding. We affirm the judgment.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/norwoodr_043012.pdf

Court reviews a motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice case

WILLIAM MISE, ET. AL. V. METHODIST MEDICAL CENTER OF OAK RIDGE, ET. AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. April 23, 2012)

This is an appeal from the grant of summary judgment in a medical malpractice case. Virginia Mise was admitted to Methodist Medical Center of Oak Ridge following complaints of abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting. She was diagnosed with chronic renal failure. Several days later, she died following a medical procedure.

Her sons filed suit, alleging that Virginia Mise’s treating physicians and nurses failed to comply with the requisite standard of care, causing her death. Methodist Medical Center of Oak Ridge and the treating physicians filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motions for summary judgment. We affirm the grant of the motions for summary judgment.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/misew_042312.pdf

Court reviews a remittitur in a case involving an automobile accident

KAREN JOHNSON v. BEVERLY NUNIS AND FARMER’S INSURANCE EXCHANGE (Tenn. Ct. App. April 27, 2012)

This appeal involves remittitur of a jury verdict. The defendant driver caused a vehicular accident that resulted in substantial personal injuries to the plaintiff. At trial, several witnesses testified to the amount of the plaintiff’s economic damages as well as the noneconomic impact of her injuries. After a trial, the jury returned a special verdict with awards for various categories of economic and non-economic damages.

The trial court denied the defendant insurance company’s motion for a new trial but suggested an overall remittitur as to the total verdict. The plaintiff accepted the remittitur under protest and filed this appeal. We affirm the denial of a new trial, reverse the suggestion of remittitur, and reinstate the original jury verdict.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/johnsonk_042712.pdf

Court reviews the limitation of liability in an insurance policy in a case involving a city volunteer

PAUL VINCENT GIANNINI v. AMANDA PROFFITT (Tenn. Ct. App. April 27, 2012)

This appeal involves a limitation of liability in an insurance policy. The plaintiff was working in a volunteer capacity for the city. While doing so, the plaintiff sustained injuries in an accident caused by the negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff’s medical expenses were paid through the city’s on-the-job-injury program. The plaintiff had uninsured motorist coverage under his insurance policy with the appellee insurance company.

The appellee insurance company denied the plaintiff’s claim based on language in the policy reducing the insurance company’s liability by sums paid under laws similar to workers’ compensation laws. The insurance company asserted that the city’s on-the-job-injury program was similar to workers’ compensation.

The plaintiff filed this lawsuit, and the plaintiff and the insurance company filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance company, finding that the plaintiff’s benefits under the city’s on-the-job-injury program were similar to workers’ compensation. The plaintiff now appeals. We affirm the grant of summary judgment, for the reason stated by the trial court.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/gianninip_042712.pdf

House GOP Pushing Med Mal as Budget Fix

Republican leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives have revived a medical malpractice bill that caps non-economic damages at $250,000 and limits contingency fees as a way to reduce the federal budget and avoid cuts in defense spending. The House passed the bill in March, even though President Barack Obama said he would veto it and House Democrats say it will be dead on arrival in the Senate. But the bill was revisited during budget discussions this week after the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would reduce federal healthcare costs.

Read the full story at The Blog of Legal Times

TN Supreme Court reviews whether plaintiff's proof of serious mental injury was sufficient to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress

BETTY SAINT ROGERS v. LOUISVILLE LAND COMPANY ET AL. (Tenn. April 19, 2012)

In this appeal, the defendants seek a review of the trial court’s decision to award the plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages based on the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress arising out of inadequate maintenance of the cemetery where the plaintiff’s son was buried.

To recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s conduct was either intentional or reckless, was so outrageous that it is not tolerated by civilized society, and caused a serious mental injury to the plaintiff.

The primary question presented is whether the plaintiff in this action proved the requisite serious mental injury to support the trial court’s award of compensatory and punitive damages. We hold that the plaintiff’s proof was deficient. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/rogersb_041912.pdf

Court reviews whether the requirement of a Certificate of Good Faith in medical malpractice cases violates due process and equal protection

SANDI D. JACKSON v. HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF TENNESSEE, INC., D/B/A CENTENNIAL MEDICAL CENTER ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. April 19, 2012)

This appeal arises from the dismissal of a medical malpractice action due to the plaintiff’s failure to provide a certificate of good faith.

All defendants filed Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) motions to dismiss the medical malpractice action based upon Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-122(a), which provides: “If the certificate is not filed with the complaint, the complaint shall be dismissed, as provided in subsection (c), absent a showing that the failure was due to the failure of the provider to timely provide copies of the claimant’s records requested as provided in § 29-26-121 or demonstrated extraordinary cause.”

Because the plaintiff failed to make a showing that the omission was due to the failure of any healthcare provider to provide records or demonstrate extraordinary cause, the trial court granted the motions and dismissed the case.

The plaintiff asserts on appeal that the statutory requirement violates the separation of powers clause and that it violates the due process and equal protection guarantees of the constitution of Tennessee by treating plaintiffs in suits for medical negligence differently from plaintiffs in other civil litigation and by allegedly restricting access to the courts. Finding no constitutional infirmities, we affirm.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/jacksons_041912.pdf

Court reviews a medical malpractice involving permanent injuries sustained by an infant during surgery

MICHAEL H. GAW, ET AL. v. THE VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. April 20, 2012)

This is an appeal from a jury verdict in a medical malpractice case. A surgeon performed a procedure on an infant to repair a birth defect at the defendant hospital. The infant sustained permanent injuries after the surgery. The parents filed suit on the infant’s behalf against the hospital for failing to adhere to the expected standard of care.

At the conclusion of trial, the hospital moved for a directed verdict on all claims, with only the claims for informed consent and post-operative negligence being denied. The jury entered a judgment in favor of the infant. The hospital has appealed. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/gawm_042012.pdf

Court reviews a GTLA claim against Berry Hill in a case involving a construction accident

JOHN DURLING KEMPER v. JOE C. BAKER, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS CITY MANAGER OF BERRY HILL, TENNESSEE ET AL.(Tenn. Ct. App. April 20, 2012)

This is a GTLA action against a city and city official following a construction accident in which an exterior wall of a building collapsed, causing serious injuries to one of the plaintiffs and causing the death of the other plaintiff. The building was being demolished and the plaintiffs were employed by a private company that was to disconnect gas utilities on the privately owned building.

The plaintiffs claim the collapse was caused, in part, by the failure of the city and the city manager to enforce certain OSHA regulations and provisions of the municipal building code. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims against the city and the city official on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on governmental immunity. We affirm.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/kemperj_042012.pdf

TWCA reviews whether an employee's degenerative disk disease was caused by her employment

SANDRA M. BUTTREY v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC. (TWCA April 24, 2012)

The employee had degenerative disk disease for a number of years prior to April 2009, when she reported to her employer that she was experiencing significantly increased neck pain and symptoms, and she sought treatment. The employer denied the employee’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The trial court credited the testimony of the employee and of one of the treating physicians and awarded the employee 28.5% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The employer appeals, asserting that the employee’s injury was not caused by her employment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/buttreys_042412.pdf

Court reviews an order to exclude an expert witness based on the locality rule in light of the Shipley opinion

VIVIAN KENNARD v. METHODIST HOSPITALS OF MEMPHIS a/k/a METHODIST HEALTHCARE MEMPHIS HOSPITALS, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. April 18, 2012)

Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action against the Anesthesia Defendants, among others. Prior to trial, one of Plaintiff’s experts, Dr. McLaughlin, was excluded for failure to meet the requirements of the locality rule. Plaintiff proceeded to trial, and a jury verdict was rendered in favor of the Anesthesia Defendants. Plaintiff now appeals the expert’s exclusion and the subsequent jury verdict.

In light of our previous vacation of the order excluding Dr. McLaughlin in Kennard 2, we remand this case to the trial court for reconsideration of Dr. McLaughlin’s qualifications in light of Shipley.

If the trial court determines that Dr. McLaughlin meets the requirements of the locality rule, as set forth in Shipley, it shall then consider whether he, as an OB-GYN, may testify against the Anesthesia Defendants.

Finally, if the trial court determines that Dr. McLaughlin is competent to testify, it shall then determine whether his erroneous exclusion warrants a setting aside of the jury verdict rendered in favor of the Anesthesia Defendants.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/kennardv_041812.pdf