 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bilyeu v. Sherwin Williams Company6/21/2002
irment rating for the plaintiff was 25 percent, which is listed in Table 8, page 162 of the AMA Guides as "mild impairment of the whole person", not "severe" impairment as would require three tests one week apart.
Dr. Faith testified that it was his opinion within a reasonable medical certainty under the AMA Guides, Fourth Edition, that the plaintiff's medical impairment rating was 25 percent to the body as a whole. The trial court accepted Dr. Faith's rating. The trial judge has the discretion to accept the opinion of one expert over that of another. Johnson v. Midwesco, Inc., 801 S.W.2d 804 (Tenn. 1990). Unless there is something inherent in the deposition of the expert whom the trial judge credits to make the testing unreliable, we will not disagree with the trial judge.
Fourth, the appellant contends that the trial court's award of 75 percent permanent partial disability was excessive.
The ultimate question in a workers' compensation case is vocational disability. In making a determination as to vocational disability, the court shall consider all pertinent factors, including lay and expert testimony, the employee's age, education, skills and training, local job opportunities, and capacity to work in at types of employment available in the claimant's disabled condition. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(c); Robertson v. Loretto Casket Co., 722 S.W.2d 380, 384 (Tenn. 1986). A medical expert's testimony is one of the relevant factors for determining the extent of vocational disability in a workers' compensation proceeding, but vocational disability is not restricted to precise estimate of anatomical disability made by a medical witness. Cooper v. Insurance Co. of North America, 884 S.W.2d 446 (Tenn. 1994).
In making its decision as to the plaintiff's vocational disability rating, the trial court did take the aforementioned factors into account. The court considered that the plaintiff has problems walking, that he has limitations as to what he can lift, that any exertion whatsoever aggravates his symptoms, and that he has virtually no vocational skills other than his ability to work with paint, which he can obviously no longer do. The award decided upon by the trial court is within its discretion pursuant to the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act and thus we do not disturb the award.
Finally, the appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in commuting the plaintiff's award to a lump sum payment. According to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-229(a), in determining whether to commute an award, the court must consider (1) whether the commutation will be in the best interest of the employee, and (2) the ability of the employee to wisely manage and control the commuted award. Whether to commute a workers' compensation award to a lump sum is discretionary with the trial court, and the trial court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court's decision amounted to an abuse of discretion. Edmonds v. Wilson County, 9 S.W.3d 106 (Tenn. 1999). In this case, the trial court relied on the testimony of the plaintiff, who has considerable experience managing a business, and who has definite plans for investment of his award from this case. This the trial court may do and we do not disturb its decision on this issue. The current state of the economy and its effects on financial investments do not render such a decision an abuse of discretion.
We cannot say that the evidence preponderates against the findings of the trial judge on any of the issues brought by the appellant and we affirm the judgment. The cost of this appeal is taxed to the appellant.
JUDGMENT
This case is before the Court upon the entire r
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|