 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Patterson v. Premier Medical Group6/3/2002
The employee or claimant, Larry Patterson, is 48 years old with less than an eighth grade education and experience as an unskilled laborer. He has trouble reading and writing. In 1990 he was surgically treated for right carpal tunnel syndrome. When asked what problems, if any, he had with that surgery, he replied, "Well, I had quite a bit of problems with it, because when I first got home after surgery and stuff, I thought I was going to die with it. You know, I turned sick and was throwing up and everything else and stuff."
At the time of the present injury, he was working as a handyman for the employer, Premier Medical Group. He gradually developed carpal tunnel syndrome. After he sued for workers' compensation benefits, the employer and its insurer offered corrective surgery, which the claimant refused because of his previous experience.
Two board certified orthopedic surgeons, Dr. Steve Salyers and Dr. Walter Wheelhouse, estimated his permanent clinical impairment to be 28 percent to the right and 20 percent to the left arm. A vocational expert, John Tierney, opined the claimant is 100 percent vocationally disabled. Tierney's opinion is based in part on information compiled by an associate, who was unavailable to testify at trial. Another vocational expert, Patsy Bramlett, estimated the claimant's disability to be 27 percent.
Upon the above summarized evidence, the trial court awarded disability benefits payable until age 65 years. Appellate review of findings of fact is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(2). Conclusions of law are subject to de novo review on appeal without any presumption of correctness. Nutt v. Champion Intern. Corp., 980 S.W.2d 365, 367 (Tenn. 1998).
This tribunal is not bound by the trial court's findings but instead conducts an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance lies. Galloway v. Memphis Drum Serv., 822 S.W.2d 584, 586 (Tenn. 1991). Where the trial judge has seen and heard the witnesses, especially if issues of credibility and weight to be given oral testimony are involved, considerable deference must be accorded those circumstances on review, because it is the trial court that had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and to hear the in-court testimony. Long v. Tri-Con Ind., Ltd., 996 S.W.2d 173, 178 (Tenn. 1999). The appellate tribunal, however, is as well situated to gauge the weight, worth and significance of deposition testimony as the trial judge. Walker v. Saturn Corp., 986 S.W.2d 204, 207 (Tenn. 1998).
The employer and its insurer contend benefits should be denied because of the claimant's refusal to undergo corrective carpal tunnel surgery. When a covered employee suffers an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer is required to provide, free of charge to the injured employee, all medical and hospital care which is reasonably necessary on account of the injury. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(a)(4)(A). The injured employee is required to accept the medical benefits provided by the employer. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204. If an employee's incapacity to work may be reduced or removed by an operation offered him by the employer, and if such treatment is of a simple character not involving serious suffering or danger to the employee, and if the employee unreasonably refuses such treatment, compensation may be suspended during such refusal, Hughes v. All Weather Insulation Co., 216 Tenn. 722, 394 S.W.2d 638 (1965), but a reasonable refusal to undergo surgery will not result i
Page 1 2 3 4 Tennessee Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|