 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Coker v. Beverly Enterprises Tennessee6/25/2002
t work. The next day, Dr. Brown performed surgery on her left knee. The claimant did not return to work for the employer.
Dr. Brown testified by deposition. He diagnosed a torn medial meniscus, torn lateral meniscus, grade IV chondromalacia of the medial tibial plateau and femoral condyle and chondromalacia of the patella, grade III. He opined, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that her injuries were either caused or aggravated by her fall at work and estimated her permanent impairment to be 27 percent to the leg. He restricted the claimant from kneeling and climbing ladders.
The claimant testified that she is not able to perform any duties which would require her to stand on her feet for long periods of time. The trial court found her to be a credible witness.
The appellant's first contention is that the medical proof is insufficient to establish causation. Unless admitted by the employer, the employee or claimant has the burden of proving, by competent evidence, every essential element of his claim. Oster v. Yates, 845 S.W.2d 215, 217 (Tenn. 1992). The claimant must prove that she is an employee, that she suffered an injury by accident, and that such injury by accident arose out of and in the course of his employment by the employer. Anderson v. Save-A-Lot, Ltd., 989 S.W.2d 277, 279 (Tenn. 1999). An accidental injury arises out of one's employment when there is apparent to the rational mind, upon consideration of all the circumstances, a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and the resulting injury. GAF Bldg. Materials v. George, 47 S.W.3d 430, 432 (Tenn. 2001). In all but the most obvious cases, causation and permanency must be established by expert medical testimony. Wade v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 735 S.W.2d 215, 217 (Tenn. 1987). Any reasonable doubt as to whether such an injury arises out of the employment should be resolved in favor of the employee. Tapp v. Tapp, 192 Tenn. 1, 236 S.W.2d 977, 978 (1951).
The appellant would have us disregard Dr. Brown's testimony as being flawed because the claimant gave him an inaccurate history. As with many of us, Ms. Coker is a poor medical historian, but both Dr. Brown and the chancellor believed the claimant when she said the injury occurred while performing her nursing duties at work. Giving due deference to the findings of the trial court, we cannot say the evidence preponderates against the finding that the claimant suffered a compensable injury. The first issue is resolved in favor of the appellee.
The appellant next contends the award of permanent partial disability benefits based on 65 percent to the leg is excessive because permanency was not proved and because the claimant is able to work. Permanency was established by the testimony of Dr. Brown. We are not at liberty to disregard the testimony of Dr. Brown. His testimony is not rebutted. Once the causation and permanency of an injury have been established by expert testimony, the trial judge may consider many pertinent factors, including age, job skills, education, training, duration of disability, and job opportunities for the disabled, in addition to anatomic impairment, for the purpose of evaluating the extent of a claimant's permanent disability. McCaleb v. Saturn Corp., 910 S.W.2d 412, 416 (Tenn. 1995). The opinion of a qualified expert with respect to a claimant's clinical or physical impairment is a factor which the court will consider along with all other relevant facts and circumstances, but it is for the court to determine the percentage of the claimant's industrial disability. Miles v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 795 S.W.2d 665, 666 (Tenn. 1990). From a consideration of th
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|