 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Huff v. Savage Zinc6/21/2002
Facts
The plaintiff was fifty-five (55) years of age at the time of the trial. He completed seven grades of school, does not have a GED, is married and the father of two children who are adults.
On September 1, 1999, the plaintiff was walking along a walk way at work. He stepped from the walk way and as he did so his ankle turned. The plaintiff experienced a sharp pain in his ankle.
The plaintiff reported the event to his supervisor and subsequently was told by the plant nurse to obtain a physician. The nurse did this because she was unable to obtain a referral.
The plaintiff was treated by Dr. Michelle Caron, a podiatrist, who referred him to Dr. Joseph Huston, a rheumatology specialist. The defendant referred the plaintiff to a Dr. Kent and later was seen by Dr. Blake Garside, an orthopaedic surgeon.
Medical Evidence
All of the medical evidence was submitted by deposition.
Dr. Caron testified the plaintiff had suffered a fracture of the fifth metatarsal bone of his right foot. In addition she found lytic lesions and distortion of the bone, which was found in later examination by Dr. Huston to be fibrous dysplasia, a bone disease of genetic origin.
Dr. Caron was of the opinion the plaintiff had suffered a seven and a half percent (7.5%) permanent medical impairment to the right lower extremity as a result of the fracture. Dr. Caron did not assign any impairment for the fibrous dysplasia. Dr. Caron was of the opinion the plaintiff could not continue to do the type of work he was doing prior to the fracture because of the pain he was suffering. She further expressed the opinion that the plaintiff could have continued to do his work if he had not become injured even though he had the underlying problem [fibrous dysplasia]. She testified the condition is not related to the fracture. That he is at the same risk for fracture now as he was prior to the injury.
Dr. Huston testified the plaintiff could possibly continue work indefinity with the condition without a fracture. He conceded, however, that this was speculative. Dr. Huston did not make a determination as to medical impairment because he was not asked to do so.
Dr. William Blake Garside, an orthopaedic surgeon, first saw the plaintiff on November, 15, 1999. His examination showed an unhealed fracture of the fifth metatarsal bone. The plaintiff was kept on a previously prescribed boot walker with crutches and weight bearing restrictions.
The fracture was not healing sufficiently by December 1999 and Dr. Garside did surgery to place a screw in the bones to effect union thereof.
Dr. Garside continued to see the plaintiff and ultimately released him to return to work without restrictions. He was of the opinion the plaintiff suffered no permanent impairment as a result of the injury.
Discussion
There is no question the fracture sustained by the plaintiff is compensable. The real issue in this case is whether there is an injury to the body as a whole or whether it is an injury to a scheduled member.
The nature of the plaintiff's injury requires that it be shown by expert testimony to be compensable. Thomas v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 812 S.W.2d 278 (Tenn. 1991). Unquestionably the expert testimony shows the plaintiff suffered a fracture to his right foot which is compensable. We are unable, however, to find from the expert testimony in this case that the injury extended to a whole body injury.
The fibrous dysplasia disease that the plaintiff suffered from birth is located in the plaintiff's right foot and one rib according to the te
Page 1 2 Tennessee Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|