 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Butler v. Texas Boot8/14/2000
JUDGMENT
This case is before the Court upon the entire record, including the order of referral to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel, and the Panel's Memorandum Opinion setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are incorporated herein by reference.
Whereupon, it appears to the Court that the Memorandum Opinion of the Panel should be accepted and approved; and
It is, therefore, ordered that the Panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law are adopted and affirmed, and the decision of the Panel is made the judgment of the Court.
Costs will be paid by the appellant, for which execution may issue if necessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
Mailed - July 12, 2000
The appellant contends the trial judge erred (1) in determining the employee's condition arose out of the employment and (2) in applying Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-242, and (3) that the award is excessive.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right;
Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed.
The employee or claimant, Butler, is fifty-nine years old and has an eighth grade education. She has worked for the employer, Texas Boot, since she was nineteen years old. She gradually developed contact dermatitis, asthma, hypertension and deterioration of her mental functions during those years. The condition has become so severe that she is no longer able to do her work. Her physician, Dr. Jacob Veenstra, the only expert witness who testified at the trial, attributed her conditions to "thirty-seven years of exposure to freshly treated leather, the various materials that were used to cure the leather." The doctor's testimony also included the following questions and answers:
Q. Are you aware of anything she can do at this time?
A. I suspect if somebody gave her a broom, she might be able to sweep a broom someplace, but anything with a complex task, she would be effectively unemployed. And the problem is if she truly told her history to a new employer, she would be really unhireable in the fact that she has very labile hypertension, and I suspect she would miss a fair amount of time off work; and as such I think she would not be a reliable employee.
Q. Doctor, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty are these conditions permanent?
A. Yes.
From the above summarized evidence, the trial judge found the claimant to be permanently disabled from working and awarded permanent disability benefits for 400 weeks at her compensation rate. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(2). This standard requires the panel to examine in depth a trial court's factual findings and conclusions. The reviewing tribunal is not bound by a trial court's factual findings but instead conducts an independent examination to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies. Galloway v. Memphis Drum Serv., 822 S.W.2d 584 (Tenn. 1991). Conclusions of law are subject to de novo review without any presumption of correctness. Ivey v. Trans Global Gas & Oil, 3 S.W.3d
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.
|
|