 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Roberts v. Marco Printing Company12/20/1999
JUDGMENT ORDER
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 defendants/appellants, Marco and Reliance, for which execution may issue if necessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED on December 20, 1999.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE (July 15, 1999 Session)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Members of Panel:
Frank F. Drowota, III, Associate Justice, Supreme Court Samuel L. Lewis, Special Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr., Special Judge
AFFIRMED
Clement, Judge
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 of findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The employee seeks benefits resulting from carpal tunnel syndrome. The case presents three basic issues: (1) what is the date of the injury; (2) if it is the spring of 1995, does the employee have justification for not notifying the employer of the injury until 1997; and (3) does the evidence support the trial court's findings.
There are four parties to this action: the employee, Mary Frances Roberts ("Roberts"); her employer, Marco Printing Company, Inc. ("Marco"), which employed Roberts at all times material to this action; and two insurance companies, Reliance Insurance Company ("Reliance") and ITT Hartford ("ITT"), which provided workers compensation coverage during separate time periods pertinent to this matter.
Appellant Reliance contends that the employee's gradual injury did not become a compensable injury until March of 1997, at which time Reliance was no longer providing coverage for Marco. Alternatively, Reliance contends that if the injury did occur in the spring of 1995, the claim should be dismissed for failure to provide timely notice of injury to the employer pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 50-6-201 and 50-6- 202 and for failure to file the lawsuit within the one-year statute of limitations set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-203. Marco and Reliance further contend that the evidence does not support the trial court's 35% vocational disability award to each extremity. Marco and Reliance request that the trial court's judgment be reversed. As discussed below, the panel affirms the judgment of the trial court.
The employee is 58 years old and has an eighth grade education. She has worked several sewing jobs and also as a printer, which is her current occupation at Marco. She has been employed at Marco for fifteen years and was working there at the time of trial.
In the spring of 1995, Roberts developed pain in both hands and in her lower arms. She informed her boss, D.B. Minor, and he suggested that she see a doctor. On May 8, 1995, she saw Dr. Kenneth Moore, an orthopaedic specialist of her own choosing. Dr. Moore diagnosed pinched nerves, osteoarthritis, and carpal tunnel syndrome and ordered a course of conservative treatment. Roberts saw Dr. Moore a second time on May 16, 1995, at
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.
|
|