 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Keeling v. Steel2/8/2001
Mailed December 12, 2000;
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The defendant appeals from the trial judge's finding that: the plaintiff sustained an injury within the course and scope of his employment; that he suffered a thirty-five percent vocational disability; and that he did not have a meaningful return to work. The defendant also appeals the trial court's holding that it was not entitled to a set off for funds paid to the plaintiff under a self-insurance plan. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court is Affirmed
John K. Byers, Sr. J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Janice M. Holder, J. and Don R. Ash, S. J., joined.
OPINION
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(2). Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 550 (Tenn. 1995).
The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial courts in workers' compensation cases. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988).
Facts
The plaintiff, thirty-two years of age at the time of trial, has a work history of manual labor including farming, refinishing furniture, loading trucks and stacking lumber. He began working for the defendant in 1990. The work the plaintiff did for the defendant was that of a melt-shop attendant, which included lifting from thirty to fifty pounds of weight on a regular basis. The plaintiff was given a pre-employment physical which cleared him for the work.
The plaintiff did not have any problems with his back until December 21, 1995, when he rolled over on a couch at home and heard a pop in his back and felt pain. Thereafter, the plaintiff continued to have back and leg pain and ultimately left the employment of the defendant, after, according to the plaintiff, he could not perform work for the defendant within his medical restrictions. Eventually, the plaintiff did return to work and was assigned to operating a fork lift. During the course of his duties, the plaintiff ran over a hose. When he bent to pick up the hose, he again felt a pop in his back. The plaintiff also testified that operating the fork lift caused his back to hurt.
Medical Evidence
The significant medical evidence in the case was given by Dr. Karl Misulis, a neurologist, and by Dr. Melvin Law, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Misulis found the plaintiff suffered from radiculopathy and damage to the nerve roots. Dr. Misulis did not attribute the condition to the plaintiff's work but did testify the repetitive lifting could have played a significant role in contributing to the radiculopathy. Further Dr. Misulis was of the opinion the pop the plaintiff heard when he attempted to pick up the hose (during the incident that occurred after he had returned to work following the previous incident) indicated an e
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.
|
|