 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bell v. Rich Products Corp.2/14/2001
Mailed - January 12, 2001
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. In this appeal, the employer insists the award of permanent partial disability benefits is excessive and that the trial court erred in commuting the award to a lump sum. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed.
Loser, Sp. J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Birch, J. and Peoples, Sp. J., joined.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The employee or claimant, Jim Bell, is 41 years old and a high school graduate with experience as a service station attendant, fast food service worker, delivery truck driver and handyman. He was working for the employer, Rich Products, in the sanitation department when, on May 17, 1998, he suffered burn injuries to his arms, hands and shoulders. He was treated at the Vanderbilt University Burn Center by Dr. Kevin Kelly. Dr. Kelly has performed four surgical procedures to remove burned skin and reconstruct areas from which grafts were taken.
The claimant reached maximum medical recovery on March 10, 1999, ten months after the accident. Dr. Kelly has assigned a permanent medical impairment rating of 39 percent to the whole body, but conceded on cross examination that the guidelines only allowed for 30 percent, the additional 9 percent being for scarring on the areas from which the grafts were taken. The doctor gave an affirmative answer when cross examined as to whether the claimant was able to perform a laundry list of menial tasks. The employee testified that he could not work at a full time job because of lost endurance. A case manager for the employer testified that he could find a job for the injured man. A vocational expert testified that he found 32 jobs compatible with the claimant's limited ability to work.
At the time of the trial, the claimant had no regular income and had been living on his savings of approximately $20,000.00, all of which had been spent, and inheritance, of which $50,000.00 remained.
Upon the above summarized evidence, the trial judge awarded permanent partial disability benefits based on 90 percent to the body as a whole, commuted to a lump sum of $131,208.57. 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).
Trial courts are not bound to accept physicians' opinions regarding the extent of a claimant's disability, but should consider all the evidence, both expert and lay testimony, to decide the extent of an employee's disability. Walker v. Saturn Corp., 986 S.W.2d 204, 207 (Tenn. 1998). An injured employee is competent to testify as to his own assessment of his physical condition and such testimony should not be disregarded. Id at 208. A 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. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(b). From our examination of the record and a consideration of the stated principles, we cannot say the evidence preponderates against the finding of the trial court as to the extent of the claimant's vocational disability. The first issue is re
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.
|
|