 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Harper v. Lockheed Martin Energy Systems9/12/2000
Mailed - August 2. 2000
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. The appellant-employee appealed the trial court's award of 12.5% permanent disability to the body as a whole which was based on a finding the employee had made a meaningful return to work resulting in capping the award at two and one-half times the medical impairment under T.C.A. § 50-6-241(a)(1). On appeal, appellant argues he did not return to work for the "pre-injury employer" and the six times medical impairment under subsection (b) should control the award. Judgment of the trial court is affirmed as the new employer was a successor or substitute employer for the original employer by reason of a change of contractors at the U.S. government facility.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed.
THAYER, Sp. J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ANDERSON, C. J., and BYERS, Sr. J., joined.
OPINION
Facts
The employee, Eddie Ray Harper, was employed by defendant, Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc., as a chemical operator at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. On September 7, 1996, he sustained a compensable work-related injury which was diagnosed as a lumbar strain resulting in a 5% medical impairment to the body as a whole. His treatment was of a conservative nature with medication and physical therapy.
The employee returned to work at Lockheed Martin with some physical restrictions and at the same wage rate he was receiving prior to the injury. He continued to work until March 1999 when the U.S. Department of Energy changed contractors at the laboratory and employee Harper and a number of other workers were "transitioned" to the new contractor, Bechtel Jacobs Company. The record indicates that due to the change of contractors, the Atomic Trades & Labor Council, Bechtel Jacobs and Lockheed Martin entered into an agreement whereby the transferred employees would retain all seniority rights, would continue at the same job and receive the same pay and benefits. The records of Lockheed Martin indicated that as of a certain date, employee Harper was terminated from its payroll and was transitioned to Bechtel Jacobs, the successor contractor.
The trial court was of the opinion that the employee had made a meaningful return to work under T.C.A. § 50-6-241(a)(1) and imposed the 2½ times cap which resulted in an award of permanent disability at 12.5% to the body as a whole.
Issue on Appeal
The employee has appealed the award and argues the trial court was in error in failing to find the award was controlled by subsection (b) of the statute which imposes a maximum award of six times the medical impairment. In support of this argument, it is stated that at the time of the trial below, the employee had been terminated by his regular employer and was in the employment of a new and different employer and not a "pre-injury employer".
Analysis
Generally speaking, T.C.A. § 50-6-241(a)(1) provides that when the injured employee returns to work for the "pre-injury employer" at a rate of pay equal to or greater than the wage rate received prior to the injury, the maximum award of permanent disability is two and one-half times the medical impairment. If the employee does not return to work for the "pre-injury employer" or the return to work is not considered meaningful, the maximum award of disab
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.
|
|