 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mackie v. Young Sales Corporation3/1/2001
injuries sustained in the workplace. In filing a workers' compensation claim, the burden is on the employee to establish (1) that an injury or disease arose out of and in the course of his employment, and (2) that the employee provided timely notice of the condition to his or her employer. A workers' compensation claim must also be filed within the one-year statute of limitations, which begins to run when through the exercise of reasonable care and diligence it becomes discoverable and apparent that the employee sustained a compensable injury. See Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 50-6-203 (1999); Ogden v. Matrix Vision of Williamson County, Inc., 838 S.W.2d 528, 540 (Tenn. 1992). Obviously, in some cases the statute of limitations may not begin to run until after an employee's retirement. Accordingly, we conclude that an employer may not simply rely on the fortuitous timing of an employee's retirement to avoid the responsibility for providing compensation.
In applying these considerations in this case, there is no dispute that Mackie's malignant mesothelioma arose out of and in the course of his employment and that the illness would have been compensable but for the question of his retirement. There is also no dispute that the defendant obtained the benefit of Mackie's labor and that neither Mackie nor the plaintiff had any other recourse or remedy against the defendant. In our view, disallowing compensation in these circumstances would conflict with the tradeoff that is at the heart of the workers' compensation system - that the employee has a remedy for injuries arising out of and in the course of his or her employment and the employer has a limit on the amount of its liability and complete protection from tort liability.
Accordingly, we disagree with the Panel's conclusion that the employee's voluntary retirement automatically precluded compensation as awarded by the trial court. The only remaining question for the trial judge, then, was determining the appropriate amount of benefits. The trial court's determination that benefits should be based upon the maximum weekly rate was predicated upon evidence in the record regarding the nature of Mackie's work, the retention of Mackie's union membership, and the proof regarding the availability and pay for such work at the time Mackie learned of his work-related malignant mesothelioma. Our review indicates that the evidence in the record does not preponderate against the trial court's finding.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, after reviewing the record and applicable authority, we conclude that an employee's voluntary retirement does not preclude workers' compensation benefits for an injury arising out of and in the course of employment and that the trial court properly awarded benefits based on the maximum weekly rate under the facts of this case. We therefore reject the findings and conclusions of the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel and affirm the judgment of the trial court. Costs of the appeal are taxed against the appellee, Young Sales Corporation, for which execution may issue if necessary.
Page 1 2 3 4 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|