 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Webb v. Shoe City9/20/2000
work, and it was the plaintiff herself who made a unilateral decision not to return to work after she was released by her doctor to do so. The plaintiff argues that she could not have refused to return to work, because a specific job offer was never made by Shoe City that she could refuse. She contends that the two and one-half (2.5) multiplier does not apply. After careful review of the record, we find that the two and one-half (2.5) multiplier in Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-241(a)(1) does apply.
Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-241 governs the maximum award that an employee is able to receive for a permanent partial disability. § 50-6-241(a)(1) provides a cap of two and one-half (2.5) times the medical impairment rating where "the employer returns the employee to employment at a wage equal to or greater than the wage the employee was receiving at the time of the injury ...." Conversely, when "the pre-injury employer does not return the employee to employment at a wage equal to or greater than the wage the employee was receiving at the time of injury. . .," § 50-6-241(b) raises the cap to six (6) times the medical impairment rating.
In Newton v. Scott Health Ctr., 914 S.W.2d 884 (Tenn. 1995), the panel construed § 50-6-241(a)(1) as requiring the employee to have a meaningful return to work before the two and one-half (2.5) times cap can be applied. Id. at 886 (citing Bailey v. Krueger Ringier, Inc., No. 02S01-9409-CH-00061 (Tenn. May 17, 1995)). The determination of whether there has been a meaningful return to work turns on the facts of each case. Newton, 914 S.W.2d at 886. Particularly relevant is the reasonableness of the employer in attempting to return the employee to work and of the employee in failing to return to work. The court explained:
If the offer from the employer is not reasonable in light of the circumstances of the employee's physical ability to perform the offered employment, then the offer of employment is not meaningful and the injured employee may receive disability benefits up to six times the amount of the medical impairment. On the other hand, an employee will be limited to disability of two and one-half times the medical impairment if his refusal to return to offered work is unreasonable. The resolution of what is reasonable must rest upon the facts of each case and be determined thereby.
In Hale v. ABB Combustion Eng'g., No. 03S01-9506-CH-00062, 1996 WL 99298 (Tenn. Mar. 7, 1996), a panel decision adopted and affirmed by the Supreme Court, the panel discussed both Bailey and Newton and stated that a court must determine if the employee has the ability to perform the duties to which he returns. The mere fact that an employer offers a return to work, or that the employee does not return at all, or that the employee returns and later leaves, is not controlling. Hale, 1996 WL 99298, at *2. In the same vein, an injured employee cannot increase the maximum award by unreasonably refusing to return to work in a position for which he is qualified and able to perform within his medical restrictions. Brown v. Campbell Bd. of Educ., 915 S.W.2d 407, 420 n.12 (Tenn. 1995). The Hale court set out several relevant factors for the court to weigh in making its assessment of the return to work, such as:
the employer's offer to return to work, the nature of the work to be performed in relation to the restrictions, if any, placed on the employee by a doctor, whether the refusal of an employee to return to work is reasonable or unreasonable in light of the nature of the work offered vis-a-vis the medical restrictions placed on the employee and, if the employee returns and then leaves, the reason for leaving the job . Hale, 1996 WL 99298, at *2.
<
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|