 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Johnson v. Maury Regional Hospital9/6/2000
Mailed - May 24, 2000
The employer, Maury County Regional Hospital contends the trial judge erred in concluding the employee's back injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment and that the award of permanent partial disability benefits is excessive.
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 kurtz, sp. j., joined.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
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. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed.
The employee or claimant, Johnson, filed this civil action on April 20, 1998 to recover benefits for injuries which she alleged resulted from an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment by the employer. By its answer, the employer denied the occurrence of a compensable work related injury. Following a trial, the trial judge found that the claimant suffered a ruptured disc arising out of and in the course of employment and awarded, among other things, permanent partial disability benefits based on fifty-four percent to the body as a whole. As discussed below, this tribunal has concluded the judgment should be affirmed.
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). This standard requires the panel to examine in depth a trial court's factual findings and conclusions. We are not bound by the trial court's factual findings, but must instead conduct an independent examination to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies. Galloway v. Memphis Drum Serv., 822 S.W.2d 584 (Tenn. 1991). However, where the trial judge has seen and heard the witnesses, especially if issues of credibility and weight to be given oral testimony are involved, considerable deference must be accorded those circumstances on review. Townsend v. State, 826 S.W.2d 434, 437 (Tenn. 1992).
The claimant was employed by the hospital as a surgical nurse, a position which required her to lift heavy instrument trays and to position patients on operating room beds to be transported to and from surgery. In 1995, while performing her said duties, she was knocked to the floor by a large male patient who had just awakened from surgery. Although she suffered a ruptured disc requiring surgery, she did not make a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Her treating physician, Dr. Frederick Wade, permitted her to return to work with restrictions. She continued to have intermittent back pain, for which she took prescribed medication.
On September 6, 1997, the claimant was called to the pediatric floor of the hospital to transport a teenaged male patient. As she reached across the patient to slide him onto the gurney, she felt a sudden and severe pain in her lower back. A few days later, Dr. Wade took her off work and ordered complete rest, physical therapy and strong medication. She returned to work briefly on September 15, 1997 but, after a discussion with her immediate supervisor, resigned. Thereafter, she worked briefly at the Columbia Outpatient Surgery Center.
In March of 1998, Dr. Wade diagnosed another herniated disc, which he surgically repaired in June of 1998. As a result, she is permanently restricted
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|