 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Carter v. Wal-Mart Stores9/1/2000
Mailed
July 26, 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. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment of the trial court granting the appellee summary judgment should be reversed.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Reversed.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal by the employee challenging the correctness of the trial courts granting summary judgment for the employer. The trial judge correctly defined the issue before him as:
Whether a claimant is entitled to workers' compensation benefits for an injury which occurred during a trip to the doctor's office that was necessitated by a previous compensable injury and occurred as the claimant was crossing the parking lot to enter the office.
The facts are undisputed. The employee received medical treatment for a compensable injury , but continued working. The treating physician ordered an EMG test for possible carpal tunnel syndrome and referred her to Dr. Bradburn. The employer, Wal-Mart, made an appointment for her to see Dr. Bradburn on September 23, 1996 for the test. On that day, the employee first went to Wal-Mart to obtain a form to be signed upon completion of the EMG test. She then drove directly to Dr. Bradburn's office. After the test, she asked Dr. Bradburn to sign the form, but the doctor told her that Dr. Polk, the referring doctor, should sign it. She then drove to Dr. Polk's office. Dr. Polk thought that Dr. Bradburn should sign the form. On her return to Dr. Bradburn's office, a runaway van struck her as she crossed the street toward Dr. Bradburn's office from the parking lot. She was injured. Is that injury compensable under the workers' compensation act? On motion for summary judgment the trial judge answered the question in the negative.
Decisions granting summary judgment are not entitled to a presumption of correctness on appeal. An appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and must draw all reasonable inferences in the nonmoving parties favor. A summary judgment should be affirmed only if the undisputed facts and the conclusions reasonably drawn thereof support the conclusion that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56 and Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208 (Tenn. 1993).
Injuries "arising out of and in the course of employment" are covered by the workers' compensation law. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(a)(5). Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(a)(1) requires the employer to furnish to the employee such medical and surgical treatment "as may be reasonably required" by the compensable injury . Thus, the appellant argues, the injury received by the appellant, on a visit to the doctor at her employers direction for a prior on-the-job injury is compensable.
Not so says the appellee. This is not the kind of accident that could have reasonably been contemplated by the employer at the time of hiring and therefore this injury does not arise out of employment and is not compensable. The appellee correctly states that the employee must show both that the activity was "in the course of employment" and it is an injury "arising out of" employment. The phrase "arising out of" and "in the course of" are not synonymous. "Arising out of" refers to the origin of the injury, while "in the course of" refers to the time, place, and circumstances of the injury. See
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.
|
|