 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Binkley v. Tennessee Diecasting-Harvard Industries12/18/2003
Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. The case law has interpreted this section to mean that the return to work must be a "meaningful" return to work. Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 8 S.W.3d 625,630 (Tenn. 1999).
The Appellant argues that it returned the employee to work at light duty at his full pre-injury wage, and that he voluntary left their employment, not because he was unable to perform the light duty work assigned to him, but because "he did not like going to work and being unable to perform his share of the workload". In light of this, Appellant urges that if the employee is entitled to an award of permanent physical impairment at all, which it argues he is not, that it should be limited to 2.5 times his anatomical impairment rating.
The employee, on the other hand, argues that T.C.A. ยง 50-6-241(b) should apply to the facts of this case. This section provides that if the employer does not return the employee to employment at a wage equal or greater than the wage the employee was receiving at the time of the injury or by analogy, the return to work is not "meaningful", the maximum permanent partial disability award that the employee may receive is six (6) times the anatomical impairment rating.
The employee argues that he was only returned to light duty work. His job was to walk, stand and watch the other employees work. He was not required to perform the heavy labor of working on one of the machines. The employee testified that he did not like going to work and being unable to perform his share of the workload, and that he went home after about three (3) hours. He argues that this was, in essence, "make work" and not meaningful. Implicit in the employee's argument is that he was returned to work before reaching maximum medical improvement and before he was capable of attempting a meaningful return to work.
This issue has now been resolved by the Supreme Court in Lay v. Scott County Sheriff's Department, E2002-01731-SC-R3-CV (Filed: June 19, 2003).
Lay was injured in an automobile accident while working as a deputy sheriff for the Scott County Sheriff's Department in October, 2000. He was diagnosed as having a bulging disc with nerve impingement at the L4-5 disc space. He continued to work for the Sheriff's Department for five months after the accident, in the same position and at the same pay as before the accident. In March, 2001, before having surgery and before reaching maximum medical improvement, he voluntarily resigned from the Sheriff's Department for a better paying private sector job . Subsequently, he had surgery, and as a result of his post-surgery medical restrictions, the private sector employer refused to take him back. The Sheriff's Department did rehire him but at the bottom of the pay scale.
Lay argued that the determination of whether there was a meaningful return to work must occur only after an employee reaches maximum medical improvement while the county argued that Lay's first return to work after the accident was "meaningful" under Nelson.
The court stated in Lay that "in determining whether there has been a meaningful return to work, the focus is upon `the reasonableness of the employer in attempting to return the employee to work and the reasonableness of the employee in failing to return to work' not the date on which maximum medical improvement was attained." Slip Op., p.4.
As in this case, the court in Lay found that his voluntary resignation "was `unreasonable' behavior, ... as it was not related to his injury ." Slip.Op., p. 5.
The court went on to state, as follows:
"Finding that a court, when assessing meaningful return to work, i
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|