Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Success Stories of Personal Injury Lawyers Directory US Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Canada Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Resource Directory
Search Lawyers by Zip Code
facebook.com/injury.usa

  to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.

Binkley v. Tennessee Diecasting-Harvard Industries

12/18/2003

nt physical impairment rating prior to his subsequent back injury at the new employer. The physician testified that "if asked" prior to the new injury he would have assigned a 5% rating attributable to the earlier injury. Based on this testimony, the court held that this "assessment" of the employee's permanent disability was "sufficient to forestall application of the last injurious injury rule". 825 S.W. 2d 80, 82, 83 (Tenn. 1992).


In the present case, the rule is inapplicable for two reasons: 1) There is no proof in this record that the employee was employed by a new or successive employer when he sustained his "third injury " on January 10, 2000. Without a successive employer, the rule is inapplicable. Baxter at 943. 2) An "assessment" was made by Dr. Pieper that the employee should have an additional 2% permanent physical impairment that was attributable to his injury of September 29, 1997. As in Riley, the assessment was made after the subsequent injury, but was specifically attributed to the earlier injury.


CONCLUSION


For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in its entirety. The cost of this appeal is taxed to the Appellants.


ORDER


This case is before the Court upon motion for review filed by the appellant, Tennessee Diecasting-Harvard Industries and Itt Hartford Insurance Group, pursuant to Tenn. Code. Ann. ยง 50-6-225(e)(5)(B) the entire record, including the order of referral to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeal Panel, and the Panel's Memorandum Opinion setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law.


It appears to the Court that the motion for review is not well-taken and is therefore denied. The Panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are incorporated by reference, are adopted and affirmed. The decision of the Panel is made the judgment of the Court.


Costs are assessed to Appellants, for which execution may issue if necessary.


PER CURIAM


Holder, J., not participating






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.

Personal Injury Lawyers Brain Injuries Spinal Cord Injuries
Quadriplegia and Paraplegia Back Injuries Ruptured & Herniated Disks
Bulging Disk Neck Injuries Dog Bites
Toxic Mold Product Liability Fire Accidents
Trucking Accidents Boating Accidents Car Accidents
Plane Crashes Medical Malpractice Motorcycle Accidents
Wrongful Death Personal Injury Lawsuits Testimonial
FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Partner Websites
DUI Defense  |  SiteMap  | PI Blog  | Trading Partners | Attorney Registration  | PI Case Laws  | FAQ | Personal Injury Forum
 | Personal Injury Lawyers Directory  | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2005. “National Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (NAPIL)”. All rights reserved.
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE