 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Scales v. City of Oak Ridge8/23/2001
e held that the offset applies to all workers over age 60 who suffer injuries to the body as a whole, whether permanent partial or permanent total disability injuries, and U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co., 14 S.W.3d at 743, where we held that the offset does not apply to awards for injuries to scheduled members. Believing that McCoy and U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. may have some bearing on the ultimate allocation of Scales's award between Oak Ridge and the Second Injury Fund, the Panel remanded the case for further consideration.
Before this Court, Oak Ridge offers two statutory construction arguments in support of its position, in addition to the Panel's analysis. First, "the reduction is mandatory because the legislature used the word `shall'" in section 207(4)(A)(i) (" uch compensation payments shall be reduced"), and second, the "employee is not required to actually be receiving old-age insurance benefits under the Social Security Act but must merely be eligible to receive such benefits . . . ." because the legislature used the words "which the employee may receive" instead of "is receiving."
We do not think that either the Panel's or Oak Ridge's construction of the statute is correct. While the Panel's quotation of section 207(4)(A)(i) - "any . . . . benefit . . . . which the employee may receive . . . ." - appears to call for the application of the offset provision, this quotation leaves out an important phrase. As quoted above, the entire portion of the statute provides that "such compensation shall be reduced by the amount of any old age insurance benefits payments attributable to employer contributions which the employee may receive . . . ." Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 50-6-207(4)(A)(i) (emphasis added). It is undisputed that Scales's social security benefits were drawn from her deceased husband's account, which means that she did not receive any benefit "attributable to employer contributions." As to Oak Ridge's emphasis on the word "shall" in the statute, we find that this simply begs the question: the compensation award shall be reduced, but only when the offset provision properly applies. As to the emphasis on "may receive," as opposed to "is receiving," it is clear that Scales is, in fact, receiving social security benefits. The issue before us concerns the relevance of the fact that Scales's benefits are drawn from her husband's account, rather than her own, given that, according to the record, Scales had to choose one account versus the other, and she chose her husband's. Thus, we need not confront the question whether the offset applies when the employee is eligible to receive social security benefits from any source, but for whatever reason does not apply for them. Here, Scales has chosen to seek benefits, but those benefits are not "attributable to employer contributions," as the statute requires.
Apart from the statutory construction arguments, Oak Ridge contends that on policy grounds the offset provision should apply: first, Oak Ridge - which paid half of Scales's social security taxes for many years - should not be prevented from enjoying the benefits of the offset provision merely because Scales chose to draw more generous benefits from another source; second, the offset provision is designed to prevent the duplication of benefits for lost income, a purpose that will be thwarted by today's holding. This Court, however, cannot ignore the express language of section 207(4)(A)(i), which requires that offsetting benefits be "attributable to employer contributions." As we recently stated, " basic rule of statutory construction is that the legislature is presumed to use each word in a statute deliberately, and that the use of each word conveys some intent and has a specific meaning a
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.
|
|