 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Coleman v. Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co.3/2/2000
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART
OPINION
At issue in this case is the extent of disability resulting from an injury that occurred on July 7, 1995, when a 200-250 pound hide-a-bed sofa fell on the plaintiff. The trial court found that the plaintiff suffered a work-related injury to his right shoulder on July 7, 1995, and awarded the plaintiff 25 percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. However, the court found that the plaintiff did not sustain compensable injuries to his back, reflex sympathetic dystrophy ("RSD") to his right shoulder, or any psychiatric injury as a result of the accident on July 7, 1995. For the reasons below, we affirm the trial court's decision as to both the claims for injury to the shoulder and back but reverse the trial court's determination that the plaintiff suffered no psychiatric injury arising out of this incident.
This workers' compensation appeal was referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The standard of review of factual issues in workers' compensation cases is de novo upon the record of the trial court with a presumption of correctness, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(2); Henson v. City of Lawrenceburg, 851 S.W.2d 809, 812 (Tenn. 1993). This Court now determines where the preponderance of the evidence lies. King v. Jones Truck Lines, 814 S.W.2d 23, 25 (Tenn. 1991). When the trial record contains oral testimony of witnesses, this Court must give considerable deference to the trial judge's findings regarding the weight and credibility of that testimony. Townsend v. State, 826 S.W.2d 434, 437 (Tenn. 1992).
However, this Court is in the same position as the trial judge when reading deposition testimony and may draw its own conclusions about the weight, credibility, and significance to be given to such testimony. Seiber v. Greenbrier Indus., Inc., 906 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tenn. 1995). In this case, all of the medical and psychological proof was presented by deposition.
At the time of trial, the plaintiff was a 35-year-old high school graduate with a third grade reading level, who had some training in upholstery and a mechanic's certificate. His work history consisted mainly of manual labor positions, work as a security guard, a manager of a pizza restaurant, a talent scout, and an upholsterer. The plaintiff began working for the defendant's insured, Heilig-Meyers Furniture Company, as a minimum wage salesman in October of 1994, and later became a salaried warehouse manager. The plaintiff testified that a 200-250 pound hide-a-bed sofa fell on his right shoulder while he was at work on July 7, 1995, injuring his shoulder and back. The plaintiff was taken to the emergency room and was subsequently referred to Dr. Keener Blake Ragsdale, who fit him with a mobile shoulder brace and released him from work through the end of 1995. During the course of treatment, Dr. Ragsdale sent the plaintiff to three other physicians for various tests and studies in an attempt to find the source of his pain, as well as prescribing a course of physical therapy. Dr. Ragsdale prescribed nerve block treatments for reflex sympathetic dystrophy ("RSD"), which were not effective in relieving the plaintiff's pain.
After Dr. Ragsdale released the plaintiff in January of 1996, he returned to Heilig-Meyers in a lesser position as a minimum wage salesman but was sent home by his supervisor on his first day back when pain prevented him from performing his job. Accordi
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.
|
|