 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Carden v. Roane County5/20/1999
AFFIRMED
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.
The plaintiff was injured in July 1993 while driving a truck during the course and within the scope of his job . The occurrence of the accident is not questioned; neither does the defendant question that the plaintiff suffered a back injury as a result of the accident.
The plaintiff continued his employment with intermittent medical treatment for his back complaints. On September 1, 1995, at his residence, he stooped to pick up an object and suffered another onset of pain.
The complaint was filed November 20, 1995, alleging the occurrence of the traffic accident (as a result of which periodic payments of compensation were made to the plaintiff through November 15, 1995), and subsequent physical impairment.
The thrust of the defense is directed to the incident of September 3, 1995, when the plaintiff allegedly suffered the non-job-related accident at home, from which his present impairment is derived.
The Chancellor found a 40 percent impairment, holding that the incident at his residence was not an intervening cause, but was merely a manifestation of problems which began in 1993.
The issue is whether the evidence preponderates against the finding of the Chancellor.
Our review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(2); Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 550 (Tenn. 1995).
Dr. David Hauge, a neurological surgeon, testified that he first saw the plaintiff on September 1, 1995, with complaints of intermittent back pain commencing in 1993, highlighted by the episode of September 1, 1995. On October 25, 1995, during surgery "a large, bulging patulous appearing disc was encountered which was excised in a quadrangular manner and multiple large fragments of his disc material were retrieved without difficulty." The plaintiff progressed satisfactorily and was released to return to work on March 1, 1996, with an impairment rating of ten percent.
Dr. Hauge testified that the July 1993 accident was "the most likely cause" of the plaintiff's disc problems, but that he "could not unequivocally [100%] say" that the bulging disc was caused by this accident because "we don't have imaging studies . . . to compare . . . [and ascertain] how big the disc protrusion was at that time." He then stated that the disc ruptured, from a clinical viewpoint, when the plaintiff lifted the yard object. This statement is the basis of the appellant's argument that the yard incident was an intervening cause of the plaintiff's back problem, for which the appellant is not responsible.
The remedial nature of the workers' compensation law has been often discussed by the Supreme Court of this State. We need not elaborate the principle. Because the Law is remedial, the public policy of Tennessee requires that any reasonable doubt as to whether an injury arose from employment should be resolved in favor of the employee. See, Williams v. Preferred Dev. Corp., 452 S.W.2d 344 (Tenn. 1970). When considered in complete context, we agree with the Chancellor that the plaintiff's back problems as of the date of trial were causally related to the 1993 accident and that the yard incident was not an intervening cause. Stated other
Page 1 2 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|