 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Alassaadi v. Davidson Transit Organization8/24/2005
s, 5th Edition. Similarly he found no reason from a medical standpoint that this gentleman should not be able to return to the same type of employment. He did not feel any work restrictions were needed.
III. RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT
The trial court found Mr. Alassaadi suffered myofacial pain as a result of the accident and found his permanent partial disability to be 5% based upon an anatomical impairment of 2%. The trial court denied temporary total disability due to Mr. Alassaadi's refusal to return to work on light duty and denied past medical expenses because Mr. Alassaadi failed to take the necessary steps to involve his employer in the selection of physicians. Future medical expenses were awarded but were limited to pain management.
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review of issues of fact is de novo upon the record of the trial court accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of evidence is otherwise. Lollar v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 767 S.W.2d 143, 149 (Tenn. 1989); Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 50-6-225(e)(2). Where the trial judge has seen and heard the witnesses, especially if issues of credibility and weight to be given oral testimony are involved, considerable deference must be afforded those circumstances on review since the trial court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and to hear the in-court testimony. Long v. Tri-Con Industries, Ltd., 996 S.W.2d 173, 178 (Tenn. 1999). Where the issues involve expert medical testimony that is contained in the record by deposition, determination of the weight and credibility of the evidence necessarily must be drawn from the contents of the depositions, and the reviewing court may draw its own conclusions with regard to those issues. Orman v. Williams Sonoma, Inc., 803 S.W.2d 672 at 676 (Tenn. 1991).
V. ANALYSIS
The appellant, Mr. Alassaadi, raises three issues in this appeal: (1) whether providing a physician's assistant to Mr. Alassaadi complied with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(4); (2) whether the trial court should have held the employer responsible for Mr. Alassaadi's medical expenses; and (3) whether the trial court erred in assigning a 5% permanent partial disability in this case. We find no error.
The first two issues relate to the trial court's finding that Mr. Alassaadi was not entitled to be reimbursed for his medical expenses. The trial court made no finding as to whether providing a physician's assistant satisfies the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(4). Determination of that issue was apparently not necessary to the trial court's finding that Mr. Alassaadi was not entitled to his past medical expenses. The trial court found that Mr. Alissaadi unreasonably failed to involve the employer when he sought an unauthorized physician to provide for his medical care.
Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- 204(d)(7) provides:
If the injured employee refuses to comply with any reasonable request for examination or to accept the medical or specialized medical services which the employer is required to furnish under the provisions of this law, such injured employee's right to compensation shall be suspended and no compensation shall be due and payable while such employee continues such refusal.
This provision has been construed to require an employee to consult with the employer before engaging an unauthorized physician. Procter & Gamble Defense Corp. v. West, 203 Tenn. 138, 310 S.W.2d 175 (1975). Where an employee incurs medical expenses on his own, the employer is not liable for payment of the expenses absent a showing by the em
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|