 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Salyers v. Jones Plastic & Engineering Co.9/29/2005
ered, in our review, that the law establishes a presumption of correctness of the trial court's factual determinations, unless the evidence preponderates to the contrary. Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 50-6-225(e); Murray v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 46 S.W.3d 171, 175 (Tenn. 2001).
Although we recognize that the evidence is not uncontroverted, our duty is simply to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies, and in doing that, we must recognize the presumption that the trial court correctly found the facts. We cannot find that the trial court erred in its factual finding that the Worker fell while on the job , inasmuch as the evidence clearly preponderates in favor of such a finding. There is no evidence that the Worker was not physically at his place of employment of February 14, 2003, nor is there any evidence he was not engaging in an activity for the benefit of the employer. Further, we cannot find that the trial court erred in finding that the Worker sustained an injury as a result of his fall. He so testified, and an incident report was filed at the time of the Worker's fall because of his complaints at that time. We cannot find that the injury suffered by the Worker is not permanent, inasmuch as the only expert medical opinion presented, that of Dr. Barnett, so stated. Further we cannot find that the evidence preponderates against a finding that the Worker exacerbated a pre-existing problem with his right leg, again because the only expert testimony presented shows that the injury resulted from employment.
Closely considering the facts, the Worker testified that, at the time of his February 14, 2003 incident, he was pulling a mold out of a press. As he was attempting to "break some bolts loose" so he could remove the mold, his wrench slipped, causing him to slip in some oil which had been spilled on the floor of the plant. The Worker testified that his right leg "popped real bad. " Although no one saw the Worker fall, there was no evidence to the contrary. Whether this evidence establishes that, at the time of the incident of which the Worker complains, he was working within the course and scope of his responsibilities for the employer, is a mixed question of fact and law. After considering the facts and applying the law, we find that, at the time of the February 14, 2003 incident, the Worker was engaged in an activity within the course and scope of his employment.
Further, the factual issue is raised as to whether the Worker suffered a permanent injury as a result of the February 14, 2003 incident. Whether one sustains a permanent injury must be established by expert testimony except in the most unusual of circumstances. E.g., Whirlpool v. Nakhoneinh, 69 S.W.3d 164, 168 (Tenn. 2002); Hill v. Eagle Bend Mfg., Inc., 942 S.W.2d 483, 487 (Tenn. 1997); Thomas v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 812 S.W.2d 278, 283 (Tenn. 1991). The only expert opinion presented, that of Dr. Barnett, is that the Worker's permanent injury was related to employment. Thus, the proof preponderates heavily in favor of a finding of permanence of the injury.
Further, the court must consider whether there is a causal connection between the injury and the permanent condition. Causal connection also must be established by expert evidence, except in the most unusual of events. E.g., Beasley v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 699 S.W.2d 143, 146 (Tenn. 1985); Simpson v. Satterfield, 564 S.W.2d 953, 956 (Tenn. 1978). Again, the only expert opinion, Dr. Barnett's C- 32 Form, establishes a casual connection between the injury and the Worker 's employment. The lay testimony of the Worker and his mother also buttresses the expert opinion that the February 14, 2003 incident caused the injury.
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.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|