 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Salyers v. Jones Plastic & Engineering Co.9/29/2005
No expert witnesses testified. The equivalent of such testimony is before us, however, because the Worker presented the Form C-32 completed by Dr. Barnett. We may take judicial notice of the fact that the standard form C-32 has been established by the commissioner of labor and workforce development. The legislature has established by law that all courts are to consider a Form C-32 as though the writer of the Form had testified in Court. Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 50-6-235(c). Pertinent portions of this provision are as follows:
(c)(1) Any party may introduce direct testimony from a physician through a written medical report on a form established by the commissioner of labor and workforce development. ... A reproduced medical report which is not originally signed is not admissible as evidence unless accompanied by an originally signed affidavit from the physician or the submitting attorney verifying the contents of the report. . . .
(2) The written medical report of a treating or examining physician shall be admissible at any stage of a workers' compensation claim in lieu of a deposition upon oral examination, . . . .
See Martin v. Lear Corp., 90 S.W.3d 626, 628 (Tenn. 2002).
Where the Form C-32 is used and no deposition testimony is presented, the duty of the court is difficult where the language in the form is unclear. See, Ferrell v. Cigna Prop. & Cas. Co., 33 S.W.3d 731, 734 (Tenn. 2000). We see no lack of clarity in the Form C-32, though, at a deposition, questions could have addressed inconsistencies between the opinions of the physician and factual issues addressed in the medical records which were admitted without the opinions of the treating physicians.
After we determine the facts, we next are required to apply the law to the facts of the case. When we consider the law, we attach no presumption to the legal conclusions reached by the trial court. Nonetheless, we reach the same conclusion reached by the Trial Court after our consideration of the evidence.
The provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-103 establish that one is entitled to receive workers' compensation "for personal injury or death by accident arising out of and in the course of employment . . . ." The case law has variously defined the term "arising out of" employment. A recent decision has emphasized the distinction between the requirements that an injury arise out of employment and arise during the course of employment. Clark v. Nashville Mach. Elevator Co., 129 S.W.3d 42, 47 (Tenn. 2004). Clark suggests that "an injury arises out of employment when there is apparent to the rational mind, upon consideration of all the circumstances, a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and the resulting injury." Id; accord, Conner Bros. Excavating Co., Inc. v. Long, 98 S.W.3d 656, 660 (Tenn. 2003); Woodlawn Memorial Park, Inc. v. Keith, 70 S.W.3d 691, 695 (Tenn. 2002). Clark also contrasts the phrase "in the course of" employment, which simply focuses on the question whether the "employee was performing a duty he or she was employed to perform" when the injury occurred. It "focuses on the time, place, and circumstances of the injury. Clark, 129 S.W.3d at 47; accord, Richards v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 70 S.W.3d 729, 732 (Tenn. 2002); Hill, 942 S.W.2d at 487.
Further, the law is clear that one who, while so engaged, sustains an injury which exacerbates an underlying condition, is entitled to be compensated under the terms of the Workers' Compensation law. E.g., Thomas, 812 S.W.2d at 284; Sweat v. Superior Indust., 966 S.W.2d 31, 32 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. Panel 1998); Luedtke v. Travelers Ins. Co., 100 S.W.3d
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.
|
|