 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Suits v. M & M Mars10/5/2005
complained the chemicals in the raw materials at work had made her breathing condition worse. Dr. Wechowski concluded the patient had "obstructive airways disease with reversibility consistent with asthma".
Dr. Enjeti saw her for the first time on April 18, 2001 and stated she had "a background of symptoms, including childhood symptoms, that suggest asthma," and that her breathing capacity had deteriorated since the visits in 1997. He opined her work environment had caused her breathing deterioration and that she had somewhere between 51 to 100 percent impairment. When he was asked if he had any specific information as to whether there were any irritants at plaintiff's place of work in such a degree as to actually cause any irritation to her, he replied that he was just relying on her history and the fact she said irritation occurred after working. The doctor said that plaintiff's condition could not have been caused by the October 11 incident at work and that he was unaware of that event until counsel mentioned it. He stated she did not have true occupational asthma as where the work environment was the cause of the asthma. She probably had asthmatic syndrome where chemicals in the workplace triggers a response.
Ruling of the Trial Court
After reviewing all of the evidence, the trial court awarded plaintiff 25 percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole for her neck injury and the court dismissed the claims of a psychological injury (depression) and lung injury (breathing problem).
Standard of Review
We must review the case de novo accompanied by a presumption that the findings of fact by the trial court are correct unless we find the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 225(e)(2). The reviewing court is required to give considerable deference to the trial court's findings with regard to weight and credibility of oral testimony but this court may draw its own conclusions about the weight and credibility of evidence presented by deposition. Carter v. First Source Furn. Group, 92 S.W.3d 367 (Tenn. 2002).
Analysis: Physical Injury
The award of 25 percent disability for the neck injury was fixed at two and one half times the 10 percent impairment rating of the treating doctor, Dr. Boehm. The court capped the award pursuant to the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(A)(1) upon finding the employee had made a meaningful return to work. Plaintiff contends the court erred in applying the two and one-half times cap as her return to work was not meaningful because she was not able to do her work even with accommodations from her employer and she left work because of the various work-related injuries.
Generally, in determining whether an employee's return to work was meaningful, the reasonableness test must be applied. Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 8 S.W.3d 625 (Tenn. 1999); Newton v. Scott Health Care Center, 914 S.W.2d 884, (Tenn. 1991). Where the employee returns to work after being injured and after a period of time is forced to stop working because of inability to perform due to the work-related injury , such circumstances are generally considered as not making a meaningful return to work. However, if the employee returns to work and sometime thereafter stops working due to personal reasons or other reasons not related to the work injury, then such circumstances are considered as making a meaningful return to work in the sense of our statute.
In the present case, plaintiff testified she felt she was fired because of her pending workers' compensation claim and because she was not able to continue to work due to the various work injuries. The employer
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|