CompFox AI Summary
Plaintiff, Douglas Wayne Davenport, an employee of Taylor Feed Mill, was injured on October 3, 1987, sustaining a ruptured lumbar disc and subsequently received a sixty percent occupational disability award from the Warren County Chancery Court. Defendant appealed the judgment on three grounds: the physician's anatomical impairment rating based on an old medical guideline edition, the vocational expert's testimony using a hypothetical question based on facts not fully in evidence, and the award of a lump sum payment. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision on the first two issues, concluding that the older guideline was permissible given the focus on vocational disability, and the hypothetical question's phrasing was within the trial court's discretion. However, the court reversed the lump sum payment award, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate special needs or exceptional circumstances, remanding the case for accrued benefits to be paid according to the statutory periodic payment scheme.
Davenport v. Taylor Feed Mill is a workers' compensation case decided in Tennessee Supreme Court. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Tennessee Supreme Court.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Plaintiff, Douglas Wayne Davenport, an employee of Taylor Feed Mill, was injured on October 3, 1987, sustaining a ruptured lumbar disc and subsequently received a sixty percent occupational disability award from the Warren County Chancery Court. Defendant appealed the judgment on three grounds: the physician's anatomical impairment rating based on an old medical guideline edition, the vocational expert's testimony using a hypothetical question based on facts not fully in evidence, and the award of a lump sum payment. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision on the first two issues, concluding that the older guideline was permissible given the focus on vocational disability, and the hypothetical question's phrasing was within the trial court's discretion. However, the court reversed the lump sum payment award, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate special needs or exceptional circumstances, remanding the case for accrued benefits to be paid according to the statutory periodic payment scheme.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.