CompFox AI Summary
Plaintiff, Buford T. Holder, sustained a severe right shoulder injury after slipping and falling in his employer's parking lot during a lunch break on January 10, 1984. The employer, Wilson Sporting Goods Company, and its insurer initially treated the injury as compensable but later disputed coverage, arguing it did not arise out of employment. The trial court found the injury compensable and awarded Holder 50% permanent partial disability. On appeal, the defendants challenged both the compensability and the extent of disability. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, distinguishing between 'en route' and 'on-premises lunch break' cases and finding the injury compensable. The Court also upheld the disability assessment, considering vocational factors beyond anatomical impairment, and denied the motion for sanctions for a frivolous appeal.
Holder v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co. 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, Buford T. Holder, sustained a severe right shoulder injury after slipping and falling in his employer's parking lot during a lunch break on January 10, 1984. The employer, Wilson Sporting Goods Company, and its insurer initially treated the injury as compensable but later disputed coverage, arguing it did not arise out of employment. The trial court found the injury compensable and awarded Holder 50% permanent partial disability. On appeal, the defendants challenged both the compensability and the extent of disability. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, distinguishing between 'en route' and 'on-premises lunch break' cases and finding the injury compensable. The Court also upheld the disability assessment, considering vocational factors beyond anatomical impairment, and denied the motion for sanctions for a frivolous appeal.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.