CompFox AI Summary
Plaintiff, Frank H. MeWhirter, was injured while working for defendant Mary Ellen Kimbro, who operated an air conditioning business and a farm. He fractured his leg while preparing to bushhog a pasture. The chancellor found that his injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment with the air conditioning company and awarded him medical expenses and disability benefits, including a fifty percent permanent partial disability of the body as a whole. On appeal, the defendant contended that plaintiff was an agricultural laborer and not covered by the Worker's Compensation Act, and that the disability award for an injury to a scheduled member (the leg) should not extend to the body as a whole. The Supreme Court affirmed the chancellor's findings, concluding there was material evidence to support that plaintiff was in the scope of employment for the air conditioning business and that the injury was not confined to the scheduled member but affected the body as a whole.
McWhirter v. Kimbro 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, Frank H. MeWhirter, was injured while working for defendant Mary Ellen Kimbro, who operated an air conditioning business and a farm. He fractured his leg while preparing to bushhog a pasture. The chancellor found that his injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment with the air conditioning company and awarded him medical expenses and disability benefits, including a fifty percent permanent partial disability of the body as a whole. On appeal, the defendant contended that plaintiff was an agricultural laborer and not covered by the Worker's Compensation Act, and that the disability award for an injury to a scheduled member (the leg) should not extend to the body as a whole. The Supreme Court affirmed the chancellor's findings, concluding there was material evidence to support that plaintiff was in the scope of employment for the air conditioning business and that the injury was not confined to the scheduled member but affected the body as a whole.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.