CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hill v. CNA Insurance Co.

In this workers’ compensation action, employee Wayne Eldred Hill was determined by the trial court to be permanently and totally disabled. The trial court initially apportioned 10 percent of the award to the employer and 90 percent to the Second Injury Fund, applying Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-208(a). The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel modified this apportionment, assigning 65 percent to the employer and 35 percent to the Second Injury Fund under Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-208(b). Upon full-court review, the Supreme Court of Tennessee referenced its decision in Bomely v. Mid-America Corp. (Tenn.1998) and concluded that the trial court's original apportionment under § 50-6-208(a) was correct. The Court affirmed the employer's 10 percent liability for the disability resulting from the last compensable injury and the Second Injury Fund's 90 percent liability for prior injuries, effectively reversing the Appeals Panel's modification.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Total DisabilitySecond Injury FundApportionment of LiabilityCarpal Tunnel SyndromeBack InjuryBrain InjuryVocational DisabilityPre-existing ConditionSubsequent Injury
References
3
Case No. 02-S-01-9508-CV-00077
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 1998

Patricia Love v. American Olean Tile Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and Sue Ann Head, Director of the Divison of Workers' Compensation, State of Tennessee - Concurring/Dissenting

The concurring and dissenting opinion by Justice Janice M. Holder addresses the majority's decision regarding workers' compensation. Justice Holder concurs with the majority's conclusion that permanent and total disability awards are payable until age sixty-five and that Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(a) is applicable to the case. However, she dissents from the majority's analysis of apportionment, arguing it discourages hiring the handicapped and contradicts the legislative intent of the Second Injury Fund. She contends that an employer's liability should be capped at 400 weeks unless a subsequent injury independently caused permanent and total disability. Furthermore, Justice Holder disagrees with the majority's interpretation that subsections (a) and (b) of Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102 are not mutually exclusive, advocating for the exclusive application of subsection (a) in cases of prior injuries leading to total disability, and subsection (b) solely when an employee has received multiple permanent partial disability awards exceeding 100 percent in aggregate.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Total DisabilityApportionmentSecond Injury FundStatutory InterpretationEmployer LiabilityPrior InjuriesSubsequent InjuryTennessee LawJudicial Dissent
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed a workers' compensation case involving Betty Nelson, who sustained a broken hip while working for Wal-Mart, resulting in an 8% medical impairment to the body as a whole. The primary issues were whether there was a "meaningful return to work" under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 and the applicability of Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-242 to lift statutory disability caps. The Court affirmed the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel’s finding that there was no "meaningful return to work" because Wal-Mart's job offers were not reasonable given Nelson's physical limitations and lack of accommodation. Consequently, Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(b) applied, allowing for a higher maximum disability award. The Court also affirmed that Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-242 applied due to Nelson's age, lack of education, and job skills, permitting the award to exceed the statutory cap. The Court upheld the trial court's award of 60% permanent partial disability, modifying the Panel's judgment regarding the specific statutory sections.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityMeaningful Return to WorkStatutory CapsMedical Impairment RatingVocational DisabilityAge FactorEducational BackgroundJob Skills TransferabilityEmployer Accommodation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Niziol v. Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc.

The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed a workers' compensation case to determine if a lump sum award, granted under Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-231, could be reconsidered and increased under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(a)(2) after an employee's loss of employment. Employee Christopher Niziol suffered a back injury while working for Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc., receiving a $35,000 lump sum settlement based on 27.99% permanent partial disability. After Niziol's termination, he sought to increase his award, which the trial court granted, raising it to 50% permanent partial disability. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reversed, citing the finality of lump sum awards. Relying on the precedent set in Brewer v. Lincoln Brass Works, Inc., the Supreme Court reversed the Panel's decision, reinstating the trial court's judgment, affirming that lump sum awards can be reconsidered and enlarged under § 241(a)(2) regardless of the reason for job loss.

Workers' CompensationLump Sum AwardPermanent Partial DisabilityStatutory InterpretationReconsideration of AwardLoss of EmploymentIndustrial DisabilityTenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-241(a)(2)Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-231Appeals Panel Reversal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Middleton v. Allegheny Electric Co.

This workers' compensation appeal addressed the calculation of permanent partial impairment benefits. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reviewed a trial court's award of 75 percent permanent partial impairment. The Panel determined that the award must be limited to six times the medical impairment rating, as per Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-241(b), because the plaintiff failed to present clear and convincing evidence to meet the exceptions outlined in Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-242. Consequently, the Panel modified the judgment, reducing the award to 36 percent permanent partial impairment to the body as a whole.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial ImpairmentMedical ImpairmentVocational ImpairmentDisability BenefitsStatutory InterpretationClear and Convincing EvidenceAppellate ReviewJudgment ModificationTennessee Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peace v. Easy Trucking Co.

This case addresses the calculation of permanent partial disability awards for employees over age 60 under Tennessee's Workers' Compensation Act. The Supreme Court of Tennessee was asked to determine if such awards should be calculated as a percentage of 400 weeks, with a cap at 260 weeks, or as a percentage of 260 weeks. The Court held that awards are properly calculated at 400 weeks, capped at 260 weeks, for employees over 60. Additionally, the Court considered the application of Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-242, which allows awards exceeding the statutory 'multiplier' provision of Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-241(b) if supported by clear and convincing evidence. The case was remanded to the trial court for specific documentation of the clear and convincing evidence supporting an award in excess of the multiplier provision.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityDisability Benefits CalculationAge 60+ EmployeesStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawVocational DisabilityMedical Impairment RatingMultiplier Provision ExceptionRemand for Findings
References
11
Case No. M2009-00813-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2010

Joseph Edward Rich, M.D. v. Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners

This is an administrative appeal concerning the suspension of Dr. Joseph Edward Rich's medical license by the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners. The Board found Dr. Rich in violation of several provisions related to his use of chelation therapy, intravenous hydrogen peroxide therapy, and methadone. The chancery court affirmed the Board's decision. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the findings for Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-214(b)(1), (4), and (12) due to the Board's failure to articulate the standard of care. However, the court affirmed violations of Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-214(b)(14), Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0880-2-.14(6)(c), Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0880-2-.14(6)(e)(3)(ii), and 21 U.S.C.A § 823(g)(1). The case was remanded for the Board to reconsider the sanctions.

Medical License SuspensionChelation TherapyMethadone TreatmentAdministrative LawStandard of CareDue ProcessEvidence ExclusionPhysician MisconductControlled SubstancesBoard of Medical Examiners
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perry v. Sentry Insurance Co.

This case concerns the apportionment of a workers’ compensation award for permanent total disability between an employer’s insurer and the Second Injury Fund in Tennessee. The employee, Roger Perry, sustained previous non-work-related neck injuries and a work-related leg injury, followed by a subsequent work-related neck injury in May 1993 that rendered him permanently and totally disabled. The central legal question was whether Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-208(a) or (b) should apply for liability apportionment. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's application of section (a), ruling that the employer's insurer is liable for 50% of the award and the Second Injury Fund for the remaining 50%, but clarified that payments from the Second Injury Fund should only commence after the employer's payments are completed.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Total DisabilitySecond Injury FundApportionment of LiabilityPrior InjuriesSubsequent InjuryStatutory ConstructionTennessee Supreme CourtVocational DisabilityMedical Impairment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seals v. England/Corsair Upholstery Manufacturing Co.

Justice Holder concurs with the majority's decision to remand the case for a determination of the worker’s vocational disability attributable to subsequent physical and mental disabilities. Justice Holder also reaffirms the dissent in Bomely v. Mid-America Corp. (Tenn.1998), contending that Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-208(a) applies to subsequent injuries leading to permanent and total disability, while subsection (b) is relevant only when the employee can still earn a wage but has compensable vocational disabilities exceeding 100 percent or 400 weeks of compensation.

Vocational DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilitySubsequent InjuryStatutory InterpretationRemand OrderWorkers' Compensation BenefitsLegal DissentConcurring OpinionTennessee LawDisability Compensation
References
1
Case No. 03S01-9704-CH-00044
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 1999

Seals v. England/Corsair Upholstery Mfg Co., Inc. and 2nd Injury Fund

Justice Janice M. Holder concurs with the majority's decision to remand the case to the trial court. The remand is for a determination of the extent of the worker's vocational disability resulting from subsequent physical and mental disabilities. Justice Holder reiterates her dissent from Bomely v. Mid America Corp. (Tenn. 1998), stating that Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-208(a) should apply to subsequent injuries resulting in permanent and total disability, while subsection (b) should apply when an employee can still earn a wage but has compensable vocational disabilities exceeding 100 percent or 400 weeks of compensation.

Vocational disabilitySubsequent injuryPermanent total disabilityWorkers' compensationTennessee lawRemandConcurring opinionStatutory interpretationSecond Injury FundCompensation limits
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 8,411 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational