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

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. 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

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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brewer v. Lincoln Brass Works, Inc.

The plaintiff, Nathan Brewer, an employee of Lincoln Brass Works, Inc., sustained a work-related back injury in 1992 and received a lump sum workers’ compensation award. Following an aggravation of his injury in 1994 and further surgeries, Mr. Brewer filed a petition for enlarged benefits under Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-241(a)(2). The trial court initially granted these benefits, but the workers’ compensation panel reversed, asserting that lump sum payments were final, the petition was time-barred, and findings were insufficient. The Supreme Court addressed the conflict between statutes regarding lump sum finality and award enlargement, holding that lump sum awards can be enlarged if criteria are met, but § 241(a)(2) is not the correct avenue for claims involving subsequent injuries or increased anatomical disability. Consequently, the Court dismissed Brewer’s petition without prejudice, directing that his claim for additional impairment should have been filed as a new, separate action.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsLump Sum Payment FinalityAward EnlargementAnatomical ImpairmentIndustrial Disability RatingSubsequent Work InjuryAggravation of Prior InjuryStatute of Limitations AccrualDisability Benefits ReconsiderationSpinal Disc Rupture
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clark v. Lowe's Home Centers

David Clark, a former employee of Lowe's, suffered multiple work-related injuries between 1994 and 2003. After his second injury in 2000, he received a permanent partial disability award, but was later terminated by Lowe's after a third injury in 2003. Clark then sought reconsideration to enlarge his prior award for the second injury, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(a)(2), due to his termination. The Second Injury Fund appealed this reconsideration, arguing that subsequent work-related injuries should preclude such an action. The Supreme Court of Tennessee held that an employee's right to seek reconsideration of a prior workers' compensation award under § 50-6-241(a)(2) is not forfeited simply because they sustained and sought compensation for subsequent work-related injuries. The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, allowing the reconsideration of the prior award.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilitySubsequent InjuryReconsideration of AwardTermination of EmploymentStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawSecond Injury FundJudicial ReviewTrial Court Judgment
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Freeman v. Marco Transportation Co.

The Tennessee Supreme Court addressed whether a request for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award, filed under Tenn. Code Ann § 50-6-241(a)(2), must originate in the court that approved the original settlement. The Court affirmed that such actions are continuations of the original claim and therefore must be filed in the court that initially held jurisdiction. Consequently, Lloyd Freeman's complaint, filed in the circuit court instead of the original chancery court in Knox County, was dismissed. However, invoking the savings statute, the Court allowed Freeman one year from the judgment date to refile his request in the appropriate chancery court.

JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationReconsideration of AwardSavings StatuteTenn. Code Ann § 50-6-241(a)(2)Court VenueCivil ProcedureAppealDismissal without PrejudiceWorkers' Compensation Award Reconsideration
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 9,983 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