Robert Lazar sustained a right shoulder injury while employed at J.W. Aluminum on December 5, 2007, leading to a workers’ compensation claim. His treating physician, Dr. Adam Smith, assigned a 2% impairment rating, while an independent evaluator, Dr. Samuel Chung, assigned a 17% rating. Following a benefit review conference, Lazar and J.W. Aluminum settled for a 12.4% permanent partial disability, which was approved by the Tennessee Department of Labor.
After Lazar was laid off less than four months post-settlement, he sought reconsideration of his benefits under Tennessee law. The chancery court declined to consider any of the impairment ratings from the physicians, including a subsequent evaluation by Dr. John Stanton, who assigned a 7% rating. Instead, the court determined that the original settlement was based on an impairment rating calculated at 8.27% and awarded additional permanent partial disability benefits accordingly. J.W. Aluminum appealed, but the Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the chancery court’s decision, upholding the ruling and the awarded benefits.
The chancery court determined that Mr. Lazar's settlement of 12.4% permanent partial disability equated to one and one-half times the medical impairment rating, which is the statutory maximum for employees who have returned to work under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(d)(1)(A). The trial court subsequently awarded Mr. Lazar 38% permanent partial disability, deducting the amount already paid from the previous settlement. J.W. Aluminum appealed this decision, claiming that the trial court improperly calculated Mr. Lazar’s benefits based on the medical impairment rating from the settlement and that the awarded benefits were excessive.
Under Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Law, benefits for permanent partial disability are capped if the injured employee is returned to work at a wage equal to or greater than their pre-injury wage, allowing a maximum of one and one-half times the medical impairment rating for injuries after July 1, 2004. Reconsideration of benefits is permissible if the employee's wage falls below the pre-injury level within 400 weeks of their return to work, potentially allowing for higher benefits, though not exceeding six times the medical impairment rating.
Importantly, any new settlement or award for additional benefits must rely on the medical impairment rating from the prior settlement, which in this case is disputed since the parties did not agree on the applicable medical impairment rating from the assessments of Dr. Smith and Dr. Chung. The appeal requires determining how section 50-6-241(d)(1)(B)(iv) applies in cases where such agreement is lacking. The interpretation and application of the statute, as well as the settlement's contractual nature, will be reviewed de novo, focusing on the intent of the statute and the parties involved.
Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241 allows for reconsideration of an employee’s permanent partial disability based on the original medical impairment rating rather than the previous award amount. An employee seeking benefits for a new impairment must file a new workers’ compensation claim, not enlarge a prior award. Trial courts cannot consider additional evidence of impairment ratings during reconsideration proceedings, and original issues like the disability degree at the time of the first award cannot be raised.
In this case, the trial court extrapolated an 8.27% medical impairment rating from a 12.4% permanent partial disability settlement, concluding that the parties impliedly agreed on this rating. The settlement acknowledged that the maximum award is one and one-half times the medical impairment rating, indicating that Mr. Lazar received the maximum statutory award.
The trial court's computation was consistent with the parties' intent to exclude subsequent ratings from Dr. Smith and Dr. Chung. Moreover, the chancery court correctly declined to consider an impairment rating from an MIR registry physician obtained after the original settlement, as such ratings are inconsistent with the reconsideration process. Although the MIR registry’s use is permitted in disputes over degrees of medical impairment, it cannot apply when an award is subject to reconsideration based on original ratings.
Parties can settle both workers’ compensation and reconsideration claims within statutory limits, and the current case does not address how a lesser impairment rating could be established for reconsideration. Additionally, section 50-6-241 prohibits waiving or compromising an employee’s rights to reconsideration. The issue of whether an agreement to bypass an applicable medical impairment rating would violate Mr. Lazar's reconsideration rights was not raised by the parties and remains unaddressed.
The appellate record does not clarify whether the MIR registry physician calculated Mr. Lazar's 7% medical impairment rating based on his condition at the time of settlement or at the examination. Given that Dr. Stanton’s 7% rating is less than what Mr. Lazar received for permanent partial disability (12.4%), it raises questions about the settlement's validity. The chancery court awarded Mr. Lazar 38% permanent partial disability, a decision reviewed de novo with a presumption of correctness unless contradicted by preponderant evidence (Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(2)). The trial court's credibility assessments are given considerable deference.
Mr. Lazar, aged 47, holds a high school diploma without further education and has strong reading and writing skills. His work history includes roles as a delivery driver, auto body repairman, and fabricator at J.W. Aluminum for twelve years. After J.W. Aluminum closed, he briefly remained unemployed before taking a temporary forklift driving position at Bodine Aluminum. Following his release from medical care in August 2008, he did not pursue further treatment for his shoulder injury, which he described as constant pain that interfered with daily activities and sleep. Although he managed to perform satisfactorily at J.W. Aluminum before his discharge, he expressed concerns about his ability to perform previous jobs due to pain and physical limitations.
In determining permanent partial disability, the court considers various factors including the employee's age, education, skills, job opportunities, and capacity for work (Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(d)(2)(A)). Mr. Lazar's award of 38% is less than five times his medical impairment rating of 8.27, which means the court wasn't required to provide specific findings to support this decision (Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(d)(2)(B)). The court noted that Mr. Lazar’s prior jobs involved physically demanding tasks that would likely be challenging for him due to his injury.
Mr. Lazar's testimony indicates that his temporary employment causes him pain and hampers his ability to engage in recreational activities. The court found insufficient evidence to dispute the chancery court's award of 38% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. It clarified that a court's review of a workers' compensation award is restricted to assessing additional permanent partial disability based on the employee's impairment rating at the time of the original award or settlement. The chancery court correctly calculated an 8.27% medical impairment rating, derived from a settlement assigning 12.4% permanent partial disability benefits and stating that Mr. Lazar may receive up to one and one-half times his medical impairment rating. The evidence does not counter the chancery court’s award of 38% permanent partial disability to Mr. Lazar. Costs are to be borne by the appellant, J.W. Aluminum, and its surety, with execution permitted if necessary.
