Eileen Smith v. Shelby Co. Government

Citation: Not availableDocket: 02A01-9701-CH-00024

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; September 8, 1997; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Eileen Smith filed a lawsuit against Shelby County Government in the Chancery Court of Shelby County, seeking compensation for an injury sustained while working at the Shelby County Health Care Center. The chancellor ruled in her favor, determining that the injury was work-related and awarded her a 60% permanent disability rating for her right arm, along with additional costs and attorney fees. 

On appeal, the Defendant raised two issues: whether the trial court erred in finding the injury compensable and in awarding the 60% disability rating. The facts established that Smith, a social worker with extensive experience, was injured while assisting a patient. Following the injury, she reported symptoms and received medical treatment, including surgery, which revealed a significant wrist injury. 

Although the orthopedic surgeon, Dr. E. B. Wilkerson, indicated a degenerative condition rather than a direct result of the incident, he ultimately confirmed in a medical report that the injury likely arose from Smith's employment. The appellate court found no errors in the trial court's decision and affirmed the ruling, supporting the compensability of the injury and the awarded disability rating.

Defendant's risk management department referred Plaintiff to Dr. Neil Aranov, a clinical psychologist, to assess psychological impacts from her work-related injury, specifically pain in her right wrist. Dr. Aranov diagnosed Plaintiff with "adjustment disorder with associated anxiety with depression," directly linked to her injury. Despite his treatment plan, her condition did not improve, leading to the termination of therapy after three visits. As Defendant, a governmental agency, is not subject to the Tennessee Workers Compensation Act but has a policy for compensating work-related injuries based on its guidelines, the court awarded Plaintiff 60% disability for her right arm, resulting in weekly payments of $257.00 for 120 weeks, totaling $30,814.00, plus additional costs and attorney fees. 

On appeal, the review is de novo, with a presumption of correctness for the trial court's findings unless contradicted by evidence. The court examined whether Plaintiff's injury occurred during her employment. Although Dr. Wilkerson testified that Plaintiff's wrist pain stemmed from degenerative wear rather than her injury, he had previously signed multiple reports affirming that her injuries arose from her employment, including one post-surgery report. Lay testimony supported the trial court's inference that her fibrocartilage tear was employment-related, validating the workers’ compensation claim.

The appeal also questioned the trial court’s decision to award a 60% permanent vocational disability rating for the right arm. The court referenced the need to consider various factors—such as job skills, education, training, duration of disability, and job opportunities—alongside the medical testimony regarding anatomical disability. Plaintiff’s personal account of her physical condition and limitations was deemed significant, with Dr. Aranov confirming she was not malingering and that her adjustment disorder was a direct consequence of her work-related injury.

Plaintiff reported ongoing pain and cramping in her right hand despite multiple attempts to address these issues, resulting in diminished grip strength and reduced dexterity. Her professional background is solely in social work, where she has worked for the past twenty years. After a six-month period of unemployment, she secured a social work position; however, her disability necessitates increased work hours to accomplish tasks typically completed in a standard forty-hour week. The trial court's findings regarding her permanent disability were upheld, as the evidence supported their conclusions. The judgment is affirmed, with costs of the appeal assigned to the Defendant, subject to execution if required.