Howell v. Nissan North America, Inc.
346 S.W.3d 467
Tenn.2011Background
- Alicia Howell, employed by Nissan North America, sustained bilateral carpal tunnel injuries in 2006–2007, with surgeries on right and left hands in 2006 and 2007.
- She was released to return to work in 2007 with restrictions (no pneumatic gun) but Nissan sought return on the TR line, a faster six- to seven-pitch line, which Howell believed she could not safely perform.
- Howell testified she could not perform the TR line due to hand symptoms and speed demands, while Nissan asserted there were no feasible alternatives and that she could have returned to the ZH line.
- Howell resigned after being told she would be assigned to the TR line; she subsequently found work at minimum wage with a temporary staffing agency and sought reconsideration of her workers’ compensation benefits.
- The trial court credited Howell’s account of the November 13, 2007 conversation and found she lacked a meaningful return to work, awarding increased permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits; the Special Panel reversed, and the case returned to the trial court.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court reverses the Panel, reinstates the trial court’s finding of a meaningful return to work being lacking, and upholds a 25% PPD to each upper extremity for reconsideration purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Howell have a meaningful return to work? | Howell asserts no meaningful return given the TR line, speed demands, and lack of accommodations. | Nissan contends Howell had a meaningful return since she worked on the TR line and had attempted to return. | No meaningful return to work; Howell's resignation reasonable under circumstances. |
| Was the trial court’s credibility finding regarding the 11/13/2007 conversation proper? | Trial court correctly found Howell credible about the conversation deciding TR assignment. | Panel disputed the credibility, favoring Nissan's version. | Trial court’s credibility determinations upheld; Howell credible. |
| Should reconsideration of permanent partial disability benefits be allowed? | Because she did not have a meaningful return, she is eligible for reconsideration and higher benefits. | Resignation negates reconsideration when attributed to voluntary retirement/absence. | Reconsideration allowed; trial court award sustained. |
| Is the 25% PPD to each upper extremity supported by the record? | The district court’s impairment ratings and vocational evidence justify an increased award. | An appellate tribunal should defer to trial court’s factual findings and not substitute its judgment. | Evidence supports 25% PPD to each upper extremity; not excess. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tryon v. Saturn Corp., 254 S.W.3d 321 (Tenn. 2008) (meaningful return to work and impairment multipliers; deference to trial court on facts)
- Lay v. Scott Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 109 S.W.3d 293 (Tenn. 2003) (meaningful return to work framework)
- Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 8 S.W.3d 625 (Tenn. 1999) (meaningful return to work standard and disability assessment)
- Nichols v. Jack Cooper Transp. Co., 318 S.W.3d 354 (Tenn. 2010) (capping benefits based on meaningful return and impairment rating)
- Dixon v. Travelers Indem. Co., 336 S.W.3d 532 (Tenn. 2011) (deference to trial court on live witness credibility)
- Padilla v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 324 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2010) (procedural framework for reviewing trial court findings)