Lazar v. JW ALUMINUM
346 S.W.3d 438
Tenn.2011Background
- Lazar sustained a right-shoulder injury Dec 5, 2007 for J.W. Aluminum.
- Treating physician Smith assessed 2% impairment; independent Chung assessed 17%.
- Parties settled for 12.4% permanent partial disability (PPD); DOL approved the settlement.
- Lazar was laid off within four months of the settlement; he sought reconsideration under §50-6-241(d)(1)(B)(iv).
- Chancery Court declined to use Smith/Chung ratings or MIR rating post-settlement and awarded 38% PPD based on an 8.27% impairment extrapolated from the settlement.
- Appellant appeals; the court affirms the chancery court’s rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reconsideration must be based on the impairment rating underlying the original settlement | Lazar argues reconsideration can use a different rating than the original award | Aluminum contends reconsideration is limited to the rating underlying the prior settlement | Yes; reconsideration must be based on the impairment rating underlying the original award/settlement |
| whether the court may extrapolate a rating when the settlement did not specify one | Lazar supports extrapolating the 8.27% rating from the 12.4% settlement | Aluminum disputes using an extrapolated rating not expressly in the settlement | Extrapolation from the settlement is permissible; 8.27% used as the basis |
| Whether post-settlement MIR registry rating can be used in reconsideration | Not explicitly addressed; Lazar relies on original basis | MIR rating obtained after settlement should not govern reconsideration | Post-settlement MIR rating cannot govern reconsideration; not to be used |
| Whether 38% PPD award is excessive | Evidence supports impairment-based award; the court should award more | 38% is within statutory limits given 8.27% impairment | Not excessive; supported by record and §50-6-241(d)(2) factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Nichols v. Jack Cooper Transp. Co., 318 S.W.3d 354 (Tenn.2010) (limits on reconsideration awards; maximums and calculation context)
- Brewer v. Lincoln Brass Works, Inc., 991 S.W.2d 226 (Tenn.1999) (impairment-based consideration; new impairment claims must be filed separately)
- Uptain Constr. Co. v. McClain, 526 S.W.2d 458 (Tenn.1975) (factors for determining permanent partial disability include education and job opportunities)
- Barnes v. Barnes, 193 S.W.3d 495 (Tenn.2006) (settlement interpretation and contract principles apply to WC settlements)
- Whirlpool Corp. v. Nakhoneinh, 69 S.W.3d 164 (Tenn.2002) (credibility and weight given to trial testimony; deference to trial court findings)
- State v. Marshall, 319 S.W.3d 558 (Tenn.2010) (statutory interpretation and plain language governing reconsideration)