Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Employee injured his shoulder while working for Employer. After Employee returned to work, he filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Employee and Employer settled Employee's claim. The settlement stated that the award of vocational disability benefits to which the parties agreed was not based on the medical impairment rating of either the treating physician or Employee's independent medical examiner. After Employee was laid off, he sought reconsideration of his benefits. The chancery court awarded additional permanent disability benefits based on an impairment rating computed from the percentage of permanent partial disability reflected in the settlement. Employer appealed. At issue was whether the chancery court erred in declining to apply any of three impairment ratings assigned by physicians after the original settlement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a court's reconsideration of a workers' compensation award is limited to a determination of additional permanent partial disability based on the employee's impairment rating at the time of the initial award or settlement, and therefore, the chancery court properly computed the medical impairment rating; and (2) the award was not excessive.

In 2004, Plaintiffs Dalton and Sandra Hughes sued the city of Nashville and one of its employees under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA). Mr. Hughes worked for the local fire department. He alleged that Defendant Frank Archey negligently revved the engine to a front-end loader. The loader dropped its bucket to the pavement and made a loud, scraping noise. Mr. Hughes jumped awkwardly over some guardrail to get out of the way of the loader. Mr. Hughes injured both shoulders and both knees in the fall, and ultimately had rotator-cuff surgery and a double knee replacement. Mr. Hughes incurred significant medical bills and missed work. The trial court entered a judgment in favor of Mr. Hughes, and the city appealed, arguing that Mr. Archey acted outside the scope of his employment. Furthermore, the city characterized Mr. Archey's act as an "intentional tort", which absolved it from liability under the GTLA. The Supreme Court found that although Mr. Archey's conduct fell within the scope of his employment, his operation of the equipment constituted an intentional tort. The city could not be held liable under the GTLA. The Court remanded the case back to the trial court to enter a judgment against Mr. Archey.