Stephens v. Henley's Supply & Industry, Inc. , 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 425 ( 1999 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE FILED
AT NASHVILLE
September 13, 1999
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate Court Clerk
JAMES E. STEPHENS, ) FOR PUBLICATION
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) FILED: September 13, 1999
)
v. ) FRANKLIN COUNTY
)
HENLEY’S SUPPLY AND INDUSTRY, INC. ) HON. JEFFREY F. STEWART,
and TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, ) CHANCELLOR
)
Defendants-Appellants. ) NO. 01-S-01-9712-CH-00277
For Appellants: For Appellee:
ROBERT J. UHORCHUK BARBARA G. FARIS
Chattanooga, TN Decherd, TN
OPINION
JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED BIRCH, J.
The Chancery Court of Franklin County found the
plaintiff, James E. Stephens, to be permanently and partially
disabled and entitled to future medical care at the employer’s
expense. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel, upon
reference for findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(5)(Supp. 1998), found that Stephens
failed to prove that he had suffered any permanent vocational
disability due to his injury. The Panel dismissed his appeal,
effectively foreclosing Stephens’ entitlement to future medical
expenses.
Thereafter, Stephens filed a motion for review of the
Panel’s decision by the full Court pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §
50-6-225(e)(5)(B)(Supp. 1998). We granted review in order to
determine his entitlement to future medical care at the employer’s
expense.
I
Stephens, employed as a carpenter at Henley’s Supply and
Industry, Inc., was injured when he was struck in the mouth while
installing a pre-hung triple window. Stephens suffered complex
lacerations and bone fractures, which led to the removal of all of
his upper teeth and two lower teeth. He was fitted with dentures--
a full upper set and a partial lower set. However, Stephens no
longer wears the upper denture due to discomfort.
2
The trial court awarded Stephens permanent partial
disability of fifteen percent (sixty weeks) and future medical
expenses, all in accordance with the provisions of the Tennessee
Workers’ Compensation Act. The employer appealed, arguing that
there was no medical evidence to support the award of permanent
partial disability. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals
Panel agreed with the employer and reversed the ruling of the trial
court, finding no medical proof of permanence of a disability to
the body as a whole under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-207 (F)(Supp.
1998). The Panel concluded that Stephens’ employability was not
impaired by his dental injury.
II
The issue before us is whether the trial court properly
awarded expenses for future medical care to Stephens.1 An employee
is entitled, under the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204
(Supp. 1998), to recover any reasonable and necessary medical
expenses in the future which may be incurred as a result of a
compensable injury. Lindsey v. Strohs Companies, Inc., 830 S.W.2d
899, 903 (Tenn. 1992); Roark v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 793 S.W.2d
932, 935 (Tenn. 1990). “If or when [the employee] makes
application for any such future medical expenses, the trial judge
must at that time and under the evidence then adduced determine
whether the employer or its insurance carrier is liable for their
1
As stated, the Panel’s reversal of the trial court’s award of
permanent disability is not before the Court.
3
payment.” Roark, 793 S.W.2d at 935; Underwood v. Liberty Mut.
Ins. Co., 782 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tenn. 1989).
Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is
de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a
presumption of the correctness of the findings, unless the
preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-
6-225(e)(2); See Hill v. Eagle Bend Mfg., Inc., 942 S.W.2d 483(Tenn. 1997).
An employer is required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-
204(a)(1) to furnish medical treatment to an injured employee “as
ordered by the attending physician . . . made reasonably necessary
. . . [or] as may be reasonably required.” We have held that an
employee is entitled to medical treatment and expenses for work-
related injuries even though the injury does not produce vocational
impairment or otherwise affect the worker’s employability. Wilkes
v. Resource Auth. of Sumner Cty., 932 S.W.2d 458, 461 (Tenn. 1996).
By its recommendation that this case be dismissed, the
Panel foreclosed the possibility of the employee ever receiving, at
the employer’s expense, the future medical care to which he is
statutorily entitled. Accordingly, we re-instate the trial court’s
judgment regarding future medical expenses and adopt the findings
of fact and conclusions of law of the Panel in regard to the trial
court’s denial of benefits for permanent partial disability.
4
III
In summary, we hold that Stephens is entitled to future
medical expenses pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204. Thus, he
is entitled to all reasonable and necessary future medical care and
treatment resulting from the compensable injury he sustained. This
care and treatment shall be at the employer’s expense.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial
court in reference to future medical expenses is affirmed. We
adopt the Panel’s conclusion of law that the employee is not
entitled to benefits for permanent partial disability. Costs of
this appeal are taxed to the employer, for which execution may
issue if necessary.
______________________________
ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., Justice
CONCUR:
Anderson, C.J
Holder, Barker, JJ.
Drowota, J., not participating
5