Jones v. Home Indem. Ins. Co.
| Citation | 679 S.W.2d 445 |
| Parties | Erma Lee JONES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HOME INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. 679 S.W.2d 445 |
| Decision Date | 29 October 1984 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Ricky L. Boren, Jackson, for plaintiff-appellee.
Richard Glassman, Memphis, for defendant-appellant.
The defendant appeals from a decree of the trial court awarding to the plaintiff employee benefits under the Worker's Compensation Law. The sole issue presented is whether or not there is evidence in the record to support the holding of the trial court that the statute of limitations of one year had not run on the plaintiff's cause of action which was filed August 25, 1980. More specifically, the issue is whether or not the statute began to run on July 30, 1979, the date on which the compensable accident occurred or on November 19, 1979, when plaintiff's condition was first diagnosed as a permanent injury in the form of a ruptured intervertebral disc.
We find abundant evidence in the record to support the findings and conclusions of the trial court and, accordingly, affirm his decree.
Plaintiff's injury occurred on July 30, 1979, when she suffered a stinging sensation in her back while lifting a heavy vertical door on the premises of her employer prior to leaving work. She sought treatment from Dr. Williams who found her to be suffering from acute back sprain and undertook to treat her with conservative measures while she remained off work from July 31, 1979, to August 6, 1979. Dr. Williams did not suspect any permanent injury and advised the plaintiff that she could return to work on August 6, 1979, and that she would "get well." Dr. Williams at no time told the plaintiff that she had any permanent injury. The plaintiff did resume her work and between August 23, 1979, and November 8, 1979, she missed only one day of work on two separate occasions.
During the second week of November her pain became more intense and began to radiate from her low back into her right leg all the way to the great toe of her right foot. Plaintiff last worked for her employer on November 10, 1979.
On or about November 19, 1979, the plaintiff was examined by Dr. R.L. Winston who admitted her to the hospital for observation and tests and referred her to Dr. J. Rowland who conducted a myelogram and diagnosed her difficulty as a ruptured intervertebral disc. Dr. Rowland at that time performed a laminectomy to remove the protruded disc. Prior to the diagnosis and surgery by Dr. Rowland, the plaintiff was not aware of the fact that she had a ruptured intervertebral disc or other permanent injury; the trial judge so found and the evidence supports that finding.
The trial court made a specific finding that plaintiff's compensable permanent injury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Claim of Grindle
...Smith v. Dowell Corporation, a Division of Dow Chemical, USA, 102 N.M. 102, 692 P.2d 27 (1984) (back); Jones v. Home Indemnity Insurance Company, Tenn., 679 S.W.2d 445 (1984) (back); Houston General Insurance Company v. Vera, Tex.App., 638 S.W.2d 102 (1982) (back). See also 3 Larson, Workme......
-
Blocker v. Regional Medical Center At Memphis
...have known in the circumstances. See, e.g., Banks v. St. Francis Hospital, 697 S.W.2d 340, 342 (Tenn.1985); Jones v. Home Indemnity Insurance Co., 679 S.W.2d 445, 446 (Tenn.1984); Osborne v. Burlington Industries, Inc., 672 S.W.2d 757, 760 (Tenn.1984); Lusk v. Consolidated Aluminum Corp., s......
-
Cowan v. Knox Cnty.
...which triggers the statute of limitations." Banks v. St. Francis Hosp., 697 S.W.2d 340, 342 (Tenn. 1985) (citing Jones v. Home Indem. Ins. Co., 679 S.W.2d 445 (Tenn. 1984)). The reasonableness of the conduct of an employee and the date on which the employee knew or reasonably should have kn......
-
Johnson v. McKee Foods Corporation, No. E2003-02899-WC-R3-CV (TN 10/12/2004)
...accident, that triggers the statute of limitations. McLerran v. Mid-South Stone, Inc., 695 S.W.2d 181 (Tenn. 1985); Jones v. Home Indem. Ins. Co., 679 S.W.2d 445 (Tenn. 1984). In evaluating a case under these rules, it must be determined (1) when the accident is considered to have occurred ......