CompFox AI Summary
The case involves Hershel Hill, an employee of Wilson Sporting Goods, who sought reconsideration of a previous permanent partial disability award for a work-related back injury. The trial court disallowed reconsideration on two grounds: the initial award was below the two and a half times multiplier cap, and Hill's employment was not terminated. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel found that neither a cap on the initial award nor termination of employment is a prerequisite for reconsideration under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(a)(2). The panel concluded that reconsideration is available if the initial award did not exceed the two and a half times medical impairment rating cap, provided the application is timely and based on an unsuccessful return to work due to injuries. The court also clarified that while retirement doesn't absolutely preclude reconsideration, it must be evaluated based on individual circumstances, such as inability to perform work due to injury. Therefore, the trial court's judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded for further consideration.
Hill v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co. is a workers' compensation case decided in Tennessee Supreme Court. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Tennessee Supreme Court.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The case involves Hershel Hill, an employee of Wilson Sporting Goods, who sought reconsideration of a previous permanent partial disability award for a work-related back injury. The trial court disallowed reconsideration on two grounds: the initial award was below the two and a half times multiplier cap, and Hill's employment was not terminated. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel found that neither a cap on the initial award nor termination of employment is a prerequisite for reconsideration under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(a)(2). The panel concluded that reconsideration is available if the initial award did not exceed the two and a half times medical impairment rating cap, provided the application is timely and based on an unsuccessful return to work due to injuries. The court also clarified that while retirement doesn't absolutely preclude reconsideration, it must be evaluated based on individual circumstances, such as inability to perform work due to injury. Therefore, the trial court's judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded for further consideration.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.