CompFox AI Summary
Bobby W. Ingram, a 54-year-old employee of State Industries, suffered a lower back injury in April 1993, leading to a 5 percent permanent impairment to the whole body as assessed by Dr. Thomas H. Tompkins. The trial judge initially awarded 70 percent permanent partial disability benefits, a decision contested by the employer as excessive. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel remanded the case to the trial court, instructing it to make specific documented findings, supported by clear and convincing evidence, regarding the employee's circumstances to justify an award exceeding six times the medical impairment rating under Tenn.Code Ann. section 50-6-242. The panel also provided guidance on the inclusion of vocational expert examination fees as discretionary costs and reiterated the criteria for approving lump sum payments, emphasizing careful inquiry into the claimant's ability to manage such funds.
Ingram v. State Industries, Inc. 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
Bobby W. Ingram, a 54-year-old employee of State Industries, suffered a lower back injury in April 1993, leading to a 5 percent permanent impairment to the whole body as assessed by Dr. Thomas H. Tompkins. The trial judge initially awarded 70 percent permanent partial disability benefits, a decision contested by the employer as excessive. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel remanded the case to the trial court, instructing it to make specific documented findings, supported by clear and convincing evidence, regarding the employee's circumstances to justify an award exceeding six times the medical impairment rating under Tenn.Code Ann. section 50-6-242. The panel also provided guidance on the inclusion of vocational expert examination fees as discretionary costs and reiterated the criteria for approving lump sum payments, emphasizing careful inquiry into the claimant's ability to manage such funds.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.