CompFox AI Summary
The plaintiff, Jerry Wayne Mayes, brought a workmen's compensation case against Genesco, Inc., in the Chancery Court of Davidson County for an on-the-job injury. The Chancellor found Mayes suffered a seventy-five percent permanent partial disability and imposed a six percent penalty on unpaid temporary total disability benefits. Genesco appealed, challenging the disability finding due to alleged lack of medical testimony and the non-consideration of vocational rehabilitation potential. The appellate court affirmed the Chancellor's disability finding, supported by medical evidence from Dr. Fred F. Brown, Jr., and Dr. Don L. Gaines, and noted the Chancellor properly considered Mayes' limited education and manual labor history. However, the court reversed the six percent penalty, ruling that T.C.A. § 50-1005 requires a showing of bad faith for penalty imposition, which was not present.
Mayes v. Genesco, 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
The plaintiff, Jerry Wayne Mayes, brought a workmen's compensation case against Genesco, Inc., in the Chancery Court of Davidson County for an on-the-job injury. The Chancellor found Mayes suffered a seventy-five percent permanent partial disability and imposed a six percent penalty on unpaid temporary total disability benefits. Genesco appealed, challenging the disability finding due to alleged lack of medical testimony and the non-consideration of vocational rehabilitation potential. The appellate court affirmed the Chancellor's disability finding, supported by medical evidence from Dr. Fred F. Brown, Jr., and Dr. Don L. Gaines, and noted the Chancellor properly considered Mayes' limited education and manual labor history. However, the court reversed the six percent penalty, ruling that T.C.A. § 50-1005 requires a showing of bad faith for penalty imposition, which was not present.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.