CompFox AI Summary
Frederick Perry, an employee, sought permanent disability benefits after suffering a work-related right shoulder injury in December 2019, following a similar injury in 2011. His employer, Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corp., moved for partial summary judgment, arguing Mr. Perry lacked sufficient evidence for an impairment rating for the 2019 injury. Medical examiner Dr. Christopher Pokabla had assigned a 3% impairment rating but concluded it resulted in no additional impairment for the 2019 injury when considering pre-existing impairments. The Court found Mr. Perry failed to present necessary medical evidence to rebut this opinion or establish a new impairment rating. Consequently, summary judgment was granted to Thyssenkrupp on the permanent disability benefits claim, although Mr. Perry remains entitled to authorized medical benefits.
Perry, Frederick v. v. ) THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORP. is a workers' compensation case decided in Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims. 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 Court of Workers' Compensation Claims.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Frederick Perry, an employee, sought permanent disability benefits after suffering a work-related right shoulder injury in December 2019, following a similar injury in 2011. His employer, Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corp., moved for partial summary judgment, arguing Mr. Perry lacked sufficient evidence for an impairment rating for the 2019 injury. Medical examiner Dr. Christopher Pokabla had assigned a 3% impairment rating but concluded it resulted in no additional impairment for the 2019 injury when considering pre-existing impairments. The Court found Mr. Perry failed to present necessary medical evidence to rebut this opinion or establish a new impairment rating. Consequently, summary judgment was granted to Thyssenkrupp on the permanent disability benefits claim, although Mr. Perry remains entitled to authorized medical benefits.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.