CompFox AI Summary
Petitioner, Thomas A. Rolin, filed a Workmen's Compensation complaint against Pulaski Rubber Company following an electrical shock injury to his right arm and neck on April 28, 1970. He underwent surgery for ulnar nerve transplantation and reported persistent pain, numbness, and lost function in his right arm, affecting his ability to perform his duties. Medical evaluations by Dr. Lipscomb and Dr. Hamilton estimated a 10% permanent partial disability to the right arm. However, the trial court found a 25% permanent partial disability and awarded benefits. Defendant appealed the decision, arguing it was contrary to the law and evidence, and the medical proof did not support the higher disability finding. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, stating that the extent of disability is a question of fact for the trial court, distinguishable from medical definitions, and its finding was supported by material evidence.
Pulaski Rubber Co. v. Rolin 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
Petitioner, Thomas A. Rolin, filed a Workmen's Compensation complaint against Pulaski Rubber Company following an electrical shock injury to his right arm and neck on April 28, 1970. He underwent surgery for ulnar nerve transplantation and reported persistent pain, numbness, and lost function in his right arm, affecting his ability to perform his duties. Medical evaluations by Dr. Lipscomb and Dr. Hamilton estimated a 10% permanent partial disability to the right arm. However, the trial court found a 25% permanent partial disability and awarded benefits. Defendant appealed the decision, arguing it was contrary to the law and evidence, and the medical proof did not support the higher disability finding. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, stating that the extent of disability is a question of fact for the trial court, distinguishable from medical definitions, and its finding was supported by material evidence.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.