Opinion ID: 2003764
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Mr Broyles' Surviving Legal Dependents

Text: As noted, Mr. Broyles died two days after the trial court entered its order awarding him workers' compensation benefits. Several months later, his widow filed a motion/suggestion of death with the trial court, informing the court of his death, alleging that he left a wife and one child as dependents who are entitled to be substituted for workers' compensation accruing after his death, and moving to be substituted as an additional party pursuant to T.C.A. § 50-6-204 et seq.  Excel Polymers argues that the effect of the trial court's order accepting the filing of the Suggestion of Death was to hold that the permanent and total disability benefits awarded to the Employee simply `carried over' to the Employee's dependents once their identity was ascertained. If this characterization of the trial court's ruling were accurate, Excel Polymers would probably be correct in its assertion of error, because it has long been the law in Tennessee that [w]ages cease with death, and likewise compensation received in lieu of wages must cease with death. Bry-Block Mercantile Co. v. Carson, 154 Tenn. 273, 288 S.W. 726, 728 (1926); accord Warrick v. Cheatham County Highway Dep't, 60 S.W.3d 815, 818-19 (Tenn.2001); Rose v. City of Bristol, 203 Tenn. 629, 315 S.W.2d 237, 238 (1958): Marshall v. S. Pittsburg Lumber & Coal Co., 164 Tenn. 267, 47 S.W.2d 553, 554 (1932). As we observed in Warrick, a worker's personal representative may recover benefits on behalf of the deceased employee from the time of injury to the time of death[.] Warrick, 60 S.W.3d at 820. Therefore, Excel Polymers' obligation to Mr. Broyles for disability benefits ended at the time of his death. Excel Polymers' potential liability for death benefits is a separate issue governed by different statutory authority. Statutes which provide guidance include Tennessee Code Annotated sections 50-6-207(5) (Deductions in the case of death); 50-6-209 (Maximum compensation); 50-6-204(c) (Burial expense); 50-6-210 (DependentsCompensation Payments); 50-6-226(a)(3)(Attorney Fees); 50-6-221 (Receipts for payments); and 50-6-227 (Alien Dependents). Better practice dictates the filing of a separate proceeding where issues relating to causation of death, identity and classification of legal dependents, burial expenses and other such issues may be litigated. In this case, a separate proceeding was not filed. The death of Mr. Broyles was brought to the attention of the trial court by way of a motion/suggestion of death. The trial court, however, did not make an award of benefits to Mr. Broyles' legal dependents, nor did it adjudicate who his dependents were. The trial court stated in its order only that the Court accepts the filing of the Suggestion of Death, subject to the ascertainment of the legal dependents which permit said dependents to receive workers' compensation benefits in accordance with [the] Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act. Although the trial court incorporated by reference its oral memorandum opinion delivered from the bench at the end of the hearing on the matter, the transcript discloses no adjudication of legal dependents or further award of workers' compensation benefits. This Court was presented with a situation similar in some regards upon this issue in Oman Constr. Co. v. Bray, 583 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tenn.1979), wherein we stated that [s]ince the jurisdiction of this Court is appellate only, the petition ... seeking to recover as dependents under the workmen's compensation law for the death of [the claimant] is hereby remanded to the trial court for a trial in that court upon the merits. Likewise, we find it appropriate to remand to the trial court for hearing, pursuant to the applicable statutes regarding death benefits, all issues regarding benefits, if any, due as a result of the death of Mr. Broyles.