Opinion ID: 1043971
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Development of Applicable Law

Text: Our first workers' compensation laws, enacted in 1919, were designed to place the burden of compensating injured workers on employers. Lynch v. City of Jellico, 205 S.W.3d 384, 390 (Tenn.2006); cf. Scott v. Nashville Bridge Co., 143 Tenn. 86, 223 S.W. 844, 849 (1920) (observing that the purpose of workers' compensation law is to secure to injured employees reasonable compensation so as to prevent them from becoming public charges). Because of their remedial nature, Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-116 (2008), workers' compensation statutes were construed in a liberal manner so as `to promote and adhere to the Act's purposes of securing benefits to those workers who fall within its coverage.' Trosper, 273 S.W.3d at 609 n. 5 (quoting Martin v. Lear Corp., 90 S.W.3d 626, 629 (Tenn.2002)). In 1992, the legislature instituted a cap on permanent partial disability benefits of two-and-one-half times the medical impairment rating for eligible employees who are returned to their employment at a wage equal to or greater than the wage they were receiving at the time of their injury. Workers' Compensation Reform Act of 1992, ch. 900, § 16, 1992 Tenn. Pub. Acts 859, 870 (codified at Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-241(a)(1) (1999)). [2] In 2004, the General Assembly overhauled the workers' compensation statutes, see generally Act of May 20, 2004, ch. 962, 2004 Tenn. Pub. Acts 2346, in an effort to reduce the employer's costs of providing coverage. Lynch, 205 S.W.3d at 390. [T]he legislature recognized that... `[i]t is in the best interest of the citizens of Tennessee that such cost savings be passed to the entities that have paid faithfully workers' compensation premiums in order to ensure the economic well-being of their employees.' Id. (quoting Act of May 20, 2004, ch. 962, § 42(a), 2004 Tenn. Pub.Acts 2346, 2372). The 2004 Act included amendments to the benefits cap for injuries occurring after July 1, 2004, Act of May 20, 2004, ch. 962, § 11, 2004 Tenn. Pub. Acts 2346, 2350-53, reducing the cap on permanent partial disability benefits to one-and-one-half times the impairment rating when an employee has the opportunity to return to his place of employment at the same or a greater wage. Id. at § 11 (codified at Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-241(d)(1)(A) (2008 & Supp.2009)). The cap on permanent partial disability benefits for an injured employee who is not returned to work by the employer at a wage equal to or greater than his pre-injury wage is six times the impairment rating, a multiplier unchanged by the 2004 amendments. Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-241(d)(2)(A); see Lay v. Scott Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 109 S.W.3d 293, 297 (Tenn.2003). When the employee has made a meaningful return to work, the lower cap of one-and-one-half times the impairment rating applies. Nichols v. Jack Cooper Transp. Co., 318 S.W.3d 354, 361 (Tenn.2010). [3] The meaningful return to work concept provides guidance in the determination of whether the statutory provisions apply to a claim. In Tryon v. Saturn Corp., 254 S.W.3d 321 (Tenn.2008), this Court made the following observation: When determining whether a particular employee had a meaningful return to work, the courts must assess the reasonableness of the employer in attempting to return the employee to work and the reasonableness of the employee in failing to either return to or remain at work. The determination of the reasonableness of the actions of the employer and the employee depends on the facts of each case. ... If ... the employee later retires or resigns for personal reasons or other reasons that are not reasonably related to his or her workplace injury, the employee has had a meaningful return to work which triggers the [lower cap]. Id. at 328-29 (citations omitted). Three factors guide the analysis: (1) whether the injury rendered the employee unable to perform the job; (2) whether the employer refused to accommodate work restrictions arising from the injury; and (3) whether the injury caused too much pain to permit the continuation of the work. Id. at 329. [T]he same standard should be applied to determine whether an employee had a meaningful return to work as part of an initial assessment [or] in a reconsideration case. Id. at 333 n. 25; see also Lay, 109 S.W.3d at 298.