Opinion ID: 2335281
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Documentation of Clear and Convincing Evidence

Text: S & H next asserts that the trial court erred in failing to document clear and convincing evidence to support its award of benefits. As this Court recognized in Peace v. Easy Trucking Co ., the Workers' Compensation Act requires the trial court to make a specific documented finding, supported by clear and convincing evidence, before awarding benefits in excess of the multiplier provision. 38 S.W.3d 526, 532 (Tenn.2001) (quoting Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-242 (1999)). It is not sufficient for the trial court merely to recite in its order that the statutory requirements are satisfied; it must specifically document what clear and convincing evidence it relied upon in deciding to award ... benefits pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-242. Id. As pointed out by S & H, the trial court's judgment in this case does not specifically identify what evidence it relied upon in concluding that Leab had no reasonably transferable job skills from prior background and training and no reasonable employment opportunities available locally considering [his] permanent medical condition. Therefore, it appears that the statutory requirements have not been met. The decision whether clear and convincing evidence exists to support the requirements of Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-242 is most appropriately made by the trial court, not by this Court. Id.; Ingram v. State Industries, Inc., 943 S.W.2d 381, 383 (Tenn.1995). Therefore, we remand the cause to the trial court so it may specifically document the clear and convincing evidence upon which it relied in finding that Leab has neither reasonably transferrable skills nor reasonable job opportunities available to him in the local area.