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

Heading: Lump Sum Award of Benefits

Text: Finally, S & H contends that the trial court erred in commuting Leab's award of benefits to a lump sum because the evidence does not show that a lump sum award was in Leab's best interest. Under Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-229 (1999), the trial court must engage in a two-pronged analysis when considering whether to commute an award to a lump sum. The trial court must consider: (1) whether a lump sum award will be in the best interest of the employee; and (2) whether the employee has the ability to wisely manage and control the commuted award irrespective of whether there exist special needs. Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-229(a). The trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether to commute an award to a lump sum, and we will not disturb that decision absent a showing that the trial abused that discretion. Edmonds v. Wilson County, 9 S.W.3d 106, 109 (Tenn.1999). Leab's counsel concedes that he introduced little evidence concerning whether a lump sum award would be in Leab's best interest. He asserts, however, that his failure to introduce evidence was a direct result of repeated conduct by S & H implying that it would agree to a lump sum award of benefits. At the opening of trial, S & H stipulated that the only issue was the extent of Leab's disability, despite a specific request in Leab's complaint that benefits be commuted to a lump sum. At the conclusion of the hearing, S & H's counsel volunteered in closing arguments that Leab could manage his funds and that there would be no problem with a lump sum award. Finally, counsel for S & H reviewed the proposed judgment order commuting benefits to a lump sum before it was submitted to the trial court, and the order was approved with no objection. Pointing to these circumstances, Leab contends that S & H has waived this issue on appeal. This Court, however, has held under similar circumstances that the trial court's duty to ensure a lump sum award would be in the employee's best interest is mandatory and is not subject to the waiver doctrine. See Duckworth v. Globe Bus. Furniture, Inc., 806 S.W.2d 526, 526-27 (Tenn.1991). In Duckworth, as in this case, we recognized that the deficiencies in the proof offered by the employee may well be attributable to the employer's apparent acquiescence in the award of a lump sum at the trial court level. Id. at 527. Though we noted that [i]n the usual civil action, a party's failure to raise objection under circumstances such as those in this case would almost certainly be held to bar relief on appeal, we nonetheless concluded that appropriateness of a lump sum award is an issue which must be addressed on the merits by the trial court. Id. at 526-27. In this case, the trial court's judgment recites that Leab would be able to manage his funds, but the judgment is silent regarding whether a lump sum would be in Leab's best interest. Thus, the statutory prerequisites for commutation of the award have not been satisfied. Accordingly, on remand, we direct the trial court to make affirmative findings on the record regarding whether commutation of the benefit award to a lump sum would be in Leab's best interest. [4] If the trial court is of the opinion that additional evidence is essential to the proper determination of this issue, it shall be authorized to admit such evidence as it deems necessary.