Opinion ID: 1060643
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Computation

Text: Having determined that the Social Security offset is applicable, we must next consider whether the trial court erred in awarding an offset of one-half of the total amount of Social Security old age insurance benefits received by McCoy. McCoy argues that the trial court erred in computing the offset at fifty percent. According to McCoy, the correct method for computing the offset is to consider only the contributions made from June of 1992 by TTC, the employer at the time of the injury, rather than the total amount of employer contributions. McCoy contends that the trial court's computation allows an employer to receive benefits in excess of his contributions to the social security fund of the employee, and he argues that such a result is unjust because it allows the employer to reap a windfall at the expense of the injured worker. TTC responds that trial court's award of a fifty percent offset is consistent with both the statutory language and the legislative history of the statute. We emphasize that the role of this Court in construing statutes is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent. See Cronin v. Howe, 906 S.W.2d 910, 912 (Tenn.1995). When the language of a statute is unambiguous, legislative intent is to be ascertained from the plain and ordinary meaning of the statutory language used. See Carson Creek Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 865 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tenn.1993). Where as here, the parties legitimately have different interpretations of the same statutory language, an ambiguity exists, and we may consider the legislative history and the entire statutory scheme for interpretive guidance. See Carter v. State, 952 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tenn.1997); Owens v. State, 908 S.W.2d 923, 926 (Tenn.1995); Lyons v. Rasar, 872 S.W.2d 895, 897 (Tenn.1994). As previously set out, the language of the statute calls for an offset equal to the amount of any old age insurance benefit payments attributable to employer contributions. Significantly, the statute does not say employer's contributions or the contributions of the employer at the time of the injury. Accordingly, the language of the statute does not support McCoy's argument that the offset is limited to only TTC's contributions. In addition, the legislative history indicates that the trial court correctly computed the offset. Before the provision was adopted by the General Assembly, the sponsor of the legislation summarized its impact as follows: the effect of this would be a worker who is eligible for benefits, say, at age 65 becomes injured would have workmen's compensation benefits for five years, off-set by one-half the social, or her social security benefit. So if you had a $500 a month [worker's compensation] benefit, and you had a $500 a month social security benefit, $250 of the social security benefit would be used to offset the workers' compensation benefit. So you would have a total benefit in that case of $750, as example. Remarks of Senator Riley Darnell, Senate Floor Session, April 30, 1992, Tape Nos. S-79, S-81, S-82, and S-83. This statement clearly illustrates that the statute was intended to provide a fifty percent offset of the total amount of Social Security old age insurance benefits received by the employee. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-207(4)(A)(i) authorizes an offset of fifty percent of the total amount of any Social Security old age insurance benefits received by employees over sixty who suffer injuries to the body as a whole and are awarded permanent total or permanent partial disability benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law.