Opinion ID: 2451797
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Propriety of Commutation

Text: However, we do agree with Canterbury Corporation's contention that it is entitled to relief with regard to the form of payment of those benefits. The trial court found that since the plaintiff had received only a fraction of the workers' compensation benefits due from the defendants, had incurred expenses for medical treatment, and had lost income from work as a result of his injury, he had a special need warranting commutation of benefits to a lump sum. But in reaching this conclusion, the trial judge did not follow the requirements codified by the legislature in a 1990 amendment to T.C.A. § 50-6-229, as interpreted by this Court in North American Royalties v. Thrasher, 817 S.W.2d 308 (Tenn. 1991). The 1990 amendment eliminated the requirement of showing a special need, but imposed upon the injured worker the burden of establishing, first, that a lump sum award is in his or her best interest and, second, that the worker is capable of wisely managing and controlling the commuted award. Id. at 311. The Court in Thrasher also noted that one standard relevant to the best interest inquiry is whether commutation to a lump sum will aid the worker's rehabilitation. Id. The only proof offered at the trial regarding whether Travis Brown's best interest would be served by commutation was his own statement that a lump-sum recovery would help his wife buy a house and allow him to pay the next six-month rent payment on their trailer. The only evidence concerning his ability to wisely manage and control the money are three yes, sir answers to questions from his attorney about whether the plaintiff believed himself to be financially responsible, capable of balancing a checkbook, and able to keep track of his money. Under cross-examination, the plaintiff said that he would deposit any lump-sum award he received in a bank savings account. He also admitted he had no experience in handling large sums of money. Although the proof is sparse, the plaintiff may have a meritorious request for a commutation to a lump sum. In Thrasher , the Court found that since the plaintiff's financial position could likely be ascertained, and since he also had a potentially valid claim for commutation, the matter should be remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine the lump-sum amount due the plaintiff, if any. Thrasher, 817 S.W.2d at 312. Under the circumstances of this case, a similar limited remand seems appropriate as well. We therefore affirm that portion of the trial court's judgment awarding benefits to the plaintiff, to be paid by defendant Canterbury Corporation, and remand the cause for a hearing on the appropriate method of payment. REID, C.J., and DROWOTA, O'BRIEN and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.