Opinion ID: 2468742
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Harless's Extent of Disability and Alleged Misrepresentation

Text: Having decided that neither Section 241 nor 242 violate equal protection, the ADA, or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, we address the arguments of the employer in the Harless case concerning her extent of disability and purported misrepresentations on her employment application. [10] Huntsville Manor argues that Harless is barred from recovering for mental impairment because she misrepresented her mental condition on her employment application. To establish such a misrepresentation defense, the employer must establish that: (1) the employee knowingly and willfully made a false representation of her physical condition; (2) the employer relied upon that misrepresentation in making the decision to hire the employee; and (3) the misrepresentation was material in that there was a causal relationship between the false representation and the work-related injury sustained by the employee. Berry v. Consolidated Systems, Inc., 804 S.W.2d 445, 446 (Tenn. 1991); Shelton v. Clevepak Container Corp., 752 S.W.2d 508, 509 (Tenn. 1988). As a part of her employment application, Harless completed a health examination form. She responded no to a question that asked [h]ave you ever been treated for or ever had any known indication of ... mental or nervous disorder? Her family physician, Dr. Wolfe, testified that Harless had nerve problems preceding her employment with Huntsville Manor and had been taking anti-depression medication for these nerve problems. Harless conceded as much at trial. Further, a psychological consultant's report dated September 13, 1993, indicated that [s]he has been on the waiting list to receive psychotherapy at Ridgeview Psychiatric Center in Oneida, Tennessee, for the past few years. This report also states that [t]he claimant reports that she began having problems with her nerves two years ago. Harless certainly knew that she had been treated for or ever had any known indication of ... a mental or nervous disorder. The director of nursing at Huntsville Manor who hired Harless testified that he relied upon the truthfulness of the information contained in her questionnaire in hiring her, especially since the work she was being hired to do was a very stressful job. Thus, the first two elements of the misrepresentation defense have been satisfied. As to the third element of causation, defendant relies upon a statement by Dr. Wolfe that an individual with a nervous disorder would be more prone to injury or to a worsening of the nervous condition than someone without a nervous disorder. Dr. Wolfe did not testify that Harless' emotional problems were worsened by her work-related injuries. His only testimony as to the indirect connection between emotional illness and injury proneness is too remote to establish causation between Harless' misrepresentation and her injury. Thus, defendant may not avail itself to the misrepresentation defense. Defendant Huntsville Manor also claims that the two and one-half cap on benefits contained in Section 241 should apply because defendant offered to return Harless to a position consistent with her lifting restrictions at her pre-injury wage. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(a)(1) (1995 Supp.) (if the pre-injury employer returns the employee to employment at a wage equal to or greater than the wage the employee was receiving at the time of injury, the maximum permanent partial disability award that the employee may receive is two and one-half (2 1/2) times the medical impairment rating... .). Defendant, therefore, urges the Court to find that Harless was constructively returned to work because she did not attempt to perform her duties. The problem with this argument is that it ignores whether Harless could return to work at the nursing home. [11] Her attempt to work at a much less physically demanding job after the injury was unsuccessful. Two physicians verified her inability to return to work. Based on this evidence, we conclude that Harless was not able to return to work on account of the severity of her physical and emotional injuries. Therefore, her refusal to return to the nursing home was reasonable, and the two and one-half cap is inapplicable. Had Harless unreasonably refused to return to work, the two and one-half cap would have applied. [12] Consequently, the trial court did not err in applying a multiplier of four to the anatomical impairment rating provided by Dr. Kennedy. Finally, Huntsville Manor argues that the trial court erred in awarding 30% permanent partial disability for Harless's emotional injury because Dr. Wolfe did not provide a percentage of mental impairment. Instead, Dr. Wolfe opined that Harless was extremely impaired mentally, and pointed out that the AMA Guides do not provide a numerical percentage rating for mental injuries. Dr. Wolfe was not asked to provide a percentage of impairment based on his training and experience, separate and apart from the AMA Guides, or one based on his training and experience taking into account the levels of mental impairment provided for in the Guides, all of which are specifically defined. Section 241 permits an impairment rating to be given by any appropriate method used and accepted by the medical community in circumstances in which the Guides do not apply. Neither party requested that Dr. Wolfe give an impairment rating other than one based on the AMA Guides. Consequently, the record does not contain a rating of Harless's mental impairment. However, because it is rather obvious from the record that Harless has sustained substantial mental impairment, we remand her case to the trial court for further proof on this point, after which the trial court shall fashion an appropriate award consistent with this opinion. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed in part, affirmed in part, and the case remanded. Costs shall be split evenly between the parties. ANDERSON, C.J., and DROWOTA, REID, BIRCH, JJ., concur.