Opinion ID: 2352639
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Loss of Enjoyment of Life as a Basis for Workers' Compensation Recovery

Text: In the course of deciding this case, the Panel made the following statement: Even though the employee lost no time off work due to the injury and continues to work in the same or similar position, there has been a loss of his ability to enjoy normal, everyday activities generally taken for granted because hearing is required for virtually every human function. The second issue which we must address is whether the Panel improperly considered the loss of enjoyment of life as a basis for workers' compensation recovery. This is a question of law which we review de novo with no presumption of correctness. Dotson v. Rice-Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge, Inc., 160 S.W.3d 495, 500 (Tenn.2005). Even without taking into account Mr. Lang's loss of enjoyment of life as a measure of recovery, as discussed above we have determined that a 45% disability award is correct. Therefore, the extent to which the Panel may have relied on loss of enjoyment as a measure of recovery does not affect our review of how the evidence preponderates in this case. Nevertheless, at Nissan's urging we address this issue in order to prevent confusion which might result from the Panel's statement that Mr. Lang has suffered a loss of his ability to enjoy normal, everyday activities. The loss of enjoyment of life, also referred to as hedonic damages, Jordan v. Baptist Three Rivers Hosp., 984 S.W.2d 593, 595 (Tenn.1999), is a noneconomic element of compensatory damages typically associated with personal injury tort claims. Loss of enjoyment compensates an injured person for impairment of the capacity to enjoy the normal pleasures of living. See Martin v. Southern Ry. Co., 225 Tenn. 77, 463 S.W.2d 690, 691 (1971); Overstreet v. Shoney's, Inc., 4 S.W.3d 694, 715-16 (Tenn.Ct.App.1999). In workers' compensation cases, it is appropriate to consider how a work-related injury affects an employee's capacity to engage in normal, everyday activities insofar as that inquiry is oriented toward establishing anatomical or vocational disability. For example, in McIlvain this Court considered an injured employee's inability to do household chores and the difficulty and pain she encountered in performing other routine activities such as driving a car, writing, buttoning her clothes, and tightening jar lids. 996 S.W.2d at 183. However, we considered these facts merely to determine the employee's proper levels of anatomical and vocational disability and not in order to compensate her for her loss of enjoyment of these features of life. See id. at 183-84. Simply put, Tennessee workers' compensation law does not recognize the loss of enjoyment of life as a basis for the recovery of benefits. Cf. Ridings v. Ralph M. Parsons Co., 914 S.W.2d 79, 81 (Tenn.1996) (Tennessee's workers' compensation laws `restrict the amount of damages by excluding pain and suffering.' (quoting Rupe v. Durbin Durco, Inc., 557 S.W.2d 742, 749 (Tenn.Ct.App.1976)); Newman v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 786 S.W.2d 932, 935 (Tenn.1990) (explaining necessary limitations on workers' compensation recovery)). Even the plaintiff, Mr. Lang, does not dispute this conclusion. Therefore, we vacate the Panel's decision insofar as the Panel may have recognized hedonic damages as a basis for the recovery of workers' compensation benefits. The workers' compensation statutes do not provide for such common-law tort recovery, and it would be improper for us to judicially mandate it. Further, recognizing hedonic damages as a basis for recovering benefits would run counter to the exclusive-remedy principle which reinforces the policy balance of workers' compensation law. One of the fundamental purposes of workers' compensation law is to compensate employees for work-related injuries irrespective of fault. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-103(a) (1999). However, in exchange for no-fault recovery, employees have limited recovery and relinquish certain common-law rights of action against their employers which they might otherwise have had. A delicate compromise between the interests of employers and employees thus lies at the heart of workers' compensation law. See Clanton v. Cain-Sloan Co., 677 S.W.2d 441, 443 (Tenn.1984). In order to preserve this balance, workers' compensation law constitutes a complete substitute for previous remedies in tort on the part of an employee. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Stevenson, 212 Tenn. 178, 368 S.W.2d 760, 762 (1963). Consequently, with few exceptions [4] workers' compensation law is the exclusive remedy for the work-related injuries which fall under its scope. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-108(a) (1999); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 368 S.W.2d at 762. The delicately balanced quid pro quo imposing no-fault liability in exchange for immunity from tort claims and limits on the amount of workers' compensation liability becomes illusory without a viable exclusive remedy rule. Joseph H. King, Jr., The Exclusiveness of an Employee's Workers' Compensation Remedy Against His Employer, 55 Tenn. L.Rev. 405, 411-12 (1988).