Court Opinion

ID: 9646862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:14:03.288907+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:42.808715
License: Public Domain

DAUGHTREY, Justice, concurring.
I agree with the result reached by the majority in this case. I write separately only to point out that once it has been determined that the plaintiff is entitled to receive future medical benefits, the case is thereafter controlled by Goodman v. Oliver Springs Mining Co., 595 S.W.2d 805 (Tenn.1980). There we held, as a matter of policy, that an employer should not be allowed to force an employee to change physicians once treatment of a progressive occupational disease has begun, because continuity of health care under such circumstances is in the best interest of both the employer and the employee. Id. at 808-809.
Because Walter Bazner suffered from a progressive occupational disease, for which he sought continuing treatment from the same physician, the facts in this case are distinguishable from those in Greenlee v. Care Inn of Jefferson City, 644 S.W.2d 679 (Tenn.1983), cited repeatedly in the majority opinion. The injury in that case was the result of an accident, for which the plaintiff was initially awarded medical expenses. When faced with a post-judgment request for payment of “additional medical expenses,” the Court was concerned about Mabel Greenlee’s failure to seek authorization from her employer for additional treatment from a different doctor, because, among other things, there was no proof that the additional expenses she incurred had actually resulted from the original injury. Id. at 680. There is no such dispute here — as the majority indicates, everyone connected with this case knew that Walter Bazner’s health would continue to deteriorate as the result of his injury and that he would require long-term medical attention. For Bazner, the resulting medical expenses were “continuing” rather than “additional,” in the sense that the latter term was used in Greenlee.
Thus, while I concur in the result reached by the majority, I believe that it would be unfortunate if the majority’s reliance on Greenlee were taken to mean that a victim of a progressive occupational disease is not entitled to remain in the uninterrupted care of his or her treating physician. That right was established over a decade ago in Goodman, supra, and nothing we do in this case today should, in my judgment, be interpreted to disturb the sound policy rule laid down in that earlier decision.