WPCM )Brm)^С(&qo+W oBll㸼q0DY0X~'$K' \BHZ'*ǑWMNFa>ԙJQ#GKwP>ۺ!H$,2`5lfG]/xBk%Fc$gԃF7m<ɤ|ϡ#؂EJ[\g0$%,[Y(ufaUBN %n 04S4wUF#! N( ^ * 6 m8 8 U8O O A U: AQ S 0P 0Pi 0D D3 B0<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX3|x<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$  tpO'  Shelby <09Z .Courier New RegularHP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0kh'L U<09Z+ Courier New  7 [͸"   _XXXXXX   Ad FILED͙  November8,1999Cecil_Crowson_,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdA ,cAZ"Arial RegularZ[\]_C<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5((3͸$ T!   ((3͸$ T!   ($$   1  ````'dxd d T!   _`   8qXXdd8TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'T  XXXXxY_B2.jz- `@E/ ttg` x_@LLINTHECOURTOFAPPEALS@@$ `  @$ATKNOXVILLE   `     h      p   WILLIED.HUNLEY,JR.,andwife@*@@*)  KNOXCOUNTY   : BRENDAK.HUNLEYand h   )  03A019902CV00049  VELVAC,INC.@*)     @*)  PlaintiffsAppellants@*) 2  @*)   h  @*)  v.@*)0  HON.HAROLDWIMBERLY, (#(# @*)0  JUDGE (#(# Ѐ@*)   `  SILVERFURNITUREMANUFACTURING@*) 6 CO.andTABSERVICE@*) l  CORPORATION@*) B @*)  DefendantsAppellees@*)0  AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED(#(# JOSEPHB.YANCEYandSTEPHENE.YEAGEROFKNOXVILLEFORAPPELLANTSROBINM.KINGOFKNOXVILLEFORAPPELLEES   `    OPINION &B#    `     h      p    XXXXGoddard,P.J. *p!( #XXX X鍶#   ` ThisisasuitfiledbyWillieD.Hunley,Jr.,andhis .%- wife,BrendaK.Hunley,andVelvac,Inc.,athirdpartytortfeasor,whichsettledaclaimofMr.andMrs.HunleytodeterminewhethertheworkerscompensationcarrierforMr.HunleyshouldbesubrogatedpursuanttoT.C.A.506112(c)toasettlementbyathirdpartywherebyMrs.Hunleyreceivedthesumof$200,000insettlementofherclaimforlossofconsortiumarisingfrominjuriestoherhusband. :R1; Ї   ` TheTrialCourtfoundthattheworkerscompensationcarrierwasentitledtobesubrogatedastoMrs.Hunleys   settlement,resultinginthisappealbytheHunleysandVelvac,  X Inc.,thethirdpartytortfeasor,whichraisesthefollowing d issue:   ` DIDTHETRIALCOURTERRINEXTENDINGTHE h  COMPENSATIONCARRIERSLIENTODAMAGESFORLOSSOF >  CONSORTIUMPAIDBYATHIRDPARTYTOTHESPOUSEOFTHE   INJUREDWORKER?      ` Thefactsgivingrisetothiscontroversyarenotin B dispute.OnMarch29,1994,Mr.Hunley,anemployeeofSilver  FurnitureManufacturingCompany,wasseverelyinjuredwhenthe : airbrakecoupleronatractortrailerhewasoperatingstretched F andbroke,propellingthecouplerintotherearwindowofthe  tractorMr.Hunleywasoperatingandcausinglossofhisright !> eyeandbraindamage.Atthetimeoftrialtheworkers J# compensationcarrierhadpaidinexcessof$125,500inmedical $! expensesand$37,000indisabilitybenefits. &B#    ` AsuitwasfiledbytheHunleysagainstVelvac,Inc., ) ' themanufactureroftheairbrakecoupler.Thereafter,an +F") agreementwasreachedbetweentheHunleysandVelvacwhich R-#+ providedthatMr.Hunleywouldreceivethesumof$200,000for .%- damagesresultingfromhisinjuriesandMrs.Hunleythesumof 0J'/ $200,000forherlossofconsortium.Thetermsofthesettlement V2(1 alsoprovidedthatifthe$200,000paymenttoMrs.Hunleywas 4*3 determinedtobesubjecttothesubrogationlienoftheworkers 5N,5 compensationcarrierthentheHunleysmight,attheirdiscretion, Z7-7 voidthesettlementagreement. 9/9 Ї   ` Thereafter,theHunleysandVelvacfiledthepresent `  case,seekingadeclarationastothesubrogationrightsofthe   compensationcarrierinMrs.Hunleyssettlement.  X    ` TheAppellantsprincipallyrelyonthecaseofBrackins  v.SevierCounty,anunreportedopinionfiledonApril22,1997, \  whichwasdecidedbytheSpecialWorkersCompensationAppeals h  PanelandadoptedbytheSupremeCourt.Inthatcaseoneofthe   issueswasthepreciseissueinthecaseatbar,viz.,whether `  theworkerscompensationcarrierwouldbeentitledtobe l  subrogatedtothatportionofthesettlement,compensatingthe  injuredemployeeswifeforherlossofconsortium. d    ` TheSpecialWorkersCompensationPanelansweredinthe  negative,butindoingsousedthefollowingreasoning:  h  ` Thetrialjudgefoundthesettlementofthe  $  plaintiffsactionagainstthethirdpartydidnot $! allocateaspecificamountoftherecoverytothewife %l" forlossofconsortium.Becauseofthis,thetrial &B# judgeheldhewasunabletoreducetheoffsettowhich x'$ thedefendantwasentitledonthebasisofadeduction N(% intheamountofnetrecoveryforlossofconsortium. $)& Wefind,underthefactssurroundingthiscase,the ) ' trialjudgewascorrectinhisrulingonthisissue. *p!(    ` TheHunleysarguethatitmightbeinferred,ifinfact (.$, anallocationhadbeenmadeastotherecoveryoftheemployee /t&. forhisinjuriesandthatofthewifeforherlossofconsortium, 1 (0 areductionandoffsetwouldnotbewarranted. ,3)2    ` Whileweconcedethatthisisareasonableargument,we 6$-6 feelobligatedtohonoranopinionbythisCourt,whichis 08.8 directlyinpoint. 9|0: Ї   ` InSextonv.TriCitiesInsulation,Inc.,anunreported `  caseofthisCourt,filedonMarch10,1987,inKnoxville,where   anallocationwasmadebetweentheamountreceivedfromthe  X thirdpartytortfeasorbetweentheemployeeandhiswife, d succinctlyaskedandansweredthequestionpresentedinthis  case: \   ` Thepivotalquestiononthisappealis:Wherea   husbandhasbeenawardedworkerscompensationbenefits   andheandhiswifeenterintoasettlementwiththe `  thirdpartytortfeasorresponsibleforhisinjuries, 6 isanamountallocatedtothewifeforlossof l  consortiumoutsidetheemployerssubrogationrights? B Theanswertothequestionis, No.     ` TheSextonCourtquotedfromanearlierSupremeCourt p caseasfollows:    InthecaseofBeamv.MarylandCasualtyCompany,477S.W.2d t" 510(Tenn.1972),anemployeecoveredbyworker'scompensation ,$  waskilledinanaccident.Heleftawidow,adaughteraged17 %x" andasonaged25survivinghim.Theworker'scompensation '$$ benefitswere$18,800.Thewidow,asadministratrix,filedsuit 0)& againstthethirdpartytort-feasorforthebenefitoftheheirs *|!( atlawandnextofkinforthewrongfuldeathofherhusband.The ,(#* casewassettledfor$10,000and,afterpayingcostand 4.$, attorney'sfees,thereremainedanetof$6,666.67.Thetrial /&. courtheldthattheemployer'scompensationcarrierwasentitled 1,(0 toonlyone-thirdoftherecovery,whichwasthewidow'sportion, 83)2 being$2,222.22.Thisholdingwaspredicatedonthefollowing 4+4 findings: 60-6   <8.8   "(1)thatunderthelawofthisStatecomplainantandthe `   twochildrenwereentitledtoshareequallyinthenetrecovery   ofthewrongfuldeathcause;(2)thatcomplainantisthe'only  X recipientofWorkmen'sCompensationbenefitsinthiscase';(3) d that'neitherchildreceivedanyWorkmen'sCompensationbenefits  byvirtueoftheirfather'sdeath';(4)thatT.C.A.50-914was \  designedtopreventa'doublerecovery'bytherecipientofa h  Workmen'sCompensationaward.Fromthesefindingsthetrialcourt   concludesthatdefendant'srightsunderT.C.A.50-914only `  extendedtothewidow'sportionoftheproceedsrecoveredfrom l  theFreshours."  ̀477S.W.2dat512. p   TheSupremeCourtreversedthechancellor,holdinghehad  h misconstruedT.C.A.50-914,now50-6-112.Indoingso,the t" Courtsaid:  $    "In1963theLegislatureamendedChapter277ofthePublic x'$ Actsof1949andsubstitutedinitsplacethelanguagethatis $)& presentlycodifiedasT.C.A.50-914.Wecannotfailtonote *p!( thattheGeneralAssemblyagainprovidedthesamestatutoryplan |,#* sothatintheeventtheemployeeor'thosetowhomhisrightof (.$, actionsurvives,shallrecoveragainstanegligentthirdparty, /t&. afterreceivingcompensationfromtheemployer,thentheemployer 1 (0 shallhaveasubrogationlien'or'acreditonhisfuture ,3)2 liability...totheextentofsaidnetrecovery'.The 4x+4 legislativeintentistoreimburseanemployerforpaymentsmade 6$-6 underaWorkmensCompensationawardfrom'thenetrecovery' 08.8 obtainedbytheemployeeorthosetowhomhisrightofaction 9|0: survives,totheextentofemployer'stotalobligationunderthe `  CompensationAct.(Emphasisinoriginal.)     "AnyotherconstructionplaceduponT.C.A.50-914would p requireustodisregardthelegislativeintent;andthiswewill  notdo." h  ̀477S.W.2dat513.       ` FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrial p Courtisaffirmedandthecauseremandedforcollectionofthe | judgmentandcostsbelow.Costsofappealareadjudgedagainst ( theAppellantsandtheirsureties.  t    `     h     ___________________________ ,$     `     h     HoustonM.Goddard,P.J. %! CONCUR: '$$ ______________________________ *|!( HerschelP.Franks,J. +R") ______________________________  /%- CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J. /&.