WPCJ, WU> 0< 0n 0Bh 0n 0B 0Z 0& 0 0 0c 0" 0 0 0> 0 0 0k 0d 0<R 0 0: 0PU*/ 0?#UN %M(N^ w(4,@ mBY 0aE? 0DA 0J 0T 0^# 0h 0r 0|[ 0 0] 1u 0db=U*}-2 v~$vZ& B-,\  `&Times New Roman' IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE (George Rue Chiu(0George Rue Chiu .   <:Default Para< :Endnote TextXXX<:Endnote Refe< :Footnote TexXXX<:Footnote Ref.B\,TOC 1   X X 2    8.` hp x (#8  .5\,TOC 2   X ` 2    8.` hp x (#8  .5\,TOC 3   X  2    8.` hp x (#8  .5\,TOC 4  ` X 2    8.` hp x (#8  .5\,TOC 5   X h2    8.` hp x (#8  .)P,TOC 6  X (#  8.` hp x (#8  .PP,TOC 7  X 8.` hp x (#8  8.` hp x (#8  .)P,TOC 8  X (#  8.` hp x (#8  .)P,TOC 9  X 2(#  8.` hp x (#8  25\0Index 1 P  X ` 2    8.` hp x (#8 P 25\0Index 2   X ` 2    8.` hp x (#8  :88TOA Heading(#8.` hp x (#820CaptionXXX<:_Equation Ca0A .Footer  (#A7X` hp x (#A:8Page Number(2$ V!..       X X   %2A`Arial#|x(rV$..       X X HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0(uH Z6Times New Roman Regular Xx+s 8n_+:i U ((3$ V!..       X X       0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  /0123456 ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X 3 !      .._t$t ` p%'  S    y   `  #g%  X  B  -  ErrorMainDocumentOnly.-  C       ` ` p%'<  9p`(Times s !#d#      +$       _TherecordcontainsamotiontoamendthecomplainttosubstitutetheadministratoroftheEstateofWilliam_Warrick_ԀasthePlaintiff. ( !#d#      +$       _Inanefforttodemonstratethattheemployerrecognizedtheemployeetobetotallydisabled,theemployeeintroducedaletterfromtheemployerofferingtosettlethecaseforwhattheemployeeclaimswas(andwhattheletterrecitesas)themaximumbenefitpayable.TheletterwasdatedJune2,2000.Theemployeediedlessthanamonthlater,beforeanysettlementcouldbeapprovedbythecourtasrequiredbyTenn.CodeAnn.506206(a)( Theinterestedpartiesshallhavetherighttosettleallmattersofcompensationbetweenthemselves,butallsettlements,beforethesamearebindingoneitherparty,shallbereducedtowritingandshallbeapprovedbythejudgeofthecircuitcourt,chancerycourtorcriminalcourtofthecountywheretheclaimforcompensationisentitledtobemade.).XԀPtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   Serv Geneva  Serv Geneva  d ! .       ?   X   _8dd8   ` ` X'&  B  C  INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEEB   INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  C  ATNASHVILLE'  October4,2001Session WILLIAMWARRICKv.CHEATHAMCOUNTYHIGHWAYDEPARTMENTXAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforCheathamCountyHon.LeonardW.Martin,ChancellorNo.10186@ AV,) ` dE<` AXNo.M200002847SCR3CVFiledDecember4,_2001_AV,) ` dE<` A   &@@Xd&XInthisworkerscompensationcasethedeceasedemployee,WilliamWarrick,hasappealedfromajudgmentoftheChanceryCourtofCheathamCountydenyinghisclaimforbenefitsfiledagainsttheemployer,theCheathamCountyHighwayDepartment._ A   _ԀTheemployee,whofiledaclaimforbenefitsaftersustainingaworkrelatedshoulderinjury,diedpriortotrialfromaheartattackunrelatedtohisemployment.Thetrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmenttotheemployeronthebasisthat_unadjudicated_Ԁclaimsforbenefitsdonotsurvivethe_nonwork_Ԅrelateddeathoftheemployee.TheemployeesappealwasarguedbeforetheSpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPanelpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3),butwastransferredtothefullSupremeCourtpriortothePanelissuingitsdecision.ThesoleissuebeforethisCourtiswhetheran_unadjudicated_claimforbenefitssurvivesthe_nonwork_Ԅrelateddeathoftheworker.Aftercarefulconsideration,weholdthataworkerspersonalrepresentativemayrecoverbenefitsonbehalfofthedeceasedemployeefromthetimeofinjurytothetimeofdeath,eventhoughtheworkersdeathwasunrelatedtotheemployment.Thus,workerscompensationclaimsdonotterminateuponthe_nonwork_Ԅrelateddeathoftheemployeemerelybecausetheclaimhasnotbeenadjudicatedpriortotheworkersdeath.Iftheemployeeisabletofurnishenoughevidencetosatisfytherequisiteburdenofproofestablishingtheclaim,thenbenefitsmaybeawardeduntilthetimeofdeath.Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisthereforereversedandthecaseremanded.&    B  C  Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e);Judgmentofthetrialcourtreversed '  ; caseremanded .&  B  C  FrankF.Drowota,III,C.J.,deliveredtheopinionoftheCourt,inwhich E.RileyAnderson,AdolphoA.Birch,JaniceM.Holder,andWilliamM.Barker,JJ. ,joined.B  XC  '  StacyA.Turner,Clarksville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,WilliamWarrick.D.BrettBurrow,GordonC.Aulgur,andMikeVetter,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,CheathamCountyHighwayDepartment.  &  B  C  0 0 0 0 0 OPINION 0 0 0 0 Background B   Background  C     '  Theemployee,WilliamWarrick,agesixtyfour,workedfortheCheathamCountyHighwayDepartmentdrivingadumptruck.Warrickhadbeenamanuallaborerallofhislife.Hehadasecondgradeeducationandcouldnotreadorwrite.̀OnDecember18,1998,theemployeeinjuredhisshoulderwhileclimbingthesideofadumptrucktoreachatarpcoveringaload.Hewasdiagnosedwithatornrotatorcuffandunderwentsurgery.Despitesurgery,however,hewasneverabletoreturntoworkandreachedmaximummedicalimprovementonJune21,1999.Accordingtotheemployee,theinjurymadeitdifficultforhimtodrivehispickuptruckorevenholdacanofcoke.Oneofhisphysiciansassessedatwentyonepercentimpairmenttotheupperextremity,andanotherphysiciangaveathirtypercentimpairmentrating.Oneofthephysicianstestifiedthattheemployeecouldnotreturntothetypeofworkhewasdoingpriortotheinjury.̀TheemployeefiledsuitforbenefitsonNovember9,1999.Priortohiscasebeingtried,however,hesufferedafatalnonworkrelatedheartattackonJune28,2000.Shortlythereafter,theemployerfiledamotionforsummaryjudgment,arguingthatthecasehadtobedismissedbecausetheclaimhadnotbeensettledortriedbeforetheemployeesdeath.Theemployerconcededatthehearingonthemotionthattheemployeewouldhavebeenentitledtobenefitshadhesurvived,althoughtheextentofdisabilitywouldhavebeendisputed. B   ׀   Thetrialcourtreluctantlygrantedtheemployersmotionforsummaryjudgmentanddismissedthecase.Indoingso,thetrialjudgestatedthattherewas alotoflogicandappealtotheemployeesargumentthatbenefitsshouldbeawardeduntilthedateofdeathinordertoremoveanyincentiveemployersmighthaveindelayingtheresolutionofcasesinvolvingworkerswithseriousorterminalillnesses.Nevertheless,thecourtfeltconstrainedtofollowtheruleadoptedinMoorev.DrakeBakeries,Inc.,834S.W.2d939(Tenn.1992),thatunadjudicatedclaimsdonotsurvivethenonworkrelateddeathoftheworker.Theemployeeappealedthetrialcourtsruling,andthecasewasarguedbeforetheSpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPanelpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3).TheappealwastransferredtothefullSupremeCourtpriortothePanelissuingitsdecision.Thequestionwemustdecideiswhetheranunadjudicatedclaimforbenefitssurvivesthenonworkrelateddeathoftheworker.   0 0 0 0 0 Analysis    Ordinarily,thestandardofreviewinaworkerscompensationcaseisdenovoupontherecordofthetrialcourt,accompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthefindings,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(2).However,whensummaryjudgmenthasbeengrantedinaworkerscompensationcase,thestandardofreviewisgovernedbyTenn.R.Civ.P.56.Downenv.AllstateIns.Co.,811S.W.2d523,524(Tenn.1991).UnderRule56,acourtmust reviewtherecordwithoutapresumptionofcorrectnesstodeterminewhethertheabsenceofgenuineandmaterialfactualissuesentitlethemovanttojudgmentasamatteroflaw.Finisterv.HumboldtGen.Hosp.,Inc.,970S.W.2d435,43738(Tenn.1998).  ThemostrecentcaseaddressingthesurvivabilityofunadjudicatedclaimsforbenefitsisMoorev.DrakeBakeries,Inc.,834S.W.2d939(Tenn.1992).Inthatcase,theemployeesufferedacompensableinjuryandfiledsuittorecoverbenefits.However,hediedofanonworkrelatedcausepriortotrial.Thetrialcourtfoundthattheemployeespersonalrepresentativewasentitledtorecoverbenefitsfromthetimeoftheinjury,whichwasfoundtobecompensable,tothetimeofdeath.Onappeal,thisCourtreversedandheldthatunadjudicatedclaimsforbenefitsdonotsurvivethenonworkrelateddeathoftheworker.Id.at940.AccordingtoMoore,theCourt hasconsistentlyheldthatnounadjudicatedclaimforbenefitsandonlyadjudicatedbenefitsduefromthetimeofinjurytodeathsurvivethenonworkrelateddeathoftheemployee.Id.Thus,theeffectofMoorehasbeenthatclaimsforbenefitsnotreducedtoajudgmentduringtheemployeeslifetimedonotsurvivetheemployeesdeathfromanonworkrelatedcause.Thisistherulerelieduponbytheemployerandthetrialcourtinthepresentcasetodenybenefits.̀ԀXԀTheemployeeinthiscase,whoisseekingbenefitsfromthetimeofmaximummedicalimprovementtothetimeofdeath,arguesthathiscaseisdistinguishablefromMoorebecauseMooreinvolvedpermanentpartialdisability,whereasthiscaseinvolvespermanenttotaldisability.However,theemployeefailstoofferapersuasiverationale,andwecannotthinkofone,forwhysuchadistinctionshouldmakeadifference.Mooreclearlyholdsthatallunadjudicatedclaimsdonotsurvivethenonworkrelateddeathoftheworker.Accordingly,casesinvolvingpermanentpartialdisabilityandpermanenttotaldisabilityshouldbetreatedalikeunderMoore.̀Thatsaid,wearepersuadedthatMooreshouldbereexaminedbecauseitisinconsistentwiththecasesthatitcites,aswellassoundpublicpolicy.Specifically,MoorereliedheavilyuponSherlinv.LibertyMut.Ins.Co.,584S.W.2d455(Tenn.1979).InSherlin,theemployeesufferedacompensableinjuryandenteredintoawrittensettlementagreementwiththeemployer.Id.at456.πBeforethesettlementwasapprovedbythecourt,however,theemployeediedfromaninjuryunrelatedtohisemployment.Id.InMoore,thisCourtcorrectlynotedthatSherlinheldthatsettlementsmustbeapprovedduringthelifetimeoftheworkertobeenforceableandthereforethepartiessettlementwasnotbinding.Moore,834S.W.2dat940.TheSherlinCourt,however,onlydisallowedclaimsforbenefitsthatextendedbeyondthelifetimeoftheworkerunderthesettlement.Benefitsthathadaccruedduringthelifetimeoftheworkerwerefoundtobecompensableuntildeath._Sherlin_,584S.W.2dat458( Thecourtisoftheopinionthat[theemployer]shouldpaytothe[employees]personalrepresentativetemporarytotalbenefitswhichhadaccrueduntilthedateofhisdeath.).NomentionofthataspectofSherlinappearsinMoore.Instead,Moorestatesthatthe effectofSherlinisthatclaimsforbenefitswhichhavenotbeenreducedtoajudgmentduringthelifetimeoftheworkerdonotsurvivetheworkersdeathfromanonworkrelatedcause.Moore,834S.W.2dat940.MooresconstructionofSherlinwasthusoverlybroad,forSherlinfoundthatbenefitsthathadaccruedduringthelifetimeoftheworkerwerecompensableuntildeath.π_Sherlin_,584S.W.2dat458.  Similarly,othercasesreliedonbyMooredonotsupportMooresbroadholding.Forexample,Rosev.CityofBristol,315S.W.2d237,239(Tenn.1958)andBryBlockMercantileCo.v.Carson,288S.W.726,728(Tenn.1926)holdthatunadjudicatedclaimsforbenefitsareunenforceableaftertheworkersdeathfromnonworkrelatedcauses,butneithercaseinvolvedbenefitspayabletothetimeofdeathbecausetheemployeeshadreceivedbenefitsuntiltheirdeaths.AndinMarshallv.SouthPittsburgLumber&CoalCo.,47S.W.2d553,554(Tenn.1932),anothercasecitedbyMoore,itwasheldthatapersonalrepresentativewasnotentitledtorecoveranentireawardthathadbeenmade,but onlyrecoversomuchoftheawardashadaccruedatthetimeoftheemployeesdeath.Theholdingsinthesecasesareconsistentwiththeprimarypurposeofworkerscompensation,whichistoprovidebenefitsinlieuofwages.Hensonv.CityofLawrenceburg,851S.W.2d809,814(Tenn.1993).Wagesceasewithdeathandthereforecompensationmustalsoceasewithdeath.Sincethepurposeofworkerscompensationistoprovidebenefitsinlieuofwages,aworkersclaimforbenefitsbetweeninjuryanddeathshouldanddoessurvivetheclaimantsnonworkrelateddeath. Moreover,wearepersuadedthatsoundpublicpolicyfavorsallowingclaimsforunadjudicatedbenefitstosurvivethenonworkrelateddeathoftheemployee.TheWorkersCompensationActisaremedialstatutewhichmustbegivenanequitableconstructionbythecourtssothatits objectsandpurposes...mayberealizedandattained.Tenn.CodeAnn.506116.Thepurposesoftheactincludethepromptpaymentofbenefits,CraneCo.v.Jamieson,237S.W.2d546,548(Tenn.1951),placementuponindustryratherthanonsocietythecostofinjuriesresultingfromtheproductionanddistributionofgoodsandservices,Franklinv.Stone&WebsterEnggCorp.,191S.W.2d431,432(Tenn.1946),andprovidingtheinjuredworkerwithperiodicpaymentsasasubstituteforregularwages,Henson,851S.W.2dat814.ThebroadholdingofMoorestandsinoppositiontothesegoalsbydenyingbenefitstoinjuredpersonswho,insomecases,areclearlyentitledtothembuthavethemisfortuneofdyingbeforetheirclaimsarereducedtoajudgment.Weseenoreasonforemployerstoreceiveacorrespondingwindfall.Astheemployerinthiscasestatedatthehearingonthemotionforsummaryjudgment,itisimportantto lookatthefactsofthiscaseandseethatjusticeisdone.Justicewillnotbeservedbydenyingbenefitstothoserightfullyentitledtoreceivethemmerelybecausetheyfailtolivelongenoughtosurvivedelaysinherentinthejudicialprocess.Itisillogicalandunfairtobasetheclaimantsrighttoarecoveryuponhisabilitytooutlivethatprocess.̀Inaddition,theruleadoptedinMoorecanleadtounjustresults.Littleimaginationisrequiredtoenvisionascenariowhereanemployeroritsinsurancecompanydeliberatelydelayssettlingortryingtheclaimofaseriouslyorterminallyillworkersincetheclaimwouldbeextinguishedbyhisnonworkrelateddeath.Whilewearenotsuggestingthatisthesituationhere,thisexampleillustratestheincentiveemployershavetoexploitfortheirownbenefitthecircumstancesofemployeeswhofindthemselvesfacingseriousorterminalillness.Rewardinglessthandiligenceinsettlingortryingclaimsiscontrarytothegoalofencouragingthepromptpaymentofbenefits.CraneCo.v.Jamieson,237S.W.2dat548.Thelawshouldnotprovidesuchanincentive. Finally,wenotethatmanyjurisdictionsconsideringtheissuehaveheldthatclaimsforunadjudicatedbenefitsfromthetimeofinjuryuntildeathsurvivethenonworkrelateddeathoftheclaimant.See,e.g.,Ala.DryDockv.Director,OfficeofWorkersComp.,804F.2d1558(11thCir.1986);Reedv.IndustrialComm.,454P.2d157(Ariz.1969);Smithv.SubsequentInjuriesFund,344P.2d293(Cal.1959);EstateofHueyv.J.C.TruckingInc.,837P.2d1218(Colo.1992);PetersonsEstatev.J.R.SimplotCo.,358P.2d587(Idaho1961);Youngv.Bentley,449S.W.2d755(Ky.Ct.App.1970);Turnerv.SouthernWheel&RimServ.Inc.,332So.2d770(La.1976);Walkerv.U.S.Equip.Co.,290N.W.2d36(Mich.Ct.App.1967);Bonev.DanielHammDrayageCo.,449S.W.2d169(Mo.1970);Breenv.IndustrialAcc.Bd.,436P.2d701(Mont.1968);Curetonv.JomaPlumbing&HeatingCo.,184A.2d644(N.J.1962);Inmanv.Meares,101S.E.2d692(N.C.1958);Nicholsonv.Copperweld,672N.E.2d657(Ohio1996);Simmonsv.UniversityofTexas,706S.W.2d752(Tex.Ct.App.1986);Powellv.Dept.ofLabor,485P.2d990(Wash.1971).Asstatedbytheleadingtreatiseonworkerscompensation,thegeneralruleisthat therighttoreceivefutureworkerscompensationbenefitsisnotinheritable.However,accruedbutunpaidbenefitsareinheritable.4ArthurLarson,LarsonsWorkersCompensationLaw,89,89.05(2001).  Wearenotunmindfulofthechallengessomeemployersmayfaceindefendingclaimswheretheemployeehasdied.Afterall,thekeywitnessisnolongeravailable.Thus,itmaybedifficultorevenimpossibleinsomecasestofullyexploreissuessuchascausationandextentofdisability.Yet,thesesamechallengeswillbefacedbytheemployeespersonalrepresentative,soneitherpartyshouldenjoyanadvantageovertheother.Indeed,itmaybeimpossibleinsomecasesfollowingtheworkersdeathtodeterminewhetherheorsheisentitledtoanybenefits.Suchisnotthesituationhere,however,wheretherearemedicalandlaydepositions,namelytheemployees,inwhichhedetailsthefactualcircumstancessurroundinghisinjury,howtheinjuryimpactedhisabilitytoearnalivingandhisdailyactivities,hismedicalcondition,hisworkhistory,andhisfinancialcircumstances.Ifneeded,additionalevidencemaybetaken,suchasthetestimonyofotherhealthcareproviders,coworkers,andfamilymembers.Ofcourse,theburdenwillbeontheemployeetoprovewhat,ifany,benefitsheorsheisentitledtoreceive.  0 0 0 0 0 Conclusion    Inviewoftheforegoingdiscussion,weholdthataworkerspersonalrepresentativemayrecoverbenefitsonbehalfofthedeceasedemployeefromthetimeofinjurytothetimeofdeath,eventhoughtheworkersdeathwasunrelatedtotheemployment.Thus,workerscompensationclaimsdonotterminateuponthenonworkrelateddeathoftheemployeemerelybecausetheclaimhasnotbeenadjudicatedpriortotheworkersdeath.Iftheemployeeisabletofurnishenoughevidencetosatisfytherequisiteburdenofproofestablishingtheclaim,benefitsmaybeawardeduntilthetimeofdeath.Accordingly,theruleinMooreislimitedtocasesinvolvingunadjudicatedclaimspayableafterdeath.̀Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisreversedandthecaseremandedforproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.Costsofthisappealaretaxedtotheemployer,CheathamCountyHighwayDepartment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ______________________________________ 0 0 0 0 0 0 FrankF.Drowota,ChiefJustice