WPCX  =Z6!,;C-Іh d;capyȴ+XJ΍}錜0m6ld];&b詛nزʜhM5ev? o V@LNC#TZL冀TH7sc1]+y]-EWSqK~+zaa{)谰\\׶FC4wS:s9t b`CFL; ֎&I~rf}~܈"Nbh5nqX'DX={%ԏ=85Zbo6^_օJ'N9bMۊ,@~*00CķqFJxbVVY2)٬Χ2m ‰ͳ>c2:u;RR0$ ځ"(ud{"/Z !@[1zPڤJ23g/󿘃3:*# LUNW % 0UNw@44HW__U:b  U: AQ * 0D 0D4 0Dx x D/ B B D3% HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(3c$7|XXdXXd7  HTXXTR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT(Y Z 6Times New Roman Regular DDDVӀӀDLL%YUS3|x ""   X5XXX D| X X5   Ad FILED X5X  D|  October12,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular ""  X5XXXD| XX5   Ad FILEDX5X D|  October12,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxd dP Pd'''''dxd 3c!7XXdd7  HXXTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T    7XdXXd7r )<,(j 8` `@E0` 8ttxPh  rߛ   INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANELATNASHVILLE @#(July20,1998Session)  H DANNYE.RAY,   h     ) p NO.01S019710CH00223 8   `     h     ) ` Plaintiff/Appellant h     ) p MARSHALLCHANCERY X   `     h     )v. `     h     ) x   `     h     ) p HON.LEERUSSELL  THEYASUDAFIRE&MARINE  ) p CHANCELLOR  INSURANCECOMPANY,    ) p    `     h     ) ` Defendant/Appellee    )   FortheAppellant: h     FortheAppellee: h  DonaldD.Zuccarello h     D.BrettBurrow &v Suite206,WashingtonSquare    Suite2600,TheTower 6 222SecondAvenueNorth    611CommerceStreet F  Nashville,TN37201 h     P.O.Box23890 V!  `     h     Nashville,TN372023890   MEMORANDUMOPINION: *6&$ MembersofPanel: JudgeBenH.Cantrell /n*( SeniorJudgeWilliamH.InmanSpecialJudgeJoeC.Loser,Jr.  AFFIRMED   h      p   INMAN,SeniorJudge ;"74   ` Thisworkers'compensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecial  Workers'CompensationAppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)forhearingandreportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.# # 4   @.I `   ` Theplaintiffseeksanenlargementofapriorawardforworkers |  compensationbenefits,asallegedlyprovidedbyT.C.A.506241(a)(2).Thedefendantsmotionforsummaryjudgmentwasgranted.Appealfroma   summaryjudgmentorderinaworkerscompensationcaseisnotcontrolledbythedenovostandardofreview,butisgovernedbyRule56,TennesseeRulesof 4 CivilProcedure.Downenv.AllstateIns.Co.,811S.W.2d523(Tenn.1991). ` Further,nopresumptionofcorrectnessattachestodecisionsgrantingsummaryjudgmentbecausetheyinvolveonlyquestionsoflaw;thusonappealthereviewingcourtmustmakeafreshdeterminationconcerningwhethertherequirementsofRule56havebeenmet.Gonzalesv.AlmanConstr.Co.,857 #` S.W.2d42(Tenn.1993).# # @. <%  @rr-II ` ThepetitionersufferedasprainedshoulderonNovember11,1994,during )$" thecourseofhisemploymentbyKantusCorporation.Hesustainedasevenpercentpermanentpartialimpairmentasaresultoftheaccidentandreturnedtoworkafterrecuperation.Hisclaimforbenefitsforpartialpermanentwholebodydisabilitywassettledonthebasisof17.5percent,orseventyweeks,arrivedatbymultiplyinghisanatomicalimpairmentby2.5,asdirectedbyT.C.A.506241(a)(1).ThesettlementwasapprovedonJune30,1995,uponthejointpetitionofKantusCorporationanditsinsurer,TheYasudaFireandMarine 830 InsuranceCompanyofAmerica,filedagainsttheplaintiff.Thejudgmentapprovingsettlementrecites(1)thattherespondentwasremovingpartsfromaconveyorandstrainedhisrightshoulderresultinginasevenpercentimpairment,forwhichhewastreateduntilApril19,1995;(2)thatthesettlementbasedon17.5percentwholebodydisabilityisfairandjust,(3)thatitcomplieswiththeworkerscompensationlaw,(3)thatitisinthebestinterestoftherespondent,and(4)thatthepetitionersarereleasedfrom anyandallfurtherclaimstorespondentforanyworkerscompensationbenefitsasaresultoftheaccidentandtheinjuriesdescribedabove.Thebenefitswerepaidinalumpsum. @EE-III     ` ThePetitiontoReconsiderwasfiledDecember17,1996,allegingthatthe <  petitionerwasforcedtotakeapermanentleaveofabsenceinthatKantusCorporationinformedPetitionerthattherewasnoworkavailableforpetitioner,andthathehassufferedagreaterindustrialdisabilitysincethelossofhisemploymentforwhichhedeservespermanent,partialdisabilitypursuanttoT.C.A.506241(a)(2). ` TherespondentYasudaFire&MarineInsuranceCo.filedamotionforsummaryjudgmentallegingaccordandsatisfactionbasedonthecourtapprovedsettlementandrelease. ` ThemotionwasresistedbytheplaintiffonthegroundthathewasnotadvisedbythecourtofhisrighttoseekareconsiderationpursuanttoT.C.A.506241(a)(2). ` Thetrialcourtmadethesefindings:8 ` (1)8 ` 8"` 8"Thattheplaintiffwasadvisedinopencourtthatifthe 50. proposedsettlementwasapprovedhewouldnotbeentitledtofurtherbenefits;      8 41 8 ` (2)8 ` 8"` 8"Thattheemployeranditsinsurerarereleasedfrom   anyandallfurtherclaimsbyrespondentasaresultoftheaccidentandinjury;    8 `  ` 8"` 8" 8 ` (3)8 ` 8"` 8"Thattheprovisionsof506241(a)(2)werenot @ explicatedtotheplaintiff.     @LL-IV  p  ` Themotionforsummaryjudgmentwasthereupongranted.Theplaintiff <  appeals,andpresentsasthesoleissuewhethertheJudgmentapprovingthe \  workerscompensationsettlement encompassedatermorconditionwhere[he]waivedorreleasedhisrightforareconsiderationpursuanttoT.C.A.506241(a)(2). ` Parenthetically,wenotethattheplaintiffclaimsanotherinjurywhichallegedlyoccurredonOctober23,1995,exacerbatingtheshoulderinjuryofNovember11,1994,forwhichhefiledasuitseekingbenefits.Thissuitispendingtrial. @yy.V \!   ` T.C.A.506241(a)(2)provides: x#   8 ` (2)Inaccordancewiththissection,thecourtsmayreconsideruponthefilingofanewcauseofactiontheissueofindustrialdisability.Suchreconsiderationshallexamineallpertinentfactors,includinglayandexperttestimony,employeesage,education,skillsandtraining,localjobopportunities,andcapacitytoworkattypesofemploymentavailableinclaimantsdisabledcondition.Suchreconsiderationmaybemadeinappropriatecaseswheretheemployeeisnolongeremployedbythepreinjuryemployerandmakesapplicationtotheappropriatecourtwithinone(1)yearoftheemployeeslossofemployment,ifsuchlossofemploymentiswithinfourhundred(400)weeksofthedaytheemployeereturnedtowork.Inenlargingapreviousaward,thecourtmustgivetheemployercreditforpriorbenefitspaidtotheemployeeinpermanentpartialdisabilitybenefits,andanynewawardremainssubjecttothemaximumestablishedinϜsubsection(b). ` 8"` 8"    ` Attheoutset,weholdsummarilythatthetrialcourtisundernodutytoadviseaplaintiffinaworkerscompensationproceedingthathe/shemayseeka 841 reconsiderationoftheaward.Theplaintiffsargumentthatthesettlementwasmerelyacontractbetweenhimandhisemployer,andbecausethecontractdidnotincludeawaiverofhisrighttoseekareconsiderationtherewasnomeetingoftheirmindsandhencenobindingcontract,isnotpersuasive.Weneednotfurtherbelaborthispoint,whichcollapsestheplaintiffscase. @LL-VI P   ` Butinthesamevein,thedefendantsargumentthatthesettlement l  constitutedanaccordandsatisfactionisnotpersuasive.Theappellantarguedtothetrialcourt,andtous,thattheopinionoftheSupremeCourtinSmithv.  ColtharpPianoWorld,Inc.,No.02S019210CH00070(Tenn.Sup.Ct,filed  February7,1994atJackson),iscontrollingoftheissue.InSmith,theplaintiff < wasinjuredin1991,andfiledasuitforbenefitsagainstColtharpanditsinsurer,LibertyMutualInsuranceCompany. ` BothColtharpandLibertyMutualrespondedthattheLibertyMutualpolicyhadbeencanceledonMarch29,1988.Indeedithad,butLibertyMutualhadneglectedtoinformtheCommissionerofLaborofthefact,whicheffectivelycontinueditscoveragepursuanttoT.C.A.506407.Whenconfrontedwiththismanagementlapse,LibertyMutualsettledtheclaimforalumpsumandwasthereuponreleasedfromallfurtherorfutureliability. ` ButthecaseproceededtotrialagainstColtharp,theemployer,andSmithwasawardedbenefitsfortemporaryandpermanentdisabilityandmedicalexpenses.Coltharpsearliermotiontodismissbasedonaccordandsatisfactionwasoverruledbythetrialcourt,butwassustainedbytheSupremeCourt,ϜDrowota,Justice,whichheldthattheplaintiffhadsimplyrecoveredtwiceforthesameinjuryanddisability,whichisnotpermittedundertheworkerscompensationlaw. 952  ` SmithisclearlyinappositetothecaseatBar,andthedefenseofaccordand  satisfactionisnotrelevant. @,VIII @   ` Intheinterestofterminatinglitigation,andjudicialeconomy,weobserve  \ thatT.C.A.506231,althoughnotpleaded,forthepurposesofthiscaseremainsviableanddispositive.Itprovides:  8 ` 506231.LumppaymentsfinalModificationofperiodic l  paymentsformorethansixmonths. Allamountspaidbyemployer z  andreceivedbytheemployeeortheemployeesdependents,bylumpsumpayments,shallbefinal,buttheamountofanyawardpayableperiodicallyformorethansix(6)monthsmaybemodifiedasfollows: ` 8"` 8" 8 ` 񀛀(1)Atanytimebyagreementofthepartiesandapprovalbythecourt;or ` 8"` 8" 8 ` 񀛀(2)Ifthepartiescannotagree,thenatanytimeaftersix(6)monthsfromthedateoftheawardanapplicationmaybemadetothecourtsbyeitherparty,onthegroundofincreaseordecreaseofincapacityduesolelytotheinjury.Insuchcases,thesameprocedureshallbefollowedasin506225incaseofadisputedclaimforcompensation. ` 8"` 8"  `    ` InNailsv.AetnaIns.Co.,834S.W.2d289(Tenn.1992),theplaintiffon N  June7,1990,settledacompensationclaimbasedona55percentpermanentpartialdisabilityassessment.Paymentwasmadeinalumpsum.Hereturnedtoworkasastoremanager,butwasterminatedonNovemberNovember30,1990becausehecouldnotperformhisjob.HefiledacomplaintonFebruary6,1991alleginganewinjury,oranaggravationofhispreexistingcondition,orinthealternative,soughttoincreasehispreviouslumpsumsettlementaward.Nailsinsisted,inter -^(& alia,thatthelumpsumawardshouldbemodifiedorsetaside,firstbecause ./~*( T.C.A.506231hadbeenimpliedlyrepealedbyT.C.A.506206,and,secondly,thatthejudgmentshouldbesetasideunderRule60.02,RulesofCivilProcedure.TheSupremeCourt,perJusticeAnderson,held  8 ` T.C.A.506231(1983&Supp.1991)providesthatlumpsumsettlementsarefinal,whereasperiodicawardsformorethansixmonthsaremodifiable.Allamountspaidbyemployerandreceivedby 952 theemployeeortheemployeesdependents,bylumpsumpayments,shallbefinal,buttheamountofanyawardpayableperiodicallyfor  morethansixmonthsmaybemodified...[Emphasisadded] ` 8"` 8"  @$.....  0 8 ` ThisCourtrecognizedinReamsv.TrostelMechanicalIndus.,Inc., > 522S.W.2d170,172073(Tenn.1975),thatthelanguageofT.C.A.  N 506231,whichprovidesthatlumpsumawardsarefinal,wasimpliedlyrepealedtotheextentthatitconflictedwithT.C.A.506206,whichallowssuchsettlementstobesetasideundercertaincircumstancesifapplicationismadetothetrialcourtwithin30daysafterthedivisionofworkerscompensationreceiptofthejudgment.Thus,ifT.C.A.506206isnotapplicablebyreasonofitstimeconstraints,lumpsumsettlementsarefinal.Evenifitsprovisionsare n  applicable,thetrialcourtmustbeshownthatthesettlementdidnotsecuretotheemployeeinasubstantialmannerthebenefitsoftheWorkersCompensationAct.AswepointedoutinCorbyv.  Matthews,541S.W.2d789,793(Tenn.1976),boththedefendantand  theplaintifftakeariskwhentheyenterintolumpsumsettlementsbecauseoftheirfinality.....[emphasisadded].` 8"` 8"    ` T.C.A.506241(a)(2)wasenactedsubsequenttoNails.Primafacie, > section2thereofseeminglyconflictswithT.C.A.506231,buttheLegislature, ^ underfamiliarrulesofconstruction,ispresumedtohavebeenawareoftheexistenceofT.C.A.506231andwascontenttoleaveitundisturbed.FollowingNails,weholdthatthelumpsumpaymentwasfinalandforeclosed n" theissue.NoRule60motionwasfiled. ` Finally,weobservethatifT.C.A.506241(a)(2)isnotreadinpari &!  materiawithotherstatutes,nojudgmentwouldbecomefinaluntiloneyear ($" followinglossofemployment.ItisdoubtfulthattheLegislatureintendedthisresult.Sincethiscourtmayaffirmajudgmentcorrectinresultbutrenderedupondifferent,incomplete,orerroneousgrounds,Duckv.Howell,729S.W.2d110 ./~*( (Tenn.App.1986),thejudgmentisaffirmedatthecostsoftheappellant. `     h    `     h     _______________________________ `     h     WilliamH.Inman,SeniorJudge 952 Ї̛̛̛̛̜CONCUR:_______________________________BenH.Cantrell,Judge_______________________________JoeC.Loser,Jr.,SpecialJudge  `  H}r )<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP  r@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @  )ATNASHVILLEDANNYE.RAY,   h     } p MARSHALLCHANCERY  `  `     h     } p No.9991Below  p  ` Plaintiff/Appellant h     } 0   `     h     } p Hon.LeeRussell @  vs. `     h     } p Chancellor P   `     h     }THEYASUDAFIRE&MARINE  } p  INSURANCECOMPANY,    } p No.01S019710CH00223    `     h     } ` Defendant/Appellee    } p AFFIRMED  @(JUDGMENTORDER `  ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtupontheentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferraltotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanel'sMemorandumOpinionsettingforthitsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference. `  Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthattheMemorandumOpinionofthePanelshouldbeacceptedandapproved;and `  Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanel'sfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawareadoptedandaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgmentoftheCourt. XX `  CostswillbepaidbyPlaintiff/AppellantandSurety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. `  ITISSOORDEREDon"*US , US , *October12,1998. `     h      p PERCURIAM H947 #},C#