WPC Rŧ-mr[R;FD!3RS>גA\We hw8<{9P}0q""  WayneWoodTimberContractor,etal 'L#! SteveBeal,Lexington,TNfortheappellee,SammyDaleBenson *h%#  8sdd8   B  MEMORANDUMOPINION     ӀSammyDaleBenson( Benson),theemployeeappellee,wasworkingfor ( WayneWood,d/b/aWayneWoodTimberContractor( Wood),theemployer 6 appellantonMarch1,1997whileoperatinga skidderdraggingfallentrees D fromthewoods.Bensonlostcontroloftheskidderwhiledrivingdownahill.  R Hejumpedofftheskidder,strikingthegroundwithsuchforceastocause  ` seriousinjurytohisleftankle,leg,hip,back,andmuchofhisbody.Benson  n hadseveralsurgeriestotreathisinjuries.Hispermanentinjuriesincludethe , | shorteningofhisleftlegbyoneandonehalfinchesandthelossof :  movementinhisankle.ThetrialcourtfoundthatBensonhadaverylimited H  educationandthathisjobskillslimitedhisemploymentopportunitiestojobs V  requiringmanuallabor.Thedoctorsassignedananatomicaldisabilityrating d  of37%tothebodyasawhole.ThetrialcourtawardedBensonpermanent r  totaldisabilitybenefitsplusfuturemedicalbenefits.    ThecourtheldtwohearingsuponmotionsofBensonrequesting  substantiallumpsumpayments.Bensoninitiallyrequestedcommutationof  theentireaward.Littleevidencewaspresentedatthefirsthearing.Thetrial  courtdeniedtherequestforacommutationoftheentireawarduponafinding  thatBensoncouldnoteffectivelymanagesuchasubstantialsumofmoney. $ Accordingly,Bensonsrequestforcommutationoftheentireawardwas 2 denied. @ Ѐ  Subsequently,Bensonpresentedamorelimitedrequest,totalingonly  \ $65,000. '  1      ׀Thisrequestwassupportedbythetestimonyofafinancialexpert. j Moreover,Bensonidentifiedtwospecificneeds,$50,000forthepurchaseof ( x ahomeand$15,000topayoffabankloanfromBankofLexington,which 6! wasincurredtopaythemedicalandrelatedexpensesincurredasaresultof D" thisinjury. R#   Whilethetrialcourtmaintaineditspreviousdeterminationthat the n%  CourtdidnotfindthatPlaintiffhadtheabilitytowiselymanageandcontrolan |&!  unrestrictedlumpsumaward,thecourtawardedBensonalumpsum '"! paymentof$65,000,upontheconditionthatthemoney godirectlyandsolely  forthepurchaseoftherealpropertydescribedatthehearinginthiscause  andforthepaymentofthedebtunderthebanknote. '  2      ׀Theremainderofthe  benefits,minusattorneysfees,weretobepaidinstatutoryinstallments. *   Ourreviewisdenovowithapresumptionofcorrectnessunlessthe  F preponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.CodeAnn.506  T 225(e)(2).  b   Thecourtmustconsider(1)whetherthecommutationwillbeinthebest .~  interestoftheemployeeand(2)theabilityoftheemployeetowiselymanage <  andcontrolthecommutedawardtocommuteanawardtoalumpsum J  payment.Tenn.CodeAnn.506229.Theburdenofproofisonthe X  employeetosatisfybothrequirements.  Noestablishedformulaexiststo f  determinesatisfactionofthesetwoprongs.Courtsmayexercisetheirown t discretionandanalyzeeachcaseonanadhocbasis.SeeN.Am.Royalties,  Inc.v.Thrasher,817S.W.2d308,311(Tenn.1991).    WoodarguesthattheinitialfindingthatBensonwasnotabletowisely  manageandcontrolanunrestrictedlumpsumawardprecludedthetrialcourt   fromcommutinganypartoftheaward.Woodreasonsthatsucharulingis  incontradictionwiththestatutorytwoprongtest.AccordingtoWood,once & thetrialcourtdeniedarequestforanunrestrictedlumpsumonthebasisof 4 aninabilitytomanagealargesumofmoney,thecourtdidnothavethe B authoritytograntanylumpsum,restrictedorunrestricted,wholeorpartial. P Wedisagree. ^   OurSupremeCourthaspreviouslyaffirmedthegrantingofapartial *!z lumpsumforspecificpurposes.See,Forkumv.AetnaLife&CasualtyIns. 8" Co.,852S.W.2d230,232(Tenn.1993).InForkumthetrialcourtordereda F# workertousealumpsumpaymenttorepaydebts.Onappeal,ourSupreme T$ Courtcommented, Itisinterestingtonotethatthetrialjudgedidnotleavethe b%  injuredworkeranyfundstomanage,butrequiredthattheentirecommuted p&!  sumbepaidouttocreditors.Accordingly,ourcourtshavepreviously ~'"! approvedarestrictiveprocedure. (#"    8sdd8      Woodalsocontendsthatthetrialcourthadnojurisdictiontoconducta 8 secondhearingortomodifyitspreviousdeterminationonceitdeniedthefirst  F requestforacommutedlumpsum.Woodcitesnoauthoritytosupportthis  T position.Moreover,wefinditunpersuasive.Thetrialcourtdeterminedit  b appropriatetoconductasecondhearing.Sincethereisnoauthority  p prohibitingitfromdoingso,wefindnoerror. .~    Thetrialcourtwaspresentedwithandfoundsufficientevidenceto J  satisfythetwoprongtestfortheamountsandspecificpurposesidentified. X  Specifically,thetrialcourtfoundthatBensonhadacontractforthepurchase f  ofahomeandBensonpresentedevidenceofabanknoteof$15,000fordebt t incurredasaresultofthisinjury.Whilethetrialcourtmaintaineditsprevious  determinationthatBensoncouldnoteffectivelymanageanunrestrictedsum  ofmoney,thecourtspecificallyfoundthatpaymentofthesumsrequested  wereinthebestinterestoftheemployeeand,withtherestrictionsimposed  bythecourt,thenecessarycontrolswereestablished.Accordingly,wefind   noerrorwiththetrialcourtconductingasecondhearing.    WoodnextarguesthatBensonmightfailtousethe$65,000in 4 accordancewiththecourtorder.Whileweagreethatsafeguardsare B necessary,theargumentbyWoodisclearlynotintendedtoprecludemisuse P ofthefunds;theargumentisatransparentefforttodenythecommuted ^ award.Thetrialcourtmadeitclearthatitwasconcernedthattheemployee  l mightmisusesomeorallofthesesums;accordingly,thecourtimposed *!z restrictions.SuchrestrictionseliminatetheriskaddressedbyWood.IfWood 8" wereconcernedwiththispossibility,Woodcouldandshouldhavepresented F# ittothetrialcourtinsteadofthiscourt. T$   Ourcourtshavepreviouslyapprovedrestrictiveprocedurestominimize p&!  thepossibilityofmisuseormismanagementoffundsbypersonsdeemed ~'"! unabletomanagemoney.SeeForkum,supra.Whileitisnotexpresslyset (#" forthinthetrialcourtsorder,itisclearlyimpliedthatthetrialcourtintended )$# toentrustthesefundstosomeone,suchastheClerkoftheCourtorto *%$ counsel,toassurethefundsweredisbursedforthebenefitoftheemployee +'% asrequiredbytheorder.Thispracticehasbeenapprovedinothermatters  whereinacourthasawardedsumsforspecificpurposes.Seegenerally  Perduev.GreenBranchMining,837S.W.2d56,60(whereperiodicpayments  forminorchildrenweremadetochancerycourtclerktobeheldforthebenefit * oftheminors). 8   Inordertoavoidfurtherhearingsinthetrialcourtandcorresponding  T delaysintheremittanceofthebenefitstowhichtheemployeeisclearly  b entitled,wemodifytheorderofthetrialcourtrequiringthatthe$65,000at  p issueshallberemittedtocounselfortheemployee,whoshalldepositsaid .~  suminhistrustaccountuntilsuchtimeashecanremitthetwopaymentsin <  theamountsandtothepayeesasspecifiedinthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. J    Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedasmodified. f    Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellants,WayneWood,d/b/a  WayneWoodTimberContractor,etal.  0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#_____________________________  FrankG.Clement,Jr.,SpecialJudge&(#(#   Ӏ  B __81XXdd8  @@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL  XXs #sXX3#WAYNEWOOD,d/b/aWAYNEWOODTIMBERCONTRACTOR,  _MEADOWBROOK_ԀINSURANCECOMPANY,andASSOCIATIONSELF  $ INSURANCESERVICES,INC.v.SAMMYDALEBENSON  8 XXs @@ ChanceryCourtforLewisCounty    @@No.3762   @@*AY) ` dE<w` A x  No.M200100107_WC_ԄR3CVFiledAugust20,2001 s  AY) ` dE<J` A K      #sXX4#XXs6  JUDGMENT #sXX6#XXs  \   #sXXF7#XXs#sXX7#XXsX1XXX  ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtupontheentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferraltothe . SpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanelsMemorandumOpinionsettingforth  itsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference.    Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthattheMemorandumOpinionofthePanelshouldbe  acceptedandapproved;and z   Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanelsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawareadopted R andaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgmentoftheCourt. >    Costswillbepaidbytheappellants,WayneWood,d/b/aWayneWoodTimberContractor, "f! et_al__,_Ԁforwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. #R"   ITISSOORDERED. $* $    `     h     PERCURIAM (#(   #XXXX1 8##sXX7#