![]() ![]() ![]() Panzarella appealed the decision of the Appeals Board to the Tennessee Supreme Court under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-217(a)(2) (2014). Panzarella failed to prove that his employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing the injury as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(B) (2014 & Supp. A majority of the Appeals Board affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that Mr. Panzarella appealed, arguing that the trial court erred and that he had met his burden of proof that his injury arose primarily out of his employment. Panzarella’s claim, finding he had not proven the compensability of his claim by a preponderance of the evidence because the authorized treating physician’s opinion failed to satisfy the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14) (2014 & Supp. The Appeals Board vacated the trial court’s order and directed the trial court to decide the case on the merits based on the evidence introduced at the Octohearing. Amazon appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (“Appeals Board”). Panzarella was likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits and awarded him temporary disability and medical benefits. Panzarella’s permanent partial disability had not been determined. On November 23, 2016, the trial court issued its ruling, explaining that it considered the hearing to be an expedited hearing, rather than a hearing on the merits, because the extent of Mr. On October 28, 2016, the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims (“trial court”) heard the case. Panzarella sought an expedited hearing but later requested a trial on the merits. Amazon denied the claim, disputing that the injury arose primarily out of Mr. Panzarella alleged that while working for Amazon on August 21, 2015, he injured his left leg when he bent down to pick up a “paper pad” and fell on his left leg. On November 6, 2015, Samuel Panzarella filed a Petition for Benefit Determination with the Tennessee Division of Workers’ Compensation requesting temporary disability benefits from, Inc. Stevenson, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellee,, Inc. Wharton, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellant, Samuel Panzarella. LEE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which DON R. 2017) Appeal as of Right Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Affirmed SHARON G. After careful review, we affirm the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. The employee appealed, contending that the evidence preponderated against the judgment of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed. The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims denied the claim, finding the employee had failed to prove that his knee injury arose primarily out of his employment. E2017-01135-SC-R3-WC – Mailed Ap/ Filed _ An employee filed a claim for workers’ compensation, alleging he injured his left knee in the course and scope of his employment. ![]() Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT KNOXVILLE FebruSession SAMUEL PANZARELLA V. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |