I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T E N N E S S E E FILED
A T K N O X V I L L E
April 21, 1997
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
S H E I L A I . L A W S O N ) F O R P U B L I C A T I O N
)
) F I L E D : A P R I L 2 1 , 1 9 9 7
P l a i n t i f f - A p p e l l e e )
) H A M B L E N C O U N T Y
v . )
) H O N . W . L . J E N K I N S ,
L E A R S E A T I N G C O R P O R A T I O N ) J U D G E
)
D e f e n d a n t - A p p e l l a n t ) N O . 0 3 - S - 0 1 - 9 5 0 9 - C V - 0 0 1 0 5
F o r A p p e l l a n t : F o r A p p e l l e e :
R O B E R T D . V A N D E V U U R S T R O B E R T C . E D W A R D S
S T E V E N H . T R E N T K n o x v i l l e , T N
J o h n s o n C i t y , T N
O P I N I O N
D E C I S I O N O F T H E P A N E L R E V E R S E D ; B I R C H , C . J .
JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED.
2
In this case, the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals
Panel concluded that Sheila I. Lawson, the employee, failed to
commence her action for benefits within one year of the accident
causing injury. After a thorough review of the record, we find
that Lawson commenced her action within the applicable period of
limitations.
I
For more than twenty years, Sheila Lawson was employed by
Lear Seating Corporation as a production line worker. In the late
1980's, she began to experience pain and numbness in her hands and
sought medical treatment from her family physician, John H. Kinser,
M.D. Kinser told her that her problems were related to her job and
recommended that she be rotated to a different job in the plant.
After her initial visit to Kinser, Lawson notified her
supervisor of her problem with her hands and requested a transfer
to a different machine. The supervisor granted her request, and
Lawson’s symptoms diminished for a time. However, over the next
several years, the symptoms periodically recurred. During this
time, Lawson transferred to several different machines in an effort
to obtain relief. As she transferred from machine to machine, her
symptoms would abate temporarily--only to recur.
Subsequently, she developed pain in her shoulders and
arms because of her efforts to compensate for the pain in her
3
hands. Kinser gave Lawson monthly injections to alleviate the pain
in her shoulders and arms.
During this entire period, Lawson continued to work full-
time and without restriction. She did not file a workers’
compensation claim with her employer, and Lear did not pay Kinser’s
bills.
On the morning of June 17, 1993, Lawson tried to pick up
her coffee cup, but unable to grasp it, she dropped it. After this
incident, Lawson went to the company nurse and informed her that
she could not work. The nurse referred Lawson to the company
doctor, who sent Lawson to E. Brantley Burns, Jr., M.D., a
specialist in orthopaedic medicine.
Burns diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome. Lear placed
Lawson on temporary disability. She then underwent surgery on both
wrists. Following a recuperative period, she returned to work.
During this period, Lear paid Lawson workers’ compensation
benefits.
Burns determined that Lawson had a ten percent permanent
partial impairment to each upper extremity. In April 1994, Lawson
filed this suit to recover permanent partial disability benefits.
4
II
Our review is de novo on the record, accompanied by a
presumption that the trial court’s findings of fact are correct
unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code
Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3).
As stated, the panel concluded that Lawson’s claim was
barred by the statute of limitations. We disagree. Repetitive
stress injuries are “accidental” and do not constitute occupational
diseases. Brown Shoe Co. v. Reed, 209 Tenn. 106, 350 S.W.2d 65, 69
(1961). Therefore, a suit to recover workers’ compensation
benefits for such an injury must be filed within one year of the
“accident resulting in the injury.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-203.
The identification of the “accident resulting in the
injury” is problematic in the case of a repetitive stress injury
such as Lawson’s. With carpal tunnel syndrome and other repetitive
stress injuries, the symptoms appear and worsen over an extended
period of time.1 As in Lawson’s case, the symptoms may be episodic
and may subside when the employee’s job is altered. Thus, it is
difficult, if at all possible, to determine when the “accident
resulting in the injury” occurs. Such a determination is important
because the statutory limitation period begins to run only after
the occurrence of the “accident resulting in the injury.”
1
We distinguish this case from those situations where carpal
tunnel syndrome develops as a result of an identifiable traumatic
event.
5
In Barker v. Home-Crest Corp., 805 S.W.2d 373 (Tenn.
1991), the issue was which of two insurance carriers was obligated
to pay benefits for a carpal tunnel injury. Writing for the Court,
Justice Anderson held that because the employee suffered a new
injury each day at work and since the cause of those injuries was
constant, the accidental injury occurred on the date on which the
employee “could no longer perform her work.” Id. at 376. The date
of the accident for purposes of ascertaining the commencement of
the limitations period should be the same as the date of the
accident for purposes of ascertaining which insurance company
should pay benefits. We see no reason to distinguish between the
two.
As Professor Larson notes:
This repeated-trauma or cumulative
trauma doctrine appears to have
originated with the House of Lords
decision in Burrell & Sons, Ltd. v.
Selvage [90 L.J. 1340 (H.L. 1921)],
in which compensation was awarded
for the disabling cumulative effect
of a long series of cuts and
scratches leading to infection and
arthritis. . . .
. . . .
The practical problem of fixing
a specific date for the accident has
generally been handled by saying
simply that the date of the accident
is the date on which the disability
manifests itself. Thus, in [Ptak v.
General Elec. Co., 13 N.J. Super.
294, 80 A.2d 337 (1951)], the date
of a gradually acquired sacroiliac
strain was deemed to be the first
moment the pain made it impossible
to continue to work. . . .
6
1B Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law § 39.40 and § 39.50
(1987)(citing Brown Shoe, supra)(quoted with approval in Barker,
supra).
Other jurisdictions that have addressed this issue have
reached a similar conclusion. See Berry v. Boeing Military
Airplanes, 20 Kan. App.2d 220, 885 P.2d 1261, 1268 (Kan. Ct. App.
1994)(the date of “occurrence” or date of “injury” relates back to
the last date on which claimant worked); Ramsey v. Weyerhaeuser,
853 P.2d 774 (Okla. 1993)(date of “last trauma” is last day
worked); Brooks Drug, Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board
(Parker), 161 Pa. Cmwlth. 81, 636 A.2d 246, 249 (1993)(“Each day of
work constituted a ‘new’ injury in that it further aggravated
Claimant’s condition . . . . The date of injury . . . is,
therefore, the last day Claimant worked.”).
In Berry, the Kansas Court of Appeals discussed at length
the problems associated with fixing the date of the accident in
carpal tunnel injury cases:
In the instant matter, both the
ALJ and the Board concluded that the
last day of work should be deemed as
the date of occurrence, at least
insofar as the bilateral carpal
tunnel condition is concerned. We
affirm that decision. We carry that
decision one step further and
conclude that the last day of work
should be the date from when
disability is computed in all cases
involving carpal tunnel syndrome
. . . . If we were to adopt either
the date on which the injury
“manifests itself” or the date on
which the injury is “diagnosed,” we
would set a potential trap for the
individual who, despite pain and
7
discomfort, continues to work long
after his or her carpal tunnel is
“diagnosed” or has “manifested
itself.” Those individuals would
find their claims for compensation
barred by the statute of
limitations. It seems to us that we
should adopt the rule that causes
the least potential prejudice and
upholds the spirit of our Workers
Compensation Act. We believe use of
the last day of work accomplishes
both of those purposes.
. . . .
Because of the complexities of
locating the date of injury in a
carpal tunnel syndrome case, the
process is simplified and made more
certain by adopting a rule that in a
carpal tunnel syndrome action, the
date from which compensation flows
is the last date worked by the
claimant.
Berry, 885 P.2d at 1267-1268. We find the policy reasons set out
by the Kansas court persuasive. Like the Kansas statute, our
workers’ compensation statute is remedial in nature. Tenn. Code
Ann. § 50-6-116. As we stated in Betts v. Tom Wade Gin, 810 S.W.2d
140 (Tenn. 1991),
this Court must interpret those
statutes in a manner designed to
protect workers and their families
from the economic devastation that,
in many instances, can follow
on-the-job injuries. Furthermore,
Tennessee's workers' compensation
laws must be construed so as to
ensure that injured employees are
justly and appropriately reimbursed
for debilitating injuries suffered
in the course of service to the
employer.
Id. at 142-143 (footnote omitted). Moreover, our holding today
establishes a clear point at which the limitation period begins to
8
run. See also Central Motor Express, Inc. v. Burney, 214 Tenn.
106, 377 S.W.2d 947, 951 (1964)(applying “last day worked” rule to
find workers notice of injury to the employer timely.)
We find the issue raised in this case distinguishable
from that raised in Livingston v. Shelby Williams Ind., Inc., 811
S.W.2d 511 (Tenn. 1991). In Livingston, the employee fell and hurt
his back. Initially, the employee did not think himself seriously
injured, and the injurious effects of the fall were not manifested
for several months. In that case, the date of the accident causing
injury for purposes of commencing the limitations period was the
date of the fall. However, the statute of limitations was
suspended until by reasonable care and diligence it was
discoverable and apparent that an injury had been sustained. Id.
at 515. In Livingston, even though not immediately apparent, there
was an identifiable event or accident after which the employee had
an injury. In the case of a repetitive stress injury, however,
there is no identifiable event, incident, or moment before which
the employee is not injured, but after which the employee is
injured. Thus, the “last day worked” rule that we announce today
applies only to repetitive stress injuries, i.e., the unexpected or
unusual injuries that result from the ordinary or usual strain or
exertion of the employee’s job. Central Motor Express, 377 S.W.2d
at 950.
Carpal tunnel syndrome may develop as a result of a
traumatic event, and in such situations, the statute of limitations
would begin to run when by reasonable care and diligence the
9
compensable injury is discoverable and it is apparent that such
injury is work-related. Livingston v. Shelby Williams Ind., Inc.,
811 S.W.2d 511, 515 (Tenn. 1991).
As in Barker, the repetitive movements of Lawson’s hands
as she performed her job caused her injuries. Each day Lawson
worked contributed to her injury. Because there is no one
particular incident or event identifiable as an “accident resulting
in the injury” and because Lawson suffered new trauma to her hands
each day she worked, we hold that the date of the accidental injury
is the date that Lawson was no longer able to work because of her
injury. The record establishes that June 17, 1993, was the first
day that Lawson was unable to perform her job; therefore, the
statute of limitations commenced at that time. As Lawson filed
this suit in April 1994, her claim is timely.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of
this appeal are taxed to Lear Seating Corporation, for which
execution may issue if necessary, and Lawson’s request for
additional sanctions is denied.
________________________________________
ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., Chief Justice
CONCUR:
Drowota, Anderson, Reid, JJ.
1 0