Tenn. Definition of ‘Injury’ Survives Worker’s Constitutional Challenge

Case File

In Tennessee, an "injury" arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment" only if it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than 50% in causing the injury, and that 50% requirement doesn't violate state constitutional principles. Readers can stay on top of compliance across the 50 states and more with Simply Research.

Case Name

Worrell v. Obion County School District, 2024 WL 3466817 (Tenn. 07/19/24).

What Happened?

A worker for a Tennessee school district injured his should in the course and scope of his employment and entered into a settlement agreement with the county. Under the agreement, the county would pay for future medical expenses related to the worker's work injury.

About three years after the injury, doctors recommended that the worker undergo shoulder replacement surgery. The Court of Workers' Compensation claims concluded that the county was not required to pay for the surgery because the worker didn't show that it was causally related to his work injury.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed and agreed that the medical evidence did not establish, under Tennessee law, that the work-related injury caused the need for surgery.

The worker appealed to a special panel of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, challenging the constitutionality of the definition of "injury" under Tennessee workers' compensation law.

Rule of Law

For purposes of Tennessee workers' compensation law, "injury" means one that arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, that causes death, disablement, or the need for medical treatment of the employee." Additionally, an injury "arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment" only if it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than 50% in causing the injury.

"Injury" does not include the aggravation of a preexisting disease, condition, or ailment unless it can be shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

What the Tennessee Special Supreme Court Said

The court affirmed the rulings below and rejected the worker's arguments that the law violated state constitutional principles of substantive due process, equal protection, and open courts.

Substantive due process. The definition of "injury," according to the court reflected a legitimate government interest to direct courts to interpret workers' compensation law "fairly, impartially, and in accordance with the principles of statutory construction, the court wrote. "One possible purpose of the amended definition is to reduce workers’ compensation insurance premiums for employers, which is a legitimate government interest."

Equal protection. In response to the worker's contention that the definition of "injury" in Tennessee created a distinction between workers who have preexisting asymptomatic degenerative conditions and those who did not, the court found nothing unfair about the law.

"The challenged definition is not facially discriminatory because it establishes a single causation standard for all employees and all injuries, whether preexisting or not," the court wrote. "An employee must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his or her employment was a greater than fifty percent cause of the injury or the aggravation of a preexisting injury."

Open courts. The worker also faced defeat on his open courts argument as the special panel pointed out that the 1920 case, Scott v. Nashville Bridge Co., 223 S.W. 844 (Tenn. 192), established that plaintiffs may not assert an Open Courts Clause claim against the state legislature.

The Takeaway

In Tennessee, the definition of "injury" for workers' compensation purposes does not violate the state constitution.

Share This Article: