Tennessee definition of “injury” survives employee’s constitutional challenge

Case file

In Tennessee, an “injury” arises primarily out of, in the course and scope of employment only if it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than 50% to the occurrence of the injury., and this 50% requirement does not violate any state constitutional principles. Simply Research allows readers to stay up to date on compliance in the 50 states and beyond.

Case name

Worrell v. Obion County School District, 2024 WL 3466817 (Tenn. 7/19/24).

What happened?

An employee of a Tennessee school district injured his shoulder joint in the course of his employment and reached a settlement with the district. Under the agreement, the district would cover future medical expenses related to the employee's work-related injury.

About three years after the injury, doctors recommended that the worker undergo shoulder replacement surgery. The Workers' Compensation Court concluded that the county should not pay for the surgery because the worker could not prove causality to his work injury.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed and agreed that the medical evidence did not establish that the work injury required surgery under Tennessee law.

The worker appealed to a special panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of the definition of “injury” in Tennessee’s Workers’ Compensation Law.

Rule of law

For purposes of the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Law, an “injury” is one that arises primarily out of and in the course of employment and results in the death, disability, or need for medical treatment of the employee. Additionally, an injury arises “primarily out of and in the course of employment” only if it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than 50% to the injury.

The term “injury” does not include the aggravation of a pre-existing disease, condition or condition unless it can be shown with reasonable medical certainty that the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course of the employment.

What the Tennessee Supreme Court Special Circuit said

The court affirmed the lower court rulings and rejected the employee's arguments that the law violated constitutional principles of due process, equal protection, and public jurisdiction.

Substantive due process. The definition of “injury,” the court said, reflects a legitimate government interest in directing courts to interpret workers' compensation law “fairly, impartially, and in accordance with principles of statutory interpretation,” 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 employee's claim that Tennessee's definition of “injury” created a distinction between employees who suffered from a pre-existing asymptomatic degenerative disease and those who did not, the court responded that the law was not unfair in any way.

“The challenged definition is not manifestly discriminatory because it sets a single causation standard for all workers and all injuries, whether preexisting or not,” the court wrote. “An employee must prove a preponderance of probabilities that his or her employment was more than fifty percent responsible for the injury or for the aggravation of a preexisting injury.”

Open courts. The worker's argument that the trial should be public was also defeated because the panel pointed out that the 1920 case Scott v. Nashville Bridge Co., 223 SW 844 (Tennessee 192), had held that plaintiffs could not assert a claim against the state legislature based on the Public Courts Clause.

The conclusion

In Tennessee, the definition of “injury” for workers’ compensation purposes does not violate the state constitution.