Legal Opinion

Chapman v. Clement Brothers, Inc.

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided November 22, 1968PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Buenett

This is a Workmen’s Compensation case. The only question for determination is whether or not the injury was a scheduled injury or was an injury to the body as a whole. The Chancellor determined that the latter applied and consequently the employer and insurance carrier have appealed, assigned error, argued the matter and filed excellent briefs. We, after reading these and making an independent research of the matter, have now arrived at a conclusion.

The injury to the petitioner took place on September 22,1965. He was immediately brought to Knoxville to an orthopedic surgeon, who states:

“This…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Federated Mutual Implement & Hardware Insurance v. CameronTennessee Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Shores v. ShoresTennessee Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Russell v. Virginia Bridge & Iron Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1938
  4. F. Perlman & Co. v. EllisTennessee Supreme Court · 1966
  5. Cummings v. Royal Indemnity Co.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1967

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Lock v. National Union Fire Insurance Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Wells v. Sentry Insurance Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Continental Insurance Companies v. PruittTennessee Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Smith v. Empire Pencil Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Wade v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1987

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API