Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Bomely v. Mid-America Corp.

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided June 1, 1998No. 03S01-9605-CH-00059Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHolder, Justice

I agree with the majority’s holding that an employee who is permanently and totally disabled is entitled to receive benefits until age 65. I dissent, however because: (1) I believe the majority’s analysis of the proper division between the employer and the Second Injury Fund substitutes a judicially-created policy of “equitable division” for the clear and established legislative policy that dictated the Second Injury Fund legislation; and (2) I disagree with the majority’s approach in finding both subsection (a) and (b) applicable in cases of permanent total disability.

DIVISION BETWEEN…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Cronin v. HoweTennessee Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Lyons v. RasarTennessee Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Epstein v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Perry v. Sentry Insurance Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Henson v. City of LawrenceburgTennessee Supreme Court · 1993

3 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