Magnavox Co. v. Shepherd

8 Citing cases

  1. Simpson v. Satterfield

    564 S.W.2d 953 (Tenn. 1978)   Cited 46 times

    1974); Tom Still Transfer Co. v. Way, 482 S.W.2d 775 (Tenn. 1972); see also American Enka Corp. v. Sutton, 216 Tenn. 228, 391 S.W.2d 643 (1965); Magnavox Co. v. Shepherd, 214 Tenn. 321, 379 S.W.2d 791 (1964). But the issue under consideration in those cases was the proof necessary to establish a permanent disability, either partial or total.

  2. Ferguson v. Tennessee-Carolina Transportation Co.

    428 S.W.2d 783 (Tenn. 1968)   Cited 2 times

    This first presents the question of whether lay evidence is of probative value on the issue of causal relation between the trauma and the resulting disability due to the spinal disease, or does such require evidence presented by those qualifying as experts in the field of medicine. In the Magnavox Company of Tenn. v. Shepherd, 214 Tenn. 321, 379 S.W.2d 791 (1964), this Court said: While it is true that lay testimony, including that of the claimant, is of probative value in establishing such simple matters as the existence of pain, its location, petitioner's inability to work, etc., there are areas in which lay testimony is obviously incompetent.

  3. Reynolds v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

    496 S.W.2d 890 (Tenn. 1973)   Cited 8 times
    In Reynolds, the doctor whose testimony was not competent had relied entirely upon the employee's subjective complaints in determining the degree of disability. He did not take or examine any X-rays and did not investigate the employee's past history or consult with other physicians.

    It has been consistently held that lay testimony in all but the most obvious cases is insufficient to support a finding of medical causation or a finding of permanent disability. Magnavox Company of Tennessee v. Shepherd, 214 Tenn. 321, 379 S.W.2d 791 (1964); Floyd v. Tennessee Dickel Distilling Company, Tenn. 463 S.W.2d 684 (1971)."

  4. Tom Still Transfer Company v. Way

    482 S.W.2d 775 (Tenn. 1972)   Cited 76 times

    However, while lay testimony of the claimant is of probative value in establishing simple matters such as existence of pain, its location, inability to work, etc., there are areas in which lay testimony is obviously incompetent. It has been consistently held that lay testimony in all but the most obvious cases is insufficient to support a finding of medical causation or a finding of permanent disability. Magnavox Company of Tennessee v. Shepherd, 214 Tenn. 321, 379 S.W.2d 791 (1964); Floyd v. Tennessee Dickel Distilling Company, Tenn., 463 S.W.2d 684 (1971). A review of the trial record reveals that both medical doctors who examined the employee stated that he suffered no permanent injury to his back as a result of the accident.

  5. Floyd v. Travelers Insurance Co.

    463 S.W.2d 407 (Tenn. 1970)   Cited 1 times

    Such a condition is one that must be established if it is established at all, by expert medical testimony. See Magnavox Company of Tenn. v. Shepherd, 214 Tenn. 321, 379 S.W.2d 791. Dr. Shields testified that he could not associate hypertension with the injury. The petitioner's effort to prove permanent partial disability must fail for want of material evidence. We therefore overrule the first four assignments of error but must sustain the fifth and sixth assignments.

  6. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Hatcher

    425 S.W.2d 580 (Tenn. 1968)

    In the instant case, the employee and her husband were not competent to testify that the increased incapacity suffered by the employee `was due solely to her original injury.' This question was one for a doctor of medicine, thoroughly acquainted with the human anatomy, to determine." Magnavox Co. of Tennessee v. Shepherd, 214 Tenn. 321, 379 S.W.2d 791 (1964). The question of whether petitioner's foot injury caused the pain in his neck and back to develop nine months later is a complicated one and carries the finder of facts into realms which are properly within the province of medical experts.

  7. American Enka Corp. v. Sutton

    216 Tenn. 228 (Tenn. 1965)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that the training of an optometrist does not qualify him or her to testify to the causation of eye damage

    1964), for further cases of like import. In the recent case of Magnavox Company of Tenn. v. Shepherd, 214 Tenn. 321, 379 S.W.2d 791 (1964), we reversed the action of the trial court in granting an increase to an award previously made because there was no competent proof of causal connection between the original injury and the alleged increased disability. In the Shepherd case the employee and her husband testified that her increased disability was due solely to her original injury.

  8. Pellicano v. Metropolitan G.

    No. M2003-00292-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2004)   Cited 4 times

    . . . . . In the recent case of Magnavox Company of Tenn. v. Shepherd, 214 Tenn. 321, 379 S.W.2d 791 (1964), we reversed the action of the trial court in granting an increase to an award previously made because there was no competent proof of causal connection between the original injury and the alleged increased disability. In the Shepherd case the employee and her husband testified that her increased disability was due solely to her original injury. An expert medical doctor testified there was no causal connection between the original injury and the increased disability.