Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-231 (2026)

Reserved

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Repealed by 2013 Tenn. Acts, ch. 289, s 70, eff. 7/1/2014.

Acts 1919, ch. 123, § 38; Shan. Supp., § 3608a188; Code 1932, § 6892; T.C.A. (orig. ed), § 50-1025.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2024 · leading case: Underwood v. Zurich Ins. Co., 854 S.W.2d 94 (Tenn. 1993).
Underwood v. Zurich Ins. Co., 854 S.W.2d 94 (Tenn. 1993). · cites it 10× “The trial court concluded that the judgment could not be modified because Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-231 (1991) only allows reopening for increased disability when the award is “payable periodically for more than six (6) months.”
Nails v. Aetna Ins. Co., 834 S.W.2d 289 (Tenn. 1992). · cites it 8× “He first argues that Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-231, which provides that lump sum settlements are final, has been impliedly repealed by Tenn.”
Wilhelm v. Krogers, 235 S.W.3d 122 (Tenn. 2007). · cites it 4× “” Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-231 provides “[a]ll amounts paid by the employer and received by the employee or the employee’s dependents, by lump sum payments, shall be final.”
Niziol v. Lockheed Martin Energy Sys., Inc., 8 S.W.3d 622 (Tenn. 1999). · cites it 10× “We granted the motion to review this workers’ compensation case to determine whether an award that was paid in a lump sum pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-231 (1999) may be later reconsidered and increased upon the filing of a new cause of action by the employee pursuant to…”
Freeman v. Marco Transp. Co., 27 S.W.3d 909 (Tenn. 2000). · cites it 4× “” The defendants contend that the phrase “the appropriate court” suggests that there is but one appropriate court— the court originally approving the settlement. Moreover, the term “reconsideration” suggests that a court is reconsidering its own- previously entered order.”
Federated Ins. Co. v. Lethcoe, 18 S.W.3d 621 (Tenn. 2000). · cites it 2× “We note that modification of awards for periodic payments for more than six months may be appropriate in certain limited circumstances pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-231 (1999). 4 . While the parties appear to contend that Tennessee courts applied a uniform…”
Brewer v. Lincoln Brass Works, Inc., 991 S.W.2d 226 (Tenn. 1999). · cites it 4× “We granted this appeal to address whether Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-231 precludes an enlargement of an award under § 50-6-241(a)(2) when the original award was paid in a lump sum.”
Pittman v. Lasco Indus., Inc., 908 S.W.2d 932 (Tenn. 1995). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff filed “Motion to Reopen Case” on September 17, 1993, pursuant to and in compliance with T.C.A. 50-6-231. A hearing on Plaintiffs Motion/Petition to Modify was conducted on June 20, 1994, wherein the Chancellor increased Plaintiffs award from 30% permanent partial…”
Black v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 4 S.W.3d 182 (Tenn. 1999). · cites it 2× “A Section 50-6-231 permits modification of an award payable periodically for more than six months (1) by agreement and approval of the court, or (2) on a showing of increase of incapacity due solely to the injury.”
Oldham, John v. Freeman Webb Co. Realtors d/b/a Sunnybrook, 2024 TN WC App. 41 (Tenn. Work. Comp. App. Bd. 2024). · cites it 2× “Prior to the passage of the 2013 Reform Act, this language was found almost verbatim in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-231, with the exception that the parties were directed to seek modification of a periodic award of permanent disability benefits in courts of competent…”
Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Exch. v. William R. Hill (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “§ 50-6-241(a)(2) is consistent with this Court's approach regarding modification of workers' compensation benefits under Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-231 (formerly Tenn.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.