Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (2026)

Maximum permanent partial disability awards for claims arising after July 1, 2004 but before July 1, 2014 - Public policy regarding legal immigration

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

Acts 1992, ch. 900, § 16; 2004 , ch. 962, §§ 9, 10, 11; 2009 , ch. 364, § 1; 2009 , ch. 526, § 1; 2010 , ch. 1034, §§ 1, 2; 2013 , ch. 289, §§ 85 - 89.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 79 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2024 · leading case: Lynch v. City of Jellico, 205 S.W.3d 384 (Tenn. 2006).
Lynch v. City of Jellico, 205 S.W.3d 384 (Tenn. 2006). · cites it 55× “This Court has previously determined that using maximum multipliers in conjunction with the AMA Guides as contemplated by section 50-6-241 is rationally based and does not violate equal protection.”
Tryon v. Saturn Corp., 254 S.W.3d 321 (Tenn. 2008). · cites it 48× “Accordingly, he did not have a meaningful return to work and the multiplier in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (b), rather than the multiplier in TenmCode Ann.”
Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 8 S.W.3d 625 (Tenn. 1999). · cites it 37× “The trial court determined that there had been a meaningful return to work and concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (a)(l) applied, limiting the worker’s recovery to two and one half times the impairment rating, or 20%.”
Perrin v. Gaylord Ent. Co., 120 S.W.3d 823 (Tenn. 2003). · cites it 30× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (a)(l) (1999).”
Barnett v. Milan Seating Sys., 215 S.W.3d 828 (Tenn. 2007). · cites it 29× “In so doing, we note that following our decision in Perrin , the Tennessee General Assembly amended Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241 and those amendments in no way addressed our holding in Perrin.”
Carter v. First Source Furniture Grp., 92 S.W.3d 367 (Tenn. 2002). · cites it 24× “This case is unique because it presents a factual time line different from other cases that have interpreted section 50-6-241. In cases cited by Anderson Hickey, the employees were fired or quit working after returning to work.”
Davis v. Reagan, 951 S.W.2d 766 (Tenn. 1997). · cites it 35× “1995), this Court adopted a panel decision holding that the limits in Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (1996 Supp.) precluded an award of total disability when the anatomical impairment was less than 16.”
Brown v. Campbell Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 915 S.W.2d 407 (Tenn. 1995). · cites it 43× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (c) (1995 Supp.”
Nichols v. Jack Cooper Transp. Co., Inc., 318 S.W.3d 354 (Tenn. 2010). · cites it 32× “at 2352 (codified as amended at Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (d)(1)(B)(iii)).”
Henderson v. SAIA, INC., 318 S.W.3d 328 (Tenn. 2010). · cites it 7× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (d)(2)(A). 10 .”
Powell v. Blalock Plumbing & Elec. & HVAC, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 893 (Tenn. 2002). · cites it 58× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (a). I cannot agree, however, with the majority’s conclusion as to the second factor of the test under section 50-6-241, i.”
Freeman v. Marco Transp. Co., 27 S.W.3d 909 (Tenn. 2000). · cites it 15× “We find the language of Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-241 to be unambiguous.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(2)(b) — 1 case
Middleton v. Allegheny Elec. Co., 897 S.W.2d 695 (Tenn. 1995).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(a) — 9 cases
Carter v. First Source Furniture Grp., 92 S.W.3d 367 (Tenn. 2002). “This case is unique because it presents a factual time line different from other cases that have interpreted section 50-6-241. In cases cited by Anderson Hickey, the employees were fired or quit working after returning to work.”
Powell v. Blalock Plumbing & Elec. & HVAC, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 893 (Tenn. 2002). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (a). I cannot agree, however, with the majority’s conclusion as to the second factor of the test under section 50-6-241, i.”
Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 8 S.W.3d 625 (Tenn. 1999). “The trial court determined that there had been a meaningful return to work and concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (a)(l) applied, limiting the worker’s recovery to two and one half times the impairment rating, or 20%.”
Newton v. Scott Health Care Ctr., 914 S.W.2d 884 (Tenn. 1995).
Brown v. Campbell Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 915 S.W.2d 407 (Tenn. 1995). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (c) (1995 Supp.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(a)(1) — 23 cases
Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 8 S.W.3d 625 (Tenn. 1999). “The trial court determined that there had been a meaningful return to work and concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (a)(l) applied, limiting the worker’s recovery to two and one half times the impairment rating, or 20%.”
Seals v. England/Corsair Upholstery Mfg. Co., 984 S.W.2d 912 (Tenn. 1999).
Parks v. Tennessee Mun. League Risk Mgmt. Pool, 974 S.W.2d 677 (Tenn. 1998).
Lynch v. City of Jellico, 205 S.W.3d 384 (Tenn. 2006). “This Court has previously determined that using maximum multipliers in conjunction with the AMA Guides as contemplated by section 50-6-241 is rationally based and does not violate equal protection.”
Brown v. Campbell Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 915 S.W.2d 407 (Tenn. 1995). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (c) (1995 Supp.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(a)(2) — 24 cases
Perrin v. Gaylord Ent. Co., 120 S.W.3d 823 (Tenn. 2003). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (a)(l) (1999).”
Barnett v. Milan Seating Sys., 215 S.W.3d 828 (Tenn. 2007). “In so doing, we note that following our decision in Perrin , the Tennessee General Assembly amended Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241 and those amendments in no way addressed our holding in Perrin.”
Freeman v. Marco Transp. Co., 27 S.W.3d 909 (Tenn. 2000). “We find the language of Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-241 to be unambiguous.”
Clark v. Lowe's Home Centers, 201 S.W.3d 647 (Tenn. 2006).
Hardin v. Royal & Sunalliance Ins., 104 S.W.3d 501 (Tenn. 2003).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(a)(i) — 1 case
Warren v. Am. Holding Co., 20 S.W.3d 621 (Tenn. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(a)(l) — 22 cases
Tryon v. Saturn Corp., 254 S.W.3d 321 (Tenn. 2008). “Accordingly, he did not have a meaningful return to work and the multiplier in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (b), rather than the multiplier in TenmCode Ann.”
Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 8 S.W.3d 625 (Tenn. 1999). “The trial court determined that there had been a meaningful return to work and concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (a)(l) applied, limiting the worker’s recovery to two and one half times the impairment rating, or 20%.”
Carter v. First Source Furniture Grp., 92 S.W.3d 367 (Tenn. 2002). “This case is unique because it presents a factual time line different from other cases that have interpreted section 50-6-241. In cases cited by Anderson Hickey, the employees were fired or quit working after returning to work.”
Brown v. Campbell Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 915 S.W.2d 407 (Tenn. 1995). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (c) (1995 Supp.”
Lay v. Scott Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 109 S.W.3d 293 (Tenn. 2003).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(b) — 18 cases
Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 8 S.W.3d 625 (Tenn. 1999). “The trial court determined that there had been a meaningful return to work and concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (a)(l) applied, limiting the worker’s recovery to two and one half times the impairment rating, or 20%.”
Leab v. S & H Mining Co., 76 S.W.3d 344 (Tenn. 2002).
Tryon v. Saturn Corp., 254 S.W.3d 321 (Tenn. 2008). “Accordingly, he did not have a meaningful return to work and the multiplier in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (b), rather than the multiplier in TenmCode Ann.”
Powell v. Blalock Plumbing & Elec. & HVAC, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 893 (Tenn. 2002). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (a). I cannot agree, however, with the majority’s conclusion as to the second factor of the test under section 50-6-241, i.”
Orrick v. Bestway Trucking, Inc., 184 S.W.3d 211 (Tenn. 2006).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(c) — 6 cases
Tryon v. Saturn Corp., 254 S.W.3d 321 (Tenn. 2008). “Accordingly, he did not have a meaningful return to work and the multiplier in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (b), rather than the multiplier in TenmCode Ann.”
Orrick v. Bestway Trucking, Inc., 184 S.W.3d 211 (Tenn. 2006).
Ingram v. State Indus., Inc., 943 S.W.2d 381 (Tenn. 1995).
Brewer v. Lincoln Brass Works, Inc., 991 S.W.2d 226 (Tenn. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(d)(1) — 1 case
Mathenia v. Milan Seating Sys., 254 S.W.3d 313 (Tenn. 2007).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(d)(1)(A) — 16 cases
Lynch v. City of Jellico, 205 S.W.3d 384 (Tenn. 2006). “This Court has previously determined that using maximum multipliers in conjunction with the AMA Guides as contemplated by section 50-6-241 is rationally based and does not violate equal protection.”
Henderson v. SAIA, INC., 318 S.W.3d 328 (Tenn. 2010). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (d)(2)(A). 10 .”
Tryon v. Saturn Corp., 254 S.W.3d 321 (Tenn. 2008). “Accordingly, he did not have a meaningful return to work and the multiplier in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (b), rather than the multiplier in TenmCode Ann.”
Nichols v. Jack Cooper Transp. Co., Inc., 318 S.W.3d 354 (Tenn. 2010). “at 2352 (codified as amended at Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (d)(1)(B)(iii)).”
Barnett v. Milan Seating Sys., 215 S.W.3d 828 (Tenn. 2007). “In so doing, we note that following our decision in Perrin , the Tennessee General Assembly amended Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241 and those amendments in no way addressed our holding in Perrin.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(d)(1)(B) — 3 cases
Nichols v. Jack Cooper Transp. Co., Inc., 318 S.W.3d 354 (Tenn. 2010). “at 2352 (codified as amended at Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (d)(1)(B)(iii)).”
Lynch v. City of Jellico, 205 S.W.3d 384 (Tenn. 2006). “This Court has previously determined that using maximum multipliers in conjunction with the AMA Guides as contemplated by section 50-6-241 is rationally based and does not violate equal protection.”
Howell v. Nissan North Am., Inc., 346 S.W.3d 467 (Tenn. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(d)(1)(B)(i) — 1 case
Lazar v. Jw Aluminum, 346 S.W.3d 438 (Tenn. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(d)(1)(B)(iii) — 2 cases
Lazar v. Jw Aluminum, 346 S.W.3d 438 (Tenn. 2011).
Howell v. Nissan North Am., Inc., 346 S.W.3d 467 (Tenn. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(d)(1)(B)(v) — 1 case
Overman v. Altama Delta Corp., 193 S.W.3d 540 (Tenn. 2006).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(d)(2)(A) — 7 cases
Tryon v. Saturn Corp., 254 S.W.3d 321 (Tenn. 2008). “Accordingly, he did not have a meaningful return to work and the multiplier in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (b), rather than the multiplier in TenmCode Ann.”
Henderson v. SAIA, INC., 318 S.W.3d 328 (Tenn. 2010). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (d)(2)(A). 10 .”
Timmy Dale Britt v. Dyer's Emp. Agency, Inc., 396 S.W.3d 519 (Tenn. 2013).
Nichols v. Jack Cooper Transp. Co., Inc., 318 S.W.3d 354 (Tenn. 2010). “at 2352 (codified as amended at Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (d)(1)(B)(iii)).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(d)(2)(B) — 1 case
Mathenia v. Milan Seating Sys., 254 S.W.3d 313 (Tenn. 2007).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(d)(l)(A) — 9 cases
Lynch v. City of Jellico, 205 S.W.3d 384 (Tenn. 2006). “This Court has previously determined that using maximum multipliers in conjunction with the AMA Guides as contemplated by section 50-6-241 is rationally based and does not violate equal protection.”
Barnett v. Milan Seating Sys., 215 S.W.3d 828 (Tenn. 2007). “In so doing, we note that following our decision in Perrin , the Tennessee General Assembly amended Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241 and those amendments in no way addressed our holding in Perrin.”
Nichols v. Jack Cooper Transp. Co., Inc., 318 S.W.3d 354 (Tenn. 2010). “at 2352 (codified as amended at Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (d)(1)(B)(iii)).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(d)(l)(B) — 2 cases
Nichols v. Jack Cooper Transp. Co., Inc., 318 S.W.3d 354 (Tenn. 2010). “at 2352 (codified as amended at Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (d)(1)(B)(iii)).”
Lazar v. Jw Aluminum, 346 S.W.3d 438 (Tenn. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(d)(l)(B)(i) — 1 case
Tryon v. Saturn Corp., 254 S.W.3d 321 (Tenn. 2008). “Accordingly, he did not have a meaningful return to work and the multiplier in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (b), rather than the multiplier in TenmCode Ann.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(d)(l)(B)(ii) — 1 case
Tryon v. Saturn Corp., 254 S.W.3d 321 (Tenn. 2008). “Accordingly, he did not have a meaningful return to work and the multiplier in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (b), rather than the multiplier in TenmCode Ann.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(d)(l)(B)(iii) — 2 cases
Nichols v. Jack Cooper Transp. Co., Inc., 318 S.W.3d 354 (Tenn. 2010). “at 2352 (codified as amended at Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (d)(1)(B)(iii)).”
Cha Yang v. Nissan North Am., Inc., 440 S.W.3d 593 (Tenn. 2014).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(d)(l)(B)(iv) — 1 case
Lazar v. Jw Aluminum, 346 S.W.3d 438 (Tenn. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(d)(l)(B)(v) — 1 case
Lazar v. Jw Aluminum, 346 S.W.3d 438 (Tenn. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(e) — 1 case
Orrick v. Bestway Trucking, Inc., 184 S.W.3d 211 (Tenn. 2006).
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.