COOPER v. LOGISTICS INSIGHT CORP (2013)

OPINION

An employee was injured at work as a result of the actions of a third-party tortfeasor. The employee suffered permanent injuries that required future medical care. The injured employee filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits and filed a lawsuit against the third-party tortfeasor. The employer intervened in the lawsuit pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50–6–112 (2008) to protect its subrogation lien against any recovery from the third-party tortfeasor. The employee settled the lawsuit with the third-party tortfeasor and voluntarily dismissed the case. The employer requested that the case be set for trial, claiming that it was entitled to a lien against the settlement proceeds for the cost of future medical benefits that may be paid on behalf of the injured employee. We hold that the employer's subrogation lien provided by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50–6–112 does not include the cost of future medical benefits that may be provided to an injured employee.

I. Facts and Procedural History

MasterStaff, Inc. (“MasterStaff”) is an employee-contracting company. MasterStaff employed Joshua Cooper and assigned him to work as a towmotor operator for ProLogistics, Inc. (“ProLogistics”). On January 14, 2008, Mr. Cooper was engaged in moving pallets of goods from trailers parked at a loading dock into the ProLogistics warehouse. As Mr. Cooper backed the towmotor out of a trailer, Joe Murray, an employee of ProLogistics, drove the truck and trailer away from the loading dock. The towmotor fell out of the trailer, and Mr. Cooper sustained “significant, permanent injuries” to his back and spine.

Mr. Cooper asserted a claim for workers' compensation benefits against MasterStaff. As a result, MasterStaff began to pay temporary disability benefits to Mr. Cooper and paid Mr. Cooper's medical expenses.

Mr. Cooper and his wife also filed a claim on January 22, 2008, against Mr. Murray, ProLogistics, and Logistics Insight Corporation¹ in the Chancery Court for Rutherford County. The complaint alleged negligence on the part of the defendants and sought damages of $1,000,000 for Mr. Cooper's injuries and Mrs. Cooper's loss of consortium.

MasterStaff intervened in the Coopers' negligence action, asserting a statutory subrogation lien for workers' compensation benefits that had been paid and may be paid in the future against any recovery by the Coopers from the defendants in the chancery court action. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112(c)(1) (2008). MasterStaff also asserted a “common law and equitable right of subrogation” in any recovery Mr. Cooper obtained from the third-party defendants.

On July 10, 2009, MasterStaff filed an itemized list of medical expenses in the amount of $44,698.62 that it had incurred on Mr. Cooper's behalf. In January 2010, the Coopers settled their claims against the defendants in the chancery court action and voluntarily dismissed their claims against those defendants with prejudice.

In February 2010, MasterStaff filed a motion to set the case for trial. MasterStaff asserted that it had no notice of the settlement and that the settlement did not dispose of all of the claims between the parties because the issue regarding the amount of Mr. Cooper's future medical expenses was still outstanding. The trial court set the case for trial on June 7, 2010.

The defendants in the chancery court action filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6). The defendants asserted that they should be dismissed from the case because the Coopers were required to reimburse MasterStaff from the settlement proceeds.² The trial court concluded that the order of voluntary dismissal “resolved all claims against the defendants” and granted the motion to dismiss.

MasterStaff appealed. The Court of Appeals held that future medical expenses are not too speculative as a matter of law to be included in an employer's lien against the proceeds of a suit against a third-party tortfeasor and remanded the case to the trial court. Cooper v. Logistics Insight Corp., No. M2010–01262–COA–R3–CV, 2011 WL 1874577, at *4, *5 (Tenn.Ct.App. May 16, 2011); see Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112(c)(2). The Court of Appeals also held that the Coopers' dismissal of the suit against the defendants in the chancery court action did not serve as an assignment of their negligence claims to MasterStaff pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50–6–112(d)(2). Cooper, 2011 WL 1874577, at *5. We granted permission to appeal.

II. Analysis

As an initial question, ProLogistics asks whether an injured employee and a third-party defendant are required to obtain the approval of an employer to settle a case when the employer has a subrogation lien pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50–6–112. We previously have held that the Workers' Compensation Law does not require an employee to obtain an employer's agreement before settling with the third-party tortfeasor. Hunley v. Silver Furniture Mfg. Co., 38 S.W.3d 555, 558 (Tenn.2001). We reiterate, however, that an injured worker, the injured worker's spouse, or a third-party tortfeasor may seek court approval of any settlement “to ensure that the allocation of settlement proceeds between the worker and the worker's spouse is fair and reasonable.”³ Hunley, 38 S.W.3d at 559. An employer is entitled to reasonable notice of the action in which court approval is sought. Hunley, 38 S.W.3d at 559. Although the better practice would have been for the Coopers to obtain court approval of their settlement with the defendants in the chancery court action, the Workers' Compensation Law did not require them to do so.

The principal issue in this case is whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 50–6–112 grants an employer a subrogation lien for the cost of future medical expenses against the proceeds of an employee's lawsuit against a third-party tortfeasor. The interpretation of the Workers' Compensation Law presents a question of law, which we review de novo. Gerdau Ameristeel, Inc. v. Ratliff, 368 S.W.3d 503, 506 (Tenn.2012).

To construe the current statute relating to an employer's subrogation lien against an employee's recovery from a third party, it is helpful to review the evolution of the Workers' Compensation Law in Tennessee. In 1950, an injured employee was entitled to medical benefits paid by his employer for a period not to exceed six months after the injury. Tenn.Code § 6875 (1950). Liability for medical benefits could not exceed $800, and the total liability for workers' compensation benefits could not exceed $7500. Tenn.Code §§ 6875, 6878(e) (1950).

The Workers' Compensation Law has been amended numerous times to increase the time period for which the employer is responsible for the employee's medical care and to increase the total amount of medical benefits an employee may receive:

• In 1953, to require the employer to provide medical benefits in an amount not to exceed $1500. Act of Apr. 3, 1953, ch. 111, § 1, 1953 Tenn. Pub. Acts 402, 402–03.

• In 1957, to increase the duration of medical benefits from six months to one year. Act of Mar. 13, 1957, ch. 234, § 1, 1957 Tenn. Pub. Acts 733, 734.

• In 1959, to require the employer to provide medical benefits in an amount not to exceed $1800. Act of Mar. 11, 1959, ch. 172, § 1, 1959 Tenn. Pub. Acts 530, 530.

• In 1963, to require the employer to provide medical benefits in an amount not to exceed $1800 plus an additional $700 for “unusual medical expenses.” Act of Mar. 22, 1963, ch. 362, § 3, 1963 Tenn. Pub. Acts 1282, 1283–84.

• In 1967, to require an employer to provide up to two years of medical benefits in an amount not to exceed $3500. Act of May 24, 1967, ch. 313, § 3, 1967 Tenn. Pub. Acts 815, 816–17.

• In 1971, to remove the limitation on an employer's total liability for workers' compensation benefits and to require notice to the Tennessee Department of Labor when such amounts exceed $5000. Act of May 4, 1971, ch. 134, § 3, 1971 Tenn. Pub. Acts 290, 291–92.

• In 1973, to require the employer to pay medical benefits for a maximum of three years. Act of May 3, 1973, ch. 379, § 4, 1973 Tenn. Pub. Acts 1368, 1369.

In 1977, the General Assembly removed the limitation on the duration of medical benefits, thereby opening the door to future medical benefits to the employee that were unlimited in both duration and amount. See Act of May 19, 1977, ch. 417, § 1, 1977 Tenn. Pub. Acts 1039, 1040.

The statute governing suits against third-party tortfeasors also has undergone changes. The Workers' Compensation Law originally provided that an injured employee must elect to pursue a remedy against either the employer or the third party responsible for his injury. Millican v. Home Stores, Inc., 197 Tenn. 93, 270 S.W.2d 372, 373 (Tenn.1954) (citing Tenn.Code § 6865 (1932)). The General Assembly amended the applicable statute in 1949 to permit an employee to recover benefits from an employer and also to pursue an action against the third party responsible for his injury. Millican, 270 S.W.2d at 373 (citing Act of Apr. 14, 1949, ch. 227 § 1, 1949 Tenn. Pub. Acts 897, 897–98). Notably, the amended statute provided that an employer would be “subrogated to the extent of the amount paid or payable under this chapter.” Millican, 270 S.W.2d at 373 (quoting Tenn.Code § 6865). This Court construed the statute to provide a credit against workers' compensation benefits owed to the employee. Millican, 270 S.W.2d at 374. In Millican, future medical benefits were not at issue because the injured worker died as a result of his injuries. Millican, 270 S.W.2d at 372.

In Reece v. York, 199 Tenn. 592, 288 S.W.2d 448 (Tenn.1956), this Court addressed the application of the credit to which an employer is entitled. At the time of the injury in Reece, an injured employee was entitled to a maximum of $8500 in weekly workers' compensation benefits and medical benefits not to exceed $1500. See Williams Code §§ 6875, 6878(e) (Supp.1953). In Reece, the employee received $5000 from a third-party tortfeasor. 288 S.W.2d at 449. The employee was awarded weekly workers' compensation benefits in the total amount of $8500. Reece, 288 S.W.2d at 449.

This Court agreed that the employee was required to reimburse the employer for medical and hospital expenses paid by the employer in the amount of $785.50, leaving a balance of $4,214.50. Reece, 288 S.W.2d at 450. We held, however, that the weekly workers' compensation payments from the employer would be deferred. Reece, 288 S.W.2d at 450. The weekly benefits would commence when the weekly installments that would have accrued from the date of the injury equaled the net credit to the employer of $4,214.50. Reece, 288 S.W.2d at 449–50. We reasoned that it was more beneficial for the employee to receive periodic payments of workers' compensation benefits for an extended period as if the employee were receiving his wages. See Reece, 288 S.W.2d at 450. If the employee were to receive those payments at the same time he receives the lump-sum recovery from the third-party tortfeasor, he would in effect receive “double benefits.” Reece, 288 S.W.2d at 450. In addition, the duration of the periodic payments would be shortened. Reece, 288 S.W.2d at 450. Future medical benefits were not at issue in Reece.

In 1963, our General Assembly amended the Workers' Compensation Law to provide that if the employee's recovery in a suit against a third party

exceeds the amount paid by the employer, and the employer has not, at [that] time, paid and discharged his full maximum liability for [workers'] compensation ․, the employer shall be entitled to a credit on his future liability, as it accrues, to the extent the net recovery collected exceeds the amount paid by the employer.

Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–914 (Supp.1963). In 1963, the employer was required to provide medical benefits for a maximum of one year, and the medical benefits provided could not exceed $1800 plus $700 for “unusual medical expenses.” Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–1004 (Supp.1963). In effect, this statute codified the Reece decision, permitting an employee to recover future periodic payments of workers' compensation benefits and allowing the employer to be reimbursed for the maximum statutory benefit to which the employee was entitled.

The 1963 amendment to the statute granting the employer a subrogation lien against the employee's recovery in an action against a third party is presently codified as Tennessee Code Annotated section 50–6–112 and remains identical to the previous statute, with the exception of stylistic changes and an amendment relating to the statute of limitation.⁴ The phrase, “and the employer has not ․ paid and discharged his full maximum liability for [workers'] compensation,” may therefore be understood in the context of Reece, in which the issue was the timing of the payment of periodic workers' compensation payments following the employee's receipt of a lump-sum settlement from a third-party tortfeasor.

It is unlikely that future medical benefits were considered, particularly in light of the limitation on the recovery of medical benefits both at the time of the Reece decision and in 1963. The Reece Court recognized that the decision did not address the lump-sum payment of workers' compensation benefits, which was then an “exception” to the typical workers' compensation award of periodic payments in a manner similar to the manner in which the employee had received his wages. 288 S.W.2d at 450. It is logical to conclude that the phrase, “and the employer has not ․ paid and discharged his full maximum liability for [workers'] compensation,” did not include unlimited future medical benefits as we know them today because unlimited future medical benefits were not available to an employee at the time of the Reece decision.

It is in the context of the removal of the limits on the amount and duration of future medical benefits available to employees that we reexamine the employer's subrogation lien. This Court has twice addressed the employer's subrogation lien for future medical benefits available to an injured employee. See Hickman v. Cont'l Baking Co., 143 S.W.3d 72 (Tenn.2004); Graves v. Cocke Cnty., 24 S.W.3d 285 (Tenn.2000). In both of these cases, we held that the “credit on the employer's future liability” does not include future medical expenses. Hickman, 143 S.W.3d at 78; Graves, 24 S.W.3d at 288. We reasoned that if an employer held a lien for future medical expenses on the proceeds of the settlement, the proceeds would be held hostage for an indefinite period to reimburse the employer when the employee sought medical benefits in the future. Hickman, 143 S.W.3d at 78; see Graves, 24 S.W.3d at 288. If the employer held a lien for the cost of future medical benefits against an employee's recovery from a third party, the employee would be unable to benefit from the proceeds of the recovery.

The Graves and Hickman decisions are not in conflict with the decision of this Court in Reece. At issue in Reece was the timing of the commencement of the weekly workers' compensation benefit to the employee when the employer was entitled to a credit for the full amount of the employee's settlement with a third party. The General Assembly's apparent acceptance of the procedure adopted in Reece for providing a credit against future periodic payments, now codified as Tennessee Code Annotated section 50–6–112, did not encompass an award of unlimited future medical benefits.

The sound principle of stare decisis requires us to uphold our prior precedents to promote consistency in the law and to promote confidence in this Court's decisions. Carroll v. Whitney, 29 S.W.3d 14, 25 (Tenn.2000) (Anderson, C.J., dissenting). This Court will overturn a settled rule of law only when there is an error in the precedent, when the precedent is obsolete, when adhering to the precedent would cause greater harm to the community than disregarding stare decisis, or when the prior precedent conflicts with a constitutional provision. In re Estate of McFarland, 167 S.W.3d 299, 306 (Tenn.2005). Reversing our prior decisions in Graves and Hickman does not accomplish any of these purposes.

The application of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50–6–112 was debated for several decades, and the Graves decision put an end to that debate. See John A. Day, Subrogation of Future Medical Payments, 36 Tenn. B.J. 33 (2000) (“For decades lawyers for claimants and worker's [sic] compensation insurers have debated on subrogation of future medical benefits. That debate is now over.”). The law regarding subrogation of future medical benefits in workers' compensation cases has been settled for a dozen years, and the reasoning set forth in Graves and Hickman is still valid.

In addition, we have long adhered to the rule that when a prior decision has addressed the construction and operation of a statute, the principle of stare decisis will apply unless the General Assembly acts to change the statute. LaManna v. Univ. of Tenn., 225 Tenn. 25, 462 S.W.2d 877, 881 (Tenn.1971). The General Assembly has broad discretion to define the scope of claims and the procedure for recovering workers' compensation benefits. Gerdau Ameristeel, Inc. ., 368 S.W.3d at 506. It is fully within the power of the General Assembly to amend Tennessee Code Annotated section 50–6–112 to allow an employer's recovery of the cost of future medical benefits incurred by an employee and to delineate the manner in which such recovery should occur.⁵ We have ruled on the construction and operation of the statute, and it is the prerogative of the General Assembly to change it. See McKesson & Robbins, Inc. v. Gov't Emps. Dep't Store, Inc., 211 Tenn. 494, 365 S.W.2d 890, 894 (Tenn.1963) (stating that when the Court's construction of a statute has been “on the books” for twelve years, courts should follow the decision until the legislature acts). In the twelve years following the Graves decision, the General Assembly has not acted to amend the statute.

We see no compelling reason to reverse direction in the absence of legislative action. The dissent would have us usurp the prerogative of the General Assembly, reverse course on a settled issue of law, introduce uncertainty into the law, and undermine confidence in this Court's decisions. We are unwilling to do so.

We therefore reaffirm our holdings in Graves and Hickman. MasterStaff's subrogation lien against the proceeds of the settlement with the defendants in the chancery court action does not extend to the cost of future medical benefits to which Mr. Cooper may be entitled. MasterStaff therefore has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6).

Finally, the Court of Appeals also held that the record was insufficient to determine if MasterStaff had an equitable right of subrogation and remanded the case to the trial court for further consideration. Cooper, 2011 WL 1874577, at *5. The Workers' Compensation Law is entirely a creature of statute, and the rights and responsibilities of the parties are derived solely from the statutes. Curtis v. G.E. Capital Modular Space, 155 S.W.3d 877, 884 (Tenn.2005). The General Assembly has not provided an equitable right of subrogation in addition to the statutory subrogation lien set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50–6–112. Cf. Castleman v. Ross Eng'g, Inc., 958 S.W.2d 720, 724 (Tenn.1997) (declining to permit an injured employee to use principles of equitable subrogation to defeat the employer's statutory subrogation lien).

From the record before us, it appears that Mr. Cooper's workers' compensation claim remains unresolved. We therefore remand to the trial court for a determination of the amount of MasterStaff's subrogation lien and for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

III. Conclusion

We hold that the employer's lien against an employee's recovery from a third party provided by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50–6–112 does not extend to future medical benefits to be provided by the employer. We remand to the trial court for further proceedings. Costs of this appeal are taxed to MasterStaff, Inc., and its surety, for which execution may issue, if necessary.

Employees' work-related injuries are, on occasion, caused by the fault of third parties. Approximately fifty years ago, the Tennessee General Assembly addressed how recoveries from these third parties should be apportioned between the employee and the employer. This appeal requires us to interpret and apply Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112(c) (2008), one of these fifty-year-old statutes. Rather than applying the plain statutory language, the Court has undertaken to harmonize Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112 with other changes in the Workers' Compensation Law that were made after Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112 was enacted. There is no doubt that the Tennessee General Assembly should revisit Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112. However, until the General Assembly does, I would interpret and apply the statute according to its plain meaning. Accordingly, I must respectfully dissent.

I.

Joshua Cooper worked for an employee-contracting company named MasterStaff, Inc. On January 14, 2008, MasterStaff assigned Mr. Cooper to operate a towmotor¹ for ProLogistics, Inc. at a warehouse in Smyrna, Tennessee. The work called for Mr. Cooper to drive the towmotor into the trailers of trucks parked at the warehouse's loading dock, to remove pallets of goods from the trailers, and then to place the pallets in the warehouse. Just as Mr. Cooper was backing the towmotor out of one of the trailers, Joe Murray, an employee of ProLogistics, drove the truck to which the trailer was attached away from the loading dock. When Mr. Cooper's towmotor reached the back of the trailer, it fell out onto the concrete driveway. The fall caused “significant, permanent injuries to [Mr. Cooper's] back and spine.”

On January 22, 2008, eight days following the incident, Mr. Cooper and his wife filed a negligence action against five third parties in the Chancery Court for Rutherford County, seeking $1,000,000 in combined damages for Mr. Cooper's injuries and Ms. Cooper's loss of consortium. After the Coopers filed an amended complaint and notice of voluntary dismissal, their claims proceeded against Mr. Murray, ProLogistics, and Logistics Insight Corporation (“the third-party defendants”).

In addition to his negligence action against the third-party defendants, Mr. Cooper pursued a claim for workers' compensation benefits against MasterStaff. In response to this claim, MasterStaff began to pay Mr. Cooper's medical expenses and to provide him temporary disability benefits. On April 14, 2008, MasterStaff moved to intervene as a party in the Coopers' lawsuit against the third-party defendants to assert a lien against Mr. Cooper's recovery from the third-party defendants. In addition to its “subrogation lien” under Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112(c)(1) (2008), MasterStaff asserted that it was entitled to “a common law and equitable right of subrogation” with regard to Mr. Cooper's recovery from the third-party defendants “as to the workers' compensation benefits which have been paid to date and those which may be paid in the future.”

On July 10, 2009, while the Coopers' lawsuit against the third-party defendants and Mr. Cooper's workers' compensation claim were pending, MasterStaff filed an itemization of the medical bills it had already paid on Mr. Cooper's behalf. These bills totaled $44,698.62. MasterStaff's counsel also informed counsel for the Coopers and the third-party defendants that MasterStaff intended to pursue the issue of future medical liability and that “it was actively obtaining expert medical proof as to [Mr. Cooper's] reasonable future medical expenses.”

From this point on, the conduct of all the parties must be considered in light of their lawyers' understandings of the legal principles applicable to the apportionment of liability among the employer, employee, and negligent third-party when the employee elects to pursue simultaneously a damage claim against the third party and a workers' compensation claim against the employer. Based on this Court's decisions in Hickman v. Continental Baking Co., 143 S.W.3d 72 (Tenn.2004), and Graves v. Cocke County, 24 S.W.3d 285 (Tenn.2000), counsel for MasterStaff took the position that MasterStaff would be entitled to receive from Mr. Cooper's recovery from the third-party defendants not only the workers' compensation benefits it had paid up to the time of the recovery, but also the cost of future medical expenses that were known or calculable at the time of the recovery. For their part, counsel for the Coopers and the third-party defendants took the position that MasterStaff's recovery would be limited to the workers' compensation benefits that had actually been paid at the time of the recovery.

Once the Coopers and the third-party defendants understood that MasterStaff intended to vigorously pursue a recovery for the anticipated cost of Mr. Cooper's future medical care, they negotiated and settled the Coopers' negligence claims. They did not involve MasterStaff in or inform MasterStaff of these negotiations. On January 22, 2010, the trial court entered an order prepared by the Coopers' lawyer dismissing the Coopers' claims against the third-party defendants with prejudice. This order provided MasterStaff with its first notice that the Coopers' negligence claims had been resolved.²

On February 19, 2010, MasterStaff filed a motion to set the case for trial. It argued that the settlement between the Coopers and the third-party defendants “did not dispose of all claims between the parties” because the issue regarding Mr. Cooper's future medical expenses was still outstanding. On April 5, 2010, the trial court granted MasterStaff's motion and set the case for trial on June 7, 2010.

In the meantime, the third-party defendants filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss MasterStaff's claims. They insisted that Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112(c)(1) did not permit MasterStaff to pursue a subrogation lien against the Coopers' recovery award because MasterStaff would receive reimbursement for the workers' compensation benefits it had provided to Mr. Cooper up to the time of the settlement and that MasterStaff was not entitled to an additional recovery for Mr. Cooper's anticipated medical expenses. The third-party defendants also argued that if the trial court permitted MasterStaff to proceed to trial, the trial court should set aside the voluntary dismissal of the Coopers' claims against them and order the Coopers to return the settlement proceeds.³

During the hearing on the third-party defendants' motion to dismiss on April 28, 2010, the trial court was informed that Mr. Cooper's workers' compensation claim had not been resolved because he had not yet reached maximum medical improvement and that MasterStaff's expert had estimated that Mr. Cooper's reasonably expected future medical expenses were currently estimated at $200,000. On May 7, 2010, the trial court entered an order granting the third-party defendants' motion to dismiss based on its conclusion that the January 22, 2010 order of voluntary dismissal “resolved all claims against the [third-party] Defendants.”

MasterStaff appealed to the Court of Appeals. In an opinion filed on May 16, 2011, the court held that this Court's decisions in Graves v. Cocke County and Hickman v. Continental Baking Co. do not “stand for the proposition that, as a matter of law, future medical expenses are in all circumstances too speculative to be included in the credit available to an employer under Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112(c)(2).” Cooper v. Logistics Insight Corp., No. M2010–01262–COA–R3–CV, 2011 WL 1874577, at *4 (Tenn.Ct.App. May 16, 2011). The court also held that MasterStaff could not pursue a claim directly against the third-party defendants under Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112(d)(2). Cooper v. Logistics Insight Corp., 2011 WL 1874577, at *4–5. Finally, the court held that the record was not sufficient to permit determining whether MasterStaff was entitled to equitable subrogation for the amount of Mr. Cooper's future medical expenses related to his January 14, 2008 injury. Cooper v. Logistics Insight Corp., 2011 WL 1874577, at *5. Based on these legal conclusions, the Court of Appeals set aside the trial court's dismissal of MasterStaff's complaint and remanded the case to the trial court.⁴ This Court granted the third-party defendants' application for permission to appeal to again address the rights of employees, employers, and third-party tortfeasors in circumstances when an employee has sustained a work-related injury caused by a third-party tortfeasor.

II.

The issues in this case call on us to interpret and apply the workers' compensation statutes. The interpretation and application of these statutes present questions of law. Gerdau Ameristeel, Inc. v. Ratliff, 368 S.W.3d 503, 506 (Tenn.2012); Seiber v. Reeves Logging, 284 S.W.3d 294, 298 (Tenn.2009). Accordingly, we will review the lower courts' decisions interpreting and applying the workers' compensation statutes to the facts of this case de novo without a presumption of correctness. Rich v. Tennessee Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 350 S.W.3d 919, 926 (Tenn.2011); Lazar v. J.W. Aluminum, 346 S.W.3d 438, 441–42 (Tenn.2011).

When we are called upon to interpret a statute, our goal is to ascertain the General Assembly's purpose for enacting the statute and then to apply the statute in a way that fully accomplishes that purpose without expanding the application of the statute beyond its intended scope. Mitchell v. Fayetteville Pub. Utils., 368 S.W.3d 442, 448 (Tenn.2012); Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 889, 895 (Tenn.2011); Overstreet v. TRW Commercial Steering Div. ., 256 S.W.3d 626, 630 (Tenn.2008). This rule of construction is of paramount importance when interpreting workers' compensation statutes because workers' compensation benefits and procedures are entirely creatures of statute. Martin v. Lear Corp., 90 S.W.3d 626, 632 (Tenn.2002). These statutes were enacted because the common-law tort system was perceived to be unfair to both employees and employers,⁵ and thus these statutes serve as a “complete substitute” for the previous common-law remedies and procedures. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Stevenson, 212 Tenn. 178, 182, 368 S.W.2d 760, 762 (1963).

Today's workers' compensation statutes embody a comprehensive system reflecting the Tennessee General Assembly's careful balancing of the interests of both the employee and the employer. Lang v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 170 S.W.3d 564, 572 (Tenn.2005); Stratton v. United Inter–Mountain Tel. Co., 695 S.W.2d 947, 954 (Tenn.1985); Clanton v. Cain–Sloan Co., 677 S.W.2d at 443. The General Assembly has plenary authority, subject only to constitutional restraints, to define the rights, benefits, and procedures available in workers' compensation proceedings. Gerdau Ameristeel, Inc. v. Ratliff, 368 S.W.3d at 506. While the courts are directed by Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–116 (2008) to construe the workers' compensation statutes “equitabl[y] ․ to the end that the objects and purposes of this chapter may be realized and attained,” they are not at liberty to alter or extend these statutes beyond their obvious meaning. Gerdau Ameristeel, Inc. v. Ratliff, 368 S.W.3d at 506; Wausau Ins. Co. v. Dorsett, 172 S.W.3d 538, 542–43 (Tenn.2005). The General Assembly is solely responsible for creating the workers' compensation program, and thus any changes in the scope or application of the program must come from the General Assembly, not the courts. Mitchell v. Fayetteville Pub. Utils., 368 S.W.3d at 451.

The General Assembly's purpose is most reliably found in the language of the statutes themselves. Norma Faye Pyles Lynch Family Purpose LLC v. Putnam Cnty., 301 S.W.3d 196, 213 (Tenn.2009). Thus, the courts should focus, at least initially, on the language of the statute. Nye v. Bayer Cropscience, Inc., 347 S.W.3d 686, 694 (Tenn.2011). The courts must (1) give the words used in the statute their natural and ordinary meaning, (2) consider the words in the context in which they appear, and (3) presume that the General Assembly intended that each word be given effect. Knox Cnty. ex rel. Envtl. Termite & Pest Control, Inc. v. Arrow Exterminators, Inc., 350 S.W.3d 511, 524 (Tenn.2011); Coleman v. State, 341 S.W.3d 221, 241 (Tenn.2011); Green v. Green, 293 S.W.3d 493, 507 (Tenn.2009). When the language of a constitutional statute is clear and unambiguous, the courts' only recourse is to construe and apply the statute as written. Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d at 895; Overstreet v. TRW Commercial Steering Div., 256 S.W.3d at 630; Miller v. Childress, 21 Tenn. (2 Hum.) 320, 321–22 (1841).

III.

Tennessee's workers' compensation program is designed to benefit employees by providing expeditious and certain recovery from employers for work-related injuries and to benefit employers by limiting their liability exposure. Clanton v. Cain–Sloan Co., 677 S.W.2d at 443. During the nine decades following the enactment of the program in 1919,⁶ the courts have frequently pointed out its purposes. The two most often cited purposes are: (1) to provide workers with compensation for the loss of their earning power or capacity to work caused by work-related injuries, Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Starnes, 563 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tenn.1978); Mathis v. J.L. Forrest & Sons, 188 Tenn. 128, 130, 216 S.W.2d 967, 967 (1949), and (2) to put the burden of providing compensation to injured workers on the businesses employing them, Lynch v. City of Jellico, 205 S.W.3d 384, 390 (Tenn.2006); Kinnard v. Tennessee Chem. Co., 157 Tenn. 206, 209–10, 7 S.W.2d 807, 808 (1928).

However, throughout the decades, the courts have pointed to other purposes of the workers' compensation program. One of the most significant of these is to prevent employees from making a double recovery. Correll v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 207 S.W.3d 751, 754 (Tenn.2006); Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Gilreath, 625 S.W.2d 269, 272 (Tenn.1981); Mitchell v. Usilton, 146 Tenn. 419, 424, 242 S.W. 648, 650 (1922). Workers' compensation experts have noted that “[t]he policy of avoiding double recovery is a strong one.” 6 Arthur Larson & Lex K. Larson, Larson's Workers' Compensation Law § 110.03, at 110–10 (2009) (“Larson's Workers' Compensation Law ”). We have characterized this prohibition as an “integral part” of the workers' compensation program. Walters v. Eagle Indem. Co., 166 Tenn. 383, 386–87, 61 S.W.2d 666, 667 (1933).

Yet another significant purpose of the workers' compensation program, from its very beginning, has been to provide the injured employee or the employer with the ability to place the full burden of the employee's injuries on the person or persons who caused the employee's injury or disability. See Plough, Inc. v. Premier Pneumatics, Inc., 660 S.W.2d 495, 499 (Tenn.Ct.App.1983). The decision to permit injured workers or their employers to pursue negligence claims against the third parties whose conduct caused their injuries is based on “the moral idea that the ultimate loss from wrongdoing should fall upon the wrongdoer.” 6 Larson's Workers' Compensation Law § 110.01, at 110–2.⁷ Accordingly, “it is elementary that if a stranger's negligence was the cause of the injury to the claimant in the course of employment, the stranger should not be in any degree absolved of his or her normal obligation to pay damages for such injury.” 6 Larson's Worker's Compensation Law § 110.01, at 110–3.

The statutory provisions in the Workers' Compensation Law that permit recoveries from third parties whose conduct causes an employee's on-the-job injuries are strictly for the benefit of the employee and the employer. Walters v. Eagle Indem. Co., 166 Tenn. at 391, 61 S.W.2d at 668; Bristol Tel. Co. v. Weaver, 146 Tenn. 511, 522, 243 S.W. 299, 302 (1921). These provisions advance the policies of the workers' compensation program because they: (1) place the financial burden of the employee's injury on the party responsible to the same extent as if no workers' compensation was involved, (2) prevent the employee from obtaining a double recovery while, at the same time, recovering additional damages that would not be available under the workers' compensation program, and (3) permit the employer to come out even by being reimbursed for its workers' compensation expenditures. 6 Larson's Workers' Compensation Law § 110.02. Thus, the goals of the workers' compensation program are advanced by giving an employer the right “to collect from a blameworthy third party an amount equivalent to the compensation that it paid and/or will pay to an injured employee,” 6 Larson's Workers' Compensation Law § 116.01[1], or by permitting an employer to pursue a claim against the third party who caused its employee's injuries if the employee himself or herself does not pursue the claim, 6 Larson's Workers' Compensation Law §§ 116.01[4], 116.03.

IV.

Tennessee's original workers' compensation statute provided:

Whenever an injury for which compensation is payable under this chapter shall have been sustained under circumstances creating in some other person than the employer a legal liability to pay damages in respect thereto, the injured employee may, at his option, either claim compensation or proceed at law against such other person to recover damages, or proceed against both the employer and such other person, but he shall not be entitled to collect from both; and if any compensation is awarded under this chapter, the employer having paid the compensation or having become liable therefor, may collect, in his own name or in the name of the injured employee in a suit brought for the purpose, from the other person against whom legal liability for damages exists, the indemnity paid or payable to the injured employee.

2 Code of Tennessee § 6865 (1932).⁸ Among our earliest decisions construing this section, this Court pointed out that it “gives the employee the right to elect whether he will seek compensation or damages, but he cannot recover both damages and compensation.” Mitchell v. Usilton, 146 Tenn. at 425, 242 S.W. at 650. Accordingly, this Court held that employees who accepted workers' compensation benefits from their employer could not pursue a damage claim against a third party. Mitchell v. Usilton, 146 Tenn. at 426, 242 S.W. at 650–51.

In 1949, the Tennessee General Assembly amended Section 6865, in part to address our holding in Mitchell v. Usilton.⁹ This amendment replaced the original language of Section 6865, in relevant part, with the following:

When the injury or death for which compensation is payable under the [Workers'] Compensation Law was caused under circumstances creating a legal liability against some person other than the employer to pay damages, the injured [worker] ․ shall have the right to take compensation under such law and said injured [worker] ․ may pursue his ․ remedy by proper action in a court of competent jurisdiction against such other person. In the event of recovery from such other person by the injured [worker] ․ by judgment, settlement or otherwise, the employer shall be subrogated to the extent of the amount paid or payable under such law, and shall have a lien therefor against such recovery and the employer may intervene in any action to protect and enforce such lien.

Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–914 (1955).

Five years after the enactment of the 1949 amendment, this Court had occasion to determine how the statute should be applied in a circumstance in which a deceased employee's widow settled claims against two third parties without the knowledge or consent of the employer. The employer insisted it should be relieved from further liability under the workers' compensation statutes because the widow had entered into these settlements with third parties. This Court disagreed. In upholding the trial court's ruling that the employer was entitled to a credit against its obligations under the workers' compensation act, we stated that:

notwithstanding such settlements of the widow with these third parties the employer would remain liable for compensation to the full extent, as provided by the statute; but, that he would be entitled to a credit against his liability equal to the amount of money actually collected as a consideration for the covenant not to sue and the release. This would appear to be proper since the Act specifically gives the employer a lien upon a recovery by judgment, settlement or otherwise.

Millican v. Home Stores, Inc., 197 Tenn. 93, 99, 270 S.W.2d 372, 374 (1954) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Two years after handing down its decision in Millican v. Home Stores, Inc., this Court addressed how the “credit” against the employer's workers' compensation liability should be applied in Reece v. York, 199 Tenn. 592, 288 S.W.2d 448 (1956). The case involved an employee who was permanently and totally disabled as a result of an accident with a third party. The employer began paying workers' compensation benefits, and the employee filed a negligence action against the third party. The employee recovered $5,000 from the third party, and a dispute arose concerning how this recovery should be credited against the employer's worker's compensation liability to the employee.

When Reece v. York was tried, the employer's maximum liability to the employee under the workers' compensation program was statutorily fixed at $8,500.00.¹⁰ The trial court decided that $785.50 of the employee's recovery from the third party should be used to reimburse the employer for the workers' compensation benefits it had already paid. The court also decided that the remaining balance of $4,214.50 should be credited against the employer's future workers' compensation liability. The trial court then subtracted the remaining balance of the employee's recovery from the third party from the employer's maximum liability¹¹ and determined that the employer should immediately begin making weekly payments to the employee for 236 weeks until the remaining $4,285.50 balance of its obligation had been paid. Reece v. York, 199 Tenn. at 593–94, 288 S.W.2d at 449.

The only issue on appeal was whether the employer could refrain from paying its remaining workers' compensation liability to the employee until the credit in the amount of the remaining balance of the employee's recovery from the third party was exhausted. Reece v. York, 199 Tenn. at 594–95, 288 S.W.2d at 449–50. Reversing the trial court's judgment, this Court determined that the trial court erred because it “should have ordered the installment payments to be deferred and not commence until the sum total of the net credits of weekly installments that would have accrued from the date of the injury would be equal to the net credit of $4,214.50.” Reece v. York, 199 Tenn. at 597, 288 S.W.2d at 450.

When the Tennessee General Assembly amended Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–914 in 1963, it codified the “credit” to which employers were entitled against accrued and future liability under the workers' compensation statutes. As amended, Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–914 provided in pertinent part that:

Provided, further, that in event said net recovery by the [worker] ․ exceeds the amount paid by the employer, and the employer has not, at said time, paid and discharged his full maximum liability for [workers'] compensation ․, the employer shall be entitled to a credit on his future liability, as it accrues, to the extent the net recovery collected exceeds the amount paid by the employer. Provided further, however, that in event the [worker] ․ effects a recovery, and collection thereof, from such other person, by judgment, settlement, or otherwise, without intervention by the employer, the employer shall, nevertheless, be entitled to a credit on his future liability for [workers'] compensation, as it accrues ․ to the extent of said net recovery.

Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–914 (Supp.1963).

In decisions handed down following the 1963 amendment, this Court noted that the amended statute retained essentially the same system that had existed before the amendment and that “[t]he legislative intent is to reimburse an employer for payments made under a [Workers'] Compensation award from ‘the net recovery’ obtained by the employee ․ to the extent of employer's total obligation under the Compensation Act.” Beam v. Maryland Cas. Co., 477 S.W.2d 510, 513 (Tenn.1972). This Court also held that the credit is allowable “although it may ․ equal and thus terminate the [workers'] compensation liability.” Royal Indem. Co. v. Schmid, 225 Tenn. 610, 619, 474 S.W.2d 647, 651 (1971).

In 1983, Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–914 was redesignated as Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112 (1983) and subsection designations were added to the statute. With the exception of an amendment in 1985 pertaining to the statute of limitations for third-party actions,¹² the statutory provisions governing claims against third parties have remained substantively unchanged for almost fifty years. Currently Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112(c)(1) provides an employer with a “subrogation lien” against an employee's recovery from a third party by “judgment, settlement or otherwise.” In circumstances in which an employer has not paid or discharged his “full maximum liability for workers' compensation,” Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112(c)(2) provides an employer with a “credit on the employer's future liability, as it accrues, to the extent that the net recovery collected exceeds the amount paid by the employer.”¹³ Finally, in circumstances in which an employee effects a recovery “without intervention by the employer” and collects that recovery by judgment, settlement, or otherwise, Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112(c)(3) gives an employer “a credit on the employer's future liability for workers' compensation, as it accrues under this chapter, to the extent of the net recovery.”

This analysis of the maturation of Tennessee's workers' compensation statutes pertaining to remedies against third parties demonstrates that the General Assembly has addressed the important policies of: (1) placing the financial burden of the employee's injury on the party responsible for the injury, (2) preventing employees from obtaining a double recovery, and (3) permitting the employer to be reimbursed for its workers' compensation expenditures. The General Assembly has balanced the interests of employees and employers by giving employers both a subrogation interest in the employee's recovery from a third party—Tenn. Code Ann. § 50–6–112(c)(1)—and also a credit on the employer's future liability as it accrues—Tenn. Code Ann. § 50–6–112(c)(2), (3).

There is no escaping that much has changed in the fifty years since the General Assembly adopted the last substantive amendments of the statutes governing recoveries against third parties in workers' compensation cases. In 1963, the employer's maximum workers' compensation liability was fixed. Yet even after the General Assembly removed all monetary and temporal limits on the amount of an employer's liability for medical and hospital expenses, Tennessee's courts, following the General Assembly's intent reflected in the words of the workers' compensation statutes, continued to hold that employers were entitled to claim a credit against an injured employee's recovery from a third party, even if the amount of the credit exceeded the amount of the recovery. See, e.g., Cross v. Pan Am World Servs., Inc., 749 S.W.2d at 30; Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Gilreath, 625 S.W.2d at 273.

V.

The interpretive history of Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112(c) remained relatively straightforward and consistent until 1990, when this Court handed down Graves v. Cocke County, 24 S.W.3d 285 (Tenn.2000). The case involved a county maintenance supervisor who was seriously injured in a work-related automobile accident. The supervisor filed a workers' compensation action against the county and a negligence claim against the driver of the automobile that caused his injury.

The supervisor settled his lawsuit against the driver of the other automobile and then entered into negotiations with the county to settle his workers' compensation claim. When the parties could not agree on the county's claim that it was entitled to a credit “for future medical expenses paid on the employee's behalf,” they submitted this dispute to the trial court. Graves v. Cocke Cnty., 24 S.W.3d at 286. The trial court, emphasizing the uncertainty of the future medical expenses and the importance of finality, decided that “the credit provided for in Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112 did not encompass future medical payments when the parties settled for a lump sum award.” Graves v. Cocke Cnty., 24 S.W.3d at 286.

When the case reached this Court, we observed that the county's claim based on the language of Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112(c) was “plausible.” Graves v. Cocke Cnty., 24 S.W.3d at 288. However, without addressing our previous holdings in Millican v. Home Stores, Inc. and Reece v. York, the Court sided with the employee's policy arguments and held that “the ‘credit on the employer's future liability’ as used in Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112(c)(2), (3) does not encompass future medical payments when the parties have settled the case for a lump sum award.” Graves v. Cocke Cnty., 24 S.W.3d at 288. Instead of basing its opinion on the language of Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112(c), the Court relied on four policy considerations.¹⁴

Fourteen years after the decision in Graves v. Cocke County, this Court revisited its interpretation of Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112(c) in Hickman v. Continental Baking Co., 143 S.W.3d 72 (Tenn.2004). This case involved a bakery employee who was injured when he attempted to “free a jammed dough control conveyor.” Hickman v. Continental Baking Co., 143 S.W.3d at 74. The employee filed suit against the manufacturer of the conveyor and also filed a workers' compensation claim against his employer. After obtaining a sizeable settlement from the manufacturer of the conveyor, the employee tried his workers' compensation claim. The trial court determined that the employer was entitled to a credit “against its future liability [for the payment of periodic workers' compensation benefits],” Hickman v. Continental Baking Co., 143 S.W.3d at 74, and also determined, relying on Graves v. Cocke County, that the employee “was entitled to future medical expenses for the balance of his life and that no credit under [Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112] should be applied to such expenses.” Hickman v. Continental Baking Co., 143 S.W.3d at 75, 78.

When this Court reviewed the trial court's decision, it noted that, unlike the circumstances in Graves v. Cocke County, the employer and the employee had not “settled for a lump sum.” Hickman v. Continental Baking Co., 143 S.W.3d at 78. However, the Court, relying on the non-statutory distinction between workers' compensation disability benefits and payments for future medical expenses to treat work-related injuries, held:

Employees will be placed in the difficult position of not being able to spend their third-party recoveries even if period payments are credited against the third-party recovery. Holding these funds hostage for an indefinite period of time is just as unacceptable under these circumstances as it was in Graves. As such, the logic underlying Graves compels us to reach a similar result in this case. We therefore apply the holding of Graves to the present case and conclude that [the employer] is not entitled to a credit against future liability for medical expenses that are unknown or incalculable at the time of the trial of the workers' compensation case.

Hickman v. Continental Baking Co., 143 S.W.3d at 78. Thus, the Court's decision in the Hickman case with regard to the interpretation and application of Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112 rests exclusively on the rationale of Graves v. Cocke County.

This Court considers the doctrine of stare decisis to be of “commanding importance.” Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 431 (Tenn.2011); Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty. v. Poe, 215 Tenn. 53, 80, 383 S.W.2d 265, 277 (1964). It gives “firmness and stability to principles of law.” In re Estate of McFarland, 167 S.W.3d 299, 306 (Tenn.2005). It also guards against appellate judges “writ[ing] their personal opinions on public policy into law.” Jordan v. Knox Cnty., 213 S.W.3d 751, 780 (Tenn.2007) (citing Lewis F. Powell, Jr., Stare Decisis and Judicial Restraint, 16 J. Sup.Ct. Hist. 13, 16 (1991) [hereinafter Powell, Stare Decisis ] ).

However, repeating the words of Justice Brandeis, this Court has also stated that we do not view the doctrine of stare decisis as “a universal inexorable command.” City of Memphis v. Overton, 216 Tenn. 293, 298, 392 S.W.2d 98, 100 (1965) (quoting Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 405, 52 S.Ct. 443, 76 L.Ed. 815 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)); see also Alcazar v. Hayes, 982 S.W.2d 845, 852 n. 5 (Tenn.1998). It is a rule of stability, not a rule of inflexibility. Powell, Stare Decisis, 16 J. Sup.Ct. Hist. at 14. Accordingly, we have cautioned on more than one occasion that “mindless obedience to the [doctrine of stare decisis] can confound the truth.” Nye v. Bayer Cropscience, Inc., 347 S.W.3d at 696 n. 10 (quoting Davis v. Davis, 657 S.W.2d 753, 758 (Tenn.1983)).

This Court should exercise its power to overrule prior decisions very sparingly and only when the reasons are compelling. Edingbourgh v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 206 Tenn. 660, 664, 337 S.W.2d 13, 14 (1960). Nonetheless, we have a duty to reject principles of law that no longer work, State v. Kendricks, 891 S.W.2d 597, 603 (Tenn.1994), and to correct plain and palpable errors even though they “may have been re-asserted and acquiesced in for a long number of years.” Arnold v. Mayor & Aldermen of Knoxville, 115 Tenn. 195, 202, 90 S.W. 469, 470 (1905). In the workers' compensation context, we have recognized that while prior decisions should not be overruled “in an arbitrary or cavalier manner,” the doctrine of stare decisis “does not demand adherence to decisions that have become obsolete because of ․ other legitimate considerations.” Five Star Express, Inc. v. Davis, 866 S.W.2d 944, 949 (Tenn.1993).

This Court has observed that the doctrine of stare decisis should be “more rigidly followed” with regard to decisions construing statutes. Barnes v. Walker, 191 Tenn. 364, 370, 234 S.W.2d 648, 650 (1950).¹⁵ However, there is no categorical rule that this Court's prior decisions construing statutes are binding on us in the same way they are binding on lower courts. See Powell, Stare Decisis, 16 J. Sup.Ct. Hist. at 16. Thus, when “cogent reasons” exist, this Court may and should revisit and either reverse or modify prior decisions construing statutes. See Monday v. Millsaps, 197 Tenn. 295, 298, 271 S.W.2d 857, 858 (1954); Humphries v. Manhattan Sav. Bank & Trust Co., 174 Tenn. 17, 25, 122 S.W.2d 446, 449 (1938). As we have noted in another case involving continuing adherence to an earlier decision construing a statute, “[o]ur oath is to do justice, not to perpetuate error.” Jordan v. Baptist Three Rivers Hosp., 984 S.W.2d 593, 599 (Tenn.1999) (quoting Montgomery v. Stephan, 359 Mich. 33, 101 N.W.2d 227, 229 (Mich.1960)).

Three cogent reasons justify declining to continue to follow the interpretation of Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112(c) in Graves v. Cocke County. The first reason is that its interpretation of the statute is not faithful to the words of the statute itself. Third-party claims such as the one involved in this case are not often pursued. Accordingly, I find little basis to presume that the General Assembly has come to rely on the Graves courts' interpretation of the statute or that the General Assembly has ever been asked to reconsider the statute in light of the Graves decision.

The second reason is that Graves v. Cocke County is based on the faulty premise that future medical expenses are somehow incalculable in the context of a workers' compensation case. To the contrary, future medical expenses are readily calculable and commonly awarded in personal injury cases. See Mercer v. Vanderbilt Univ., Inc., 134 S.W.3d 121, 132 (Tenn.2004); Henley v. Amacher, No. M1999–02799–COA–R3–CV, 2002 WL 100402, at 13–15 (Tenn.Ct.App. Jan.28, 2002) (No Tenn. R.App. P. 11 application filed). The Tennessee Pattern Jury Instructions provide the principles for calculating future medical expenses¹⁶ and also provide jury verdict forms to facilitate awards of medical services likely to be required in the future.¹⁷

The third reason is that the effect of Graves v. Cocke County on the application of Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112(c) places the statute at odds with the purpose of allowing employees to pursue claims against third parties for work-related injuries. This statute is intended to benefit not only the employee but also the employer by placing the full burden of the employee's injuries on the person who caused them. See Walters v. Eagle Indem. Co., 166 Tenn. at 389, 61 S.W.2d at 668; Bristol Tel. Co. v. Weaver, 146 Tenn. at 522, 243 S.W. at 302; Plough, Inc. v. Premier Pneumatics, Inc., 660 S.W.2d at 499. If the Court continues to follow the reasoning of Graves v. Cocke County, the third parties whose negligence caused an employee to require future medical services may very well escape their full responsibility by shifting the financial burden of providing future medical services to the employer.

VI.

On the other occasions when this Court has been called upon to construe Tennessee's workers' compensation statutes governing the disposition of an employee's recovery from third parties, we have made it clear that we will not disregard the General Assembly's intent. Beam v. Maryland Cas. Co., 477 S.W.2d at 513. Despite the fact that most states have modernized and revised the provisions in the workers' compensation statutes relating to claims against third parties,¹⁸ our General Assembly has not. With regard to the issues in this case, I believe that the General Assembly's intent is reflected in the plain language of Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112(c) that entitles employers to both a subrogation lien against the employee's recovery and a credit on the employer's future liability. The statutory lien in Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112(c)(1) and the statutory credit in Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112(c)(2), (3) are separate and distinct.

In accordance with the plain meaning of Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112(c)(2), (3), the credit to which an employer is entitled does not operate as a refund out of the employee's recovery. Rather, it negates an employer's responsibility to pay additional workers' compensation benefits until the employee's net recovery from the third party is exhausted or until the employer's obligation to pay workers' compensation benefits is exhausted. Consistent with this Court's decision in Reece v. York, an employee who obtains a recovery from a third party must use his or her “net recovery” to pay for future medical care relating to the injury until the net recovery is exhausted.¹⁹ An employer's liability for the medical expenses related to the employee's injury recommences only after the employee has exhausted his or her net recovery in paying for the necessary and reasonable medical expenses from the work-related injury.²⁰

MasterStaff is entitled to its subrogation lien under Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112(c)(1) against Mr. Cooper's recovery from the third-party defendants. The amount of this lien is the amount of workers' compensation benefits MasterStaff had paid at the time of the settlement. MasterStaff is also entitled to a credit under Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112(c)(2) because it intervened in Mr. Cooper's action against the third-party defendants. This credit is against its future liability to Mr. Cooper for workers' compensation benefits as they accrue up to the amount of Mr. Cooper's net recovery.

Therefore, I would reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case with directions to address and resolve the remaining issues regarding MasterStaff's credit under Tenn.Code Ann. § 50–6–112(c)(2). Consistent with the statute, the trial court must (1) calculate Mr. Cooper's “net recovery” from the third-party defendants, (2) determine MasterStaff's future liability for workers' compensation benefits, and (3) define both Mr. Cooper's and MasterStaff's obligations with regard to the payment of the future medical expenses for Mr. Cooper's work-related injuries.

JANICE M. HOLDER, J.