Kilburn v. Granite State Insurance Co.

522 S.W.3d 384 (2017)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Kilburn v. Granite State Insurance Co.

Tennessee Supreme Court
522 S.W.3d 384 (2017)


In 2008, Charles Kilburn suffered spinal injuries in a car accident that occurred in the course of his employment. He had surgery for neck pain in July of 2009, but he continued to suffer back pain and neurological issues. Kilburn’s doctor recommended back surgery, but Kilburn’s insurance company would not cover the procedure. On January 4, 2010, a pain-management specialist evaluated Kilburn. The specialist’s notes expressed concern that Kilburn was drinking alcohol while taking medication and that Kilburn was taking greater doses of opioids than prescribed because he felt the medication was no longer working. The specialist prescribed a muscle relaxant and oxycodone and made Kilburn promise to speak to a physician before adjusting his dosage. Kilburn developed anxiety about not having the back surgery and not having medication. He started skipping doses of his medicine because he was worried that he would run out and not be able to get more. On January 28, 2010, Kilburn’s wife, Judy (plaintiff), found Kilburn unresponsive in bed. The medical examiner deemed Kilburn’s death an accidental oxycodone overdose with contributory causes including alcohol use. Judy brought an action against Kilburn’s employer and Granite State Insurance Company (defendants), seeking workers’-compensation death benefits. At trial, Judy presented testimony from a psychiatrist who specialized in addiction. He testified that it was more likely than not that Kilburn was suffering from severe pain and anxiety at the time of his death and that those conditions possibly could have made Kilburn more susceptible to overdosing. He also testified that the medications Kilburn was taking could have made Kilburn feel hopeless and clouded his judgment. Kilburn’s employer presented testimony from a pain-management specialist who said that chronic pain could not cloud someone’s judgment. He also testified that he was not qualified to opine on whether pain could cause an anxiety disorder. The trial court credited Judy’s addiction-specialist’s testimony and found that Judy had shown that Kilburn’s death was a direct and natural consequence of his 2008 work injury. The court thus awarded death benefits to Judy. Kilburn’s employer appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Page, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 734,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership