ÿWPC™  …# VU:a %› 0û¡ Rœ 4î  0? 0DP ” w@œ RÜ 0J. 0Tx 0^Ì 0h* 0r’ 0| 0†€ 0 1u–U,  0d7 B›U,¸U*äB)DC7 AMz D3Ç»ú®µ 0@cv~£vÓ! AOôÆC 0D D/M B| ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀäÌÀÀÌÀä0 , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(ÓH=$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XÎ_XXXÔÑ7€¾úXXdðXXdð7ÑHT„ÖWKd014DA`6Ø'ð‹â #3|xþ(ï(3@ $¤¤Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XÏŸXXXÔÑ7€ÏŸXXdædæ7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó êëEìDíîEïðUñòÓ€þHÔ  Ôôdddì  ÔÔ,$ÔôL5E,HP LaserJet 4,LPT1:2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ$$$$'ÿÿdxd ±Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òAugustÏ16,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ¤Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€complaint€seeking€damages€for€alleged€civil€rights€violations€was€filedÏApril€27,€1994.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú2Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€%%X„d&ÓÑ#€%%Xd#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÝ  Ýò òÓ  ÓIN›€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌWESTERN€SECTION€œAT€NASHVILLE›Ì„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„ÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌJ.€B.€LORINGó ó,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidsonÏChancery€No.€94„1263„IIIÌà àPlaintiff/Appellantà àà àà à)à àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌò òNASHVILLE€ELECTRIC€SERVICEó óà à)à àAppeal€No.Ï01A01„9603„CH„00116Ìò òAND€POWER€BOARD€OFó ó€à àà à)Ìò òœÙ€€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€)+(;+'h|` à. `€€Lß›METROPOLITAN€GOVERNMENT€OFó óà à)Ìò òNASHVILLE,€DAVIDSON€COUNTYó ó,à à)Ìò òTENNESSEEó ó,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appelleeà àà à)ÌÌÌÓ  ÓAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€DAVIDSONÏCOUNTYÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌTHE€HONORABLE€ROBERT€S.€BRANDT,€CHANCELLORÌÓ  ÓÌÌò òDONALD€D.€HILDEBRANDà àà àTRACY€SHAWó óÌ214€Third€Ave.€N.à àà àà àà àò òHowell€œ&›€Fisheró óÌNashville,€TN€€37201à àà àà à300€JamesÏRobertson€Pkwy.ÌAttorney€for€Plaintiff/Appellantà àà àCourt€Square€Bldg.à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€Ï37201Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€forÏDefendant/AppelleeÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€H.€INMAN,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€PRESIDING€JUDGE€ÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEó ớ̜ÌÑ  ÑÌÓÓà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌóóó óÌà àThe€appellant€questions€the€granting€of€summary€judgment€on€variousÏgrounds.€€We€think€the€case€was€proper€for€a€Rule€56€disposition€and€thereforeÏaffirm€the€judgment.Ìà àThe€complaint€alleges€a€violation€of€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act,€T.C.A.Ïðð€4„21„101,€òòet€seq.óó,€which,€òòinter€aliaóó,€forbids€discrimination€against€employees€onÏthe€basis€of€age.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€was€initially€employed€by€the€Nashville€Electric€Service€(ð ðNESðð)Ïin€1968,€at€age€38;€through€the€years€he€rose€in€position€and,€on€September€1,Ï1993,€he€was€Director€of€Risk€Management€and€Employment.€€On€that€day,€plaintiffÏalleges€that€he€was€required€to€apply€for€the€position€he€was€currently€holding,€theÏtitle€of€which€would€be€changed€to€Vice„President€of€Human€Resources.Ìà àHe€was€not€appointed€to€the€œposition,›€for€which€the€defendant€œallegedly€ð ðwas›Ïunable€to€articulateðð€specific€reasons,€according€to€the€complaint;€œinstead,›€he€ð ðwasÏgiven€a€merit€raise,ðð€but€thereafter€his€job€duties€were€œundefined,›€which€he€believedÏwas€a€part€of€a€scheme€to€force€his€retirement.€€He€alleged€that€he€œhad€to€retire›ÏDecember€1,€1993€ð ðor€lose€the€retirement€incentive.ððÌà àIn€a€separate€count,€the€plaintiff€alleges€that€the€ð ðChairman€of€the€BoardððÏpromised€to€pay€him€$10,000.00€per€year€as€secretary€of€the€Civil€Services€BoardÏand€that€this€contract€was€breached€by€the€defendant.Ìà àThe€appellant€filed€an€answer€asserting€that€the€agreement€alleged€in€theÏsecond€count€is€(1)€òòultra€viresóó,€(2)€barred€by€the€Statute€of€œFrauds›€and€(3)€denied.€€ItÏalleged€that€the€decision€of€the€plaintiff€to€retire€was€voluntary€and€that€its€decisionÏnot€to€select€the€plaintiff€as€Vice„President€was€based€on€factors€other€than€age€asÏpermitted€by€T.C.A.€ðð€4„21„407,€one€of€which€was€œthe€inability›€of€the€plaintiff€to€workÏas€evidenced€by€his€testimony€in€a€œworkersðð›€compensation€proceeding.Ìà àDefendant€moved€for€summary€judgment,€supported€by€various€affidavits,€theÏcomplaint€for€workersðð€œcompensation,›€and€excerpts€from€the€trial€and€depositionÏtestimony€of€the€plaintiff.Ìà àDonald€Kohanski,€Senior€Vice„President€and€Chief€Financial€Officer€of€NES,Ïtestified€by€affidavit€that€in€January€1993,€Dr.€Matthew€Cordaro€was€named€GeneralÏManager€of€œNES.›€€œHe›€implemented€a€reorganization€of€NES,€which€involved€theÏelimination€of€several€director€positions,€including€that€of€Risk€Management€andÏEmployment,€and€created€numerous€Vice„President€positions,€one€of€which€wasÏHuman€Resources.€€He€testified€that€the€selection€process€for€this€position€was€his,ÏCordaroððs€and€James€Dalrympleððs€responsibility.€€The€position€was€widelyÍadvertised€and€21€applications€were€received,€one€of€which€was€the€plaintiffððs.€ÏDonald€œWells,€51,›€œwas›€selected€as€the€best€candidate€because€he€had€28€years€ofÏexperience€in€the€area€of€human€resources.€€Kohanski€testified€that€age€was€notÏdiscussed€or€considered€in€the€decision„making€process.Ìà àOf€similar€import€are€the€affidavits€of€James€Q.€Dalrymple,€Executive€Vice„President€and€Chief€Operating€Officer€of€œNES;›€Matthew€C.€Cordaro,€President€andÏChief€Executive€Officer€of€œNES;›€and€Betty€Nixon,€Chairperson€of€the€Board€ofÏDirectors€of€NES.Ìà àDebbie€Pemerton,€Compensation€Supervisor€for€the€Human€ResourcesÏDepartment€of€NES,€testified€that€the€plaintiff€requested€that€she€type€a€letter€for€himÏon€November€22,€1993,€which€he€signed.€€This€letter€is€addressed€to€Donald€Wells,ÏVice„President€of€Human€Resources:ÌÓÓÌà0 àDear€Mr.€Wells:ÌÌà0 àœThis›€letter€is€my€request€for€early€retirement€effective€December€1,€œ1993.€€›à0 àà àIÏre…questÏthatÏmyÏmil…itaryÏcreditÏbeÏap…plied€toÏmyÏyearsÏofÏcreditÏinÏtheÏre…tirementÏplan.€ÏAl…so,ÏIÏre…questÏthatÏallÏac…cu…mulatedÏan…nualÏœleave›ÏpayÏandÏtheÏsevenÏmonthsÏseveranceÏpayÏbeÏpaid€toÏmeÏaf…terÏJanuary€1,Ï1994.ÌÌà0 àœs/J.›€B.€LoringÌÓÓÌà àOn€November€30,€1993,€the€plaintiff€signed€a€document€certifying€that€theÏretirement€benefit€was€fully€explained€to€him.€€The€second€paragraph€of€theÏdocument€provides:ÌÓÓÌà0 àà àI€was€given€an€opportunity€to€ask€any€and€all€questions€I€so€desired.€ÏThe€benefits€were€explained€to€me€to€my€satisfaction€as€well€as€the€fact€thatÏthis€is€an€option€and€my€choice€is€of€my€own€free€will€and€independentÏdecision.€€I€understand€my€rights€and€options€under€the€benefit€proposed,Ïand€my€choice€is€made€independently€and€without€any€threats,€promises€orÏcoercion.ÌÌà0 às/J.€B.€LoringÌÓÓÌà àIn€further€support€of€the€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€defendantÏattached€a€certified€copy€of€a€complaint€filed€by€the€plaintiff€against€NES€seekingÏworkersðð€compensation€benefits.€€The€complaint€was€filed€January€21,€1994.× ƒ, ××  ×Ìà àThe€plaintiff€claimed€that€he€was€ð ðone€hundred€(100)€percent€disabled€as€aÏresult€of€two€work„related€injuriesðð€in€1983€and€1993.€€The€workersðð€compensationÏtrial€was€held€on€August€17,€1995;€the€plaintiff€testified€that€the€on„the„job€accidentsÏin€1983€and€1993€rendered€him€totally€and€permanently€disabled.Ìà àThe€œplaintiff›€filed€his€affidavit€in€opposition€to€the€motion.€€He€testified€thatÏð ðsuggestions€and€references€were€repeatedly€made€with€regard€to€my€ageðð€and€thatÏð ðmy€retirement€was€not€voluntaryðð€and€ð ð€.€.€I€was€forced€to€sign€certain€lettersÍrequesting€a€`retirementðð.ðð€€He€believed€his€lack€of€promotion€was€attributable€to€hisÏage.Ì€€à àThe€Chancellor€minced€no€words€in€ruling€on€the€motion.€€He€held:ÌÓÓÌà0 àà àThis€is€an€age€discrimination€in€employment€case€brought€pursuant€toÏthe€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act,€T.C.A.€ðð€4„21„407.€€The€plaintiff€assertsÏthat€when€he€did€not€receive€a€new€position€for€which€he€was€qualified,€heÏwas€forced€to€retire€against€his€will.€€The€employer€has€moved€for€summaryÏjudgment.€€Because€the€plaintiff€filed€another€suit€against€the€same€employerÏseeking€workersðð€compensation€benefits€in€which€he€claimed€to€be€100%Ïdisabled,€he€cannot€maintain€this€suit€in€which€he€asserts€he€was€qualified€forÏthe€job.€€The€motion€for€summary€judgment€is€granted.ÌÓÓÌà àSummary€judgment€is€appropriate€if€the€moving€party€establishes€that€thereÏare€no€disputed,€material€facts€creating€a€genuine€issue€for€trial€and€that€he€isÏentitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€œ208,€211›€(Tenn.Ï1993).€€The€party€opposing€the€motion€must€present€evidence€of€a€disputed€materialÏfact€sufficient€to€create€a€genuine€issue€for€trial.€€His€own€opinions,€beliefs€orÏconclusions€will€not€suffice.€€œòòId.óó.›Ìà àIf€the€plaintiff€is€to€establish€a€òòprima€facieóó€case€of€age€discrimination,€he€mustÏdemonstrate,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€he€was€qualified€for€the€position.€€òòMcDonnell€DouglasÏCorp.€v.€Greenóó,€411€U.S.€792,€36€L.€Ed.€668€(1973).€€Having€established€a€òòprimaÏfacieóó€case,€the€burden€shifts€to€the€employer€to€come€forward€with€a€legitimate,€non„discriminatory€reason€for€its€action€œand,›€if€this€is€accomplished,€the€burden€reverts€toÏthe€plaintiff€to€prove€by€a€preponderance€that€the€employerððs€stated€purpose€wasÏpretextual€only€and€a€cover€for€the€real€discriminatory€reason.€€òòBruce€v.€œWestern›ÏAuto€œSupply›€Co.óó,€669€S.W.2d€œ95,€97›€(Tenn.€œApp.›€1984).Ìà àThe€Chancellor€ruled€that€the€plaintiff€by€his€twice„sworn€testimony€was€notÏqualified€for€the€position.€€As€we€have€noted,€the€plaintiff€filed€a€complaint€in€theÏChancery€Court€three€months€before€he€filed€the€complaint€in€the€case€at€bar€that€heÏwas€totally€and€permanently€disabled€as€a€result€of€two€job„related€injuries.€€He€wasÏcross„examined€about€this€allegation€and€testified€that€he€believed€himself€to€beÏð ðtotally€and€permanently€disabled.ðð€€In€his€affidavit€filed€in€opposition€to€the€motionÏfor€summary€judgment,€he€takes€a€contrary€position,€which€cannot€be€tolerated.Ìà àA€litigant€is€estopped€to€contradict€a€statement€made€under€oath€in€the€courseÏof€a€prior€judicial€proceeding€or€to€maintain€an€inconsistent€position€in€a€subsequentÏjudicial€proceeding.€€A€ð ðstatement€under€oathðð€includes€statements€made€in€aÏpleading,€a€deposition€or€during€oral€testimony.€€òòAllen€v.€Nealóó,€396€S.W.2d€œ344,€346›Ï(Tenn.€1965);€òòMelton€v.€Anderson,óó€222€S.W.2d€œ666,€669›€(Tenn.€œApp.1949).›€€AÏcontrary€policy€would€permit€a€litigant€œð ðto›€œobtain›€an€advantage€for€œhimself›€or€attemptÏto€do€œso›€by€pleading€inconsistent€facts€within€his€personal€knowledge€in€twoÏlawsuits€with€the€possibility€of€prevailing€in€œboth€suits.ð𛀀òòLeatherwood€v.€UnitedÏParcel€serviceóó,€708€S.W.2d€œ396,€402›€(Tenn.€œApp.›€1985).Ìà àIn€òòLeatherwoodóó,€the€employee€first€brought€suit€against€his€employerÏclaiming€total€disability€as€the€result€of€a€work„related€injury.€€The€employeeÏreceived€a€lesser€award.€€He€then€filed€suit€against€his€employer€alleging€he€wasÏdischarged€in€retaliation€for€making€a€claim€for€workersðð€compensation€benefits.Ìà àThis€Court€noted€œthat,€ð ðIn€an€employment€contract,€an€implied€condition,›Ïœabsent€an€agreement€otherwise,€is›€that€both€parties€œmust€be›€œalive€and€capable›€ofÏœperforming.ð𛀀œòòId.óó›€.This€Court€then€dismissed€the€retaliatory€discharge€claim€and€heldÍthat€the€employee€was€estopped€to€maintain€the€suit€given€his€earlier,€inconsistentÏposition€that€he€was€ð ð100%€disabled.ððÌà àLoringððs€actions€are€indistinguishable€from€those€examined€in€òòLeatherwoodóó.€ÏIn€his€workersðð€compensation€action,€Loring€claimed€to€be€œð ð100%›€disabledðð€as€aÏresult€of€two€work„related€injuries.€€At€trial€and€under€oath,€Loring€affirmed€hisÏposition€that€he€was€ð ðpermanently€and€totally€disabledðð€and€verified€that€theÏallegations€in€the€original€complaint€were€his€own.Ìà àIn€his€separate€suit€against€NES€alleging€discrimination€on€the€basis€of€age,ÏLoring€inconsistently€claimed€that€he€ð ðhad€no€desire€to€retire€(on€disability€orÏotherwise)€until€age€seventy,ðð€and€further€affirmed€under€oath€that€at€the€time€theÏVice„President€of€Human€resources€was€selected,€he€ð ðmet€all€of€the€minimumÏqualificationsðð€for€the€position€but€was€ð ðforced€to€retireðð€due€solely€to€his€age.Ìà àSimilar€to€the€employee€in€òòLeatherwoodóó,€Loring€is€now€estopped€to€maintainÏan€employment€discrimination€suit€given€his€earlier€position€that€he€was€100%Ïdisabled.€€As€prohibited€by€the€doctrine€of€judicial€estoppel,€Loring€has€advancedÏinconsistent€factual€positions€in€separate€lawsuits€with€the€possibility€of€prevailing€inÏboth€and€cannot€now€excuse€the€inconsistency€on€the€basis€he€did€not€draft€theÏoriginal€workersðð€compensation€complaint.€€He€had€the€opportunity€to€rectify€anyÏinaccuracy€at€the€time€he€confirmed€the€allegations€in€the€pleadings€at€trial.€€InÏassessing€vocational€disability€under€the€Tennessee€œWorkersððððs›€œCompensation›ÏœLaw,›€the€employeeððs€testimony€is€probative€and€competent€in€assessing€the€abilityÏor€inability€to€work.€€òòClark€v.€National€Union€Fire€Insurance€Company,óó€774€S.W.2dÏ586,€589€(Tenn.€1989).€€The€test€is€whether€the€employeeððs€earning€capacity€inÏrelation€to€the€open€labor€market€has€been€diminished€by€the€residual€impairmentÍcaused€by€a€work„related€injury€and€not€whether€he€is€able€to€return€and€performÏthe€job€he€held€at€the€time€of€injury.€€œòòId.€€óóTestimony›€of€the€injured€employee€isÏadmissible€on€the€issue€of€the€employeeððs€inability€to€work€and€may€be€sufficient€toÏestablish€that€fact€without€expert€medical€testimony.€€òòThompson€v.€Leon€RussellÏEnterprisesóó,€834€S.W.2d€927,€930€(Tenn.€1992).Ìà àIn€addition€to€being€unqualified€for€the€position€he€sought,€the€plaintiff€wasÏnot€subjected€to€adverse€employment€action.€€The€affidavits€reveal€no€contestedÏissue€of€material€fact€on€this€œpoint€and›€no€rational€conclusion€can€be€drawn€otherÏthan€œhis›€retirement€was€voluntary.€€He€made€the€conclusory€statement€that€he€wasÏð ðforcedðð€to€retire€but€offered€no€support€whatever€for€his€opinion.€€The€letter€to€WellsÏand€the€signed€document€are€nowhere€refuted.€€Moreover,€he€was€not€replaced€byÏa€younger€person€within€the€provisions€of€the€Act,€the€purpose€of€which€is€to€prohibitÏdiscrimination€in€employment€and€not€to€restrict€the€employerððs€right€to€make€œòòbona›Ïfideóó€business€judgments.€€òòBrenner€v.€Textron€Aerostructuresóó,€874€S.W.2d€œ579,€588›Ï(Tenn.€App.€1993).Ìà àFinally,€Loring€did€not€as€a€matter€of€law€establish€òòprima€facieóó€his€claim€thatÏan€enforceable€contract€was€agreed€to€by€NES.€€He€alleges€merely€that€theÏœChairman›€of€the€Board€of€NES€promised€him€the€sum€of€$10,000.00€per€year€forÏservices€as€Secretary€to€the€Board.€€He€offered€no€countervailing€proof€œtoÏdefendantððs€proof€that›€œonly€the›€Civil€œServices›€and€Pension€Board€œis›€œauthorized›€toÏelect€a€Secretary€and€fix€a€salary;€that€all€NES€contracts€are€required€to€be€preparedÏby€the€General€Counsel,€who€testified€that€he€was€never€requested€to€do€so.€€TheÏplaintiff€not€only€could€not€recall€when€the€alleged€agreement€was€made,€he€offeredÍno€specific€argument€about€it.€€The€issue€was€not€stressed€at€argument,€and€we€willÏnot€further€belabor€it.Ìà àThe€judgment€is€affirmed€at€the€costs€of€the€appellant.ÌÌÓÓœÌà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€Ï›à àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌœ______________________________›ÌW.€Frank€Crawford,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌœ______________________________›ÌAlan€E.€Highers,€JudgeÌÌÔ% € ÔÌÌÔ% € Ôà àÌà à