ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0GµüE 4  UD) m w@s 0J³ 0Tý 0^Q 0h¯ 0r 0|‰ 0† 0‹ 1u U, 0d¼ U, U>LB)ŠDC³ AMö BCU*`!Šv~« D3)vÓ\ 0@/ AOoƾ 0D„ D/È B÷˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀäÌÀÀÌÀä0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(½¾$¡¡Ô€XflXXXÔyJÚ ^Ÿ3ž3|xé8ëu $Z,Century-WP RegularHl ÕDÖרÙÚÛÜÝÓ€é2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òJuly€10,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`&&&&'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€F/XXdìdÈ7Ñ›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌà@ àÌßA€&) °°xdtEs AßÌÌVINCENT€SPLAIN,à àà àà àShelby€Chancery€œNo.€104120„1›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€02A01„9511„CH„00259Ìà àPetitioner/Appellee,Ìœà àà àà àà àà àà àHon.€Neal€C.€Small,€Chancellor›ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€%($;+'h|³ü ` Å `€€Lß›v.à àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌCITY€œOF€MEMPHIS,ÌW.›€W.€œHERENTON,€Mayor,€andÌCITY€OF€MEMPHIS€PENSION›ÌœBOARDS,›ÌÌà àRespondents/Appellants.ÌœÌMONICE€MOORE€HAGLER,€City€Attorney,€and€L.€KENNETH€McCOWN,ÏAssistant€City€Attorney,€Memphis,ÌAttorneys€for€Respondents/Appellants.ÌÌDEBORAH€GODWIN,€Agee,€Allen,€Godwin,€Morris€&€Laurenzi,€Memphis,ÏAttorney€for€Petitioner/Appellee.ÌòòÌò òREVERSEDóó›ó óÌÌOpinion€filed:ÌÌßA€&) °°xdtEŠ AßÌÌÓ  Óò òTOMLIN,€Sr.€Jó óÌÌÓÓà àVincent€Splain€(ð ðpetitionerðð)€filed€a€petition€for€writ€ofÏcertiorari€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€Shelby€County€against€the€City€ofÏMemphis,€W.W.€Herenton,€Mayor,€and€the€City€of€Memphis€PensionÍBoards€(ð ðrespondentsðð€or€by€name)€seeking€judicial€review€of€theÏdenial€by€œthe›€pension€boards€of€petitionerððs€application€for€a€line„of„duty€disability€pension.€€The€œchancellor€reversed€the€boardððsÏdecision€and€awarded€petitioner€a€line„of„duty€disability€pension.€ÏOn€appeal€respondents€have€presented€one€issue€for€ourÏconsideration:€whether€the€chancellor€erred€in€reversing€the€decisionÏof€the€board€when€there€was€material€evidence€to€support€it.€€For€theÏreasons€hereinafter€stated,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€theÏchancellor.ÌÌà àPetitioner€was€employed€by€the€City€of€Memphis€as€a€policeÏofficer€from€1979€to€1993.€€He€served€as€a€patrolman€in€a€cruiser€onÏthe€3:00€p.m.€to€11:00€p.m.€shift.€€Following€a€job„related€injury€toÏhis€leg€and€back€in€January€1993,€petitioner€attempted€to€return€toÏwork,€but€was€unable€to€do€so,€experiencing€nausea,€sleeplessness,Ïand€nightmares.€€Shortly€thereafter,€Dr.€Richard€G.€NewhouseÏperformed€a€psychiatric€evaluation€of€petitioner€and€diagnosed€himÏas€suffering€from€post„traumatic€stress€disorder€and€majorÏdepression,€recurrent,€severe.€€Dr.€Newhouse€stated€that€he€was€ofÏthe€opinion€that€petitioner€would€never€be€able€to€return€to€work€asÍa€police€officer.€€ÌÌà àIn€July€1993,€petitioner€filed€for€a€line„of„duty€disabilityÏpension€with€the€pension€board.€€In€order€to€qualify€for€such€aÏpension,€an€applicant€must€satisfy€the€requirements€of€section€25„1(27)€of€the€City€of€Memphis€Code,€which€reads€in€pertinent€part€asÏfollows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àòòLine„of„duty€disabilityóó:€A€physical€or€mental€conditionÏarising€as€the€direct€and€proximate€result€of€an€accidentÏsustained€by€a€participant,€after€he€became€a€participantÏand€while€in€the€actual€performance€of€duties€for€theÏcity€at€some€definite€time€and€place€without€willfulÏnegligence€on€his€part€which€totally€and€permanentlyÏprevents€him€from€engaging€in€the€duties€for€which€heÏwas€employed€by€the€city.€€The€determination€of€the€line„of„duty€disability€of€a€participant€shall€be€made€onÏmedical€evidence€by€at€least€two€(2)€qualifiedÏphysicians.€ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€board€referred€plaintiff€to€two€physicians,€Dr.€Ben€BeatusÏand€Dr.€Robert€Buchalter,€for€examination.€€In€addition,€the€boardÏutilized€a€private€company€to€summarize€the€findings€of€the€twoÏdoctors€in€order€to€assist€the€board€in€evaluating€petitionerððsÏapplication.ÌÌà àAt€the›€time€petitioner€was€examined€by€Dr.€œBuchalter,›€heÏcomplained€of€severe€insomnia,€fatigue,€nightmares,€irritability,Ïhostility,€anxiety,€and€depression.€€Dr.€Buchalter€noted€thatÏpetitioner€related€his€symptoms€ð ðbasically€to€the€stress€of€his€jobÏwhich€[petitioner]€indicates€has€been€worsening€for€the€last€coupleÏof€years.ðð€€Dr.€Buchalter€diagnosed€plaintiff€with€major€depression,Ïsingle€episode.€€Dr.€Buchalter€was€of€the€opinion€that€petitionerððsÏprimary€cause€of€illness€was€job„related,€and€that€he€wasÏpermanently€and€totally€disabled€from€his€job.€ÌÌà àœPetitioner€made€many€of€the€same€complaints€to€Dr.›€œBeatus.€ÏDr.›€Beatus€noted€that€petitioner€suffered€from€irritability,€sleepingÏon€the€job,€problems€with€œmanagement,›€diminished€interest€in€work,Ïpoor€concentration,€early€morning€awakening,€insomnia,€diminishedÏappetite,€weight€gain,€diminished€libido,€and€fatigue.€€PetitionerÏœstated€he›€was€suffering€from€ð ðburn€outðð€and€that€he€feltÏdisillusioned€and€increasingly€cynical€towards€his€superiors€in€hisÏdepartment.€€Dr.€Beatus€observed€that€petitioner€œhad€experiencedÏseveral›€stressful€incidents€during€his€career.€€He€diagnosedÍpetitioner€as€having€major€depression€chronic,€with€possible€postÏtraumatic€stress€disorder€of€slow€onset.ÌÌà àShortly€thereafter,€Dr.€Newhouse€filed€an€addendum€to€hisÏinitial€diagnosis€of€petitioner€wherein€he€detailed€twelve€specificÏexamples€of€traumatic€events€that€petitioner€stated€that€he€hadÏexperienced€on€the€job€from€November€1979€to€February€1991.€€Dr.ÏBuchalter€œnoted›€that€the€accumulation€of€these€events€had€leftÏpetitioner€medically€disabled.ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€œhearing,›€the€board€voted€unanimouslyÏto€deny€petitionerððs€request€for€a€line„of„duty€disability€pension,Ïœbut›€granted€œhim€an›€ordinary€disability€pension.€€œPetitioner€filed€aÏpetition›€for€writ€of€certiorari€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€27„8„101€œ(Supp.Ï1995).›€ÌÌà àWithout€considering€any€œevidence›€œother€than›€the€record€beforeÏthe€board,€the€trial€court€reversed€the€decision€of€the€board€œandÏordered›€œit€to€award€petitioner›€œa›€line„of„duty€retirement€pension.€ÏThe€chancellor€made€no€finding€either€way€as€to€whether€there€wasÍany€material€evidence€to€support€the€action€of€the€board.€ÌÌà àT.C.A.€ðð€27„8„101€œ(Supp.€1995)€provides›€that:ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€writ€of€certiorari€may€be€granted€wheneverÏauthorized€by€law,€and€also€in€all€cases€where€an€inferiorÏtribunal,€board,€or€officer€exercising€judicial€functionsÏhas€exceeded€the€jurisdiction€conferred,€or€is€actingÏillegally,€when,€in€the€judgment€of€the€court,€there€is€noÏother€plain,€speedy,€or€adequate€remedy.ÌÌÓÓÌà àReview€under€the€common€law€writ€is€limited€to€whether€theÏinferior€board€or€tribunal€(1)€œexceeded›€its€jurisdiction,€or€(2)€actedÏillegally,€arbitrarily,€or€fraudulently.€€òòMcCallen€v.€City€of€Memphisóó,Ï786€S.W.2d€633,€638€(Tenn.€1990).€€If€there€is€any€material€evidenceÏto€support€the€findings€of€the€pension€board,€the€boardððs€decisionÏmust€be€upheld.€€òòSee€Davison€v.€Carróó,€659€S.W.2d€361,€363€(Tenn.Ï1983).ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€respondents€contend€that€neither€the€petitioner€norÏthe€two€examining€physicians€in€their€reports€pointed€to€any€oneÏparticular€ð ðaccidentðð€or€event€that€petitioner€sustained€ð ðat€someÍdefinite€time€and€placeðð€to€bring€him€within€the€requirements€ofÏsection€25„1(27).€€Respondents€also€contend€that€there€was€materialÏevidence€in€the€record€to€support€the€boardððs€decision,€which€wouldÏmandate€that€their€decision€be€œupheld.›€œPetitioner›€contends€that€theÏterm€ð ðaccidentðð€need€not€be€singular€in€nature,€but€could€encompassÏœthe›€repeated€mental€trauma€œhe€suffered›€œon›€the€job.€ÌÌà àOn€several€occasions€our€supreme€court€has€considered€theÏissue€of€whether€a€mental€stimulus€that€œresults›€in€a€mental€injuryÏmay€be€considered€an€ð ðinjury€by€accidentðð€under€the€TennesseeÏWorkersðð€Compensation€œLaw.›€€€The€leading€case€on€stress„relatedÏinjuries€is€òòJose€v.€Equifax,€Inc.óó,€556€S.W.2d€82€(Tenn.€1977).€€In€thisÏcase,€the€petitioner€contended€that€he€had€been€exposed€toÏtremendous€on„the„job€pressure,€resulting€in€a€severe€psychiatricÏillness€and€a€habitual€alcohol€problem.€€In€affirming€defendantððsÏmotion€to€dismiss€the€complaint,€the€court€observed:ÌÌÓÓà8 àIn€proper€cases€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€a€mentalÏstimulus,€such€as€fright,€shock€or€even€excessive,Ïunexpected€anxiety€could€amount€to€an€ð ðaccidentððÏsufficient€to€justify€an€award€for€resulting€mental€orÏnervous€disorder.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àA€liberal€interpretation€has€been€given€to€the€statutoryÏcriteria€of€ð ðinjury€by€accident,ððÔ% € Ô€but€this€still€does€notÏembrace€every€stress€or€strain€of€daily€living€or€inÏcarrying€out€the€duties€of€a€contract€of€employment.ÌÌÓÓÌòòId.óó€at€84€(citations€œomitted).€€€òòJoseóó›€has€been€followed€œin€subsequentÏcases€to€create›€a€threshold€test€œthat€the›€œmental›€stimulus€causing€aÏmental€or€physical€injury€must€be€fright,€shock,€or€an€acute€suddenÏor€unexpected€emotional€œstress.›€€œòòSee€Gatlin€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€822ÏS.W.2d€587,€590€(Tenn.€1991).€€Although›€these€cases€deal€with€ourÏsupreme€courtððs€interpretation€of€a€section€of€the€œWorkersðð›ÏCompensation€œLaw,€T.C.A.€ð𛀜50„6„102(5)€(Supp.€1995),€›€œthe€courtððsÏlogic›€and€rationale€is€relevant€œto€our€consideration›€œof€the›€œsection›€ofÏthe€City€of€Memphis€œCode€in›€œthis›€œcase.›€ÌÌà àIn€œthis›€œcase,›€section€œ25„1(27)›€œof€the€Memphis€Code€limits›€theÏrange€of€compensable€consequences€justifying€the€line„of„dutyÏdisability€pension€similar€to€œT.C.A.€ðð€50„6„102(5).€€The›€language€ofÏthe€Memphis€œCode›€does€not€permit€a€line€of€disability€pension€forÏevery€employee€who€has€suffered€a€job„related,€disabling€mentalÍcondition€similar€to€that€of€the€petitioner.€€It€also€requires€theÏmental€condition€complained€of€to€be€the€direct€and€proximate€resultÏof€an€accident€occurring€at€some€definite€time€and€place.ÌÌà àœAlthough€petitioner›€identified€several€instances€of€job„related,€stressful€events€that€he€had€undergone€during€a€twelve€yearÏperiod,€neither€œpetitioner,€Dr.€Beatus,›€nor€œDr.€Buchalter€could›€pointÏto€a€particular€stressful€event€or€ð ðaccidentðð€that€in€their€opinionÏœwas›€the€direct€and€proximate€result€of€his€condition.€€œÌÌà àAfter›€reviewing€this€record,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€thereÏwas€material€œevidence›€to€support€the€action€of€the€board€in€denyingÏpetitionerððs€application€for€œa€line„of„duty›€pension,€and€that€theÏboard€did€not€act€arbitrarily,€capriciously,€or€illegally.€€ÌÌà àAs€to€petitionerððs€contention€that€the€last€sentence€of€sectionÏ25„1(27)€dictates€that€both€the€diagnosis€and€œthe€award›€of€a€line„of„duty€disability€should€be€left€solely€to€the€discretion€of€the€twoÏexamining€physicians,€we€find€this€contention€to€be€without€merit.€ÏIt€is€the€responsibility€of€the€board€to€make€the€decision€œwhether€toÍaward€a€pension€based›€upon€the€œmedical€evidence›€œpresented.›ÌÌà àœThe›€judgment€of€the€chancellor€overturning€the€pension€boardððsÏdecision€is€reversed€and€the€decision€of€the€board€is€reinstated.€ÏCosts€in€this€cause€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€petitioner,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€œnecessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àCRAWFORD,€P.€J.à àà à(CONCURS)ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.à àà àà à(CONCURS)