WPCiD s]`FDz>{`GRl/ K2#Uh'ULӫ6JkVun(yqpk99{yf q2aζCoA?q65Λ;7ȧ2G(UZ wQ2>`2I^Yrƒ*.9;".L/g ? ٛ!߀] )֭bV>$ >W͖EGh]~d"H'L tRO[_U|GH&b.{;K  5'm=Ĩ o %-_^O{ ,wKH:.-/LOЄ?gV@&}Q1aڿ(}n蒝[ ΊB~h^F86 ~ĽY0;Ѩ%b.N9cӜ@,7بIb雤2PmKU@p~6)4vCā GOl %^  0U9Nw4 zq C mE U#N\  @    0DXN#cE$&!5VV 0U 0t 0] 0C 0& 0 0 0 0 0Ch 0 0 0V 0' 0 0 0! 0M" 0@ #bM# 0U# 0)$ 0$ 0% 0& 0[' 0 ( 0( 00) 0<) D1 * B<* 0Y* 0>+ 0vU+ 0`+ 0`+, 0`, 0`, 0`K- 08- 0- 02. 0. 0:/ 0Y0 0_v0 0 0 0j1 0I3 B*4 D/4 0&5 D/6 06 07 068 08 0:9 B : 0^': 0: D3); D-\; 0K; 0<; AS<c< 0)= 0D= A> 1e>U6!?U>W?U*? 1u? 724@ 0cf@UN@@RAĊ,s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular],t2 ~13|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptU(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular DinwiddieLaurenzi TCA WarrKraus OJI t]heMcMinnvilleLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    R$      1    _Thecomplaintwaserroneouslyentitled ComplaintforWorkersCompensation,butitisundisputedthatthe  CityhaselectednottobecoveredundertheTennesseeWorkersCompensationLaw,TennesseeCodeAnnotated50 x 6101,etseq.,pursuantto506106(5).HP LaserJet 4 Plus,,,,,,0  R$      3    _Atthetimeofhisdeposition,Dr.Morganhadrecentlytakenhiscardiologyboardexamsandwasawaiting  hisscore.  R$      4    _Laurenzismokedcigarettesfortwoyearsduringhisearlytwenties,buthadnotsmokedfortwentyyearsprior  tohisheartsurgery. R$      2    _Laurenzismotherdiedofamyocardialinfarctionatage70.*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  - -(GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T::)! dxdxP Pd<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKc<6X9`(Courier NewKSd\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Kc<6X9`(Courier NewKSd\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/Kc<6X9`(Courier NewKSd\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7N(X7  ?e%2A`Arial?  Sd\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dM)1dxd<:zTop of For7P(X7  ?e%2A`Arial?  Sd\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7M)2dxd0KS.SampleKc<6X9`(Courier NewKSd\  `&Times New RomanS(|G2$ !.8Ddd8         0  0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKc<6X9`(Courier NewKSd\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable d: 8HTML MarkupB      (|3$ !.8Ddd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  2 0CommentB  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Ddd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK$%&'()*+ 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)fi)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular H R$      5    _ LaurenzipointsoutthatDr.Warradmittedoncrossexaminationthatthereisnotypeoftestthatwouldtell  what,infact,causedLaurenzisheartproblems.Laurenzialsonotedthat,overthetwoyearsduringwhichhehadbeen x retainedtoreviewmedicalrecordsfortheCity,Dr.Warrcouldnotrecalleverconcludingthatanemployeesheart @ conditionwasjobrelated.LaurenziclaimsthatDr.Morganstestimonyislesscrediblebecauseheneverreviewedthe X thalliumstresstestperformedonLaurenziin1990thatshowedthathehadnoheartdisease.# ~# !.8Ddd8     _  D8XXdd8  @ DINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#D #Ԉ ,   November27,2001Session X XXD #DXX#JOSEPHW.LAURENZIv.CITYOFMEMPHIS  ` XXD @@ AnAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty  h @@No.3064338T.D.DArmyBailey,Judge  X @@*AV) ` dE<` A (  @@TTNo.W200100785_COA_ԄR3CVFiledJuly29,_2002_ '  AV) ` dE<` A      Thisisanactionbyapoliceofficerforonthejobinjurybenefits.Thepoliceofficerjoinedthecity  policedepartmentin1967.In1998,itwasdiscoveredthathehadcoronaryheartdisease,andhe  underwenttriplebypasssurgery.Heappliedforonthejobinjurybenefits,buthisapplicationwas  denied.InJanuary2000,theofficerfiledthislawsuitagainstthecity,assertingthathewasentitled  tobenefits.Afterabenchtrial,thetrialcourtgrantedtheofficerbenefits,findingthatthecityfailed v toproducesufficientevidencetorebutthepresumptioninTennesseeCodeAnnotated751201 f thattheofficersheartconditionwascausedbyhisemployment.Thecitynowappeals.Wefind V thatthecitysubmittedcompetentmedicalevidencesufficienttorebutthestatutorypresumption,and F thattheburdenthenshiftedtoofficertoshowthathisconditionwasprecipitatedbyaspecific 6 stressfuljobrelatedevent.Becausetheofficerfailedtodoso,wemustreversetheawardof &v benefits. f  Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtisReversed  F   #DXu#XX.DHollyKirbyLillard,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,_P.J._, & _W.S._,andDavidR.Farmer,J.,joined.   SamL.Crain,Jr.,Burch,Porter&Johnson,ofMemphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,Cityof "! Memphis. #" ClydeW.Kennan,Keenan,Dabbous&Lazarini,ofMemphis,Tennessee,fortheappellee,Joseph v% $ W.Laurenzi. f&!%   OPINION #DXX* #XXD F(#' #DXX #XXD    Plaintiff/AppelleeJosephW.Laurenzi( Laurenzi)joinedtheMemphisPoliceDepartment &*v%) ( Department)asanofficerin1967.TheDepartmenthadestablishedan XXXXOntheJobInjury +f&* Program( OJI)#XXX X##DXX #XXDԀunderwhichDepartmentemployeesarecompensatedforanyconditionor ,V'+  impairmentofhealthresultingfromapersonalinjurysustainedinthelineofdutyorcourseof ,F(, employment.WhenLaurenzijoinedtheDepartmentin1967,hepassedaphysicalexamination  whichrevealednoevidenceofheartdisease.#DXX#XXDԀ XXXX     OverthirtyyearslateronSeptember20,1998,Laurenziwenttoahospitalemergencyroom  complainingoftightnessinhischest.Therehewasevaluatedbyhisphysician,RobertM.Kraus, p M.D.( Dr.Kraus),aspecialistininternalmedicine.AtLaurenzisfollowupappointmentabout `  tendayslater,Dr.KrausadministeredtestswhichshowedthatLaurenzihadelevatedstressscores, P  highbloodpressure,andothersymptomsofheartproblems.Dr.KrausthenreferredLaurenzitoa @  cardiologist.InOctober1998,Laurenziwasdiagnosedwithcoronaryheartdiseaseandunderwent 0  triplebypassheartsurgery.#XXX X##DXXj#XXD  p    OnapproximatelyOctober28,1998,Laurenzisubmitted#DXX# DD XX DanapplicationtotheCityof P  Memphis( City)forOJIbenefitsforhisheartdisease. See Tenn.CodeAnn.751201.TheCity @  deniedhisapplicationonthegroundsthatLaurenzididnotsufferfromaconditionorimpairment 0  ofhealththatwascausedbyhisemployment.OnJanuary19,2000,Laurenzifiledthislawsuit,   assertingthathewasentitledtoOJIbenefits. #  1      ׀OnMarch5and6,2001,abenchtrialwasheldon  stipulatedfacts.Thepartiessubmittedtheevidentiarydepositionsoffourphysicians:Dr.Kraus,  KerryDeanMorgan,M.D.( Dr.Morgan),OtisS.Warr,III,M.D.( Dr.Warr),andPaulA.  Thompson,M.D.( Dr.Thompson).    Attrial,LaurenziarguedthathewasentitledtothepresumptionsetforthinTennesseeCode p Annotated751201#XXX X# XXXX# DX X# XX DԀthathisheartconditionwascausedbyhisemployment.Thisstatute ` provides:#XXX X4# XXXX# DX Xv# XX D P 8  (a)(1)WheneverthestateofTennessee,oranymunicipalcorporationorother 0 politicalsubdivisionthereofthatmaintainsaregularlawenforcementdepartment  p mannedbyregularandfulltimeemployeesandhasestablishedorhereafter ` establishesanyformofcompensationtobepaidtosuchlawenforcementofficersfor P anyconditionorimpairmentofhealthwhichshallresultinlossoflifeorpersonal @ injuryinthelineofdutyorcourseofemployment,thereshallbeandthereishereby 0 establishedapresumptionthatanyimpairmentofhealthofsuchlawenforcement   officerscausedbyhypertensionorheartdiseaseresultinginhospitalization,medical ! treatmentoranydisability,shallbepresumed(unlessthecontraryisshownby "  competentmedicalevidence)tohaveoccurredortobeduetoaccidentalinjury #! sufferedinthecourseofemployment....Suchlawenforcementofficershallhave $" successfullypassedaphysicalexaminationpriortosuchclaimeddisability,orupon % # enteringgovernmentalemploymentandsuchexaminationfailstorevealany p&!$ evidenceoftheconditionofhypertensionorheartdisease.`'"%   Tenn.CodeAnn.751201(a)(1)(1998).Thus,anemployeesconditionordiseaseispresumed  tohavebeencausedbyhisemploymentwheretheemployeeproves(1)thathewasafulltime  employeeofthemunicipalityspolicedepartment,(2)thathesufferedfromhypertensionorheart  diseasewhichresultedinmedicaltreatment,hospitalizationordisability,and(3)thatpriortothis  injuryheunderwentaphysicalexaminationthatdidnotrevealthepresenceoftheheartdiseaseor p hypertension. SeeStonev.CityofMcMinnville ,896S.W.2d548,550(Tenn.1995).Laurenzi `  satisfiedalloftheseprerequisites. P    TheCitydidnotdisputethatLaurenziwasentitledtothestatutorypresumptionthathisheart 0  conditionwascausedbyhisemployment.Itargued,however,#XXX X# XXXX# DX X]# XX DthatthedepositionsofDrs.Morgan,  p  Warr,andKrausconstitutedthe competentmedicalevidencenecessarytorebutthestatutory `  presumption.#XXX X$# XXXX# DX XT$# XX DThetrialcourtrejectedthatargument.OnMarch21,2001,thetrialcourtentereda P  writtenorderinfavorofLaurenzi,determiningthat [t]hemedicalevidence...isnotsufficientto @  overcomethepresumptionestablishedbyTCA751201.Therefore,basedonthestatutory 0  presumption,thetrialcourtconcludedthatLaurenzi#XXX XU%##DXX%# DD XX DwasentitledtoOJIbenefits.Fromthisorder,   theCitynowappeals.#XXX X'##DXX'# DD XX D    Onappeal,theCitymaintainsthatthemedicalevidencewassufficienttorebutthestatutory  presumption,thattheburdenthenshiftedtoLaurenzitoshowthathisconditionordiseasewas  causedbyhisemployment,andthathefailedtodoso.Wereviewthetrialcourtsfindingsoffact  denovoontherecord,withapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthetrialcourtsfindingsunlessthe p preponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Wheretheissuesinvolve ` expertmedicaltestimony,andallthemedicalproofintroducedattrialwasdepositiontestimony,the P appellatecourtmaydrawitsownconclusionsabouttheweightandcredibilityofthetestimony @ because weareinthesamepositionasthetrialjudge. Krickv.CityofLawrenceburg ,945 0 S.W.2d709,712(Tenn.1997).#XXX Xh(#iX(z XXXWeaffordnopresumptionofcorrectnesstothetrialcourts  p conclusionsoflaw,andwereviewthoseconclusionsdenovo. See  Statev._Levandowski_ ,955  p S.W.2d603,604(Tenn.1997)#XX XiX(z,##DXX(#XXD XXXX   \   ThestatutorypresumptioninTennesseeCodeAnnotated751201(a)(1)maybeovercome 4 bythesubmissionof competentmedicalevidence,thatis, affirmativeevidencethatthereisnot  $ asubstantialcausalconnectionbetweentheworkoftheemployeesosituatedandtheoccurrence ! uponwhichtheclaimforbenefitsisbased. Stone ,896S.W.2dat550.Theremustbe amedical "  opinionprovidedbyacompetentmedicalexpertthattheheartconditionwasnotjobrelated. #!  Bentonv.CityofSpringfield ,973S.W.2d936,937(Tenn.1998)(citing Krick ,945S.W.2dat713). $" TheCityarguesonappealthatthephysiciansdepositionssubmittedattrial,onthewhole,constitute % # suchcompetentmedicalevidence.Thus,wemustreviewthephysiciansdepositions. Id.  t&!$   Dr.Kraus,begantreatingLaurenziinDecember1995forbackpain.Atthattime,henoted T(#&  thatLaurenzihadahistoryofhighbloodpressureandhighcholesterol,andthathehadafamily D)$' historyofheartdisease. #  2      ׀#XXX Xh.# XXXX# DX XI.# XX DDr.KrausalsonotedthatLaurenziwasobese,andthathetoldLaurenzi   toloseweight toreducehisriskfactorsforcardiovasculardisease.InSeptember1998,after  treatingLaurenzifortightnessinhischest,Dr.KrausreferredLaurenzitoacardiologist.Dr.Kraus  believedthatLaurenzisheartproblemswerecausedbyhisemployment,becauseLaurenzihada  negativetestingforcoronaryheartdiseasein1990,buthaddevelopedtheconditionby1998. p However,Dr.KrausacknowledgedthatLaurenzihadsomeoftherelatedriskfactorsin1990. `    TheotherthreeexpertswereindependentphysiciansretainedbytheCitytoreview @  LaurenzismedicalrecordsandgiveopinionsregardingwhetherLaurenziqualifiedforOJIbenefits. 0  TwoofthethreephysiciansopinedthatLaurenzisheartconditionwasnotcausedbyhis  p  employment.Dr.Morgan,whosepracticefocusesoncardiology,X #  3      ׀testifiedthat,inhisopinion, `  Laurenzisheartconditionwasnotcausedbyhisemploymentbutwascausedbyriskfactorssuch P  ashighcholesterolandhighbloodpressurethatwentuntreatedforatleastnineyears.Hestatedthat @  theblockagediscoveredinsomeofLaurenzisarteriestookaroundtentofifteenyearstodevelop#XXX X'4# XXXX# DX Xi4# XX D. 0  Heacknowledgedthatstresscouldplayaroleinthedevelopmentofheartproblems.However,Dr.   Morganconcludedthat thehypertension,highcholesterol,weight,allofthose[riskfactors]  combinedaremuchmorelikelytohavecausedthe[heart]problemthanhisjob.     Dr.Warr,whohasbeenboardcertifiedincardiologysince1973,testifiedthatLaurenzis  combinationofnegativeriskfactors!familyhistory,age,gender,obesity,elevatedcholesterol, past  smoking #  4      ׀!causedhisheartcondition.Dr.Warrassertedthat [w]orkdoesnotcauseheartdisease. p Heexplainedthat,althoughstresscanaggravateanunderlyingheartdisease,stress didnotcause ` [Laurenzis]heartdisease.Indrawingtheseconclusions,Dr.WarrdidnotreviewLaurenzis P preemploymentphysical. @   Dr.Thompsonspracticefocusesoninternalmedicine,notoncardiology.Dr.Thompson  p testifiedthathebelievedthatLaurenzisheartconditionwascausedbyhisemploymentbecausehis `  cardiacworkupwas basicallynegativein1991,butthatherequiredheartsurgeryin1998.Dr. P ThompsoncharacterizedLaurenzisriskfactorsforheartdiseaseas weak.Oncrossexamination, @ Dr.ThompsonwasaskedaboutthesignificanceofLaurenzishighcholesterol,familyhistory, 0 inactivelifestyle,weightgain,andpastsmoking.Dr.Thompsonrespondedthathedidnotdiscount   thefactthatLaurenzihadsomeriskfactors,buthedidnotconsiderthemtobeimpressiveorstrong !  riskfactors. "    ThetrialcourtweighedthemedicaltestimonyandheldinfavorofLaurenzi.Thetrialjudge   notedthatthetestimonyofDrs.ThompsonandKraus contradictedthetestimonyofDrs.Morgan  andWarrontheissueofwhetherLaurenzisheartconditionwascausedbyhisriskfactorsorhis  employment.Inresolvingtheconflict,thetrialcourtstatedthat youvegotacollisionofexpertise  onthissubjectandyouvegotastatutorypresumption.IruleinfavorofMr.Laurenzi. p   Inthisappeal,wemustdeterminewhetherthedepositionsuponwhichtheCityrelies P  constitutecompetentmedicalevidencesufficienttorebutthestatutorypresumptionthatLaurenzis @  heartconditionwascausedbyhisemployment.LaurenzidoesnotassertthateitherDr.Morganor 0  Dr.Warrisincompetentorunqualifiedtorenderanopinionontheissue.Rather,Laurenziargues  p  thatthetrialcourtappropriatelyweighedtheevidenceandfoundthatDrs.KrausandThompson `  weremorecredible.k #  5       P  #XXX X:#iX(z XXX  Theissue,then,iswhetherthetrialcourt,inevaluatingwhethertheCityhaspresented 0   competentmedicalevidencetoovercomethepresumption,istoweighthecredibilityofadmittedly   competentphysicianswhogiveconflictingtestimonyonthecauseoftheclaimantsheartcondition.  In Krickv.CityofLawrenceburg ,945S.W.2d709(Tenn.1997),apoliceofficersoughtdisability  benefitsforhisheartdisease.InAugust1993,theofficerreceivedadomesticcall,andheanda  fellowofficerwereforcedtocrawlthoughahouselitteredwithdebrissearchingforawomanwho | hadreportedlybeenshotandwasbeingheldbyforcebyherhusband. Id. at710.Laterthatday,the h officerexperiencedchestpain.Hewashospitalized,diagnosedwithblockedarteries,andunderwent T quadruplebypasssurgery. Id. at711.Thetrialcourtfoundthattheofficerhadsuffereda @ compensableinjuryandawardedbenefits. Id. at710. ,|   Onappeal,the Krick Courtreviewedtheconflictingexperttestimony,notingsomeexpert T testimonythattheofficerhadlongstandingcoronaryheartdiseasecausedbyriskfactorssuchas @ smokingandhypertension,aswellasotherexperttestimonyfromtheofficersfamilypractitioner , thatthestressoftheofficerswork couldleadtoacoronaryspasm,whichcouldcauseacomplete  blockageofthearteries. Id. at71112.TheCourtfoundfirstthattheofficerhadmetthe  prerequisitesforthestatutorypresumptionthathisheartdiseasewasduetoaccidentalinjurysuffered  inthecourseofhisemployment. Id. at712.Itthennotedtheexperttestimonythattherewasnot   asubstantialconnectionbetweentheofficersworkandhisheartdisease. Id. TheCourtfoundthat x! theCityhadovercomethestatutorypresumption,observingthat [t]hechestpainexperiencedby d"  theplaintiffatthetimeoftheAugust24,1993[domestic]callwasasymptomoftheheartdisease, P#! notthediseaseitself.Moreover,itdefiescommonsensetoassumethat[theofficers]arteries <$" becameoccludedasaresultofthestressinvolvedintheAugust1993call. Id. at713.Thus,the (%x # Courtin Krick appearedtoengageinsomeevaluationofthecredibilityofthecompetingexpert &d!$ opinions,atleasttotheextentofdeterminingthattheexperttestimonyinfavoroftheofficer   defie[d]commonsense. Id.     However, Krick wasappliedin Bentonv.CityofSpringfield ,973S.W.2d936(Tenn.1998). t Asin Krick , Benton involvedapoliceofficerwithcoronaryheartdiseasewhosoughtdisability ` benefits. Benton ,973S.W.2dat936.Theofficerprofferedexperttestimonythathisjobasadrug L  taskforceofficercontributedtohisheartcondition,andthecityputintoevidencethetestimonyof 8  aphysicianwhoopinedthattheofficersheartconditionwasnotjobrelated. Id. at937.Thetrial $ t courthadawardeddisabilitybenefits. Id. The Benton Courtdidnotweighthecredibilityofthe  ` conflictingexperttestimony;rather,itsimplystatedthat [_t]his_ԀCourtrecentlyheldin Krickv.City  L  ofLawrenceburg ...thatmedicalopinionprovidedbyacompetentmedicalexpertwassufficient  8  torebutthepresumptioninTenn.CodeAnn.751201. Id. Apparentlyconcludingthatthe $  presumptionhadbeenrebuttedbythetestimonyprofferedbythecity,the Benton Courtthen   evaluatedwhethertheofficerhadputonsufficientevidencetoshowcausationbyaspecificstressful   event. Id. The Benton Courtultimatelyconcludedthattheofficerwasnotentitledtobenefits. Id.      Thus,in Krick ,theCourtappearedtoevaluate,atleastinpart,thecredibilityoftheexpert p testimony,inordertodetermineifthetestimonywascompetent.In Benton ,theCourtsanalysis \ includedvirtuallynocredibilitydetermination. H   Thesimilaritiesbetweenthiscaseandthefactsin Krick and Benton areunmistakable.In  p thiscase,itisundisputedthatLaurenzihadnumerousriskfactors,includinghighbloodpressure,  \ highcholesterol,afamilyhistoryofheartdisease,gender,andobesity.Laurenziofferedthe H testimonyoftwophysicianswhowerenotspecialistsincardiology,opiningthatLaurenzisheart 4 conditionwascausedbyhisemployment,despitethepresenceofseveralriskfactors.However,the   testimonyofbothspecialistsincardiologywasthatLaurenzisheartconditionwasnotcausedbyhis   employment.Indeed,Dr.Morganstestimony,thattheblockageinsomeofLaurenzisarteriestook  tentofifteenyearstodevelop,wasunrebutted.    If,asin Benton ,thereislittleornoevaluationofthecredibilityofthemunicipalitysexpert l testimonytorebutthestatutorypresumption,clearlytheCityhasputoncompetentmedicalevidence X  thatissufficienttodoso.Evenifthecredibilityofthemedicaltestimonyisevaluated,asin Krick , D! wemustconcludethattheevidencepreponderatesagainsttheconclusionofthetrialcourtthatthe 0"  Cityhadnotrebuttedthestatutorypresumption.Thus,wemust_find_Ԁthatthemedicaltestimony #l! profferedbytheCitywassufficienttorebutthepresumption.#XX XiX(zH# XXXX# DX X#;# XX D $X"   Oncethestatutorypresumptionisrebutted, itdisappears,andtheplaintiffmustprove,by %0!$ apreponderanceoftheevidence,thathisconditionresultedfromaninjurybyaccidentarisingout & "% ofandinthecourseofhisemployment. Krick ,945S.W.2dat713.#XXX X#c# XXXX# DX Xec# XX DWhenitisallegedthatphysical '#& activityofemploymentcausedaheartattack,aplaintiffmustshowthat thedisablingheartattack ($' [was]precipitatedbythephysicalactivityorexertionorphysicalstrainoftheemployeesjob. Id.  )$( (quoting Stone ,896S.W.2dat552).Whenitisallegedthatemotionaldistressinemployment *%) causedaheartattack,itmustbeshownthatthedisablingconditionwasimmediatelytriggeredby +&* aspecificstressfulevent. Id. at71314, seealsoBenton ,973S.W.2dat937.Intheinstantcase,  Laurenzididnotsufferaheartattack.Rather,he#XXX Xe#Ԁunderwentbypasssurgeryafterhisheartdisease  wasdiscovered.Inanyevent,hemustshowthathisconditionwasprecipitatedbyaspecific,  sudden,stressfulevent. SeeKrick ,945S.W.2dat71314(concludingthat,althoughplaintiffdid  notsufferaheartattack,hemuststillshowthathisheartdiseasewasprecipitatedbyaspecific p incident); seealsoWarrenv.TMLIns.Pool ,No.02S019801CV00007,1999Tenn.LEXIS107, `  at*9(Tenn.SpecialWorkersComp.App.Panel)(statingthat [i]tiswellsettledthatthedisabling P  conditionmustbeprecipitatedbyaspecific,acute,orsuddenstressfulevent), affd ,1999Tenn. @  LEXIS106(Tenn.March1,1999). 0    Inthiscase,thepartiesstipulatedattrialthattheonsetofLaurenzisheartdiseasewasnot `  precipitatedbyanycertainevent.Laurenziapparentlyhasmaintainedthattheongoingstressofhis P  joboverathirtyyearperiodcausedhisheartdisease.WhilewearesympathetictoLaurenzis @  position,wemustconcludethatLaurenziisrequiredtoshowthataprecipitatingeventinhis 0  employmentcausedhisheartcondition.Hemakesnosuchallegation,nordoestherecordinclude   evidencethatwouldsupportsuchanallegation.Consequently,wemustfindthatLaurenzihasnot  carriedhisburdenofshowingthathisheartconditionwascausedbyhisemployment. SeeWarren ,  1999Tenn.LEXIS107,at*9(findingthatitisinsufficienttoallegeaseriesofstressfuleventsover  atwentyyearperiodtoshowthatheartdiseasewasrelatedtojobasapoliceofficer).#DXXJe#XXD XXXX    Thedecisionofthetrialcourtisreversed.Costsaretobeassessedtotheappellee,Joseph p W.Laurenzi,forwhichexecutionmayissue,ifnecessary. `     p _#XXX Xlp# _   `     h     ___________________________________ P    `     h     HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,JUDGE#DXXMp#