ÿWPCÜ% …# VUNa %¯ 0(µwšÝ4w ‹ š U:¢ 1mÜ 0cI 0§¬ 0DS 0J— 0Tá 0^5 0h“ 0rû 0|m 0†é 0o 1uÿ 0dt BØU>õU *3B)]DC† AMÉ D3I\d 0@Àv~vÓ~ 0wQ 0ŠÈ 0 R 0´ò 0Ǧ! 0Ûm" 0ïH# AO7$Ɔ$ 0DL% D/% B¿%˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÒ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡´DµH¶·E¸¹PºE»U¼D¾t¿DÀ"ÆÁ•ÂÃÄHÅÆEÇÈÉÊÉËÉÌÉÍÓ€Úƒç"3|xØ, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular tuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;s˜$´´Ô2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(W(2bþ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ X·óXXXÔÒ4°ÒÒ„°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ'ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òSeptember€8,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó RÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÔ€&ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€50„6„242€permits€a€trial€judge€to€awardÌÌà8 àpermanent€partial€disability€benefits,€not€to€exceed€four€hundredÏ(400)€weeks,€in€appropriate€cases€where€permanent€medicalÏimpairment€is€found€and€the€employee€is€eligible€to€receive€theÏmaximum€disability€award€under€ðð€50„6„241(a)(2)€or€(b).ÌÌAwards€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„242€are€predicated€upon€finding€three€ofÏthe€following€four€criteria€applicable:ÌÌà8 à1.€€The€employee€lacks€a€high€school€diploma€or€generalÏequivalency€diploma€or€the€employee€cannot€read€or€write€on€aÏgrade€eight€(8)€level;ÌÌà8 à2.€€The€employee€is€age€fifty„five€(55)€or€older;ÌÌà8 à3.€€The€employee€has€no€reasonably€transferrable€job€skills€fromÏprior€vocational€background€and€training;€andÌÌà8 à4.€€The€employee€has€no€reasonable€employment€opportunitiesÏavailable€locally€considering€the€employee's€permanent€medicalÏcondition.ÌÌWe€note€that€criteria€four€speaks€in€terms€of€"reasonable€employmentÏopportunities"€whereas€total€disability€is€defined€as€the€inability€to€work€"at€anÏoccupation€which€brings€such€employee€an€income."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207(4)(B).Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò(OÞ{$µµà0  àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b²D$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xÓñ$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÆ‚$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿù…$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³¶4$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Ǫ»$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€&ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ÆDXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€&&Ôò ò›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFOR€PUBLICATIONÌÌó óVERNON€RAY€DAVIS,à@ à)à àFiled:€œòò€€€€€€ò òSeptember€8,€1997ó ó›à€ àóóÌà@ à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à@ à)à àNo.€03S01„9603„CV„00034Ìà@ à)Ìv.à@ à)à àHON.€WILLIAM€R.€HOLT,€JR.,Ìà@ à)à àà àJUDGEÌJIM€REAGAN€and€HOWARD€SEXTON,à@ à)Ìd/b/a€PRECISION€CONSTRUCTIONà@ à)à àSEVIER€CIRCUIT̜ـ€ÙßR€)+(A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›CO.;€and€TRAVELERS€INSURANCEà@ à)ÌCO.,à@ à)Ìà@ à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees,à@ à)Ìà@ à)Ìandà@ à)Ìà@ à)ÌLARRY€BRINTON,€JR.,€Director€ofà@ à)ÌWorker's€Compensation,€Tennesseeà0 ààH&&/Dà)ÌDept.€of€Labor,€Second€Injury€Fund,à@ à)Ìà@ à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à@ à)ÌÌandÌÌBESSIE€LOU€RAYFIELD,à@ à)Ìà@ à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à@ à)à àNO.€œ03S01„9602„CV„00009›Ìà@ à)Ìv.à@ à)à àHON.€WILLIAM€R.€HOLT,€JR.,Ìà@ à)à àà àJUDGEÌEMPLOYERS€INSURANCE€COMPANYà@ à)ÌOF€WAUSAU;€and€ED€SMITH,€d/b/aà@ à)à àSEVIER€CIRCUITÌDAYS€INN€OF€PIGEON€FORGE,à@ à)Ìà@ à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellants,à@ à)Ìà@ à)Ìandà@ à)Ìà@ à)ÌLARRY€BRINTON,€TENNESSEEà@ à)ÌDEPT.€OF€LABOR,€DIVISION€OFà@ à)ÌWORKERS'€COMPENSATION,à@ à)ÌSECOND€INJURY€FUND,à@ à)Ìà@ à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à@ à)ÌÌòòÔ€&ôÔFOR€APPELLEEóó:à àà àà àà0 àòòFOR€APPELLANT,€SECOND€INJURY€FUNDóó:Ô€&&ÔÌÌR.B.€Haileyà àà àà àà àà àœJohn›€Knox€œWalkup›ÌFrank€Q.€Vettorià àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌKnoxvilleÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDianne€Stamey€DycusÌà àà àà àà àà àà0 àSenior€Counsel,€Attorney€General's€OfficeÌÌÌà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÌÌTRIAL€COURT€œJUDGMENTS€AFFIRMED›à€ àHOLDER,€J.Ô€&XÔÇÔ  ÔÓÓò òÓ  ÓÔ  ÔOPINIONó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àWe€granted€this€consolidated€appeal€to€determine€whether€permanentÏtotal€disability€can€be€awarded€when€an€anatomical€disability€rating€is€less€thanÏ16.7€percent.€€In€òòSeiber€v.€Greenbrier€Industries,€Inc.óó,€906€S.W.2d€444€(Tenn.Ï1995),€this€Court€adopted€a€panel€decision€holding€that€the€limits€in€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð50„6„241€(1996€Supp.)€precluded€an€award€of€total€disability€when€theÏanatomical€impairment€was€less€than€16.7€percent.€€A€later,€but€unpublished,Ïworkers'€compensation€panel€decision€held€that€the€limitations€in€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð50„6„241(b)€are€not€applicable€to€permanent€total€disability€claims.€ÏòòWarren€v.€Twin€City€Fire€œIns.›€Co.óó,€No.€œ03S01„9506„CV„00061›€(Nov.€29,€1995,€atÏKnoxville).€€We€granted€review€to€reconcile€these€two€cases€and€decide€thisÏissue.€€For€the€reasons€explained€below,€we€agree€with€the€panel's€findings€inÏòòWarrenóó€and€hold€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241's€limitations€on€permanentÏpartial€disability€do€not€apply€to€awards€of€permanent€total€disability.ÌÌÔ  Ôò òÓ  ÓÔ  ÔBACKGROUNDó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àVernon€Ray€Davis€and€Bessie€Lou€Rayfield€had€received€prior€œworkers'›Ïcompensation€awards.€€Both€sustained€subsequent€work„related€injuries€andÏreceived€anatomical€ratings€of€less€than€16.7€per€cent.€€Davisðð€subsequent€injuryÏcaused€an€additional€ten€percent€anatomical€impairment.€€Rayfieldððs€physicianÏattributed€fifteen€percent€of€her€total€anatomical€rating€to€her€most€recent€work„related€injury.€€Both€were€adjudged€permanently€and€totally€disabled€underÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50„6„207(4)€(1991€œRepl.).›€ÌÌà àBoth€cases€were€appealed€and€argued€before€œspecial›€œworkers'›Ïœcompensation›€œappeals€panels.›€€The€cases€were€consolidated€and€transferred€toÏthis€Court.€€The€parties€were€ordered€to€"file€supplemental€briefs€on€the€issue€ofÏwhether€the€multiplier€maximums€provisions€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50„6„241€&Ï„242€apply€to€findings€of€permanent€total€disability."ÌÌÔ  Ôò òÓ  ÓÔ  ÔSTATUTORY€CONSTRUCTIONó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellants,€the€Second€Injury€Fund€and€the€workersðð€compensationÏcarriers,€assign€error€to€the€trial€courts'€decisions€to€award€permanent€totalÏdisability€benefits.€€œThey›€assert€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241€prohibitsÏawards€of€permanent€total€disability€because€both€Davis'€and€Rayfieldððs€mostÏrecent€medical€impairment€ratings€were€less€than€16.7€œpercent.›€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àOur€Workers'€Compensation€Act€classifies€compensable€occupationalÏdisabilities€into€four€distinct€classifications.€€These€classifications€are:€€(1)€Ïtemporary€total€disability;€(2)€€temporary€partial€disability;€(3)€€permanent€partialÏdisability;€and€(4)€€permanent€total€disability.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððœ50„6„207(1)„›Ïœ207(4)›€(1996€Supp.).€€This€Court€has€previously€recognized€that€each€separateÏdisability€classification€is€independent€and€serves€a€specific€compensation€goal.€ÏòòRoberson€v.€Loretto€Casket€Co.óó,€722€S.W.2d€380,€383€(Tenn.€1986);€òòRedmondÏv.€McMinn€Countyóó,€354€S.W.2d€435,€437€(Tenn.€1962).€€The€issue€in€controversyÏinvolves€the€interrelation€of€both€permanent€total€and€permanent€partialÏdisability€and€a€statute€specifically€limiting€permanent€partial€disability€awards.ÌÌà àAwards€for€permanent€partial€disability€are€governed€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð50„6„207(3)(A)€„207(F)€(1996€Supp.).€€An€employee€sustaining€either€aÏdisability€to€a€scheduled€member€or€a€disability€adjudged€both€permanent€andÍpartial€to€the€body€as€a€whole€may€be€eligible€for€permanent€partial€disabilityÏbenefits.€€Permanent€partial€benefits€are€paid€either€as€scheduled€or€for€a€periodÏof€up€to€400€weeks.€€òòIdóó.;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50„6„241€&€242€(1996€Supp.).ÌÌà àThe€statutory€definition€of€total€disability€focuses€on€an€employee's€abilityÏto€return€to€gainful€employment.€€Employees€who€are€totally€incapacitated€fromÏgainful€employment€by€work„related€disabilities€not€otherwise€specificallyÏprovided€for€under€the€Act€are€statutorily€classified€as€"totally€disabled."€ÏDisabled€workers€falling€within€the€purview€of€the€"total€disability"€definition€shallÏbe€paid€permanent€total€disability€benefits€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð50„6„207(4)(A)€(1996€Supp.).ÌÌà àIn€1992,€the€legislature€limited€permanent€partial€disability€awards.€ÏThese€limits€as€codified€provide€in€pertinent€part:ÌÓÓà8 àFor€injuries€arising€on€or€after€August€1,€1992,€in€cases€where€anÏinjured€employee€is€eligible€to€receive€any€permanent€partialÏdisability€benefits,€pursuant€to€ðð50„6„207(3)(A)(I)€and€(F),€and€theÏpre„injury€employer€returns€the€employee€to€employment€at€aÏwage€equal€to€or€greater€than€the€employee€was€receiving€at€theÏtime€of€the€injury,€the€maximum€permanent€partial€disability€awardÏthe€employee€may€receive€is€two€and€one€half€(2€ðð)€times€theÏmedical€impairment€rating€.€.€.€and€[if]€the€pre„injury€employer€doesÏnot€return€the€employee€to€employment€at€a€wage€equal€to€orÏgreater€than€the€employee€was€receiving€at€the€time€of€the€injury,Ïthe€maximum€permanent€partial€disability€award€that€the€employeeÏmay€receive€is€six€(6)€times€the€medical€impairment€rating.ÓÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50„6„241(a)(1)€&€(b)€(1996€Supp.).€€Accordingly,€the€statuteÏplaces€limitations€on€that€subset€of€disabilities€that€are:€€(1)€€not€scheduled;€òòandóóÏ(2)€€adjudged€to€be€permanent€partial.ÌÌà àA€recent€panel€decision,€however,€held€that€the€limitations€contained€inÏðð50„6„241€were€also€applicable€to€awards€of€permanent€total€disability.€€InÏòòSeiber€v€Greenbrier€Industries,€Inc.óó,€906€S.W.2d€444€(Tenn.€1995),€a€panel€heldÏthat€ðð50„6„241€precluded€a€trial€court€from€awarding€total€disability€benefitsÏwhen€the€anatomical€disability€rating€was€less€than€16.7€percent.€€The€panelÏreasoned€that€under€ðð50„6„241,€the€legislature€had€indicated€an€intent€to€limitÏ"permanent€disability€awards"€to€six€times€the€impairment€rating.€€òòIdóó.€at€447.€€TheÏpanel€then€adopted€a€mathematical€approach€to€assessing€permanent€totalÏdisability€claims.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àWe€disagree€with€the€analysis€in€òòœSeiber›óó.€€First,€the€legislature€hasÏexplicitly€indicated€an€intent€to€limit€permanent€òòpartiaóól€disability€awards€and€notÏ"permanent€disability€awards"€in€general.€€Next,€total€disability€as€statutorilyÏdefined€is€not€based€on€a€purely€objective€assessment€or€an€anatomicalÏmathematical€computation.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó€òòœCorcoran›€v.€Foster€Auto€œGMC›,€Inc.óó,Ï746€S.W.2d€452,€458€(Tenn.€1988)€œ(holding›€vocational€œdisability›€is€based€onÏboth€lay€and€expert€testimony€and€is€not€restricted€to€precise€disability€estimatesÍmade€by€experts).€€The€definition€instead€focuses€on€the€injured€employee'sÏability€to€earn€wages.ÌÌà àLastly,€òòSeiber'sóó€holding€was€premised€on€effectuating€legislative€intentÏfrom€the€entire€statutory€scheme.€€The€panel€noted€that€"[œt]he›€purpose€of€theÏWorkers'€Compensation€Reform€Act€[was]€to€provide€benefits€to€injuredÏemployees€while€limiting€employer€liability€so€as€to€keep€workers'Ïcompensation€affordable€.€.€.€."€€òòSeiberóó,€906€S.W.2d€at€447.€€The€panel€thenÏfound€that€the€purpose€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50„6„241€was€to€"encourageÏemployers€to€retain€injured€workers€at€wages€equal€to€or€greater€than€receivedÏprior€to€the€injury€by€providing€for€lesser€disability€awards€if€the€employee€isÏretained."€€òòIdóó.€at€447„48.ÌÌà àLegislative€intent,€however,€shall€be€derived€from€a€statute's€face€whenÏthe€statutory€language€is€unambiguous.€€òòœHamblen›€County€œEduc›.€œAss'n›€v.ÏœHamblen›€County€œBd›.€of€œEduc›.óó,€892€S.W.2d€428,€435€(Tenn.€Ct.€œApp›.€œ1994);›€òòseeóóÏòòCarson€Creek€Vac.€œResorts,€Inc.›€v.€Dept.€of€Rev.óó,€€865€S.W.2d€1,€2€(Tenn.€1993)Ï(stating€where€language€within€four€corners€of€statute€is€plain,€clear,€andÏambiguous,€intent€shall€be€derived€from€statute's€face).€€If€a€statute's€language€isÏexpressed€in€a€manner€devoid€of€ambiguity,€courts€are€not€at€liberty€to€departÏfrom€the€statute's€words.€€òòIdóó.€€Accordingly,€courts€are€restricted€to€the€"naturalÏand€ordinary"€meaning€of€a€statute€unless€an€ambiguity€necessitates€resortingÍelsewhere€to€ascertain€legislative€intent.€€òòAustin€v.€Memphis€œPubl›.€Coóó.,€655ÏS.W.2d€146,€149€(Tenn.€1983).ÌÌà àWe€find€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241's€language€unambiguous.€€TheÏstatute€requires€a€threshold€finding€that€the€employee€is€eligible€to€receiveÏpermanent€partial€disability€benefits.€€Moreover,€the€legislative€language€inÏðð50„6„241€narrows€its€application€to€those€specific€subsections€or€claims€ofÏpermanent€partial€disability€falling€within€the€purview€of€ð ð[Tenn.€Code€Ann.]Ïðð50„6„207€3(A)(I)€and€(F).ðð€€€This€narrowing€language€does€not€lend€aÏlegitimate€inference€that€the€legislature€intended€the€limitations€in€ðð€50„6„241€toÏencompass€all€forms€of€permanent€disability.ÌÌà àWe€are€unpersuaded€by€òòSeiber'sóó€implication€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð50„6„242€(1996€Supp.)× ƒ, ××  ×€provides€the€remedy€for€workers€who€wouldÍotherwise€be€considered€totally€disabled€had€their€anatomical€rating€been€16.7Ïpercent€or€greater.€Section€50„6„242,€by€explicit€statutory€language,€isÏapplicable€only€to€that€subset€of€permanent€partial€disability€claims€œin›€œwhich›€theÏemployee€is€eligible€to€receive€the€maximum€disability€award€under€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð50„6„241(a)(2)€or€(b).€€Accordingly,€if€the€claim€does€not€fall€within€theÏpurview€of€ðð€50„6„241(a)(2)€or€(b),€courts€simply€cannot€proceed€to€ðð€50„6„242.ÌÌà àWe€find€the€statutory€provisions€of€the€Workers'€Compensation€Act€setÏforth€the€following€procedures€for€assessing€work„related€permanentÏdisabilities.€€The€initial€inquiry€is:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà à(1)à àWhether€the€disability€is€to€a€scheduled€member€(i.e.,Ïenumerated)?ÌÌÓÓAn€affirmative€answer€to€question€one€mandates€that€the€employee's€award€beÏas€enumerated.€€If,€however,€the€disability€is€œnon„enumerated,›€the€pertinentÏquestion€becomes:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà à(2)à àWhether€the€employee€is€totally€incapacitated€fromÏworking€at€an€occupation€that€generates€an€income?ÌÌÓÓIf€question€two€is€answered€affirmatively,€the€employee€is€eligible€for€totalÏdisability€benefits.€€If,€however,€the€employee€is€able€to€work€at€an€occupationÏthat€generates€an€income,€the€trial€court€proceeds€to€ðð€50„6„241.€€If€certainÏconditions€are€satisfied€under€ðð€50„6„241,€the€trial€court€may€then€proceed€toÏððœ50„6„242.›€€œThe›€inquiries€then€become:€€whether€the€job€opportunitiesÏavailable€are€reasonable;€whether€the€employee€has€reasonable€job€skills€thatÏare€transferrable;€whether€the€employee€is€fifty„five€or€older;€and€whether€theÏemployee€meets€specific€statutory€education€criteria.ÌÌà àBoth€the€procedures€established€by€the€Workers'€Compensation€Act€andÏthe€plain€and€ordinary€language€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50„6„241€convey€aÏspecific€legislative€intent€to€limit€ðð€50„6„241's€application€to€awards€ofÏpermanent€partial€disability.€€We,€therefore,€hold€that€ðð50„6„241€is€inapplicableÏto€permanent€total€disability€and€does€not€preclude€a€trial€judge€from€awardingÏpermanent€total€disability€merely€because€an€anatomical€impairment€rating€isÏless€than€16.7€percent.ÌÌà àHolding€that€ðð50„6„241's€limitations€are€inapplicable€to€permanent€totalÏdisability€does€not€contravene€the€policy€of€employee€retention€as€enunciated€inÏòòSeiberóó.€€To€the€contrary,€employers€will€be€encouraged€to€find€positions€thatÍaccommodate€work„related€disabilities€to€avoid€adjudications€of€total€disabilityÏand€payment€of€lifetime€benefits.€€If,€however,€injured€workers€are€"totallyÏdisabled"€as€statutorily€defined,€applying€the€limitations€of€ðð50„6„241€to€theirÏclaims€does€not€advance€the€policy€of€employee€retention.€€€Totally€disabledÏworkers,€by€definition,€are€incapable€of€earning€wages€or€being€retained.€ÏAccordingly,€applying€ðð241€to€the€permanent€total€disability€subsection€on€theÏbasis€of€encouraging€employee€retention€is€simply€illogical.ÌÌà àThe€parties€have€briefed€additional€issues.€€We€have€reviewed€thoseÏissues€and€find€them€devoid€of€merit.€€For€the€reasons€discussed€in€this€opinion,Ïwe€affirm€the€trial€courts'€œjudgments.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€theÏappellants,€Ô&  ÔSecond€Injury€Fund€and€the€workers'€compensation€carriers,€forÏwhich€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòòà€ àóóÌà àà àà àà àà àJANICE€M.€HOLDER,€JUSTICEÔ'  ÔÌÌÌCONCURRING:ÌÌDrowota,€Reid,€Birch,€JJ.ÌAnderson,€C.J.,€not€participatingÌ