ÿWPCÌ ¾lôö„¹`áGûƹ'‘i-$‰¦ † ;?ç&(ì$‘^èd¼ºíÆA`<¬­Df¿ƒ}ªq¨wdà<ç|öëïö_ù‘ó{•Ü,âYÜ­Ü&}:ÈîÈú0­j–®9©(ضS¨´„pUqUjÕg8”Æ#”ÞGDOOx˜s÷“X&ØÒÂf«>1: lä#ÈÒè²[ì‰AÛ¯÷‡?Dò°€‹ZTNS Âh³¼Õv¦‘ž-AiOŠÙ@‹SPáÍ÷dÆJˆŠìùoC·V=X6~ma·þó^úñ^3 ^|ž†H¶%ëp\hcZŽÐ}”}µ4æŽ,Š §ÁÆ¢5 I÷I`o’ìºBr’×À¼øm^h€ÏíÝIM¨ƒ€‡{¤Ÿ90É”Ûß´ ¡ÊÀ:ÚÕä]1.]ÁÏ\F&C_À# ÿ Š,9éCÝ ìU÷kŽ!{Üg]Ä¨Ì „½èÒ±òˆ›ƒš¹rÒRr ¤:À§YD§BdOœÂU*bG•xýõ0#èíQ€Dƒ‰œ(¬›!ýÛØG`%ÊœC7À]-ï®È ¦Y_Ó8¥±ôƒ+h¾4KL³H;b̈Hh¥ög|îä¨ØtèÝÀ8ø²Á%($^?ï6ÏZæSd#!xUN™ %ç 0:í^ ' w3 47 K Z m\ U @s U,³ Nß \á 0~= 0D» pÿ 0Vo o Å .‡Í 72T 1u† 72û:--(gU: BÉ D5æææææ AQÆl 0V2 0Dˆ˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,ÔX§‘'L tpO'ê:i ,Ñœ3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman , øð AZArial  RÑ  ÑÑ8€úpXXdìXXdì8ÑÑ°Ñ(.(3Ä($¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó fÝ ƒÄ($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€&ñ%XXÔThe€employee€testified:€€ð ðWell,€my€concern€is€my€family.€€Cause€Iððve€got€an€obligation€to€takeÐ ° Ðcare€of€my€family€and€if€I€take€a€lump€sum,€then€we€can€work€with€a€lump€sum€and€if€something€happensÐ ˆØ Ðto€me,€my€wife€will€still€have€the€lump€sum.€€But€if€I€take€it€over€a€period€of€years€.€.€.€and€these€bloodÐ `° Ðclots€cause€me€to€have€a€heart€attack,€then€Iððm€going€to€be€buried€and€my€wife€is€going€to€have€nothing.ðð(.3½Þ$££Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ý 04ñGIOU[cksy???????????1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)6#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) 0Ý ƒÄ($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOne€of€the€legislative€sponsors€of€the€1990€amendment€deleting€the€requirement€ofÐ ° Ðdemonstrating€a€special€need€stated:€ð ð[Ô_ÔF]orÔ_Ô€those€set€of€[workers]€that€have€no€special€needs€outÐ œì Ðthere,€but€are€able€and€capable€of€managing€their€own€money,€I€donððt€think€we€ought€to€be€tellingÐ ˆØ Ðthem€that€they€canððt€have€their€money€and€this€is€what€this€bill€does.€.€.€.ðð Ý ƒb½Þ"ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XÁìXXXÔÔ€f XXÁìÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XÁìXf ÔÐ  ÐÌDecember€20,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAŠÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular dZZZZ)ÿÿ!dxdxabc[Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(.3½Þ$¢¢Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓb€ (#66bÓÑ°ÑÒ€°ÒÔ€ XÁìXXXÔÑ€mÐÑÓ*€ü(†Xcè“X°œX*ÓÔ€ Š-í‹X XÁìÔÓ=€´?X°XdÐd=Óßx€`2.jz°'þ`  `€€@ÿEž/` 8ttxPÖg( È xßÔ_Ôà@§ § Tàà@@ÔÔ'ÈàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@PP'TàAT€NASHVILLEˆÌÌÓ6€ü(†Xè“X€ü(†Xcè“X6ÓÌÌÓ9€ü(†X‚q@’X€ü(†Xè“X9ÓWILLIAM€EDMONDS,à0 à àà08à(#à(#àà0‚8(#8(#à)à0q‚(#‚(#àò òFOR€PUBLICATIONó óÐô ìq(#q(# Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà ‚ à)Ìà Ø àPlaintiff/Appellant,à0 8 àà0‚8(#8(#àà0q‚(#‚(#à)à0@q(#q(#àò òFiled:€€òòóóó óDecember€20,Ð ò ê Ð1999Ð @(#@(# Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà ‚ à)Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà ‚ à)Ìv.à0 Ø àà00 Ø (#Ø (#àà0ˆ0 (#0 (#àà0àˆ(#ˆ(#àà08à(#à(#àà0‚8(#8(#à)à0q‚(#‚(#àWilson€CriminalÐèà q(#q(# Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà ‚ à)à0 q àHon.€J.€O.€Bondà0ðq(#q(#àÐäÜ ð(#ð(# Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà ‚ à)ÌWILSON€COUNTY€and€WILSONà0 ‚ à)à0q‚(#‚(#àÐÜÔ q(#q(# ÐCOUNTY€ROAD€COMMISSION,à0 ‚ à)à0q‚(#‚(#àSupreme€Court€No.€ÐØÐq(#q(# Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà ‚ à)à0 q àM1998„00451„SC„WCM„CVÐÔÌq(#q(# Ðà Ø àDefendants/Appellees.à 8 àà ‚ à)Ð ÐÈ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà0 8 àà0‚8(#8(#à)à0q‚(#‚(#àTrial€Court€No.€96„235ÐÌÄq(#q(# ÐÓÓà0 Ø àà00 Ø (#Ø (#àÐ 0 (#0 (# ÐòòÌÌÓ9°,X‡X¡“X€ü(†X‚q@’X9ÓFor€Defendants„Appelleesóó:à0 8 àà08(#8(#àà0q(#(#àòòà è àFor€Plaintiff„Appellantóó:а¨q(#q(# ÐÓÓKent€E.€Krauseà0 ˆ àà0àˆ(#ˆ(#àà08à(#à(#àà08(#8(#àà0q(#(#àà0èq(#q(#àFrank€BuckШ! è(#è(# ÐSharon€E.€Englandà0 à àà08à(#à(#àà08(#8(#àà0q(#(#àà0èq(#q(#à124€West€Main€StreetФ"œè(#è(# ÐSuite€2600,€The€Towerà0 à àà08à(#à(#àà08(#8(#àà0q(#(#àà0èq(#q(#àSmithville,€TN€37166Р#˜è(#è(# Ð611€Commerce€StreetÌNashville,€TN€37203à0 à àà08à(#à(#àà08(#8(#àà0q(#(#àИ%q(#q(# ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@)TàÔ‡ „ÒF„‹ Š-íÔ€ò òÔ#† Š-í‹„ „ÒFí #ÔÔ‡ îØŒ î‹ Š-íÔOPINIONó óÔ#† Š-í‹ î îØŒ3#ԈРp/h() ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌJUDGMENT€OF€TRIAL€COURTà0  àà 8 àà€ŠŠ@(#(#(#àDROWOTA,€J.ˆÐ ¦9ž23 ÐAFFIRMEDÌÐ ž;–45 ÐÑmÐÑâ âÑ  ÑÑ8€úpXXdìXXdì8ÑÑ°Ñâ âÑ  ÑÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà Ø àIn€this€workersðð€compensation€action,€the€defendants,€Wilson€CountyÐ ¼  Ðand€Wilson€County€Road€Commission,€have€appealed€from€the€trial€courtððsÐ Ä  Ðjudgment€finding€that€the€employee,€William€Edmonds,€was€entitled€to€aÐ Ì  Ðcommutation€of€his€award€of€workersðð€compensation€benefits€to€a€lump€sum.€Ð Ô $  ÐThe€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€upon€reference€forÐ Ü,  Ðfindings€of€facts€and€conclusions€of€law€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô‡ Š€] ˆˆ Š…ûÔððÔ#† Š…ûˆ ˆ Š€]m#Ô€50„6„Ð ä4  Ð225(e)(3),€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€benefits,€but€modified€theÐ øH Ðjudgment€to€disallow€payment€of€the€award€in€a€lump€sum.€€Thereafter,€theÐ P Ðemployee€filed€a€motion€for€full€Court€review€of€the€Panelððs€decision€pursuantÐ X Ðto€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô‡ Š€] ˆˆ Š…ûÔððÔ#† Š…ûˆ ˆ Š€]#Ô€50„6„225(e)(5)(B).€€We€granted€the€employeeððs€motionÐ ` Ðto€determine€whether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€ordering€theÐ $t Ðaward€paid€in€a€lump€sum.€€After€carefully€examining€the€record€before€usÐ ,| Ðand€considering€the€relevant€authorities,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€Ð 4 „ Ðcommuting€the€award€to€a€lump€sum.Ð <"Œ ÐÌòòà@<<(Tàò òBACKGROUNDóóó óˆÐ L&œ!! ÐÌà Ø àThe€employee,€William€Edmonds,€was€49€years€old€at€the€time€of€trial.€Ð \*¬%% ÐHe€had€no€formal€education€or€vocational€training€beyond€receiving€a€GED.€Ð d,´'' ÐHis€prior€work€experience€consisted€of€factory€work,€driving€a€truck,€andÐ l.¼)) Ðrepairing€engines€and€machinery.€€The€employeeððs€work€responsibilities€forÐ t0Ä++ Ðthe€defendant€employer€included€driving€a€pick„up€truck€and€trailer,€haulingÐ |2Ì-- Ðpipe€to€job€sites,€and€assisting€in€installing€pipe.€€He€also€performed€someÐ „4Ô// Ðcarpentry€and€general€maintenance€work€for€the€employer.€Ð Œ6Ü11 ÐÐ ”8ä33 Ðà Ø àOn€December€13,€1995,€the€employee€fell€from€a€ladder€in€the€courseÐ ° Ðand€scope€of€his€employment.€€He€broke€his€right€arm€and€injured€his€left€legÐ ¸ Ðin€the€fall.€€The€employee€had€two€surgeries€on€the€injured€leg,€andÐ À Ðdeveloped€a€chronic€circulatory€problem€that€cannot€be€corrected€by€surgery.€Ð È  ÐHe€has€significant€problems€with€swelling€and€discomfort€in€the€leg,€and€mustÐ Ð  Ðelevate€it€above€heart€level€several€times€a€day€to€alleviate€the€swelling€andÐ Ø(  Ðdiscomfort.€€The€employee€must€take€a€blood€thinner€to€protect€against€bloodÐ à0  Ðclots.€€Taking€the€blood€thinner€requires€the€employee€to€be€careful€not€toÐ è8 Ðinjure€himself€through€bruising€or€cuts.€€Ð ð@ ÐÌà Ø àAt€trial,€the€employee€presented€the€testimony€of€a€banker,€Roy€Pugh,Ð P Ðwho€has€worked€in€the€banking€industry€for€twenty„three€years.€€The€banker,Ð X Ðwho€€knew€the€employee€for€over€twenty€years,€testified€that€he€was€familiarÐ ` Ðwith€the€employeeððs€financial€history,€which€he€described€as€ð ðvery€frugallyÐ h Ðdone.ðð€€Regarding€the€employeeððs€ability€to€manage€his€money€and€assetsÐ  !p Ðthe€banker€stated:€€ð ðI€think€heððs€an€excellent€manager.€.€.€.€€Isolicited€hisÐ (#x Ðbusiness€even€though€it€was€eighteen€miles€from€where€I€work.€€I€fortunatelyÐ 0%€  Ðdid€get€part€of€his€business€at€that€time.€€He€always€did€his€businessÐ 8'ˆ"" Ðappropriately.€€Heððs€very€efficient€in€his€management€of€money.ðð€€The€bankerÐ @)$$ Ðfurther€testified€that€it€would€be€financially€advantageous€for€the€employeeÐ H+˜&& Ðto€have€his€workersðð€compensation€award€paid€in€a€lump€sum€so€that€theÐ P- (( Ðaward€could€be€invested€and€earn€interest.€€The€banker€and€the€employeeÐ X/¨** Ðhad€lengthy€discussions€concerning€how€to€best€invest€a€lump€sum€award.€Ð `1°,, ÐThe€banker€testified€that€he€would€assist€the€employee€if€his€award€wasÐ h3¸.. Ðcommuted€to€a€lump€sum.€€Ð p5À00 Ðâ âÐ x7È22 Ðà Ø àThe€employee€testified€that€he€wanted€a€lump€sum€award€so€that€theÐ ° Ðâ âfunds€could€be€invested€and€produce€income.€€He€also€wanted€a€lump€sumÐ ¸ Ðin€order€to€provide€an€estate€for€his€wife€and€children€in€the€event€of€hisÐ À Ðdeath.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Evidence€regarding€the€employeeððs€financial€condition€showed€thatÐ È  Ðhis€house€and€ten€acres,€vehicles,€and€farm€equipment,€were€all€paid€for.€Ð Ð  ÐHis€debts€consisted€of€some€medical€bills€and€transportation€costs€for€hisÐ Ø(  Ðson,€who€was€attending€college.€€Prior€to€the€injury,€the€employee€hadÐ à0  Ðapproximately€$18,000€in€a€savings€account.€€€€Ð è8 ÐÌà Ø àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€employee€sustained€a€95€percentÐ øH Ðpermanent€vocational€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole,€which€entitled€him€toÐ P Ða€judgment€of€$100,658.20,€to€be€paid€in€a€lump€sum.€€The€trial€courtÐ X Ðexplained€its€decision€to€commute€the€award€as€follows:Ð ` ÐÌÓÓà8 Ø àà 0 àIs€he€able€to€handle€[his€fiØØnances]?€€€A€man€whoððs€alreadyÐ  !p Ðpaid€for€his€house,€has€his€car€and€truck€paid€for,€had€money€inÐ $"t Ðthe€bank€when€this€happened,€got€a€banker€who€says€heððs€goodÐ (#x Ðat€what€he€does,€that€heððs€a€good€manager.€€I€believe€it€wouldÐ ,$| Ðbe€to€the€best€interest€of€this€man€if€he€gets€his€money€in€a€lumpÐ 0%€  Ðsum.€€I€think€he€can€manage€it,€I€think€he€can€make€moreÐ 4&„!! Ðmoney€off€of€the€money€than€he€would€get€if€he€was€paid€on€aÐ 8'ˆ"" Ðweekly€basis.€€Cause€thereððs€not€anything€in€this€manððsÐ <(Œ## Ðbackground€that€would€indicate€that€heððs€extravagant,€that€heÐ @)$$ Ðdidnððt€pay€his€bills€or€heððs€taken€bankruptcy,€thereððs€not€anythingÐ D*”%% Ðthat€would€state€he€couldnððt€handle€the€money.€€Itððs€all€positive,Ð H+˜&& Ða€man€who€does€have€the€ability€and€in€whose€best€interest€itÐ L,œ'' Ðwould€be€to€have€the€money€instead€of€receiving€it€[periodically].Ð P- (( ÐThe€Court€is€going€to€find€that€he€can€handle€his€money€and€itÐ T.¤)) Ðshould€be€paid€in€a€lump€sum.ÐX/¨**Ø Ð Ø Ð  ÐÌÌâ âÐ d2´-- ÐÓd&ÓAccordingly,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€employee€was€capable€of€wiselyÐ ° Ðâ âmanaging€a€commuted€award,€and€that€such€an€award€was€in€his€bestÐ ¸ Ðinterest.€€The€trial€court€further€found€that€the€employee€had€ð ðspecial€needsððÐ À Ðjustifying€a€commutation€of€benefits,€although€the€court€did€not€specify€whatÐ È  Ðthose€needs€were.Ð Ð  ÐÌà Ø àThe€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€affirmed€the€trialÐ à0  Ðcourtððs€finding€regarding€the€employeeððs€extent€of€disability.€€However,€theÐ è8 ÐPanel€held€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€ordering€the€award€paidÐ ð@ Ðin€a€lump€sum.€€The€Panel€opined€that€a€commutation€was€improper€becauseÐ øH Ðno€evidence€was€presented€that€the€commuted€award€would€be€used€forÐ P Ðrehabilitation€purposes.€€The€Panel€modified€the€trial€courtððs€judgmentÐ X Ðaccordingly.€€Thereafter,€the€employee€filed€a€motion€for€full€Court€review€ofÐ ` Ðthe€Panelððs€decision€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô‡ Š€] ˆˆ Š…ûÔððÔ#† Š…ûˆ ˆ Š€]G0#Ô€50„6„225(e)(5)(B).€€WeÐ h Ðgranted€the€employeeððs€motion,€and€now€reject€the€Panelððs€findingÐ ,!| Ðconcerning€the€impropriety€of€the€lump€sum€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÐ 4#„ Ðtrial€court.€Ð <%Œ  ÐÌà@´´(Tàòòò òDISCUSSIONˆÐ L)œ$$ ÐÌà Ø àóóó óAn€award€of€workersðð€compensation€benefits€may€be€commuted€to€oneÐ \-¬(( Ðor€more€lump€sum€payments€upon€motion€of€a€party€subject€to€the€approvalÐ d/´** Ðof€the€trial€court.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô‡ Š€] ˆˆ Š…ûÔððÔ#† Š…ûˆ ˆ Š€]¼2#Ô€50„6„229(a).€€The€controlling€statute,Ð l1¼,, ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô‡ Š€] ˆˆ Š…ûÔððÔ#† Š…ûˆ ˆ Š€]N3#Ô€50„6„229(a),€states€that€ð ð[i]n€determining€whether€toÐ €3Ð.. Ðcommute€an€award,€the€trial€court€shall€consider€whether€the€commutationÐ ”5ä00 Ðâ âwill€be€in€the€best€interest€of€the€employee,€and€such€court€shall€alsoÐ œ7ì22 Ðconsider€the€ability€of€the€employee€to€wisely€manage€and€control€theÐ ° Ðcommuted€award€irrespective€of€whether€there€exist€special€needs.ðð€€Ð ¸ Ðâ âÌ€€€€€€€€€€€In€1990,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô‡ Š€] ˆˆ Š…ûÔððÔ#† Š…ûˆ ˆ Š€]Š5#Ô€50„6„229(a)€was€amended€to€eliminateÐ È  Ða€requirement€that€the€employee€demonstrate€a€special€need€as€aÐ Ü , Ðprerequisite€to€receiving€a€lump€sum€award.ØØ׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòClayton€v.€Cookeville€EnergyÐ ä4  ÐInc.óó,€824€S.W.2d€167,€169€(Tenn.€1992).€€Thus,€under€the€statute€as€it€isÐ ì<  Ðcurrently€written,€the€employee€has€the€burden€of€demonstrating€first€that€aÐ ôD Ðlump€sum€is€in€the€employeeððs€ð ðbest€interest,ðð€and€second€that€the€employeeÐ üL Ðis€capable€of€ð ðwisely€managing€and€controlling€the€commuted€award.ðð€Ð T ÐòòPerdue€v.€Green€Branch€Min.€Co.,€Inc.óó,€837€S.W.2d€56,€58€(Tenn.€1992).€€Ð  \ ÐWhether€to€commute€the€award€is€discretionary€with€the€trial€court,€and€thisÐ d ÐCourt€will€not€alter€the€trial€courtððs€decision€absent€a€showing€that€the€trialÐ l Ðcourtððs€decision€amounted€to€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòPerdueóó,€837€S.W.2dÐ $t Ðat€58;€òòBailey€v.€Colonial€Freight€Systems,€Inc.óó,€836€S.W.2d€554,€557€(Tenn.Ð ,!| Ð1992).€€Thus,€we€must€determine€in€the€present€case€whether€the€trial€courtÐ 4#„ Ðabused€its€discretion€by€commuting€the€employeeððs€award€to€a€lump€sum.€€Ð <%Œ  ÐÌà Ø àThis€Court€has€pointed€out€several€times€in€the€past€that€the€purposeÐ L)œ$$ Ðof€workersðð€compensation€is€to€provide€injured€workers€with€periodic€incomeÐ T+¤&& Ðas€a€substitute€for€lost€wages.€€òòPurdueóó,€837€S.W.2d€at€59.€€PeriodicÐ \-¬(( Ðpayments€are€thus€ð ðpart€of€a€statutory€scheme€designed€to€cushion€anÐ d/´** Ðinjured€worker€during€the€period€of€his€or€her€disability.ðð€€òòNorth€AmericanÐ l1¼,, ÐRoyalties€v.€Thrasheróó,€817€S.W.2d€308,€310„11€(Tenn.€1991).€€However,Ð t3Ä.. Ðwhen€there€is€no€need€for€periodic€payments€to€substitute€for€lost€wages,€thisÐ ° ÐCourt€has€permitted€a€commutation€when€the€employee€has€shown€that€theÐ ¸ Ðcommutation€is€in€the€employeeððs€best€interest€and€that€the€employee€canÐ À Ðwisely€control€and€manage€it.€Ð È  ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€€For€example,€in€òòPonder€v.€Manchester€Housing€Authorityóó,€870€S.W.2dÐ Ø(  Ð282€(Tenn.€1994),€the€surviving€spouse€of€the€deceased€employee€appealedÐ à0  Ðthe€trial€courtððs€decision€not€to€lump€sum€an€award€of€benefits.€€This€CourtÐ è8 Ðreversed€the€trial€court€because€the€plaintiff€had€structured€the€familyÐ ð@ Ðfinances€in€such€a€way€that€periodic€payments€were€not€needed€as€aÐ øH Ðsubstitute€for€lost€wages.€€òòIdóó.€at€284„85.€€We€also€noted€in€òòPonderóó€that€theÐ P Ðplaintiff€would€receive€a€greater€benefit€from€the€interest€on€the€award€thanÐ X Ðshe€was€receiving€through€periodic€payments.€€òòIdóó.€at€284.€€Thus,€we€wereÐ ` Ðpersuaded€that€the€plaintiff€could€wisely€manage€and€control€the€commutedÐ h Ðaward€and€that€a€commuted€award€was€in€the€plaintiffððs€best€interest.€Ð  !p ÐTherefore,€we€concluded€that€the€trial€court€should€have€commuted€theÐ (#x Ðaward.Ð 0%€  ÐÌà Ø àIn€another€case,€òòClayton€v.€Cookeville€Energy,€Inc.óó,€824€S.W.2d€167Ð @)$$ Ð(Tenn.€1992),€the€issue€before€us€was€whether€benefits€paid€to€a€survivingÐ H+˜&& Ðspouse€should€have€been€commuted€to€a€lump€sum.€€In€addition€to€payingÐ P- (( Ðoff€some€debts,€the€plaintiff€in€òòClaytonóó€planned€to€invest€the€award€so€that€itÐ X/¨** Ðcould€earn€interest.€€The€plaintiff€did€not€need€the€award€to€cover€her€monthlyÐ `1°,, Ðexpenses.€€òòClaytonóó,€824€S.W.2d€at€170.€€We€òòóóheld€that€a€commutation€wasÐ h3¸.. Ðappropriate€because€the€plaintiff€did€not€need€periodic€payments€to€substituteÐ p5À00 Ðâ âfor€lost€wages€and€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô‡ Š€] ˆˆ Š…ûÔððÔ#† Š…ûˆ ˆ Š€]