ÿWPC‡ 2# ÌU:× % 0(4?Sbw@j 0ˆª 0D2 0@v 0J¶b 0T 0^\ 0hº 0r" 0|” 0† 0– 1u& 0d› AQÿ ÆP 0D BZ 0Dw D/» Bê D3 U *: B)d DC AMÐ  ý9v~6vÓ´˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡WX$tÔôÔô3|xu _U`UaRebDcDdUeDfÓ€ru(8(2R$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô- ù-2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ !#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý d($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd""""'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd ,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€*ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€*XÔÌÌò òJune€15,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€*ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó óÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€*ôÔ€€ð ðFor€all€injuries€arising€on€or€after€August€1,€1992,€in€cases€where€an€injured€employee€isÏeligible€to€receive€any€permanent€partial€disability€benefits,€pursuant€to€ðð€50„6„207(3)(A)(i›)€and€(F),Ïand€the€pre„injury€employer€returns€the€employee€to€employment€at€a€wage€equal€to€or€greaterÏthan€the€wage€the€employee€was€receiving€at€the€time€of€injury,€the€maximum€permanent€partialÏdisability€award€that€the€employee€may€receive€is€two€and€one„half€(2ðð)€times€the€medicalÏimpairment€rating€....ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(1)(Supp.€1997).ÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  Ñ›Ñ7€XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑØ ØÓ&€XÐd&Ӝـ ÙßR€-.,A1-j|î` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà0 àà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌœ›à@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòò òFOR€PUBLICATIONóóó óÌÌJIM€PARKS,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àò òòòFiled:€€June€15,€1998ó óóóÌà àà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌTENNESSEE€MUNICIPAL€LEAGUEà à)à àHAYWOOD€CHANCERYÌRISK€MANAGEMENT€POOL,€andà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àDefendant/Appellee,à à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€GEORGE€R.€ELLIS,ÌLARRY€BRINTON,€DIRECTOR,à àà à)à à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€JUDGEÌDIVISION€OF€WORKERSððà àà à)à àÌCOMPENSATION,€TENNESSEEà àœ)›ÌDEPARTMENT€OF€LABOR,€SECONDà à)ÌINJURY€FUND,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà à)à àNo.€€02S01„9603„CH„00025ÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€à àÌò òòòFor€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€Appellee,€Jim€Parks:Ìó óóóJohn€Knox€Walkupà àà àà àà àT.€J.€EmisonÌAttorney€General€and€Reporterà àà àAlamo,€TennesseeÌÌDianne€Stamey€Dycusà àà àà àò òòòFor€Appellee,€Tennessee€Municipalóóó óÌSenior€Counselà àà àà àà àò òòòLeague€Risk€Management€PooL:ó óóóÌAttorney€Generalððs€Officeà àà àà àW.€Timothy€Hayes,€Jr.ÌNashville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àMemphis,€Tennesseeòòò òÌóóó óÌò òòòÌóóó óÌÌÌÔ€*„Ôò òà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ€*XÔÌÌÌÌÌœ›ÌTRIAL€COURT€JUDGMENT€ANDÌSPECIAL€WORKERS€COMP€APPEALSÌPANEL€AFFIRMED,€AS€MODIFIEDà àà àà àà àANDERSON,€C.J.ÓÓÇÑ€Ñà àWe€granted€the€motion€for€review€filed€by€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÏLaborððs€Second€Injury€Fund€to€determine€whether€an€employee€who€previouslyÏreceived€workersðð€compensation€permanent€partial€disability€benefits€is€entitled€toÏpermanent€partial€disability€benefits€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(1)(Supp.€1997)€for€a€later€work€injury€based€on€his€total€medical€impairmentÏrating€for€all€work€injuries€or€the€medical€impairment€rating€solely€attributable€to€hisÏmost€recent€work€injury.€€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€applied€the€applicable€statutory€multiplier€of€2.5€to€theÏemployeeððs€total€medical€impairment€rating€for€all€work€injuries€of€15€percent,€ratherÏthan€the€medical€impairment€rating€for€the€most€recent€injury€of€2€percent.€TheÏresult€was€an€award€of€37.5€percent€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€aÏwhole.œ× ƒ/ ××  ×›€€The€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€affirmed,€reasoningÏthat€an€ð ðemployer€takes€the€employee€with€all€pre„existing€conditions€and€cannotÏescape€liability€where€the€employee,€upon€suffering€a€work„related€injury,€incursÏdisability€far€greater€than€if€he€had€not€had€the€pre„existing€condition.ððÌÌà àAfter€reviewing€the€record€and€the€applicable€authority,€we€conclude€that€anÏemployee€who€has€previously€been€awarded€workersðð€compensation€benefitsÏbased€on€a€percentage€of€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole€and€then€suffers€aÏsubsequent€injury,€ð ðshall€be€paid€compensation€for€the€period€of€temporary€totalÏdisability€and€òòonly€for€the€degree€of€permanent€disability€that€results€from€theÏsubsequent€injuryóó.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207€(3)(F)(1991€&€Supp.Ï1997)(emphasis€added).€€As€a€result,€the€statutory€multiplier€of€2.5€applies€only€toÏthe€medical€impairment€rating€for€the€most€recent€injury,€in€this€case€2€percent.€€WeÏtherefore€modify€the€judgment€to€reflect€an€award€of€5€percent€permanent€partialÏdisability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.ÌÌà@ àò òòòBACKGROUNDó óóóÌà àThe€employee,€Jim€Parks,€age€46,€worked€as€a€police€officer€with€the€City€ofÏBrownsville,€Tennessee.€€Parks€had€sustained€three€compensable€injuries€to€hisÏback,€but€returned€to€work€after€each€injury.€These€workersðð€compensation€awardsÏtotaled€135€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€ÌÌà àIn€May€of€1993,€Parks€injured€his€back€for€a€fourth€time€while€placing€aÏprisoner€in€the€back€seat€of€a€patrol€car.€€An€orthopedic€surgeon,€Dr.€Robert€Jones,Ïtestified€that€Parksðð€total€medical€impairment€for€all€of€his€back€injuries€was€15Ïpercent.€€Of€this€total€medical€impairment,€2€percent€was€attributable€to€the€MayÏ1993€injury.€€€ÌÌà àAfter€finding€that€Parks€had€returned€to€work€at€the€same€or€higher€wage,€theÏtrial€court€applied€the€statutory€multiplier€of€2.5€to€the€total€medical€impairmentÏrating€of€15€percent,€and€awarded€37.5€percent€permanent€partial€disability€to€theÏbody€as€a€whole.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(1)(Supp.€1997).€€The€SpecialÏWorkersðð€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€affirmed.ÌÌà àThe€Second€Injury€Fund€filed€a€motion€to€review€the€decision€of€the€Panel,Ïarguing€that€the€Panel€erred€in€applying€the€statutory€multiplier€to€the€employeeððsÏmedical€impairment€rating€for€all€of€his€work€injuries€rather€than€just€his€medicalÏimpairment€rating€for€the€most€recent€work€injury.€€€We€granted€the€motion€to€review.Ì̛̜œÌ›à@ àò òòòANALYSISó óóóÌà àAppellate€review€in€a€workersðð€compensation€case€is€òòdeóóòònovoóó€upon€theÏrecord€with€a€presumption€that€the€findings€of€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð50„6„225(e)(2)(1991€&€Supp.€1997).€€Where€a€question€of€law€is€presented,Ïas€in€this€case,€appellate€review€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€without€a€presumption€of€correctness.€ÏòòPresley€v.€Bennettóó,€860€S.W.2d€857,€858€(Tenn.€1993).€€€ÌÌà àWe€begin€our€review€by€observing€that€an€employeeððs€prior€disablingÏcondition€does€not€prevent€a€workersðð€compensation€award€where€a€work„relatedÏinjury€aggravates€the€pre„existing€condition.€€òòWhite€v.€Werthan€œIndus›.óó,€824€S.W.2dÏ158,€159€(Tenn.€1992).€€Instead,€an€employer€essentially€assumes€the€risk€that€anÏemployee€may€have€a€weakened€condition€that€is€aggravated€by€a€work€injuryÏwhich€might€not€affect€a€person€without€the€pre„existing€condition.€€òòFink€v.€Caudleóó,Ï856€S.W.2d€952,€958€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà àThe€question€of€whether€a€prior€workersðð€compensation€award€for€permanentÏdisability€to€the€body€as€a€whole€is€considered€in€determining€the€amount€ofÏcompensation€for€a€later€work€injury€is€addressed€by€a€specific€section€of€theÏworkersðð€compensation€statute,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50„6„207(3)(F).€€It€specificallyÏprovides€that€where€ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àan€employee€has€previously€sustained€an€injuryÏcompensable€under€this€section€for€which€a€court€ofÏcompetent€jurisdiction€has€awarded€benefits€based€onÏpercentage€of€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole€andÏsuffers€a€subsequent€injury€not€enumerated€above,€theÏinjured€employee€shall€be€paid€compensation€for€theÏperiod€of€temporary€total€disability€òòand€only€for€theÏdegree€of€permanent€disability€that€results€from€theÏsubsequent€injuryóó.ÌÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207€(3)(F)(Supp.€1997)(emphasis€added).€ÌÌà àA€basic€principle€of€statutory€construction€is€to€ascertain€and€give€effect€toÏlegislative€intent€without€unduly€restricting€or€expanding€the€intended€scope€of€aÏstatute.€€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€908€S.W.2d€923,€926€(Tenn.€1995).€€This€means€the€CourtÏmust€examine€the€language€of€a€statute€and,€if€unambiguous,€apply€its€ordinary€andÏplain€meaning.€€òòRiggs€v.€Bursonóó,€941€S.W.2d€44,€54€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€118€œS.Ct›.Ï444,€139€œL.Ed›.œ2d›€380€(1997).€€If€the€language€is€ambiguous,€the€Court€must€look€toÏthe€statutory€scheme€as€a€whole,€as€well€as€legislative€history,€to€discern€itsÏmeaning.€€òòOwensóó,€908€S.W.2d€at€926.ÌÌà àWe€believe€the€language€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207(3)(F)€isÏunambiguous€and€that€its€meaning€and€its€intended€effect€is€clear.€€An€employeeÏwho€has€received€compensation€for€prior€injuries€based€on€a€percentage€ofÏdisability€to€the€body€as€a€whole€and€is€later€injured€shall€be€paid€ð ðonly€for€theÏdegree€of€permanent€disability€that€results€from€the€subsequent€injury.ðð€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð50„6„207(3)(F)(1991€&€Supp.€1997).€€Accordingly,€under€the€statutoryÏformula,€compensation€is€not€based€on€the€statutory€multiplier€times€the€totalÏmedical€impairment€rating,€but€rather,€the€statutory€multiplier€times€the€medicalÏimpairment€rating€for€the€later€injury.€€Parks€contends€that€this€interpretation€of€theÏstatute,€in€effect,€abolishes€the€notion€of€rehabilitation.€€We€disagree.€€As€theÏSecond€Injury€Fund€observes,€the€limitation€in€the€statute€merely€prevents€anÏinjured€employee€from€receiving€€dual€compensation€for€the€same€work„relatedÏinjury.ÌÌà àParks€also€argues,€and€the€Workersðð€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€found,Ïthat€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50„6„207(3)(F)€was€inapplicable€as€it€refers€to€ð ðdisabilityððÏand€not€ð ðimpairment.ðð€€Although€disability€and€impairment€indeed€have€separateÏmeanings,€the€distinction,€in€the€context€of€the€argument€made€is€inapplicable,€inÏthat€the€statutory€scheme€calculates€the€percentage€of€disability€based€on€anÏarithmetic€formula€which€includes€medical€impairment.€€Specifically,€depending€onÏwhich€statutory€multiplier€is€applicable,€ð ðthe€maximum€permanent€partial€disabilityððÏaward€that€an€employee€may€receive€is€either€2.5€or€6€times€ð ðthe€òòmedicalÏimpairment€ratingóó€determined€pursuant€to€the€provisions€of€the€American€MedicalÏAssociation€Guides€to€the€Evaluation€of€Permanent€Impairment€(American€MedicalÏAssociation),€the€Manual€for€Orthopedic€Surgeons€in€Evaluating€PermanentÏPhysical€Impairment€(American€Academy€of€Orthopedic€Surgeons),€or€in€cases€notÏcovered€by€either€of€these,€an€impairment€rating€by€any€appropriate€method€usedÏand€accepted€by€the€medical€community.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(1)€&Ï(b)(Supp.€1997)(emphasis€added).€€Therefore,€the€statutory€scheme€as€a€wholeÏrefutes€Parksðð€contention.ÌÌà àÌà àAccordingly,€we€find€that€the€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€Panel€erred€inÏthis€case€by€applying€the€statutory€multiplier€of€2.5€to€Parksðð€total€medicalÏimpairment€of€15€percent.€€In€view€of€the€plain€statutory€language€of€Tenn.€CodeÍAnn.€ðð€50„6„207(3)(F),€the€appropriate€compensation€for€Parksðð€injury€must€beÏbased€on€the€medical€impairment€rating€for€his€most€recent€injury,€i.e.,€2€percent.€ÏAs€a€result,€after€application€of€the€statutory€multiplier,€the€award€is€5€percentÏpermanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€€ÌÌà@ àò òòòCONCLUSIONóóó óÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€and€the€Special€Workersðð€CompensationÏAppeals€Panel€erred€in€determining€Parksðð€workersðð€compensation€award€based€onÏhis€total€medical€impairment€rating€of€15€percent.€€Because€of€Parksðð€priorÏcompensated€work„related€injuries,€he€was€entitled€to€compensation€only€for€theÏdegree€of€permanent€disability€resulting€from€his€most€recent€injury€pursuant€to€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207(3)(F).€€We€therefore€modify€the€judgment€to€reflect€anÏaward€of€5€percent€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€Costs€of€theÏappeal€are€taxed€to€the€plaintiff/appellee,€Jim€Parks,€for€which€execution€shall€issueÏif€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRILEY€ANDERSON,€Chief€JusticeÌÌÌÌò òCONCUR:Ìó óÌDrowota€and€Holder,€JJ.ò òÌó óTomlin,€Sp.J.ò òÌó óReid,€Sp.J.,€not€participatingò òÌó óÌà àÌà àÌ