WPCF InhRYWcUi]ٮUJf`%^.κ0u)Pt؈&zxق :lLGъ7O /6 å7ZΊ7RA%k([/Yٸ338ZdǚR:q i.qE c=i`gkX]2+qPq&AOZ*7G3=nl7o$Ot `e@ɸMӷ Es@BֲZ3`$` "nBX֓!0 r,҇Go-PұMɨ׼uNiuSRO\fckIE# Syt*ILA\y:F¶(Pé4lMQԆìP?>oR8i ]{NU#MzŋL{#U%N{ % 0: UN ^ W wc 4g {  m U@ U,* U > K nS 0~ 0D? NEEEEEEE 0     04 06 B''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''EDHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,("  Z6Times New Roman Regularv-s ,-h3|xU(I Z(Times New Roman \  `Times\  `&Times New Roman  d ($USUS.,    1    _XXԀHowever,aninjuredemployeewhois,atthetimeoftheinjury,oversixtyyearsofage,islimitedto  permanenttotaldisabilitybenefitsforaperiodof260weeks.#XXe#(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0    ($USUS.,    2    _XXԀWenotethatunderthecurrentstatutoryscheme,itappearsimpossibletofindthataninjuredemployeeis  100%permanentlypartiallydisabledwithoutsimultaneouslyfindingthattheemployeeis100%permanentlyand t totallydisabled.Forinstance,ifaninjuredemployeeisdeemed99%partiallydisabled,heorshewouldbeentitled 8 to396weeksofbenefitsattheapplicablewagerate.However,ifontheotherhandaninjuredemployeewere L deemed100%partiallydisabled,heorshewouldbebyallpracticalmeasures100%permanentlyandtotally  disabled.Thus,anawardof400weeksappearstobeastatutoryimpossibilitybecausesuchafindingwould  necessarilyentailafindingof100%permanentandtotaldisability.#XXe#  ($USUS.,    3    _XXԀTherecordcontainsthefollowingdialoguebetweenappelleesattorneyandMr.Vinson,which  constitutestheentirecrossexamination: t    Q:0 Mr.Vinson,beforeyoustarteddrivingatruckforUPS,whatdidyoudo?8 x x A:0 Iwasincollege,andIworkedatKroger,agrocerystore.L x x Q:0 WhatwereyoudoingatKroger? x x A:0 Stockingdairy,milkshelves. x x Q:0 Andthatstheonlyotherjobyouvehad?H  x x A:0 OnlyotherjobIveeverhad.#XXe#  ($USUS.,    4    XX_ԀInNelson,a67yearoldsalesassociateforWalMartfellandbrokeherhipinthecourseofher  employment.Theplaintiffarguedthatshewaspermanentlyandtotallydisabledduetoherageandlackoftraining t andskills.#XXU#6? 24heading 1           .,term1 0.Strong  d !USUS.,  _XXXXBXX  8XXdd8=XXdd=INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @@kk$ATJACKSON#XXB\#_MXX & N0 @ 0 @ 0 @ ovember14,2002Session L #XX_Mq#_MXX STEVEVINSON0 @ v.0 @ 0 @ UNITEDPARCELSERVICE,etal. #XX_M# J  AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforShelbyCounty  J @@No.CH0021012KennyW.Armstrong,SpecialChancellor  6 @@*AVz) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200102180_WC_ԄR3CV0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ FiledDecember30,_2002_   AVz) ` dE<|` A }   #XXXX=# XXXX  The_dispositive_ԀissueinthisworkerscompensationactioniswhethertheSpecialChancellorerred d infindingtheappellant,SteveVinson,tobe100%permanentlypartiallydisabled,asaresultofa P motorvehicleaccidentthatoccurredinthescopeofhisemployment.Forthereasonssetforth < herein,weconcludethatnosuchimpairmentclassificationexistsintheworkerscompensation (x statutesandcasesofthisstate.Afterconductingourowndenovoreviewoftherecord,weholdthat d thepreponderanceoftheevidencesupportstheappellantsclaimthatheis100%permanentlyand P totallydisabledandentitledtofullworkerscompensationbenefitspursuanttoTennesseeCode < Annotatedsection506207(4)(A)(_i_).Additionally,pursuanttorelevantworkerscompensation ( statutes,weholdthatthetrialcourterredinallowingappelleesacreditfortemporarytotaldisability  benefitsthathaveheretoforebeenpaidtoappellant.Accordingly,thejudgmentofthechancerycourt  isaffirmed,asmodifiedherein,andthecaseremandedforenforcementofthejudgmentofthis  Court.  Ӏ t  Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(1999)AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt ` AffirmedasModified  L    WilliamM.Barker,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichFrankF._Drowota_,III,C.J., $"t! E.RileyAnderson,_Adolpho_ԀA.Birch,Jr.,andJaniceM.Holder,JJ.,joined. #`" ReginaMorrisonNewman,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,SteveVinson. $8 $ ЀMarkW._Raines_,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheAppellees,UnitedParcelService,etal.#XXX Xا# &"& @66'  XXXXOPINIONB   _MX X#_M _M# _M_M#_M _M#_M_M#_M_Ma# _M_M#_M _M# _M_M# XX _M# _MX X# XX _M9# _MX X# XX _M{# _MX X# XX _M# _MX XԍOPINIONOPINIONC   XX _M#XXX X# XXXXԈ )$)         X X       XX    %  FACTUALBACKGROUND n  7Ԍ \+&+ Ќ     XXX X  _%#   ݀ B  C  %   B  # XXX X# _MX X#_M _M# _M_M#_M _M$# _M_M#_M _Mf# _M_M#_M _M# _M_M# XX _M# X X# XX ,# X X# XX n# X X# XX # _MX XԍFACTUALBACKGROUND%X+  # XX _M# X X# XX k# X X# XX # X X# XX # X X# # # s# # # # ##XX1#XX#XX{#XX#XX#XX#XX#_MXX#_M_M9# _M_M#_M _M# _M_M#_M _M# _M_M#_M _M# _M_M# XX _MA# X X# XX # X X# XX # X X# XX # _MX XԍFACTS# XX _MQ# X X# XX # X X# XX # X X# XX "# X X# I# # # C   XX  #XXX X#    Theappellant,SteveVinson,whowas33yearsofageatthetimeoftrial,hadbeenemployed  asatractortrailerdriverforUnitedParcelService(UPS)since1990.OnNovember20,1998,Mr.  VinsonwasoperatinghistractortrailereastboundonInterstate40inMadisonCounty,Tennessee, t whenanothertractortrailerpulledoutinfrontofappellantsvehiclewithoutitslightsonandcaused ` acollision.Mr.Vinsonsvehiclewasthenstruckfrombehindbyapickuptruck.Asaresultofthe L  twocollisions,Mr.Vinsonsufferedmultipleinjuriesincludingaspine/lumbarburstfracture,hip 8  socketfracture/dislocation,andabdominaltrauma.Subsequently,onOctober26,2000,suitwas $ t filedforworkerscompensationbenefits.FollowinganunsuccessfulBenefitReviewConference,  ` thecasewastriedwithoutajuryonMay2,2001beforetheHonorableKennyW.Armstrong,sitting  L  asSpecialChancellor .Theonlyevidencepresentedbytheappellantwas histestimonyandtheC32  8  reportcompletedbyDr.KellyD.Pucek,Mr.Vinsonsorthopedicsurgeon.Theonlyev XXXXidence $  presentedbyappelleeswasatwopageexcerpt fromthe GuidestoEvaluationofPermanent   Impairment.       #XXX Xؙ"#Mr.Vinsontestifiedthat:(1)hisspinalinjuriesrequiredtheplacementoftwometalrodsin   hisback;(2)heunderwentanopensurgicalreductionforhishipfracture;(3)heretainsonlylimited p useofonefootduetoresidualnervedamagecausedbyinjurytohiship;(4)hedoesnothavefull \ rangeofmotioninhisinjuredhip;(5)heisunabletoperformsedentarytasksduetocontinualpain H inhisback,hips,andlowerextremities;(6)heisunabletoperformanyjobthatrequireshimtostand 4 orsitformorethanonehourduetodiscomfortinhislowerextremities; and, (7)heisunableto  p participateineventhemostbasicphysicalactivitiessuchascuttinggrassorplayingwithhischild.  \ Whenaskedifhebelieved hecouldworkinanyothertypeoffulltimeemployment,Mr.Vinson H responded: Nosir,notnothingtodoeverydayalldaylong.Hefurtherstatedthathecouldnot 4 performevensedentarytasksforextendedperiodsoftimeduetodiscomfort.Oncrossexamination,   Mr.VinsontestifiedthathisonlygainfulemploymentpriortoworkingforUPSwasasastockboy   foralocalgrocerystore.Onredirect,Mr.Vinsonelaboratedthathefeltthathiscurrentinjuries  wouldprohibithimfromworkinginthatcapacityinthefuture.      TheappellantnextintroducedtheC32reportcompletedbyDr.Pucek,withaccompanying l medicalrecords.Dr.PucekrelieduponthecombinedvalueschartoftheAMAPhysiciansGuide X  toEvaluationofPermanentImpairmentinordertoassignMr.Vinsonatotalimpairmentrating.Dr. D! PuceksC32reportstatedthatMr.Vinsonsustaineda40%impairmenttothebodyasawhole, 0"  consistingof20%permanentimpairmentduetohishipinjuryandanadditional20%impairment #l! duetohisspinalfractures.TheC32reportindicatedthatMr.Vinsonmaynotliftmorethan20 $X" poundsonalimitedbasis,andmaynotfrequentlyliftorcarrymorethan15pounds.Thereportalso $D # concludedthatMr.Vinsonmaintainsamaximumstandingorwalkingcapacityofthreehoursper %0!$ day,andmaynevercrawlorcrouch.Mr.Vinsonalsosuffersfromnumerousotherphysical &"% limitationsthatimpairhisactivitiesofdailyliving,includingtyinghisshoesandoperatinghandor '#& footcontrolsthatinvolvepushingorpulling. p  (#'     Attrial,thepartiesstipulatedthat:(1)Mr.Vinsonsustainedcompensableinjuries;(2)hewas |*%) earning,atthetimeoftheaccident,awageentitlinghimtothemaximumweeklybenefitof$515.00; h+&* (3)hehasnotreturnedtoworkatUPSduetohisinjuries;(4)hehadbeenpaidapproximately  $45,000intemporarytotaldisabilitybenefits;and,(5)UPShadpaidallmedicalbenefitsdueasof  thedateoftrial.      OnMay23,2001,theSpecialChancellorenteredajudgmentinwhichheconcluded,among ` otherthings,thatMr.Vinsonwas100%permanentlypartiallydisabledtothebodyasawhole and L  wasentitledtothemaximumtotalbenefitof400weeks,withthedefendantsreceivingcreditfor 8  $44,952.14intemporarytotaldisabilitybenefitspreviouslypaidtotheemployee.Mr.Vinson $ t subsequentlyfiledamotiontoalteroramendthejudgment,orinthealternative,foranewtrial  ` assertingthathewastotallyandpermanentlydisabled.ThetrialcourtdeniedMr.Vinsonsmotion  L  andstatedthat whilethePlaintiffsinjuriesareserious,thereissimplyinsufficientmedicaland/or  8  expertproofintherecordtosupportafindingthatPlaintiffispermanentlyandtotallydisabled, $  therefore,Plaintiffsmotionisdenied.       Theappellantsoughtreviewofthejudgmentarguingthattheevidencepreponderatesagainst   thetrialcourtsfindingandthatappellantisentitledtototalandpermanentdisabilitybenefits   pursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection506207(4)(A)(i).OnJune24,2002,weissuedan p ordertransferringthecasefromtheAppealsPaneltothisCourtforafullreview.BeforethisCourt, \ theappellantarguesthattheevidencepresentedattrial,coupledwiththefailureoftheappelleesto H rebutappellantsevidence,establishedthattheappellantispermanentlyandtotallydisabled.We 4 agree.Accordingly,forthereasonssetforthherein,wemodifythejudgmentofthechancerycourt.  p Ѐ  \   STANDARDOFREVIEW 4  8  Workerscompensationcasesarerevieweddenovoupontherecordofthetrialcourt   accompaniedbyapresumptionofcorrectnessunlesstheevidencepreponderatesotherwise.Tenn.  CodeAnn.506225(e)(2)(1991&Supp.1992);seeIveyv.TransGlobalGas&Oil,3S.W.3d  441,446(Tenn.1999)(citingCollinsv.HowmetCorp.,970S.W.2d941,943(Tenn.1998)).Under  thisstandard,weare requiredtoweighinmoredepthfactualfindingsandconclusionsoftrial l judgesinworkerscompensationcases.Cleekv.WalMartStores,Inc.,19S.W.3d770,773(Tenn. X  2000)(quotingHumphreyv.DavidWitherspoon,Inc.,682S.W.2d900,90102(Tenn.1984)).It D! isalsowellestablishedthatwearenotboundbythefactualfindingsofthetrialcourt,but are 0"  obligedtoreviewtherecordonourowntodeterminewherethepreponderanceoftheevidencelies. #l! Cleek,19S.W.3dat773;seealsoCollins,970S.W.2dat943.However,whenthereisnomaterial $X" factindispute,thequestiononappealisoneoflawandtheappropriatereviewisdenovowithno $D # presumptionofcorrectness.SeeUnionCarbideCorp.v.Huddleston,854S.W.2d87,91(Tenn. %0!$ 1993).Inthiscase,wheretheonlydisputebetweenthepartiesistheconclusiontobereachedfrom &"% theundisputedfactsandevidence,thequestiononappealisoneoflaw.Thus,ourreviewofthe '#& SpecialChancellorsconclusionsisdenovowithnopresumptionofcorrectness.SeeGanzevoort (#' v.Russell,949S.W.2d293,296(Tenn.1997). )$(   DISCUSSION h+&*  l@  UndertheTennesseeworkerscompensationstatutes,injuriesbyaccidentarisingoutofand  inthescopeofemploymentarecompensable.SeeReeserv.YellowFreightSystems,Inc.,938  S.W.2d690(Tenn.1997).Aninjuredemployeewhomeetsthestatutorycriteriaisentitledtocertain t monetarybenefits,includingthepaymentofallmedicalexpensesarisingfromtheaccidenttogether ` witharecoveryforanytemporaryorpermanentdisabilityresultingfromtheaccident.Tenn.Code L  Ann.506207.Pursuanttothestatutoryscheme,temporarydisabilitybenefitpaymentsmaynot 8  exceed400weeks.Tenn.CodeAnn.506102(13)(C).Withrespecttopermanentdisability $ t benefits,thelawmakesadistinctionbetweenthoseinjuriesthatarelimitedtoscheduledmembers  ` andthosethataffectthebodyasawhole.Themaximumweeklybenefitavailabletoaninjured  L  employeeforapermanentpartialdisabilityis400weeks,however,regardlessofwhethertheinjury  8  istoascheduledmemberortothebodyasawhole.Tenn.CodeAnn.506207(3)(B).Onthe $  otherhand,aninjuredemployeefoundtobepermanentlyandtotallydisabledisentitledtosixtysix   andtwothirdspercentofthewagesreceivedatthetimeoftheinjuryuntilsuchtimethatthe   employeeis,byage, eligibleforfullbenefitsintheOldAgeInsuranceBenefitProgramunderthe   SocialSecurityAct. #  1      ׀Tenn.CodeAnn.506207(4)(A)(i).   Ѐ p   TheSpecialChancellordeterminedMr.Vinsontobe 100%permanentlypartiallydisabled. \ ThepracticaleffectofthisfindingwastolimitMr.Vinsonsdisabilitybenefitsto400weeksinstead H ofawardingbenefitsuntilsuchtimethatheiseligiblefortheOldAgeInsuranceBenefitProgram. 4 Areviewoftheworkerscompensationstatutesandcasesofthisstaterevealsthatnoclassification  p of 100%permanentlypartiallydisabledexists.Indeed,astheappellantargues,andcommonsense  \ dictates,ifanindividualis100%permanently partiallydisabled,thenheorshemustbe100% H totallydisabled.Wefinditimpossibletodistinguishbetweenaninjuredemployeewhois100% 4 permanentlypartiallydisabledandonewhois100%permanentlyandtotallydisabled. #  2      ׀Itgoes   withoutsayingthat100%is100%.Becausethedisabilityclassificationusedbythetrialcourtis   supportedneitherbystatutenorcaselaw,wemustsetitaside.Wenextmustdeterminefromthe  recordbeforeustheproperextentoftheplaintiffsvocationaldisability.    Theappelleescontend thatthiscourtshouldnotfindMr.Vinsonpermanentlyandtotally l disabledbecausehehasnotmethisburdenofproof.Specifically,appelleesarguethatbecausethe X  evidenceofferedattrialwaslimitedtothetestimonyoftheappellantandtheC32reportcompleted D! bythe appellantsphysician,theburdenimposeduponaplaintiffinaworkerscompensationcase 0"  wasnotsatisfied.Whiletheappelleescorrectlystate thattheplaintiffinaworkerscompensation  casebearstheburdenofprovinghiscase,inallitsparts,byapreponderanceoftheevidence,see  OwensIllinois,Inc.v.Lane,576S.W.2d348,351(Tenn.1978),wedisagreethattheappellantdid  notsatisfythisburden. t     Theappellantsformaleducationendedafteroneyearatacommunitycollege.Appellant L  testifiedthathe hasnospecializedtrade,skill,ortrainingthatwouldenablehimtopursuea 8  particularfieldoroccupation.Additionally,theappellantstatedthatbesidesworkingasastockboy $ t andUPSdriver,hehasnoworkhistorythatqualifies himforfurtheremployment.Appellantalso  ` addressedhiscurrentphysicallimitationsandthenatureandextentofhispast,present,andfuture  L  medicaltreatment.Testimonyoftheappellant,andtheC32reportsubmittedbyDr.Pucek,further  8  establishedthatappellantisunabletocontinueworkingasaUPSdriver,despitehiswillingnessand $  desiretodoso.       Wenotethatthetestimonyoftheappellantwascompletelyunchallengedattrial.Infact,   crossexaminationwaslimitedtothreebriefquestions. #  3      ׀Additionally,appelleesdidnotrefuteinany   waythefindingsofDr.PucekascontainedintheC32report,nordidtheappelleesemploythe p servicesofavocationalormedicalexperttochallengeappellantstestimonyregardinghisinability \ toreturntogainfulemployment.Indeed,theonlyev XXXXidencepresentedbyappelleestochallengethe H appellantscasewasatwopageexcerptfromthe GuidestoEvaluationofPermanentImpairment. 4 #XXX XbW#Followingacarefulreviewoftherecord,wefindappellantstestimony,coupledwiththeC32  p report,sufficienttosupportafindingofpermanentandtotaldisability.    \     Wearealsooftheopinion,contrarytotheappelleescontention,thatthiscaseisnot 4 controlledbyourdecisioninNelsonv.WalMartStores,Inc.,8S.W.3d625(Tenn.1999). #  4      ׀In   Nelson,theplaintiffintroducedtestimonyofanoccupationalexpertwhotestifiedthattheplaintiff   couldperformparttime,sedentaryworkwhichdidnotconflictwithhermedicalrestrictions.Id.at  629.Importantly,thedefendantinNelsonintroducedtestimonyfromamedicalexpertwho  concludedthattheplaintiffwasnotpermanentlyandtotallydisabled.Id.Whiletheappellantinthe  presentcasedidnotintroducetestimonyfromanoccupationalormedicalexpert,theappellants l testimonyandtheC32reportestablishedtheseverityofhisinjuriesandhisapparentinabilityto X  workinanoccupationthatearnsanincome.UnlikeNelson,noevidencewaspresentedattrialto D! challengeMr.Vinsonsclaimofpermanentandtotaldisability.      Wehavepreviouslyheldthatanyawardofpermanenttotaldisabilitymustbeincompliance  withthestatutorydefinitionoftotaldisabilitycontainedinTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection506 t 207(4).Cleek,19S.W.3dat774.Thetestastowhetheranemployeeispermanentlyandtotally ` disabledrequiresustodetermineiftheemployeeis totallyincapacitate[d]...fromworkingatan L  occupationwhichbringstheemployeeanincome....Tenn.CodeAnn.506207(4)(B)(1999). 8  Section(B)furtherprovidesinpertinentpartthat whenaninjurynototherwisespecifically $ t providedforinthischapter,asamended,totallyincapacitatestheemployeefromworkingatan  ` occupationthatbringssuchemployeeanincome,suchemployeeshallbeconsideredtotally  L  disabled,andforsuchdisabilitycompensationshallbepaidprovidedforinsubsection(4)(A)...  8  . $      AswestatedinCleek,thedeterminationofpermanentandtotaldisabilityistobebasedon   avarietyoffactorssuchthatacompletepictureofanindividualsability,orinability,toreturnto   gainfulemploymentispresentedbeforethecourt.19S.W.3dat774(citingDavisv.Reagan,951   S.W.2d766,767(Tenn.1997)).Suchfactorsincludetheemployeesskills,training,education,age, p jobopportunitiesintheimmediateandsurroundingcommunities,andtheavailabilityofworksuited \ foranindividualwiththatparticulardisability.Id.(citingRobertsonv.LorettoCasketCo.,722 H S.W.2d380,384(Tenn.1986)).Althoughsuchanassessmentisoftenmadeandpresentedattrial 4 byavocationalspecialist,itiswellsettledthatdespitetheexistenceorabsenceofexperttestimony,  p anemployeesownassessmentofhisorheroverallphysicalcondition,includingtheabilityor  \ inabilitytoreturntogainfulemployment,is competenttestimonythatshouldbeconsidered. H Cleek,19S.W.3dat774(quotingMcIlvainv.RussellStoverCandies,Inc.,996S.W.2d179,183 4 (Tenn.1999));seealsoNelsonv.WalMartStores,Inc.,8S.W.3d625,629(Tenn.1999). In   additiontotheC32report,theappellanttestifiedabouthispain,physicallimitations,andabilityto   returntogainfulemployment,andinaccordwiththeaforementionedprinciplesofappellatereview  andtherecordbeforeus,weholdthattheevidence,albeitsparse,preponderatesinfavorof  permanentandtotaldisability. h     Finally,weaddresswhethertheappelleesareentitledtoanoffsetfromthetotaldisability X  awardinasumequaltothetemporarytotaldisabilitybenefitsalreadypaidtotheappellant.Thetrial D! courtdeterminedthatMr.Vinsonwasentitledto400weeksofdisabilitypaymentswiththe 0"  defendantsreceivingacreditof$44,952.14fortemporarytotaldisabilitybenefitspreviouslypaid. #l! However,TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection506102(13)(C)statesinpartthat [m]aximumtotal $X" benefitmeansthesumofallweeklybenefitstowhichaworkermaybeentitled;and...(C)For $D # injuriesoccurringonorafterJuly1,1992,themaximumtotalbenefitshallbefourhundred(400) %0!$ weekstimesthemaximumweeklybenefitexceptininstancesofpermanenttotaldisability &"% (emphasisadded).InthecaseofBomleyv.MidAmericaCorp.,970S.W.2d929(Tenn.1998),we '#& addressedtheeffectofthislanguageinregardstotheliabilityoftheSecondInjuryFundforaportion (#' ofanawardofpermanenttotaldisability.Wedeterminedthatawardsofpermanenttotaldisability )$( underTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection506207(4)(A)(i)arenotsubjecttothemonetarycap |*%) imposedbythedefinitioncontainedinsection102(13)ofthecode.Hence,becausecasesof h+&* permanenttotaldisabilityhavebeenexpresslyremovedfromthestatutorydefinitionoftheterm   maximumtotalbenefit,andwefindnoadditionallanguagewithintheworkerscompensation  statutesthatallowsforanoffsetoftemporarytotaldisabilitybenefits,weareoftheopinionthatthe  trialcourterredbygrantingtheappelleesacreditfortemporarytotaldisabilitybenefitsalreadypaid t totheappellant. `   CONCLUSION  8  r  Weconcludethatnosuchimpairmentclassificationof 100%permanentlypartially  ` disabledexistsinthestatutoryframeworkorcaselawofthisstate.Wefurtherhold,after  L  conductingourowndenovoreviewoftherecord,thatthepreponderanceoftheevidencesupports  8  afindingthattheappellantispermanentlyandtotallydisabled.Finally,becauseawardsof $  permanenttotaldisabilitybenefitsareexpresslyexcludedfromthestatutorydefinitionoftheterm    maximumtotalbenefitinTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection506102(13),weareoftheopinion   thatappelleesareliable forthetotaldisabilityawardwithoutanycreditfortemporarytotaldisability   benefitsheretoforepaidtotheappellant.Accordingly,weaffirm,asmodifiedherein,the   determinationofthetrialcourtandremandthecaseforenforcementofthejudgmentofthisCourt. p   Costsofthisappealshallbetaxedagainsttheappellees,UnitedParcelServiceandLiberty H MutualGroup. 4  XXXX   `     h     ______________________________      `     h     WILLIAMM.BARKER,JUSTICE#XXX Xةw##XXXXd#