ÿWPCÆ Ð\öFpÀÇýY-eTUFø ?߆¦[Ÿ´­u,2Ÿ[à2%ÿŸß~3AÙácù´þcì¡_çõ¡´ŠªR<ƒ )®´¸„ïîå­†‚ªV‚¢qÝ*è8u݈²ßE¥!TaQ2ár ¥Ï•C·¯PÝêÉõ´ïåìùuJ©‘¬û,òàÌ…;&ùw8¶å¬ñ©ÐÑJê|å®QWˆÖ·!¾ä'"þõ“wr´}—]%7{°Õšî¾Ö°(Û鸆¤T»9½ij#‹‘CíKŠÐ]g¬Ãöç@+dDšuÁÊqŒ*éðÏi«!³:¥g̤kà¢Ô7òª£çdÆgíƒt“Zé³÷SU>Êâ¯h¡(u© òÆz&QÙ%¤•Ï£Åp0—©²Úã×föšÜ>€F¶¹a>¯é}Û®ãOÆä-ýos¢rY*–Wqç?Ö6׊L|“Õ­xlTp¬ýU«ç6µ…³Éã{mCöE0”†í3̘d_±ÔÂWÙ7 Åeõ/TÙÔÜ+»i¤„‰TƒºƒuNÜ :•,Ueçaì—+ºÀ¥áFT}¾Lšõ?C]e]ú!8¸ÿRx‹1]ûÁ¡v_;¯à‡—îû`è’¹U B %` U.f r” k 0qþn® 0r¼.w@.4nê‚U:l¦ ¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦ B³³³³³ D3ÐÐÐ 0Ž D+‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ AO¼Æ   0DÑ D/ BDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD AYaƺ 0F€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTô"ÝÆÿA€ArialTT'    0 .    aÝ ƒu¾)ÝÔ€XoŒXôôÔÔ€X(]XXXoŒÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒ8°ÒÓ  ÓÓ<(ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œX<ÓÔ  ÔÔ@  ÔÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚÔA  ÔÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÓ?+ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿ` ‹X?Ó(e2u¾$©©Ý ƒ i‡!ÝÔ€XoŒXôôÔÔ€X(]XXXoŒÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý3|xV«ô\  `*Times New RomanTTôôCô\  PŽ6QôP"ÝÆÿA€ArialTTomanTTXXaÝÆÿptQXpô\  `*Times New RomanTT¼¼^ô\  PŽ6Q¼Pô\  `*Times New RomanTTXXPô\  PŽ6QXP(Ji‡$¡¡Ô€XoÄXôôÔÔ€X¨gXXXoÄÔÓ  Ó MDNODPDQDRSTUVyš&aÔ àÔ€ô&ôôôÔÔ€èÍšèôô&ÔÔ Ad ÔÓ  ÓFILEDÔ€PèèÍšÔÐ  ÐÌò òJune€2,€1999Ð  ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€CourtÏClerkó ó,kû¤AZ‹"Arial Regular Ô‡ô&ôôôÔÔ‡èÍšèôô&ÔÔ Ad ÔÓ  ÓFILEDÔ#†ô&ôèèÍš#ÔÔ‡Pôô&ÔÐ  ÐÌò òJune€2,€1999Ð  ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€CourtÏClerkó ó d%%%%'ÿÿdxd(f3™|$££Ý ƒ i‡!ÝÔ€XoŒXôôÔÔ€X(]XXXoŒÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý'ÈÈÈÈdxd€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd·-¸:Müÿ << deUU…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(n$––ò ò(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)ó óÝ ƒ i‡!ÝÔ€XoŒXôôÔÔ€X(]XXXoŒÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑTR[¤ AØ'3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÒ°ÒÒ8°ÒÖ€ÿÿÖÑ  ÑÔ&  ÔÓ  ÓÓ<(ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œX<ÓÔ€¼6½¼XX(]ÔÔ€¼Ã¼¼¼6½ÔÔ  ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐÌSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àññà @ àà @ àà @ àññÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌññßl€ *6&"h 8 `€€EŽ tt06Æ ¨çlßâ ÆÆ # #âññ(March€16,€1999€Session)ÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ?+ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿ` ‹X?ÓGREG€WILLIAMS,à h àà À àà  à)à p àRHEAÐ ŒÜ  ÐCHANCERYÌâ  # #ÆÆâà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àPlaintiff,à h àà À àà  à)à p àHon.€Jeffrey€F.€Stewart,Ð Î  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àChancellor.Ð ä4 Ðv.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð úJ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àNo.€03S01„9806„CH„00062Ð ` ÐSUBURBAN€MANUFACTURING,à  à)à p àÐ &v Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àDefendant.à h àà À àà  à)Ð R¢ ÐÌÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiffóó:à  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àòòFor€Defendantóó:Ð À ÐÌAlexander€W.€Gothardà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àWilliam€A.€LockettÐ ì < ÐHatcher,€Johnson,€Meaney€&€Gothardà p àà È àà  àMichael€A.€KentÐ "R ÐChattanooga,€Tennesseeà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àCleary€&€LockettÐ #h Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àChattanooga,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ<(ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿŒX<ÓòòM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÐ †(Ö#! ÐÌÌÌÌòòMembers€of€Panelóó:Ð ô-D)& ÐÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€Associate€JusticeÌHowell€N.€Peoples,€Special€JudgeÌJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ?+ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿ` ‹X?ÓÌÓ  ÓÓ<(ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿŒX<ÓÌÌÌññÌññÓ  ÓÓ?+ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿ` ‹X?ÓññÌññÓ  ÓAFFIRMEDà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð àLoser,Ð æ9651 ÐJudgeÓ {ÀÓÐü:L62¯ ÐÓ  ÓÓ<(ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿŒX<ÓòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONóóÔ'°÷ÔÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÓ?+ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿ` ‹X?ÓÓ€ÓññññÐ  —ç ÐññññññññÓ @{ÀÓññññññññÓ @{ÀÓññññññññÓ À{ÀÓññññññÓ @{ÀÓññà ` àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€SpecialÏWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïsection€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€of€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law.€€In€this€appeal,€the€employee€or€claimant,€Williams,€insistsÏthe€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€court's€denial€of€medical€benefitsÏand€temporary€total€disability€benefits.€€The€employer,€Suburban,€insists€theÏevidence€preponderance€against€the€trial€court's€finding€that€the€employeeÏsuffered€an€injury€by€accident€and€that€the€claim€should€be€disallowed€becauseÏthe€employee€failed€to€give€notice€of€his€claim€as€required€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïsection€50„6„201.€€As€discussed€below,€the€panel€has€concluded€the€judgmentÏshould€be€affirmed.ññÓ {ÀÓññÌà ` àÌà ` àThe€employee€initiated€this€civil€action€seeking€workers'€compensationÏbenefits€for€an€injury€which€occurred€when€he€slipped€and€fell€on€ice€on€his€wayÏto€work€at€the€employer's€plant.€€The€defendant,€in€its€responsive€pleading,Ïadmitted€the€employee€gave€"notification€of€an€occurrence,"€but€denied€that€theÏemployee€"gave€proper€notice"€of€an€injury.€€After€a€trial€on€the€merits,€the€trialÏcourt€awarded€permanent€partial€disability€benefits,€but€denied€any€recovery€forÏtemporary€total€disability€benefits€and€medical€expenses€for€treatment€notÏauthorized€by€the€employer.€€This€panel€has€reviewed€the€case€òòde€novoóó€upon€theÐ #h( Ðrecord€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€theÏfindings€of€fact,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise,€pursuantÏto€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€50„6„225(e)(2).Ìà ` àÌà ` àOn€February€1,€1996,€the€claimant€slipped€on€ice€as€he€was€entering€theÏemployer's€plant€to€begin€the€day's€work.€€He€promptly€informed€his€supervisorÏof€the€accident€and€said€he€did€not€know€if€he€would€be€able€to€complete€theÏshift€or€not.€€The€employer€did€not€make€a€written€record€of€the€occurrence€orÏinvestigate€it€because€the€claimant€did€not€request€medical€care.€€Four€monthsÏlater,€the€employer€received€written€notice€of€the€accident€from€the€claimant'sÏattorney.Ìà ` àÌà ` àWithout€consulting€the€employer,€the€claimant€sought€treatment€from€aÏchiropractor,€Jeffrey€C.€Hamilton.€€Dr.€Hamilton€opined€that€the€February€1stÏaccident€caused€a€new€injury€superimposed€on€preexisting€back€problems,Ïincluding€degenerative€disc€disease.€€He€referred€the€claimant€to€his€familyÐ D8”3H Ðphysician,€who€prescribed€physical€therapy.Ìà ` àÌà ` àDr.€Richard€B.€Donaldson€examined€and€evaluated€the€claimant.€€Dr.ÏDonaldson€diagnosed€low€back€and€knee€sprains€and€chronic€pain€syndrome.€ÏAs€to€the€cause€of€the€claimant's€injuries,€the€doctor€opined€the€accident€couldÏhave€aggravated€the€preexisting€condition€and€initiated€the€knee€problem.Ìà ` àÌà ` àUnless€admitted€by€the€employer,€the€employee€or€claimant€has€theÏburden€of€proving,€by€competent€evidence,€every€essential€element€of€his€claim.€ÏòòOster€v.€Yatesóó,€845€€S.W.2d€€215€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€claimant€must€prove,Ð uÅ  Ðamong€other€things,€that€he€suffered€an€injury€by€accident,€and€that€such€injuryÏby€accident€arose€out€of€and€in€the€course€of€his€employment€by€the€employer.Ìà ` àÌà ` àThe€employer,€relying€primarily€on€òòCunningham€v.€Goodyear€Tire€andÐ ‡×  ÐRubber€Co.óó,€811€€S.W.2d€€888€(Tenn.€1991),€contends€there€was€noÐ (x Ðcompensable€injury€by€accident.€€In€that€case,€there€was€no€claimed€accident.€ÏThe€employee€merely€complained€of€pain€while€performing€duties€to€which€heÏwas€unaccustomed.€€Moreover,€the€undisputed€medical€proof€was€that€theÏemployee's€pain€was€the€result€of€preexistent€arthritis.€€The€Supreme€CourtÏaffirmed€the€trial€court's€dismissal€of€the€case€because€there€was€no€proof€of€anÏinjury€by€accident.€€òòCunninghamóó€is€distinguishable€from€the€present€case€in€thatÐ î>( Ðthe€trial€judge€found€from€competent€proof€that€there€was€a€precipitating€eventÏwhich€either€caused€the€injury€or€aggravated€the€preexistent€condition.€€TheÏevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€that€finding.Ìà ` àÌà ` àThe€employer€takes€the€employee€with€all€preexisting€conditions,€andÏcannot€escape€liability€when€the€employee,€upon€suffering€a€work„related€injury,Ïincurs€disability€far€greater€than€if€he€had€not€had€the€preexisting€conditions;ÏòòKellerman€v.€Food€Lion,€Inc.óó,€929€€S.W.2d€€333€(Tenn.€1996);Ô€XoŒX¼¼ÃÔ€Ô€¼Ã¼XXoŒÔbut€if€workÐ „(Ô#8 Ðaggravates€a€preexisting€condition€merely€by€increasing€pain,€there€is€no€injuryÏby€accident.€€òòId.óó€€To€be€compensable,€the€preexisting€condition€must€beÐ Æ+'< Ðadvanced,€there€must€be€anatomical€change€in€the€preexisting€condition,€or€theÏemployment€must€cause€an€actual€progression€of€the€underlying€disease.€€òòSweatÐ /X*@ Ðv.€Superior€Industries,€Inc.óó,€966€€S.W.2d€€31,€32„33€(Tenn.€1998).€€There€isÐ ©0ù+B Ðmedical€proof€in€the€instant€case€that€the€preexisting€condition€could€have€beenÏadvanced€by€the€work€related€accident€or€caused€an€actual€progression€of€theÏunderlying€disease.€€In€a€workers'€compensation€case,€a€trial€judge€may€properlyÏpredicate€an€award€on€medical€testimony€to€the€effect€that€a€given€incident€couldÏbe€the€cause€of€a€claimant's€injury,€when,€from€other€evidence,€it€mayÐ Î84L Ðreasonably€be€inferred€that€the€incident€was€in€fact€the€cause€of€the€injury.€ÏòòReeser€v.€Yellow€Freight€Systems,€Inc.óó,€€938€€S.W.2d€€690€(Tenn.€1997).Ð Q¡ Ðà ` àÌà ` àWhere€the€employer€denies€that€a€claimant€has€given€the€required€writtenÏnotice,€the€claimant€has€the€burden€of€showing€that€the€employer€had€actualÏnotice,€or€that€the€employee€has€either€complied€with€the€requirement€or€has€aÏreasonable€excuse€for€his€failure€to€do€so,€for€notice€is€an€essential€element€ofÏhis€claim.€€òòJones€v.€Sterling€Last€Corp.óó,€€962€€S.W.2d€€469€(Tenn.€1998).€€It€isÐ ¥ õ Ðsignificant€that€written€notice€is€unnecessary€in€those€situations€where€theÏemployer€has€actual€knowledge€of€the€injury.€€òòRaines€v.€Shelby€WilliamsÐ ç7  ÐIndustriesóó,€814€€S.W.2d€€346€(Tenn.€1991).€€It€is€undisputed€that€the€employerÐ ˆØ  Ðhad€actual€knowledge€of€the€claimant's€injury.€€It's€failure€or€refusal€to€fill€outÏa€form€or€provide€medical€benefits€does€not€excuse€it€from€liability.Ìà ` àÌà ` àBy€the€Workers'€Compensation€Act,€compensable€disabilities€are€dividedÏinto€four€separate€classifications:€(1)€temporary€total€disability,€(2)€temporaryÏpartial€disability,€(3)€permanent€partial€disability€and€(4)€permanent€totalÏdisability.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€50„6„207.€€Temporary€total€disability€refersÏto€the€injured€employee's€condition€while€disabled€to€work€because€of€his€injuryÏand€until€he€recovers€as€far€as€the€nature€of€his€injury€permits.€€òòRedmond€v.Ð ¿& ÐMcMinn€Countyóó,€209€€Tenn.€€463,€354€€S.W.2d€€435€€(1962).€€Benefits€forÐ ` °( Ðtemporary€total€disability€are€payable€until€the€injured€employee€is€able€to€returnÏto€work€or,€if€he€does€not€return€to€work,€until€he€attains€maximum€recoveryÏfrom€his€injury,€at€which€time€his€entitlement€to€such€benefits€terminates.€ÏòòPrince€v.€Sentry€Ins.€Co.óó,€908€€S.W.2d€€937€(Tenn.€1995).€€We€find€in€the€recordÐ ä&4"0 Ðno€evidence€as€to€when€the€claimant€reached€maximum€medical€recovery€orÏreturned€to€work.€€As€we€have€noted,€the€burden€of€proof€is€on€the€plaintiff.Ìà ` àÌà ` àWhen€a€covered€employee€suffers€an€injury€by€accident€arising€out€of€andÏin€the€course€of€his€employment,€his€employer€is€required€to€provide,€free€ofÏcharge€to€the€injured€employee,€all€medical€and€hospital€care€which€isÏreasonably€necessary€on€account€of€the€injury.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€50„6„¼204(a)(1).€€The€injured€employee€is€required€to€accept€the€medical€benefitsÏprovided€by€the€employer,€and€must€consult€with€the€employer€before€choosingÏa€treating€physician€or€operating€surgeon;€òòState€Auto€Mutual€Ins.€Co.€v.Ð ¼4 0D ÐCupplesóó,€567€€S.W.2d€€164€(Tenn.€1978);Ô€XoŒX¼¼ÃÔ€Ô€¼Ã¼XXoŒÔand,€unless€the€injured€employee€hasÐ ]6­1F Ða€reasonable€excuse€for€the€failure€to€consult€with€the€employer€first,€the€injuredÐ þ7N3H Ðemployee€may€be€responsible€for€his€own€medical€expenses.€€òòEmerson€ElectricÐ ° ÐCo.€v.€Forrestóó,€536€S.W.2d€343€(Tenn.€1976).€€The€claimant€failed€to€consultÐ Q¡ Ðwith€the€employer€first€and€the€chancellor€correctly€disallowed€his€claimedÏmedical€expenses.Ìà ` àÌà ` àFor€the€above€reasons€the€evidence€fails€to€preponderate€against€theÏfindings€of€the€trial€court,€whose€judgment€is€affirmed€in€all€respects.€€Costs€onÏappeal€are€taxed€to€the€parties,€one„half€each.Ó rA@ÓÌÓ  ÓÓ<(ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿŒX<ÓÓ€ÓññññÐ  ‘*á%. Ðññññ_______________________________Ó rAÓÌÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Joe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌÓ  ÓÓ?+ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿ` ‹X?ÓCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€Associate€JusticeÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌHowell€N.€Peoples,€Special€JudgeññÐ  úJ  ÐññññÒ` ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ' AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÌÌßl€*6&"h 8 `€€Eˆâtt06Àܨìlßâ ` À` À`  #`  #âà@> > àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEE€ˆÌà@¸¸"àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  à¼à ¸ àà  àÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€à p àÐ 4 „ Ðà  àà , àà  àà ` àà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àÌâ ` À` À`  #`  #âÒp` Òâ pÀpÀp #p #âGREG€WILLIAMS,à h àà À à€€€€€€€€€€€€ñUñ€ñUñ)à0 p àÐ` °pÀp # Ðâ p #p #pÀpÀâà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€ñTñ€ñTñ)à p àRHEA€CHANCERYÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à€€€€€€€à À à€€€€€€€€€€€€ñSñ€ñSñ)€à p àNo.€8710Ð ŒÜ  ÐÒ 8Òà ` à€€Plaintiff„Appellee,€€€€€€à À àà  à€€ñRñ€ñRñ)à p àà È àà  àà x àÐ ¢ò  ÐÓ àœXÿÿŒXÓà È àà0 àà0x 8" 8"àà0Ðx8"x8"àà ( à€€€€€€€)à0€Ð8"Ð8"àñVñ€€€€€ñVñNo.03S01„9806„CH€„00062à @â! àи €8"€8" Ðv.à È àà àà x àà Ð àà0 ( à€€€€€€€)ÐÎ (8"(8" Ðà È àà àà x àà Ð àà ( à€€€€€€€)ÌSUBURBAN€MANUFACTURING,)€€à0 Ø àHon.€Jeffrey€F.€StewartÐúJØ8"Ø8" Ðà È àà àà x àà Ð àà ( àñPññHñ€ñHññPñ€€€€€€€)à € à€€€€€€€€€€ChancellorÐ ` Ðà È à€€€Defendant/Appellant,à ( àñMññLñà € àñLññMññQññNñ€ñNññQññNñ€€€€€€ñNñ€)à € àÐ &v Ðà È àà à€€€€€€€€à x àà Ð àà ( àñOñ)ñOñà € àÐ <Œ Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à Ð àÓ€Óà ( àà € àà Ø àà 0 à€€€€€€Ð R¢ Ðà@88&TàJUDGMENT€ORDERˆÌÌà È à€This€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€includingÏthe€order€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€AppealsÏPanel,€and€the€Panel's€memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findingsÏof€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€byÏreference;Ìà È àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€memorandumÏOpinion€of€the€Panel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌà È àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€facts€andÏconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€theÏPanel€is€made€the€Judgment€of€the€Court.Ìà È àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€parties,€Appellant,€SuburbanÏManufacturing€and€William€A.€Lockett,€surety,€and€to€appellee,€GregÏWilliams,€one„half€each,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€Ì€€€€€€06/02/99ÌÓ0ÿÿ` çÈ xÐ (#àœX0Ó