ÿWPCz) PŸ£äYdW®KVÍ.ú¹¤v*;Ù çñö÷¾ôÍrÌ'¹ÕF”Í/|ðäPÓtºQcuà­[à{ïÅl¨Â º¸è*0}7H68L_: a |å8/c£ÕS˜¯A¿‚ös­ ~¬p9Ó$QYmv«5n_Y]×pÜ_Ï=9Nr©4ƒ}ª?õíá¿0:n}°Xym’¾¡í¬jñ.6Jœª*”äW¡))¦AxØÁ.ùÔ„Z¯Êjè×q‘cO§· 9º§~ÜCÜJ´©7fýP“t3ʪÄ]¥¶æœÛU³/€ÈŒV~(Ó˜¿ÞÒg/ÌÈEžÕ®¬hµYl³É ›3„AJ‰¬ÇÿCycc;ëEÊb&«€3ÄJÃ\ 6­(¨ßMÅÈb½D¿Ç徭-{ѲΕ«¢-»Š¿¥g­A—Ä„“*rºÌ(À¶Þ$™hýÄ9 œ°M¡ƒ!à ‹=ˆßFè “Ã(sUâ¼ ¢«> ˆü’Ó©R½vމYçàßT­Š\„¿ÃruH¸Òež€‚ 8‹„µ:+SlÚ 9Nš$SshZn¸ªºîÕò;¡>S¾ÊD+±X°f¢Oý§Ò;C£~iU‰ëâ6A‡g}b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz U@‘ ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ#UNéN7 0D9x}Eõõõ 0U÷ 0éL 0æ5 0ã 0àþ 0ÝÞ 0Ú» 0ו 0Ôl 0C@ 0׃ 0ÔZ 0Ñ. 0Îÿ 0ËÍ 0Ș 0Å` 0À% 0@å 0Ô% 0ÑùbÊ 0ÎÒ 0Ë  0Èk! 0Å3" 0Âø" 0½º#º#º#º#º#º#º#º#º#º#º#º#º#º#º#º#º#º#º#º#º#º#º#º#º#º#º#º#º#º# 0ëw$w$w$w$ Bb%b% 0¤% D3#& D-V& 0Kƒ&ƒ& ASÎ&Æ!' 0¤ç' 0D‹( A«Ï(˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»wy“-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularš‚,-¸á¦ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó acromioplasty coracoacromialarthroscopicBoals*+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..à*G+M ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*D+M ÿÿ(_24Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*A+M ÿÿ(_23Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>+M ÿÿ(_22Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;+M ÿÿ(_21Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8+M ÿÿ(_20Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5+M ÿÿ(_19Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*2+M ÿÿ(_18Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó* ÿÿ(_17Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô€*GM ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*DM ÿÿ(_15Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*AM ÿÿ(_14Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>M ÿÿ(_13Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;M ÿÿ(_12Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8M ÿÿ(_11Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5M ÿÿ(_10Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(2M ÿÿ&_9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó( ÿÿ&_8Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(GM ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(DM ÿÿ&_6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó- ù-(AM ÿÿ&_5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(>M ÿÿ&_4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(;M ÿÿ&_3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(8M ÿÿ&_2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(5M ÿÿ&_1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó&2M ÿÿ$_Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(|G2¥$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€N}»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôï…ò»»Ô d(|3‰\$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€N}»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‰\$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€N}»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€N}»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼N}»»»ÔÑ8€ XXdì»»d8ÑÓ=€N}»Ð»dÐd=Ó€à@™ ™ ìàÔ‡îQ|N}ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼N}»îîQ|J#ÔÔ‡X X»¼N}Ôˆà p àÐ Ö& ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†¼N}»XX ß#ÔNovember€14,€2002€SessionÔ‡X X»¼N}ÔÐ üL ÐÌò òÔ#†¼N}»XX h#ÔJOANNE€CARTER€v.€FIRST€SOURCE€FURNITURE€GROUPó óÔ‡X X»¼N}ÔÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Lauderdale€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€11750€€€€€€Martha€B.€Ô_ÔBrasfieldÔ_Ô,€ChancellorÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2001„01849„SC„WCM„CV€„€Filed€December€19,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÔ#†¼N}»XX ó#ÔÔ‡X X»¼N}ÔÌÓ  ÓIn€this€workersðð€compensation€case,€we€granted€the€defendantððs€motion€for€review€pursuant€toÐ xÈ  ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€50„6„225(e)€primarily€to€determine€whether€the€trial€court€erredÐ d´ Ðby€finding€that€the€two€and€one„half€times€cap€on€the€permanent€partial€disability€award€set€forth€inÐ P  ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€50„6„241(a)(1)€did€not€apply,€where€the€plaintiff€was€fired€by€theÐ <Œ Ðemployer€for€gross€misconduct€prior€to€being€treated€for€her€injury.€We€hold€that€an€employer€shouldÐ (x Ðbe€permitted€to€enforce€workplace€rules€without€being€penalized€in€a€workersðð€compensation€case.€Ð d ÐThus,€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€apply€the€two€and€one„half€times€cap€found€in€TennesseeÐ P ÐCode€Annotated€section€50„6„241(a)(1).€€Furthermore,€under€our€review,€where€expert€medicalÐ ì< Ðtestimony€is€by€deposition,€we€may€draw€our€own€conclusions€about€the€weight€and€credibility€toÐ Ø( Ðbe€given€to€the€medical€testimony.€Given€the€disagreement€between€the€evaluating€and€treatingÐ Ä Ðphysicians€over€the€surgical€procedure€performed€on€the€plaintiff,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€theÐ ° Ðphysician€who€actually€performed€the€surgery€was€better€situated€to€understand€and€rate€the€resultingÐ œì Ðimpairment.€€We€adopt€the€medical€impairment€rating€of€the€treating€physician,€equating€to€6%€toÐ ˆØ Ðthe€body€as€a€whole€and€set€the€plaintiffððs€permanent€partial€disability€at€15%€to€the€body€as€a€whole.Ð tÄ ÐÓ~ÓÌò òTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e);€Findings€of€Fact€and€Conclusions€of€Law€of€the€SpecialÐ L œ ÐWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€Rejected;Ð 8!ˆ  ÐJudgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€Reversedó óÐ $"t! ÐÌÓ  ÓòòFrank€F.€Ô_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ô,€III,€C.€Jóó.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò€E.€Riley€Andersonóó,òòÐ ü#L# ÐÔ_ÔAdolphoÔ_Ô€A.€Birch,€Jr.,€óóand€òòWilliam€M.€Barkeróó,€JJ.€joined.€€òòJanice€M.€Holder,€J.óó€NotÐ è$8 $ ÐParticipating.Ð Ô%$!% ÐÌS.€Newton€Anderson€and€Gayle€B.€Ô_ÔLakeyÔ_Ô,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€First€SourceÐ ¬'ü"' ÐFurniture€Group.Ð ˜(è#( ÐÌGregory€A.€Ô_ÔPetrinjakÔ_Ô€and€Mark€P.€Barnett,€Jackson,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Joanne€Carter.Ð p*À%* ÐÓ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ H,˜', ÐÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôòòóóòòò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓFactual€Backgroundó óóóÐ ° ÐÌÓEÓà  àThe€plaintiff,€Joanne€Carter€(ð ðCarterðð),€worked€€for€the€defendant,€First€Source€FurnitureÐ ˆØ ÐGroup,€which€does€business€in€Halls,€Tennessee,€as€Anderson€Hickey€(ð ðAnderson€Hickeyðð).€€At€theÐ tÄ Ðtime€of€her€injury,€the€plaintiff€was€employed€on€Anderson€Hickeyððs€assembly€line,€making€filingÐ `° Ðcabinets.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àAt€the€time€of€trial,€Carter€was€forty„five€years€old.€€She€has€a€high€school€education,€and€herÐ $ t Ðwork€experience€has€consisted€of€waitressing,€nursing€home€work,€and€factory€work.€€Her€work€atÐ  ` ÐAnderson€Hickey€consisted€of€lifting€pedestals€and€hammering€drawers€into€place€with€a€rubberÐ ü L  Ðmallet.€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àPlaintiff€alleges€that,€as€a€result€of€this€work,€she€sustained€an€injury€to€her€right€shoulder€inÐ À  ÐJanuary€2000.€€She€saw€an€orthopedic€surgeon,€Dr.€Riley€Jones,€on€March€21,€2000.€òòóóDr.€Jones€treatedÐ ¬ü  ÐCarter€and€ordered€an€òòóóMRI,€which€took€place€on€March€27,€2000.€€On€March€28,€2000,€CarterÐ ˜è  Ðreturned€to€Dr.€Jones;€they€discussed€the€results€of€the€MRI,€and€Dr.€Jones€injected€Carter€withÐ „Ô  ÐCelestone€and€Marcaine€with€instructions€for€her€to€return€in€a€week.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àTwo€days€later,€on€March€30,€2000,€Carter€was€involved€in€an€altercation€at€work.€€AnotherÐ H˜ Ðemployee€called€Carter€a€ð ðbitch,ðð€and€Carter€responded€by€chasing€the€other€employee€with€a€boxÐ 4„ Ðcutter€and€kicking€him.€€As€a€result€of€this€incident,€and€pursuant€to€Anderson€Hickeyððs€policyÐ  p Ðagainst€violence€in€the€workplace,€Carter€was€terminated€for€gross€misconduct.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àFollowing€her€termination€from€Anderson€Hickey,€the€plaintiff€continued€to€see€Dr.€Jones.€Ð ä4 ÐOn€April€24,€2000,€Dr.€Jones€performed€arthroscopic€surgery€on€Carterððs€shoulder.€€Carter€completedÐ Ð  Ðone€month€of€physical€therapy€and€returned€to€Dr.€Jones€on€June€8,€2000,€with€full€range€of€motionÐ ¼  Ðand€some€continuing€residual€pain.€€Dr.€Jones€released€her€for€work€at€full€duty€at€that€time.€€Ð ¨ø Ðà  àÌà  àThe€plaintiff€then€found€new€employment€at€World€Color€Press,€where€she€first€stackedÐ €Ð Ðboxes€and€now€drives€a€forklift.€€Carter€was€still€employed€by€World€Color€Press€at€the€time€of€trial,Ð l¼ Ðmaking€$9.24€per€hour,€approximately€one€dollar€per€hour€less€than€her€job€at€Anderson€Hickey.€Ð X ¨ ÐCarter€has€the€potential€to€earn€$11.49€per€hour€after€another€year€with€World€Color€Press,€over€oneÐ D!” Ðdollar€more€per€hour€than€her€wage€at€Anderson€Hickey.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àCarter€visited€Dr.€Jones€on€July€25,€2000,€again€with€full€range€of€motion€and€some€pain.€Ð $X" ÐDr.€Jones€placed€her€at€maximum€medical€improvement€with€no€restrictions€on€her€physical€activity,Ð ô$D # Ðand€he€assigned€her€a€10%€impairment€rating€to€the€upper€extremity,€equating€to€a€6%€impairmentÐ à%0!$ Ðto€the€body€as€a€whole.€€Dr.€Jones€instructed€Carter€to€take€ibuprofen€or€Tylenol€for€her€pain€and€toÐ Ì&"% Ðreturn€to€him€if€she€had€any€problems.€€Thereafter,€Carter€did€not€return€to€Dr.€Jones.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àPlaintiff€filed€her€complaint€for€workersðð€compensation€benefits€on€July€17,€2000,€allegingÐ )à$( Ðthat€she€suffered€her€injury€as€a€result€of€her€employment€with€Anderson€Hickey.€€At€trial,€the€trialÐ |*Ì%) Ðcourt€heard€testimony€from€the€plaintiff€and€Randy€Good,€the€human€resources€manager€at€AndersonÐ h+¸&* ÐHickey€at€the€time€of€Carterððs€termination.€€The€trial€court€also€received€testimony€in€the€form€ofÐ ° Ðdepositions€from€Dr.€Jones,€the€treating€physician,€and€Dr.€Joseph€C.€Boals,€III,€who€performed€anÐ œì Ðindependent€medical€examination€of€Carter€at€the€request€of€Carterððs€attorney.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àDr.€Boals€found€that,€after€examining€Carter€and€reviewing€Dr.€Jonesðð€notes,€Carter€suffersÐ `° Ðfrom€a€19%€impairment€to€the€upper€extremity,€or€11%€impairment€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€Dr.Ð L œ ÐBoals€found€a€higher€impairment€rating€because€he€believed€that€the€plaintiff€qualified€for€twoÐ 8 ˆ Ðseparate€impairment€ratings,€based€on€the€two€procedures€performed€on€her€shoulder€during€surgery:Ð $ t Ðthe€excision€of€the€distal€clavicle€and€the€excision€of€the€coracoacromial€ligament.€€Dr.€JonesÐ  ` Ðassigned€an€impairment€rating€based€only€on€the€excision€of€the€distal€clavicle,€explaining€that€theÐ ü L  ÐòòAmerican€Medical€Association€Guides€to€the€Evaluation€of€Permanent€Impairmentóó€(ð ðtheÐ è 8  ÐGuidelinesðð)€no€longer€provide€an€impairment€rating€for€excision€of€the€coracoacromial€ligament,Ð Ô$  Ðsince€newer€arthroscopic€technology€improved€the€procedure,€and€it€now€results€in€no€impairment.€Ð À  ÐDr.€Boals,€however,€extrapolated€from€the€opening€section€of€the€Guidelines,€which€gives€leewayÐ ¬ü  Ðto€find€impairment€if€the€Guidelines€do€not€specifically€address€a€procedure.€€Dr.€Jones€testified€thatÐ ˜è  Ðthe€acromioplasty€performed€on€the€plaintiff€is€ð ðone€of€the€most€common€shoulder€operations€thatððsÐ „Ô  Ðperformed€in€the€world€at€this€point,ðð€and€that€if€it€warranted€an€impairment€rating,€the€GuidelinesÐ pÀ Ðwould€include€it.€òòóóÐ \¬ ÐÌà  àUpon€hearing€testimony€and€reading€the€depositions,€the€trial€court€gave€more€weight€to€Dr.Ð 4„ ÐBoalsðð€impairment€rating€and€set€the€plaintiffððs€medical€impairment€rating€at€11%€to€the€body.€€Then,Ð  p Ðdetermining€that€the€two€and€one„half€times€cap€on€a€permanent€partial€disability€award,€set€forth€inÐ  \ ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€50„6„241(a)€(1999),€did€not€apply,€the€trial€court€awarded€theÐ øH Ðplaintiff€permanent€partial€disability€benefits€based€on€30%€permanent€partial€disability€to€theÐ ä4 Ðperson.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€employer€appealed€to€the€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,Ð ¨ø Ðasserting€(1)€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€holding€that€the€two€and€one„half€times€cap€of€the€TennesseeÐ ”ä ÐCode€Annotated€section€50„6„241(a)€was€inapplicable,€and€(2)€that€the€evidence€preponderatesÐ €Ð Ðagainst€an€award€of€permanent€partial€disability€benefits€based€on€30%€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€TheÐ l¼ ÐPanel€affirmed€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€The€Panel€found€that€rejection€of€the€cap€set€forth€inÐ X ¨ ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€50„6„241(a)€was€appropriate€where€the€employer€made€no€offerÐ D!” Ðof€re„employment,€despite€the€fact€that€the€employer€had€terminated€the€employee€for€reasonsÐ 0"€  Ðunrelated€to€her€injury.€€Further,€the€Panel€held€that€the€evidence€did€not€preponderate€against€theÐ #l! Ðtrial€courtððs€award€based€on€30%€permanent€partial€disability.€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àWe€granted€the€defendantððs€motion€for€review€and€now€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌò òòòÓ  ÓStandard€of€Reviewó óóóÐ ¸'#& ÐÓ;.ÓÌà  àÔ‡ X XXX ÔIn€workers'€compensation€cases,€the€standard€of€review€is€de€novo€upon€the€record,Ð )à$( Ðaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€trial€court's€factual€findings,€unless€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50-6-225(e)(2)Ô#†X XX X ‘.#Ô;€òòMannery€v.€Wal„Ð h+¸&* ÐMart€Distrib.€Centeróó,€69€S.W.3d€193,€196€(Tenn.€2002).€€ð ðThe€reviewing€court€must€giveÐ ° Ðconsiderable€deference€to€the€trial€court's€findings€with€regard€to€the€weight€and€credibility€of€oralÐ œì Ðtestimony,€as€it€is€the€trial€court€which€had€the€opportunity€to€observe€the€witness's€demeanor€andÐ ˆØ Ðto€hear€the€in-court€testimony.ðð€€òòLong€v.€Tri-Con€Industries,€Ltd.óó,€996€S.W.2d€173,€178€(Tenn.€1999)Ð tÄ Ð(citing€òòHill€v.€Eagle€Bend€Mfg.,€Inc.óó,€942€S.W.2d€483,€487€(Tenn.1997)).€€Under€this€standard,Ð `° Ðconsiderable€deference€must€be€granted€where€the€trial€judge€has€seen€and€heard€the€witnesses,€butÐ L œ Ðð ðwhere€the€issues€involve€expert€medical€testimony€and€all€the€medical€proof€is€contained€in€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðrecord€by€deposition€.€.€.€then€this€Court€may€draw€its€own€conclusions€about€the€weight€andÐ $ t Ðcredibility€of€that€testimony.ðð€òòKrick€v.€City€of€Lawrenceburgóó,€945€S.W.2d€709,€712€(Tenn.1997).Ð  ` ÐÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓAnalysisó óóóÐ Ô$  Ðà @ àà @` àà @¸ àà @ àà @h àà @À àà @ àà @p àÌò òòòApplication€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€50„6„241(a)€and€(b)óóó óÐ ¬ü  ÐÌÓm4ÓÓ  Óà  àThe€Tennessee€Workersðð€Compensation€statute€sets€caps€on€an€employeeððs€permanentÐ „Ô  Ðpartial€disability€award,€with€the€level€of€the€cap€dependent€on€whether€or€not€the€pre„injuryÐ pÀ Ðemployer€returns€the€employee€to€work€at€a€wage€equal€to€or€greater€than€the€employeeððs€pre„Ð \¬ Ðinjury€wage.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€50„6„241(a)(1)€and€(b)€provide€as€follows:Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àFor€injuries€arising€on€or€after€August€1,€1992,€in€cases€where€an€injuredÐ  p Ðemployee€is€eligible€to€receive€any€permanent€partial€disability€benefits,€pursuantÐ  \ Ðto€ðð€50-6-207(3)(A)(i)€and€(F),€and€the€pre-injury€employer€returns€the€employeeÐ øH Ðto€employment€at€a€wage€equal€to€or€greater€than€the€wage€the€employee€wasÐ ä4 Ðreceiving€at€the€time€of€injury,€the€maximum€permanent€partial€disability€awardÐ Ð  Ðthat€the€employee€may€receive€is€two€and€one-half€(2€1/2)€times€the€medicalÐ ¼  Ðimpairment€rating€determined€pursuant€to€the€provisions€of€the€American€MedicalÐ ¨ø ÐAssociation€Guides€to€the€Evaluation€of€Permanent€Impairment€(AmericanÐ ”ä ÐMedical€Association),€the€Manual€for€Orthopedic€Surgeons€in€EvaluatingÐ €Ð ÐPermanent€Physical€Impairment€(American€Academy€of€Orthopedic€Surgeons),€orÐ l¼ Ðin€cases€not€covered€by€either€of€these,€an€impairment€rating€by€any€appropriateÐ X ¨ Ðmethod€used€and€accepted€by€the€medical€community.€€€ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(1)€(1999).Ð #l! ÐÌà8  àSubject€to€factors€provided€in€subsection€(a)€of€this€section,€in€cases€for€injuriesÐ ô$D # Ðon€or€after€August€1,€1992,€where€an€injured€employee€is€eligible€to€receiveÐ à%0!$ Ðpermanent€partial€disability€benefits,€pursuant€to€ðð€50-6-207(3)(A)(i)€and€(F),€andÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€pre-injury€employer€does€not€return€the€employee€to€employment€at€a€wageÐ ¸'#& Ðequal€to€or€greater€than€the€wage€the€employee€was€receiving€at€the€time€of€injury,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðthe€maximum€permanent€partial€disability€award€that€the€employee€may€receive€isÐ )à$( Ðsix€(6)€times€the€medical€impairment€rating€determined€pursuant€to€the€provisionsÐ |*Ì%) Ðof€the€American€Medical€Association€Guides€to€the€Evaluation€of€PermanentÐ h+¸&* ÐImpairment€(American€Medical€Association),€the€Manual€for€OrthopedicÐ ° ÐSurgeons€in€Evaluating€Permanent€Physical€Impairment€(American€Academy€ofÐ œì ÐOrthopedic€Surgeons),€or€in€cases€not€covered€by€either€of€these,€an€impairmentÐ ˆØ Ðrating€by€any€appropriate€method€used€and€accepted€by€the€medical€community.€€€ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241(b)€(1999).Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€determined€that€the€two€and€one„half€times€multiplier€from€section€50„6„Ð $ t Ð241(a)(1)€did€not€apply€in€Carterððs€case.€€The€trial€court€did€not,€however,€base€its€decision€on€theÐ  ` Ðlanguage€of€the€statute.€€Instead,€the€trial€court€found€that€ð ðhad€the€plaintiff€still€been€employedÐ ü L  Ðwhen€she€was€released,€she€would€not€have€been€able€to€return€to€the€job€that€she€was€holdingÐ è 8  Ðwhen€she€was€terminated€in€March,€2000.€€The€Court€further€finds€that€there€was€no€proof€that€aÐ Ô$  Ðjob€would€have€been€available€to€her€which€she€could€physically€perform.ðð€Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€Workersðð€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€found€that€the€test€to€determine€which€capÐ ˜è  Ðshould€apply€is€not€ð ðwhether€the€injured€worker€is€able€to€return€to€work,ðð€but€ð ðwhether€theÐ „Ô  Ðemployer€made€a€reasonable€offer€of€re„employment€despite€the€disability€resulting€from€a€work„Ð pÀ Ðrelated€injury.ðð€€The€Panel€then€cited€the€ð ðmeaningful€return€to€workðð€test€discussed€in€òòÔ‡X XXX ÔNelson€v.Ð \¬ ÐWal„Mart€Stores,€Inc.óó,€8€S.W.3d€625,€630€(Tenn.€1999)€and€òòNewton€v.€Scott€Health€Care€Centeróó,Ð H˜ Ð914€S.W.2d€884€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€cases€where€the€employee€is€not€working€for€the€employerÐ 4„ Ðfollowing€the€employeeððs€recovery,€this€test€looks€to€the€reasonableness€of€the€employerððs€offerÐ  p Ðof€re„employment€and€the€reasonableness€of€the€employeeððs€refusal€of€the€offer.€The€Panel€notedÐ  \ Ðthat€the€defendant€did€not€offer€to€return€the€plaintiff€to€work€at€all,€but€the€Panel€declined€toÐ øH Ðconsider€the€employerððs€reason€for€the€employeeððs€termination,€because€to€do€so€ð ðwouldÐ ä4 Ðencourage€trial€courts€to€conduct€a€trial€within€a€trial€to€determine€the€justness€of€the€employerððsÐ Ð  Ðdecision€not€to€offer€re„employment.ðð€€Ô#†X XXX œE#ÔÐ ¼  ÐÌà  àThis€Court€believes€that€the€determinative€issue€in€this€case€is€whether€Ô‡X XXX Ôthe€employer,Ð ”ä Ðhaving€fired€an€employee€for€misconduct€prior€to€treatment€of€the€employeeððs€injury,€is€requiredÐ €Ð Ðto€make€an€offer€of€re„employment€following€treatment€in€order€to€take€advantage€of€the€two€andÐ l¼ Ðone„half€times€cap€set€forth€in€section€50„6„241(a)(1).€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àThis€case€is€unique€because€it€presents€a€factual€time€line€different€from€other€cases€thatÐ 0"€  Ðhave€interpreted€section€50„6„241.€€In€cases€cited€by€Anderson€Hickey,€the€employees€were€firedÐ #l! Ðor€quit€working€after€returning€to€work.€€In€the€case€at€hand,€the€plaintiff€had€not€yet€been€treated.€Ð $X" ÐShe€was€fired;€then€she€underwent€surgery€and€recuperated.€€At€her€release€to€full€duty€on€June€8,Ð ô$D # Ð2000,€the€employer€did€not€make€her€an€offer€of€re„employment,€simply€because€she€hadÐ à%0!$ Ðpreviously€been€fired€for€reasons€unrelated€to€her€injury.Ô#†X XXX ÓI#ÔÐ Ì&"% ÐÌà  àThe€Panel€noted€that€the€court€should€not€be€required€to€conduct€a€ð ðtrial€within€a€trialðð€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdetermine€whether€or€not€the€firing€was€just.€€We,€however,€see€no€difference€betweenÐ )à$( Ðdetermining€the€reasonableness€of€an€offer,€as€required€under€the€òòNewtonóó€test,€and€determiningÐ |*Ì%) Ðwhy€an€offer€was€not€made.€€We€agree€with€the€defendant€that€an€employer€should€be€permittedÐ h+¸&* Ðto€enforce€workplace€rules€without€being€penalized€in€a€workersðð€compensation€case.€€In€ourÐ ° Ðview,€the€General€Assembly,€by€passage€of€section€50„6„241(a),€did€not€intend€to€require€anÐ œì Ðemployer€to€make€an€offer€of€re„employment€to€an€employee€previously€fired€for€violatingÐ ˆØ Ðworkplace€rules.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiff€argues€that€allowing€Anderson€Hickey€to€benefit€from€the€lower€cap€set€forthÐ L œ Ðin€section€50„6„241(a)(1)€will€encourage€employers€to€fire€injured€employees€in€order€to€takeÐ 8 ˆ Ðadvantage€of€the€lower€cap.€€However,€the€law€of€retaliatory€discharge€protects€employees€fromÐ $ t Ðthis€behavior,€as€employers€face€law€suits€and€the€prospect€of€paying€punitive€damages€toÐ  ` Ðemployees€fired€to€avoid€workersðð€compensation€claims.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòAnderson€v.€StandardÐ ü L  ÐRegister€Co.óó,€857€S.W.2d€555€(Tenn.€1993)€(setting€out€the€elements€of€a€retaliatory€dischargeÐ è 8  Ðclaim).€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àTherefore,€we€find€that,€under€the€unique€circumstances€of€this€case,€the€employer,Ð ¬ü  ÐAnderson€Hickey,€was€not€required€to€make€a€post„treatment€offer€of€re„employment€to€theÐ ˜è  Ðplaintiff,€where€she€had€been€fired€for€misconduct€prior€to€treatment,€in€order€to€gain€the€benefitÐ „Ô  Ðof€the€lower€cap€set€forth€in€section€50„6„241(a)(1).€€Thus,€the€two€and€one„half€times€multiplierÐ pÀ Ðapplies.Ð \¬ ÐÓr5ÓÓ8ÓÌòòò òPlaintiffððs€Impairment€Ratingó óóóÐ 4„ ÐÓ4VÓà  àÌà  àHaving€determined€that€the€two€and€one„half€times€cap€applies,€we€must€determine€theÐ  \ Ðplaintiffððs€impairment€rating.€€The€trial€court€relied€on€Dr.€Boalsðð€impairment€rating€to€determineÐ øH Ðthe€plaintiffððs€disability€because,€the€trial€court€explained,€Dr.€Boalsðð€rating€comported€with€theÐ ä4 Ðplaintiffððs€complaints.€€The€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€relying€on€Dr.€BoalsððÐ Ð  Ðopinion€over€that€of€the€treating€physician,€Dr.€Jones.Ð ¼  Ðà  àÌà  àAs€stated€in€the€facts,€after€completing€a€month€of€physical€therapy,€the€plaintiff€wasÐ ”ä Ðreleased€by€her€treating€physician,€Dr.€Jones,€to€full€duty€with€no€restrictions.€€The€plaintiff,Ð €Ð Ðhowever,€testified€at€trial€that€her€shoulder€injury€still€causes€her€pain€and€that€it€prevents€herÐ l¼ Ðfrom€performing€everyday€tasks€like€carrying€grocery€bags;€furthermore,€she€testified€that€she€hasÐ X ¨ Ðdifficulty€driving€and€that€her€son€must€help€her€fold€the€laundry.€€At€the€same€time,€however,€theÐ D!” Ðplaintiff€testified€that€she€has€no€intention€of€leaving€her€job€as€a€forklift€operator€and€that€sheÐ 0"€  Ðcould€perform€the€requirements€of€a€previous€job€she€held,€which€consisted€entirely€of€foldingÐ #l! Ðtowels.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àDr.€Boalsðð€opinion€was€based€on€his€review€of€Dr.€Jonesðð€medical€records€in€addition€to€aÐ à%0!$ Ðone„time€evaluation€of€the€plaintiff€on€October€23,€2000.€€Dr.€Boals€suggested€the€followingÐ Ì&"% Ðrestrictions€on€Carterððs€activities:€she€should€not€reach€far€from€her€body,€she€should€not€performÐ ¸'#& Ðrepetitive€lifting,€and€she€should€not€perform€any€repetitive€overhead€lifting.€€As€discussed€in€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfacts,€Dr.€Boals€also€gave€the€plaintiff€an€impairment€rating€equating€to€11%€to€the€body€as€aÐ )à$( Ðwhole,€which€was€higher€than€the€impairment€rating€assigned€by€Dr.€Jones,€which€equated€to€6%Ð |*Ì%) Ðto€the€body€as€a€whole.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àThe€source€of€contention€between€Drs.€Jones€and€Boals€stems€from€disagreement€over€theÐ ° Ðprocedure€used€to€perform€Carterððs€shoulder€surgery€and€the€effects€of€the€procedure.€€BothÐ œì Ðdoctors€agree€that€Carter€needed€the€surgery€because€spurs€had€formed€on€her€distal€clavicle€andÐ ˆØ Ðacromion,€two€bones€involved€in€shoulder€movement.€When€Carter€moved€her€shoulder,€theÐ tÄ Ðspurs€rubbed€against€the€joint,€resulting€in€pain€and€loss€of€motion.€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àThe€doctorsðð€descriptions€of€the€arthroscopic€Neer€acromioplasty€performed€by€Dr.€JonesÐ 8 ˆ Ðare€different.€€Dr.€Jones€testified€that€the€procedure€performed€on€Carter€involved€the€removal€ofÐ $ t Ðthe€spurs,€removal€of€the€arthritic€part€of€her€clavicle,€and€shaving€off€the€thickened€part€of€theÐ  ` Ðcoracoacromial€ligament€(the€ð ðligamentðð).€€It€is€the€procedure€on€this€ligament€that€is€the€chiefÐ ü L  Ðarea€of€debate€between€the€doctors.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àDr.€Boals€asserts€that€the€ligament€was€removed€and€that€the€deltoid€muscle€wasÐ À  Ðweakened€during€the€procedure,€giving€rise€to€additional€impairment€not€accounted€for€by€Dr.Ð ¬ü  ÐJones.€€Dr.€Jones€denies€removing€the€ligament.€€Furthermore,€Dr.€Jones€testified€thatÐ ˜è  Ðarthroscopic€technology€has€improved€the€procedure€since€Dr.€Boals€was€an€active€surgeon.€€Dr.Ð „Ô  ÐBoals€admits€that€he€has€not€performed€surgery€of€any€type€for€five€years,€and€that€he€prefers€theÐ pÀ Ðð ðopenðð€acromioplasty€procedure,€in€which€the€shoulder€is€opened€with€an€incision€rather€thanÐ \¬ Ðaccessed€through€a€scope,€over€the€arthroscopic€procedure€performed€by€Dr.€Jones.€€Further,€Dr.Ð H˜ ÐBoals€stated€that€he€only€performed€arthroscopic€surgeries€a€few€times€when€the€technology€wasÐ 4„ Ðfirst€available,€between€seven€and€ten€years€ago.€€òòóóDr.€Jones€attributes€Dr.€Boalsðð€differentÐ  p Ðimpairment€rating€to€the€fact€that€Dr.€Boals€based€his€opinion€on€the€older,€open€procedure€inÐ  \ Ðwhich€the€deltoid€muscle€had€to€be€split€or€peeled€off€the€acromion€bone€and€the€ligament€wouldÐ øH Ðbe€completely€removed.€òòóóDr.€Boals€stated€that€ð ð[the€arthroscopic€procedure]€is€a€much€betterÐ ä4 Ðprocedure€than€the€open€procedure€.€.€..€It€leaves€no€impairment.ðð€òòóóÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àFrom€the€depositions,€it€is€clear€to€this€Court€that€Dr.€Boals€based€his€additionalÐ ¨ø Ðimpairment€rating€on€the€assumption€that€the€plaintiffððs€surgery€had€weakened€the€deltoid€muscleÐ ”ä Ðand€removed€a€ligament.€€Dr.€Jones,€who€performed€the€surgery,€explained€that€neither€is€true€inÐ €Ð Ðthe€case€of€an€arthroscopic€acromioplasty.€€Dr.€Boals€admitted€that€he€had€not€performed€surgeryÐ l¼ Ðin€five€years€and€that€he€had€very€limited€experience€performing€arthroscopic€surgery.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àHaving€reviewed€the€depositions,€we€now€must€consider€which€doctor€to€rely€on.€€As€thisÐ 0"€  ÐCourt€stated€in€òòOrman€v.€Williams„Sonoma,€Inc.óó,€803€S.W.2d€672,€677€(Tenn.€1991),€ð ð[i]t€seemsÐ #l! Ðreasonable€that€the€physicians€having€greater€contact€with€the€Plaintiff€would€have€the€advantageÐ $X" Ðand€opportunity€to€provide€a€more€in-depth€opinion,€if€not€a€more€accurate€one.ðð€€We€agree€thatÐ ô$D # Ðthis€should€be€the€case€here.€€Having€drawn€our€own€conclusions€about€the€weight€and€credibilityÐ à%0!$ Ðof€the€expert€medical€testimony,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€give€greaterÐ Ì&"% Ðweight€to€the€impairment€rating€expressed€by€Dr.€Jones,€who€assessed€the€plaintiff€a€10%Ð ¸'#& Ðimpairment€rating€to€the€upper€extremity,€which€equates€to€a€6%€impairment€to€the€body€as€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwhole.€€€€Ð )à$( ÐÌòòÓ  Óò òPlaintiffððs€Permanent€Partial€Disability€Awardóóó óÐ h+¸&* ЇÓ]oÓà  àThis€Court€must€now€determine€the€plaintiffððs€vocational€disability,€considering€factorsÐ ° Ðsuch€as€the€employeeððs€age,€education,€skills,€training,€local€job€opportunities,€and€capacity€toÐ œì Ðwork€at€types€of€employment€available.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(1)€and€(b).€€GivenÐ ˆØ Ðthe€plaintiffððs€medical€impairment€rating€of€6%€to€the€body,€the€plaintiffððs€continued€pain,€andÐ tÄ Ðher€employability,€the€Court€sets€the€plaintiffððs€permanent€partial€disability€at€15%€to€the€body€asÐ `° Ða€whole,€the€maximum€award€under€the€two€and€one„half€times€cap€set€forth€in€Tennessee€CodeÐ L œ ÐAnnotated€section€50„6„241(a)(1).Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àÌòòò òÓ  ÓConclusionó óóóÐ  ` ÐÌÓèrÓà  àFor€the€reasons€stated€herein,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed.€€The€plaintiff€isÐ è 8  Ðawarded€15%€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole,€and€this€case€is€remanded€toÐ Ô$  Ðthe€trial€court€for€any€further€proceedings.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€plaintiff,€JoanneÐ À  ÐCarter.à€(#(#K(#àˆÐ ¬ü  ЀÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à___________________________________€Ð pÀ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA,€III,€CHIEF€JUSTICEÔ#†¼N}»XX ^#Ô