ÿWPC  »T‡YG+ÍÓlŽ¸d ÐDÅn èCþ€ÊÂwBºõ°3»÷C¨@©˜ð"½-SO·sÀ†£8&û s8¯zÒêØÞV›oÈhÿ›wJ¡à³ùèîWûÖZ fO…fuµ¢zMGÅzožÌãWMqÖÓ‚V¾(¥] ?<ª&>aø*”f³!2ÏùH;etÓØĶDߦ5Í[mËåv_Ž*Êà kLÑùçåí‰9kGK¹ú†V÷éVVan;¦&8˜^@I{p¡ZÜ€«ÔË3ŒAe´ƒˆ¤ #ü”4$ΫŊlàƒž#"^·i¸Éì)ì³í È$—ÔÞ ‰³Ž5yBxijù톑ð{q:ÙI=§f Ì4áÊ%Âr¹%«ÓWä—=4lµ±]x\0žÊ2$PŽ l©¤Û€ZÌä½ ‰[aZ{–ìƒÓ½Œå‰¦,l¾d_tÍŠúyÇ­óÄ 6h&–Rg& ®þ¾^Èx]XŠ8âÿÉ,â¥+YlOÛwŒz! ÇL秂·é –ÃlÓ”ŸŽ¹#ªwH=’ÖµãrêÞ”<9^.ï  Ññ$£´,~†Éšûxh <û7 =*# LUNW %¥ 0(«4Óçöw@ö-6 0lc 0DÏ 0D_U:cU:¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ AQÛ Æ, 0Dò 0D6 Bz z D/— — BÆ D3ã ˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MSÈðððððÈð0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡DLL%3|xµ š{›œ{žŸ î¡D¢Ó€¬Ó€ #Ñ#€ÖØXÿÿd#Ñ((3þÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó(%Ã$òòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó úÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XjXXXÔÔ€G/XXjÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XjXG/ÔÐ  ÐÌNovember€17,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular úÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XjXXXÔÔ€G/XXjÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XjXG/ÔÐ  ÐÌNovember€17,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"# &Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý d(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒ£°ÒòòÔ€»N»XXÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑñ¢ñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@EÙ±` 8ttxP°ð  rßñ¢ñà@¯ ¯ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° ÐÌà@  )àAT€NASHVILLEˆÌÌÌÌPEGGY€CRAFTONà h àà À àà  à}à p à€SUMNER€CHANCERYÐ  ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à}à p àNo.€€Below€92C„70Ð  p Ðà ` àPlaintiff/Appellantà h àà À àà  à}Ð 0 € Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à}à p àHon.€€€Tom€E.€Gray€Ð @  Ðvs.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à}à p àChancellorÐ P   Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à}Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à}à p àNo.€€01S01„9709„CH„00199Ð pÀ  ÐCHALLENGER€ELECTRICAL€€€€€€€€€€€€}€€à p àà È àà  àà x à€€€€€€€€€à Ð àà (# àÐ €Ð  ÐMATERIALS,€INC.€AND€à À àà  à}Ð à ÐCHALLENGER€ELECTRICALà À àà  à}Ð  ð ÐEQUIPMENT€CORPORATION€ANDà  à}Ð ° ÐCONTINENTAL€INSURANCE€à À àà  à}Ð À ÐCOMPANYà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à}à p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð àà (# àÐ Ð  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à}Ìà ` àDefendants/Appellantsà À àà  à}à p àAFFIRMEDà x àÐ ð@ ÐÌà@(àJUDGMENT€ORDERˆÌÌÌÓ€Óà ` àà ¸ àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€theÏorder€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€theÏPanel's€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference.Ìà ` àà ¸ àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€Opinion€ofÏthe€Panel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌà ` àà ¸ àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€madeÏthe€judgment€of€the€Court.ÌÓ šX°œXÓà ` àà ¸ àCosts€will€be€paid€by€Plaintiff/Appellant€and€Surety,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÓ€Óà ` àà ¸ àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€onñšññ™ñ€ñ™ññšññ™ñ€ñ™ññññ™ñNñ™ññ›ñovemberñ›ñññññNovemberñññœñ€ñœññžñ17,€1998ñžññŸñ.ñŸññžñ€ñžñÔ"*USú ú, úSUú ú, ú*ÔÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àPER€CURIAMÌóóÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ h;¸69 Ðñ ñ›Ó °šXÓÓ  Óò òÑ7€å/XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ üŸÑñ ññ¬ññ¬ññ ññ ññ¬ñœßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@EÙ±` 8ttxP°ð  rß›ñ¬ññ ñIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANEL€ÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óó óPEGGY€CRAFTON,à p à)Ð  b Ðà ` àà p à)ÌÓ! °p°!Óà ` àPlaintiff/Appellantà p à)à È àSUMNER€CHANCERYÐ 2‚  Ðà ` àà p à)Ìv.à ` àà p à)à È àNO.€€01S01„9709„CH„00199Ð R¢  Ðà ` àà p à)ÌCHALLENGER€ELECTRICALà p à)à È àHON.€TOM€E.€GRAY,Ð r  ÐMATERIALS,€INC.,€and€€à p à)à È àCHANCELLORÐ ‚Ò ÐCHALLENGER€ELECTRICALà p à)Ð ’â ÐEQUIPMENT€CORPORATION€andà p à)Ð ¢ò ÐCONTINENTAL€INSURANCE€œCOMPANYñ ññ¡ññ ñà È àñ ññ¡ññ ñ)›ÌÌœà ` àDefendants/Appellees›ÌÌÌÌòòò òFor€the€Appellant:à p àFor€the€Appellee:Ð b ÐÌó óóóJohn€Dunlapà p àJames€C.€Bradshaw,€IIIÐ .~ Ð1433€Poplar€Avenueà p àWyatt,€Tarrant€&€CombsÐ > Ž ÐMemphis,€TN€38104à p à313€East€Main€StreetÐ N!ž Ðà ` àà p àSuite€1Ìà ` àà p àHendersonville,€TN€37075ÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òòòM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÐ ®'þ"! ÐÌò òMembers€of€Panel:Ð Ì)%# ÐÌó óJustice€William€M.€BarkerÐ è+8'% ÐSenior€Judge€John€K.€ByersÌSpecial€Judge€Robert€E.€Corlew,€IIIÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌñ ññ¬ññ ñÑ üŸÑÑ#€ÖØXÿÿd#ÑÑ  Ññ ññ¬ññ ñÌñ ññ¬ññ ñÑ üŸÑÑ7€å/XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  Ññ ññ¬ññ ñÌñ ññ¬ññ ñÑ üŸÑÑ7€å/XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  Ññ ññ¬ññ ñÐ Ø;(74 ÐÑ üŸÑÑ7€å/XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  Ññ ññ¬ññ ñÑ üŸÑÑ7€å/XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  Ññ ññ¬ññ ñÌÌÌÌœà ` à›à p àà È àCORLEW,€Special€JudgeÌÓ  Óòòò òÌÌñ ññ¬ññ ñÑüŸÑÑ7€ŽìXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ññ ññ¬ññ ñOPINIONÌó óóóÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓà ` àThis€workerððs€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€WorkerððsÏCompensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€the€provisionsÏof€òòTennessee€Code€Annotated€ððóó50„6„225€(e)€(3)€(1997€Supp.)€for€hearing€andÐ ŠÚ Ðreporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€OurÏreview€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€accompanied€by€the€presumption€of€correctnessÐ Ê Ðunless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€òòTennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ ê: Ðððóó50„6„225€(e)€(2)€(1997€Supp.).€€€Ð  Z Ðà ` àThe€Plaintiff€appeals€from€the€decision€of€the€Trial€Court€alleging€that€the€TrialÏCourtððs€determination€that€the€Plaintiffððs€injuries€did€not€arise€out€of€the€course€andÏscope€of€her€employment€is€not€supported€by€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€WeÏhave€reviewed€the€record,€òòde€novoóó,€and€presumed€the€correctness€of€the€determinationÐ Š$Ú Ðmade€by€the€Trial€Judge€only€as€to€those€witnesses€who€testified€live.€€Realizing€thatÏthe€primary€evidence€on€the€issues€of€causation€œwas›€presented€by€experts€who€testifiedÏby€deposition,€we€have€reviewed€that€œtestimonyòò€de›€novoóó,€without€a€presumption€ofÐ ê*:&$ Ðcorrectness.€€œ€òòKrick€v.€City€of€Lawrenceburg,óó€945€S.W.2d€709,€712€(Tenn.€1997).€€We›Ð  -Z(& Ðhave€concluded€that€the€Trial€Court€correctly€determined€the€issues,€and€we€thereforeÏaffirm€the€decision€below.€€Ìà ` àThe€Plaintiff€is€a€forty„two€year€old€who€left€school€in€the€tenth€grade€andÏbegan€working€at€the€age€of€seventeen.€€€She€began€working€for€the€Defendant€inÏMarch,€1991,€and€ceased€her€employment€some€ten€months€later€in€January,€1992.€ÏThe€Plaintiff€alleges€that€she€sustained€permanent€injury€to€her€lungs€and€vocal€cordsÐ Ê952 Ðand€loss€of€cognitive€functioningÏas€a€result€of€exposure€to€toxic€chemicals€while€an€employee€of€the€Defendant.€€The€evidenceÏshows€that€within€the€œwork€place›€on€some€occasions,€the€following€were€present:€€€woodÏdust,€wood€flour,€hydrated€lime,€hydrated€alumina,€zinc,€œsterate,›€plenco€10919,€demkate,Ïdemkate€premium€cleaner,€other€solvents,€hexane,€propane,€carbon€dioxide,€chloroform,Ïsilicon,€toluene,€and€trichloro„triflourethane.€€She€began€smoking€cigarettes€when€she€wasÏsixteen€years€of€age,€and€smoked€a€pack€and€a€half€a€day€for€twenty„two€years.€€She€smokedÏto€a€lesser€extent€at€the€time€of€the€trial,€although€her€husband€continued€to€smoke€a€pack€aÏœday.ÌÐ  :p59 Л‡à ` àInjuries€due€to€occupational€diseases€are€compensable€under€the€provisions€of€theÏWorkerððs€Compensation€Act.€€òòTennessee€Code€Annotated€ððóó50„6„301€(1991).€€In€order€for€aÐ à Ðdisease€to€be€compensable,€however,€the€disease€must€be€deemed€to€arise€out€of€theÏemployment.€€òòTennessee€Code€Annotated€ððóó50„6„301€provides€six€conditions,€all€of€whichÐ P   Ðmust€be€met€in€order€for€an€occupational€disease€to€be€deemed€to€arise€out€of€theÏœemployment:ññññÌññ›ññÌññññññ›ÌññññÌññññññÒ°ÒññññññññÒX°ÒññññññÒ,°Òññññà8 ` àññññ›ññÓÓÓ$ °` °X$Óññœññññà8 ` àññññ›ññà8 ` àññ›ññ(1)›à ¸ àIt€can€be€determined€to€have€followed€as€a€œnatural›€incident€ofÐ ð@  Ðthe€work€as€a€result€of€the€exposure€occasioned€by€the€nature€of€theÏemployment;Ð ` x` x ÐÌà ` àœ(2)›à ¸ àIt€can€be€fairly€traced€to€the€employment€as€a€œÐ ° Ðà ` àproximate›€cause;ÌÌà8 ` à(3)à ¸ àIt€has€not€originated€from€a€hazard€to€which€workers€wouldÐ €Ð Ðhave€been€equally€exposed€outside€of€the€employment;Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8 ` à(4)à ¸ àIt€is€incidental€to€the€character€of€the€employment€and€notÐ P  Ðindependent€of€the€relation€of€employer€and€employee;Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8 ` à(5)à ¸ àIt€originated€from€a€risk€connected€with€the€employment€andÐ  p Ðflowed€from€that€source€as€a€natural€consequence,€though€it€need€notÏhave€been€foreseen€or€expected€prior€to€its€contraction;€andÐ ` x` x ÐÌà8 ` à(6)à ¸ àThere€is€a€direct€causal€connection€between€the€conditionsÐ à0 Ðunder€which€the€work€is€performed€and€the€occupational€disease.€€ÏDiseases€of€the€heart,€lung,€and€hypertension€arising€out€of€and€in€theÏcourse€of€any€type€of€employment€shall€be€deemed€to€be€occupationalÏdiseases.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓÓòòIdóó.€€Ð €%Ð # ÐññÒ°,Òññà ` àWhether€these€conditions€have€been€met€depends€upon€the€findings€of€the€factualÏissues€presented.€€The€burden€of€proof€is€upon€the€Plaintiff€to€show€€that€an€occupationalÏdisease€arises€out€of€and€in€the€course€of€employment.€€€òòElectro„Voice,€Inc.€v.€Hurleyóó,€530Ð  +p&) ÐS.W.2d€78,€79€(Tenn.€1975)€and€òòGreener€v.€E.I.€Dupont€DeNemours€&€Coóó.,€228€S.W.2d€77,Ð -P(+ Ð278€(Tenn.€œ1950).€›€The€Plaintiff€presented€lay€testimony€showing€that€the€plant€in€which€theÏworker€was€employed€was€dusty€and€dirty.€€She€also€presented€proof€from€the€employerððsÏrecords€that€the€toxic€chemicals€stated€above€were€present€within€the€œwork€place.›€€The€onlyÏexpert€proof€presented,€however,€with€regard€to€exposure€to€any€of€these€substances€in€theÏœwork€place›€was€presented€by€an€industrial€hygienist,€Frank€Vilkofski,€Jr.,€who€testified€œasÏa€defense€witness,€that›€despite€the€presence€of€a€number€of€chemicals€found€in€air€studiesÏconducted€during€the€time€when€the€Plaintiff€alleges€exposure,€no€chemicals€were€presentÐ  :p59 Ðat€harmful€levels.€€€The€burden€of€proof€is€upon€the€Plaintiff€to€show€that€an€occupationalÏdisease€arises€out€of€and€in€the€course€of€employment.€€Considering€all€of€the€evidenceÏpresented,€it€does€not€appear€that€the€evidence€adequately€demonstrates€exposure€occasionedÏby€the€nature€of€the€employment,€or€proximate€cause.€€€Thus,€the€Court€finds€that€the€PlaintiffÏhas€failed€to€carry€the€burden€of€proof€in€establishing€the€first€requirement€provided€by€theÏprovisions€of€òòTennessee€Code€Annotated€ððóó50„6„301,€and€that€the€evidence€does€not€supportÐ `  Ðthe€Plaintiffððs€contention€that€there€was€exposure€to€hazardous€dust€and€chemicalsÏoccasioned€by€the€nature€of€her€employment.€€Having€found€that€these€chemicals€were€notÏpresent€at€hazardous€levels,€the€Court€must€necessarily€find€that€the€remaining€provisions€ofÐ ° ÐòòTennessee€Code€Annotated€ððóó50„6„301€likewise€have€not€be€satisfied€by€the€proof€presentedÐ à Ðby€the€Plaintiff.€€Ìà ` àFurther€the€Court€has€considered€the€discrepancies€in€the€expert€medical€testimony.€ÏThe€Plaintiff€presented€her€witness,€Dr.€George€T.€Critz,€Sr.,€who€testified€that€the€PlaintiffÏin€fact€suffers€from€lung€problems€occasioned€by€exposure€to€hazards€at€the€œwork€place,›Ïwhile€the€Defendantððs€expert,€Dr.€James€D.€Snell,€Jr.,€testified€that€the€Plaintiff€did€not,€inÏfact,€so€suffer.€€When€two€experts€testify€in€apparent€contradiction€to€each€other,€it€is€the€firstÏduty€of€the€Court€to€attempt€to€reconcile€those€testimonies,€but€having€determined€theÏtestimonies€of€the€two€doctors€to€be€absolutely€in€conflict,€the€Court€has€the€duty€toÏdetermine€which€of€the€testimonies€the€Court€will€accept.€€œ€òòCrossno€v.€Publix€Shirt€Factory,Ð p&À!$ Ðóó814€S.W.2d€730,€731„732€(Tenn.€1991);€òòOrman€v.€Williams€Sonoma,€Inc.óó,€803€S.W.2d€672,Ð P( #& Ð676€(Tenn.€1991).›Ìà ` àThe€Trial€Court€considered€the€testimony€of€the€two€medical€professionals€whoÏtestified,€and€found€the€testimony€of€Dr.€James€D.€Snell,€Jr.,€who€testified€for€the€DefendantÏto€be€more€persuasive€than€that€of€Dr.€George€T.€œCritz,€›Sr.,€€presented€on€behalf€of€theÏPlaintiff.€œ€We›€agree€that€the€evidence€supports€the€Trial€Courtððs€holding.€€Dr.€Snellððs€Ïcurriculum€vitae,€submitted€as€an€exhibit€to€his€deposition,€shows€that€he€was€in€activeÏpractice€nearly€forty€years€prior€to€his€testimony€in€this€cause,€and€that€he€has€a€vast€amountÏof€post„graduate€training€and€professional€experience.€€He€is€board€certified€in€the€sub„¼specialty€of€pulmonary€diseases,€and€has€been€so€certified€since€œ1974,›€with€training€atÐ 09€48 ÐVanderbilt€University€and€at€the€New€York€Hospital,€Cornell€Medical€Center€in€New€YorkÏCity.€€He€has€also€served€on€the€faculty€at€the€Vanderbilt€Medical€School€for€more€than€thirtyÏyears,€and€has€published€a€large€number€of€articles.Ìà ` àDr.€George€T.€Critz,€Sr.,€testified€that€he€is€an€allergist€and€immunologist,€whoÏspecializes€in€the€study€of€allergic€diseases€and€their€immunological€consequences.€€HeÏcompleted€a€residency€in€pediatric€medicine,€and€œimmunology,€as€well€as€post„graduateÏtraining€in€the€study€of€allergic€diseases.›€€€He€taught€at€Harvard€University€in€the€past,€andÏœis€currently›€a€clinical€professor€of€pediatrics€at€Vanderbilt.€€€He€is€board€eligible€but€notÏboard€certified€as€an€allergist,€and€has€no€specific€training€in€the€area€of€œpulmonology›,€otherÏthan€as€otherwise€stated.€€€Dr.€Critzðð€credentials€are€certainly€very€œimpressive,€and›€€Dr.€CritzÏdid€serve€as€the€treating€physician€while€Dr.€Snell€saw€the€Plaintiff€only€for€purposes€ofÏevaluation.€€We€affirm€the€Trial€Courtððs€finding€that€Dr.€Snellððs€testimony€is€moreÏœconvincing,€however,€finding€Dr.€Snellððs€qualifications€in€this€area€to€be€superior.›€€€€Dr.€SnellÏconducted€a€number€of€pulmonary€function€tests€which€Dr.€Critz€apparently€did€not€perform,Ïand€given€his€testimony€and€apparent€superior€knowledge€in€the€field€of€pulmonary€function,Ïwe€find€his€testimony€to€be€more€convincing€as€to€the€Plaintiffððs€condition.€€He€testified€that,Ïas€a€pulmonary€specialist,€one€particular€area€of€interest€for€him€is€that€of€occupational€lungÏdiseases,€and€that€a€ð ðsignificant€fractionðð€of€his€medical€practice€includes€treatment€of€suchÏdisorders.€Ìà ` àQuestions€were€also€raised€as€to€the€hazard€to€which€the€Plaintiff€was€exposed,€andÏwhether€that€hazard€was€one€to€which€workers€would€have€been€equally€exposed€outside€ofÏthe€work€environment.€€€There€is€proof€in€the€record€that€the€major€problem€from€which€theÏPlaintiff€suffers€€relates€to€her€smoking€of€cigarettes,€and€there€is€no€proof€in€the€record€thatÏthe€employment€enhanced€this€hazard.€€Having€considered€all€of€the€evidence€presented€toÏthe€Trial€Judge,€and€having€considered€the€ruling€made€by€the€Trial€Court,€we€are€persuadedÏthat€the€Trial€Judge€correctly€decided€the€matters€before€him,€and€we€too€find€that€the€proofÏpresented€preponderates€in€favor€of€the€employer.€€œ€The€evidence€preponderates›€against€aÏfinding€that€the€Plaintiff€was€exposed€to€chemical€hazards€in€the€work€place€in€sufficientÏquantities€to€create€the€problems€which€she€œalleges.›€œWe›€œspecifically€hold›€that€the€proofÐ 09€48 Ðpreponderates€against€a€finding€that€problems€which€the€Plaintiff€alleges€were€œcaused›€byÏhazards€at€the€work€place.€€€In€making€this€decision,€we€are€mindful€of€the€body€of€œcaselaw›Ïwhich€recognizes€that€although€the€Plaintiff€has€the€burden€of€proving€causation€of€herÏproblems,€the€proof€should€be€liberally€construed€for€the€worker€as€to€the€issue€of€causation.€Ïœ€€òòHall€v.€Auburntown€Industries,€Inc.,€óó684€S.W.2d€614,€617€(Tenn.€1985);€€›€òòKnox€v.€Batsonóó,Ð 0 € Ð399€S.W.2d€765,€772€(Tenn.€œ1966);›€œòòWard€v.€Ward,›€óó378€S.W.2d€754,€757€(Tenn.€1964).€€œÐ `  Ðà ` àFurther€the€medical€proof€preponderates€against€a€finding€that€the€Plaintiff€hasÏsuffered€a€job„related€injury.€€Although›€the€proof€€shows€that€the€Plaintiff€has€in€fact€sufferedÏa€tragic€disability,€œwe›€find€that€the€disability€suffered€by€the€Plaintiff€is€not€work„related,€andÏthus€not€compensable.€€Ìà ` àWe€thus€find€for€the€Defendant,€and€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€Trial€Court.Ìà ` àThe€costs€of€this€appeal€€are€taxed€to€the€œAppellant.›ÌÌ€€€ÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà p àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ññœññóóÐ ð@ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà p àRobert€E.€Corlew,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ__________________________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JusticeÌÌÌÌÌ__________________________________________ÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€Judge̜ԆÿÿÔÔ†ÿÿÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôñ ñ