ÿWPC  WIÃþ·Öõ]³}©uæ‹ÒCZÊ$rsôØÊC,UÍŠã_¥…j’Ç©òY¸><Å£†N5S«B°—9!ÂK²›âÂzŒ‰|´‘RÁ‚ G)WóUEß?y)ÈËþþð5ê BÐ+ü6HÚË™j“¯Ž¡h¯`·TÔzSû"…·ÎÜ…•ÓiÀ¼¯;'ß JÌ‘ó·dX'¦Øä#mËïlÙ¸pü2¤¥*tŸ¯X§48ßa÷÷L÷Ìà艽6l€ YÁÖB…ÄÐ}õy:]®W—@l® éúÕ(šå,ª×7Ít½Ê]#æNqPo½ËöQÃn•Φ>‡´¥Tµ<Ó¡¬Ýâò9J¥H° îµ}•­:-‡ÊÖ—Ly¤ÀȲBú©ýW“×-ó”fmÍu4 Ú[w¶q9ƒÒyªð×;$1 Y·cP ÁUï ÍÕ8%ÃX+©h×R¿€‚@R=ðSÀ# åÈ4INð%À&5(Ýó`±ëL_²/p6ôý¾BÀÝ´ó}´‚F Ê)USÁÕGÖú†Ú§yª•…àýT_GóÔÕ··Ì®ôÆ¢MGj9¬…̲JºA ŸùâåÐÿáRÁdx¿)# >UNI %— 0(4ÅÙèw@è-( 0lU 0DÁ  AQU:bœU:                              ÆÚ 0D  0Dä 0D( Bl D/‰ ‰ B¸ D3Õ ˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0vLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡t}y%3|x‹ pqr{stVuîvÓ€€Ó€‹ #Ñ#€ÖØXÿÿd#Ñ((3þÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó(%Ã$òòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó úÝ ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XˆXXXÔÔ€—3XXˆÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XˆX—3ÔÐ  ÐÌNovember€30,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó !"#%Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular úÝ ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XˆXXXÔÔ€—3XXˆÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XˆX—3ÔÐ  ÐÌNovember€30,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó d'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒ£°ÒòòÔ€»»XXÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑñ€ññvñßr€ (<,(j 8` `€€@EÚ±` 8ttxP°ð  rßñvññ€ññ€ññ€ñà@¯ ¯ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌñ€ññ€ñÌà@  )àAT€NASHVILLEˆÌñ€ñßt€ (>.*jx—ÿ¥` `€€@El…` 8ttxP¤àð ¥ tßñ€ñÌÌÌLINDA€GERRYà  àà h àà À àà  à}à p àSUMNER€CHANCERYÐ  ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à}à p àNo.€€Below€92C„284Ð  p Ðà ` àPlaintiff/Appellantà h àà À àà  à}Ð 0 € Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à}à p àHon.€€Tom€GrayÐ @  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„00200Ð pÀ  ÐCHALLENGER€ELECTRICALà À à€€€€€€€€€€}Ð €Ð  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à}Ìà ` àDefendant/Appelleeà 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€ñoññnñTHEñnññoññpñthe€appellant€and€her€surety,ñpñ€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÓ€Óà ` àà ¸ àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€onñqñ€ñqññrññqñNovemberñqññrññrñNovemberñrññqñ€ñqññsñ30,€1998.ñsñÔ"*USú ú, úUSú ú, ú*ÔÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àPER€CURIAMÌóóÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌñtñÐ  (7x25 Ðñtññuñ›Ó °šXÓÓ  Óò òÑ7€¥XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ üŸÑIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° Ðñuññ‹ñœßt€(>.*jxÓÿ=` `€€@E¨û` 8ttxPà¾ð = tß›ñ‹ññuñSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANEL€Ìñuññ‹ññ‹ññuñAT€NASHVILLEÌÌñuññ‹ñßr€(<,(j 8` `€€@EÚé` 8ttxPèð  rßññœñññ‹ññuñÌñuññuñÌÌÓ  Óó óLINDA€GERRY,à p à)Ð  b Ðà ` àà p à)ÌÓ! °p°!Óà ` àPlaintiff/Appellantà p à)à È àSUMNER€COUNTY,Ð 2‚  Ðà ` àà p à)à È àÐ B’  Ðv.à ` àà p à)à È àNO.€€01S01„9709„CH„00200Ð R¢  Ðà ` àà p à)ÌCHALLENGER€ELECTRICAL,à p à)à È àHON.€TOM€GRAY,Ð r  Ðà ` àà p à)à È àCHANCELLORÐ ‚Ò Ðà ` àDefendant/Appelleeà p à)Ð ’â ÐÌÌÌÌòòò òFor€the€Appellant:à p àFor€the€Appellee:Ð â2 ÐÌó óóóJohn€Dunlapà p àJames€C.€BradshawÐ þN Ð1433€Poplar€Avenueà p à313€E.€Main€StreetÐ ^ ÐMemphis,€TN€38104à p àHendersonville,€TN€€€37075Ð n ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òòòM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÐ N!ž ÐÌò òMembers€of€Panel:Ð l#¼ ÐÌó óJustice€William€M.€BarkerÐ ˆ%Ø  ÐSenior€Judge€John€K.€ByersÌSpecial€Judge€Robert€E.€Corlew,€IIIÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌñuññññuñÑ üŸÑÑ#€ÖØXÿÿd#ÑÑ  ÑñuññññuñÐ Ø;(74 ÐÑ üŸÑÑ7€¥XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÌÌÌÌà ` àœAFFIRMED›à p àà È àCORLEW,€Special€JudgeÐ ð@ Ðòòò òÓ  ÓÌÌOPINIONóóó óÐ  l Ðà @, àà @, àÓ  ÓÌÓÓÌà ` 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 šê 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 Ú* Ðunless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€òòTennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ úJ Ðððóó50„6„225€(e)€(2)€(1997€Supp.).€€€Ð j 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€œrecord›€òòde€novoóó,€and€presumed€the€correctness€of€the€determinationÐ š%ê  Ðmade€by€the€Trial€Judge€only€as€to€those€witnesses€who€testified€live.€€Realizing€thatÏthe€primary€evidence€on€the€issues€of€causation€was€presented€by€experts€who€testifiedÏby€deposition,€we€have€reviewed€that€testimonyòò€de€novoóó,€without€a€presumption€ofÐ ú+J'% Ðcorrectness.€€€òòKrick€v.€City€of€Lawrenceburg,óó€945€S.W.2d€709,€712€(Tenn.€1997).€€WeÐ .j)' Ðhave€concluded€that€the€Trial€Court€correctly€determined€the€issues,€and€we€thereforeÏaffirm€the€decision€below.€€Ìà ` àThe€Plaintiff€is€forty„two€(42)€years€of€œage.€€She›€left€school€during€the€eleventhÏœgrade€and€worked€first€as€a€sales€clerk€in€a€department€store,€and€later€as€a€waitressÏand€cashier€at€a€truck€stop.€€She€ultimately€began€factory€work€and€was€employed€byÐ º8 41 Ðthe€Defendant€in€1990.›€€The€Plaintiff€alleges€that€she€sustained€permanent€pulmonaryÏinjuries€due€to€exposure€to€toxic€chemicals€while€œan›€employee€of€the€Defendant.€€TheÏevidence€œshows›€that€dust€and€œother›€chemicals€were€present€in€the€work€place.€€TheÏPlaintiff€and€a€number€of€lay€witnesses€testified€that€the€work€environment€was€dustyÏand€œdirty,€and€that›€the€Plaintiff€began€to€sustain€œvarious›€€physical€symptoms€whileÏemployed€by€the€Defendant.€€The€Plaintiff€ceased€her€employment€in€March,€1992,Ïand€upon€her€complaint€of€respiratory€problems,€was€referred€by€the€employer€to€Dr.ÏJames€D.€Snell,€Jr.€€€Although€the€evidence€shows€that€Dr.€€Snell€was€an€appropriatelyÏqualified€board€certified€pulmonary€œspecialist›€who€treated€the€Plaintiff€appropriately,Ïwe€are€nonetheless€disturbed€by€the€evidence€which€shows€that€the€Plaintiff€was€neverÏgiven€the€opportunity€to€select€a€treating€physician€from€a€panel€of€medicalÏprofessionals€as€the€law€requires.€€Ìà ` àDr.€Snell€treated€the€Plaintiff€for€a€period€of€time,€and€determined€that€she€hasÏno€permanent€impairment€as€a€result€of€her€employment.€€Near€the€end€of€her€courseÏof€treatment€with€Dr.€Snell,€the€Plaintiff€sought€further€treatment€from€Dr.€RalphÏRuckle,€a€family€practitioner€near€her€home€in€Portland,€Tennessee.€€Dr.€RuckleÏtestified€that€the€Plaintiff€did€in€fact€sustain€permanent€anatomical€impairment,€andÏthat€the€impairment€resulted,€at€least€in€part,€œfrom›€of€the€Plaintiffððs€employment.€€HeÏdid€not,€however,€state€a€percentage€of€anatomical€impairment.€€Ìà ` àAll€of€the€evidence€shows€that€for€a€substantial€period€of€time€in€question,€theÏPlaintiff€was€an€active€cigarette€smoker,€and€she€had€smoked€since€she€was€eighteenÏ(18)€years€of€œage.›Ìà ` àInjuries€due€to€occupational€diseases€are€compensable€under€the€provisions€ofÏthe€Workerððs€Compensation€Act.€€òòTennessee€Code€Annotated€ððóó50„6„301€(1991).€€InÐ 5à0. Ðorder€for€a€disease€to€be€compensable,€however,€the€disease€must€be€deemed€to€ariseÏout€of€the€employment.€€òòTennessee€Code€Annotated€ððóó50„6„301€provides€sixÐ Ð9 52 Ðconditions,€all€of€which€must€be€met€in€order€for€an€occupational€disease€to€be€deemedÏto€arise€out€of€the€employment:ÌÒ,£Òà8 ` àÓÓÓ$ °` °X$Ó(1)à ¸ àIt€can€be€determined€to€have€followed€as€a€naturalÐ ð@ Ðincident€of€the€work€as€a€result€of€the€exposure€occasionedÏby€the€nature€of€the€employment;Ð ` x` x ÐÌà ` à(2)à ¸ àIt€can€be€fairly€traced€to€the€employment€as€a€Ð 0 € Ðà ` àproximate€cause;ÌÌà8 ` à(3)à ¸ àIt€has€not€originated€from€a€hazard€to€which€workersÐ `°  Ðwould€have€been€equally€exposed€outside€of€theÏemployment;Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8 ` à(4)à ¸ àIt€is€incidental€to€the€character€of€the€employment€andÐ  ð Ðnot€independent€of€the€relation€of€employer€and€employee;Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8 ` à(5)à ¸ àIt€originated€from€a€risk€connected€with€theÐ Ð  Ðemployment€and€flowed€from€that€source€as€a€naturalÏconsequence,€though€it€need€not€have€been€foreseen€orÏexpected€prior€to€its€contraction;€andÐ ` x` x ÐÌà8 ` à(6)à ¸ àThere€is€a€direct€causal€connection€between€theÐ  p Ðconditions€under€which€the€work€is€performed€and€theÏoccupational€disease.€€€Diseases€of€the€heart,€lung,€andÏhypertension€arising€out€of€and€in€the€course€of€any€type€ofÏemployment€shall€be€deemed€to€be€occupational€diseases.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÒ°,ÒÓÓòòIdóó.€€Ð €#Ð Ðà ` àà ¸ àWhether€these€conditions€have€been€met€depends€upon€the€findingsÏof€the€factual€issues€presented.€€The€burden€of€proof€is€upon€the€Plaintiff€toÏshow€€that€an€occupational€disease€arises€out€of€and€in€the€course€ofÏemployment.€€€òòElectro„Voice,€Inc.€v.€Hurleyóó,€530€S.W.2d€78,€79€(Tenn.€1975)Ð ,P'% Ðand€òòGreener€v.€E.I.€Dupont€DeNemours€&€Coóó.,€228€S.W.2d€77,€278€(Tenn.Ð  .p)' Ð1950).€€The€Plaintiff€œpresented›€proof€from€the€employerððs€records€œthat›€toxicÏchemicals€œwere›€present€within€the€work€place.€€The€only€expert€proof€presented,Ïhowever,€with€regard€to€exposure€to€any€of€these€substances€in€the€work€placeÏwas€presented€by€an€industrial€hygienist,€Frank€Vilkofski,€Jr.,€who€testified€asÏa€defense€œwitness›€that€despite€the€presence€of€a€number€of€chemicals€found€inÐ À841 Ðair€studies€conducted€during€the€time€when€the€Plaintiff€alleges€exposure,€noÏchemicals€were€present€at€harmful€levels.€€€The€burden€of€proof€is€upon€theÏPlaintiff€to€show€that€an€occupational€disease€arises€out€of€and€in€the€course€ofÏemployment.€€Considering€all€of€the€œproof›€presented,€it€does€not€appear€that€theÏevidence€adequately€demonstrates€exposure€occasioned€by€the€nature€of€theÏemployment,€or€proximate€cause.€€€Thus,€the€Court€finds€that€the€Plaintiff€hasÏfailed€to€carry€the€burden€of€proof€in€establishing€the€first€requirement€providedÏby€the€provisions€of€òòTennessee€Code€Annotated€ððóó50„6„301,€and€that€theÐ à Ðevidence€does€not€support€the€Plaintiffððs€contention€that€there€was€exposure€toÏhazardous€dust€and€chemicals€occasioned€by€the€nature€of€her€employment.€ÏHaving€found€that€these€chemicals€were€not€present€at€hazardous€levels,€theÏCourt€must€necessarily€find€that€the€remaining€provisions€of€òòTennessee€CodeÐ ` ÐAnnotated€ððóó50„6„301€likewise€have€not€be€satisfied€by€the€proof€presented€byÐ 0€ Ðthe€Plaintiff.€€Ìà ` àFurther,€the€Court€has€considered€the€testimonies€of€the€expert€medicalÏprofessionals€who€testified.€€Ralph€Ruckle,€M.D.,€testified€on€behalf€of€theÏPlaintiff.€€He€is€board€certified€in€family€medicine,€and€treated€the€Plaintiff€forÏa€period€of€time,€including€a€six„day€hospital€stay.€€He€diagnosed€the€PlaintiffÏwith€both€obstructive€and€restrictive€lung€diseases.€€It€was€Dr.€Ruckleððs€opinionÏthat€the€Plaintiffððs€condition€was€in€fact€work„related,€and€was€permanent€inÏnature.€€Dr.€James€Snell,€the€doctor€approved€by€the€employer,€also€treated€theÏPlaintiff€for€a€period€of€time.€€Dr.€Snell€is€board€certified€as€a€pulmonaryÏspecialist.€€œHe›€performed€a€number€of€tests€and€determined€that€the€Plaintiff€hadÏœno›€permanent€impairment,€and€he€attributed€any€respiratory€problems€fromÏwhich€the€Plaintiff€suffered€œto›€cigarette€œsmoking›€œand€a€history›€of€pneumonia.€€Ìà ` àThe€Trial€Court€determined€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Snell€to€be€moreÐ Ð9 52 Ðpersuasive€than€that€of€Dr.€Ruckle.€€We€agree€that€the€evidence€supports€theÏTrial€Courtððs€holding.€€Dr.€Snellððs€curriculum€vitae,€submitted€as€an€exhibit€toÏhis€deposition,€shows€that€he€was€in€active€practice€nearly€forty€years€prior€toÏhis€testimony€in€this€cause,€and€that€he€has€a€vast€amount€of€post„graduateÏtraining€and€professional€experience.€€€He€has€been€certified€in€the€sub„specialityÏof€pulmonary€diseases€for€twenty„four€(24)€years,€is€currently€associated€withÏVanderbilt€University,€€has€previously€been€associated€with€New€York€HospitalÏand€Cornell€Medical€Center,€and€has€published€a€large€number€of€articles.€€€Dr.ÏRuckle€is€also€well„qualified.€€€He€maintains€a€solo€family€practice€in€SumnerÏCounty,€Tennessee,€graduated€from€Southern€Missionary€College,€completedÏmedical€school€in€œMexico,›€completed€his€internship€at€St.€Vincent€Hospital€inÏœOhio,›€and€œcompleted€his›€residency€at€St.€Joseph€Hospital€in€Michigan.€€With€allÏdue€respect,€however,€in€the€area€of€pulmonary€problems,€the€file€does€notÏreflect€that€Dr.€Ruckle€enjoys€the€degree€of€experience€œor›€expertise€which€theÏevidence€reflects€is€possessed€by€Dr.€Snell.€€à p àœÐ p"À Ðà ` àWe›€thus€find€that€the€evidence€supports€the€decision€of€the€Trial€CourtÏdenying€compensation€to€the€Plaintiff.€€€We€find€that€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€a€finding€that€the€Plaintiff€has€a€permanent€occupational€disease€whichÏis€compensable€under€the€provisions€of€òòTennessee€Code€Annotated€ððóó50„6„301Ð ð*@&$ Ð(1991).€€Ìà ` àWe€thus€find€for€the€Defendant,€and€affirm€the€decision€of€the€TrialÏCourt.€Ìà ` àThe€costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€Appellant.ÌÌÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà p àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð Ð9 52 Ѐ€€€€€€óóÐ ° Ðà ` àà ¸ àà p àRobert€E.€Corlew,€Special€JudgeÌÌœÌÌÌÌÌÌ›ÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ__________________________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JusticeÌÌÌÌÌ__________________________________________ÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌœñuñ