ÿWPCh ;# JUNU %£ 0(©w@Ñ4%4 0D<€ 0lˆ 0Dô8 8>F 0JN 0T˜ 0^ì 0hJ 0r² 0|$ 0†  AQ& Æw 0D= 0@ BÁ 0Þ D/n 1u B D3/ 0db U>Æ U6 B): DCc AM¦ U*ó ýýv~vÓ•˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ àDáDâãDäåæDçDèÓ€ò•{:$À( 0À=û3|xò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóH2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô!"# &Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò d2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(('÷ÿ dxd% ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)üÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxdP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d33337Border 1dd!#4Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial óÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€6ÔÔ€6ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€6XÔÌÌFebruary€18,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó óÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€6ÔÔ€6ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€6XÔÌÌFebruary€18,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿáùEG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÙ€!ÙÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€2ÔÔ€2&Ô›œßR€574A1-j|6` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌLAVONNA€HODOSI,à àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ì€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee,à àà à(€€Franklin€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€No.€9055Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€Hon.€J.€Curtis€Smith,ÌÒ € ÒÒ h Òv.à àà àà àà àà àà à(€€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€S.€Ct.€No.€01S01„9608„CV„00166€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(ÌÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒCKR€INDUSTRIES,€INC.€AND€THEà à(ÌYASUDA€FIRE€&€MARINE€INSURANCEà à(ÌCOMPANY€OF€AMERICA,à àà àà à(ÌÒ € ÒÒ X Òà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€ÌÒ € ÒÒ 8 Ò€€€€€Defendants„Appellants.à à(€€MODIFIED€AND€REMANDED.ÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à€€€€€€€òòà8 ààH.ààH.ààHŽŽ'àò òJUDGMENT€ORDERóóó óÌÓÓà àÌà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€motion€for€reviewÏpursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(5)(B),€the€entireÏrecord,€including€the€order€of€referral€to€the€SpecialÏWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel'sÏMemorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€byÏreference;Ìà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€forÏreview€was€not€timely€filed€and€should,€therefore,€beÏdismissed;€andÌà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€ofÏfact€and€conclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€theÏdecision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€judgment€of€the€Court.€€Ìà àCosts€will€be€paid€equally€by€the€plaintiff„appellee€andÏthe€defendants„appellants,€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÏnecessary.Ìà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€this€œ18th›€day€of€February,€1998.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌDrowota,€J.€„€Not€participating.ÌÔ€6ÔÔ€6XÔœÇÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÑ À ÑÑ X Ñò òÔ% € Ô›ÌÌó óà@ àò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àSPECIAL€œWORKERS›€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEó óÌÓ  ÓœßJ€58;+'b| ÿÖ` ç `€@ÿJß›ÌÌÌÌÌÓÓLAVONNA€HODOSI,à àà àà à)à àFRANKLIN€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà àà àà à)à àNO.€01S01„9608„CV„00166Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€J.€CURTIS€SMITH,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌCKR€INDUSTRIES,€INC.€andà àà à)ÌTHE€YASUDA€FIRE€&€MARINEà àà à)ÌINSURANCE€COMPANY€OFà àà à)ÌAMERICA,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellantsà àà à)ÌÌÓÓÌœ›Ìò òòòFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€the€Appellee:ÌÓÓó óóóJames€D.€Lane,€IIà àà àà àà àMark€StewartÌRay,€Van€Cleave€&€Jackson,€P.C.à à300€South€College€StreetÌP.€O.€Box€1027à àà àà àà àWinchester,€TN€37398ÌTullahoma,€TN€37388à àà àà àÌÓÓÌÓÓÌÓ  Óòòò òœM€E›€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌMembers€of€Panel:ÌÌó óóóJustice€Frank€F.€Drowota,€IIIÌSenior€Judge€William€H.€InmanÌSpecial€Judge€Joe€C.€Loser,€Jr.ÌÌÓ  Óœ›ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òMODIFIED.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àINMAN,€Senior€JudgeÌÓÓÌó óÌÌà àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€SpecialÏWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordanceÏwith€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€theÏSupreme€Court€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€Ìà àThis€is€a€carpal€tunnel€syndrome€case€involving€the€employeeððs€rightÏhand.€€A€surgical€procedure€on€July€10,€1995€was€successful€in€alleviatingÏsymptoms.Ìà àThe€issue€at€trial€was€the€extent€of€permanent€disability.Ìà àThe€only€medical€proof€offered€was€the€depositional€testimony€of€Dr.ÏRichard€A.€Bagby,€Jr.,€an€orthopedic€surgeon€who€performed€the€surgery.€€HeÏtestified€that€the€plaintiff€had€a€five€percent€impairment€to€her€right€arm.Ìà àThe€trial€judge€found€that€the€plaintiff€had€a€40€percent€disability€to€herÏright€arm.€€The€employer€appeals,€insisting€that€the€award€is€excessive€underÏthe€proof.Ìà àReview€of€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€theÏrecord€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€theÏfinding,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€òòTenn.€CodeÍAnn.€ððóó€50„6„225(e)(2);€òòStone€v.€City€of€McMinnville,€óó896€S.W.2d€584€(Tenn.Ï1991).€However,€where,€as€in€this€case,€the€medical€testimony€by€Dr.€Bagby€isÏpresented€by€deposition,€this€Court€is€able€to€make€its€own€independentÏassessment€of€the€medical€proof€to€determine€where€the€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€lies.€€òòCooper€v.€INA,€óó884€S.W.2d€446€(Tenn.€1994).€Ìà àThe€plaintiff€is€a€43€year€old€assembly€line€employee.€€She€began€workÏfor€the€defendant€in€September€1991€ð ðtrimming€parts€for€automobile€door€sills.ðð€ÏAfter€about€two€years,€she€began€to€develop€ð ðtrouble€with€her€handsðð€for€whichÏshe€sought€treatment.€€She€continued€employment,€and€on€October€19,€1994,Ïshe€suffered€an€onset€of€pain€in€her€right€arm,€accompanied€by€a€loss€ofÏgripping€strength.€€She€promptly€reported€her€difficulties€to€the€employer.€€TheÏemployer€promptly€arranged€for€medical€treatment€by€a€neurologist,€whoÏreferred€her€to€Dr.€Bagby.Ìà àConservative€treatment€did€not€allay€the€symptoms,€and€surgery€wasÏrecommended€and€subsequently€performed.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€testified€that€she€was€attending€college€with€the€intent€to€earnÏa€business€technology€degree.€€Her€testimony€concerning€presentÏsymptomatology€was€abbreviated;€she€testified€that€when€she€took€notes,€ð ðIððmÏhaving€some€pain€in€my€wrist€up€to€my€elbow,ðð€and€that€she€had€a€ð ðloss€ofÏstrength,€grip,ðð€in€her€dominant€right€hand.€€She€conceded€that€she€left€her€jobÏwith€the€defendant€voluntarily€and€that€Dr.€Bagby€prescribed€no€limitations€orÏrestrictions€on€her€activities.Ìà àDr.€Bagby€testified€on€direct€examination€that€the€plaintiff€had€completeÏrelief€of€the€numbness€and€tingling€as€a€result€of€the€carpal€release,€but€sheÏwould€probably€have€a€loss€of€grip€strength€of€30€to€35€percent€in€her€right€hand,Íresulting€in€five€percent€permanent€impairment€based€upon€the€òòAmericanÏMedical€Association€Guides€to€the€Evaluation€of€Permanent€Impairment,€4th€Ed.Ìà àóóIn€an€effort€to€persuade€Dr.€Bagby€to€upwardly€revise€his€opinion€of€theÏextent€of€the€plaintiffððs€impairment,€he€was€questioned€about€an€illustrativeÏexample€concerning€a€forklift€mechanic€who€experienced€carpal€tunnelÏsyndrome€which€was€surgically€corrected.€€His€occupation€was€changed€to€thatÏof€a€salesman,€and€his€only€symptoms€were€transient€numbness€in€his€thumbÏand€index€finger€after€40€minutes€of€driving€a€vehicle.€€Tests€revealed€a€60Ïpercent€strength€loss.€€The€òòGuidesóó€record€the€impairment€as€ten€percent.Ìà àDr.€Bagby€was€asked€if€the€òòGuidesóó€dictated€that€ð ðMrs.€Hodosiððs€rating€beÏa€ten€percent€impairment€to€the€upper€extremity?ðð€€He€responded:ÌÓÓà8 àð ðWell,€I€guess€so€to€some€extent.€€I€guess€that€itððs€just€hard€for€me€toÏconvert€from€the€old€òòGuidesóó€to€the€new€òòGuides,€óóand€I€think€thatÏprobably€hers€isnððt€quite€as€bad€as€the€manððs€example€there,€but€IÏwould€have€to€acknowledge€the€thrust€of€your€point.ððÌÌÓÓà àOn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Bagby€reiterated€his€opinion€that€the€plaintiffÏhad€a€five€percent€impairment€to€her€right€arm€and€that€he€did€not€recommend€aÏjob€change.Ìà àThe€trial€judge€expressed€the€view€that€Dr.€Bagby€was€equivocal€in€hisÏfive€percent€rating,€and€found€that,€as€per€the€example€of€the€forklift€mechanic,Ïthe€plaintiff€had€a€ten€percent€impairment.€€€€We€have€reviewed€the€òòGuidelinesÏóóand€particularly€the€illustrative€example€of€the€mechanic€who€changed€hisÏemployment€to€that€of€a€salesperson€on€account€of€his€carpal€tunnel€syndrome.€ÏIt€will€be€noted€that€the€salesman€had€a€loss€of€grip€strength€of€60€percent€„€twiceÏas€much€as€the€plaintiff€„€and€unlike€the€plaintiff,€he€had€numbness€in€his€thumbÏand€index€finger,€after€„€again€unlike€the€plaintiff€„€driving€a€vehicle€for€fortyÏminutes.€€It€seems€apparent€that€the€example€is€inapposite€for€these€and€a€litanyÍof€other€reasons€as€well.€€In€any€event,€Dr.€Bagby€reiterated€his€rating€of€fiveÏpercent€impairment,€and€the€doubling€of€it€rests€on€grounds€even€too€tenuousÏfor€purposes€of€workersðð€compensation.€€Whether€Dr.€Bagby€misapplied€orÏmisinterpreted€the€òòGuidelinesóó€is€generally€subject€to€other€expert€testimony,€andÏthere€was€none€offered€in€this€case.Ìà àIn€making€determinations,€the€court€shall€consider€all€pertinent€factors,Ïincluding€lay€and€expert€testimony,€employeeððs€age,€education,€skills€andÏtraining,€local€job€opportunities,€and€capacity€to€work€at€types€of€employmentÏavailable€in€claimantððs€disabled€condition.€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððóó€50„6„241(a)(1);ÏòòMiles€v.€Liberty€Mutual€Ins.€Co.,€óó795€S.W.2d€665€(Tenn.€1990).€€The€plaintiff€isÏ43€years€old,€has€between€60€and€100€hours€of€office€technology€training,€isÏattending€college€successfully,€was€released€to€return€to€work€withoutÏrestrictions€of€any€kind,€and€voluntarily€quit€her€job.€€There€is€no€evidence€of€aÏlack€of€employment€opportunities.€€We€can€find€no€basis€in€this€record€for€aÏjudicial€finding€of€40€percent€disability€to€the€plaintiffððs€right€arm,€and€accordinglyÏfind€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€such€finding.Ìà àWe€find€from€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€plaintiff€has€a€20Ïpercent€permanent€partial€disability€to€her€right€arm,€and€the€judgment€isÏmodified€accordingly.€€In€light€of€this€modification,€the€issue€regarding€theÏpropriety€of€a€lump€sum€award€is€moot.€€Costs€are€assessed€to€the€partiesÏevenly,€and€the€case€is€remanded.€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________________ÌœWilliam›€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€JusticeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌœ