ÿWPCc" ÿ¨–ô§½û' •IîQý‰¹e]'w$•F®í ïþȆ©<©³(Rô;ì ö€ë…™Œ"3ºGÖ(ÎÉÌñg>ôTì[÷³¿9kŸÙK]psgÕMGW1ŶM/a‚Bì-î$€æBÑTq¨aÚ˜ á·)hVѶãúLsvýeŽGÝö¡NCK“(V&‹—?•9 ƒ£¼ZB›æŠó›7´‡y'òìà6v§Ã–…ksû´¤p×óŽ4½;„þZ_ÑŠäé‰R:¬®«&–ÐNÅs@4A"ª–¨:ŒOm·–8mʆ~›¼È·6i  ŸIÀÓBGîë{z;Y! 6 Ãv£‹Y­ "<œž¯3±-[¸V¤Wpqd™CV.Ùgq”ï ñ¬7PTѲÌ{þÆ—Òƒf»”ÏήIª'Ùáítìwè0c ›­ XC“å æ³Òˆ¿xñ‚ŒÌQX©laŸ³‰iZذS™:ÍËÜ:ŒŸ)%zÏ¡Añ±.#ë ²8“¦ŠRñDõhE‰ív>¦µck‹6!Ëdb×äP#äÞ?ßçƶƒóω¡íóú–œbv2*œkú×ÏŸY¥™'ót39ß§ã¥$üÐï. ba#˜ÁT“Ð ãaU NN %œ 0(¢#!Ê në¦Y wÿ 4  n& 0C* 0Cm 0°U.@7n¥(ÂNêJ ì–6qÌÌÌU:=U:wwwww±±N³^ µ mÁ Ø à è ð ø      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * B0 AQM Æž 0Dd! 0D¨! 0Dì!ì! D30"(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\JO.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\jo.wpt{Z='¢Ø+003|x«%ä2¼A`ArialTTôôJä2¼P±ŠQôP"ÝÆÿA€ArialTTXXaÝÆÿptQXp%ä2¼A`ArialTTXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP$ä2¼A`ArialTTRAyä2¼P±ŠQRP%ä2¼A`ArialTTèè“ä2¼P±ŠQèPô\  `*Times New RomanTT¼¼^ô\  PŽ6Q¼P(2B$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó(O2«$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓÓÔ€åaXXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó%ä2¼A`ArialTT -Ý ƒ\¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XïµXXXÔÔ€ûXXïµÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XïµXûÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€20,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAxÔó ó Ý ƒ B)ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÒ°ÒÒ8°ÒÓ  ÓÓ<(ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œX<ÓÔ  ÔÔ@  ÔÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚÔA  ÔÌÓ  ÓÓ?+ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿ` ‹X?Ó! @ Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡X“ XXXÔÒ°ÒÒ8°ÒÓ?+ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œX?ÓÓ  ÓÓ<(ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿŒX<ÓÔ‡RÎ QXX“ ÔÔ#†Rôb Q QRÎ+#ÔÔ‡RÎ Q QRôbÔòòò…òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó…óóóÔ#†X“ X QRÎí#ÔÔ‡ô­ô òXX“ ÔÔ#†ôIò òô­ô/#ÔÔ‡ô­ô òòôIÔò òRULE€52Ð ° Ðó óÌFINDINGS€BY€THE€COURTÐ P ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ?+ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿ` ‹X?Óà ` àò ò52.01.à ¸ àFindings€Required€upon€Request.€„„€ó óIn€all€actions€tried€upon€the€facts€without€a€jury,Ð Lœ Ðand€upon€a€request€made€by€any€party€prior€to€the€entry€of€judgment,€the€court€shall€find€the€factsÐ òB Ðspecially€and€shall€state€separately€its€conclusions€of€law€thereon€and€direct€the€entry€of€the€appropriateÐ ˜è Ðjudgment.€€The€findings€of€a€master,€to€the€extent€that€the€court€adopts€them,€shall€be€considered€asÐ > Ž Ðthe€findings€of€the€court.€€If€an€opinion€or€memorandum€of€decision€is€filed,€it€will€be€sufficient€if€theÐ ä 4 Ðfindings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€appear€therein.€€Findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€areÐ Š Ú  Ðunnecessary€on€decisions€of€motions€under€Rule€12€or€56€or€any€other€motion€except€as€provided€inÐ 0 €  ÐRules€41.02€and€65.04(6).Ð Ö &  ÐÌà ` àò ò52.02.à ¸ àAmendment.€„„€ó óUpon€motion€of€a€party€made€not€later€than€thirty€(30)€days€after€entryÐ " r  Ðof€judgment€the€court€may€amend€its€findings€or€make€additional€findings€and€may€amend€the€judgmentÐ È   Ðaccordingly.€€The€motion€may€be€made€with€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€pursuant€to€Rule€59.€€WhenÐ n¾  Ðfindings€of€fact€are€made€in€actions€tried€by€the€court€without€a€jury,€the€question€of€the€sufficiency€ofÐ d  Ðthe€evidence€to€support€the€findings€may€be€raised€on€appeal€whether€or€not€the€party€raising€theÐ º  Ðquestion€has€made€in€the€trial€court€an€objection€to€such€findings€or€has€made€a€motion€to€amend€themÐ `°  Ðor€a€motion€for€judgment.Ð V  Ð ŒÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ‡X“ XXXÔÒ°ÒÒ8°ÒÓ?+ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œX?ÓÓ?+ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿŒX?ÓÔ‡RÎ QXX“ ÔÔ#†Rôb Q QRÎ#ÔÔ‡RÎ Q QRôbÔÔ  Ôòòò…òÚ  Ú2Ú  Úó…óóóÔ#†X“ X QRÎÔ#ÔÔ‡ô­ô òXX“ ÔÔ#†ôIò òô­ô#ÔÔ‡ô­ô òòôIÔà ` àThe€guidelines€used€and€identified€in€the€record€would€reflect€a€combined€impairment€ratingÐ ° Ðof€thirty€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole. gÝ ƒ\½Ö"ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X“ XXXÔÔ€´{XX“ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X“ X´{ÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€20,€1999Ð    ÐÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.Ð °° ÐAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAŠÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regularc‚4'L ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ12345678910H d[\]^`Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óYYYY'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ% €- ÔÒ°ÒÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ‡¼0»XXÔà@¹ ¹ àò òòòIN€THE€SUPREME€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° ÐÌÔ_Ôßx€Z`B2.jz’Ú`  `€€@ÿEZ^` (ttx@’–l ¸xßÔ_Ôà@ÒÒ'àAT€NASHVILLEˆÌÌó óÌÔ% ‡# ÔSONNY€LUTHER€JOHNSONÔ%†#ÀÔà@éé-à}ˆà p àÔ% ‡$ ÔMAURY€CHANCERYÔ%†$ÔÐ B ’ Ðà@éé-à}ˆà p àNo.€Below€Ô% ‡% Ô96„140Ô%†%}ÔÐ , | Ðà ` àPlaintiff/Appelleeà@éé-à}ˆÐ  f Ðà@éé-à}ˆà p àHon.€Ô% ‡& ÔJim€T.€HamiltonÔ%†&"ÔÐ  P Ðvs.à@-àˆàHéé-à}ˆÐ ê :  Ðà@éé-à}ˆÌà@éé-à}ˆà p àNo.€Ô% ‡' Ô01S01„9804„CH„00079Ô%†'ÜÔÐ ¾  ÐÔ% ‡( ÔTRANSPORTATION€UNLIMITEDÔ%†("Ô,à  à}Ô#†XåaX»¼0š#ÔÔ‡¼0»XXåaÔÐ ¨ø  ÐINC.à0 ` àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#à}à0p(#(#àAFFIRMED€IN€PARTÐ’â p(#p(# Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà@éé-à}ˆà0 p àREVERSED€IN€PARTÐ|Ì p(#p(# Ðà ` àDefendant/AppellÔ% ‡) ÔantÔ%†)4Ôà@éé-à}ˆà p àÔ% ‡* ÔMODIFIED€AND€REMANDEDÔ%†*uÔÐ f¶  ÐÌÌà@&àJUDGMENT€ORDERóóˆÐ $t ÐÌÌÓÓà ` àòòThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€theÐ â2 Ðorder€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€andÏthe€Panelððs€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference.Ìà ` àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€Opinion€ofÏthe€Panel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌà ` àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panelððs€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€PanelÏis€made€the€judgment€of€the€Court.Ìà ` àCosts€will€be€paid€Ô% ‡+ Ô€one„half€€to€each€partyÔ%†+¢ Ô,€for€which€execution€mayÏissue€if€necessary.Ìà ` àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€on€Ô% ‡, ÔSeptember€20,€1999Ô%†,& Ô.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àPER€Ô_ÔCURIAMÔ_ÔóóÐ Ò-")- Ðà ` àÔ#†XåaX»¼0‰#ÔÐ  ¦/ö*/ ÐÔ_ÔÑTR[° AØ'* [° AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓÒ8°ÒÖ€ÿÿÖÑ  ÑÔ& p0 ÔÓ  ÓÓ<(ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œX<ÓÔ‡XïµXXXåaÔÔ  ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐÌSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÐ @ ÐÌAT€NASHVILLEÐ Ð  Ð(March€31,€1999€Session)Ð ˜è ÐÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ?+ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿ` ‹X?ÓSONNY€LUTHER€JOHNSON,à À àà  à)à p àMAURY€CHANCERYÐ € Ð  ÐÔ_Ôßx€Z`B2.jz8]`  `€€@ÿEL¥ ` (ttx@„H ( MxßÔ_Ôà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð H ˜  Ðà ` àà ¸ àPlaintiff,à h àà À àà  à)à p àHon.€Jim€T.€Hamilton,Ð `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àJudge.Ð Ø(  Ðv.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð  ð  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àNo.€01S01„9804„CH„00079Ð h¸  ÐTRANSPORTATION€UNLIMITED,à  à)Ð 0€  ÐINC.,à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð øH  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð À Ðà ` àà ¸ àDefendant.à h àà À àà  à)Ð ˆØ ÐÌÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiffóó:à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àòòFor€Defendantóó:Ð pÀ ÐÌR.€Ô_ÔSadlerÔ_Ô€Baileyà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àLewis€R.€Ô_ÔHagoodÔ_ÔÐ P ÐAndrew€C.€Clarkeà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJ.€Steven€CollinsÐ È ÐBailey€&€Clarkeà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àThomas€M.€ColeÐ à ÐMemphis,€Tennesseeà h àà À àà  àà p àÔ_ÔArnettÔ_Ô,€Draper€&€Ô_ÔHagoodÔ_ÔÐ X¨ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àKnoxville,€TennesseeÐ  p ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àReid€D.€Ô_ÔLeitnerÔ_ÔÐ °  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àÔ_ÔLeitnerÔ_Ô,€Williams,€Dooley€&€à (# àÐ xÈ! Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àÔ_ÔNapolitanÔ_ÔòòóóÐ @" Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TennesseeòòÐ  X# ÐóóÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ<(ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿŒX<ÓòòM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÐ ð#@( ÐÌÌÌÌòòMembers€of€Panelóó:Ð Ø'(#- ÐÌFrank€F.€Ô_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ô,€III,€Associate€JusticeÐ h)¸$/ ÐThomas€W.€Brothers,€Special€JudgeÐ 0*€%0 ÐJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÐ ø*H&1 ÐÓ  ÓÓ?+ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿ` ‹X?ÓÌÓ  ÓÓ<(ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿŒX<ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ?+ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿ` ‹X?ÓAFFIRMED€IN€PARTÐ 81ˆ,9 ÐREVERSED€IN€PARTÐ 2P-: ÐÓ ÈÓÓ  ÓMODIFIED€AND€REMANDEDà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àLoser,€JudgeÐ È2.; ÐÓ  ÓÓ<(ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿŒX<ÓòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONóóÔ'p0°,ÔÐ X4¨/< ÐÓ ÈÓÓ  ÓÓ?+ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿ` ‹X?Óà ` àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workers'Ð è581= ÐCompensation€Appeals€Panel€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)Ð °62> Ðfor€hearing€and€reporting€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€In€this€appeal,Ð x7È2? Ðâ âthe€defendant€or€employer,€Transportation€Unlimited,€insists€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ @83@¾ Ðdenying€its€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€52ÑÈÑ׃×Ý ƒ ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€motion€to€amend€or€make€specific€findings€of€fact,Ð ° Ðâ âthat€the€trial€court's€award€of€permanent€disability€benefits€based€on€eighty„fiveÐ xÈ Ðpercent€to€the€body€as€a€whole€is€excessive€under€the€circumstances,€that€the€trialÐ @ Ðcourt€erred€by€awarding€an€amount€in€excess€of€the€maximum€total€benefit€allowedÐ X Ðby€law,€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€the€plaintiff€permanent€and€temporaryÐ Ð  Ðdisability€benefits€for€carpal€tunnel€syndrome€where€the€plaintiff's€only€proof€in€thatÐ ˜è Ðregard€was€testimony€of€a€ten€percent€medical€impairment€for€carpal€tunnel€syndromeÐ ` ° Ðto€which€was€ascribed€no€cause€or€permanency,€and€that€the€trial€judge€abused€hisÐ ( x Ðdiscretion€in€adjudging€a€twenty„five€percent€(25%)€bad€faith€penalty€againstÐ ð @ ÐTransportation€Unlimited€for€failure€to€pay€temporary€total€disability€benefits.€€TheÐ ¸   Ðplaintiff€or€employee,€Sonny€Luther€Johnson,€insists€the€trial€court€erred€by€admittingÐ € Ð  Ðinto€evidence€a€certain€videotape,€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€awardÐ H ˜  Ðpermanent€total€disability€benefits,€that€the€penalty€should€be€increased€because€theÐ `  Ðemployer€has€failed€to€provide€medical€benefits€as€required€and€that€the€appeal€isÐ Ø(  Ðfrivolous.€€The€plaintiff€has€filed€a€motion€for€consideration€of€post„judgment€facts.€Ð  ð  ÐAs€discussed€below,€the€panel€has€concluded€the€award€of€permanent€partialÐ h¸  Ðdisability€benefits€should€be€affirmed,€the€award€of€temporary€total€disability€benefitsÐ 0€  Ðand€penalty€should€be€reversed,€the€admission€of€the€videotape€into€evidence€wasÐ øH  Ðnot€reversible€error,€the€judgment€should€be€modified€to€avoid€exceeding€theÐ À Ðmaximum€total€benefit,€and€that€the€motion€for€consideration€of€post„judgment€factsÐ ˆØ Ðis€without€merit.Ð P  Ðà ` àÌà ` àIssues€of€fact€have€been€reviewedòò€de€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,Ð à0 Ðaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact,€unless€theÐ ¨ø Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).€€AllÐ pÀ Ðother€issues€have€been€reviewed€òòde€novoóó,€without€any€presumption€of€correctness.€Ð 8ˆ ÐòòSpencer€v.€Towson€Moving€and€Storage,€Inc.óó,€922€€S.W.2d€€508€€(Tenn.€1996).Ð P Ðà ` àÌà ` àAt€the€time€of€the€trial,€the€employee€or€plaintiff,€Johnson,€was€54€years€oldÐ à Ðand€had€worked€for€Transportation€Unlimited€since€1991€as€a€truck€driver.€€He€hasÐ X¨ Ðsuffered€numerous€injuries€occurring€at€different€times€in€the€course€of€thatÐ  p Ðemployment.€€On€January€17,€1995,€while€tying€down€a€car€on€his€trailer,€he€lost€hisÐ è8 Ðbalance€and€fell€backwards,€suffering€immediate€pain€to€his€neck€and€left€shoulderÐ °  Ðand€arm.€€On€April€10,€1995,€he€was€involved€in€a€vehicular€accident,€injuring€hisÐ xÈ! Ðshoulder,€neck€and€back.€On€May€15,€1995,€he€felt€severe€pain€in€his€left€shoulder,Ð @" Ðarm,€hand€and€fingers€while€loading€skids€onto€his€truck.€€On€October€5,€1995,€he€feltÐ  X# Ðsevere€pain€in€his€left€shoulder,€arm,€hand€and€fingers€while€unchaining€a€vehicle€onÐ Ð $ Ðhis€trailer.€€Finally,€on€January€31,€1996,€a€stool€on€which€he€was€sitting€while€hisÐ ˜!è% Ðtruck€was€being€washed€collapsed€and€he€fell,€injuring€his€neck,€lower€back€and€leftÐ `"°& Ðshoulder,€arm,€fingers€and€hand.€€He€has€seen€approximately€twenty€different€doctorsÐ (#x' Ðfor€treatment€of€his€injuries€or€evaluation€of€his€condition.Ð ð#@( Ðà ` àÌà ` àThe€trial€court's€judgment€was€entered€on€December€12,€1997€and€includedÐ €%Ð * Ðspecific€findings€as€to€the€extent€of€the€plaintiff's€permanent€disability€withoutÐ H&˜!+ Ðapportioning€the€disability€among€the€various€accidents.€€The€employer€contends€thatÐ '`", Ðwas€error€because€it€has€a€Ô_ÔsubrogationÔ_Ô€claim€pending€as€a€result€of€the€most€recentÐ Ø'(#- Ðinjury€and€because€the€award€of€permanent€partial€disability€benefits,€it€contends,Ð  (ð#. Ðmay€have€exceeded€the€maximum€allowed€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241(a)€andÐ h)¸$/ Ð(b),€without€making€the€specific€findings€required€by€subsection€Ô_Ô(c)Ô_Ô€of€that€section.Ð 0*€%0 Ðà ` àÌà ` àAs€to€the€first€contention,€we€find€the€trial€court's€findings€to€be€adequate.€Ð xÈ ÐMoreover€and€as€discussed€below,€we€are€not€persuaded€the€trial€court's€awardÐ @ Ðexceeded€the€statutory€maximum.Ð X ÐÓ ÈÓà ` àÌÓ ÈÓà ` àThe€employer€next€insists€the€award€of€permanent€partial€disability€benefitsÐ ` ° Ðbased€on€eighty„five€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole€is€excessive€and€that€theÐ ( x Ðevidence€preponderates€against€any€finding€that€the€employee's€carpal€tunnelÐ ð @ Ðsyndrome€is€work€related.€€Once€the€causation€and€permanency€of€an€injury€haveÐ ¸  Ðbeen€established€by€expert€testimony,€the€trial€judge€may€consider€many€pertinentÐ € Ð  Ðfactors,€including€age,€job€skills,€education,€training,€duration€of€disability,€and€jobÐ H ˜  Ðopportunities€for€the€disabled,€in€addition€to€anatomical€impairment,€for€the€purposeÐ `  Ðof€evaluating€the€extent€of€a€claimant's€permanent€disability.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„Ð Ø(  Ð6„241(b).€€The€opinion€of€a€qualified€expert€with€respect€to€a€claimant's€clinical€orÐ  ð  Ðphysical€impairment€is€a€factor€which€the€court€will€consider€along€with€all€otherÐ h¸  Ðrelevant€facts€and€circumstances,€but€it€is€for€the€court€to€determine€the€percentageÐ 0€  Ðof€the€claimant's€industrial€disability.€€òòÔ_ÔPittmanÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔLascoÔ_Ô€Industries,€Inc.óó,€908€€S.W.2d€Ð øH  Ð932€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€order€to€establish€that€an€injury€was€one€arising€out€of€theÐ À Ðemployment,€the€cause€of€the€death€or€injury€must€be€proved;€and€if€the€claim€is€forÐ ˆØ Ðpermanent€disability€benefits,€permanency€must€be€proved.€€òòHill€v.€Royal€Ins.€Co.óó,Ð P  Ð937€€S.W.2d€€873€(Tenn.€1996).€€In€all€but€the€most€obvious€cases,€causation€andÐ h Ðpermanency€may€only€be€established€through€expert€medical€testimony.€€òòThomas€v.Ð à0 ÐAetna€Life€and€Ô_ÔCasÔ_Ô.€Co.óó,€812€€S.W.2d€€278€(1991).Ô‡èœúçXX“ Ôòò€€óóÔ#†X“ Xçèœú×<#ÔAbsolute€certainty€on€the€part€ofÐ ¨ø Ða€medical€expert€is€not€necessary€to€support€a€workers'€compensation€award,€forÐ pÀ Ðexpert€opinion€must€always€be€more€or€less€uncertain€and€speculative;€€òòÔ_ÔKellermanÔ_Ô€v.Ð 8ˆ ÐFood€Lion,€Inc.óó,€929€€S.W.2d€€333€(Tenn.€1996);€and,€where€equivocal€medicalÐ P Ðevidence€combined€with€other€evidence€supports€a€finding€of€causation,€such€anÐ È Ðinference€may€nevertheless€be€drawn€under€the€case€law.€€òòWhite€v.€Ô_ÔWerthanÔ_ÔÐ à ÐIndustriesóó,€824€€S.W.2d€€158€(Tenn.€1992).Ð X¨ ÐÓ ÈÓà ` àWhen€the€medical€testimony€differs,€the€trial€judge€must€choose€which€viewÐ ° Ðto€believe.€€In€doing€so,€he€is€allowed,€among€other€things,€to€consider€theÐ xÈ Ðqualifications€of€the€experts,€the€circumstances€of€their€examination,€the€informationÐ @ Ðavailable€to€them,€and€the€evaluation€of€the€importance€of€that€information€by€otherÐ  X  Ðexperts.€€òòOrman€v.€Williams€Ô_ÔSonomaÔ_Ô,€Inc.óó,€803€€S.W.2d€€672€(Tenn.€1991).€Ð Ð ! ÐMoreover,€it€is€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge€to€conclude€that€the€opinion€ofÐ ˜!è" Ðcertain€experts€should€be€accepted€over€that€of€other€experts€and€that€it€contains€theÐ `"°# Ðmore€probable€explanation.€€òòHinson€v.€Wal„Mart€Stores,€Inc.óó,€654€€S.W.2d€€675,€675„Ð (#x$ Ð7€(Tenn.€1983).Ð ð#@% ÐÓ ÈÓà ` àIt€appears€from€the€record€that€the€trial€judge€gave€great€weight€to€the€medicalÐ €%Ð & Ðtestimony€of€Drs.€Joseph€Ô_ÔBoalsÔ_Ô€and€Felix€Ô_ÔSavoieÔ_Ô.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔSavoieÔ_Ô€is€an€orthopedicÐ H&˜!' Ðsurgeon€specializing€in€treatment€of€shoulder€and€elbow€injuries.€€He€operated€on€theÐ '`"( Ðplaintiff€for€his€shoulder€injury€and€assessed€a€permanent€impairment€rating€of€sixÐ Ø'(#) Ðpercent€to€the€left€upper€extremity,€from€appropriate€guidelines.€€He€also€opined€thatÐ  (ð#* ÐÔ_Ôthe€plaintiff's€neck€and€back€injuries,€as€well€as€left€carpal€tunnel€syndrome€wereÐ h)¸$+ Ðcausally€related€to€the€plaintiff's€work€for€the€employer.€€He€has€impressiveÐ 0*€%, Ðcredentials.Ð ø*H&- Ðà ` àÌà ` àDr.€Boals€opined€that€the€plaintiff€would€retain€permanent€impairments,€basedÐ ˆ,Ø'/ Ðon€appropriate€guidelines,€of€six€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole€for€his€neck€injury,Ð P- (0 Ðseven€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole€for€back€injuries,€nineteen€percent€to€the€leftÐ .h)1 Ðupper€extremity€for€shoulder€injuries€and€an€additional€ten€percent€to€the€left€upperÐ à.0*2 Ðextremity€for€untreated€carpal€tunnel€syndrome.€€The€doctor€did€not€convert€thoseÐ ¨/ø*3 Ðratings€to€a€single€combined€impairment€rating.׃×Ý ƒ ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð p0À+4 Ðà ` àÌà ` àDr.€Boals€restricted€the€plaintiff€from€performing€any€type€of€heavy€work,Ð 2P-6 Ðincluding€truck€driving,€lifting,€twisting€and€bending,€overhead€lifting,€lifting€more€thanÐ È2.7 Ðfifteen€pounds€or€any€frequent€lifting,€and€from€running,€walking,€standing€or€sittingÐ 3à.8 Ðfor€long€periods€of€time.€€He€opined€that€the€plaintiff€is€permanently€disabled€fromÐ X4¨/9 Ðreturning€to€this€job€as€a€truck€driver€and€that€his€injuries€were€work€related.Ð  5p0: Ðà ` àÌà ` àThe€employee's€primary€treating€physician€during€1995€was€Dr.€Jimmy€D.Ð °62< ÐMiller,€a€board€certified€neurosurgeon.€€Dr.€Miller€estimated€the€plaintiff's€permanentÐ ° Ðimpairment€at€eight€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole€and€opined€that€truck€driving€doesÐ xÈ Ðnot€cause€carpal€tunnel€syndrome.€€Dr.€Kenneth€Gaines€performed€a€neurologicalÐ @ Ðexamination€on€October€30,€1997€and€found€no€significant€abnormalities.€€Dr.€JamesÐ X ÐC.€Varner€provided€some€conservative€care€for€the€employee's€neck,€lower€back€andÐ Ð  Ðshoulder€injuries€after€the€1996€accident,€but€before€the€shoulder€surgery.€€It€was€Dr.Ð ˜è ÐVarner's€opinion€that€the€injuries€were€work€related€but€not€permanent.€€Dr.€JosephÐ ` ° ÐHudson€treated€and€examined€the€employee€after€the€1996€accident.€€He€orderedÐ ( x Ðmagnetic€resonance€imaging€and€found€no€evidence€of€a€permanent€injury.Ð ð @ Ðà ` àÌà ` àAll€of€the€doctors€who€expressed€opinions€are€eminently€qualified€to€do€so€andÐ € Ð  Ðwere€in€a€good€position€to€assess€the€plaintiff's€condition.€€It€does€appear€from€theÐ H ˜  Ðrecord€that€Drs.€Boals€and€Savoie€conducted€the€most€thorough€examinations€and,Ð `  Ðas€already€noted,€it€was€Dr.€Savoie€who€performed€corrective€shoulder€surgery.€Ð Ø(  ÐThus,€we€cannot€say,€as€the€employer€contends,€that€the€trial€judge€abused€hisÐ  ð  Ðdiscretion€by€accepting€their€testimony€to€the€exclusion€of€the€other€medical€evidence.Ð h¸  Ðà ` àÌÓ ÈÓà ` àWhere€an€injured€worker€is€entitled€to€receive€permanent€partial€disabilityÐ øH  Ðbenefits€to€the€body€as€a€whole,€and€the€pre„injury€employer€does€not€return€theÐ À Ðemployee€to€employment€at€a€wage€equal€to€or€greater€than€the€wage€the€employeeÐ ˆØ Ðwas€receiving€at€the€time€of€the€injury,€the€maximum€permanent€partial€disabilityÐ P  Ðaward€that€the€employee€may€receive€is€six€times€the€medical€impairment€rating.€Ð h ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241(b).€€If€a€court€awards€a€multiplier€of€five€or€greater,€thenÐ à0 Ðthe€court€must€make€specific€findings€of€fact€detailing€the€reasons€for€its€award,Ð ¨ø Ðconsidering€all€relevant€factors,€including€lay€and€expert€testimony,€the€employee'sÐ pÀ Ðage,€education,€skills€and€training,€local€job€opportunities€and€capacity€to€work€atÐ 8ˆ Ðtypes€of€employment€available€in€claimant's€disabled€condition.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ P Ð50„6„241(b).€€Mr.€Johnson€has€not€returned€to€work€for€the€employer.Ð È ÐÓ ÈÓà ` àA€medical€or€anatomical€impairment€rating€is€not€always€indispensable€to€a€trialÐ X¨ Ðcourt's€finding€of€a€permanent€vocational€impairment;€anatomical€impairment€isÐ  p Ðdistinct€from€the€ultimate€issue€of€vocational€disability;€and€a€medical€expert'sÐ è8 Ðcharacterization€of€a€condition€as€"chronic"€and€the€placement€of€permanent€medicalÐ ° Ðrestrictions€is€sufficient€to€prove€permanency.€€òòWalker€v.€Saturn€Corp.óó,€986€€S.W.2d€Ð xÈ  Ð204,€207€(Tenn.€1998),€citing€òòHill€v.€Royal€Ins.€Co.óó,€937€€S.W.2d€€873,€876€(Tenn.Ð @! Ð1996).€€Moreover,€trial€courts€are€not€bound€to€accept€physicians'€opinions€regardingÐ  X" Ðthe€extent€of€a€claimant's€disability,€but€should€consider€all€the€evidence,€both€expertÐ Ð # Ðand€lay€testimony,€to€decide€the€extent€of€an€employee's€disability.€€òòIdóó€at€208.€Ð ˜!è$ ÐAdditionally,€the€employer€takes€the€employee€with€all€pre„existing€conditions,€andÐ `"°% Ðcannot€escape€liability€when€the€employee,€upon€suffering€a€work„related€injury,Ð (#x& Ðincurs€disability€far€greater€than€if€he€had€not€had€the€pre„existing€conditions.€€òòRogersÐ ð#@' Ðv.€Shawóó,€813€€S.W.2d€€397€(Tenn.€1991).Ð ¸$ ( Ðà ` àÌà ` àAn€injured€employee€is€competent€to€testify€as€to€his€own€assessment€of€hisÐ H&˜!* Ðphysical€condition€and€such€testimony€should€not€be€disregarded.€€òòWalker€v.€SaturnÐ '`"+ ÐCorp.óó,€986€€S.W.2d€€204,€208€(Tenn.€1998).€€The€plaintiff€testified€that€he€was€noÐ Ø'(#, Ðlonger€able€to€perform€his€duties€as€a€truck€driver,€that€he€cannot€drive€or€even€sit€forÐ  (ð#- Ðlong€periods€of€time,€that€he€continually€takes€strong€pain€medication€and€that€he€isÐ h)¸$. Ðunable€to€perform€his€previous€occupations€as€a€debit€agent,€used€car€dealer€or€bassÐ 0*€%/ Ðfisherman.Ð ø*H&0 Ðà ` àÌà ` àThe€accident€which€triggered€the€employee's€permanent€disability€occurred€inÐ ˆ,Ø'2 ÐJanuary€of€1996,€when€he€fell€from€a€stool.€€In€light€of€Dr.€Boals'€testimony€concerningÐ P- (3 Ðthe€employee's€multiple€impairments,€we€are€unable€to€conclude€that€the€award€ofÐ .h)4 Ðpermanent€partial€disability€benefits€based€on€eighty„five€percent€to€the€body€as€aÐ à.0*5 Ðwhole€is€five€or€more€times€the€medical€impairment€rating.€€The€evidence€fails€toÐ ¨/ø*6 Ðpreponderate€against€the€trial€court's€award€of€permanent€partial€disability€benefits.€Ð p0À+7 ÐÌà ` àÌÓ ÈÓà ` àThe€employer€next€contends€that€the€award€exceeds€the€maximum€totalÐ È2.: Ðbenefit€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€injury.€€The€maximum€total€benefit€is€an€amountÐ 3à.; Ðequal€to€400€weeks€times€the€maximum€weekly€benefit.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„Ð X4¨/< Ð102(a)(6)(C).€€For€injuries€occurring€on€or€after€July€1,€1994€€through€June€30,€1995,Ð  5p0= Ðthe€maximum€weekly€benefit€is€an€amount€equal€to€sixty„six€and€two„thirds€percentÐ è581> Ðof€the€employee's€average€weekly€wage€up€to€eighty„six€and€eight„tenths€percent€ofÐ °62? Ðthe€state's€average€weekly€wage€as€determined€by€the€department€of€employmentÐ x7È2@ Ðsecurity.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€€50„6„102(a)(7)(A)(v).€€For€injuries€occurring€on€or€afterÐ @83A ÐJuly€1,€1995,€through€June€30,€1996,€the€maximum€weekly€benefit€is€an€amount€equalÐ 9X4B Ðto€sixty„six€and€two€thirds€percent€of€the€employee's€average€weekly€wage€up€toÐ Ð9 5C Ðninety„one€and€two„tenths€percent€of€the€state's€average€weekly€wage€as€determinedÐ ° Ðby€the€department€of€employment€security.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„102(a)(7)(A)(vi).€Ð xÈ ÐÌÓ ÈÓà ` àThe€maximum€weekly€benefit€„€and€the€employee's€compensation€rate€„€isÐ Ð  Ð$415.87,€in€this€case.€€Thus,€the€maximum€total€benefit€is€400€times€$415.87,€orÐ ˜è Ð$166,348.00.€€However,€that€amount€does€not€include€the€cost€of€medical€benefits,Ð ` ° Ðpenalties,€interest€and€costs.€€The€judgment€is€accordingly€modified€to€the€extentÐ ( x Ðnecessary€for€limiting€the€total€award€of€disability€benefits€to€$166,348.00€for€allÐ ð @ Ðdisabilities,€temporary€and€permanent,€resulting€from€the€1996€injury.€€The€employerÐ ¸  Ðis€not€entitled€to€credit€for€temporary€disability€benefits€paid€for€injuries€occurringÐ € Ð  Ðbefore€the€1996€injury.€€The€record€does€not€reflect€payment€of€any€permanentÐ H ˜  Ðdisability€benefits€before€the€1996€injury,€on€which€this€award€is€predicated.Ð `  Ðà ` àÌà ` àThe€employer€next€insists€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€court'sÐ  ð  Ðfinding€that€the€employee's€carpal€tunnel€syndrome€arose€out€of€the€employment€orÐ h¸  Ðis€permanent.€€An€accidental€injury€arises€out€of€one's€employment€when€there€isÐ 0€  Ðapparent€to€the€rational€mind,€upon€a€consideration€of€all€the€circumstances,€a€causalÐ øH  Ðconnection€between€the€conditions€under€which€the€work€is€required€to€be€performedÐ À Ðand€the€resulting€injury.€€òòFink€v.€Caudleóó,€856€€S.W.2d€€952€(Tenn.€1993).€€TheÐ ˆØ Ðmedical€proof,€particular€the€testimony€of€Drs.€Savoie€and€Boals,€provide€the€requiredÐ P  Ðcausal€connection€and€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Boals€provides€the€permanency.€€Dr.Ð h ÐBoals,€as€above€noted,€assigned€a€permanent€impairment€rating€of€ten€percent€to€theÐ à0 Ðleft€upper€extremity€for€carpal€tunnel€syndrome€or€"entrapment€neuropathy€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðmedian€nerve€at€the€wrist."Ð pÀ Ðà ` àÌà ` àThe€next€issue€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€a€25%€penalty€forÐ P Ðunpaid€temporary€total€disability€benefits.€€When€an€employer€wrongfully€fails€to€payÐ È Ðan€employee's€claim€for€temporary€total€disability€payments,€the€employer€shall€beÐ à Ðliable,€in€the€discretion€of€the€court,€to€pay€the€employee,€in€addition€to€the€amountÐ X¨ Ðdue€for€temporary€total€disability€payments,€a€sum€not€exceeding€twenty„five€percentÐ  p Ðof€such€temporary€total€disability€claim;€provided,€that€it€is€made€to€appear€to€the€courtÐ è8 Ðthat€the€refusal€to€pay€such€claim€was€not€in€good€faith€and€that€such€failure€to€payÐ ° Ðinflicted€additional€expense,€loss€or€injury€upon€the€employee;€and€provided€further,Ð xÈ  Ðthat€such€additional€liability€shall€be€measured€by€the€additional€expense€thusÐ @! Ðentailed.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(k).Ð  X" Ðà ` àÌà ` àThe€trial€court€awarded,€in€addition€to€permanent€partial€disability€benefits,Ð ˜!è$ Ðforty„three€weeks€of€temporary€total€disability€benefits€for€the€employee's€carpalÐ `"°% Ðtunnel€syndrome,€plus€a€penalty€of€twenty„five€percent,€and€ordered€that€thoseÐ (#x& Ðbenefits,€including€the€penalty,€continue€until€the€defendant€provides€the€employeeÐ ð#@' Ðwith€medical€treatment€for€the€condition.€€Ð ¸$ ( Ðà ` àÌà ` àWhile€there€is€evidence€of€some€disability€resulting€from€the€plaintiff's€carpalÐ H&˜!* Ðtunnel€syndrome,€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€that€he€is€unable€to€workÐ '`"+ Ðbecause€of€his€other€injuries€and€that€the€carpal€tunnel€syndrome€may€very€wellÐ Ø'(#, Ðresolve€itself€without€any€additional€medical€care,€as€Dr.€Boals€testified.€€We€find€inÐ  (ð#- Ðthe€record€no€evidence€that€the€claimant€was€disabled€from€working€solely€becauseÐ h)¸$. Ðof€his€carpal€tunnel€syndrome.€€Moreover,€we€find€in€the€record€no€evidence€that€theÐ 0*€%/ Ðplaintiff€suffered€any€additional€expense,€loss€or€injury€because€of€the€employer'sÐ ø*H&0 Ðfailure€to€recognize€his€carpal€tunnel€injury.€€Accordingly,€the€award€of€additionalÐ À+'1 Ðtemporary€total€disability€benefits€and€a€twenty„five€percent€penalty€for€bad€faith€isÐ ˆ,Ø'2 Ðreversed.€€However,€the€plaintiff€is€not€required€to€refund€the€temporary€total€disabilityÐ P- (3 Ðbenefits€already€paid€for€his€disabling€shoulder€injury,€and€the€employer€is€entitledÐ .h)4 Ðcredit€only€to€the€extent€necessary€to€avoid€exceeding€the€maximum€total€benefit.Ð à.0*5 Ðà ` àÌà ` àThe€next€issue€involves€the€admissibility€of€a€videotape€of€the€plaintiff€washingÐ p0À+7 Ðan€antique€car€and€showing€it€at€a€car€show.€€The€investigator€who€operated€the€videoÐ 81ˆ,8 Ðcamera€and€identified€the€tape€had€not€viewed€the€tape€before€identifying€it.€€TheÐ 2P-9 Ðplaintiff€contends,€therefore,€that€it€was€not€properly€identified€or€authenticated€asÐ È2.: Ðrequired€by€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€901(b).€€Even€if€the€admission€of€the€tape€was€error,€whichÐ 3à.; Ðwe€do€not€hold,€it€was€harmless€in€view€of€our€conclusions€concerning€the€otherÐ X4¨/< Ðissues.€€Moreover,€both€the€plaintiff€and€his€wife€admitted€that€he€washed€andÐ  5p0= Ðshowed€his€antique€car€in€an€effort€to€sell€it€to€raise€money€for€living€expenses,€butÐ è581> Ðthat€he€was€unable€to€sell€it€at€€what€he€considered€a€fair€price.Ð °62? Ðà ` àÌÓ9%ÿÿ ¦hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿŒX9Ó€€€€€The€plaintiff€insists€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€awarding€benefits€for€permanent€totalÐ @83A Ðdisability.€€When€an€injury,€not€otherwise€specifically€provided€for€in€the€Workers'Ð 9X4B ÐCompensation€Act,€totally€incapacitates€a€covered€employee€from€working€at€Ô_ÔanÐ Ð9 5C Ðoccupation€which€brings€him€an€income,€such€employee€is€considered€totallyÐ ° Ðdisabled.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207(4)(B).€€The€definition€focuses€on€anÐ xÈ Ðemployee's€ability€to€return€to€gainful€employment.€€òòDavis€v.€Reaganóó,€951€€S.W.2d€Ð @ Ð766€(Tenn.€1997).€€Although€a€vocational€expert€testified€that€the€plaintiff€was€unableÐ X Ðto€do€anything,€the€undisputed€medical€proof€is€that€he€is€able€to€do€light€work,€andÐ Ð  Ðthe€court's€finding€is€supported€by€evidence€of€the€plaintiff's€experience€in€theÐ ˜è Ðautomobile€business.€€The€evidence€thus€fails€to€preponderate€against€the€trial€court'sÐ ` ° Ðfinding€that€the€plaintiff€is€not€permanently€and€totally€disabled.Ð ( x Ѐ€€€€Ð ð @ Ѐ€€€€The€plaintiff's€contention€that€the€award€of€temporary€total€disability€benefits€andÐ ¸   Ðthe€penalty€thereon€is€inadequate€is€without€merit,€for€reasons€already€stated.€Ð € Ð  ÐHowever,€if€medical€care€is€reasonably€necessary€for€the€further€treatment€of€any€ofÐ H ˜  Ðhis€compensable€injuries,€the€employer€must€provide€it.Ð `  Ѐ€€€€Ð Ø(  ÐÓ XÓ€€€€€The€motion€for€consideration€of€post„judgment€facts€is€without€merit€and€isÐ  ð  Ðdisallowed.€€The€case€is€remanded€to€the€chancery€court€of€Maury€County€for€anÐ h¸  Ðaward€of€interest€on€unpaid€benefits€and€such€further€proceedings€as€may€beÐ 0€  Ðnecessary.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€parties,€one„half€each.Ð øH  ÐÓ XÓÓ  ÓÓB(ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿ¦hˆXBÓ_______________________________Ð h ÐÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Joe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÐ à0 ÐÓ  ÓÓ?+ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿ` ‹X?ÓCONCUR:Ð ¨ø ÐÌÌÌ_________________________________Ð È ÐFrank€F.€Ô_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ô,€III,€Associate€JusticeÐ à ÐÌÌÌ_________________________________Ð ° ÐThomas€W.€Brothers,€Special€JudgeÐ xÈ ÐÔ_ÔÔ#†X¼$XXX“ €#ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ô