WPC jaH-\fE40"yuV)agh8"HJ'] Dc`s y܊^FYDSl]##Z mun2$s':K{uKᥡ M(Kd ~0Ϝ㜘6j__KmRO5gzi,4A}E3[RkkɁ̂&ߗ7rlZyyfH!AJkpBmTF徧CŽ9,9h;ld. OɸFzA7K8mM?V!uaUNN % 0(#! nY w 4  6& U:\ M 0 & 0< 0X 0T 0< 0G8 0C D+(U >^S5N 0-U6fN?^ A mM d l t |         B AS, 0D 0D6 0Dzz D5(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($HP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\JO.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\jo.wpt@q'"3|x , \"  _ XXXX ZX X   Ad FILED XX Z  November19,1999Cecil_Crowson_,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAx ,cAZ"Arial Regular8M6Heading 1                  <:Default Para86Hyperlink     2'N0Footer  .  (#A7X` hp x (#A . <:Page Number <Z:Body Text 2 X 5+ ` hp x (#5  8.` hp x (#8(2B$ !  'dxd\  `&Times New Roman T \"  _ X!XXX *X X!   Ad FILED X!X *  November19,1999  Cecil_Crowson_,Jr. xx AppellateCourtClerkdAx  + B)  _<EED;:QuickFormat1  X  X ##d#ѓ'`Wingdings 2Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 \\RA' Legal\d~s'L U12345678910H d[\]^`E<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  YYYY)!dxdx !  _% - TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T,uXX_vZ `@0,j:`  `@E ` 8ttxP  v__@  INTHESUPREMEOFTENNESSEE   @'ATNASHVILLE % # SAMUELLOPICCOLLO%#@-} p % $ RUTHERFORDCHANCERY%$ &J @,} p No.Below% % 97WC1529%% 8\  ` Plaintiff/Appellee@,} Jn @,} p Hon.% & RobertCorlew%&8,III \ vs.@-H-5} n  @,}@,} p No.% ' M199800240WCR3CV%'   % ( PARAMOUNTPACKAGING%(?@,}   CORPORATION(TENNESSEE)0  } (#(# AND0 ` ST.PAULFIRE&MARINE0` (#` (#}(#(# INSURANCECOMPANY0  0(#(#}(#(# 0 ` @,` (#` (#} ` Defendant/Appell% ) ants%)@-} p % * AFFIRMED%* " @&JUDGMENTORDER 4 X  ` ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtupontheentirerecord,includingthe j# orderofreferraltotheSpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanelsMemorandumOpinionsettingforthitsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference. ` Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthattheMemorandumOpinionofthePanelshouldbeacceptedandapproved;and ` Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanelsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawareadoptedandaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgmentoftheCourt. ` Costswillbepaidby% + defendant/appellant%+3 ,Paramount,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. ` ITISSOORDEREDon% , November19,1999%, . :0-  `     h      p PERCURIAM 6>2/  ` #X0X #  9b41   TR[A'[A' Legal A' Legal A' LegalT   XX0 †j=0XXdd=_vZ`@0,j:`  `@E` 8ttxP  v_INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERS'COMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL ( ATNASHVILLE  P (July15,1999Session)  d   3 p x (#X3 < p x (#pX<SAMUEL_LOPICCOLLO_,  )  RUTHERFORDCHANCERY L    ) ^  ЀPlaintiffAppellee,  )  Hon.Robert_Corlew_,III, p    )  Chancellor.   v.  )     )  M199800240WCR3CV   PARAMOUNTPACKAGING  )  CORPORATION(TENNESSEE)AND  )  ST.PAULFIRE&MARINE  ) , INSURANCECOMPANY,  ) >   ) P ЀDefendantsAppellants.  ) b < p x (#pX<               R     R  Ԍ̌                        q     q  Ԍ̌         #X0X #A XX0     A               A  )Ԍ̌  A       < p x (#pX<#X0X Aܱ# XX0ForAppellants:    ForAppellee:   SharonE.England    DouglasB._Omer_ " Brewer,Krause&Brooks    Nashville,Tennessee # Nashville,Tennessee $(    MEMORANDUMOPINION (^#! MAILED:  )p$" MembersofPanel: z.)' FrankF._Drowota_,III,AssociateJustice,SupremeCourt 0+) SamuelL.Lewis,SpecialJudge 1-* FrankClement,Jr.,SpecialJudge 2.+                           yԌ̌         AFFIRMED     @     Lewis,Judge .9~41 j 80Xdd8   _  MEMORANDUMOPINION    ;4  4  4 X  ;{  Thisworkers'compensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecial 6 Workers'CompensationAppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordance  f withTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)forhearingandreportingoffindings F  offactandconclusionsoflaw.Inthisappeal,theemployerappellant, v  ParamountPackagingCorporation("Paramount"),contendsthatthe   preponderanceofevidenceestablishesthatthefiftyeight(58)percentwhole &  bodyvocationaldisabilityratingawardedtotheemployeeappellee,Samuel V Lopiccollo("Lopiccollo"),attrialistoohighandthatthetrialcourt's 6 decisionshouldbereversed.Afterreviewingtherecord,thispanelfindsthat f theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthedecisionofthetrialcourt.;{݌  Ќ  4   X  X;4  4  4 XX  ;J"  Lopiccolloisthirtyeightyearsoldandhasahighschooleducation. : HeworkedformorethanthirteenyearsasapressoperatorforParamount. "j HisjobatParamountrequiredfrequentliftingoverfifty(50)pounds. J$ Lopiccollohadvocationaltrainingforautomechanicswhilehewasinhigh z&! school,butheneverusedthisskillinanyemployment.Allhisformerjobs (#! requiredphysicalabilitysuchasliftingtocarryouthistask.;J""݌ **&# Ќ  4   XX    -Z(% OnOctober3,1997,Lopiccollowasinjuredwhilehewasworkingon  /Z*' theprintingpress.Dr.ThomasL.Gautsch,whotreatedLopiccollo, .1~,) diagnosedhimashavingacentraldischerniationatL5S1level.Toremove R3.+ theherniation,Dr.GautschperformedamicrodiscectomyonNovember24, v50- 1997.Threemonthsafterthesurgery,Lopiccollocontinuedtohaveback 72/ pain,buthislegpainhadlargelyresolved.Lopiccollostoppedtakinghis 951 medicationonhisown.PursuanttoAMAGuidelines,Dr.Gautschassigned  afifteenpercentpermanentpartialimpairmentratingandimposed $ restrictionslimitingLopiccollotofrequentliftingofuptotenpounds, H occasionalliftingandcarryingofuptotwentypounds,withnobending,  l squatting,climbing,orreachingaboveshoulderlevel. @   d  OnMarch13,1998,Dr.GautschsawLopiccolloafteraFunctional   CapacityEvaluation( FCE)wasperformed.Atthatpoint,Dr.Gautsch  determinedthatLopiccollohadreachedmaximummedicalimprovementand   thathewouldsetthepermanentrestrictionsasdeterminedbytheFCE.The D measurementsoftheFCErecommendedthatLopiccollocouldliftthirty h poundsoccasionally,fifteenpoundsfrequentlyandsixpoundscontinuously. < Italsorecommendedthathecouldsquat,kneel,sit,standandwalkfrequently ` (3466%),andbend,stairclimb,andreachabovetheshoulderlevel   continuously(67100%).BasedontheFCE,itwasdeterminedthat " Lopiccollowouldbeabletoperformworkinthe lightcategory. $   &@"  Duetohisdisability,Lopiccollothoughtthathecouldnotreturntohis )d$" previousjobs.Healsothoughthecouldnotfindajobintheprinting 8+&$ industryunderhispresentphysicalcondition.Aftertheinjury,Lopiccollodid \-(& notseekemploymentanywhere.Instead,heplannedtogotoschooltofinda /*( newfieldofwork.Inthefirstplace,LopiccolloregisteredatMotlow 1,* Collegetotakevocationaltrainingcoursesforheatingandairconditioning. 3/, However,becauseoftherestrictionsonhimforliftingandotherphysical 5<1. activities,hedecidedtoregisterfortrainingasapharmaceuticaltechnician. 8`30 † TR[A' Legal[A' A' Legal A' LegalT     Atthetimeoftrial,Lopiccollowasnottakinganymedicationexcept $ IbuprofenandwasnotusingabackbraceoraTENSunit.Hewasraising H aboutfortygamechickensforprofit.  l  @  ThepartiesinthiscasestipulatedthatLopiccollosustainedaninjuryin d  thecourseandscopeofhisdutiesasanemployeeofParamount,thatnotice   wasproper,thatmedicalbillshaveallbeenpaid,andthatthecompensation  ratebe$394.82perweek.ThetrialcourtfoundthatLopiccollosustaineda   fifteen(15)percentanatomicalimpairmentduetohisinjuryandawardedhim D afiftyeight(58)percentvocationaldisabilityapportionedtothebodyasa h whole. <  X XThereviewoftrialcourt'sfactfindingisdenovoupontherecord,   accompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectness,unlessthepreponderance " oftheevidenceisotherwise.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(2)(Supp. $  1998).Appellatecourtsmustconductanindependentexaminationofthe &@"  recordtodeterminewherethepreponderanceoftheevidencelies.Galloway )d$" v.MemphisDrumService,822S.W.2d584,586(Tenn.1991). 8+&$  X;4  4  4 X  ;7  ParamountassertsthatthetrialcourterredinawardingLopiccolloa /*( fiftyeight(58)percentpermanentpartialdisabilitytothebodyasawhole 1-* becausethecourtbaseditsfindingsonerroneousfacts.Paramountinsists 30/, thatthetrialcourtbelievedtheerroneousviewoftherestrictionsassessedby 6`1. Dr.GautschinsteadoftherecommendationbytheFCE.Paramountalso @830 insiststhatthetrialcourtplacedtoomuchweightonLopiccollo'stestimony  thathewouldbeunabletoreturntoprioremploymentduetoanerroneous 0 understandingofhisrestriction.;7(8݌  ` Ќ  4   X  ;4  4  4 X  ;;  ThispanelwillnotdecideonwhetherDr.Gautsch'srestrictionsorthe d  FCE'srecommendationindicatesmoreaccuratelythephysicalconditionof   Lopiccollo.However,ineithercase,Lopicollowillonlybeabletoworkin   the"light"category,andhewillhavesomekindsoflimitsonsquatting, D kneeling,balancing,standing,andwalking.Ineithercase,therestrictions $t imposedonhimonliftingwillprecludehimfromperforminghisprevious T jobasapressoperator,whichrequiresfrequentliftingoverfifty(50)pounds.  AllofthejobsLopiccollohadbeforeheworkedforParamountrequired  liftinginsomeform.Theevidenceintherecorddemonstratesthathis 4 impairmentsignificantlylimitedthetypesofemploymentforwhichhewas !d qualifiedanddiminishedhisabilitytoearnwagesinanemploymentthat D# wouldhavebeenavailabletohiminanuninjuredcondition.;;<݌ t%  Ќ  4   X  ;4  4  4 X  ; A  ParamountquestionsthevalidityofLopiccollo'stestimony,callingthis )%" panel'sattentiontofactssuchasLopiccollo'sdiscontinuanceofmedication +H'$ onhisownandhisraisingofgamechickensforprofit.InCorcoranv.Foster (.x)& AutoGMC,Inc.,746S.W.2d452(Tenn.1988),thisCourtheldthatthe X0+( ultimateissueistheextentofvocationaldisabilityoncemedicalevidence 2-* establishescausationandpermanency.Id.at457.Here,thefactsbroughtup 40, byParamountmayberelevanttotheissueinthiscase,butthesefactsare 682. ineffectiveindiscreditingthemedicalevidence,whichillustratesthat 9h40 Lopiccollohassustainedasubstantialpermanentinjury.Inaddition,  ParamountfailedtoshowthelinkbetweenthesefactsandLopiccollo's 0 workingabilitythatwouldaffecthisemploymentintheopenlabormarketor  ` hischanceofreturningtopreviouspositions.; AA݌ @  Ќ  4   X  XParamountinsiststhatLopiccollosawardshouldapproximatethe2   timescap(15%medicalimpairmentratingpk  5#  pkG#4  Ԁ2=37.5%maximum   permanentpartialdisabilityaward)setunderTenn.CodeAnn.506 h 241(a)(1)(Supp.1998).Itarguesthatconsideringhisphysicalcondition,his H intelligence,andhisfutureplantotakecoursesatMotlowCollege, x Lopiccollowillhavenumerousemploymentopportunitiesavailableinthe  future. (  X AsParamountadmitted,the2timescapappliesonlywhenthepre 8! injuryemployerreturnstheemployeetoemploymentatawageequaltoor h# greaterthanthewagetheemployeewasreceivingatthetimeofinjury. %  Tenn.CodeAnn.506241(a)(1)(Supp.1998).Here,Lopiccollonever '#  returnedtohispreviousemploymentandhisphysicalconditionprecluded )H%" himfromdoingso.IfLopiccollofinisheshiscoursesatMotlowCollege,he (,x'$ mighthavenumerousemploymentopportunitiesandhaveanincomegreater X.)& thanbefore.However,thisscenarioispurelyspeculative.Moreover, 0+( reducingbenefitsbecausetheemployeehasregisteredatacollegewillhave 2.* anegativeeffectoninjuredworkers'rehabilitation.InHarlanv.McClellan, 480, 572S.W.2d641(Tenn.1978),thisCourtnotedthatanemployeewho 7h2. rehabilitateshimselfandreturnstoworkratherthanrelyingonpublicrelief H940 shouldnotbepenalizedforhisrehabilitationordiscouragedfromreentry  intotheworkforcebythedenialofbenefitsforsubsequentinjuries.Id.at 0 64344.Here,Lopiccolloactivelysoughtajobthathecandounderhis  ` limitedphysicalabilityandregisteredataneducationalinstitutetotake @  propercourses.ItmaybetruethatLopiccollomighthaveabetterchanceto p  obtainemploymentinthefutureuponcompletionofadditionalcoursework.   However,ifthispanelweretolowerthedisabilityratebecauseof   Lopiccolloseffortstorehabilitatehimself,thisdecisioncouldcreatean P incentiveforinjuredemployeestorelyonpublicreliefratherthantoseek 0 newjobs. `   Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costson  appealaretaxedtothedefendantappellant,Paramount. @   !p  8" Ѐ     @    P# __________________________ h$   SamuelL.Lewis,SpecialJudge %   XCONCUR: '#  ̂_________________________________ )0%" ЀFrankF.Drowota,III,AssociateJustice, *H&# ЀSupremeCourt ,`'$ __________________________________ 1,) ЀFrankClement,Jr.,SpecialJudge#  4_G##X0X L#_