WPC >\XE<ݍ7I[ . ڧ 0rMJYCْ`RW{RJr31]x`y(1%>SIKŷkC/~u[Du]Yus`n^\HyO5"|A"*F.{P 9 RjSqkn'kq|9|cn㍚p 2Rm.hiƗR t-rrWs%).V]^+NQLC3FyKj7lrBMJgt7` oW [*zVhSUi c#lFkq~&D@ֿ /$ s6X*[;,qe{KM- ' ,Ǜ,2I90~Ts>|67!://:f,[E8M)wq@[]_Z=y# % w 0 UNU 0LG z  0DL#o^ wI4NE mUNU@)))))))))))) D1ii Bb 0 B 0 D5k D- 0K ASk 01 0D A A 0CHP LaserJet 4 Plus,,,,,,0(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(|3$ !.8Ddd8     C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(#$  0  C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT (L Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 N((PPK3|xU(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular(\Z  Z(Times New Roman '')! dxdxP Pd- -(|G2Vw$ !.8Ddd8         0  XSX d(|3$ !.8Ddd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Ddd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKKXy  <<= 8C(3p$ !.8Ddd8      d !.8dd8     _8XXdd8 @7 7  INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @$ATNASHVILLE   XX#XXh#  TROYC._LEDBETTER_Ԁv._BATESVILLE_ԀCASKETCOMPANY    @  ChanceryCourtforFranklinCounty  P @%No.14,840  h @*AV) ` dE<_` A߈ `  @  No.M199800670SCWCMCVDecidedApril7,2000   AV) ` dE<` A   @xx&JUDGMENT .   XXThiscaseisbeforetheCourtuponmotionforreviewofTroyC._Ledbetter_ԀpursuanttoTenn. ^ CodeAnn.506225(e)(5)(B),theentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferraltotheSpecial N Workers'CompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanel'sMemorandumOpinionsettingforthits > findingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference; .   Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthatthemotionforreviewisnotwelltakenandshould  bedenied;and    Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanel'sfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawareadopted  andaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgmentoftheCourt. ~   CostswillbepaidbyTroyC._Ledbetter_,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. ^   Itissoordered. >!    `     h     PER_CURIAM_ $^! #XXH##)#XXXXXXBIRCH,J.,NOTPARTICIPATING#XXXX ##XXo # &f!#    `     h  'V"$ XX8XXdXXd8XXXX#XXXX #XXXX#XXXXC #XXXX   `  INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE $ t   SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANELATNASHVILLE  `    `    (MAY27,1999SESSION)  L  TROYC._LEDBETTER_,   h   )      `     h   )     Plaintiff/Appellee,   h   )   p &%XXFRANKLINCOUNTYCHANCERY#XX%& #      `     h   )      `     h   ) p v.   `     h   )   p Hon.JeffreyF.Stewart \    `     h   )   p Chancellor. H _BATESVILLE_ԀCASKETCOMPANY,  )   p NO.01S019805CH00104 4    `     h   )  p   Defendant/Appellant,   h   )  \   ForAppellants    h      p ForAppellee   ̀Bryan_Essary_ `     h     TimothyS.Priest  Nashville,TN `     h     Nashville,TN    MEMORANDUMOPINION X  @ FiledApril7,_2000_Ԉ D! @*  MembersofPanel: #l! Justice_Adolpho_ԀA.Birch,Jr. $D # HenryD.Bell,SpecialJudge %0!$ Hamilton_Gayden_,Jr.,SpecialJudge &"%  0@,0 ЇREVERSED `     h      p     Hamilton_Gayden_ 8     `     h      p     SpecialJudge#XXXX #XXXX $ t     gV  #XXXXq#XXXXThisworkerscompensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkersCompensation \ AppealsPanelinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)forhearingandreportingof 4 findingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.#XXXX #XXXXԀTheappellant,_Batesville_ԀCasketCompanyallegestwo  \ errorswerecommittedbythetrialcourt:(1)Thetrialcourterredinitsconclusionthattheplaintiff 4 hadreached_maximun_Ԁmedicalimprovementforthiscasetoberipeforadeterminationofallissues;   (2)Thetrialcourtsassignmentof50%disabilitytothearmiscontrarytotheevidencepresented  attrial.Onappealtheappelleealsoassertsthatthetrialcourterredinnotallowinghimtorecover l theexaminationfeeoffivehundreddollarsthat#XXXXY#XXXXwaspaidtoDr._Gaw_#XXXXE#XXXX,aconsultingphysician. D!   Thepanelfindsthattheevidence_prepoderates_Ԁagainstafindingthatthiscasewasripefor #l! determinationforallissues.However,thepanelaffirmsthetrialcourtsdenialofreimbursement $D # ofthefivehundreddollarexamination.Thepanelremandsforfurtherhearingtheamountofthe &"% permanentimpairmentwhentheclaimisripefordetermination. (#'   Reviewofthefindingoffactsbythetrialcourtshallbedenovoupontherecordofthetrial |*%) court,accompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthefinding,unlessthepreponderanceof T,'+ theevidenceisotherwise. ,.|)-   Appellee,TroyCraig_Ledbetter_Ԁisfortyoneyearsoldandisahighschoolgraduate.Appellee 0T+/ beganhiscareerat_Batesville_ԀCasketCompanyinapproximately1977or1978,andasofApril7,  1998,appelleewasstillemployedbyappellant.Appelleehasheldmanydifferentpositionsduring  histwentyyearcareer,includingmanythatrequiredhimtousevibratorytoolsthatnecessitated ` constantgripping,squeezing,andlifting.Atthetimeofthehearingbelowtheappelleewasstill 8  activelyemployedbytheappellant.  `   InapproximatelyMayof1994,appellee,arighthanddominant,beganexperiencingapain  8  inthecenterofhiswrist.Theappelleesoughtmedicalattentionfromthenursethatwasonsiteat   _Batesville_.Thenurseprovidedappelleewithabraceforhiswrist.Approximatelyoneyearlaterthe   appelleesoughtoutsidemedicalattentionbecauseofworseningpaininhiswrist.OnMay4,1995 p theappelleevisitedDr.RobertRussellwhodiagnosedappelleeashaving_Kienbock_sdisease.Dr. H Russellexplainedthat_Kienbock_sdiseaseisidiopathic,butismainlyseeninpeoplewhoutilize  p vibratorytoolsthatrequireconstantgripping,squeezingandlifting.#XXXX#XXXXԀDr.Russellhastreatedhundreds H ofcasesof_Kienbock_sdisease.#XXXXv%#XXXXTheappelleesubsequentlyvisitedDr.RussellonJune29,1995,   October27,1995,May7,1996,andSeptember20,1996.Thesefollowupvisitsshowedno  improvement,noworsening,andcontinuedpainanddiscomfort.Dr.Russellinformedtheappellee  thatanordinarycaseof_Kienbock_sdiseasecouldhealwithintwotofouryearsandthewaitandsee X  approachwasbest. 0"    InDr.Russellsdepositionhestatedthathedidnotbelievethattheappelleehadreached $X" apointinwhichapermanentimpairmentratingwasappropriate.Inhisopinion_Kienbock_sdiseases %0!$ couldtakeuptofouryearstoreverseitselfandhewasoftheopinionthattheappelleescondition '#& wouldcontinuetoimprove. )$(   #XXXX1&#XXXXTheappellee,ontheadviceofcounsel,wenttoseeDr._Gaw_,aphysicianspecializingin h+&* orthopedics.Dr._Gaw_ԀconfirmedDr.Russellsdiagnosis.#XXXX?*#XXXXHowever,inDr._Gaw_sdepositionhe,Dr. @-(, _Gaw_,gavetheopinionthattheappelleehadreachedmaximummedicalimprovementonJune29, /h*. 1995.Dr._Gaw_Ԁstatedfurtherthattheappelleesconditionwillnotimprovebecauseinhisopinion 0@,0 ithadreachedaplateau.Dr._Gaw_ԀdefinedthetermplateaubasedontheAMAGuides,whichstates  thatiftheimpairmentisnotlikelytochangemorethanthreepercentimpairmenttothebodyasa  wholeinthefollowingyear,thenbydefinitionthepersonsconditionhas_plateaued_.Dr._Gaw_ ` concludedthattheappelleehada12%impairmenttothe_extremenity_Ԁanda7%impairmenttothe 8  wholeperson.Dr_Gaw_Ԁhastreatedfivecasesof_Kienbock_sdisease.  `   Thus,theissueofwhethertheappelleesmedicalconditionhadreachedmaximummedical  8  improvementisthematrixforaprofessionaldisagreementbetweenDr.RussellandDr._Gaw_.     Theappellantcites_TCA_Ԁ506225(e)(2)toshowthatthepreponderanceofevidenceproves   thiscasewasnotripefordetermination,andshouldnotbedecideduntilappelleestreatingphysician p isabletodeterminewhethertheconditionisstaticandsusceptibletoapermanentimpairmentrating. H Theappellantassertsthatapostponementshouldhaveoccurred.Theappellantsubmitstothecourt  p thatthenatureofthecaseisofanonpressingnature,whichisillustratedbytheappelleescontinued H workfortheappellant,inadditiontotheprobabilityofhisconditionimproving.Theappellantrelies   onthetreatingphysician,Dr.Russellinhisconclusionsthatapermanentimpairmentratingis  inappropriatebecausetheappelleesconditionislikelytoimprove.Theappellantalsodirectsthe  courttolookattheimprovementbetweenDr.RussellsfindingsinJune1996withDr._Gaws_ X  findingsinOctober1997asevidenceoftheillnessimproving,theappellantfurthersubmitstothe 0"  courtthatDr._Gaw_Ԁrefusedtoacknowledgeanyimprovementbetween#XXXXj+#XXXXԀtherangeofmotionrecorded $X" Ѐoneyearprior#XXXX6#XXXXԀbyDr.Russellandtherangeofmotionherecorded,eventhoughthenumbershad %0!$ drasticallyimproved. '#&   Aftercarefulreviewthepanelbelievesthatthiscasewasnotripefordeterminationonallthe )$( issuesbecausetheappelleehadnotreachedmaximummedicalimprovement.Dr.Russell,the h+&* treatingphysician,clearlystatedthathebelievedwithareasonableamountofmedicalcertaintythat @-(, theappelleesconditionwouldimprove.TheCourtadoptstheopinionofappelleestreating /h*. physician.TheCourtthereforeremandsthiscasetothetrialcourtforadeterminationofplaintiffs 0@,0 impairmentwhenappelleereachesmaximummedicalimprovement.Thepanelaffirmsthetrial  courtsdenialofthefivehundreddollarexaminationfeepaidtoDr._Gaw_Ԁbytheappellee.Court  costsareassessedtotheappellee. ` #XXXX7#XXXX   `     h      p      x     `     h   򀀀 x    8     `     h   Hamilton_Gayden_,Jr.,SpecialJudge $  *WCONCUR:   =̀   Justice_Adolpho_ԀA.Birch,Jr. t =̀ ^ HenryD.Bell,SpecialJudge 4 >#XXXX;#XXXX   `    _#XXXX?#__Ԛ_