WPCf+ 'apRWs"b_ڇqY|UM=f#@ JKn[X7v)Yij7]c$ p# ? 5|oJB` څs!hzQ|e3ՃohI; *ǽ[KIEYe[$ey*).&K*y(<=tܙQZsߊ X?[9y )e10:_;40, 1͛Z0Պ0?gU՜w=:j2E~*iJɰ CSSbƔDK1-#|Dz In(ȓp?Ñ$W7wpQUd]Dਁ--GHQy_߲l+!߁zϓY˭爔=ќN5i,v368ΆH2oB23"h;j.*s b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz U@   ] #lNU 0DWFE 0U 08 0! 0 0 0 0 0 0X 0C, 0o 0F 0 0 0 0 0L 0 0@ 0 0 b! 0! 0" 0W# 0$ 0$ 0%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 0c&c&c&c& BN'N' 0k' D3( D-B( 0Ko(o( AS( ) 0) 0Dw* A*HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0zX-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular,- C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(9 Z(Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 b Rc$      1  -  _XYX-Thetrialcourtdidnotdifferentiatetheeffectofthevariousmedicalandpsychiatricinjuries  ontheplaintiffsvocationaldisability.#-XXY~#(#$  0   < Rc$      2  -  _XYX-Van_Tran_Ԁv.State,66S.W.3d790,804(Tenn.2001)(statingthatthelegislaturesetspublic  policy).*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  - -(AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (|G2c$ !.8XUdXXd8         0  - d(|3 Z$ !.8XUdXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 Z$ !.8XUdXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8XUdd8     _   XU8YXXdd8=XUdd=Ӏ@ V4XUINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#XUV4J#XYXXUԈ   &   #XUXXY#September5,2002SessionXYXXU L  #XUXXYj#JACKIEMARTINv.LEARCORPORATION XYXXU J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtfor_Hamblen_ԀCounty  J @@No.98CV303_Kindall_ԀLawson,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200101002SCWCMCVFiledOctober24,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Inthisworkerscompensationcase,wearecalledupontodeterminewhetherthetrialcourtmay x  admitaformC32medicalreportobtainedbytheplaintifffromthedefendants consultingexpert, d aphysicianwhomadeaphysicalexaminationoftheplaintiff.Thedefendantclaimsthatthe P physicianithiredtomakeanindependentmedicalexaminationoftheplaintiffisprotectedfrom < compelledtestimonyunderTennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure26.02(4)(B).However,the (x TennesseesWorkersCompensationLaw,specificallyTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsections506 d 204(f)and506235(c),clearlypermitstheadmissionoftestimony,includingamedicalreportform, P ofanexaminingphysicianpaidforbytheemployerinaworkerscompensationcase.Therefore, < weholdthat,pursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsections506204(f)and506235(c),thetrial ( courtdidnoterrbyadmittingthephysiciansmedicalreport.  S Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e);JudgmentoftheTrialCourtisAffirmed     FrankF._Drowota_,III,C.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhich_Adolpho_ԀA.Birch,Jr., t JaniceM.Holder,andWilliamM.Barker,JJ.joined.E.RileyAnderson,J.,NotParticipating. ` StevenH.TrentandJenniferP.Keller,JohnsonCity,Tennessee,fortheappellant,LearCorporation. 8!  JamesM.Davis,_Morristown_,Tennessee,fortheappellee,JackieMartin. #`" W @@OO& OPINION  $8 $      FactualBackground  &"&    Theplaintiff,JackieMartin,workedasaseatbackassemblerforthedefendant,Lear '"' Corporation,locatedin_Hamblen_ԀCounty,Tennessee,fromNovember9,1989,untilSeptember4, (#( 1998.Atthetimeoftrial,Martinwasfiftysevenyearsold.Heismarried,thefatheroftwogrown )$) children,andaveteranoftwentyfouryearsofmilitaryserviceintheUnitedStatesArmy.Martin p*%* servedtwotoursofdutyinVietnam.Asaresultofhismilitaryservice,hesuffersfromPost \+&+ TraumaticStressDisorder( PTSD),whichwasdiagnosedin1996.MartinsemploymentatLear H,', involvedrepetitivemotioninwhichheliftedthebackportionofseatsataproductionrateof1,735 4-(- _perday.OnSeptember23,1998,Martinfiledacomplaintseekingworkerscompensationbenefits,  allegingthathisphysicalinjuriesresultedfromhisworkatLearandthathisPTSDwasaggravated  bythoseinjuries.    Attrial,theplaintifftestifiedthathebegantoexperiencepaininhisrightelbowandleft ` shoulderinlate1996.Inearly1997,Martinreportedhisinjurytohissupervisor,DonShockley,and L  acquiredarmsupportsfromthenurseinthecompanyclinic.MartinalsobegantoseeDr.Randall 8  Greer,aphysicianonthelistofworkerscompensationphysiciansprovidedbyLear.Greertreated $ t MartinandreferredMartintophysicaltherapyandtoanotherdoctor,Dr.MichaelBratton.  `   Inthespringof1998,Martinbegantoexperienceintensepaininbotharms,constant  8  inflammationofhiselbows,swellinginhisrightelbow,numbnessinhisrighthand,andasorespot $  inthebackofhisneck.HeagainvisitedDr.Greer,whoreferredMartintoaneurologist,Dr.Scott   Bridges.FollowinghisvisitwithDr.Bridges,MartinnotifiedthenurseandasafetyofficeratLear   thathehadbeendiagnosedwithcarpaltunnelsyndrome,tendinitisinbothelbows,bursitiswith   tendinitisinbothshoulders,aruptureddiscinhisneck,andtwonarroweddiscsinhisneck.     OnSeptember4,1998,Martinunderwentsurgeryforrightcarpaltunnelrelease,performed \ byDr.JohnAmbrosia.MartinlaterhadsurgeryonhisrightshoulderonJune15,1999,performed H byDr.Bratton.OnLearsrequest,neitherdoctorgaveMartinanimpairmentrating.Martintestified 4 that,asaresultofhisemploymentwithLear,henowsuffersfromdepression,sleeplessness,and  p constant,disablingpainthatpreventshimfromperformingmanydaytodayactivities.  \   OnApril24,2000,Learfiledamotionrequestingthecourttoorderanindependentmedical 4 examinationbyaneurologist.Learsmotionwasgranted,andDr.StevenSandersperformedthe   examinationonAugust28,2000.OnNovember7,LearnotifiedMartinthatDr.Sanderswasa   consultingexpertonly,andthathewasnotexpectedtotestify.Then,onDecember5,Martinfiled  anoticethathewouldfileDr.SandersformC32medicalreport,obtainedbyMartinfromDr.  Sanders,tobeusedasevidenceunderTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection506235(c)(1).Lear  objected,claimingthatTennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure26.02(4)(B)protectsfromdiscoverythe l opinionofaconsultingexpertwhowillnotbecalledasawitness. X    ThetrialcourtfoundinfavorofMartinandadmittedtheC32reportintoevidence.Dr. 0"  SandersreportagreedwiththeopinionofMartinsexpert,Dr.Gutch,astheybothfoundMartinto #l! haveapermanentimpairmentratingof39%.RelyingontheopinionsofDrs.Ambrosia,Bratton, $X" Sanders,andGutch,andtheopinionofDr.RussellMcKnight,apsychiatrist,thetrialcourtfound $D # thatMartinwaspermanentlyandtotallydisabledandawardedhimworkerscompensationbenefits %0!$ accordingly. #  1       &"%   '#&   BeforetheSpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPanel,Learassertedthatthetrialcourt   erredbyadmittingtheconsultingexpertsreport,byfindingthatMartingaveadequatenoticetothe  employer,byfindingthattheworkrelatedinjuriesaggravatedMartinspsychologicalcondition,and  byawardingMartinpermanentandtotaldisability.ThePanelaffirmedthejudgmentofthetrial t courtastoallissuesexceptthetrialcourtsfindingthatMartinspsychologicalconditionwas ` aggravatedbyhisworkrelatedinjuries.However,thePanelfoundthatthetrialcourtsawardof L  permanentandtotaldisabilityissufficientlysupportedbytheplaintiffsphysicalinjuries. 8    WegrantedLearsmotionforreviewandnowaffirmthetrialcourtsjudgment.  `    StandardofReview   8  #   XYXXXYInworkers'compensationcases,thestandardofreviewisdenovoupontherecord,   accompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthetrialcourt'sfactualfindings,unlessthe   preponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.CodeAnn.50-6-225(e)(2)#XYXX XY##;Manneryv.Wal   MartDistrib.Center,69S.W.3d193,196(Tenn.2002).      Analysis  \  ExaminingPhysiciansReport  H %  TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection506116declarestheWorkersCompensationstatute  p toberemedialinnature,anddirectsthatthestatute shallbegivenanequitableconstructionbythe  \ courts,totheendthattheobjectsandpurposesofthischaptermayberealizedandattained.Tenn. H CodeAnn.506116(1999). Accordingly,theselawsshouldberationallybutliberallyconstrued 4 topromoteandadheretotheAct'spurposesofsecuringbenefitstothoseworkerswhofallwithin   itscoverage.SeeWattv.LumbermensMut.Cas.Ins.Co.,62S.W.3d123,128(Tenn.2001)   (quotingLindseyv.Smith&Johnson,Inc.,601S.W.2d923,926(Tenn.1980)).    ThiscaseinvolvestheinteractionbetweentheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureandthe  WorkersCompensationstatute.TheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureapplytoallcivilactions l inthisstate,seeTenn.R.Civ.P.1(2002);however,asthisCourthaspreviouslyheld,  XYXXXYspecific X  statutoryprovisionstypicallywillbegivenforceandeffectovermoregeneralstatutoryprovisions. D! Pattersonv.TennesseeDept.ofLaborandWorkforceDev.,60S.W.3d60,64(Tenn.2001);seealso 0"  FiveStarExpress,Inc.v.Davis,866S.W.2d944,946(Tenn.1993).#XYXX XY+#ԀTherefore,astoissuesin #l! workerscompensationcases,theRulesaresubjecttothemorespecificWorkersCompensation $X" statute. $D #   RelyinguponTennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure26.02(4)(B),thedefendantarguesthatthe &"% trialcourterredinallowingtheplaintifftointroducethedefendantsexaminingphysiciansreport '#& attrialbecausethedefendantdesignatedthephysicianaconsultingexpert.Rule26.02(4)(B) (#' provides: )$(   |*%) 8  Apartymaynotdiscovertheidentityof,factsknownby,oropinionsheldbyan   expertwhohasbeenconsultedbyanotherpartyinanticipationoflitigationor  preparationfortrialandwhoisnottobecalledasawitnessattrialexceptas  providedinRule35.02oruponashowingthatthepartyseekingdiscoverycannot t obtainfactsoropinionsonthesamesubjectbyothermeans.`   Tenn.R.Civ.P.26.02(4)(B)(2002). 8    Plaintiff,however,contendsthatTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection506204(f)controlsin  ` thiscase.Section506204(f)states,  L  8  Anyphysicianwhoseservicesarefurnishedorpaidforbytheemployerandwho $  treatsormakesorispresentatanyexaminationofaninjuredemployeemaybe   requiredtotestifyastoanyknowledgeacquiredbysuchphysicianinthecourseof   suchtreatmentorexaminationassamerelatestotheinjuryordisabilityarising   therefrom.    Tenn.CodeAnn.506204(f)(1999).Furthermore,TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection506 \ 235(c)permitsanypartytousemedicalreportsinlieuofdepositionsasevidenceattrial. H 8  (1)Anypartymayintroducedirecttestimonyfromaphysicianthroughawritten  p medicalreportonaformestablishedbythecommissioneroflaborandworkforce  \ development.Thecommissionershallestablishbyruletheformforthereport.All H partiesshallhavetherighttotakethephysiciansdepositiononcrossexamination 4 concerningits      contents....   8  (2)Thewrittenmedicalreportofatreatingorexaminingphysicianshallbe  admissibleatanystageofaworkerscompensationclaiminlieuofadepositionupon  oralexamination,ifnoticeofintenttousetheswornstatementisprovidedtothe l opposingpartyorcounselnotlessthantwenty(20)daysbeforethedateofintended X  use....D!   Tenn.CodeAnn.506235(c)(1)&(2)(1999). #l! 0  0` (#(# ` (#` (#   Weagreewiththeplaintiff.WhileRule26.06protectsmost consultingexperts,the $D # Legislaturehasmadeitclearthatinworkerscompensationcases,physicianshiredbytheemployer %0!$ whotreat,make,orarepresentatphysicalexaminationsofworkerscompensationplaintiffs may &"% berequiredtotestify.Furthermore,section506235(c)(1)allowsthephysiciansmedicalreport '#& tobeintroducedattrialinlieuoftestimony.Inthiscase,therequirementsofsection506204(f) (#' havebeensatisfied:Lear,theemployer,hiredDr.Sanders,amedicaldoctor,toperforman )$( independentmedicalexaminationoftheplaintiff,JackieMartin.MartinobtainedaformC32 |*%) medicalreportfromDr.Sanders,and,onDecember5,2000,Martinfiledanoticewiththecourtthat h+&* heplannedonusingDr.Sandersmedicalreportattrial.TrialwasFebruary23,2001,thusthe  plaintiffsnoticewasincompliancewithsection506235(c)(2).  Ѐ    Therefore,LearsNovember7,2000lettertoMartinindicatingthatDr.Sanderswastobe t aconsultingexperthasnoimpactonouranalysis.TheclearimplicationoftheWorkers ` Compensationstatuteisthataphysicianfurnishedbytheemployerwho treats,makes,orispresent L  ataphysicalexaminationoftheemployeecanneverbedeemedaconsultingexpertforthepurpose 8  ofprotectingthatphysiciansreport. $ t   Learhasprovidedauthoritytosupportitsargumentthatexaminingexpertsdeemed  L  consultingexpertsafterexaminationsareprotectedfromforcedtestimony.See,e.g.Whitev.  8  VanderbiltUniv.,21S.W.3d215,224(Tenn.Ct.App.1999)(suggestingthatapartycouldshield $  thefindingsofadoctorwhohadbeenclassifiedasaconsultingexpertbeforebeingdeposed),   Durflingerv.Artiles,727F.2d888(10thCir.1984),Reevesv.Boyd&Sons,Inc.,654N.E.2d864   (Ind.Ct.App.1995).Importantly,however,noneofthecasesonwhichLearreliesareworkers   compensationcases.ThereforethisauthorityisinappositebecauseTennesseeCodeAnnotated   section506204(f)didnotapply. p   Additionally,Learcitestwounreportedworkerscompensationcasesatthetriallevelthat H provideRule26.02protectiontoconsultingexperts.Onecase,however,involvedavocational 4 expert,whichdoesnotfallundersection506204(f).Intheothercase,thetrialcourt,which  p allowedthedefendanttopreventitsexaminingphysicianfromtestifying,wasevidentlynotmade  \ awareofsection506204(f).ThetrialcourtsorderspecificallynotesthatTennesseesWorkers H CompensationLaw seemsnottohaveaddressedthespecificissuepresented. 4   Lear,acknowledgingtheexistenceofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection506204(f),asks   thisCourttofindthestatuteunconstitutionalunderaseparationofpowersargument,relyingonState  v.Mallard,40S.W.3d473(Tenn.2001).InMallard,weheldthataparticularcriminalstatutethat  conflictedwithRuleofEvidence404(b)wasunconstitutional.Sincethestatuteinquestion  conflictedwitharuleofevidence,thisCourtwasconcernedaboutunderminingthejudicial l determinationoflogicalandlegalrelevancy.Seeid.at483.WerecognizedthattheGeneral X  Assemblycanestablishrulesofevidenceinfurtheranceofthesubstantivelaw,butitsabilitytoenact D! rulesforuseincourtmustbeconfinedtothoseareasappropriatetotheexerciseofthatpower.See 0"  id.at481.WeemphasizedthatonlytheSupremeCourthastheinherentpowertopromulgaterules #l! governingthepracticeandprocedureofthecourtsofthisstate.Seeid.at480481.Thus,we $X" concludedthatthelegislaturehasnoconstitutionalauthoritytoenactrulesthatstrikeattheheartof $D # thecourtsexerciseofjudicialpower.Seeid.at483. %0!$   ThiscaseclearlyisdistinguishablefromMallard.First,thestatuteatissueinthiscasedoes '#& notimpermissiblyconflictwithRule26.02becauseitmerelylimitstheapplicationofRule26.02 (#' incertaincircumstances"whenanemployerinaworkerscompensationcasehiresaphysicianto )$(  treat,make,orbepresentataphysicalexaminationoftheemployee.Employersarenotprecluded |*%) fromrelyinguponRule26.02astootherexpertswhodonotmeetthestrictrequirementsofthe  statute.      `     h      p   Second,asthedefendantpointsout,Rule26.02(4)(B)isgroundedinpublicpolicyconcerns. t Withouttheprotectionofthisrule,litigantswouldbereluctanttoconsultexpertsforfearthattheir ` effortswouldprovecounterproductive,inthatanyunfavorablefindingscouldbeusedagainstthem. L  Further,itwouldbeunfairforonepartytoreapthebenefitsoftheotherpartysefforts.However, 8  publicpolicygenerallyissetbytheLegislature, #  2      ׀and,inparticular,theWorkersCompensationLaw $ t isentirelyacreatureofstatute.See,e.g.,Crumpv.B&PConst.Co.,703S.W.2d140,144(Tenn.  ` 1986);Perryv.TransamericaIns.Group,703S.W.2d151,154(Tenn.Ct.App.1985).Assuch,the  L  Legislatureistheappropriatebodytosetthepolicythatgovernsworkerscompensationcases.  8    ByenactingTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection506204(f),theLegislatureisadvancingthe   remedialpurposeofworkerscompensationcases:thatofsecuringbenefitstothosewhofallwithin   itscoverage.Thepurposeofthisprovisioninparticularseemstobethatthelegislaturedidnotwant   employers,withgreaterresources,tosendinjuredemployeestomanyphysiciansforphysical   examinationsuntiltheemployerreceivesafavorableresult.Thereis,however,norequirementof p sharedinformationorforcedtestimonywithregardtotheemployersuseofnonphysicianexperts \ orphysicianswhoconsultwithoutexaminingtheemployee.Therefore,section506204(f)isnot H unconstitutionalasthedefendantcontends.TheLegislaturehasnotwhollysuspendedRule 4 26.02(4)(B)sapplication.Ithasmerelyprovidedanalternativeprocedureinalimitedandspecific  p context"workerscompensationcases.Accordingly,weconcludethatthetrialcourtinthiscase  \ didnoterrinallowingMartintointroduceintoevidenceDr.SandersC32form. H    TotalandPermanentDisability    ^X  Thedefendantassertsthatthereisnotenoughevidencetosupportthetrialcourts  determinationoftotalandpermanentdisability.Wedisagree.Asstatedearlier,twodoctorsfound  theplaintiffsuffereda39%permanentmedicalimpairment.Theplaintiffhimselftestifiedbefore  thetrialcourtastohisinjuriesandcontinuingdisability,andtherewasevidencethattheplaintiffs l disabilitywascausedbytheplaintiffsworkforthedefendant.Inaddition,afterreviewingthe X  record,weareoftheopinionthattheSpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPanelerredin D! concludingthatDr.McKnightstestimonywastoospeculativetosupportanawardbasedon 0"  psychologicalinjuries.Inourview,therecorddoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfinding #l! thattheworkrelatedinjuriesaggravatedtheplaintiffspsychologicalproblems.Therefore,wereject $X" thePanelsfindingonthisissueandaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. $D #   WithrespecttothenoticeissueraisedbythedefendantandaddressedbytheSpecial &"% WorkersCompensationAppealsPanel,weagreewiththePanelthat Beyondtheoralnoticegiven '#& bytheplaintifftopeopleauthorizedtoreceivenotice,wefindthewrittenformfiledbytheplaintiff (#' withthedefendantsatisfiestherequirementofwrittennoticeastothephysicalinjuriesofthe  plaintiff.     Conclusion  t n_  Weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt,findingthattheplaintiffsufferedacompensable L  injurywhileemployedbythedefendantandthatheistotallyandpermanentlydisabled.Costsofthis 8  appealaretaxedtothedefendant,LearCorporation. p  $ t Ѐ   `     h     ___________________________________  8     `     h     FRANKF.DROWOTA,III,CHIEFJUSTICE#XUXXY#