WPCJ AÝ{cZ}&xjςnzDvT2`]x;m?|f>T+ 7)30XwIH"?B,҂;e}h壸=4L^%VCCW2pk-3~l3.gY-ׁ̳5wH"ߢ g>8EO165Y5 ]Qq NĻ?;xnjr<zBawη3?3sR nXgmNt0x.&a B`J|3'>k=^̡g1$T弸͉_3XPi06&l?}o(GꈂbdV!V>a @9N)^g7ӥ_%YkX )`<# HNS %U 0x[w4r 0L AQ^ : 0DF  UF   U UFW W mE P1MUF~ $ 8!h4"#J~') 0z+ B6,S,P.^ o2{2 m}2Z23$4J5 89U:;;?CG 0DH 0DH 0D-I D/qI BII D3JHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLlX(PH$ ` X     #6$   `   2    _LemlertestifiedthattheemployeesIQlevelwas74.'V[e\]^_`Eabcde{fg{hijDk-mDnUopqDrsDtuvDwxyz{|D}D~DӀsF(&3|x>c$"Small Circle"0 45678C<< C&n^%(#$  0  H<4 9Z .Courier New Regular  #$X   `   4    _Thetrialcourtbasedthisdisabilityratinguponafinding  thattheemployeehada5percentmedicalimpairmentduetothebackinjuryanda5percentmedicalimpairmentduetothedepression.Usingthe2.5statutorymultiplier,thetrialcourtfounda25percentpermanentpartialdisability. #$X   `   2    _LemlertestifiedthattheemployeesIQlevelwas74.4.Courier New Regular M #$X   `   3    __Hankins_ԀmistakenlybelievedthatCateshadplacedatwopound  liftingrestrictiononbothoftheemployeesarms,wheninfact,theorthopedistgaveatwopoundrestrictiontotheleftarmandatenpoundrestrictiontotherightarm.Whenaskedhowhisassessmentwouldbealteredbythetenpoundrestriction,Hankinsadmittedthattherewouldbe afewsedentaryjobsthattheemployeecouldperform.U ; #$X   `   6    _Subsection(a)(1)provides: Ifanemployeehaspreviously  sustainedapermanentphysicaldisabilityfromanycauseororigin   andbecomespermanentlyandtotallydisabledthroughasubsequentinjury,suchemployeeshallbeentitledtocompensationfromsuchemployee'semployerortheemployer'sinsurancecompanyonlyforthedisabilitythatwouldhaveresultedfromthesubsequentinjury,andsuchpreviousinjuryshallnotbeconsideredinestimatingthecompensationtowhichsuchemployeemaybeentitledunderthischapterfromtheemployerortheemployer'sinsurancecompany;provided,thatinadditiontosuchcompensationforasubsequentinjury,andaftercompletionofthepaymentstherefor,thensuchemployeeshallbepaidtheremainderofthecompensationthatwouldbedueforthepermanenttotaldisabilityoutofaspecialfundtobeknownasthesecondinjuryfundthereincreated.  #6$   `   6    Initsbrief,theemployerarguedthatthetrialcourt  erredinawardingmorethanthestatutorymaximumof400weeksofbenefits.WerecentlydecidedthisissueinBomelywherein  weheldthatbenefitsforpermanenttotaldisabilityarenotsubjecttothe400weekcap.Bomely,970S.W.2dat932. ` X Thus,thetrialcourtdidnoterr. ' #$X   `   2    _GreenstestimonysupportsLemlersconclusionthatthe  employeesdepressionresultedinlargepartfromherworkrelatedphysicalinjuries.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular  #6$   `   7    _Subsection(a)(1)provides: Ifanemployeehas  previouslysustainedapermanentphysicaldisabilityfromanycauseororiginandbecomespermanentlyandtotallydisabledthroughasubsequentinjury,suchemployeeshallbeentitledtocompensationfromsuchemployee'semployerortheemployer'sinsurancecompanyonlyforthedisabilitythatwouldhaveresultedfromthesubsequentinjury,andsuchpreviousinjuryshallnotbeconsideredinestimatingthecompensationtowhichsuchemployeemaybeentitledunderthischapterfromtheemployerortheemployer'sinsurancecompany;provided,thatinadditiontosuchcompensationforasubsequentinjury,andaftercompletionofthepaymentstherefor,thensuchemployeeshallbepaidtheremainderofthecompensationthatwouldbedueforthepermanenttotaldisabilityoutofaspecialfundtobeknownasthe"secondinjuryfund"thereincreated.  #$X   `   5    Initsbrief,theemployerarguedthatthetrialcourterred  inawardingmorethanthestatutorymaximumof400weeksofbenefits.WerecentlydecidedthisissueinBomelywhereinweheld  thatbenefitsforpermanenttotaldisabilityarenotsubjecttothe400weekcap.Bomely,970S.W.2dat932.Thus,thetrialcourt ` X didnoterr.  #$X   `   7    _Subsection(b)(1)provides,inpertinentpart: (A)In  caseswheretheinjuredemployeehasreceivedorwillreceiveaworkers'compensationawardorawardsforpermanentdisabilitytothebodyasawhole,andthecombinationofsuchawardsequalsorexceedsonehundredpercent(100%)permanentdisabilitytothebodyasawhole,theemployeeshallnotbeentitledtoreceivefromtheemployeroritsinsurancecarrieranycompensationforpermanentdisabilitytothebodyasawholethatwouldbeinexcessofonehundredpercent(100%)permanentdisabilitytothebodyasawhole,aftercombiningawards.(B)Benefitswhichmaybeduetheemployeeforpermanentdisabilitytothebodyasawholeinexcessofonehundredpercent(100%)permanentdisabilitytothebodyasawhole,aftercombiningawards,shallbepaidbythesecondinjuryfund.  #6$   `   3    _GreenstestimonysupportsLemlersconclusionthatthe  employeesdepressionresultedinlargepartfromherworkrelatedphysicalinjuries. CatesLemler Lenz ^ #$X   `   1    __Cates_Ԁratedtheemployeeshand/wristinjuryasa16percent  permanentimpairmenttoherarmwhichtranslatestoa10percentpermanentimpairmenttothebodyasawhole.  #6$   `   8    _Subsection(b)(1)provides,inpertinentpart: (A)In  caseswheretheinjuredemployeehasreceivedorwillreceiveaworkers'compensationawardorawardsforpermanentdisabilitytothebodyasawhole,andthecombinationofsuchawardsequalsorexceedsonehundredpercent(100%)permanentdisabilitytothebodyasawhole,theemployeeshallnotbeentitledtoreceivefromtheemployeroritsinsurancecarrieranycompensationforpermanentdisabilitytothebodyasawholethatwouldbeinexcessofonehundredpercent(100%)permanentdisabilitytothebodyasawhole,aftercombiningawards.(B)Benefitswhichmaybeduetheemployeeforpermanentdisabilitytothebodyasawholeinexcessofonehundredpercent(100%)permanentdisabilitytothebodyasawhole,aftercombiningawards,shallbepaidbythesecondinjuryfund. @ #6$   `   4    __Hankins_ԀmistakenlybelievedthatCateshadplacedatwo  poundliftingrestrictiononbothoftheemployeesarms,wheninfact,theorthopedistgaveatwopoundrestrictiontotheleftarmandatenpoundrestrictiontotherightarm.Whenaskedhowhisassessmentwouldbealteredbythetenpoundrestriction,Hankinsadmittedthattherewouldbe afewsedentaryjobsthattheemployeecouldperform.  #6$   `   5    _Thetrialcourtbasedthisdisabilityratingupona  findingthattheemployeehada5percentmedicalimpairmentduetothebackinjuryanda5percentmedicalimpairmentduetothedepression.Usingthe2.5statutorymultiplier,thetrialcourtfounda25percentpermanentpartialdisability.(l(3$ H! X      `   0   d  #6$   `   6    Initsbrief,theemployerarguedthatthetrialcourt  erredinawardingmorethanthestatutorymaximumof400weeksofbenefits.WerecentlydecidedthisissueinBomelywherein  weheldthatbenefitsforpermanenttotaldisabilityarenotsubjecttothe400weekcap.Bomely,970S.W.2dat932. ` X Thus,thetrialcourtdidnoterr.  #6$   `   7    _Subsection(a)(1)provides: Ifanemployeehas  previouslysustainedapermanentphysicaldisabilityfromanycauseororiginandbecomespermanentlyandtotallydisabledthroughasubsequentinjury,suchemployeeshallbeentitledtocompensationfromsuchemployee'semployerortheemployer'sinsurancecompanyonlyforthedisabilitythatwouldhaveresultedfromthesubsequentinjury,andsuchpreviousinjuryshallnotbeconsideredinestimatingthecompensationtowhichsuchemployeemaybeentitledunderthischapterfromtheemployerortheemployer'sinsurancecompany;provided,thatinadditiontosuchcompensationforasubsequentinjury,andaftercompletionofthepaymentstherefor,thensuchemployeeshallbepaidtheremainderofthecompensationthatwouldbedueforthepermanenttotaldisabilityoutofaspecialfundtobeknownasthesecondinjuryfundthereincreated.Fi%U P #6$   `   1    __Cates_Ԁratedtheemployeeshand/wristinjuryasa16  percentpermanentimpairmenttoherarmwhichtranslatestoa10percentpermanentimpairmenttothebodyasawhole. #6$   `   2    _LemlertestifiedthattheemployeesIQlevelwas74.  #6$   `   3    _GreenstestimonysupportsLemlersconclusionthatthe  employeesdepressionresultedinlargepartfromherworkrelatedphysicalinjuries. @ #6$   `   4    __Hankins_ԀmistakenlybelievedthatCateshadplacedatwo  poundliftingrestrictiononbothoftheemployeesarms,wheninfact,theorthopedistgaveatwopoundrestrictiontotheleftarmandatenpoundrestrictiontotherightarm.Whenaskedhowhisassessmentwouldbealteredbythetenpoundrestriction,Hankinsadmittedthattherewouldbe afewsedentaryjobsthattheemployeecouldperform.  #6$   `   5    _Thetrialcourtbasedthisdisabilityratingupona  findingthattheemployeehada5percentmedicalimpairmentduetothebackinjuryanda5percentmedicalimpairmentduetothedepression.Usingthe2.5statutorymultiplier,thetrialcourtfounda25percentpermanentpartialdisability.  #6$   `   6    Initsbrief,theemployerarguedthatthetrialcourt  erredinawardingmorethanthestatutorymaximumof400weeksofbenefits.WerecentlydecidedthisissueinBomelywherein  weheldthatbenefitsforpermanenttotaldisabilityarenotsubjecttothe400weekcap.Bomely,970S.W.2dat932. ` X Thus,thetrialcourtdidnoterr.,cAZ"Arial Regular  #6$   `   8    _Subsection(b)(1)provides,inpertinentpart: (A)In  caseswheretheinjuredemployeehasreceivedorwillreceiveaworkers'compensationawardorawardsforpermanentdisabilitytothebodyasawhole,andthecombinationofsuchawardsequalsorexceedsonehundredpercent(100%)permanentdisabilitytothebodyasawhole,theemployeeshallnotbeentitledtoreceivefromtheemployeroritsinsurancecarrieranycompensationforpermanentdisabilitytothebodyasawholethatwouldbeinexcessofonehundredpercent(100%)permanentdisabilitytothebodyasawhole,aftercombiningawards.(B)Benefitswhichmaybeduetheemployeeforpermanentdisabilitytothebodyasawholeinexcessofonehundredpercent(100%)permanentdisabilitytothebodyasawhole,aftercombiningawards,shallbepaidbythesecondinjuryfund.  #6$   `   7    _Subsection(a)(1)provides: Ifanemployeehas  previouslysustainedapermanentphysicaldisabilityfromanycauseororiginandbecomespermanentlyandtotallydisabledthroughasubsequentinjury,suchemployeeshallbeentitledtocompensationfromsuchemployee'semployerortheemployer'sinsurancecompanyonlyforthedisabilitythatwouldhaveresultedfromthesubsequentinjury,andsuchpreviousinjuryshallnotbeconsideredinestimatingthecompensationtowhichsuchemployeemaybeentitledunderthischapterfromtheemployerortheemployer'sinsurancecompany;provided,thatinadditiontosuchcompensationforasubsequentinjury,andaftercompletionofthepaymentstherefor,thensuchemployeeshallbepaidtheremainderofthecompensationthatwouldbedueforthepermanenttotaldisabilityoutofaspecialfundtobeknownasthesecondinjuryfundthereincreated.  #6$   `   8    _Subsection(b)(1)provides,inpertinentpart: (A)In  caseswheretheinjuredemployeehasreceivedorwillreceiveaworkers'compensationawardorawardsforpermanentdisabilitytothebodyasawhole,andthecombinationofsuchawardsequalsorexceedsonehundredpercent(100%)permanentdisabilitytothebodyasawhole,theemployeeshallnotbeentitledtoreceivefromtheemployeroritsinsurancecarrieranycompensationforpermanentdisabilitytothebodyasawholethatwouldbeinexcessofonehundredpercent(100%)permanentdisabilitytothebodyasawhole,aftercombiningawards.(B)Benefitswhichmaybeduetheemployeeforpermanentdisabilitytothebodyasawholeinexcessofonehundredpercent(100%)permanentdisabilitytothebodyasawhole,aftercombiningawards,shallbepaidbythesecondinjuryfund.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  99' dxdP Pd 5"  0XW XXX0<X0XW    Ad FILED0XW X0<  January11,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh $$$$'dxd H! X     ݛ_XjNXXX` 7jNXdXXd7  a=-XXdd=aTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'Ta=jNXXdd=ar :;<,(j 8` `@E f ` 8ttxPX`  r@D INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEEt :;>.*jxf4` `@Ej ` 8ttxP6 4 tߛ@tt)DATKNOXVILLELINDAS.SEALS, h     ) p FORPUBLICATION   `     h     ) ` Plaintiff/Appellee,  ) \   `     h     ) p FILED:cceddeddgdJdfANUARYfgiigJANUARYgffh11,1999hcbjanb__________c 2  v. `     h     ) p  h   `     h     )ENGLAND/CORSAIRUPHOLSTERY  ) p XjNXXXjNCLAIBORNECOUNTY#XjNXXXjN;#   MANUFACTURINGCOMPANY,INC.,  )   XjNXXXjN `     h     ) `   ` Defendant/Appellant,  ) p HON.BILLYJOEWHITE,JUDGE#XjNXXXjN# 6  `     h     )_DINA_ԀTOBIN,DIRECTOROF    ) B THEDIVISIONOFWORKERS  )XjNXXXjNԀ p NO.03S019704CH00044#XjNXXXjN #  COMPENSATION,TENNESSEE    )  DEPARTMENTOFLABOR,    ) d SECONDINJURYFUND, h     ) :  `     h     ) ` Defendant/Appellee.    ) p  F ForAppelleeSeals: h      p ForAppellant: $! DAVIDH.DUNAWAY h      p J.STEVENCOLLINS &B# LaFollette,TN   h      p JOHNA.WILLIS x'$  `     h      p Knoxville,TNXjNXXXjNForAppelleeSecondInjuryFund: ) ' JOHNKNOXWALKUPAttorneyGeneralandReporterSANDRAE.KEITHAssistantAttorneyGeneralNashville,TN#XjNXXXjN # /t&. ̜mm@88)DOPINION 4*3 gg̜JUDGMENTOFTRIALCOURTAFFIRMEDASMODIFIEDANDREMANDED     p      x BIRCH,J.  :R1;(  ` 7jNXXdXd7ќj=-XXdXXd=j[[ `  Inthisworkerscompensationaction,kC Cktheemployee,Linda  S.Seals,filedtwoseparateclaims:oneforaMarch1993backinjuryandasecondforaJuly1993handinjuryandchronicdepression.Althoughnotformallyconsolidatedbythetrialcourt,theseclaimsweretriedtogether.Regardingthefirstclaim,thetrialcourtawardedtheemployeebenefitsfora25percentpermanentpartialdisabilitytothebodyasawholeasaresultofthebackinjury.Regardingthesecondclaim,thetrialcourtfoundthattheemployeewaspermanentlyandtotallydisabledfromthecombinationofthebackinjury,thehandinjury,andresultingchronicdepression.Nodistinctratingwasprovidedforthehandinjuryalone.kC CkPursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.506208(b)(Supp.1997),thetrialcourtapportionedkC CkthepermanenttotaldisabilityϜawardkC Ck75percentooftheototheemployer,England/CorsairUpholsteryManufacturingCompany,Inc.,and25percenttotheSecondInjuryFund. `  kC CkThisCourtconsolidatedtheemployeestwoclaimsforϜreview.kC Ck񛀀TheSpecialWorkerpspqsqCompensationAppealsPanel,uponreferenceforfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(Supp.1997),foundthattheevidencepreponderatedagainstthetrialcourtsfindingsofpermanentpsychiatricinjuryandpermanenttotaldisability.Thepanelfoundinsteadthattheemployeesustainedpermanentpartialdisabilitiesof12.5percentasaresultofthebackinjuryand40percentasaresultofthesubsequentkG GkhandkH Hkinjury.Inaddition,thepaneldisallowedcertaindiscretionarycostsawardedbythetrialcourt.[[ `  Wegrantedtheemployeesmotionforfullcourtreview.Forthereasonsstatedbelow,wefindthattheevidencedoesnot 7|0: preponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindings.Weremandthecase,however,forfurtherproceedingsontheapportionmentofliabilitybetweentheemployerandtheSecondInjuryFundinaccordancewiththisCourtsdecisionin_Bomely_Ԁv.MidAmerica   Corp.,970S.W.2d929(Tenn.1998).Weaffirm,asX:dXXX:dԀmodified,#X:dXXX:d#Ԁthe   trialcourtsorderrelatingtothediscretionarycosts.@/DI    `  Theemployeeisrfortyeightrs48syearsoldandbeganworkingfortheemployerin1985.ShesustainedaworkrelatedbackinjuryX:dXXX:donMarch7,1993,#X:dXXX:d #butshewasabletoreturntoworkonMarch26, ld 1993,toalessstrenuousposition.SheX:dXXX:dsustainedanotherwork  relatedinjury#X:dXXX:d#ԀtoherlefthandandwristonJuly27,1993,andshe  underwentsurgeryforthisinjuryonNovember19,1993.WhensheX:dXXX:dreturnedtowork#X:dXXX:d#ԀonJanuary4,1994,shewasassignedtoanswerthe   telephone,tofile,andtoperformminimaldataentrytasksintheoffice.HerstatusX:dXXX:dwaschangedtoparttime#X:dXXX:d#ԀonMay1,1995,and t#l" shesubsequentlyresignedfromherjobonSeptember18,1995.Shefiledsuitforworkerscompensationbenefitsforallofherinjuries.Attrial,shetestifiedthatsheresignedduetoconstantpaininherbackandleftarm.X:dXXX:d `  Inthefallof1995,theemployeesoughttreatmentfor |-t&. depressionatCherokeeHealthSystems.Sheendedthistreatment#X:dXXX:d/#X:dXXX:d (/ (0 aftertwoorthreevisits,however,becauseshedidnotlike#X:dXXX:d #X:dXXX:dԀher 0)2 doctor#X:dXXX:d #X:dXXX:d.Theemployeehadnotreceivedanyothertreatmentfor 2x+4 depressionasofthetimeoftheDecember1996#X:dXXX:d!#X:dXXX:dԀtrial. ,4$-6  #X:dXXX:d!# 5.8  `  Twoorthopedicsurgeonstestifiedregardingtheextentof theemployeesphysicalimpairment.Thetreatingphysician,HaroldE.Cates,M.D.,testifiedthattheemployeesbackinjuryresultedina5percentpermanentimpairmentwithatenpoundliftingrestriction.Healsotestifiedthatherhand/wristinjuryresultedina10percentpermanentimpairment,kkk*k  #  1      ׀yieldingacombinedrating d\  forbothinjuriesofa15percentpermanentimpairment.Theevaluatingphysician,WilliamE.Kennedy,M.D.,testifiedthattheemployeesustained[[kM MkaJnJ[[񛀜[[K4KL8LkM Mk[[percentpermanentimpairmenttothebodyasawholeasaresultof[[herPPkN NkO1OQ993QkN Nkback[[񛀜[[kS SkRinjuryRkS SkTcondition,  4percentofwhichheattributedtoXjeXXXjethe1993injury#XjeXXXje.#Ԁandthe  other4percentofwhichheattributedtoa1990injuryforwhichtheemployeedidnotseekworkerscompensationbenefitsT.Hedidnotratetheimpairment,ifany,thattheemployeesustainedfromthehand/wristinjury. `  Regardingtheemployeesdepression,X:dXXX:dtwopsychiatrists  testifiedtconcertunutregardtingthepermanencyofherimpairment.#X:dXXX:dr(#Thefirst, ph JerryB.Lemler,M.D.,testifiedonbehalfoftheemployee.LemlertestifiedthatduringhisevaluationoftheemployeeonDecember4,1995,heconcludedthatshewassufferingfrommajordepression,singleepisodewithpsychoticfeatures,causedbyherbackandhand/wristinjuries.Duetotheuntreatednatureofhermentalillness,LemlertestifiedthattheemployeesdepressionwasbecomingchronicandwouldthereforenotrespondeffectivelytoantiX:dXXX:ddepressantmedications.Furthermore,hetestifiedthatitwas +$, unlikelythattheemployeewouldbeabletoengageinanymeaningfulintrospectivepsychotherapy#X:dXXX:d%+#X:dXXX:dԀ#X:dXXX:d,#duetoherlimited (/ (0 intellectualability.[vkkvk+k[[[v  #  2      vFinally,hetestifiedthatshewouldbeunabletoconcentratesufficientlyonanassignedworktaskforeighthourseachday.Thus,Lemleropinedthattheemployee ,4$-6 suffereda50percentpermanentimpairmentduetochronicdepression. `  Thesecondpsychiatrist,BruceQuintonGreen,M.D.,evaluatedtheemployeesmentalimpairmentonbehalfoftheemployer.Greentestifiedbydepositionthatpsychologicaltestingandhispersonalexaminationoftheemployeeresultedinhisconclusionthatsheissufferingfromamajordepressiveepisodefromwhichshe absolutelyshouldrecoverwithappropriatemedicalandrehabilitativetreatment.[kkk,fk[[f[  #  2      ׀Greenelaboratedthatthereisa   veryhighX:dXXX:dstatistical#X:dXXX:d0#likelihoodthattheemployeesdepressionis  notpermanent. `  Finally,threeexpertstestifiedinregardtotheemployeesvocationalX:dXXX:dcapacity.#X:dXXX:d1#KellyLenz%  ,aphysicaltherapist, ph testifiedinreferencetoa functionalcapacityevaluationreportshepreparedontheemployee.Lenzxsreportsxytatesyxwrwxwdwxeterminedxthatherfindings,whencoupledwiththeliftingrestrictionsimposedbyCates,meantthattheemployeewouldbemostsuitableforsedentarywork,definedasoccasionalliftingoftenpoundsorless,nofrequentlifting,andnosignificantwalkingorcarrying. `  Norman_Hankins_,_Ed.D._,alsotestifiedasavocationalexpert._Hankins_Ԁdeterminedthattheemployeesreading,spelling,andarithmeticskillsareatagradeschoollevelandthatherIQ isinthe borderlinerange.Thus,heopinedthatevenwithout 0)2 thedepression,theemployeeis100percentvocationallydisabledbasedonherphysicalandeducationallimitations._[kkk-k[[![  #  3      _Ԁ    `  Thelastvocationalexzpzert,EdSmith,testifiedonbehalfoftheemployer.Smithdeterminedthattheemployeehastransferableskillsintheareasofcustomerservice,clerical,telephonic,cashier,andreception.Whileheopinedthattheemployeeisnottotallydisabled,SmithagreedwithLenzthattheemployeeisrestrictedtosedentaryemployment. `  Thetrialcourtconcludedthattheemployeewaspermanentlyandtotallydisabledasaresultofherphysicalandmentalinjuries.Thebackinjuryandresultingdepressionwereratedasa25percent_permanentpartialdisabilitytothebodyasawhole,[kjkk.jk[["j[  #  4      ׀andtheemployerwasorderedtopaybenefitsonthis ph basis.Nodistinctratingwasgiven,however,tothehand/wristinjuryandconsequentialworseningoftheemployeesdepressionwhichresultedinhertotaldisability.ThetrialcourtawardedpermanenttotaldisabilitybenefitstobepaiduntiltheemployeeϜreache{s{{d{agesixtyfive.V[k` kk/k[[%[VVV  #  5      ׀Asnotedpreviously,thetrialcourt && apportionedthepermanenttotaldisabilitybenefits75percenttotheemployerand25percenttotheSecondInjuryFund.Thetrialcourtalsograntedtheemployeesmotionfordiscretionarycosts.@.DII `  InCollinsv._Howmet_ԀCorp.,970S.W.2d941,943(Tenn.   1998),wesummarizedthestandardofreviewandotherlegalprinciplesthatapplytothependingcase:8 ` 8 ` (#` (#8  h Inworkers'compensationcases,thestandardofreviewinthisCourtonissuesoffactisdenovoupon  therecordofthetrialcourt,accompaniedbyapresumptionoftheϜcorrect||nessofthefindings,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.CodeAnn.Ϝ50-6-225(e)}}(2);Spencerv.Towson  MovingandStorageInc.,922S.W.2d vn 508,509(Tenn.1996).Whenatrialcourthasseenandheardwitnesses,especiallywhereissuesofcredibilityandweightoforaltestimonyareinvolved,considerabledeferencemustbeaccordedtothetrialcourt'sfactualfindings.Humphreyv.David_Witherspoon_,Inc., &%$ 734S.W.2d315,315(Tenn.1987). xx nB `  Inreviewingtheevidence,wearemindfulthatthepermanencyofaworkrelatedinjurymustfirstbeestablishedbycompetentmedicalevidence.Harnessv._CNA_ԀIns.Co.,814S.W.2d +$, 733,734(Tenn.1991).Oncepermanencyisestablished,thetrialcourtmayevaluatethefactualquestionoftheextentofvocationaldisability.SeeCollinsv._Howmet_ԀCorp.,970S.W.2dat943.In 0)2 determiningvocationaldisability,thetrialcourtmayconsideramyriadoffactors,includingsuchfactorastheemployeeseducation.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.506241(a)(1)(Supp.1997) 5.8 (listingthefactorstobeconsidered). 70: Ї `  Inthiscase,thetrialcourtheardthetestimonydiscussedaboveaswellasthetestimonyoftheemployeeandthatofarepresentativeoftheemployer.Fromourindependent,denovo ` X reviewofthisevidence,werecognizethatthetrialcourtfacedaclosequestionastotheextentandpermanencyoftheemployeesdisabilities.However,inlightofthepresumptionofcorrectnessgiventothetrialcourtsfindingsandthedeferencedueonissuesofcredibilityandweighttobegiventooraltestimony,weconcludethattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthefindingsofthetrialcourt.Wethusaffirmthefindingsregardingtheextentoftheemployeesinjuriesandthepermanenttotaldisabledconditionthatnowexistsduetoherdepression.X:dXXX:d@.DIII   `  Theemployerfirstarguesthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionbynotgrantingtheemployersmotiontoconsolidatetheemployeestwoworkerscompensationclaims.Essentially,theemployermaintainsthatiftheclaimshadbeenconsolidated,theemployeewouldonlyhavebeenentitledtooneawardofbenefitsforpermanent~and~totaldisability;thus,noseparateawardofbenefitsfortheMarch1993backinjurywouldhavebeenappropriate. `  Wecannotagree.Althoughtheemployeewasultimatelypermanentlyandtotallydisabledasaresultofconstantpainandchronicdepressionfromthecombinationofherinjuries,shedidinfactsuffertwodistinctinjuriesoccurringmorethanfourmonthsapart.TheemployerknewthatshehadsufferedtheMarch1993backinjurywhentheemployerpermittedhertoreturntoalessstrenuousjoblaterthatsamemonth.Underthesecircumstances, 70: theemployeeisentitledtoseparatedisabilityawardsforbothofherinjuries. `  Furthermore,theemployerreceivedthebenefitsofconsolidationinthecaseundersubmission.Trialcourtsareencouragedtoconsolidateactionsinvolvingacommonquestionoflaworfactinordertoavoidunnecessaryexpenseandduplicationofeffort.SeeTenn.R.Civ.P.42.01&advisorycommission   comments.Inthiscase,althoughthetrialcourtdidnotformallyconsolidatethetwoworkerscompensationclaims,itdidpermittheseclaimstobetriedinoneproceeding.Thus,thetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninfailingtoconsolidatethetwocases.#X:dXXX:dI#X:dXXX:d  @.DIV `  Becausetheemployeesufferedmultipleinjuriesandisnowpermanentlyandtotallydisabledasaresultofchronicdepression,itwasnecessaryforthetrialcourttoapportiontheawardforpermanenttotaldisabilitybetweentheemployerandtheSecondInjuryFundpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.506208.Werecentlyaddressedapportionmentin_Bomely#X:dXXX:dP#X:dXXX:d.Althoughourdecision $*#* inBomelywasreleasedafterthetrialcourtsandthepanels +$, respectivedecisionsinthiscase,theapportionmentinthiscasemustconformto_Bomely_#X:dXXX:dR#X:dXXX:dԀbecausethiscasewaspendingatthetime (/ (0 _Bomely_wasdecided.U 0)2 U#X:dXXX:diS# `  Aswestatedin_Bomely_,inordertodecidewhethera ,4$-6 givencaseiscoveredbyTenn.CodeAnn.506208(a)V[kkk2k[[&[VVV  #  6      ׀or506 5.8 208(b),V[k kk3k[[1[VV V  #  7      ׀ itisimportantfortrialcourtstomakeanexplicit  findingoffactregardingtheextentofvocationaldisabilityattributabletothesubsequentorlastinjury,without ` X considerationofanypriorinjuries._Bomely_,970S.W.2dat934   (emphasisadded).Thetrialcourtinthiscasemaynothavebeenawareoftheimportanceofmakinganexplicitfindingastotheextentofvocationaldisabilityattributablesolelytotheemployeeslastinjury(thehand/wristinjuryandresultingdepression).Becausethereisnosuchexplicitfinding,andbecausethepartieshavenothadanopportunitytobriefthisissue,wedeclinetoaddresstheapportionmentofliabilitybetweentheemployerandtheSecondInjuryFund.Instead,weremandthiscasetothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwith_Bomely_anditscompanioncase,Lovev.American_Olean_ԀTileCo.,970  S.W.2d440(Tenn.1998).0 `  @/D` %` %V !  Ї `  TheemployerassertsthatthetrialcourterredinawardingdiscretionarycostsforLemlersdepositionandforLenzstestimonyattrial.TheawardofdiscretionarycostsisgovernedbyX:dXXX:dTenn.R.Civ.P.#X:dXXX:d3\#Ԁ54.04(2).Thisruleauthorizesthetrialcourt   toawardcostsforreasonableandnecessarycourtreporterexpensesandexpertwitnessfeesfordepositionsortrials.Theawardofsuchcostsisadiscretionarymatterwiththetrialcourt.Lockv.   NationalUnionFireIns.Co.,809S.W.2d483,490(Tenn.1991).    `  Inthiscase,Lemlergavetwodepositions:adiscoverydepositiontakenbytheemployersattorneyanda depositionforprooftakenbytheemployeesattorney.Theemployerarguesthatitshouldnotberequiredtopayforthe depositionforproofbecauseLemlertestifiedattrial. `  Undertheparticularfactsofthiscase,weagreewiththeemployer.TheemployeesdecisiontohaveLemlertestifyinpersonattrialmadethe depositionforproofunnecessary.Thus,thetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionbytaxingtheemployerwiththecostsattributabletothatdeposition. `  TheemployeralsoarguesthatitshouldnotbeliableforLenzsexpertwitnessfeebecausetheemployerofferedtostipulatetotheauthenticityofLenzsreport.However,theemployersoffertostipulatedidnotcomeuntilthedayoftrial.Bythattime,Lenzwasalreadypresentandreadytotestify,andshewasprecludedfrombeingelsewhere.WethusfindthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninawardingX:dXXX:dLenzsexpertwitnessfee ,4$-6 asadiscretionarycostunderTenn.R.Civ.P.#X:dXXX:dgb#54.04. 5.8  7|0: @,DX:dXXX:dԀVI#X:dXXX:dKc#Ԉ   `  Weaffirmthetrialcourtsjudgmentastotheexistence,compensability,andextentof_theemployeesback,hand/wrist,andpsychologicalinjurieswithresultingpermanenttotaldisability.Weaffirm,also,asmodified,thetrialcourtsawardofdiscretionarycosts.However,weremandthiscasetothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingstoclarifytheapportionmentofliabilitybetweentheemployerandtheSecondInjuryFundinlightof_Bomely_andLove.    `  Thecostsaretaxedtothedefendantemployerforwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.Ӝnn `     h     ______________________________ `     h     ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,Justice̜]X:dXXX:dCONCUR: !  Anderson,C.J._]^Drowota,^]Barker,J]_J_].CONCURRINGSEPARATELY:Holder,J.]`]]`]#X:dXXX:d]g#]\PANEL:Anderson,C.J._Drowota_,Holder,Barker,JJ.\