ÿWPCÓ Wy¢¢Ó¨øØ(ã}bP©Áüz¯ÙDcdÚ?®uú®t°”uG@¨ :l¦Ò´Øž?Ú¸ÔIXäÉÀa|‡™77ãB®0~„(­•ø®È«£ñ-°†æù%©°ºÎY,r}è&mž7jOãõx§¡L:Ûþ«V1ŸFìuµñäÊûðõ³»Yó­Aëc4™»€ÔL ¼ h‚¦ô›<íµÙóæå½U?´´$q“®M‰Ôű<Ë "ò¿t•’ÎGh¢œÐ£6ë÷?p €8á ¢r §dÌÏ£†$ BZœ·^N@þ+Íb=ÿ·X’ûE¢T*‡bõ_ºÅðò¾¼å‡Nⵉ/ê/”Ã;«¢AÞ‘>/׉„WþÒK†âÁc‰¥~Žg̽ëzGӦѭÌÇ›"h SBîKº/êìØc%ÜZ%÷²‰ÇÍþÁVãÛÚPÉ僘ýg¼º!hæ<Ī˜¥•¢$Š6 1í_¦z•¿þX’¥!šϽ¯ =·;Ù kÔ='´t¾åDÒáF@±£w>³ÓöÄ:}’òÂö™3Ä ü„½HÓq"¾7œŽÙQuRÍ›öºéÖb?Lýª gQ-·–b %\^ b 0ˆnwöUNú4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ 0D‘ ÆÕ Æ› Æa Æ'UNíN;;=EEE4GGc{sÞwQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQbÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ 0ëÐÐÐÐ B»» 0¤Ø D3| D-¯ 0KÜÜ AS'Æz 0¤@ 0Dä A«(»-wf) (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularsM)ð¯Ÿ3|x ˜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.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular  *Ý ƒRa¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€X‰X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôî- òXX‰ÔAs€a€practical€matter,€it€appears€this€situation€could€arise€only€in€cases€in€which€the€employee€is€between€58Ð ° Ðand€60€years€of€age.€€In€cases€involving€younger€employees,€the€employee€would€be€more€than€400€weeks€from€his€orÐ tÄ Ðher€sixty„fifth€birthday€when€permanent€partial€disability€benefits€accrued;€consequently,€this€issue€concerning€theÐ 8ˆ Ðinterplay€between€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207(3)(F)€and€(4)(A)(i)€would€not€arise.€€In€cases€involving€workers€who€areÐ üL Ð60€or€older,€òòVogelóó€applies€and€permanent€partial€disability€awards€are€limited€to€260€weeks€of€benefits. YÝ ƒRa¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€X‰X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôî- òXX‰ÔFoamex€does€not€challenge€on€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€finding€of€a€92€percent€permanent€partial€disability€toÐ ° Ðthe€body€as€a€whole.Ô#†X‰X òôî-~#Ô iÝ ƒRa¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€X‰X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôî- òXX‰ÔÔ‡ôî- ò òôî-ÔThe€parties€have€consistently€referred€to€this€260„week€period€as€a€ð ðcapðð€on€benefits.€€However,€it€is€importantÐ ° Ðto€note€that€the€260„week€provision€originally€òòextendedóó€benefits€for€totally€disabled€workers€over€the€age€of€60€becauseÐ tÄ Ðit€allowed€them€to€receive€five€years€(260€weeks)€of€benefits€despite€the€age„65€limitation€otherwise€contemplated€byÐ 8ˆ Ðthe€statute.€€The€260„week€provision€only€becomes€a€ð ðcapðð€when€it€is€applied€to€partially€disabled€workers€over€the€ageÐ üL Ðof€60,€thus€shortening€the€400„week€period€of€benefits€normally€available€for€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€bodyÐ À Ðas€a€whole.€€This€use€of€the€260„week€period€as€a€ð ðcapðð€comes€not€from€the€language€of€the€statute€itself,€but€from€theÐ „Ô Ðexpansion€of€the€statute€we€created€in€òòVogelóó.Ô#†ôî- ò òôî-#Ô mÝ ƒRa¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€X‰X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôî- òXX‰ÔAt€one€point€in€its€brief,€Foamex€seems€to€argue€that€the€260„week€provision€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„Ð ° Ð207(4)(A)(i)€applies€to€Tucker€because€his€sixtiethòòóó€birthday€occurred€prior€to€the€date€of€maximum€medical€improvement.€Ð tÄ ÐThis€argument€is€without€meritð!ðthe€statute€provides€that€the€260„week€provision€applies€to€ð ðòòinjuries€which€occuróó€afterÐ 8ˆ Ð60€years€of€age.ðð€€(Emphasis€added.)- ù-(|G2a¼$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€K•»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X‰X»»Ô d(|3‡ƒ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€K•»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡ƒ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€K•»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€K•»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X‰X»»ÔÑ  ÑÔ‡îYäîXX‰ÔÑ8€‰XXdì»»d8Ñà@™ ™ ìàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONˆÐ Ö& Ðà@mmìàApril€11,€2000€SessionˆÐ üL ÐÔ#†X‰XîîYä¶#ÔÌò òÔ‡¼K•»XX‰ÔÓ  ÓJAMES€C.€TUCKERòòóó€v.€Ô_ÔFOAMEXÔ_Ô,€L.P.Ô#†X‰X»¼K•í#Ôó óÐ  ^ ÐÓ ÓÌà@& & ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Gibson€CountyˆÐ  ^ Ðà@9 9 ìàNo.€13880€€€€€George€R.€Ellis,€ChancellorˆÐ ú J ÐÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Ñ ` A߈Ð Ò "  ÐÌà@É É ìàNo.€W1999„01547„SC„R3„CV€„€Filed€November€6,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔˆÐ Í  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¤` AßÐ ¥õ  Ðó óÌÔ‡X‰XXX‰ÔIn€this€workersðð€compensation€case,€James€C.€Tucker,€a€59„year„old€employee,€Ô#†X‰XXX‰”#ÔÔ‡X‰XXX‰Ôsustained€aÐ  ð  Ðcompensable€injury€to€his€left€shoulder.€€The€trial€court€found€that€he€had€sustained€a€92€percentÐ ŒÜ  Ðpermanent€partial€disability€and€granted€him€368€weeks€of€benefits€(92€percent€of€400€weeksÐ xÈ Ðprovided€by€statute€for€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole).€€The€employer,€Ô_ÔFoamexÔ_Ô,Ð d´ ÐL.P.,€requested€review,€contending€that€Tucker€was€entitled€to€benefits€only€up€to€the€age€of€65€basedÐ P  Ðon€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207(4)(A)(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)€and€this€Courtððs€decisions€interpreting€that€statute.€€TheÐ <Œ Ðcase€was€argued€before€the€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€but€has€been€transferred,Ð (x Ðprior€to€issuance€of€a€memorandum€opinion,€to€the€Supreme€Court.€€The€issue€is€whether€an€awardÐ d Ðof€permanent€partial€disability€benefits€is€subject€to€the€age„65€limitation€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ P Ð50-6-207(4)(A)(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô).€€After€due€consideration,€we€hold€that€the€age„65€limitation€does€not€apply€toÐ ì< Ðemployees€under€the€age€of€60€who€sustain€a€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€Ð Ø( ÐAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð Ä ÐÔ#†X‰XXX‰&#ԀР° Ðò òà@³³ìàTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmedó óˆÐ œì ÐÌòòÔ_ÔAdolphoÔ_Ô€A.€Birch,€Jr.,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòò òó óE.€Riley€Anderson,€C.J.,Ð tÄ ÐJanice€M.€Holder€óóand€òòWilliam€M.€Barker,€JJ.,ò òó óóó€joined.òò€€Frank€F.€Ô_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ô,€III,€óóJ.,€notÐ ` ° Ðparticipating.Ð L!œ  ÐÌP.€Allen€Phillips,€Jackson,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Ô_ÔFoamexÔ_Ô,€L.P.Ð $#t" ÐÌJeffrey€A.€Ô_ÔGarretyÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔTandraÔ_Ô€R.€Ô_ÔGrishamÔ_Ô,€Jackson,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€James€C.€Tucker.Ð ü$L $ ÐòòóóÌÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ À'#' ÐÌà@üüìàI.€€Facts€and€Procedural€HistoryˆÐ ˜)è$) ÐÌà  àThe€facts€are€undisputed.€€On€the€date€of€the€work„related€injury,€59„year„old€James€C.Ð p+À&+ ÐTucker€had€been€employed€by€Ô_ÔFoamexÔ_Ô,€L.P.€for€over€30€years.€€Tuckerððs€injury€occurred€on€May€8,Ð \,¬', Ð1998,€when€he€fell€while€attempting€to€move€a€175„180€pound€ð ðbunðð€of€foam€that€was€traveling€off„Ð H-˜(-ýø ÐÔ_Ôcenter€on€a€conveyer.€€As€he€fell,€Tucker€struck€his€left€shoulder€on€a€cart.€€He€was€subsequentlyÐ ° Ðdiagnosed€as€having€sustained€a€torn€rotator€cuff,€and€surgery€was€performed€to€repair€the€injuredÐ œì Ðshoulder.€€Tucker€reached€maximum€medical€improvement€on€January€19,€1999€(seven€days€afterÐ ˆØ Ðhis€sixtieth€birthday).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àAs€a€result€of€his€injury,€Tucker€experienced€continuing€pain€in€his€left€shoulder,€numbnessÐ L œ Ðand€tingling€in€his€left€arm€and€hand,€and€numbness€in€the€little,€ring,€and€middle€fingers€of€his€leftÐ 8 ˆ Ðhand.€€This€pain€significantly€interfered€with€his€sleep€and€limited€his€daily€activities.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àTucker€obtained€opinions€from€two€orthopedic€surgeons€concerning€his€condition€and€degreeÐ ü L  Ðof€impairment.€€The€first€assigned€a€19€percent€anatomical€impairment€rating€to€the€upper€extremity,Ð è 8  Ðor€11€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€The€second€assigned€an€impairment€rating€of€27€percent€to€theÐ Ô$  Ðupper€extremity,€or€16€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€Tucker€was€restricted€to€lifting€40€pounds€orÐ À  Ðless€and€was€prohibited€from€performing€overhead€work.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€that€Tucker€was€92€percent€permanently€partially€disabled.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trialÐ „Ô  Ðcourt€rejected€Foamexððs€argument€that€Tuckerððs€award€should€be€limited€to€the€number€of€weeksÐ pÀ Ðfrom€the€date€of€maximum€medical€improvement€to€Tuckerððs€€sixty„fifth€birthday.€€Instead,€the€trialÐ \¬ Ðcourt€awarded€368€weeks€of€benefits€(92€percent€of€400€weeks).€€Thus,€under€the€trial€courtððsÐ H˜ Ðjudgment,€Tucker€would€continue€receiving€benefits€for€approximately€two€years€after€his€sixty„fifthÐ 4„ Ðbirthday.Ð  p ÐÌà@JJìàII.€€Standard€of€ReviewˆÐ øH ÐÌà  àThe€standard€of€review€by€this€Court€in€workersðð€compensation€cases€is€de€novo€upon€theÐ Ð  Ðrecord,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€factual€findings,€unless€theÐ ¼  Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2)€(Supp.€1998);Ð ¨ø ÐòòSpencer€v.€Towson€Moving€and€Storage,€Inc.óó,€922€S.W.2d€508,€509€(Tenn.€1996).€€This€case,Ð ”ä Ðhowever,€involves€questions€of€law.€€Thus,€we€are€not€bound€by€the€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÐ €Ð Ðstandard,€and€we€review€questions€of€law€de€novo€without€limitation.€€òòSpenceróó,€922€S.W.2d€at€509;Ð l¼ ÐòòRidings€v.€Ralph€M.€Parsons€Co.óó,€914€S.W.2d€79,€80€(Tenn.€1996).Ð X ¨ ÐÌà@éé#ìàIII.€€AnalysisˆÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àWe€begin€our€analysis€by€noting€that€compensable€injuries€resulting€in€permanent€partialÐ $X" Ðdisability€to€the€body€as€a€whole€usually€are€governed€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207(3)(F).€€ThisÐ ô$D # Ðstatute€states€in€pertinent€part:Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAll€other€cases€of€permanent€partial€disability€not€above€enumeratedÐ ¸'#& Ðshall€be€apportioned€to€the€body€as€a€whole,€which€shall€have€a€valueÐ ¤(ô#' Ðof€four€hundred€(400)€weeks,€and€there€shall€be€paid€compensation€toÐ ° Ðthe€injured€employee€for€the€proportionate€loss€of€use€of€the€body€asÐ œì Ða€whole€resulting€from€the€injury.€€ÐˆØ` x` x ÐÌThis€statute€was€the€basis€for€the€trial€courtððs€award€in€the€pending€caseð!ð368€weeks€of€benefits€(92Ð `° Ðpercent€of€400€weeks).Ð L œ ÐÌà  àFoamex€insists€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€setting€the€award€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„Ð $ t Ð207(3)(F)€and€contends€that€Tucker€is€not€entitled€to€any€workersðð€compensation€benefits€beyond€hisÐ  ` Ðsixty„fifth€birthday€because€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207(4)(A)(i)€and€this€Courtððs€decisionsÐ ü L  Ðinterpreting€that€statute.€€The€statute€provides€in€pertinent€part:Ð è 8  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[C]ompensation€shall€be€paid€during€the€period€of€the€òòpermanent€totalÐ À  Ðdisabilityóó€until€the€employee€reaches€sixty-five€(65)€years€of€age;€Ð ¬ü  Ðprovided,€that€with€respect€to€disabilities€resulting€from€injuriesÐ ˜è  Ðwhich€occur€after€sixty€years€of€age,€regardless€of€the€age€of€theÐ „Ô  Ðemployee,€permanent€total€disability€benefits€are€payable€for€a€periodÐ pÀ Ðof€two€hundred€sixty€(260)€weeks.€€Such€compensation€paymentsÐ \¬ Ðshall€be€reduced€by€the€amount€of€any€old€age€insurance€benefitÐ H˜ Ðpayments€attributable€to€employer€contributions€which€the€employeeÐ 4„ Ðmay€receive€under€the€Social€Security€Act,€U.S.C.,€title€42,€chapter€7,Ð  p Ðsubchapter€II,€as€amended.Ð \` x` x ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207(4)(A)(i)€(emphasis€added).Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€a€series€of€cases€beginning€with€òòVogel€v.€Wells€Fargo€Guard€Serv.óó,€937€S.W.2d€856€(Tenn.Ð ¼  Ð1996),€the€Court€examined€the€scope€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207(4)(A)(i).€€In€òòVogelóó,€a€73„year„Ð ¨ø Ðold€employee€sustained€a€work„related€injury€which€resulted€in€a€permanent€total€disability.€€TheÐ ”ä Ðemployee€challenged€the€260„week€provision€imposed€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207(4)(A)(i)€onÐ €Ð Ðawards€of€permanent€total€disability€to€employees€over€the€age€of€60.€€The€employee€argued€that€theÐ l¼ Ð260„week€provision€was€irrational€because€an€employee€over€the€age€of€60€who€was€permanentlyÐ X ¨ Ðpartially€disabled€could€receive€more€benefits€than€an€employee€of€the€same€age€who€wasÐ D!” Ðpermanently€totally€disabled.€€We€agreed€that€it€was€irrational€to€apply€the€provision€to€permanentÐ 0"€  Ðtotal€disability€awards€and€not€to€permanent€partial€disability€awards€to€employees€over€the€age€ofÐ #l! Ð60.€€And€while€we€rejected€the€result€sought€by€the€employee€(to€hold€the€statute€unconstitutionalÐ $X" Ðand€to€award€the€employee€ð ðlifetime€benefitsðð),€we€stated€that€ð ð[i]n€order€to€lend€some€rationalityÐ ô$D # Ðto€the€compensation€scheme,€we€conclude€that€the€260€week€cap€set€forth€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„Ð à%0!$ Ð6„207(4)(A)(i)€applies€to€all€injured€workers€over€sixty€who€are€awarded€benefits€under€the€WorkersððÐ Ì&"% ÐCompensation€statute€for€permanent€partial€or€permanent€total€disability.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€862.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àIn€òòMcIlvain€v.€Russell€Stover€Candies,€Inc.óó,€996€S.W.2d€179€(Tenn.€1999),€we€addressed€theÐ )à$( Ðquestion€of€whether€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207(4)(A)(i)€applied€to€an€employee€over€the€age€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ð60€who€sustained€a€scheduled„member€injury€resulting€in€a€40€percent€vocational€disability€to€eachÐ h+¸&* Ðarmòòóó.€€Russell€Stover€Candies,€Inc.òòóó€argued€that€the€employee€should€have€been€awarded€benefitsÐ ° Ðequivalent€to€40€percent€of€260€weeks€(the€provision€set€out€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„Ð œì Ð207(4)(A)(i)),€rather€than€benefits€equivalent€to€40€percent€of€400€weeks.€€òòId.óó€at€182„83.€€We€rejectedÐ ˆØ Ðthis€argument,€holding€instead€that€the€260„week€provision€does€not€apply€to€awards€for€injuries€toÐ tÄ Ðscheduled€members€but€does€apply€to€employees€over€the€age€of€60€who€suffer€injuries€to€the€bodyÐ `° Ðas€a€whole,€whether€permanent€partial€or€permanent€total€in€nature.€€òòId.óó€at€185.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àIn€two€more€recent€cases,€òòMcCoy€v.€T.T.C.€Illinois,€Inc.óó,€14€S.W.3d€734,€736„37€(Tenn.Ð $ t Ð2000),€and€òòSmith€v.€U.S.€Pipe€&€Foundry€Co.óó,€14€S.W.3d€739,€742„43€(Tenn.€2000),€we€reiteratedÐ  ` Ðour€holdings€in€òòVogelóó€and€òòMcIlvainóó.€€Thus,€the€law€is€settled€that€awards€for€permanent€partialÐ ü L  Ðdisability€to€the€body€as€a€whole€and€awards€for€permanent€total€disability€are€controlled€by€Tenn.Ð è 8  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207(4)(A)(i)€when€the€employee€is€over€the€age€of€60€when€the€injury€occurs.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àIn€none€of€our€earlier€cases,€however,€have€we€addressed€the€issue€now€before€the€Court.€Ð ¬ü  ÐFoamex€argues€that€our€reasoning€in€òòVogelóó€should€be€extended€to€cover€situations€in€which€theÐ ˜è  Ðemployee:€€(1)€€is€not€over€the€age€of€60€at€the€time€of€the€injury;€(2)€€is€within€400€weeks€of€his€orÐ „Ô  Ðher€sixty„fifth€birthday€at€the€time€benefits€become€payable;€and€(3)€€sustains€a€permanent€partialÐ pÀ Ðdisability€to€the€body€as€a€whole,€the€extent€of€which€otherwise€would€result€in€the€payment€ofÐ \¬ Ðbenefits€past€the€age€of€65.€€Foamex€asserts€that€in€such€cases€the€phrase€ð ðcompensation€shall€be€paidÐ H˜ Ðduring€the€period€of€the€permanent€total€disability€until€the€employee€reaches€sixty-five€(65)€yearsÐ 4„ Ðof€ageðð€should€be€construed€by€the€Court€to€also€include€cases€of€permanent€òòpartialóó€disability€to€theÐ  p Ðbody€as€a€whole.€€To€illustrate,€Foamex€points€out€that€Tucker€sustained€a€92€percent€permanentÐ  \ Ðpartial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole€at€the€age€of€59€and€was€awarded€368€weeks€of€benefitsÐ øH Ð(which€would€be€payable€until€he€is€approximately€the€age€of€67).€€If€Tucker€had€been€permanentlyÐ ä4 Ðtotally€disabled,€he€only€would€have€received€benefits€up€until€his€sixty„fifth€birthday€pursuant€toÐ Ð  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207(4)(A)(i).€€Thus,€he€would€have€received€less€in€benefits€if€he€had€beenÐ ¼  Ðpermanently€totally€disabled€than€he€would€receive€for€a€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€asÐ ¨ø Ða€whole.€€Foamex€asserts€that€this€result€is€comparable€to€the€ð ðirrational€resultðð€the€Court€found€toÐ ”ä Ðexist€in€òòVogelóó.Ð €Ð ЀÌà  àOn€the€other€hand,€Tucker€contends€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207(4)(A)(i)€does€not€applyÐ X ¨ Ðto€this€case.€€He€asserts€that€òòVogelóó€and€the€cases€that€followed€òòVogelóó€all€pertained€to€employees€overÐ D!” Ðthe€age€of€60€and€involved€either€the€question€of€whether€the€employeeððs€award€was€limited€by€theÐ 0"€  Ð260„week€provision€set€out€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207(4)(A)(i)€or€the€question€of€whether€theÐ #l! Ðemployer€was€entitled€to€the€statutory€offset€for€social€security€old€age€retirement€benefits.€€HeÐ $X" Ðcontends€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207(4)(A)(i)€does€not€limit€his€permanent€partial€disabilityÐ ô$D # Ðaward€to€benefits€payable€only€until€his€sixty„fifth€birthday.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àIn€considering€the€partiesðð€contentions,€we€note€that€there€are€three€separate€parts€to€theÐ ¸'#& Ðportion€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207(4)(A)(i)€quoted€at€the€beginning€of€our€analysis.€€The€firstÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpart€is€the€general€provision€stating€that€€ð ðcompensation€shall€be€paid€during€the€period€of€theÐ )à$( Ðpermanent€total€disability€until€the€employee€reaches€sixty-five€(65)€years€of€age[.]ðð€€The€second€partÐ |*Ì%) Ðis€a€provision€establishing€a€260„week€duration€for€permanent€total€disability€benefits€to€injuredÐ h+¸&* Ðemployees€over€the€age€of€60.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€third€part€provides€for€a€statutory€offset€for€social€security€oldÐ ° Ðage€insurance€benefits.Ð œì ÐÌà  àTucker€correctly€points€out€that€òòVogelóó€pertained€to€the€issue€whether€the€260„week€provisionÐ tÄ Ðin€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207(4)(A)(i)€also€applies€to€permanent€partial€disability€awards€toÐ `° Ðemployees€over€the€age€of€60€(the€ð ðsecond€partðð€referred€to€in€the€preceding€paragraph).€€Likewise,Ð L œ Ðour€decisions€in€òòMcIlvainóó,€òòMcCoyóó,€and€òòSmithóó€pertained€to€the€application€of€the€260„week€provisionÐ 8 ˆ Ðand€the€application€of€the€social€security€old€age€retirement€benefits€offset€provided€for€in€the€statuteÐ $ t Ð(the€ð ðsecondðð€and€ð ðthirdðð€parts€referred€to€in€the€preceding€paragraph).€€In€the€pending€case,€neitherÐ  ` Ðthe€260„week€provision€nor€the€offset€for€social€security€old€age€retirement€benefits€is€at€issue.׃ì×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€TheÐ ü L  Ðpending€case€only€involves€the€ð ðfirst€partððð!ðthe€phrase€ð ðcompensation€shall€be€paid€during€the€periodÐ è 8  Ðof€the€permanent€total€disability€until€the€employee€reaches€sixty-five€(65)€years€of€age[.]ðð€€It€is€thisÐ Ô$  Ðphrase€that€Foamex€asks€the€Court€to€apply€to€employees€who€are€not€over€the€age€of€60€but€areÐ À  Ðwithin€400€weeks€of€their€sixty„fifth€birthday€at€the€time€benefits€for€permanent€partial€disability€toÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€body€as€a€whole€become€payable.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àWe€reject€Foamexððs€contention€that€the€reasoning€in€òòVogelóó€applies€with€equal€force€in€theÐ pÀ Ðpending€case.€€Our€decision€in€òòVogelóó€was€limited€to€the€narrow€issue€of€whether€the€260„weekÐ \¬ Ðprovision€for€permanent€total€disability€benefits€for€employees€over€the€age€of€60€also€applied€toÐ H˜ Ðpermanent€partial€disability€benefits€for€employees€over€the€age€of€60.€€Our€subsequent€decisions€inÐ 4„ ÐòòMcIlvainóó,€òòMcCoyóó,€and€òòSmithóó€were€similarly€limited€to€the€260„week€provision€and€the€statutoryÐ  p Ðoffset.€€We€decline€to€extend€the€reasoning€in€those€cases€beyond€their€limited€scope€because€to€doÐ  \ Ðso€effectively€would€require€us€to€rewrite€the€statute€and€would€substantially€limit,€without€clearÐ øH Ðstatutory€authority,€benefits€to€many€partially€disabled€workers€between€the€ages€of€58€and€60.€€òòSeeóóÐ ä4 ÐòòLindsey€v.€Smith€&€Johnson,€Inc.óó,€601€S.W.2d€923,€925€(Tenn.€1980)€(stating€that€workersððÐ Ð  Ðcompensation€statutes€ð ðshould€be€rationally€but€liberally€construed€to€promote€the€Actððs€purposesÐ ¼  Ðof€securing€benefits€to€[covered€employees]ðð).€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àWe€hold€that€for€an€employee€who€is€not€over€the€age€of€60€on€the€date€of€the€injury€but€isÐ €Ð Ðwithin€400€weeks€of€his€or€her€sixty„fifth€birthday€when€benefits€for€permanent€partial€disability€toÐ l¼ Ðthe€body€as€a€whole€become€payable,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207(4)(A)(i)€does€not€limit€an€awardÐ X ¨ Ðfor€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole€to€benefits€payable€only€until€the€employeeððsÐ D!” Ðsixty„fifth€birthday.€€In€such€cases,€the€award€is€determined€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„Ð ° Ð207(3)(F)€(as€was€done€by€the€trial€court€in€this€case).Ð œì ÐÌà  àThe€Court€recognizes€that€under€our€holding€some€employees€could€receive€a€larger€awardÐ tÄ Ðfor€a€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole€than€they€would€receive€if€they€were€foundÐ `° Ðpermanently€totally€disabled.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Moreover,€we€recognize€that€applying€the€statutes€as€written€couldÐ L œ Ðplace€employers€in€the€position€of€arguing€that€the€worker€is€more€disabled€and€the€employee€in€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðposition€of€arguing€that€he€or€she€is€less€disabled.€€(Had€the€employer€in€this€case€successfully€arguedÐ $ t Ðthat€the€employee€was€totally€disabled,€it€would€have€avoided€paying€109€weeks€of€additionalÐ  ` Ðbenefits.)€€We€faced€a€similar€situation€in€òòMcIlvainóó€in€the€context€of€scheduled„member€awards.€€AsÐ ü L  Ðwe€stated€in€òòMcIlvainóó:Ð è 8  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWe€can€imagine€a€situation€in€which€a€worker€over€age€60€whoÐ À  Ðsustains€a€permanent€total€disability€or€a€permanent€partial€disabilityÐ ¬ü  Ðto€the€body€as€a€whole€receives€a€smaller€award€than€a€worker€overÐ ˜è  Ðage€60€who€receives€a€permanent€partial€disability€to€a€scheduledÐ „Ô  Ðmember€.€.€.€.€€As€we€noted€in€òòVogelóó,€however,€ð ð[i]t€is€the€business€ofÐ pÀ Ðthe€legislature€to€pass€new€laws€and€modify€existing€ones.ððÐ\¬` x` x ÐÌòòMcIlvainóó,€996€S.W.2d€at€185€(quoting€òòVogelóó,€937€S.W.2d€at€862).€€We€said€it€in€òòMcIlvainóó,€and€weÐ 4„ Ðreiterate€here€that€the€legislature€should€consider€addressing€the€anomalies€resulting€from€applyingÐ  p Ðthe€statutes€as€currently€written.Ð  \ ÐÌà0  àà ° àà@rr#ì(#(#àIV.€€ConclusionˆÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€conclusion,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€basing€its€award€for€permanent€partial€disabilityÐ ¼  Ðto€the€body€as€a€whole€on€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207(3)(F).€€For€employees€who€are€not€over€theÐ ¨ø Ðage€of€60€at€the€time€of€their€injuries€but€are€within€400€weeks€of€their€sixty„fifth€birthday€whenÐ ”ä Ðpermanent€partial€disability€benefits€become€payable,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207(4)(A)(i)€does€notÐ €Ð Ðlimit€an€award€for€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole€to€benefits€payable€only€untilÐ l¼ Ðthe€age€of€65.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€The€costs€are€taxed€toÐ X ¨ ÐFoamex,€L.P.Ð D!” ÐÌòòóóÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð à%0!$ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àADOLPHO€A.€BIRCH,€JR.,€JUSTICE