WPC. C5/h69jo뿏G g(\ 䎸< ƆtT1~R@q&tE"@P.{p gzVC5X r\%^:n:,YKg?`BҐꦾ bDSݰȈ;%7Ff\M>ѩGn%{x Vd:S0k_+P}u"6<ذ]%}9qE 0WQӮf>~chsmu :]Gd$ h+$Rtqӷ60.*jxN` `@E#Z` 8ttxP[ tߛSPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANELATNASHVILLE   GRADYD.TURNER, p )  b r )<,(j 8` `@E( ` 8ttxP"  r `  p )! p! ` Plaintiff/Appellee p )  WARRENCOUNTY 2   `  p )v. `  p )  NO.01S019712GS00271 R   `  p )McMINNVILLEHEATING&AIR,INC., p )  HON.BARRYMEDLEY, r   `  p )  JUDGE  М ` Defendant/Appellant p )  )   `  p  FortheAppellant: p FortheAppellee: "r  RobertJ.Uhorchuk p LarryB.Stanley >  Suite407JamesBuilding p P.O.Box568 N! 735BroadStreet p McMinnville,TN37110 ^" Chattanooga,TN37402   MembersofPanel: '"!  JusticeWilliamM.Barker )%# SeniorJudgeJohnK.ByersSpecialJudgeRobertE.Corlew,III #Xd#   7U1XXdXXd7   7U1XXdXXd7   ;*74  7U1XXdXXd7   7U1XXdXXd7    AFFIRMEDASMODIFIEDANDREMANDED   @  ` CORLEW,SpecialJudge  7^XXdXXd7     OPINION . ~     ` ThisworkerscompensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofTennesseeCodeAnnotated506225(e)(3)(1997Supp.)forhearingand  reportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsofLaw.Ourreviewisdenovoupontherecordaccompaniedbythepresumptionofcorrectness * unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.TennesseeCodeAnnotated J 506225(e)(2)(1997Supp.).Allofthemedicaltestimonyinthiscausewas j presentedeitherbydepositionorbystipulatedmedicalrecords.Noneofthedoctorstestifiedincourt,andthustheTrialJudgehadnoopportunitytoobservethedemeanorofthesewitnesseswhiletestifying.Thus,astothisevidence,wereviewwithoutapresumptionofcorrectnessuponthetheorythatwehavethesameopportunitytoconsiderthisevidencewhichtheTrialCourtenjoyed,andaswereviewtherecordde ' #! novo,weapplyapresumptionofcorrectnessonlywithregardtotestimonyof )*%# witnesseswhotestifiedinperson.Krickv.CityofLawrenceburg,945S.W.2d709, +J'% 712(Tenn.1997). ` Thissuitinvolvescompensationfora52yearoldworkerwhosustainedaninjurytohisbackwhileworkingasaninstallerintheheatandairindustry.Itwasundisputedthattheinjurywascompensable,andalltemporarybenefitswerepaid.TheTrialJudgefoundthePlaintifftohavesustainedfortypercentvocationaldisabilityapportionedtothebodyasawhole.Afteradenovoreviewoftheevidence,wefind 8 41 thattheawardtothePlaintiffmust @)$' belimitedtotwentyfivepercent(25%)andwethusaffirmtheawardoftheTrialJudgeasmodified.Someoftheproofwasnotincontroversy.ThePlaintiffwasabletoreadandwriteandperformbasicmathematicalcalculations,despitethefactthathecompletedonlytheeighthgrade.Afterhisinjury,thePlaintiffdidnotreturntohisemployment,althoughtheproofwascontrovertedastowhetherhehadthephysicalabilitysotoreturn.Particularlyincontroversyweretheopinionsofthemedicaldoctors.TheemployerprovidedtothePlaintiffapanelofthreedoctors.HeselectedDr.RichardBagby,whoprovidedtreatmentforthePlaintiffandwhotestifiedbeforetheCourt.Dr.BabgyinitiallyindicatedthathisevaluationofthePlaintiffsuggestedzeropercentanatomicalimpairment,althoughhis  :p59 subsequentconsiderationreflectedthatthePlaintiffmayhavesustainedasmuchasfourpercent(4%)anatomicalimpairment.Dr.GeorgeLienalsoevaluatedthePlaintiff,anditfurtherwasDr.LiensopinionthatthePlaintiffhadnotsustainedapermanentinjury,andthus,thattheanatomicalimpairmentratingwaszero.BothDr.BagbyandDr.Lientestifiedbydeposition,andthiswastheonlytestimonyfrommedicalprofessionalsthattheCourtheard.πBystipulation,however,theCourtconsideredtheopinionsofDrs.DonaldH.Deaton,Jr.andRobertM.Canon.Drs.BagbyandLienareboardcertifiedorthopedists.Dr.Deatonisanosteopathicdoctorwhopracticesfamilymedicine.Dr.Canonisanorthopedicsurgeon.Dr.CanonopinedthatthePlaintiffsustainedfivepercent(5%)anatomicalimpairment.Dr.DeatonwasoftheopinionthatthePlaintiffsustainedthirtysixpercent(36%)anatomicalimpairment.TherefurtherwassomecontroversyastowhetherDr.DeatonorDr.Bagbywasthetreatingphysician.ItisundisputedthatDr.DeatonwasthePlaintiffspersonalfamilydoctor,andthathewasneverauthorizedbytheemployertoprovidetreatmentforthePlaintiff.ItisfurtherundisputedthatDr.BagbywasselectedbythePlaintifffromalistofthreetreatingmedicalprofessionalsprovidedbytheemployer. ` TheCourtmustfirstdeterminetheanatomicalimpairmentratingsustainedbythePlaintiff.Wehaveconsideredeachofthemedicaldepositionsandallofthemedicalrecords,aswellasthePlaintiffsowntestimonyconcerninghiscondition.Wefind,baseduponworkrestrictionsplaceduponthePlaintiffandotherevidencefromthemedicalϜprofessionals,thatthePlaintiffhasinfactsustainedapermanentinjury.ConsideringtherecordsintroducedfromDr.Deaton,andothermedicalevidenceconcerningDr.Deatonsanatomicalimpairmentrating,therestrictionsplaceduponthePlaintiff,andhisthePlaintiffsowntestimonywithregardtohisabilities,wefindthatDr.DeatonsratingconsiderablyoverstatestheanatomicalimpairmentsufferedbythePlaintiff.Wehave,nonetheless,consideredDr.DeatonsopinioninreachingourfindingsastothePlaintiffsanatomicalimpairment.Similarly,wefindthatDr.LiensanatomicalratingunderstatestheanatomicalimpairmentsufferedbythePlaintiff,duetotheworkrestrictionswhichhavebeenplacedonthePlaintiff.Nonetheless,wehavealsoconsideredDr.Liensopinioninreachingourconclusion.Wehaveconsideredthetestimoniesofthesemedicalprofessionalsinlightofthe 0948 layevidence,andwehaveconsideredtherelativeexperienceandqualificationsoftheexperts.Wefind,consideringalloftheevidence,thatthePlaintiffhassustainedfivepercentanatomicalimpairment,whichisonlyslightlyhigherthanthatdeterminedbyDr.Bagby,andpreciselythatdeterminedbyDr.Canon.Thoughitisdifficulttodeterminethebasesofopinionsofthosedoctorswhodidnottestify,andwhoseopinionsaregleanedonlyfromreadingthemedicalrecords,wefindthatthePlaintiffsanatomicalimpairmentismoreappropriatelyratedbythepercentagesprovidedbyDrs.BagbyandCanonthanbythatprovidedbyDr.Deaton. ` WefurtherhaveconsideredthePlaintiffsadvancedage,lackofeducation,andlimitedtransferrablejobskills,andhavefoundthatthePlaintiffisentitledtoreceiveanawardoftwentyfivepercent(25%)vocationaldisability,whichisfivetimestheanatomicalrating.WeexpresslyfindthatthePlaintiffhasnotreturnedtohispreinjuryemployer,andisthusentitledtoreceivemorethanthetwoandonehalftimesmultiplierprovidedbytheprovisionsofTennesseeCodeAnnotated506241(a)(1)(1997Supp.).Wefindthat ` twentyfivepercent(25%)vocationaldisabilityadequatelycompensatesthePlaintiffgiventheprovisionsoftheWorkersCompensationAct. ` WeaffirmthefindingbytheTrialCourtthatthePlaintiffisentitledtoanawardofpermanentpartialdisability,however,wemodifythefinding,reducingthepercentageofpermanentpartialimpairmenttotwentyfivepercent(25%).ThePlaintiffretainshislifetimemedicalbenefits. ` WethereforeaffirmthedecisionoftheTrialCourt,asmodifiedherein,andremandthedecisiontothatCourtforfurtherproceedingsinaccordancewiththisOpinion. ` ThecostsofthisappealistaxedtotheAppellee. `  p    `  p 򀀀 p504  `  p RobertE.Corlew,III,SpecialJudge `615 ̛̜  :p59 CONCUR:_________________________________________WilliamM.Barker,Justice_________________________________________JohnK.Byers,SeniorJudge̜