WPCYP `6B<;ϰGaA̢$j9 e-IdTrԼRnzدRɮ;c)4sANAss9\rLZxuMS| 7;H$RێNq%_=ծ! #:cx}_jtc& ^Qy\TBqj|f6ٮ/!N/]te1Rpd71n~dbBsFsx]`7Rɺ$oX77TD{&/agU nzى + 0v , 0`, 0`, 0`V- 0`- 0`. 08v. 0. 02/ 0/ 0:0 0Y0 0_A1 0 1 0j2 04 B*5 D/5 05 D/u7 07 06r8 08 0:9 0^9 0<H: 0:U6o;U>;U*; B < < 0*< D3< D-= 0K.=.= ASy== 0> 0D6? Az?%@%@@mAmAmAmAmAmAmAmAmAmAmAmA mD LUMBERMENSStameyDycus T.J.EmisonLumbermensDorlandsubtalarProst$mischaracterizes t]heMintonrelitigate(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(I Z(Times New Roman O+s  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt8n_+X:3|x ULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  (9 Z6Times New Roman RegularHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,02J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5    Ry|$      1     _ Calcaneusreferstothebonewhichformstheheel.Theterm comminutedsignifiesthatthebonedidnot  fracturecleanly,butwascrushedintomanysmallpieces. Fibulareferstothesmallerofthetwobonesbetweenthe t kneeandtheankle.SeeDorlandsIllustratedMedicalDictionary252,363,630(27thed.1988).2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  - -2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      XXX(&H2  XXX(&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(&H5  XXX(&H6  XXX20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKS<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXST\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KS<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXST\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KS<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXST\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7I(X7  ?U%2A`Arial?7Z(X7  XXXST\  `&Times New RomanS&  d dH)1dxd<:zTop of For7K(X7  ?U%2A`Arial?7Z(X7  XXXST\  `&Times New RomanSH)2dxd0KS.SampleKS<6X9`(Courier NewKST\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKS<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXST\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  (|G2y|$ !.8 Mdd8         0  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial d(|3?f$ !.8 Mdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?f$ !.8 Mdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK Ry|$      5     _938S.W.2d404(Tenn.1996). Ry|$      4     _970S.W.2d929(Tenn.1998).  Ry|$      3     _ThetrialcourtfoundthatbothsubsectionsoftheSecondInjuryFundstatutewereapplicableinthiscase,  thoughitappliedsubsection(a)becauseitfoundthatsubsectionmorefavorabletotheemployer.Thoughthisfinding t doesnotaffecttheresultinthiscase,wenotethatitwasinerror.Asdiscussedabove,thedisabilitycausedbyWatts 8 twoinjuries,whenaddedtogether,equatestoonly68.75percenttothebodyasawhole.Therefore,subsection(b) L cannotapply,andifWattistoreceivebenefits,itmustbeundersubsection(a). Ry|$      2     _Inpertinentpart,thestatuteprovides:   t  8  (a)(1)Ifanemployeehaspreviouslysustainedapermanentphysicaldisabilityfromanycauseororigin  andbecomespermanentlyandtotallydisabledthroughasubsequentinjury,suchemployeeshallbe t entitledtocompensationfromtheemployeesemployer...onlyforthedisabilitythatwouldhave 8 resultedfromthesubsequentinjury,andsuchpreviousinjuryshallnotbeconsideredinestimatingthe L compensationtowhichsuchemployeemaybeentitled...;provided,thatinadditiontosuch  compensationforasubsequentinjury,andaftercompletionofthepaymentstherefor,thensuch  employeeshallbepaidtheremainderofthecompensationthatwouldbedueforthepermanenttotal H  disabilityoutofaspecialfundtobeknownasthe secondinjuryfundthereincreated. \   8  (2)Toreceivebenefitsfromthesecondinjuryfund,theinjuredemployeemustbetheemployeeofan    employerwhohasproperlyinsuredsuchemployersworkerscompensationliabilityorhasqualified X   tooperateundertheWorkersCompensationLawasaselfinsurer,andtheemployermustestablish  l  thattheemployerhadactualknowledgeofthepermanentandpreexistingdisabilityatthetimethatthe  0  employeewashiredoratthetimethattheemployeewasretainedinemploymentaftertheemployer   acquiredsuchknowledge,butinallcasespriortothesubsequentinjury.h    8  ....@    8  (b)(1)(A)Incaseswheretheinjuredemployeehasreceivedorwillreceiveaworkerscompensation x  awardorawardsforpermanentdisabilitytothebodyasawhole,andthecombinationofsuchawards < equalsorexceedsonehundredpercent(100%)permanentdisabilitytothebodyasawhole,the P employeeshallnotbeentitledtoreceivefromtheemployeroritsinsurancecarrieranycompensation  forpermanentdisabilitytothebodyasawholethatwouldbeinexcessofonehundredpercent(100%)  permanentdisabilitytothebodyasawhole,aftercombiningawards.L   8  (B)Benefitswhichmaybeduetheemployeeforpermanentdisabilitytothebodyasawholeinexcess $ ofonehundredpercent(100%)permanentdisabilitytothebodyasawhole,aftercombiningawards,  shallbepaidbythesecondinjuryfund.\   Tenn.CodeAnn.506208(a),(b). !.8 dd8     _    8KXXdd8@  INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#  #Ԉ &   June14,2001Session L XKX  # XXK#TRAVISMILTONWATTv.LUMBERMENSMUTUALCASUALTY J INSURANCECO.,etal.XKX    ^ @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforMadisonCounty  ^ @@No.53638JoeC.Morris,Chancellor  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A "  @@TTNo.W200000104SCR3CVFiledDecember20,_2001_Ԁ   AV) ` dE<` A      # XXK#XKX ThiscaserequiresconstructionoftheSecondInjuryFundstatute,Tenn.CodeAnn.506208   (1999Repl.).XKXXXKTravisMiltonWatthassufferedtwosuccessivescheduledmemberinjuries:(1)a50  percentdisabilitytothehand,whichequatestoan18.75percentdisabilitytothebodyasawhole; x and(2)a100percentdisabilitytotheleg,whichequatestoa50percentdisabilitytothebodyasa d whole.ThetrialcourtfoundthatthetwoinjuriesrenderedWattpermanentlyandtotallydisabled. P ThecourtfoundthatthetwoinjuriescontributedequallytoWattsdisabilityandapportioned < liabilityforpermanentandtotaldisabilitybenefitsequallybetweenLumbermensMutualCasualty (x InsuranceCompanyandtheSecondInjuryFund.TheSecondInjuryFundappealed,assertingthat d thetrialcourterred:(1)infindingWatttobeeligibleforpermanentandtotaldisabilitybenefits#XKXXXK#on P thebasisoftwoscheduledmemberinjurieswhoseindividualdisabilityratingsequatetolessthan < 100percenttothebodyasawhole;XKXXXKԀand(2)inholdingtheSecondInjuryFundliablefor50percent ( ofthebenefitaward.#XKXXXK #ԀAfterthoroughreviewandconsideration,weholdthatthetrialcourtproperly  foundWatttobepermanentlyandtotallydisabledandcorrectlyapportionedtheliability.Wereject  theSecondInjuryFundscontentionthatourholdingeffectivelyallowsrelitigationofprior  workerscompensationsettlements;rather,wefinditreasonablefortrialcourtstoconcludethatthe  combinedeffectsofmultipleworkrelatedinjuriesmayresultinadisabilitygreaterthanthatcaused t  bythoseinjurieswhenconsideredinisolation.Accordingly,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrial `!  court. L"! XKXXXK DirectAppealPursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)#XKXXXK #; $$t# JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed  %` $   AdolphoA.Birch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichFrankF.Drowota,III, &8"&  C.J., E.RileyAndersonandWilliamM.Barker,JJ., joined.JaniceM.Holder,J.,fileda '$#' concurringanddissentingopinion. ($( XKXXXKPaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,DianneStameyDycus,DeputyAttorneyGeneral, *%* Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,SecondInjuryFund.#XKXXXK# +&+   p,', P.AllenPhillipsandB.DuaneWillis,Jackson,Tennessee,fortheappellee,LumbermensMutual   CasualtyInsuranceCo.  T.J.Emison,Jr.,Alamo,Tennessee,fortheappellee,TravisMiltonWatt. t @@OO& OPINION  L      I.FactsandProceduralHistory $ t Z  Atthetimeoftrialinthiscause,theemployee,TravisMiltonWatt,was51yearsold.Heleft  L  highschoolin1965duringthetenthgrade,didnotobtainaGED,andhasnootherformalor  8  vocationaleducation.Sincethattime,hehasspentmostofhislifeworkinginoccupationswhich $  demandstrenuousphysicallabor,includingfarming,factorywork,truckdriving,andconstruction.     In1971,whileworkingforAltonBoxCompany,Wattwasinjuredwhenhisrighthandwas   pulledbetweenasetofcylindersonapress.Hishandwastornandcrushed,andhisringandlittle   fingerwereamputated.Theinjurylefthimwithnofeelinginhisindexfingerandsignificantly p impairedhisabilitytomovetherestofhishand.Asaresultofthisinjury,Wattreceivedacourt \ approvedworkerscompensationsettlementfor50percentpermanentpartialdisabilitytotheright H hand.Despitethisdisability,hewasabletocontinuethetypeofemploymenthehadperformedin 4 thepast.  p   In1996,WattobtainedajobperformingrepairandmaintenanceworkforHamiltonHills H ShoppingCenter(ShoppingCenter).Atthetimehewashired,themanageroftheShoppingCenter 4 wasawareofhispriordisability.OnAugust24,1996,whileworkingattheShoppingCenter,Watt   fellapproximatelytwentyfeetfromanextensionladderandsustainedacomminutedfractureofthe   rightcalcaneusandafractureoftherightfibula. #  1      ׀Thefibulahealedwithoutpermanent  complications;thecalcaneusdidnot.Wattdevelopedposttraumaticarthritisinthesubtalarjoint,  locatedjustbelowtheankle,andinthejointsofhisfoot.    Thereafter,WattfiledsuitseekingworkerscompensationbenefitsfromLumbermensMutual X  CasualtyInsuranceCo.(Lumbermens)andtheSecondInjuryFund(Fund).Attrial,Watttestified D! thathisfootandleghurtconstantlyandwerenearlyalwaysswollen.Hestatedthatthepain 0"  preventedhimfromstandingformorethanfiveminutesatatimeandthatevensittingforextended #l! periodswouldcausehislegtohurtandbecomenumb.Healsonotedthathisinabilitytobalance $X" onthelegcausedhimtofalloccasionallyandthatthepaininhisfootmadeitdifficulttodrive,walk, $D # orclimbstairs.Becauseofhisinjuries,heasserted,hecouldnotreturntoanyofthejobshehad %0!$ performedinthepast,andheexpressedthebeliefthathewaspermanentlyunabletowork.Watts &"% wife,LindaFayeWatt,corroboratedWattstestimonyregardingtheeffectsofhisinjury. '#& Ї  Wattalsoofferedthedepositiontestimonyofhistreatingphysician,KeithD.Nord,M.D.,  whoopinedthatWattsinjurywouldrequirehimtowearabraceonhislegandwouldcausehimto  beunabletostandforlongperiodsoftime,walkmorethanablock,climb,crawl,orcarryweights  ofmorethan20pounds.NordnotedthatWattmightbecapableofsedentaryworkbutconcluded t thathewouldnotbeabletoreturntothetypeofworkhehaddoneinthepast.Nordsuggested, ` however,thatasurgicalfusionofthejointsinWattsfootmightimprovehisabilitytousehisleg. L    OrthopedicsurgeonandfootspecialistGreerRichardson,M.D.,alsotestifiedbydeposition. $ t RichardsonnotedthatWattsinjuryhadcauseddeformationoftheheelandarthritisinthehindfoot,  ` anklejoint,andmidfootandthatthemobilityofWattsfoothadbeengreatlyreduced.Richardson  L  opinedthatthesurgicalprocedureNordsuggestedprobablywouldrelievesomeofWattspainbut  8  wouldnotrestorehisabilitytowalkonunevenground,climb,orbalanceonhisfoot.Richardson $  agreedthat,fromapurelyphysicalstandpoint,Wattwouldbecapableofsedentarywork,buthe   recognizedthathisassessmentdidnottakeintoconsiderationWattsintellectualfunctionor   occupationalhistory.RichardsonstatedthatWattwouldbeunable,duetothecombinedeffectsof   hisleginjuryandhandinjury,toperformanyjobthatwouldrequirehimtostand.     Basedonthisevidence,thetrialcourtfoundWatttobe100percentpermanentlyandtotally \ disabledandorderedthateachdefendantpay50percentofWattsbenefits.TheFundappealed,and H theSupremeCourtSpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPanelheldthatthetrialjudgedidnot 4 makesufficientfindingstodecidethecaseinaccordancewithBomelyv.MidAmericaCorp.,970  p S.W.2d929(Tenn.1998).ThePanelremandedthecause,directingthetrialcourttomakespecific  \ findingsregardingthepercentagesofpermanentdisabilitycausedbyWattsinjuriesandwhether H judgmentwasrenderedpursuanttosubsection(a)orsubsection(b)oftheSecondInjuryFund 4 statute,Tenn.CodeAnn.506208(1999Repl.).Onremand,thetrialcourtreaffirmedthatWatt   waspermanentlyandtotallydisabled,concludingthathewas totallyincapacitatedfromworking   atanoccupationwhichbringshimanincome,anditheldthatTenn.CodeAnn.506208(a)  governedthecase.ThetrialcourtdividedliabilityequallybetweenLumbermensandtheFundbased  onafindingthatWattstwoinjuriescontributedequallytohisdisability.    TheFundagainappealed,contendingthatthetrialcourterred:(1)infindingWatteligible X  forpermanentandtotaldisabilitybenefitsonthebasisoftwoscheduledmemberinjurieswhose D! individualdisabilityratingsequatetolessthan100percenttothebodyasawhole;and(2)in 0"  apportioningliabilityforbenefitsevenlybetweenLumbermensandtheFund.Thecasewasargued #l! beforetheSpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPanel,butwastransferred,priortoissuanceof $X" amemorandumopinion,tothefullSupremeCourt.Afterthoroughconsideration,weholdthatthe $D # trialcourtdidnoterrinfindingWatttobeentitledtopermanentandtotaldisabilitybenefits,andwe %0!$ furtherholdthattheevidencesupportsthetrialcourtsdivisionofliability.Accordingly,weaffirm &"% thejudgmentofthetrialcourt. '#&   II.StandardofReview )$(  / |*%)   Thestandardofreviewinworkerscompensationcasesisdenovoupontherecord,   accompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthetrialcourtsfindingsoffact.Tenn.Code  Ann.50-6-225(e)(2)(1999Repl.);Spencerv.TowsonMovingandStorage,Inc.,922S.W.2d508,  509(Tenn.1996).Wherequestionsoflawarepresented,however,ourreviewisdenovowithno t presumptionofcorrectness.Smithv.U.S.Pipe&FoundryCo.,14S.W.3d739,742(Tenn.2000); ` Ridingsv.RalphM.ParsonsCo.,914S.W.2d79,80(Tenn.1996). L    Issuesofstatutoryconstructionarequestionsoflawtowhichweapplythisdenovostandard $ t withoutapresumptionofcorrectness.SeePerryv.SentryIns.Co.,938S.W.2d404,406(Tenn.  ` 1996).Whenconstruingastatute,courtsmust ascertainandgiveeffecttothelegislativeintent  L  withoutundulyrestrictingorexpandingastatutescoveragebeyonditsintendedscope.Owensv.  8  State,908S.W.2d923,926(Tenn.1995).ThelegislaturehasdeclaredthattheWorkers $  CompensationActisintended tobearemedialstatutewhichshallbegivenanequitable   constructionbythecourts,totheendthattheobjectsandpurposesofthischaptermayberealized   andattained.Tenn.CodeAnn.506116(1999Repl.).Accordingly, theselawsshouldbe   rationallybutliberallyconstruedtopromoteandadheretotheActspurposesofsecuringbenefits   tothoseworkerswhofallwithinitscoverage.Lindseyv.Smith&Johnson,Inc.,601S.W.2d923, p 926(Tenn.1980). \   III.Analysis 4 7  A.EligibilityforPermanentandTotalDisabilityBenefits  p  8  WefirstaddresswhetherWattisentitledtoreceivepermanentandtotaldisabilitybenefits. H Initially,wenotethatWattsdisabilitiesinthiscasearebothtoscheduledmembers;hereceived75 4 weeksofbenefitsfora50percentdisabilitytothehandand200weeksofbenefitsfora100percent   disabilitytotheleg.InSecondInjuryFundcases,weconvertscheduledmemberdisabilitiestoan   equivalentbodyasawholedisabilityusingthe numberofweeksconversionmethod.SeeScales  v.CityofOakRidge,___S.W.3d___(Tenn.2001).Underthismethod,thenumberofweeks  awardedforascheduledmemberinjuryisexpressedasapercentageofthe400weeksavailablefor  disabilitytothebodyasawhole.Thus,Wattshandinjuryequatestoan18.75percentdisabilityto l thebodyasawhole,andhisleginjuryequatestoa50percentdisabilitytothebodyasawhole. X  Whenaddedtogether,thetotalbodyasawholedisabilityattributabletoWattstwoinjuriesequals D! 68.75percent.TheFundcontendsthatWattlegallycannotbefoundpermanentlyandtotally 0"  disabledonthebasisofthesetwoinjuriesbecausetheindividualdisabilityratings,whencombined, #l! equatetolessthan100percenttothebodyasawhole. $X"   Inaddressingthiscontention,webeginwiththisCourtsinterpretationofthelanguageofthe %0!$ SecondInjuryFundstatute,Tenn.CodeAnn.506208(1999Repl.).InAllenv.Cityof &"% Gatlinburg,thisCourtdescribedtheoperationofthestatuteindetail:q #  2       '#& Ї8  8`   Subsections(a)and(b)[oftheSecondInjuryFundstatute]applyin  differentsituations,andbenefitsareapportionedunderthetwo  subsectionsindifferentways.Inordertoclaimbenefitsunder  subsection(a),theemployee(1)musthave sustainedapermanent t physicaldisabilityfromanycauseororigin,whethercompensableor ` noncompensable,and(2)mustbecome permanentlyandtotally L  disabledthroughasubsequentinjury.Inaddition,liabilitymaybe 8  apportionedtotheSecondInjuryFundundersubsection(a)onlyif $ t theemployerhadactualknowledgeofthepreexistinginjurybefore  ` thesubsequentinjuryoccurred.Incontrast,subsection(b)appliesif  L  thesumoftwoormoreawardsforpermanentdisabilitytothebody  8  asawholeequalorexceed100percentpermanentdisability.Thus, $  subsection(b)ismorenarrowinsomerespects,foritappliesonly   whentheemployeehassustainedapriorcompensableinjurythat   resultedinanawardofpermanentpartialortotaldisability...,   whereassubsection(a)applieswhentheemployeehassuffereda   priordisablinginjuryfromanysource,includingnoncompensable  sources....Ontheotherhand,subsection(b)isbroaderinthatan  employeedoesnothavetoberenderedpermanentlyandtotally  disabledbythesecondinjuryforsubsection(b)toapply,nordoes t subsection(b)containanyrequirementthattheemployerhavenotice ` oftheemployeespriorinjury.L ` x` x 36S.W.3d73,76(Tenn.2001)(citationsandfootnoteomitted).e #  3       $ t   InassertingthatWattisbarredfromrecoveringpermanentandtotaldisabilitybenefits,the  L  FundreliesonMintonv.StateIndus.,Inc.,825S.W.2d73(Tenn.1992).InMinton,theemployee  8  firstsufferedabackinjury,resultingina10percentdisabilitytothebodyasawhole,andthen $  suffereda100percentdisabilitytotheleg,whichtheCourtconvertedtoa50percentdisabilityto   thebodyasawhole.Id.at7475.ThetrialcourtfoundMintonhadbeenrenderedpermanentlyand   totallydisabledbythecombinationofthetwoinjuries.Id.at75.ThisCourt,however,added   togetherthepercentagesofdisabilitycausedbytheinjuriesandfoundthatMintons aggregate   permanentdisabilitywasonly60percent.Id.at80.XKXXXKViewingthemedicalevidenceintherecord, p weheldthatMintoncouldbepermanentlyandtotallydisabledonlyifthemedicalevidenceindicated \ thatthesecondinjuryaggravatedthefirstinjury,sothattheamountofdisabilityattributedtothefirst H injurycouldberedefined.Id.at79.Weconcluded, Thereisnomedicalevidenceinthisrecordthat 4 thekneeinjuryin1990aggravatedthebackinjuryof1980.Thetrialcourtwasthereforeinerrorin  p findingthatacombinationofthetwoinjuriesrenderedthePlaintifftotallyandpermanentlydisabled  \ ...#XKXXXKL#ԀThus,weheldthatthefactsdidnotsupportafindingthatMintonwaspermanentlyandtotally H disabled,andwelimitedherrecoverytothe200weeksofbenefitsavailableforlossofaleg.Id.at 4 7980.     TheholdingofMintonreflectsthepremisethatemployeesinSecondInjuryFundcasesmust  sufferanaggregatedisabilityequivalentto100percentdisabilitytothebodyasawholebeforebeing  eligibleforpermanentandtotaldisabilitybenefits.Thetrialcourtsawardofpermanentandtotal  disabilityinMintonwasreversedbecausethefirstinjuryhadnotbeenaggravatedandthereforethe l disabilityattributedtoitcouldnotbeincreased,andthesecondinjurywastoascheduledmember X  andcouldnotbeincreasedbeyond100percenttothatmember.IfMintonweretocontrolthe D! outcomehere,Wattcouldnotrecoverpermanentandtotaldisabilitybenefitsbecausehisaggregate 0"  disabilitytothebodyasawholeequalsonly68.75percent,therehasbeennoaggravationtojustify #l! redefiningthefirstinjury,andthedisabilitycausedbyhissecondinjurycannotexceed100percent $X" tothelegor50percenttothebodyasawhole.Despitebeingrenderedpermanentlyunabletowork $D # asthesoleresultofworkrelatedinjuries,Wattwouldonlybeeligibleforthe200weeksofbenefits %0!$ availableforlossofaleg. &"% Ї  InBomelyv.MidAmericaCorp.d #  4      ׀andPerryv.SentryIns.Co.,bT #  5      ׀however,thisCourtdeparted  fromtheanalysisusedinMinton.Inbothofthosecases,weemphasizedthatthetrialcourtmust  makeaspecificfindingoffactregardingthedisabilitycausedbythesecondinjurywithout  considerationofanypriorinjury.Bomely,970S.W.2dat934;Perry,938S.W.2dat40708.In t otherwords,uponfindingtheemployeetobepermanentlyandtotallydisabled,thetrialcourtmust ` thenmakeafindingregardinghowmuchdisabilitythesecondinjurywouldhavecausedifit L  occurredtoapersonwithnopriordisability.SeeBomely,970S.W.2dat934.Thus,theCourt 8  directedthatadeterminationofthedegreeofvocationaldisabilityshouldbemadepriortoassessing $ t theeffectsoftheinjuriesinisolation,insteadofaddingtogethertheindividualamountsofdisability  ` ashadbeendoneinMinton.  L    ThisnewapproachwasmorefullyoutlinedinAllenv.CityofGatlinburg,36S.W.3d73 $  (Tenn.2001).InAllen,theemployeesufferedafirstinjurywhichcauseda20percentdisabilityto   thebodyasawholeandthenwaspermanentlyandtotallydisabledbyasecondinjury.Id.at7475.   Thetrialcourtfoundthatthesecondinjurycaused80percentdisability,apparentlysubtractingthe   priorpercentageof20percentfromthetotal100percentdisability.Id.at75,77.TheAllenCourt,   however,reversedthisfinding,notingthattrialcourtsinSecondInjuryFundcasesmustmakean p independentdeterminationofthedisabilityattributabletothesecondinjuryalone.TheCourt \ emphasizedthat thepercentageofdisabilityawardedforthepriorinjuryhasnobearingonthetrial H courtsdeterminationoftheeffectsofthesecondinjury.Id.at77,n.4. 4   Implicitinthisapproachisarejectionofthepremisethattheindividualdisabilitypercentages  \ attributedtoanemployeesinjuriesmusttotal100percentbeforeheorshemaybepermanentlyand H totallydisabled.TheFundassertsthatBomelyandPerryarenotinconsistentwithMintonbecause 4 theemployeesinBomelyandPerryeachhadinjuriesfromnoncompensablesources.SeeBomely,   970S.W.2dat931;Perry,938S.W.2dat40506.TheemployeeinAllen,however,sufferedonly   workrelatedinjuries.SeeAllen,36S.W.3dat7475.Hadwecontinuedtoaccept,afterBomely  andPerry,thatanemployeecannotbepermanentlyandtotallydisabledunlessthesumofindividual  disabilitypercentagesequalsatleast100percent,itwouldnothavebeennecessaryinAllentoinsist  thatthetrialcourtmakeanindependentfindingregardingtheeffectsofthesecondinjury,ratherthan l simplysubtractingthe20percentattributedtothepriorinjuryfromatotalof100percent. X    Wetakethisopportunitytoreaffirmtheapproachfollowedin_Bomely,_ԀPerry,andAllen.We 0"  holdthatthislineofcaseshasexpandedtheanalysisbeyondthatofMinton,andwerecognizethat #l! anemployeemaybepermanentlyandtotallydisabledbythecombinedeffectsofmultipleinjuries $X" whoseindividualdisabilitypercentagesdonottotal100percent,evenifpriorinjurieshavenotbeen $D # aggravatedbylaterinjuries. %0!$   &"%   WearenotpersuadedbytheFundscontentionthatourholdingtodaywillresultintrial   courts relitigatingpriordisabilityawards.Wecontinuetoholdthattrialcourtsmaynotrelitigate  priorworkerscompensationawardsandmaynotbaseanawardofpermanentandtotaldisability  onafindingthatapriorworkerscompensationsettlementwastoolow.SeeHalev.CNAIns.Cos., t 799S.W.2d659,661(Tenn.1990)( Concernsforjudicialeconomyandfinalityofsettlementsin ` thecontextofworkerscompensationlitigation[lead]ustorejectthe...contentionthatatrialcourt L  inasubsequentproceedingisnotboundbyapriorjudicialdeterminationregardingtheextentof 8  disabilitystemmingfromapriorinjury...).Ourproscriptionagainsttherelitigationofprior $ t awards,however,doesnotprecludethetrialcourtfromconsideringthesynergisticeffectsof  ` multipleofdisablinginjuries.Inmanycases,thedisabilitycausedbymultipleinjuries,when  L  combined,maysignificantlyexceedthatwhichwouldhavebeencausedbyeitherinjuryoccurring  8  independently.AsthisCourtrecognizedinLockv.NatlUnionFireIns.Co.ofPittsburgh, $  Pennsylvania, acombinationofinjuriestomembersofthebody(inthiscasethearmandfoot)has   agreaterdisablingeffectthanthearithmeticalsumofindividualscheduledawards.809S.W.2d   483,487(Tenn.1991).Wefinditreasonabletoconcludethatafindingofpermanentandtotal   disabilitywherethesumofindividualdisabilityawardsequalslessthan100percentrepresentsnot   arelitigationofapriorworkerscompensationsettlement,butafindingthatthecombinedeffects p oftheinjurieshavecreatedadisabilitygreaterthanthatcausedbytheeffectsoftheinjurieswhen \ consideredindependently. H   Insum,undertheapproachestablishedin_Bomely,_ԀPerry,andAllen,trialcourtsinSecond  p InjuryFundcasesmustfirstdeterminewhethertheemployeehasbeenpermanentlyandtotally  \ disabledbythecombinationoftwoormoreinjuries.Asdefinedbystatute,thisinquiryinvolvesa H determinationwhethertheemployeehasbeen totally[incapacitated]...fromworkingatan 4 occupationwhichbringstheemployeeanincome.Tenn.CodeAnn.506207(4)(B)(1999Repl.).   Thetrialcourtmaynotreconsidertheextentofdisabilitycausedbyanypriorcompensableinjury;   priorcourtsfindingsofdisabilitymustbegivenconclusiveeffect.Thetrialcourtisnotbarred,  however,fromconcludingthatthecombinedeffectsoftwoinjuriesaregreaterthantheindividual  disabilitywhichwouldhavebeencausedbythoseinjuriesinisolation,sothatanemployeemaybe  foundpermanentlyandtotallydisabledandmayreceivebenefitsundersubsection(a)oftheSecond l InjuryFundstatuteeventhoughtheindividualpercentagesofdisabilityattributabletothetwo X  injuriesdonotequal100percentwhenaddedtogether. D!   Applyingthisapproachtothecaseundersubmission,weholdthatthetrialcourtproperly #l! foundWatttobepermanentlyandtotallydisabled.Weconcludethatthetrialcourtsfindingdid $X" notinvolvearelitigationofthepriorhandinjury;thetrialcourtdidnotreassessthedisability $D # attributedtothefirstinjury,nordiditsuggestinanyfashionthatWattshandinjuryinisolation %0!$ causedmorethan50percentdisabilitytothatscheduledmember.Instead,thetrialcourtplainly &"% concludedthatWattsdisabilityhadbeencausedbythecombinedeffectsofbothinjuries. '#& Accordingly,regardlessofwhethertheindividualpercentagesofdisabilityattributedtothetwo (#' injuriesequatestolessthan100percenttothebodyasawhole,weaffirmthetrialcourtsawardof )$( permanentandtotaldisability. |*%)  h+&*   B.AllocationofLiabilityforBenefits  ?y  HavingheldthatthetrialcourtproperlyawardedWattbenefitsforpermanentandtotal  disability,wenextmustaddresstheallocationofthosebenefitsbetweenLumbermensandtheFund. t Lumbermensasksthatitsliabilitybelimitedto200weeks,theamountitwouldhavepaidtoWatt ` forlossofaleghadhenotsufferedapriorinjury.Certainly,somepriorstatementsofthisCourt L  wouldseemtosuggestthatthiswouldbetheproperallocation.See,e.g.,Mintonv.StateIndus., 8  Inc.,825S.W.2d73,7677(Tenn.1992)(notingthat theemployer[inSecondInjuryFundcases] $ t isliableonlyforthedisabilitythatwouldhaveresultedfromthesubsequentinjurywithout  ` considerationofthefirst,andconcludingthattheemployersliabilityinthatcasecouldnotexceed  L   100percentofthelowerextremityor200weeks).InBomelyv.MidAmericaCorp.,however,  8  thisCourtestablishedthattheemployersliabilityinSecondInjuryFundcasesisnotlimitedtothe $  400weeksavailableforpermanentpartialdisabilitytothebodyasawhole.970S.W.2d929,93132   (Tenn.1998).Instead,awardsofpermanentandtotaldisabilityareapportionedbetweenthe   employerandtheFundbasedonapercentageofthetotalnumberofweekstoage65.Id.Inthis   case,thetrialcourtfoundWattssecondinjurycauseda100percentdisabilitytotheleg,which   equatestoa50percentdisabilitytothebodyasawhole.Weconcludethattheevidencesupports p thatfinding.Accordingly,itproperlyapportioned50percentoftheliabilityforpermanentandtotal \ disabilitybenefitstoLumbermens,withtheremainingbenefitstobepaidbytheFund.SeeTenn. H CodeAnn.506208(a)(1999Repl.)(notingthatwhensubsection(a)applies,theemployerisliable 4 forthepercentageofdisabilitycausedbythesecondinjury,andtheSecondInjuryFundisliablefor  p theremainderofpermanentandtotaldisabilitybenefits).Thetrialcourtsfindingonthisissueis  \ affirmed. H   IV.Conclusion   H  Fortheforegoingreasons,weholdthatthetrialcourtproperlyconcludedthatWattmay  receiveanawardofpermanentandtotaldisabilitybenefits,andwefurtherhold,basedonthetrial  courtsfindingthatWattslastinjurywasresponsiblefor50percentofWattsdisability,thatthe  trialcourtsallocationofliabilityforbenefitsbetweentheFundandLumbermenswasproper. l Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.CostsonappealaretaxedtotheSecond X  InjuryFund,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. D!    `     h     ___________________________________ $D #    `     h     ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,JUSTICE