ÿWPCà lRæ‡{ß÷ÔÎö°_$Ú-²ò±OC¬IAÊ-õ6‘IÛ{Êö¤Nu#CÖ/ý”À E1¿AçȧHgŸj%ý©r8"))!ˆmŸ¾àçkÖÇd}’ê îuâ²ý+&Ç?o;!°l 7Òe6šo½¨Ìž:GKÁߢ›0¢½&8iÜ5¤±$úò–%K®BʪÜÐûþ‡Ýs¬=EójJ¥RüQóøO§–C&Ófådލß~Hë»°Í"¾_[hð0'2Ev›ºÜÅR«eg¼ êÇcè[‰£jÈÿ„ 8óS%/‘8ðÆør!»Ÿ”¨‡úªì4áÙÍš[f Û¹Õ¿@K?VJPIf«`¯yùÅ– z”Öjµ$ ¢+I£å¶à¤ÌÛ`´™jW$^’qúri¢Ë«…(¤$[‚76¥ÝŠcy¬ƒ¹úvƒ¿ Ä5½¢íÁ®J¾ò2Ž2—uŽdb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ U N· w 4 z Ò— i x mz UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1÷NÿU N 0DOE“U@•••••••••••••••••••••••bÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕ 0ëÝÝÝÝ BÈÈ 0¤å D3‰ D-¼ 0Kéé AS4Ƈ 0¤M 0Dñ A«5˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»ûv)L (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularö~ì(¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(@øÐ Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 (ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman - ù-(|G2¼{$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Z¥»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô÷Íò»»Ô d(|3G‹$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Z¥»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G‹$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Z¥»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Z¥»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Z¥»»»ÔÑ8€©XXdì»»d8ÑÔ€¼Z¥»»¼Z¥ÔÓ=€Z¥»Ð»dÐd=Óà@™ ™ ìàÔ€¼Z¥»»¼Z¥ÔÔ‡î Z¥ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Z¥»îî ‡#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓSubmitted€on€Briefsà0 @ à€June€2000Ð üL ÐÔ‡X©X»¼Z¥ÔÌò òÔ#†¼Z¥»XX©|#ÔDEBBIE€YOUNG€v.€CARADON€BETTER„Ô_ÔBILTÔ_Ô,€INC.Ô‡X©X»¼Z¥Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Rutherford€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€97WC„711€€€€€€Robert€E.€Corlew€III€,€ChancellorÐ æ 6 ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½ ` AßÐ ¾   ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„00442„SC„WCM„CV€„€August€25,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Z¥»XX© #ÔÔ€X©X»¼Z¥ÔFollowing€her€termination€for€excessive€absences€and€tardiness,€the€employee€filed€an€actionÐ ŒÜ  Ðpursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(2)€seeking€reconsideration€of€her€1996€workersððÐ xÈ  Ðcompensation€award.€€The€employer€argued€that€reconsideration€was€not€appropriate€under€theÐ d´ Ðstatute€because€the€employeeððs€termination€was€not€causally€connected€to€her€initial€work„relatedÐ P  Ðinjury.€€The€trial€court€rejected€the€employerððs€argument€and€entered€a€judgment€awarding€theÐ <Œ Ðemployee€an€additional€five€percent€(5%)€permanent€partial€disability.€€The€employer€appealed€theÐ (x Ðtrial€courtððs€decision,€and€the€Special€Workerððs€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€held€that€the€trial€courtÐ d Ðhad€erred€in€increasing€the€initial€award€because€the€employee€had€failed€to€prove€that€herÐ P Ðtermination€was€causally€connected€to€her€initial€work„related€injury.€€Thereafter,€we€granted€theÐ ì< Ðemployeeððs€motion€for€full€Court€review€and€now€reject€the€findings€and€conclusions€of€the€Panel.€Ð Ø( ÐWe€conclude€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(2)€does€not€require€the€employee€to€prove€that€theÐ Ä Ðinitial€work„related€injury€caused€the€loss€of€employment€as€a€precondition€to€obtainingÐ ° Ðreconsideration.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€Ð œì ÐÓ3ÓÌò òTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(5)(B)€Appeal;€Findings€of€Fact€and€Conclusions€of€Law€ofÐ tÄ Ðthe€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€Rejected;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€CourtÐ `° ÐAffirmed.ó óÐ L œ ÐÌÓ  ÓòòFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€Jóó.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòE.€Riley€Anderson,€C.J.,óó€Ð $"t! ÐòòJanice€M.€Holder€and€William€M.€Barkeróó,€JJ.,€joined.€òòÔ_ÔAdolphoÔ_Ô€A.€Birch,€€Jróó.,€J.,€NotÐ #`" ÐParticipating.€Ð ü#L# ÐÌLarry€G.€Trail€and€Diana€C.€Benson,€Murfreesboro,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Caradon€Better„Ð Ô%$!% ÐBilt,€Incorporated.Ð À&"& ÐÌChristopher€K.€Thompson,€Murfreesboro,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Debbie€Young.Ð ˜(è#( ÐÓq ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ p*À%* ÐÌÌÐ 4-„(-ý ÐòòóóÓ  Óà@ÛÛ%ìàòòò òBackgroundóóó óˆÐ ° Ðà  àAppellant,€Debbie€Young€began€working€for€appellee,€Caradon€Better€Bilt,€IncorporatedÐ œì Ð(ð ðCaradonðð)€in€February€of€1992€as€a€production€employee.€Young€sustained€a€compensable€work„Ð ˆØ Ðrelated€injury€to€her€left€leg€and€back€on€or€about€November€1,€1995.€€Dr.€Warren€MacPhersonÐ tÄ Ðtreated€Young€and€assessed€a€ten€percent€(10%)€permanent€partial€disability€as€a€result€of€that€injury.€Ð `° ÐDr.€MacPherson€released€Young€to€return€to€work€with€an€initial€two„week€lifting€restriction,€andÐ L œ Ðshe€returned€to€work€on€January€29,€1996.€€Young€settled€her€workersðð€compensation€claim€for€theÐ 8 ˆ Ð1995€injury€on€March€25,€1996,€and€received€a€twenty„five€percent€(25%)€permanent€partialÐ $ t Ðdisability€rating€to€the€body€as€a€whole€and€$1,000.00€for€future€medical€expenses€beyond€two€years.€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àAfter€Young€returned€to€work,€she€continued€to€see€Dr.€MacPherson€until€March€4,€1997,Ð è 8  Ðfor€follow„up€treatment.€€Thereafter,€on€March€12,€1998,€Young€was€evaluated€by€Dr.€David€GawÐ Ô$  Ðwho,€like€Dr.€MacPherson,€assessed€a€ten€percent€(10%)€impairment€resulting€from€the€1995€injury.Ð À  ÐÌà  àOn€March€21,€1997,€Young€was€terminated€from€her€employment€with€Cardon€for€excessiveÐ ˜è  Ðtardiness€and€absenteeism.€€After€her€termination,€Young€sought€a€second€opinion€on€the€extent€ofÐ „Ô  Ðthe€disability€she€had€sustained€as€a€result€of€the€November€1,€1995,€injury.€€Caradon€arranged€forÐ pÀ ÐYoung€to€be€examined€and€evaluated€by€Dr.€Ronald€Zellum.€€Dr.€Zellum€concluded€that€Young€hadÐ \¬ Ðan€eight€percent€(8%)€impairment€resulting€from€the€1995€injury.€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àOn€May€21,€1997,€two€months€after€her€employment€was€terminated,€Young€filed€aÐ  p Ðcomplaint€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€Rutherford€County€seeking,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„Ð  \ Ð241(a)(2),€reconsideration€of€her€March€25,€1996,€workersðð€compensation€award.€€Following€aÐ øH Ðhearing,€the€trial€court€found€that€Young€had€been€terminated€because€of€excessive€tardiness€andÐ ä4 Ðabsenteeism.€€However,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€the€law€does€not€require€proof€of€a€causalÐ Ð  Ðconnection€between€the€employeeððs€work„related€initial€injury€and€subsequent€termination€as€aÐ ¼  Ðprerequisite€to€obtaining€reconsideration€of€the€original€award€under€section€241(a)(2).€€Accordingly,Ð ¨ø Ðthe€trial€court€entered€a€judgment€awarding€Young€an€additional€five€percent€(5%)€permanent€partialÐ ”ä Ðdisability€to€the€body€as€a€whole,€thereby€raising€the€original€award€for€the€1995€injury€from€twenty„Ð €Ð Ðfive€percent€(25%)€to€thirty€percent€(30%)€to€the€body€as€a€whole.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àCaradon€appealed€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€arguing€that€the€trial€court€had€erred€byÐ D!” Ðreconsidering€the€extent€of€the€employeeððs€workersðð€compensation€award.€€According€to€Caradon,Ð 0"€  Ðreconsideration€was€inappropriate€because€Young€had€failed€to€show€a€causal€connection€betweenÐ #l! Ðher€termination€and€the€1995€work„related€injury.€€The€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€AppealsÐ $X" ÐPanel€agreed€with€Caradon€and€held€that€the€trial€court€had€erred€in€reconsidering€Youngððs€award.€Ð ô$D # ÐIn€so€holding,€the€Appeals€Panel€stated:€ð ðwhen€an€employeeððs€termination€is€a€result€of€his€or€herÐ à%0!$ Ðown€deliberate€actions,€as€is€the€case€before€this€Panel,€the€employee€should€be€required€to€show€aÐ Ì&"% Ðcausal€connection€between€the€loss€of€employment€and€the€work„related€injury€before€the€Court€willÐ ¸'#& Ðreconsider€his€or€her€disability€award.ððÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThereafter,€Young€filed€a€motion€for€full€Court€review€of€the€Panelððs€decision€pursuant€toÐ |*Ì%) ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(5)(B).€€We€granted€Youngððs€motion€to€determine€whether€the€PanelÐ h+¸&* Ðerred€in€concluding€that€Young€was€required€to€show€a€causal€connection€between€her€original€injuryÐ ° Ðand€subsequent€termination€before€obtaining€reconsideration€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„Ð œì Ð241(a)(2).€€For€the€reasons€that€follow,€we€now€reject€the€Panelððs€conclusion€and€affirm€the€judgmentÐ ˆØ Ðof€the€trial€court.Ð tÄ ÐÌà@žž!ìàòòò òStandard€of€Reviewóóó óˆÐ L œ Ðà  àThe€issue€in€this€appeal€is€a€question€of€law€involving€statutory€interpretation.€€Accordingly,Ð 8 ˆ Ðour€review€is€òòde€novoóó€with€no€presumption€of€correctness€afforded€the€lower€courtsðð€judgments.€Ð $ t ÐòòNelson€v.€Wal„Mart€Stores,€Inc.óó,€8€S.W.3d€625,€629€(Tenn.€1999).€€Ð  ` ÐÔ‡ X©XXX©Ôòòò òÌà@))%ìàDiscussionó óóóˆÐ è 8  Ðà  àYoung€argues€that€the€Panel€erred€in€reversing€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€because€the€statuteÐ Ô$  Ðregarding€reconsideration€does€not€contain€a€requirement€that€the€termination€be€causally€related€toÐ À  Ðthe€original€injury.€Ô#†X©XX X©R##Ô€The€statute€pertinent€to€the€issue€in€this€appeal€is€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„Ð ¬ü  Ð241(a)(2)€which€provides:Ð ˜è  ÐÌà8  àIn€accordance€with€this€section,€the€courts€may€reconsider,€upon€the€filing€of€a€newÐ pÀ Ðcause€of€action,€the€issue€of€industrial€disability.€€Such€reconsideration€shall€examineÐ \¬ Ðall€pertinent€factors,€including€lay€and€expert€testimony,€employeeððs€age,€education,Ð H˜ Ðskills€and€training,€local€job€opportunities,€and€capacity€to€work€at€types€ofÐ 4„ Ðemployment€available€in€claimantððs€disabled€condition.€€Such€reconsideration€mayÐ  p Ðbe€made€in€appropriate€cases€where€the€employee€is€no€longer€employed€by€the€pre„Ð  \ Ðinjury€employer€and€makes€application€to€the€appropriate€court€within€one€(1)€yearÐ øH Ðof€the€employeeððs€loss€of€employment,€if€such€loss€of€employment€is€within€fourÐ ä4 Ðhundred€weeks€of€the€day€the€employee€returned€to€work.€€In€enlarging€a€previousÐ Ð  Ðaward,€the€court€must€give€the€employer€credit€for€prior€benefits€paid€to€the€employeeÐ ¼  Ðin€permanent€partial€disability€benefits,€and€any€new€award€remains€subject€to€theÐ ¨ø Ðmaximum€established€in€subsection€(b).ДäÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€proper€interpretation€of€this€statute€with€regard€to€the€causal€connection€requirement€isÐ l¼ Ðcontrolled€by€our€€recent€decision€€in€òòNiziol€v.€Lockeed€Martin€Energy€Ô_ÔSysÔ_Ô.,€Inc.óó,€8€S.W.3d€622Ð X ¨ Ð(Tenn.€1999).€€In€that€case,€the€employee€sustained€a€work„related€injury€in€July€of€1994€and€receivedÐ D!” Ða€court„approved€settlement€in€February€of€1996.€€Then,€in€March€of€1997,€Lockheed€terminatedÐ 0"€  ÐÔ_ÔNiziolÔ_Ôððs€employment.€€Thereafter,€Ô_ÔNiziolÔ_Ô€filed€a€new€cause€of€action€seeking€to€have€the€previousÐ #l! Ðsettlement€reconsidered€and€the€workersðð€compensation€award€increased€€pursuant€to€Tenn.€CodeÐ $X" ÐAnn.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(2).€€Lockheed€offered€proof€to€show€that€Niziolððs€termination€was€unrelated€toÐ ô$D # Ðthe€1994€work„related€injury€and€was€instead€the€result€of€outsourcing€work€that€Niziol€and€otherÐ à%0!$ Ðemployees€had€been€performing.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àDespite€agreeing€that€the€termination€was€not€related€to€the€initial€work„related€injury,€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðtrial€court€reconsidered€the€initial€award,€which€had€been€paid€by€lump€sum€and€increased€NiziolððsÐ )à$( Ðdisability€rating.€€The€Special€Workerððs€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€reversed€finding€that€paymentÐ |*Ì%) Ðof€a€lump€sum€precludes€reconsideration.€€Thereafter,€this€Court€granted€Niziolððs€motion€for€fullÐ h+¸&* ÐCourt€review.€€First,€applying€òòBrewer€v.€Lincoln€Brass€Works,€Inc.óó,€991€S.W.2d€225€(Tenn.€1999),Ð ° Ðwe€held€that€reconsideration€was€appropriate€even€though€the€initial€court„approved€settlement€hadÐ œì Ðbeen€paid€in€lump€sum.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  à€Next,€we€addressed€Lockheedððs€argument€that€the€trial€court€had€ð ðerred€in€reconsidering€theÐ `° Ðaward€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(2)€because€Niziol€was€terminated€for€reasons€unrelatedÐ L œ Ðto€his€injury.ðð€€òòNiziolóó,€8€S.W.3d€at€624.€€In€rejecting€this€argument,€we€stated€as€follows:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àThe€provisions€of€ðð€241(a)(2),€however,€do€not€require€a€plaintiff€to€prove€that€theÐ  ` Ðinjury€was€related€to€the€loss€of€employment.€€It€simply€requires€that€the€ð ðemployeeÐ ü L  Ðis€no€longer€employed€by€the€pre„injury€employer€and€makes€application€to€theÐ è 8  Ðappropriate€court€within€one€(1)€year€of€the€employeeððs€loss€of€employment,€if€suchÐ Ô$  Ðloss€of€employment€is€within€four€hundred€(400)€weeks€of€the€day€the€employeeÐ À  Ðreturned€to€work.ðð€€Moreover,€the€loss€of€employment€in€and€of€itself€is€relevant€toÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€issue€of€industrial€disability€under€ðð€241(a)(2),€which€states€that€reconsiderationÐ ˜è  Ðrequires€examination€of€ð ðall€pertinent€factors,€including€.€.€.€local€job€opportunities,Ð „Ô  Ðand€capacity€to€work€at€types€of€employment€available€in€claimantððs€disabledÐ pÀ Ðcondition.ðð€€òòWe€therefore€reject€Lockheedððs€argument€that€a€petition€under€ððÐ \¬ Ð241(a)(2)€requires€an€employee€to€prove€that€the€injury€caused€the€loss€ofÐ H˜ Ðemploymentóó.€€Ð4„Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€(internal€citations€omitted)(emphasis€added).€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àApplying€our€decision€in€òòNiziolóó€to€the€facts€in€this€case,€it€is€clear€that€the€Panel€erred.€Ð ä4 ÐContrary€to€the€Panelððs€conclusion,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(2)€does€not€require€the€employeeÐ Ð  Ðto€prove€as€a€precondition€to€obtaining€reconsideration€that€his€or€her€termination€was€causallyÐ ¼  Ðconnected€to€his€or€her€initial€work„related€injury.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€didÐ ¨ø Ðnot€err€in€reconsidering€Youngððs€initial€award€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(2).Ð ”ä ÐÌà@  %ìàòòò òConclusionóóó óˆÐ l¼ Ðà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€reject€the€findings€and€conclusions€of€the€Special€WorkersððÐ X ¨ ÐCompensation€Appeals€Panel€regarding€the€interpretation€and€application€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„Ð D!” Ð6„241(a)(2)€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellee,Ð 0"€  ÐCaradon€Better„Bilt,€Incorporated,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€€€€Ð #l! ÐÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à___________________________________€Ð ¤(ô#' Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA,€III,€JUSTICE