WPCc # VUNa % 0U: 4   T g w@o 0? 0D 0J2 0T| 0^ 0h. 0r 0| 0 0  1u 0dU>sU* BU*B)"DCK AM D3fv~- 0@v AO  0D D/ BFHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS0nLl(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(H=$  HTR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalTX_XXX7XXdXXd7,  AZ"Arial Regularڃ"3|x Hc:\office\wpwin\template\legal\11deny.wpt i Dj k l m n o Vp q Ӏ} ((3R$ H=!  HTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXXXX75hXXdXXd7   `   0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Arial d<  9p`(Times% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd-'C << G  !  #d#"    H \RA'\##d#  #   YYY FILED#X July14,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.#AppellateCourtClerk $$$$'dxd \\RA'\PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'h("$    Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . "    H \RA'\##%%Xd##%%Xd#  ݛ   X @ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ SPECIALWORKERS'COMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL̜R()'A1-j|` 81 `@Rߛ@ ATKNOXVILLEFEBRUARY1997SESSION S.SCOTTATWELL,   ) KNOXCIRCUIT      )  Plaintiff/Appellant   ) NO.03S019609CV00090      ) v.      ) HON.HAROLDWIMBERLY,      ) JUDGE COLONIALFREIGHTSYSTEMS, )INC.,      )      ) Defendant/Appellee  )      ̜ FortheAppellant:    FortheAppellee: DouglasR.Beier    RichardL.HollowW.DouglasCollins    JohnC.DuffyP.O.Box1754    P.O.Box131Morristown,TN378161754  Knoxville,TN37901   MEMORANDUMOPINIONMembersofPanel: E.RileyAnderson,JusticeJohnK.Byers,SeniorJudgeRogerE.Thayer,SpecialJudge̛̜   AFFIRMED       THAYER,SpecialJudge  Thisworkers'compensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)forhearingandreportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw. Plaintiff,S.ScottAtwell,hasappealedfromthetrialcourtsactioninmodifyingaportionofajudgmentwhichprovidedforastructuredsettlementofaworkerscompensationclaim. OriginallythepartiestothisactionenteredajudgmentonSeptember17,1993,findingplaintifftobetotally(100%)disabledandprovidingtheawardwouldbepayableasfollows: a.Lumpsumpaymentof$55,235.upontheentryofjudgment. b.Paymentof$588.everytwoweeksforaoneyearperiod. c.Lumpsumpaymentof$14,034.onAugust30,1994. d.Lumpsumpaymentof$14,034.onFebruary28,1995. e.Lumpsumpaymentof$15,037.onFebruary28,1996. Uponlearningplaintiffwasengagedincertainworkactivities,thedefendant,ColonialFreightSystems,Inc.,filedamotiononMarch8,1995,tomodifythelasttwoannualpaymentsuponthegroundtheevidenceindicatedtheemployeewasnottotallydisabled.ThismotionwasfiledpursuanttotheprovisionsofT.C.A.506231andRule60,T.R.Civ.P. Afterconductingahearing,thetrialcourtfoundtherehadbeena changeofcircumstancesandenteredanorderrelievingtheemployeroftheresponsibilityofpayingthelasttwoannualpayments.TheorderdidnotstatewhetherreliefwasgrantedpursuanttothestatuteorRule60orboth.ThisrulingwasbaseduponevidencetheemployeehadbeenworkingataconstructionsiteinSouthCarolinaoveracertainperiodoftime.Evidenceofthisnaturewasproducedatthehearingbyaprivateinvestigatorwhohadobservedtheemployeeandavideomadeattheconstructionsite. OnappealtheemployeearguesthepaymentswhichthecourtabatedwereclassifiedaslumpsumpaymentsandwerenotsubjecttomodificationunderthestatutorylanguageandfurtherthattheevidencedidnotjustifyreliefunderRule60.  Theemployercontendsthelasttwoannualinstallmentsmustbeclassifiedas periodicpaymentsandthussubjecttomodificationasthestatuteprovides. Thecaseistobereviewedonappealdenovoaccompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthefindingsoffactunlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.T.C.A.506225(e)(2). However,thedenovoreviewdoesnotcarryapresumptionofcorrectnesstoatrialcourtsconclusionsoflawbutisconfinedtofactualfindings.UnionCarbidev.Huddleston,854S.W.2d87,91(Tenn.1993). Tenn.CodeAnn.506231provides:         Allamountspaidbyemployerandreceivedbytheemployeeortheemployeesdependents,bylumpsumpayments,shallbefinal,buttheamountofanyawardpayableperiodicallyformorethansix(6)monthsmaybemodifiedasfollows: (1)0 Atanytimebyagreementofthepartiesandapprovalbythecourt;or (2)0 Ifthepartiescannotagree,thenatanytimeaftersix(6)monthsfromthedateoftheawardanapplicationmaybemadetothecourtsbyeitherparty,onthegroundofincreaseordecreaseofincapacityduesolelytotheinjury.Insuchcasesthesameprocedureshallbefollowedasin506225incaseofadisputedclaimforcompensation.      H    InthecaseofH.LeeBrittonv.CombustionEngineering,Inc.,SpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPanelatKnoxville,No.03S019409CH00080,opinionfiledFebruary14,1995,adoptedandaffirmedMarch17,1995,thissamePanel,inexaminingthisstatute,quotedfromadefinitionoftheword periodicasdefinedintheAmericanHeritageDictionary,NewCollegeEdition,1978.Theword periodicwasdefinedas (1)havingperiodsorrepeatedcycles(2)happeningorappearingatregularintervals. InapplyingthedefinitionintheBrittoncase,thePanelruledthatageneralprovisioninaworkerscompensationfinaljudgmentprovidingforthepaymentoffuturemedicalexpenseswasnotanaward payableperiodicallyandthejudgmentwasnotsubjecttomodification. Inthepresentcase,thefactsareverydifferent.Thejudgmentprovidedforalumpsumpaymentuponentryoftheorderwhichapparentlyhasbeenpaidandreceived;foraseriesofpaymentseverytwoweeksforoneyear;andthepaymentofthreeannualinstallments. Incarefullyreviewingthelanguageofthestatute,weareunabletoagreewiththeemployeesconstructionofitsprovisions.Inouropinionthestatutesimplyprovidesthatlumpsumpaymentspaidbytheemployerandreceivedbytheemployeearefinalandnotsubjecttomodification.Thenitcontinuesontostatetheamountofanyawardpayableperiodicallyformorethansixmonthsmaybemodified. Wefindthattheprovisionsofthefinaljudgmentdirectingthepaymentoflumpsumamountsbythreeannualinstallmentsconstituteawards payableperiodicallyandunderthestatutorylanguagewouldbesubjecttomodificationastheawardsarepayableformorethansixmonths. AstotheapplicationofRule60,T.R.Civ.P.,wedoubtthefactsofthecasejustifyreliefunderthisrule.SeeUnderwoodv.ZurichInsur.Co.,854S.W.2d94(Tenn.1993)wheretheSupremeCourtfoundtherewerenoexceptionalcircumstancesinacasewithsimilarissuestothepresentcontroversy. Finally,theemployeecontendsthatiftheawardwassubjecttomodification,theemployerdidnotestablishadecreaseofincapacitybyexperttestimony.Wefindthiscontentiontobewithoutmerit.Whilecausationofaninjuryandpermanencyofaninjurymustasageneralrulebeestablishedbyexperttestimony,theextentofthedisabilitycanbedeterminedbythecourtfromallofthetestimony,bothlayandexpert.Bondv.AmericanAirFilter,692S.W.2d638(Tenn.1985). Thetrialcourtmodifiedthefinaljudgmentbyabatingapproximately23%ofthetotalaward.Theevidenceheardbythecourtwasrelevanttotheissueofwhethertherehadbeenadecreaseofincapacityonthepartoftheemployee.Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthecourtsconclusion. Thejudgmententeredbelowisaffirmed.Costsoftheappealaretaxedtoplaintiffemployeeandsureties.Ӝ      ________________________________      RogerE.Thayer,SpecialJudgeCONCUR:_________________________________E.RileyAnderson,Justice_________________________________JohnK.Byers,SeniorJudge%  ̜+   H    ` @ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ ATKNOXVILLES.SCOTTATWELL,@ ) KNOXCIRCUIT@ ) NO.276792 PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT, @ )@ ) HON.HAROLDWIMBERLY,v.@ ) JUDGE@ )COLONIALFREIGHTSYSTEMS,INC.,@ ) S.CT.NO.03S019609CV00090@ ) DEFENDANT/APPELLEE.@ ) AFFIRMED@ JUDGMENTORDER ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtuponmotionforreviewpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(5)(B),theentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferraltotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationappealsPanel,andthePanel'sMemorandumOpinionsettingforthitsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference; Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthatthemotionforreviewisnotwelltakenandshouldbedenied;and Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanel'sfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawareadoptedandaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgmentoftheCourt. Costswillbepaidbyplaintiff/appellantandsureties,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. Itissoorderedthis_____dayof_____________,1997.       PERCURIAM