ÿWPC^% Æ# ä U:ï %) 0û/ w@*4j~ •Æ›ÆaÆ'ÆíƳ 0Jy 0Tà 0^ 0hu 0rÝ 0|O 0†Ë 0Q 1uá 0dVU *º BäB)DC* AOm¦¼ D3b›•v~0 0@® 0KîvÓ9 D+ # AO7# 0D†# D/Ê# Bù# AY$ 0Fo$ A©µ$˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Ó~Ð$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ LegalLˆhÐ (Avery 4167 Post Card AØ'ÿ LegalhÐ (Avery 4167 Post CardTÑÔ€Xm¢XXXÔÑ7€¥3XXdìXXdæ7Ñ  D  D D VîÓ€Ó€Úƒç"„àL„ô3|x'HLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial d% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd -.'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ œÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òAugustÏ19,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó%%%%'ÿÿdxd ‘Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òAugustÏ19,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó óStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò'ÈÈÈÈdxd -‚ƒCþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd-¸:Müÿ << deUU(n$––ò ò(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)ó ó -.:›&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÙ€ ÙßR€()'A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌÌÌÌò òÓ  ÓIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌWORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌKNOXVILLE,€APRIL€1997€SESSIONó ó€ÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌTIMMY€RAY€BEARD,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àROANE€CHANCERYÌà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Frank€V.€Williams,€III,Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àChancellorÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌQUADREX€CORPORATION€andà àà à)à àÌLIBERTY€MUTUAL€INSURANCEà à)à àNO.€€03S01„9610„CH„00109ÌCOMPANY,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellantsà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€the€Appellees:ÌÌó óóóGerald€L.€Gulley,€Jr.à àà àà àRichard€K.€EvansÌP.O.€Box€1708à àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€777ÌKnoxville,€Tenn.€€37901„1708à àà àKingston,€Tenn.€€37763ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€N€ÌÌÌÌMembers€of€Panel:ÌÌó óóóE.€Riley€Anderson,€JusticeÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌò òà àà àà àó óÌò òAFFIRMEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àTHAYER,€Special€Judgeó óÌÌÓÓà àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€SpecialÏWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€withÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€CourtÏof€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€Ìà àDefendants,€Quadrex€Corporation€and€Liberty€Mutual€Insurance€Company,Ïhave€appealed€from€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€50%€permanent€partial€disability€to€theÏbody€as€a€whole.€€They€contend€the€court€was€in€error€in€fixing€any€disability€forÏplaintiffððs€psychological€injury€and€that€the€award€exceeded€the€statutory€cap€of€sixÏtimes€the€medical€impairment€rating€of€5%.Ìà àPlaintiff,€Timmy€Ray€Beard,€sustained€a€low€back€injury€in€a€work„relatedÏaccident€on€December€13,€1993.€€He€was€36€years€of€age€at€the€time€of€the€trial€œand›Ïhad€completed€the€11th€grade.€€He€was€qualified€to€do€manual€labor€jobs.€€HeÏreturned€to€work€during€June€1994€but€had€to€stop€working€because€he€said€he€wasÏhurting€so€much€he€could€not€work.€€He€has€not€œreturned€to€work.›Ìà àPlaintiff€came€under€the€care€of€Dr.€Donald€D.€Dietze,€a€neurosurgeon,€whoÏtestified€by€deposition.€€He€stated€the€lumbosacral€injury€resulted€in€a€5%€medicalÏimpairment.€€Plaintiff€was€treated€with€medication€and€therapy€followed€by€a€work„hardening€program.€€The€doctor€placed€certain€restrictions€on€his€lifting,€standing,Ïstooping,€etc.€activities.Ìà àPlaintiff€eventually€was€seen€by€Dr.€Catherine€E.€Gyurik,€a€psychiatrist,€whoseÏtestimony€was€presented€by€two€depositions.€€The€first€deposition€was€taken€onÏDecember€4,€1995€and€the€second€deposition€was€recorded€on€June€27,€1996.€€Ìà àDr.€Gyurik€first€saw€plaintiff€on€June€12,€1995,€which€was€about€eighteenÏmonths€after€the€accident.€€She€told€the€court€plaintiff€had€gained€about€fifty€pounds;Ïhe€was€not€sleeping;€he€was€not€socially€active;€and€he€was€irritable€and€agitated.€ÏShe€gave€a€diagnosis€of€classical€depression€with€moderate€impairment,€whichÏmeant€he€was€greatly€impaired€in€connection€with€his€vocational€ability.€€She€saidÏthis€would€result€in€a€25„50€percent€impairment€for€his€psychological€condition.€€TheÏdoctor€prescribed€anti„depressant€medication€and€was€of€the€opinion€theÏdepression€was€due€to€the€physical€injury€he€had€sustained€on€the€job.Ìà àIn€the€second€deposition,€she€indicated€she€had€seen€plaintiff€six€more€times,Ïthat€he€was€still€on€medication€and€would€probably€have€to€continue€same€for€a€veryÏlong€time€and€maybe€for€life;€that€he€had€reached€maximum€medical€improvementÏfrom€a€psychiatric€standpoint€at€the€last€visit€on€May€20,€1996.€€At€this€time,€sheÏconcluded€his€condition€had€improved€and€he€had€œmild›€impairment€which€wouldÏresult€in€a€rating€of€10„20%.Ìà àDr.€Gyurik€was€of€the€opinion€plaintiffððs€depression€started€at€the€time€he€wasÏreleased€to€return€to€work;€he€was€told€he€could€work€but€was€confronted€with€painÏand€realized€he€could€not€work.€€She€said€this€was€a€blow€to€his€esteem,€his€egoÏstrength€and€a€very€real€blow€to€him€financially.Ìà àA€vocational€expert€witness,€Dr.€Julian€Nadolsky,€testified€plaintiff€was€100%Ïdisabled€based€on€his€physical€and€psychiatric€condition.€€The€witness€stated€theÏ100%€disability€was€given€primarily€because€of€the€physical€restrictions€imposed€byÏDr.€Dietze.Ìà àIn€fixing€the€award€of€50%€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole,€the€ChancellorÏfound€plaintiffððs€total€medical€impairment€to€be€15%€as€a€result€of€the€physical€andÏmental€condition.Ìà àThe€review€of€the€case€is€òòde€novoóó€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€theÏcorrectness€of€the€findings€of€fact€unless€we€find€the€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÏis€otherwise.€€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).Ìà àThe€trial€court€is€in€a€better€position€to€judge€credibility€and€weigh€evidenceÏwhere€oral€testimony€is€involved.€€However,€where€evidence€is€introduced€byÏdeposition,€the€appellate€court€is€in€as€good€a€position€as€the€trial€court€to€reviewÏand€weigh€testimony.€€òòLanders€v.€Firemanððs€Fund€Ins.€Co.óó,€775€S.W.2d€355,€356Ï(Tenn.€1989).Ìà àDefendants€insist€plaintiffððs€mental€injury€is€not€compensable€because€theÏproof€is€lacking€in€showing€the€condition€arose€from€œð ðan€identifiable›€stressful,€work„related€event€producing€a€sudden€mental€stimulus€such€as€fright,€shock€orÍexcessive€unexpected€œanxiety,ðð›€citing€òòGatlin€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€822€S.W.2d€587,Ïœ591„92›€(Tenn.€1991)€and€a€number€of€other€cases€supporting€this€particular€rule.Ìà àThere€are€two€different€rules€in€connection€with€determining€whether€aÏmental€condition€or€disorder€is€compensable.€€First,€recovery€is€appropriate€for€aÏmental€injury€by€accident€or€occupational€disease,€standing€alone,€if€the€mentalÏdisorder€is€caused€by€an€identifiable,€stressful,€work„related€event€producing€aÏsudden€mental€stimulus€such€as€fright,€shock€or€excessive€unexpected€anxiety.€ÏSecondly,€compensation€for€psychological€disorders€has€been€allowed€when€anÏemployee€sustains€a€compensable€work„related€injury€by€accident€and€thereafterÏexperiences€a€mental€disorder€which€is€caused€by€the€original€compensable€work„related€injury.€€òòHill€v.€Eagle€Bend€Mfg.,€Inc.óó€______€S.W.2d€œ_____›€(filed€at€Knoxville,ÏApril€7,€1997).Ìà àDefendantsðð€reliance€on€the€ruling€in€the€òòGatlinóó€case€is€misplaced.€€The€òòGatlinóóÏruling€was€supported€by€facts€involving€the€application€of€the€first€rule€where€aÏmental€condition€may€develop€without€a€physical€injury€being€involved.€€In€theÏpresent€case,€employee€Beard€sustained€a€physical€injury€to€his€back€which€theÏevidence€indicated€resulted€in€his€state€of€depression.€€Under€this€evidence,€plaintiffÏneed€not€show€his€mental€condition€resulted€from€a€specific€stressful€event€at€work.Ìà àIn€the€case€of€òòBatson€v.€œCigna›€Prop.€&€Cas.€œCos.óó,›€874€S.W.2d€566€(Tenn.Ï1994),€the€employee€began€experiencing€mental€problems€shortly€after€returning€toÏwork€and€being€unable€to€perform€work„related€duties.€€The€court€found€the€claimÏwas€the€direct€result€of€the€employeeððs€being€unable€to€work€after€sustaining€a€work„related€injury.€€Defendantsðð€attempt€to€distinguish€this€case€from€the€present€caseÍsaying€the€mental€condition€in€òòBatsonóó€occurred€soon€after€the€employee€attemptedÏto€return€to€work€and€that€plaintiff€Beard€did€not€see€his€psychiatrist€until€about€oneÏyear€after€attempting€to€return€to€work.Ìà àAlthough€this€factual€difference€between€the€two€cases€does€exist,€we€see€noÏreal€reason€the€results€should€be€different.€€We€find€the€real€test€in€determiningÏwhether€the€mental€injury€is€compensable€is€for€the€court€to€determine€whether€theÏmental€injury€is€the€direct€causal€event€following€a€work„related€injury€and€notÏnecessarily€the€point€in€time€the€mental€injury€develops.Ìà àWe€find€plaintiffððs€claim€for€a€mental€disorder€and€physical€injury€to€beÏcompensable.Ìà àSince€the€injuries€occurred€after€August€1,€1992,€and€the€award€of€benefits€isÏto€the€body€as€a€whole,€the€statutory€cap€on€the€award€of€benefits€would€apply.€ÏDefendants€concede€the€return€to€work€was€not€meaningful€and€the€multiplier€cap€ofÏsix€times€the€impairment€would€control.€€òòSee€óóT.C.A.€ðð€50„6„241(b).€€The€ChancellorÏfound€the€two€impairments€would€total€15%.€€The€award€of€50%€to€the€body€as€aÏwhole€is€well€within€the€statutory€cap.Ìà àFinding€the€evidence€does€not€preponderates€against€the€rulings€of€the€trialÏcourt,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€are€taxed€to€defendants€andÏsureties.€ÌÓÓà àÌà àÔ% € Ôà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌE.€Riley€Anderson,€JusticeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€œJudgeÇÒ  ÒÒ H ÒßJ€(+;+'b|` 0* `€@ÿJßà àà àà àÌà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€IN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€à à€€€€€€€€€€€€€AT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÒ Ê ÒÒ H ÒÌÒ S ÒÒ H ÒTIMMY€RAY€BEARD€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà à)€€€Roane€Chanceryà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€No.€12,476€à à€€€€€€à à€€€Ïà àà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à à€à àÌvs.€€à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€Hon.€Frank€V.€Williams,€III€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà à)€€€€€ChancellÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌQUADREX€CORPORATION€andà àà à)ÌLIBERTY€MUTUAL€INSURANCEà àà à)ÌCOMPANY,à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌ€€€€à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€03S01„9610„CH„00109Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€Defendants/Appellants.à àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌà àà àà àà àJUDGMENT€ORDERÌà àà àà àÌà à€€€€€€€€€€€ÓfæÓÓ ø ÓÓ` Ü…X ì–XÓThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€theÏorder€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€Panel,€and€the€PanelððsÏMemorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€whichÏare€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ìà àà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€Opinion€of€theÏPanel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌà àà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panelððs€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€JudgmentÏof€the€Court.€€à àà àÌÒ  ÒÒ H Òà à€€€€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€defendants/appellants,€QuadrexÏCorporation€and€Liberty€Mutual€Insurance€Company€and€surety,€Gerald€L.ÏGulley,€Jr.€,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌ08/19/97€ÌÌÌÌÌ