ÿWPCf !dÅÜügþ}êSSjÒ«GÅ„@¤ifÀ *ùù‘«ýIŒ1ÿè«ñ˜‹¥¦sB4XÃÙ_ã@!¶‘ ¢€B"¾Ex>Ø Gït[ù¶Ù÷ý`­Û ]í`ÆýDŸ¤¤°ÓäÀþtËÿâ?6g]C™:(.æ‚9s=…ó㕱æO»¤ú[ gF~ê«ìÄ1ïY3éDlxÑMø…:¨Ã7´ýÝ6>Ùßt¯A8|ùH£Ùa0±¦¨;‹ÏÁrˈG%ª-·fwËgt… Cn;›¸mø°hå>ðyG">÷¿ò{:Ë·B)íô¿½Êí×.¿¶D?r%H+¬‚úfÑøÆoBì¹qïC3N¬LË÷±yÜËo—F®ÛÝW7´8b›òjŸ©añ™e>m½xh-œÚ$ß 3 Æiž.G] CAÝp˜V›ÊUß_nˆ¸ìtîcä¶Ížÿ`“ãøÊ‹ŽeÎÓŸý‰ 7iúÞˆ7~ÎÒ¬ûßaÿùD`ƒú¥3°Ë±Å§L`ÓhÞ3,Oýgkw©@Ý ò55M·Fž íz²iBŽ,4eï;£Gáúë±û±¸Rî [±TŸ'_ˆ¥8$ð¹¥û^rVtŠeÓ×Õ°˜±a…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0û¥ U:  4Ú î îý U:ë %+w@3 0?s 0D²U<öî2U:                    BZZZZZZ D3www 0ªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªª AOÁÆ 0DÖ D/ BI˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÓH=$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XÎ_XXXÔÑ7€¾úXXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial Regularux-&ä3|xþ< äÔ€ X(›XXXÔÔ€ èÛKèX X(›ÔÔ Ad ÔÓ  ÓFILEDÔ€ ÆÒè èÛKÔÐ  ÐÌò òJanuary€20,€1999Ð  ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€CourtÏClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularH ë<Uì<Ó€÷<Vø< îù<ú<Eû<Dü<Ó€ý<þ<D(ï(3¨„$¤¤Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€Xø®XXXÔÑ7€Å{XXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó.èB' Z‹$Arrus BT Roman äÔ€X(›XXXÔÔ€èÛKèXX(›ÔÔ Ad ÔÓ  ÓFILEDÔ€ÆÒèèÛKÔÐ  ÐÌò òJanuary€20,€1999Ð  ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€CourtÏClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d$$$$'ÿÿdxd(ï3Ä2$££Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€Xø®XXXÔÑ7€Å{XXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€X(›XXXÔÑ7€ÕgXXdìdÈ7ÑÝ  Ý›ÑÀ°ÑÑX°Ñò òÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÌÌó óÓÓÓ  Óà@@Ü Ü Ìàò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ˜Ø ÐSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌñì<ñœßl€*6&"h 8 `€€Exqtt06°p¨çlߛ⠰°$$âñì<ñKNOXVILLE,€SEPTEMBER€1998€SESSIONó óÐ p° ÐÓ;ÓÌœñë<ñÌñë<ñ›ÌÌÌÌINEZ€BRADENà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àANDERSONÐ À  Ðâ $$°°âCIRCUITÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ ŒÌ  Ðà ` àPlaintiff/Appelleeà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ r²  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌV.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ >~ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ $d ÐMODINE€MANUFACTURINGà À àà  à)à p àÐ  J ÐCOMPANY,€INC.€and€SENTRYà À àà  à)à p àNo.€03S01„9702„CV„00019à (# àÐ ð0 ÐINSURANCE€COMPANYà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ Ö Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àNo.€03S01„9710„CV„00123Ð ¼ü Ðà ` àDefendants/Appellantsà À àà  à)à p àÐ ¢â Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìandà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð n® Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌDINA€TOBIN,€DIRECTOR€OF€à À àà  à)Ð :z ÐSECOND€INJURY€FUNDà h àà À àà  à)Ð  ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àHon.€James€B.€Scott,Ð F Ðà ` àDefendant/Appelleeà À àà  à)à p àCircuit€JudgeÐ ì, ÐÌòòò òÌÌÌÌFor€the€Appellants:à h àà À àà  àà p àFor€the€Appellees:Ð h#¨# Ðó óóóÌMichael€J.€Mollenhourà h àà À àà  àà p àRoger€E.€RidenourÐ :%z!% ÐP.O.€Box€9299à  àà h àà À àà  àà p àP.O.€Box€530Ð  &`"& ÐKnoxville,€Tenn.€€37940à h àà À àà  àà p àClinton,€Tenn.€€37717„0530Ð 'F#' ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àSandra€E.€KeithÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à2nd€Floor€Cordell€Hull€Bldg.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à425€Fifth€Ave.€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€Tenn.€€37243„0499ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÐ è0(-2 ÐÌò òòòMembers€of€Panel:Ð º2ú.4 ÐÌó óóóCharles€D.€Susano,€JudgeÐ ’4Ò06 ÐRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌJohn€S.€McLellan,€III,€Special€JudgeÌÓÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ Ž=Î9@ ЇAFFIRMED.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àTHAYER,€Special€JudgeÐ À ÐÌÓÓà ` àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workers'ÏCompensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€findings€ofÏfact€and€conclusions€of€law.€Ìà ` àAt€the€time€of€the€trial€below,€three€claims€for€benefits€were€at€issue.€€TheyÏwere:€€(1)€a€claim€for€a€back€injury€in€1994,€(2)€a€claim€for€an€ankle€injury€in€1995,Ïand€(3)€a€claim€under€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„241€to€reconsider€the€back€injury€award€of€1994.Ìà ` àThe€trial€court€made€the€following€awards:€€(1)€12€ðð%€permanent€partialÏdisability€to€the€body€as€a€whole€for€the€1994€back€injury,€(2)€100%€permanentÏdisability€to€the€left€leg,€and€(3)€increased€the€12€ðð%€back€injury€award€œñé<ñofñé<ññê<ñtoñê<ñ›€55%€to€theÏbody€as€a€whole.Ìà ` àThe€employer,€Modine€Manufacturing€Company,€Inc.,€and€the€insuranceÏcarrier,€Sentry€Insurance€Company,€have€appealed€from€the€rulings€of€the€trial€courtÏwith€respect€to€the€100%€award€to€the€left€leg€and€the€55%€award€to€the€body€as€aÏwhole.à ¸ àÐ ´ô Ðà ` àOur€review€of€these€cases€is€de€novo€on€the€record€of€the€trial€courtÏaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact€unless€weÏfind€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).Ìà ` àThe€employee,€Inez€Braden,€was€55€years€of€age€at€the€time€of€the€first€trialÏand€had€completed€the€eighth€grade.€€She€began€working€for€Modine€in€1979€andÏworked€for€about€16€ðð€years€before€being€terminated€by€her€employer€as€a€result€ofÏa€general€lay„off€of€employees€during€January€1996.ÌÓ  Óòò1994€InjuryóóÐ -T). ÐÓ  Óà ` àPlaintiff€testified€that€during€March€1994€she€sustained€an€injury€to€her€backÏwhen€she€was€leaning€over€to€obtain€a€piece€of€equipment.€€She€was€off€work€forÏawhile;€received€therapy€treatment;€and€returned€to€light€duty€work.€€She€testified€sheÏeventually€returned€to€regular€ð ðrotation€workðð€which€was€prohibited€by€her€medicalÏrestrictions€and€this€made€her€back€hurt€more.€€Dr.€Robert€C.€Jackson,€testified€byÏdeposition€and€stated€she€suffered€from€a€strain€and€gave€a€5%€medical€impairment.€ÏHe€also€noted€there€were€degenerative€disc€changes€and€said€this€made€it€easier€toÏsustain€a€straining€type€injury.€€He€opined€she€should€only€do€light€duty€work€on€aÐ t;´7> Ðpermanent€basis.€€Since€she€returned€to€work€at€her€regular€wage€or€greater€rate,€theÏtrial€court€capped€the€award€at€12€ðð%€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€Defendants€do€notÏappeal€from€this€award€of€benefits.ÌÓ  Óòò1995€InjuryÐ $ d ÐóóÓ  Óà ` àPlaintiff€testified€that€on€about€March€30,€1995€she€was€in€the€process€ofÐ ð 0 Ðstepping€down€from€a€platform€at€work€and€stepped€with€her€foot€ð ðkind€of€sidewaysððÏwhen€she€noticed€her€foot€ache€and€burn.€€Several€co„workers€testified€she€hadÏcomplained€of€hurting€her€ankle€on€this€occasion.€€Several€days€later,€a€visit€to€theÏhospital€emergency€room€indicated€she€had€broken€her€left€ankle.€€She€returned€toÏwork€during€September€1995€and€worked€in€the€office€for€two€months€and€thenÏreturned€to€her€regular€type€work€which€she€said€was€difficult€to€perform€but€sheÏcontinued€to€work€until€she€was€laid€off.€€She€told€the€trial€court€her€ankle€injury€madeÏit€difficult€to€work€as€she€could€only€stand€for€short€periods€of€time.Ìà ` àDr.€Gregory€K.€Hoover,€an€orthopaedic€surgeon,€testified€by€deposition€andÏstated€he€first€saw€her€on€April€3,€1995€and€she€gave€him€a€history€of€having€fallenÏgoing€down€or€off€of€a€platform.€€He€said€she€had€a€fracture€just€above€the€ankle;€thatÏduring€the€healing€of€the€fracture,€there€was€an€angulation€problem€(misalignment);Ïthat€she€had€numerous€other€physical€problems€such€as€degenerative€arthritis€inÏboth€knees,€arthritis€in€the€kneecap€joint€of€the€left€knee€and€very€severe€arthritis€ofÏher€right€ankle.€€The€doctor€gave€a€12%€medical€impairment€to€left€leg€for€the€work„¼related€injury.€€He€opined€she€had€a€total€of€26%€medical€impairment€to€the€wholeÏbody€for€all€physical€problems€not€related€to€work€activity.Ìà ` àTwo€management€employees€of€Modine€testified€Ms.€Braden€complained€ofÏhurting€her€ankle€at€work€but€never€explained€how€it€happened.€€Dr.€Alan€Rice,€theÏcompany€doctor€who€saw€her€on€March€30,€1995,€testified€his€records€did€not€containÏa€history€of€the€event.Ìà ` àThe€employer€and€insurance€carrier€argue€the€trial€court€was€in€error€in€findingÏthe€employee€had€injured€her€left€ankle€as€a€result€of€her€work€activity.€€We€do€notÏfind€any€merit€to€this€contention.€€All€of€the€evidence€on€this€issue€was€before€the€trialÏcourt€on€oral€testimony€and€the€court€accepted€the€employeeððs€version€of€the€eventsÏin€question.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€was€in€a€better€position€to€judge€credibility€andÏweigh€evidence.€€òòLanders€v.€Firemanððs€Fund€Ins.€Co.,óó€775€S.W.2d€355,€356€(Tenn.Ð t;´7> Ð1989).€€We€are€also€of€the€opinion€the€record€indicates€she€twisted€her€ankle€as€aÏresult€of€being€required€to€work€on€the€platform€and€do€not€accept€the€argument€theÏevent€was€non„compensable€because€of€being€classified€as€an€idiopathicÏoccurrence.Ìà ` àWith€reference€to€the€award€of€100%€to€her€left€leg,€plaintiff€testified€she€couldÏstand€for€only€short€periods€and€she€did€not€believe€she€could€work€at€any€job€sheÏhad€held€in€the€past.€€Two€vocational€disability€consultants€testified.€€One€witnessÏgave€her€100%€vocational€disability€as€a€result€of€the€ankle€injury.€€The€other€witnessÏgave€a€100%€vocational€disability€rating€but€said€it€was€difficult€to€separate€the€work„¼related€injury€from€the€non„work€disabilities.Ìà ` àThe€trial€court€found€Ms.€Braden€was€totally€disabled€as€a€result€of€this€lastÏinjury€when€combined€with€her€non„work€disabilities€but€only€awarded€benefits€ofÏ100%€to€the€left€leg€because€the€proof€was€not€sufficient€to€show€the€employer€hadÏproper€notice€of€the€non„work€disabilities€as€required€by€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„208(a)(2).€ÏFrom€our€examination€of€the€record,€we€do€not€find€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€on€this€point.€€We€also€find€the€award€of€100%€toÏthe€left€leg€is€reasonable€under€the€proof.ÌÓ  Óòò1996€Reconsidered€AwardóóÐ L"Œ" ÐÓ  Óà ` àA€separate€action€was€filed€seeking€a€modification€of€the€award€of€12€ðð%Ïdisability€to€the€body€as€a€whole€for€the€1994€back€injury.€€This€suit€was€filedÏpursuant€to€the€provisions€of€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(2)€and€was€instituted€within€theÏtime€period€allowed€by€the€statute.€€A€hearing€was€held€several€months€after€theÏadjudication€of€the€1994€and€1995€claims.€€In€reconsidering€the€original€award€of€Ì12€ðð%€disability,€the€trial€court€re„examined€the€medical€evidence€which€wasÏsubmitted€by€deposition€at€the€original€trial€and€also€heard€testimony€of€theÏemployee,€a€vocational€witness€and€a€witness€employed€by€Modine.€€The€courtÏconcluded€the€12€ðð%€award€was€not€an€adequate€award€and€fixed€the€award€at€55%Ïto€the€body€as€a€whole.Ìà ` àDefendants€contend€the€trial€court€was€in€error€in€modifying€the€award€andÏespecially€in€exceeding€the€statutory€cap€of€six€times€the€medical€impairment.€ÏDefendants€also€contend€plaintiffððs€loss€of€employment€was€not€causally€related€toÏthe€back€injury.Ð t;´7> Ðà ` àDr.€Robert€C.€Jackson€was€of€the€opinion€Ms.€Braden€had€a€5%€medicalÏimpairment€as€a€result€of€a€strain€and€noted€that€degenerative€disc€changes€madeÏthis€easier€to€occur.€€His€restrictions€of€permanent€light€duty€work€made€it€difficult€toÏreturn€to€regular€ð ðrotation€workðð€but€she€said€she€did€so€rather€than€to€be€disqualified.Ìà ` àWitness€Craig€Colvin,€a€vocational€consultant,€testified€during€the€first€trial€andÏalso€again€at€the€reconsideration€hearing.€€He€said€she€was€55„65%€vocationallyÏdisabled€due€solely€to€the€back€injury€and€she€had€no€transferable€job€skills€and€noÏreasonable€employment€opportunities€available€locally€considering€her€condition.Ìà ` àDr.€Archer€W.€Bishop,€an€orthopaedic€surgeon,€testified€he€saw€plaintiff€onÏone€occasion€on€March€7,€1995€and€was€of€the€opinion€the€back€strain€had€healedÏalthough€she€still€had€complaints€of€back€pain.€€He€said€there€was€no€permanentÏimpairment€due€to€the€back€injury€but€gave€15%€impairment€due€to€scoliosis€andÏdegenerative€disc€disease.€€He€noted€she€was€overweight€and€felt€her€workÏrestrictions€were€due€to€non„work€disabilities.Ìà ` àWhere€there€is€conflicting€medical€testimony€concerning€an€injury,€the€trialÏjudge€has€discretion€to€conclude€that€the€opinion€of€a€particular€expert€should€beÏaccepted€over€that€of€another€expert€and€that€one€expertððs€testimony€contains€a€moreÏprobably€explanation€than€another€expertððs€testimony.€€òòThomas€v.€Aetna€Life€&€Cas.Ð L"Œ" ÐCo.,óó€812€S.W.2d€278€(Tenn.€1991).Ð $\ $ Ðà ` àThe€trial€court€is€vested€with€the€primary€duty€and€authority€to€fix€a€reasonableÏaward€of€benefits€and€it€is€not€subject€to€being€overturned€on€appeal€unless€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€same.Ìà ` àWe€find€the€55%€award€of€disability€to€be€reasonable€under€the€evidence.€ÏThe€award€is€in€excess€of€the€maximum€statutory€cap€(six€times€impairment)€but€weÏfind€the€provisions€of€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„242€have€application€and€the€statutory€caps€canÏbe€exceeded€as€clear€and€convincing€evidence€supports€the€conclusion€(1)€theÏemployee€lacks€a€high€school€diploma€or€general€equivalency€diploma,€(2)€she€hasÏno€transferable€job€skills€from€prior€background€and€training,€and€(3)€she€has€noÏreasonable€employment€opportunities€available€locally€considering€her€permanentÏmedical€condition.à  àÐ ä7$4: Ðà ` àDefendants€also€contend€the€award€of€increased€disability€was€improperÏbecause€it€was€not€shown€the€loss€of€employment€was€causally€related€to€the€injuryÐ |;¼7> Ðin€question€citing€as€authority€a€Workersðð€Compensation€Panel€decision€in€the€caseÏof€òòBrown€v.€State,óó€No.€01S01„9502„BC„00020,€filed€November€22,€1995,€atÐ ŒÌ ÐNashville.€€We€do€not€find€this€decision€to€be€controlling€as€employee€BrownÏvoluntarily€terminated€his€employment€and€the€Panel€held€the€employee€could€notÏescape€the€2€ðð€times€impairment€cap€without€showing€a€causal€connection€betweenÏhis€injury€and€loss€of€employment.€€In€the€present€action,€the€employer€hasÏterminated€the€employment€relationship€thereby€qualifying€the€employee€for€reliefÏunder€the€statute.€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€do€not€find€the€causal€connectionÏprinciple€to€be€a€factor.Ìà ` àThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€55%€award€of€disability.ÌÓ  ÓòòLiability€of€Second€Injury€FundÐ ¼ü ÐóóÓ  Óà ` àThe€first€trial€resulted€in€findings€by€the€trial€court€that€the€employee€wasÐ ˆÈ Ðentitled€to€12€ðð%€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole€for€the€back€injury€and€100%Ïdisability€to€the€left€leg,€which€converted€to€50%€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€ÏThese€two€awards€total€62€ðð%€disability€and€the€court€held€there€was€no€liabilityÏagainst€the€Second€Injury€Fund€since€the€total€of€the€awards€did€not€exceed€100%.Ìà ` àThe€second€trial€resulted€in€finding€the€employee€was€entitled€to€55%€disabilityÏto€the€body€as€a€whole€for€the€back€injury€(less€any€prior€payments)€and€when€thisÏmodified€award€was€combined€with€the€converted€award€of€50%,€the€total€was€105%,Ïand€the€court€ruled€the€Second€Injury€Fund€was€liable€for€5%€of€the€award.Ìà ` àWe€do€not€find€any€error€in€these€rulings.Ìà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€and€the€costs€of€the€appeal€areÏtaxed€to€the€employer€and€insurance€carrier.ÌÌÔ% € ÔÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJohn€S.€McLellan,€III,€Special€œJudgeñ÷<ñÐ  ^<ž8? Ðñ÷<ññû<ñ›€›ñû<ññø<ñÑ, ÀÑÒ€ÒÒÀHÒÔ‡X©©XXX(›Ôà@\ \ ÌàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ,  Ðà@µµ(ÌàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌÌÌINEZ€BRADEN,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àANDERSON€CIRCUITÐ , Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€96LA0269€ANDà H! àñø<ññù<ñ€€€€€€€€€€Ð , Ðñù<ññø<ñPlaintiff/Appellee,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àñø<ññú<ññø<ñà è àñø<ññú<ññø<ñ)à  àNo.€95LA0487€T.D.€BelowÐ , Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àÐ , Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àHon.€James€B.€ScottÐ , Ðv.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àJudgeÐ ,  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)€à è àNo.€€03S01„9702„CV„00123Ð ,  ÐMODINE€MANUFACTURING€à  à)Ð ,  ÐCOMPANY,€INC.€and€SENTRYà  à)Ð ,  ÐINSURANCE€COMPANY,à 8 àà  à)Ð , Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àDefendants/Appellants.à 8 àà  à)à è àAffirmed.Ð , Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìñø<ññü<ñßl€*6&"h 8 `€€E0tt06;,¨êlßâ €;€;€$€$âñü<ññø<ñandà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð , Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)ÌDINA€TOBIN,€DIRECTOR€OF€à  à)Ð , ÐSECOND€INJURY€FUND,à 8 àà  à)Ð , Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àDefendant/Appellñø<ññý<ñeeñý<ññþ<ññø<ñantñø<ññþ<ññø<ñ.à 8 àà  à)Ð ,! ÐÌâ €$€$€;€;âà@ÑÑ'ÌàòòJUDGMENT€ORDERóóˆÐ ,# ÐÌÔ#†X(›XXX©©@#Ôñø<ññù<ññø<ñÔ‡XÅ{XXXø®ÔÔ#†Xø®XXXÅ{\I#Ôñø<ññù<ññø<ñÓÓà Ø àà 0 àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€motion€for€review€pursuant€toÐ ,% ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(5)(B),€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€ofÏreferral€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel'sÏMemorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,Ïwhich€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ìà Ø àà 0 àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€review€is€notÏwell„taken€and€should€be€denied;€andÌà Ø àà 0 àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€isÏmade€the€judgment€of€the€Court.€€ò òÐ X5,+- Ðó óà Ø àà 0 àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellant.Ð $7ø,/ Ðà Ø àà 0 àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€this€____€day€of€______,€1998.ñø<ññù<ññø<ñÔ‡XÅ{XXXø®ÔÔ#†Xø®XXXÅ{9M#Ôñø<ññù<ññø<ñÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àPER€CURIAMñø<ñ›