ÿWPC|! …UBV %˜U .žrÌ 0> Ë nYÛ 0r4¦w@¦4æ 0Jú 0TD 0^˜ 0hö 0r^ 0|Ð 0†L 0Ò 1ubU,× 0dU,g.“9ÁB)ú B#DC@ AMƒCÐv~ D3‘vÓÄ 0@— AOׯ& 0Dì D/0! B_!ô\  `*Times New RomanTTô"ÝÆÿA€ArialTT'    0 .   (e2p¦$©©Ý ƒ f‚!ÝÔ€X”'XôôÔÔ€XXXX”'ÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý3|x$«ô\  `*Times New RomanTTôôCô\  PŽ6QôP"ÝÆÿA€ArialTTomanTTXXaÝÆÿptQXpô\  `*Times New RomanTT¼¼^ô\  PŽ6Q¼Pô\  `*Times New RomanTT6ô\  PŽ6QPô\  `*Times New RomanTT,,)ô\  PŽ6Q,P(Jf‚$¡¡Ô€X”'XôôÔÔ€XXXX”'ÔÓ  Ó DPDPE D!P"D#$Pz!ðDÿa 2 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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco $Ý ƒ !ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ 8 ÒÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ@  ÔÚ  ÚÚ  ÚÔA  ÔÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓ /Ý ƒ !ÝÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ 8 ÒÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ@  ÔÚ  ÚÚ  ÚÔA  ÔÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓ% Line 7 d d$$$$7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ 9Ý ƒ !ÝÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òSeptember€11,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@%%%%'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ 8 ÒÖ€"ÖÑ  ÑÔ&  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÖ€#ÖÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€¼ÔÔ€ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌÌAT€JACKSONÌ(June€27,€1996€Session)ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓLARRY€COLEMAN,à àà àà àà à)€€€€€SHELBY€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee,à àà à)€€€€€Hon.€Kay€S.€Robilio,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€Judge.ÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€No.€02S01„9602„CV„00021ÌÙ€€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€'(&;+'h|¡` Å `€€LßKIMBERLY„CLARK€CORPORATION,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellant.à àà à)à àÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òòForÏAppellee:ÌóóÌMcDonald€Kuhn€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€B.€J.€WadeÌCarol€Mills€Hayden€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Lori€J.€KeenÌMemphis,€Tennessee€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€ôÔ€Ô€¼Ô€€€€€€€Glassman,€Jeter,€Edwards€&ÏWadeÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€,Ô€Ô€¼Ô€€€€€€€€Memphis,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌÌÌòòMembers€of€Panelóó:ÌÌLyle€Reid,€Associate€Justice,€Supreme€CourtÌJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌBilly€Joe€White,€Special€JudgeÌÔ'  ÔÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓÌÓ  ÓAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIED€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Loser,ÏJudgeÓ ¹ ÓÌà àà àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€theÏSpecial€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€inÏaccordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€andÏreporting€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€In€this€appeal,€theÏemployer€contends€the€award€of€permanent€partial€disability€benefits€isÏexcessive€and€that€the€trial€judge€"erred€in€failing€to€use€the€AMA€Guides€toÏthe€Evaluation€of€Permanent€Impairment,€Fourth€Edition,€to€review€theÏanatomical€impairment€assigned€by"€the€operating€surgeon.€€The€employeeÏcontends€the€award€is€inadequate.€€The€panel€has€concluded€the€judgmentÏshould€be€affirmed€as€modified€herein.Ó rAÓÌà àà àThe€employee€or€claimant,€Larry€Coleman,€is€52€and€a€highÏschool€graduate€with€no€other€training€or€education.€€He€has€worked€all€hisÏadult€life€as€an€unskilled€worker.€€On€November€17,€1992,€the€fork€liftÏwhich€he€was€operating€for€the€employer€fell€out€of€a€truck€bed€to€a€parkingÏlot,€injuring€him.Ìà àà àHe€was€treated€and€released€at€an€emergency€room€and€returnedÏto€work€with€pain.€€He€ultimately€was€referred€to€a€neurosurgeon,€whom€heÏfirst€saw€on€January€26,€1993.€€The€doctor€diagnosed€a€herniated€lumbarÏdisc€and€prescribed€an€epidural€block€for€the€relief€of€pain.€€WhenÏconservative€care€no€longer€relieved€the€claimant's€pain,€surgery€wasÏperformed.€€Since€the€surgery,€he€has€continued€to€have€disabling€leg€andÏback€pain€and€numbness.€€The€operation€was€the€claimant's€second€for€aÏruptured€disc€in€the€low€back,€the€other€having€occurred€some€seventeenÍyears€earlier.Ìà àà àThe€claimant€cannot€sit€or€stand€for€long€periods€of€time€andÏhas€severely€limited€ability€to€bend€forward.€€The€operating€surgeonÏassigned€a€permanent€impairment€rating€of€eighteen€percent€to€the€wholeÏbody,€from€the€injury€and€surgery€superimposed€on€his€pre„existing€spinalÏstenosis,€using€the€AMA€guidelines.€€Mr.€Coleman€does€not€think€he€canÏreturn€to€any€kind€of€work.€€He€has€not€worked€since€the€surgery.Ìà àà àA€vocational€expert€examined€the€claimant€and€his€medicalÏrecords.€€The€expert€opined€that€the€claimant€has€no€transferable€job€skillsÏand€that€he€has€no€employability.€€The€expert's€opinion€is€based€in€part,Ïhowever,€on€a€hip€problem€which€is€not€shown€to€have€pre„existed€theÏinjury€at€work€or€to€have€been€caused€by€the€injury€at€work.Ìà àà àWe€find€no€countervailing€medical€or€vocational€testimony€inÏthe€record.Ìà àà àThe€trial€judge€found€the€claimant's€permanent€industrialÏdisability€to€be€eighty„eight€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole€and€awardedÏbenefits€on€that€basis.€€Appellate€review€is€de€novo€upon€the€record€of€theÏtrial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings€ofÏfact,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€section€50„6„225(e)(2).Ìà àà àThe€claimant€argues€that€he€is€permanently€and€totally€disabledÏand,€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€50„6„207(4)(A)(1),€is€entitled€to€theÏpayment€of€disability€benefits€at€his€compensation€rate€until€age€65.€€WhenÏan€injury,€not€otherwise€specifically€provided€for€in€the€act,€totallyÏincapacitates€a€covered€employee€from€working€at€an€occupation€whichÏbrings€him€an€income,€such€employee€is€considered€totally€disabled.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€section€50„6„207(4)(B).Ìà àà àThe€employer€argues€that€the€award€is€excessive€because€theÏvocational€expert's€opinion€is€based€in€part€on€a€medical€report€of€a€hipÏinjury€which€is€not€shown€to€be€related€to€the€injury€at€work.€€UnlessÏadmitted€by€the€employer,€the€employee€or€claimant€has€the€burden€ofÏproving,€by€competent€evidence,€every€essential€element€of€his€claim.€ÏòòMazanec€v.€Aetna€Ins.€Co.óó,€491€€S.W.2d€€616€(Tenn.€1973).€€In€all€but€theÏmost€obvious€cases,€causation€may€only€be€proved€by€expert€testimony.€ÏòòFloyd€v.€Tennessee€Dickel€Distilling€Co.óó,€225€€Tenn.€€65,€463€€S.W.2d€€684Ï(1971).Ìà àà àThe€employer's€second€contention,€citing€òòSmith€v.€LibertyÏMutual€Insurance€Company,€et€alóó,€762€€S.W.2d€€883€(Tenn.€1988)€€is€that€theÏtrial€judge€is€obliged€to€interpret€the€AMA€guidelines€and€substitute€herÏconclusions€as€to€the€extent€of€the€claimant's€medical€impairment€for€thoseÏof€the€operating€surgeon.€€We€do€not€so€construe€òòSmith€v.€Liberty€MutualÏInsurance€Companyóó.€€The€trial€did€not€err€in€accepting€the€operatingÏsurgeon's€opinion€of€the€extent€of€medical€impairment.Ìà àà àNevertheless,€once€the€causation€and€permanency€of€an€injuryÏhave€been€established€by€expert€testimony,€the€courts€may€consider€manyÏpertinent€factors,€including€age,€job€skills,€education,€training,€duration€ofÏdisability€and€job€opportunities€for€the€disabled,€in€addition€to€anatomicalÏimpairment,€for€the€purpose€of€evaluating€the€extent€of€a€claimant'sÏpermanent€industrial€disability.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€50„6„241(a)(2).€ÏWhere€a€worker's€only€injury€is€to€a€scheduled€member,€he€may€receiveÏonly€the€amount€of€compensation€provided€by€the€statutory€schedule€for€hisÏpermanent€disability.€€òòGenesco,€Inc.€v.€Creameróó,€584€€S.W.2d€€191€(Tenn.Ï1979).€€In€all€other€cases€of€permanent€partial€disability,€benefits€are€payableÏaccording€to€the€percentage€of€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole,€which€has€aÏvalue€of€four€hundred€weeks.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€50„6„207(3)(F).Ìà àà àWe€have€carefully€reviewed€the€record€and,€from€aÏconsideration€of€the€pertinent€factors€established€by€the€proof€in€this€case,Ïare€persuaded€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€an€award€based€onÏeighty„eight€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole€and€in€favor€of€one€based€on€oneÏhundred€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole,€entitling€the€claimant€to€receiveÍbenefits€at€his€weekly€compensate€rate€for€four€hundred€weeks.€€TheÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€modified€accordingly.Ìà àà àInterest€may€be€awarded€on€accrued€but€unpaid€disabilityÏbenefits.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€50„6„225(h)(1).€€When€an€award€isÏaffirmed€on€appeal,€such€interest€is€to€be€calculated€from€the€date€of€the€trialÏcourt's€judgment.€€òòMcClain€v.€Henry€I.€Siegel€Co.óó,€834€€S.W.2d€€295€(Tenn.Ï1992).Ìà àà àAs€modified,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€TheÏcase€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€calculation€of€interest€on€accrued€butÏunpaid€benefits€and€such€other€proceedings,€if€any,€as€may€be€appropriate.€ÏCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€defendant„appellant.Ó *bÓÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓ_______________________________Ó ÓÌÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Joe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€JudgeÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌLyle€Reid,€Associate€JusticeÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌBilly€Joe€White,€JudgeÌ