ÿWPCß Þ`Ûò©Qîìq˜ÚȰÊ#óšž®/ÿé„§]B¥ÒÚ"ßûF+ 쫚î†ÒËFvñŸRc§&¯æÅ«Hpuã@žqºI”‡H¼!ù©(ÀÕѽFR„w?N#vC‰zäE¸8¢I³Õ‚²\=½x>É¥°A<öR+mÆ¥8cp~YV-¸u|1 4KY…4Ýœü&ô=”|`4©šLù½4 âÙçvLË6Ýóš<±ñ¹ar¼ÛU?kÅ—i•ÈjcK]å‰Ý…]^!ŸPšñ˜¡ Ö‰<ÃŽ$Å#¹è£ßà¿·9:еG2§RßÜ‹n¨çäøhï)á7§T™ ­éé?±éTÞV9¹4î«tŸihÍ»¡Tj [z’ríXµ—ào™6ä—¾f“û*¼áAöÙÄ úµDC¦}uX× a©«N‰‡¯á˜Ž³bƒÝØ&OHr…ÚäšP`ÌHWÒÔ÷LwQqøÑ3~}™ffäá$k…%M|·DÍØx{ã/žî®r“û¨Á~'ìödëÿ†„"ÿÕD Kk4s¼ds^û†U ,áÒä:+Qì“;çpߨši1^jñnõž ® âû5¹UB %` U.f r” k 0qþn® 0r¼.w@.4n‚ë‚U:më§U:’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ BÌÌÌÌÌ D3ééé 0Ž D+ªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªª AOÕÆ$$ 0Dê D/. B]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] AYzÆÓ 0F™ô\  `*Times New RomanTTô"ÝÆÿA€ArialTT'    0 .    aÝ ƒÎF)ÝÔ€X¿ÿXôôÔÔ€Xx"XXX¿ÿÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒ8°ÒÓ  ÓÓ<(ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œX<ÓÔ  ÔÔ@  ÔÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚÔA  ÔÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÓ?+ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿ` ‹X?Ó(e2ÎF$©©Ý ƒ |ˆ!ÝÔ€X¿ÿXôôÔÔ€Xx"XXX¿ÿÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý3|x[«ô\  `*Times New RomanTTôôCô\  PŽ6QôP"ÝÆÿA€ArialTTomanTTXXaÝÆÿptQXpô\  `*Times New RomanTT¼¼^ô\  PŽ6Q¼Pô\  `*Times New RomanTTXXPô\  PŽ6QXP(J|ˆ$¡¡Ô€X¯‰XôôÔÔ€Xh:XXX¯‰ÔÓ  Ó >?@ADBCDEDFÓ€QÓ€yš&a áÔ€ôGLôôôÔÔ€èlÞèôôGLÔÔ Ad ÔÓ  ÓFILEDÔ€11èèlÞÔÐ  ÐÌò òJune€10,€1999Ð  ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€CourtÏClerkó ó,kû¤AZ‹"Arial Regular áÔ€ôGLôôôÔÔ€èlÞèôôGLÔÔ Ad ÔÓ  ÓFILEDÔ€11èèlÞÔÐ  ÐÌò òJune€10,€1999Ð  ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€CourtÏClerkó ó,kû¤AZ‹"Arial Regular d%%%%'ÿÿdxd(f3J‘$££Ý ƒ |ˆ!ÝÔ€X¿ÿXôôÔÔ€Xx"XXX¿ÿÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý'ÈÈÈÈdxd€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd·-¸:Müÿ << deUU…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(n$––ò ò(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)ó óÝ ƒ |ˆ!ÝÔ€X¿ÿXôôÔÔ€Xx"XXX¿ÿÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑTR[¤ AØ'3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÒ°ÒÒ8°ÒÖ€ÿÿÖÑ  ÑÔ&  ÔÓ  ÓÓ<(ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œX<ÓÔ€¼æ¼XXx"ÔÔ€¼׌¼¼¼æÔÔ  ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐÌSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌÌñQñßl€*6&"h 8 `€€EŽ tt06Æ ¨élßâ ÆÆ # #âñQñAT€KNOXVILLEÌ(March€16,€1999€Session)ÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ?+ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿ` ‹X?ÓBRENDA€D.€ENGLAND,à À àà  à)à p àÐ ŒÜ  Ðâ  # #ÆÆâCUMBERLAND€CIRCUITÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àPlaintiff„Appellee,à À àà  à)à p àHon.€John€Turnbull,Ð Î  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àJudge.Ð ä4 Ðv.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð úJ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àNo.€03S01„9807„CV„00082Ð ` ÐHICKORY€SPECIALTIES,€INC.,à  à)Ð &v Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àDefendant„Appellant.à À àà  à)Ð R¢ ÐÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:à  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àòòFor€Appelleeóó:òòÐ À ÐóóÌC.€Douglas€Dooleyà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àJames€P.€SmithÐ ì < ÐCharles€W.€Possà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àBean€&€SmithÐ "R ÐLeitner,€Williams,€Dooley€&€Napolitanà p àà È àCrossville,€TennesseeÐ #h ÐChattanooga,€TennesseeòòÐ .$~ ÐóóÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ<(ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿŒX<ÓòòM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÐ œ)ì$" ÐÌÌÌÌòòMembers€of€Panelóó:Ð  /Z*' ÐÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€Associate€JusticeÌHowell€N.€Peoples,€Special€JudgeÌJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ?+ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿ` ‹X?ÓÌÓ  ÓÓ<(ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿŒX<ÓÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ?+ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿ` ‹X?ÓÐü:L62 ÐÓ  ÓAFFIRMEDà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð àLoser,Ðü:L62 ÐJudgeÓ {ÀÓÌÓ  ÓÓ<(ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿŒX<ÓòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONóóÔ'ý°÷ÔÐ —ç ÐÓ  ÓÓ?+ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿ` ‹X?ÓÓ€Óà ` àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€SpecialÏWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€X¿ÿX¼¼׌ÔððÔ€¼׌¼XX¿ÿÔÐ  o Ð50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw.€€In€this€appeal,€the€employer,€Hickory€Specialties,€insists€(1)€the€trial€judgeÏerred€in€relying€on€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Gene€Turner€with€respect€to€the€extentÏof€the€employee's€medical€impairment,€(2)€the€trial€judge€erred€in€finding€aÏcausal€connection€between€the€employee's€injury€and€her€employment€by€theÏemployer,€(3)€the€award€of€permanent€partial€disability€benefits€is€excessive€andÏ(4)€the€trial€judge€erred€in€finding€that€the€employee€did€not€have€a€meaningfulÏreturn€to€work.€€As€discussed€below,€the€panel€has€concluded€the€judgmentÏshould€be€affirmed.Ó {ÀÓÌà ` àÌà ` àThe€employee€or€claimant,€England,€initiated€this€action€to€recoverÏmedical€disability€benefits€allegedly€due€her€because€of€a€back€injury.€€TheÏemployer€denied€any€liability.€€After€a€trial€on€the€merits,€the€trial€courtÏawarded,€òòinter€aliaóó,€permanent€partial€disability€benefits€based€on€thirty„fiveÐ í =" Ðpercent€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€The€extent€of€an€injured€worker's€disability€isÏa€question€of€fact.€€òòCollins€v.€Howmet€Corp.óó,€970€€S.W.2d€€941€(Tenn.€1998).€Ð /$& ÐSo€is€causation.€€We€have€therefore€reviewed€the€case€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€recordÐ Ð% !( Ðof€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findingsÏof€fact,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.ÏÔ€X¿ÿX¼¼׌ÔððÔ€¼׌¼XX¿ÿÔ€50„6„225(e)(2).Ð ³*&. Ðà ` àÌà ` àThe€claimant€is€thirty„seven€years€old€with€a€ninth€grade€education€andÏexperience€as€a€waitress,€at€a€cannery€and€as€a€vegetable€packer.€€She€beganÏworking€for€this€employer€in€1991€as€a€charcoal€bagger.Ìà ` àÌà ` àShe€testified€at€the€trial€that€on€September€27,€1995,€the€plant€ran€out€ofÏcharcoal€and€she€was€assigned€to€unload€wood€from€a€tractor„trailer€and€box€itÏin€40„75€pound€boxes,€then€place€up€to€27€of€such€boxes€on€flats.€€The€employerÐ »7 3> Ðinsists€the€plant€did€not€load€any€wood€in€the€week€before,€during€or€after€theÏdate€of€injury.Ìà ` àÌà ` àOn€October€9,€1995,€the€claimant€saw€Dr.€Michael€Ellis,€a€chiropractor,Ïwho€diagnosed€chronic€lumbosacral€sprain€or€strain€with€sciatic€radiculitisÏpossibly€caused€by€a€ruptured€disc€at€L5„S1.€€He€opined€the€injury€was€causedÏat€work€and€assessed€her€permanent€impairment€at€ten€percent€to€the€wholeÏbody.€€She€was€also€treated€by€the€late€Dr.€Allen,€a€neurological€surgeon.€€Dr.€ÏSteven€Abram,€who€did€not€examine€the€claimant,€opined€from€Dr.€Allen'sÏrecords€that€she€had€no€permanent€impairment.€€Dr.€Turner,€a€licensed€and€boardÏcertified€medical€doctor,€specializing€in€anesthesiology€and€pain€medicine,Ïconducted€extensive€objective€testing€and€assessed€the€claimant's€permanentÏmedical€impairment€at€seven€percent€from€appropriate€guidelines.Ìà ` àÌà ` àThe€employer€first€contends€it€was€error€for€the€trial€judge€to€consider€Dr.ÏTurner's€assessment€because€it€was€inconsistent€with€those€guidelines.€€TheÏdoctor's€testimony,€however,€accredited€by€the€trial€judge,€was€that€his€testimonyÏwas€consistent€with€the€guidelines.€€When€the€medical€testimony€differs,€the€trialÏjudge€must€choose€which€view€to€believe.€€In€doing€so,€he€is€allowed,€amongÏother€things,€to€consider€the€qualifications€of€the€experts,€the€circumstances€ofÏtheir€examination,€the€information€available€to€them,€and€the€evaluation€of€theÏimportance€of€that€information€by€other€experts.€€òòOrman€v.€Williams€Sonoma,Ð å&5"* ÐInc.óó,€803€€S.W.2d€€672€(Tenn.€1991).€€Moreover,€it€is€within€the€discretion€of€theÐ †(Ö#, Ðtrial€judge€to€conclude€that€the€opinion€of€certain€experts€should€be€acceptedÏover€that€of€other€experts€and€that€it€contains€the€more€probable€explanation.€ÏòòCombustion€Engineering,€Inc.óó,€562€€S.W.2d€€202€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€trial€judgeÐ i-¹(2 Ðdid€not€abuse€his€discretion€by€considering€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Turner.Ìà ` àÌà ` àThe€employer€next€contends€that€it€would€have€been€impossible€for€theÏinjury€to€have€happened€as€the€employee€claims€because€of€credible€proof€thatÏthe€wood€line€was€not€running€on€the€day€of€the€injury.€€Even€if€the€trial€judgeÏaccepted€that€evidence€as€true,€it€probably€means€that€the€claimant€was€mistakenÏabout€the€date€of€the€injury.€€Nevertheless,€the€trial€judge€found€the€claimant'sÐ Ð8 4@ Ðown€testimony€to€be€the€more€reliable.€€Where€the€trial€judge€has€seen€and€heardÏthe€witnesses,€especially€if€issues€of€credibility€and€weight€to€be€given€oralÏtestimony€are€involved,€considerable€deference€must€be€accorded€thoseÏcircumstances€on€review.€€òòMcCaleb€v.€Saturn€Corp.óó,€910€€S.W.2d€€412€(Tenn.Ð “ ã Ð1995).€€For€those€reasons€and€because€of€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Ellis,€the€trialÏjudge€did€not€err,€as€the€employer€contends,€in€finding€the€required€causalÏconnection€between€the€employment€and€the€injury.Ìà ` àÌà ` àThe€employer€next€argues€that€the€award€of€permanent€partial€disabilityÏbenefits€is€excessive.€€In€making€determinations€as€to€the€extent€of€an€injuredÏworker's€permanent€industrial€disability,€trial€judges€are€to€consider€all€pertinentÏfactors,€including€lay€and€expert€testimony,€the€employee's€age,€education,€skillsÏand€training,€local€job€opportunities€for€the€disabled,€and€capacity€to€work€atÏtypes€of€employment€available€in€the€claimant's€disabled€condition.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€Ô€X¿ÿX¼¼׌ÔððÔ€¼׌¼XX¿ÿÔ€50„6„241(a)(1).€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€the€trial€judge€madeÐ ~Î Ðexhaustive€findings,€including€the€following,€relative€to€the€above€factors:Ìà0 ` àà ¸ à"With€reference€to€the€disability€issue,€the€Court€finds€that€the€mostÏbelievable€proof€to€the€Court€with€reference€to€the€amount€of€impairmentÏis€that€based€upon€the€deposition€of€Dr.€Turner.€€I€find€that€for€theÏfollowing€reasons.€€First€of€all,€when€I€have€reviewed€these€depositions,ÏI€find€that€there€are€numerous€reports€in€the€medical€records€ofÏradiculopathy€to€the€leg.€€Dr.€Abram€reports€that€because€he€could€notÏfind€an€objective€reason€for€that€radiculopathy,€that€he€did€not€put€her€inÏa€category€that€would€allow€him€to€give€her€an€impairment.€€I€think€whenÏwe€read€the€guides€as€a€whole,€as€is€referred€to€in€his€deposition,€that€theÏtestimony€of€Dr.€Turner€with€reference€to€impairment€rating€is€moreÏpersuasive.€€This€is€because€Dr.€Abram,€although€he€was€only€recentlyÏboard€certified€at€the€time€he€gave€his€deposition,€it€was€pretty€obviousÏto€the€court€that€he€is€familiar€with€all€of€the€aspects€of€the€A.M.A.ÏGuidelines,€Fourth€Edition,€and,€in€fact,€did€not€apply€them,€as€wasÏpointed€out€in€cross€examination.€€The€A.M.A.€Guidelines,€FourthÏEdition,€are€interpreted€differently€by€different€physicians.€€That€is€theÏreason€that€I€find€that€Dr.€Turner's€impairment€rating€is€more€persuasive.€Ð Ð8 4@ ÐBased€upon€the€loss€of€motion,€I€think€that€his€is€also€more€objective€thanÏthe€ten€percent€impairment€given€by€Dr.€Ellis,€the€chiropractor.Ð `  #`  # Ðà0 ` àà ¸ à....Ð `  #`  # Ðà0 ` àà ¸ à"Now,€with€her€impairment€rating€and€her€background€and€her€ageÏand€her€education€and€her€work€history€and€the€availability€of€jobs€she€isÏqualified€to€do,€how€does€that€relate€to€her€...€vocational€disability.€€I€findÏthat€the€five€times€factor€in€this€case€would€be€appropriate,€which€isÏthirty„five€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole.'Ð `  #`  # Ðà ` àÌà ` àThe€trial€judge€also€noted,€in€his€findings,€the€employees€age,€educationÏand€vocational€background.€The€lay€proof€supports€the€above€findings.€€TheÏevidence€fails€to€preponderate€against€the€award€of€benefits€based€on€thirty„fiveÏpercent€to€the€body€as€a€whole.Ìà ` àÌà ` àFinally,€the€employer€contends€the€trial€judge€erred€in€awarding€more€thanÏtwo€and€one„half€times€the€medical€impairment€rating.€€For€injuries€arising€afterÏAugust€1,€1992,€in€cases€where€an€injured€worker€is€entitled€to€permanent€partialÏdisability€benefits€to€the€body€as€a€whole€and€the€pre„injury€employer€returns€theÏemployee€to€employment€at€a€wage€equal€to€or€greater€than€the€wage€theÏemployee€was€receiving€at€the€time€of€the€injury,€the€maximum€permanentÏpartial€disability€award€that€the€employee€may€receive€is€two€and€one„half€timesÏthe€medical€impairment€rating€pursuant€to€the€provisions€of€the€òòAmericanÐ å&5"* ÐMedical€Association€Guides€to€the€Evaluation€of€Permanent€Impairmentóó,€theÐ †(Ö#, ÐòòManual€for€Orthopedic€Surgeons€in€Evaluating€Permanent€Physical€Impairmentóó,Ð '*w%. Ðor,€in€cases€where€an€impairment€rating€by€any€appropriate€method€is€used€andÏaccepted€by€the€medical€community.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€X¿ÿX¼¼׌ÔððÔ€¼׌¼XX¿ÿÔ€50„6„241(a)(1).Ó {ÀÓÐ i-¹(2 Ðà ` àIf€the€offer€from€the€employer€is€not€reasonable€in€light€of€theÏcircumstances€of€the€employee's€physical€disability€to€perform€the€offeredÏemployment,€then€the€offer€of€employment€is€not€meaningful€and€the€injuredÏemployee€may€receive€disability€benefits€up€to€six€times€the€medicalÏimpairment.€€òòNewton€v.€Scott€Health€Care€Centeróó;€€914€€S.W.2d€€884€(Tenn.Ð Ç62> Ð1995).€€On€the€other€hand,€an€employee€will€be€limited€to€disability€benefits€ofÐ h8¸3@ Ðnot€more€than€two€and€one„half€times€the€medical€impairment€if€his€refusal€toÏreturn€to€offered€work€is€unreasonable.€€òòIdóó.€€The€resolution€of€what€is€reasonableÐ Q¡ Ðmust€rest€on€the€facts€of€each€case€and€be€determined€thereby.€€òòIdóó.Ð òB Ðà ` àThe€claimant's€testimony,€which€the€trial€court€found€to€be€credible,€wasÏthat€she€returned€to€work€on€March€13,€1996€and€that€her€last€day€of€work€forÏthe€employer€was€June€13,€1996.€€She€said€that€she€began€having€to€miss€workÏbecause€her€back€"would€swell€up€and€start€hurting€and€I€couldn't€move€good."€ÏWhen€she€called€in€sick€after€a€bad€day€on€the€line,€she€said,€she€was€fired€forÏnot€bringing€in€a€medical€excuse.€€Under€the€circumstances,€we€cannot€say€theÏtrial€judge€erred€in€exceeding€the€cap€of€two€and€one„half€times€the€medicalÏimpairment€rating.Ó {ÀÓÌà ` àÌÓ€Óà ` àBecause€the€evidence€fails€to€preponderate€against€the€findings€of€the€trialÏcourt,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€defendant.Ó rAÓÌÓ  ÓÓ<(ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿŒX<Ó_______________________________Ó rAÓÌÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Joe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌÓ  ÓÓ?+ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿ` ‹X?ÓCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€Associate€JusticeÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌHowell€N.€Peoples,€Special€JudgeÐ  +l&* ÐÒ` ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ' AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÌÌà@® ® €àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEE€ˆÌñFñßl€*6&"h 8 `€€EŽótt06Æò¨çlßâ ` Æ` Æ`  #`  #âñFñà@»»"àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  à¼à ¸ àà  àÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€à p àÐ 4 „ Ðà  àà , àà  àà ` àà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àÌBRENDA€D.€ENGLANDà  à€ñ?ñ€€ñ?ñ)€Ð ` ° ÐCUMBERLAND€CIRCUITÌâ `  #`  #` Æ` Æâà ¸ àà  àà h à€€€€€€€à À àà  à€ñ>ñ€€ñ>ñ)€€No.€CV002434Ð ŒÜ  ÐÒ 8Ò€€à ¸ àPlaintiff„Appellee,€€€€€€à  à€ñ=ñ€€ñ=ñ)à p àà È àà  àà x àÐ ¢ò  ÐÓ àœXÿÿŒXÓà ¸ àà0  àà0h8"8"àà0Àh8"h8"àà  à€€€)€€€No.03S01„9807„CV€„00082Ð À8"À8" Ðv.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà0  à€€€)ÐÎ 8"8" Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€)ÌHICKORY€SPECIALTIES,€INC.,€)€à0 p àHon.€John€TurnbullÐúJp8"p8" Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àñ@ñ€ñ@ññAñà p àñAññBñ€€€€ñBñ)à p àà È àJudgeÐ ` Ðà ¸ à€€Defendant/Appellant,à  àñCñ€€€€€ñCñ)à p àÐ &v Ðà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€à h àà À àà  àñDñ)ñDññEñà p àÐ ` ÐÐ ` ÐñEñà p àà È à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð <Œ Ѐà ¸ àÓ€Óà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€Ð R¢ Ðà@°°'ÌàJUDGMENT€ORDERˆÌÌà ¸ à€This€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,Ïincluding€the€order€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'ÏCompensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel's€memorandumÏOpinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,Ïwhich€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;ÌÌà ¸ àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€memorandumÏOpinion€of€the€Panel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌÌà ¸ àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€facts€andÏconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€ofÏthe€Panel€is€made€the€Judgment€of€the€Court.ÌÌà ¸ àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€Appellant,€HickoryÏSpecialties,€Inc.and€C.€Douglas€Dooley,€surety,€€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.€Ì€€€€€€06/10/99Ð E8•39 ÐÓ0ÿÿ` çÈ xÐ (#àœX0Ó