ÿWPCX# :# <UNG %• 0û›U:–4Ðäów@û 0?; 0Dz 0J¾  0D 0TR 0^¦ 0h 0rl 0|Þ 0†Z 0à 1up 0då AQIÆš 0` 0@w B· D/Ô B D3 U>SU *‘U*»B)åDC AMQÈž8fvžU6½Jv~vÓ…˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÓH=$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XÎ_XXXÔÑ7€¾úXXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular„e"x3|x{ hUiÊjDkmDnÊoÓ€yzU{î(ï(3§ô$¤¤Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XXÞXXXÔÑ7€%eXXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó('Ã$òòÚ  Ú2Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  ÔH($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ!"#&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ï3´2$¢¢Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XXÞXXXÔÑ7€%eXXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò d(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd!#1Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ¾Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€.ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌMayÏ16,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó .Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€.ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€observed€by€a€Panel€Judge€in€a€comparable€case,€ð ðno€explanationÏoccurs€except€the€obviousðð€as€to€why€geographical€considerations€presented€no€barÏto€the€selection€of€an€orthopedic€specialist€in€a€town€north€of€Nashville.Ì lÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€.ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAccording€to€Dr.€Hester,€the€appellee€suffered€a€ruptured€disc€in€the€1982Ïautomobile€accident€which,€as€previously€noted,€resulted€in€a€15€percentÏimpairment.€€Notwithstanding,€the€appellee€says€that€the€ruptured€disc€ð ðwent€awayððÏand€that€she€had€fully€recovered€from€the€1982€injury.Ì< Œ 9p`(Courier New ³Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€.ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌMayÏ16,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€-ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€.ÔÑ#€//Xd#ÑÑ#€//Xd#ÑÝ  Ý›Ñ À ÑÑ X ÑÞ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ!ÙßR€231A1-j|¾Ã` 81 `€€@ÿRß›à@ àSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€FEBRUARY€1997€SESSIONó óÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌNAOMI€GENTRY,à àà àà àà à)à àJACKSON€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNO.€01S01„9608„CH„00165à àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌLUMBERMENS€MUTUAL€CASUALTYà à)à àHON.€C.€K.€SMITH,€Ìand€JACKSON€COUNTY€HOSPITAL,€€€à à)à àCHANCELLORÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellantsà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€the€Appellee:ÌÌó óóóD.€Randall€Mantoothà àà àà àE.€Guy€HollimanÌJames€Lee€Deckardà àà àà àWilliam€Joseph€ButlerÌLeitner,€Moffitt,€Williams,€Dooleyà àà àœFarrar›Ô% € Ô€&€HollimanÌà à&€Napolitan,€PLLCà àà àà à102€Scottsville€Hwy.Ì2300€First€American€Centerà àà àP.€O.€Box€280ÌNashville,€TN€37238à àà àà àLafayette,€TN€37083ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌM€e€m€b€e€r€s€€€€of€€€P€a€n€e€lÌÌó óóóJustice€Frank€F.€Drowota,€IIIÌSenior€Judge€William€H.€InmanÌSpecial€Judge€William€S.€Russellòòò òÌÓ  Óóóó óÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMED€as€MODIFIEDà àà àà àà àà àINMAN,€SeniorÏJudgeÌÌÓÓó óà 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 àThis€action€was€filed€January€18,€1995€seeking€benefits€for€a€back€injuryÏsustained€on€April€6,€1994€while€employed€by€the€defendant€hospital.€€TheÏallegations€of€the€complaint€were€generally€denied,€thus€requiring€the€plaintiff€toÏprove€every€element€of€her€case€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€except€whenÏrelying€upon€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððóó€50„6„242€which€requires€clear€and€convincingÏevidence€as€a€predicate.Ìà àThe€appellee€allegedly€suffered€a€back€injury€while€lifting€a€patient.€€She€wasÏinitially€treated€by€a€general€practitioner€in€Gainsboro,€Dr.€E.€M.€Dudney,€whoÏreferred€her€to€Dr.€Ray€Hester,€a€neurosurgeon€in€Nashville,€on€May€5,€1994.Ìà àDr.€Hester€had€treated€the€plaintiff€for€injuries€she€sustained€in€an€automobileÏaccident€in€1982.€€These€injuries€involved,€òòinter€aliaóó,€a€ruptured€disc.€€She€wasÍreleased€from€treatment€in€1983€with€a€15€percent€permanent€partial€impairment,Ïand€her€activities€were€restricted.Ìà àAs€stated,€Dr.€Hester€saw€the€plaintiff€eleven€years€later€for€this€workersððÏcompensation€injury.€€He€ordered€a€CT€scan€which€revealed€no€significantÏpathology€or€œfindings›€and€ultimately€œdiagnosed›€her€complaint€as€a€lumbar€strain.€ÏOn€July€19,€1995,€he€advised€the€employer€by€letter€that:ÌÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÒ  ÒÒ r ÒÓÓð ð€.€.€.€Mrs.€Gentry€apparently€had€a€back€strain.€€She€had€underlyingÏdegenerative€joint€disease€in€her€back€which€was€the€result€of€herÏprevious€injuries€to€her€back€and€not€the€more€recent€one€where€sheÏwas€doing€some€lifting.€€òòI€donððt€think€she€has€any€permanentÏimpairment€in€relation€to€her€lifting€incident€and€no€anatomicalÏchanges€as€a€result€of€it.ððÌÒ  ÒÒ r ÒÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÌÓÓà àóóAt€some€point€before€his€deposition€was€taken€for€proof,€Dr.€Hester€changedÏhis€opinion.€€He€testified€that€the€appellee€had€a€five€percent€permanent€impairmentÏsolely€as€a€result€of€her€1994€injury.€€He€found€no€objective€signs€of€radiculopathy€orÏloss€of€structural€integrity.€€He€imposed€moderate€lifting€restrictions,€and€thought€theÏappellee€should€be€able€to€return€to€work.€€He€found€no€anatomical€changes€in€herÏback.Ìà àSignificantly,€he€testified€that€his€impairment€ratings€of€15€percent€for€theÏ1982€injury€and€five€percent€for€the€1994€injury€were€ð ðseparate€and€not€a€part€andÏparcel€of€each€other.ðð€€He€would€have€allowed€the€appellee€to€resume€working€inÏDecember,€1994.Ìà àThe€employer€arranged€an€evaluation€of€the€appellee€by€Dr.€Manuel€Weiss,€aÏneurosurgeon€in€Nashville,€who€found€a€normal€range€of€motion,€no€muscle€spasm,Ïand€no€need€for€work€restrictions.€€He€thought€she€reached€maximum€medicalÏimprovement€on€June€14,€1994.€€The€appelleeððs€attorney€countered€this€evaluationÏby€arranging€an€independent€evaluation€of€his€client€by€an€orthopedic€surgeon€inÍGoodlettsville,€Dr.€Robert€P.€Landsberg.œ× ƒ4 ××  ×›Ìà àHe€testified€that€the€appellee€had€a€20€percent€impairment€as€a€result€of€theÏ1994€injury,€but€conceded€that€he€had€not€taken€her€1982€injury€into€account,€andÏthat€the€òòAMA€Guides€to€the€Evaluation€of€Permanent€Impairmentóó€€justified€only€a€tenÏpercent€rating€in€any€event.€€On€cross„examination€he€conceded€that€òòto€apportionÏher€impairment€between€the€1982€and€1994€injuries€would€be€speculative.óó€€Dr.ÏLandsberg€was€critical€of€the€òòAMA€Guides,óó€and€shifted€his€focus€to€the€range€ofÏmotion€test€which€he€believed€justified€an€impairment€rating€of€20€percentÏattributable€to€the€1994€injury.× ƒ5 ××  ×Ìà àThe€trial€judge€found€that€the€appellee€had€sustained€a€75€percentÏpermanent€partial€disability€to€her€whole€body,€and€that€she€had€proved€by€clearÏand€convincing€evidence€the€application€of€three€of€the€four€factors€enumerated€byÏòòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððóó€50„6„242.€€She€was€awarded€benefits€during€300€weeks,€plusÏtemporary,€total€benefits€from€June€14,€1994€through€August€1,€1995,€future€medicalÏexpenses€for€services€to€be€furnished€by€Dr.€Hester,€together€with€expenses€sheÏincurred€for€treatment€by€Drs.€Dudney€and€Hester.€€The€employer€appeals,Ïpresenting€for€review€the€propriety€of€each€of€those€decretal€provisions.Ìà àOur€review€of€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€theÏrecord€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€theÍœfindings,›€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððóóÏ50„6„225(3)(2).€€òòStone€v.€City€of€McMinnville,€óó896€S.W.2d€584€(Tenn.€1991).€€TheÏapplication€of€this€standard€requires€this€Court€to€weigh€in€more€depth€the€findingsÏand€conclusions€of€the€trial€courts€in€workersðð€compensation€cases.€€òòCorcoran€v.ÏFoster€Auto€GMS,óó€746€S.W.2d€452,€456€(Tenn.€1988).€€Where,€as€in€this€case,€theÏmedical€testimony€is€presented€by€deposition,€this€Court€is€able€to€make€its€ownÏindependent€assessment€of€the€medical€proof€to€determine€where€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€lies.€€òòCooper€v.€INA,€óó884€S.W.2d€446€(Tenn.€1994).Ìà àDr.€Hester,€the€treating€physician,€opined,€before€the€issue€becameÏadvocative,€that€the€appellee€òòhad€no€impairmentóó€and€òòno€anatomical€changesóóÏresulting€from€the€1994€injury.€€His€opinion€was€based€on€accepted,€sophisticatedÏtests€which€indicated,€at€most,€a€lumbar€strain.€€Significantly,€he€was€supremelyÏsituated€to€address€and€treat€the€plaintiffððs€back€since€it€was€he€who€had€œtreated›€herÏin€1982€for€a€back€injury€which€resulted€in€a€herniated€disc€with€an€assessment€ofÏ15€percent€impairment€and€moderate€restrictions€on€physical€activities.Ìà àAs€already€stated,€Dr.€Hester€changed€his€opinion€and€testified€that€theÏappellee€had€a€five€percent€impairment€solely€attributable€to€the€1994€injury.€€But€heÏpersisted€in€his€opinion€that€she€had€no€radiculopathy€„€a€matter€of€significance€„€noÏloss€of€structural€integrity,€and€no€anatomical€changes.Ìà àDr.€Lansberg€examined€the€appellee€at€her€request€for€the€purpose€of€givingÏtestimony.€€He€disdained€a€portion€of€the€òòAMA€Guidesóó€for€the€range€of€motion€modelÏwhich€he€believed€œjustified›€an€impairment€rating€of€20€percent.€€He€said€that€if€fiveÏpercent€of€this€rating€existed€before€the€1994€injury,€the€remaining€fifteen€percentÏwould€be€attributable€to€the€1994€injury.€€This€assertion€overlooks€the€fact€that€theÏappellee€retained€a€œ15›€percent€impairment€from€her€1982€injury.€€ProperlyÍconsidered,€therefore,€even€Dr.€Landsbergððs€opinion€is€that€the€appellee€retainedÏonly€a€five€percent€impairment,€and€Dr.€Hester€made€it€abundantly€clear€that€heÏapportioned€but€five€percent€of€the€appelleeððs€impairment€to€the€1994€injury.Ìà àDr.€Weiss,€who€œtestified€that€the€appellee€had€no€impairment,€was€taken›€toÏœtask›€because€his€examination€was€brief€and€revealed€no€œimpairment.›Ìà àDr.€Hester€ððseparated€and€apportionedðð€the€impairment€which€occurred€as€aÏresult€of€the€1994€injury.€€The€thrust€of€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Landsberg€„€taken€as€aÏwhole€„€is€that€he€did€also.€€The€appellee€concedes€„€repeatedly€„€that€this€is€not€ð ðanÏaggravation€case,ðð€and€that€the€defendant€would€not€be€liable€for€the€injuriesÏsustained€in€the€1982€automobile€accident.Ìà àThere€was€an€unusual€amount€of€lay€testimony€offered,€much€of€it€directed€toÏthe€work€ethic€of€the€appellee€and€the€curtailment€of€it€by€the€1994€injury,€especiallyÏher€inability€to€work€in€tobacco.€€We€have€read€her€testimony€carefully,€and€note€thatÏshe€is€able€to€do€the€usual€personal€and€household€chores€as€before;€we€also€noteÏthat€she€conceded€she€had€not€worked€in€tobacco€for€five€or€six€years.Ìà àWe€further€œconclude›€that€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€requires€aÏfinding€that€the€medical€impairment€of€five€percent€is€the€basis€upon€which€an€awardÏof€vocational€disability€must€be€determined.€€Contrary€to€the€insistence€of€theÏappellee,€òòSeiber€v.€Greenbrier€Industries,€óó906€S.W.2d€444€(Tenn.€1995)€isÏinapposite.Ìà àThe€question€next€occurring€is€whether€the€trial€judge€was€limited€to€aÏmultiplier€of€two€and€a€half€times€the€œimpairment›€rating€under€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððóó€50„6„241(a)(1)€or€a€multiplier€of€six€times€the€medical€impairment€under€òòTenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ððóó€50„6„241(b).€€The€appellee€offered€to€œreturn›€to€work€but€the€hospital€declined,Ïostensibly€on€account€of€the€restrictions€imposed€for€a€back€strain.€€The€anomaly€isÍapparent,€but€we€think€the€appellee€is€entitled€to€an€award€of€six€times€theÏimpairment€rating,€or€thirty€percent€of€her€whole€body.Ìà àòòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððóó€50„6„242€is€not€implicated.Ìà àThe€appellant€insists€that€it€is€not€liable€for€the€medical€expenses€owing€toÏDrs.€Dudney€and€Hester,€because€œit›€provided€the€appellee€with€a€panel€of€threeÏphysicians€as€required€by€the€workersðð€compensation€law.Ìà àThis€argument€is€sound,€as€far€as€it€goes.€€The€difficulty€lies€in€the€fact€that€theÏPanel€was€not€provided€until€May€9,€1994,€more€than€a€month€after€the€injuryÏoccurred.€€In€the€meantime,€the€appellee€bad€been€seen€by€the€physicians€of€herÏchoosing.Ìà àòòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððóó€50„6„204(B)(4)€requires€an€injured€employee€to€acceptÏmedical€benefits€if€the€employer€designates€a€group€of€three€or€more€reputableÏphysicians€not€associated€in€practice€from€which€to€choose.€€If€the€employer€fails€toÏfurnish€its€employee€with€a€Panel,€the€employee€is€justified€in€selecting€her€ownÏphysician.€€òòSee€Atlas€Power€Co.€v.€Grimes,óó€292€S.W.2d€13€(Tenn.€1956).€€We€holdÏthat€because€the€Panel€of€physicians€was€not€œtimely›€furnished,€the€appellee€wasÏjustified€in€selecting€her€own€physician.Ìà àThe€trial€judge€appointed€Dr.€Hester€as€the€future€treating€physician,€and€weÏfind€no€support€in€the€record€for€this€action.€€The€evidence€is€vague€on€the€issue€ofÏthe€need€for€future€medical€treatment€relative€to€this€1994€back€strain,€and€since€theÏemployer€belatedly€furnished€a€Panel€of€physicians€to€the€appellee€it€is€clear€thatÏabsent€just€cause€she€must€avail€herself€of€the€services€of€one€of€these€physicians.€ÏœòòSee›€Rice€Bottling€Co.€v.€Humphreys,€óó372€S.W.2d€170€(Tenn.€1963).Ìà àThe€appellee€was€awarded€benefits€for€temporary,€total€disability€from€JuneÏ14,€1994€through€August€1,€1995.€€The€employer€complains€of€this€action,€allegingÍthat€it€is€unsupported€by€the€evidence.Ìà àWe€have€carefully€considered€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Hester,€who€said€that€theÏappellee€reached€maximum€medical€improvement€in€April€1995,€although€she€wasÏmedically€approved€to€return€to€work€in€œDecember,›€1994.€€Benefits€for€temporaryÏdisability€compensate€an€employee€during€a€healing€period€when€she€is€òòtotallyóóÏprevented€from€working.€€òòVanatta€v.€œTomlinson,óó›€774€S.W.2d€921€(Tenn.€1989).€€AÏtemporary,€total€disability€period€exists€during€the€time€the€employee€is€òòdisabled€toÏwork.€€Simpson€œv.›€Satterfield,€óó564€S.W.2d€953€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€œexpert›€testimonyÏis€not€disputed€that€the€appellee€was€approved€to€return€to€work€in€October,€1994.Ìò òòòÓ  ÓConclusionÌÓ  Óó óóóà àThe€judgment€is€modified€to€find€that€a€finding€of€75€percent€permanentÏpartial€disability€is€not€supported€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€but€that€theÏpreponderant€evidence€requires€a€finding€that€the€appellee€suffered€a€30€percentÏpermanent€partial€disability€as€a€result€of€the€1994€injury,€thus€entitling€her€toÏrecover€120€weeks€of€benefits.€€The€judgment€is€further€modified€to€find€that€theÏappellee€is€entitled€to€recover€œtemporary,›€total€benefits€from€June€1994€throughÏDecember€1994.€€That€part€of€the€judgment€appointing€Dr.€Hester€as€the€appelleeððsÏphysician€is€vacated,€although€his€charges€to€date€are€properly€allowable€for€theÏreasons€stated.€€Ìà àOtherwise,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.€€Costs€are€assessed€to€the€partiesÏevenly.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌœÌÌÌ›ÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€JusticeÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌWilliam€S.€Russell,€Special€JudgeÌÌœÌò ò›ÌÌœó óÌÇÔ€6ÔÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌNAOMI€GENTRY,€à àà à€€€€à àà à)à àJackson€ChanceryÌà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà àà à)à àNo.€95„03€BelowÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNO.€01„S„01„9608„CH„00165ÌßJ€27;+'b|Âe` 81 `€@ÿJßà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€C.K.€Smith,€ÌLUMBERMENS€MUTUAL€CASUALTYà à)à àChancellorÌand€JACKSON€COUNTY€HOSPITALà à)à àÌà àDefendants/Appellantsà à)à àAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIED.ÌÌÌà@ àòòJUDGMENT€ORDERóóÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€motion€for€reviewÏpursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(5)(B),€the€entireÏrecord,€including€the€order€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'ÏCompensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel's€Memorandum€OpinionÏsetting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€whichÏare€incorporated€herein€by€reference;ÌÌà àà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€forÏreview€is€not€well„taken€and€should€be€denied;€andÌÌà àà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€ofÏfact€and€conclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€theÏdecision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€judgment€of€the€Court.ÌÌà àà àCosts€are€apportioned€evenly€between€the€parties.€€OneÏhalf€of€the€costs€are€assessed€against€the€appellant,€one€halfÏagainst€the€appellee,€and€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌà àà àIt€is€so€ordered€this€16th€day€of€May,€1997.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌDrowota,€J.,€not€participatingÔ€.Ô›