ÿWPCÑ wX».’œ£ta×òÕÕR¿sO?õÇŒÒÕlòcl¥Zç–€»Å¥`öYp,…œ_Ê0\g·¡êN¢¨ÛŠ7¨ÄÿÛP_ÞkŒj?ïowh× ‡.ë¾û…fÀÝXUÑ­‡3–BÓPÍ0DÂo¤”¶A+Á߀cg™Ñ¢À ½ÒY‚/0‡ËT*)ñ'—t¯»˜²&Ÿ4 r‹ 6‹¬Ouа):²Ö|·½Žž%Öó.ºbKÒô°dG‚Ú¡«ènÅ*lÿ{ ê(p9],Š÷´æ×â‹O»EÏ:f÷œš9¥¸9…¬Ñþ ½2&ñA–„(ªâÊ¿¨oRžˆ/âjµóòÉ«P(¥ª‡õÜçŸÝ¼8ÓmG¢3:ѱR÷éþw6Ý”~ö,OþüÄʸ~ÀÙ},5–Èxá{–†µ¸w»ø»>7äy@iª”™í$ØÍ ʈ´Ñ]ìeúdkã^¡\Ê­[_àvrÔ;!ÿt#.ÿAºÝŽñÛš×ÉbK]Ç@Gó=-ûjй 饕LùqÕW_ûJ¥4]ýÂ{¦£êl«H°e)£í.o;OMò-Jo- ·E@ŒùŠlpÇXOmðm°ƒ?¹#  UN) %w 0û} U :x4²ÆìÕU:Á ûwL  0?U 0D”ØUNØØ&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& B555555 D3RRR 0………………………………… D+œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ AOÇÆ 0DÜ D/  BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO AYlÆÅ 0F‹˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÓH=$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XÎ_XXXÔÑ7€¾úXXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial Regularyš&øð 3|x2B âÔ€ XèXXXÔÔ€ èËSèX XèÔÔ Ad ÔÓ  ÓFILEDÔ€ †Ýè èËSÔÐ  ÐÌò òAugust€4,€1999Ð  ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€CourtÏClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularH BDBBD B!BD"B#BD$BD%Be&BÓ€1Bî2BU(ï(3w~$¤¤Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XèXXXÔÑ7€•XXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular Ô‡XèXXXÔÔ‡èËSèXXèÔÔ Ad ÔÓ  ÓFILEDÔ#†XèXèèËS#ÔÔ‡†ÝXXèÔÐ  ÐÌò òAugust€4,€1999Ð  ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€CourtÏClerkó ó d$$$$'ÿÿdxd(ï3¾$££Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XèXXXÔÑ7€•XXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ý'ÈÈÈÈdxd€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd·-¸:Müÿ << deUU…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(n$––ò ò(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)ó óÝ ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XèXXXÔÑ7€•XXdìdÈ7ÑÝ  Ýñ%Bñ›ñ%Bññ%Bñ›ñ%BñÑÀ°ÑÑX°Ñò òÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÌÌó óÓ#ÓÓ  Óà@@Ü Ü Ìàò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ˜Ø ÐSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌñ&Bñœßl€*6&"h 8 `€€Exqtt06°p¨çlߛ⠰°$$âñ&BñKNOXVILLE,€MAY€1999€SESSIONó óÐ p° ÐÓPÓÌÌÌÌÌLINDA€GRAYà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àSEVIERÐ Ú   ÐCHANCERYÌâ $$°°âà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ ¦æ  Ðà ` àPlaintiff/Appellantà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ ŒÌ  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àHon.€Teleford€E.€Forgety,à Ð àà (# àÐ X˜  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àChancellorÐ >~ ÐTENNESSEE€RESTAURANT€ASSN.à  à)à p àÐ $d ÐSELF„INSURED€and€HONEYMOONà  à)Ð  J ÐHIDEAWAY,€INC.à  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð ð0 Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àDefendants/Appelleesà À àà  à)à p àNo.€03S01„9807„CH„00075Ð ¼ü ÐÌòòò òÌÌÌÌFor€the€Appellant:à  àà h àà À àà  àà p àFor€the€Appellee:Ð 8x Ðó óóóÌLewis€A.€Combs,€Jr.à h àà À àà  àà p àRonald€C.€NewcombÐ  J Ð707€Market€Streetà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àRobin€M.€KingÐ ð0 ÐKnoxville,€Tenn.€€37902à h àà À àà  àà p àP.O.€Box€2231Ð Ö Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àKnoxville,€Tenn.€€37901„2231ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÐ  &`"& ÐÌò òòòMembers€of€Panel:Ð ò'2$( ÐÌó óóóFrank€F.€Drowota€III,€JusticeÐ Ê) &* ÐJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌÓ5 ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌREVERSED€andà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àTHAYER,€Special€JudgeÐ Ž=Î9@( ÐREMANDED.ÌÓÓà ` 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 ` àPlaintiff,€Linda€Gray,€has€appealed€from€the€action€of€the€trial€court€inÏdismissing€her€claim€by€sustaining€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€filed€byÏdefendants.Ìà ` àThe€complaint€alleges€plaintiff€was€injured€on€June€26,€1995,€while€on€theÏbusiness€of€her€employer,€when€she€was€severely€burned€by€hot€coffee€and€that€theÏburn€caused€permanent€physical€injury€and€psychological€injury.Ìà ` àThe€summary€judgment€record€consists€of€the€plaintiffððs€deposition,€numerousÏexpert€medical€depositions€of€doctors€seeing€plaintiff€both€before€and€after€the€eventÏin€question,€and€other€records.Ìà ` àPlaintiffððs€deposition€states€that€on€June€26,€1995,€while€at€her€business€office,Ïshe€realized€she€had€left€a€map€at€home€which€she€needed€to€assist€her€in€obtainingÏa€city€permit€to€build€a€gazebo€for€weddings;€that€while€she€was€in€route€to€obtain€theÏmap,€she€stopped€at€a€McDonaldððs€restaurant€to€purchase€coffee;€that€sheÏremembered€getting€the€coffee€and€putting€it€in€a€coffee€holder€in€her€car€and€thenÏð ðgoing€back€to€the€road€and€making€a€right€turn€on€the€main€road€to€Pigeon€ForgeÏand€then€I€started€feeling€sick€and€I€pulled€over€and€thatððs€all€I€remember€until€I€get€toÏVickieððs€office.ðð€€She€stated€she€had€not€worked€since€being€injured€and€that€she€isÏnot€able€to€work.Ìà ` àThe€record€indicates€there€was€no€eyewitness€to€the€event€and€she€had€beenÏtreated€for€epileptic„like€seizures€and€psychological€difficulties€prior€to€the€time€inÏquestion€and€she€continues€to€experience€such€problems.Ìà ` àPlaintiff€contends€there€is€medical€evidence€in€the€record€indicating€she€spilledÏthe€coffee€on€herself€and€then€blacked€out€as€a€result€of€the€pain€produced€by€theÏcoffee€spill;€that€when€the€record€is€considered€in€its€most€favorable€light€to€her,Ïsummary€judgment€should€not€have€been€granted;€and€that€the€trial€court€was€inÏerror€in€weighing€evidence€in€order€to€reach€its€conclusion.Ìà ` àDefendants€contend€she€had€an€idiopathic€seizure€and€then€spilled€the€coffeeÏas€a€result€of€the€seizure;€that€the€court€acted€properly€in€sustaining€the€motion€asÐ Z<š8? Ðplaintiffððs€injuries€were€the€result€of€a€non„work€related€idiopathic€attack€and€thatÏrulings€in€the€cases€of€òòSudduth€v.€Williams,óó€517€S.W.2d€520,€523€(Tenn.€1974)€andÐ ŒÌ ÐòòDickerson€v.€Trousdale€Mfg.€Co.,óó€569€S.W.2d€803,€804€(Tenn.€1978)€support€the€trialÐ \œ Ðcourtððs€ruling€and€it€is€clear€the€injury€did€not€arise€out€of€a€hazard€of€the€employment.Ìà ` àNumerous€expert€medical€witnesses€gave€depositions€which€are€part€of€theÏrecord.€€Some€of€these€witnesses€gave€testimony€supporting€plaintiffððs€theory€as€toÏthe€sequence€of€events€and€other€witnesses€supported€defendantsðð€theory.€€We€doÏnot€find€it€necessary€to€detail€the€testimony€of€these€various€witnesses€because€theÏtrial€court€was€of€the€opinion€the€expert€medical€testimony€was€not,€standing€alone,Ïsufficient€to€support€the€motion€and€there€was€a€conflict€in€the€evidence€as€to€theÏsequence€of€eventñBñsñBñ.€€We€agree€with€this€conclusion.Ìà ` àHowever,€the€trial€court€found€evidence€in€the€record€establishing€that€plaintiffÏhad€instituted€a€tort€action€against€the€McDonaldððs€Corporation€and€that€herÏcomplaint€alleged€she€had€purchased€the€coffee€from€McDonaldððs;€that€she€sufferedÏan€epileptic€seizure€and€as€a€result€the€coffee€splashed€over€her€body.€€The€recordÏalso€indicates€a€motion€to€amend€these€allegations€of€the€complaint€was€pendingÏbefore€the€Circuit€Court€in€order€to€assert€she€purchased€the€coffee,€spilled€it€onÏherself€and€then€blacked€out€from€painful€injuries.Ìà ` àThe€Chancellor€concluded€that€the€complaint€in€the€tort€case€was€anÏadmission€against€her€interest€and€under€Rule€803(1.2)ñBñ€ñBñ,€Tenn.€Rules€of€Evidence,Ïthe€pleading€was€an€admission€which€had€not€been€explained€away€to€the€courtððsÏsatisfaction.€€As€we€review€the€statements€of€the€court,€this€admission€appears€to€beÏthe€primary€reason€for€sustaining€the€motion.Ìà ` àAn€order€was€duly€entered€on€March€31,€1998,€sustaining€the€motion€forÏsummary€judgment.€€Before€it€became€final,€plaintiff€filed€on€April€16,€1998€a€motionÏunder€Rules€52€&€59,€T.R.Civ.P.,€seeking€to€alter€and€amend€the€judgment€withÏsupporting€affidavits€from€two€doctors€who€had€given€testimony€concerning€newÏopinions€as€to€the€sequence€of€events€and€that€this€resulted€from€their€receiving€andÏexamining€the€history€given€by€plaintiff€to€Dr.€Vickie€S.€Moore€who€saw€herÏimmediately€after€the€accident.Ìà ` àThe€trial€court€overruled€the€motion€concluding€plaintiff€had€not€carried€theÏhigh€burden€of€proof€in€seeking€a€new€trial€based€on€newly€discovered€evidence.Ð |;¼7> Ðà ` àOrdinarily,€the€review€of€a€workersðð€compensation€case€is€de€novo€on€theÏrecord€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€findings€of€factÏunless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).Ìà ` àHowever,€an€appeal€from€a€summary€judgment€order€in€a€workerððsÏcompensation€case€is€not€controlled€by€the€de€novo€standard€of€review€provided€byÏthe€Workersðð€Compensation€Act€but€is€governed€by€Rule€56,€T.R.Civ.P.;€òòDownen€v.Ð ¼ ü  ÐAllstate€Ins.€Co.,óó€811€S.W.2d€523€(Tenn.€1991).€€No€presumption€of€correctnessÐ ŒÌ  Ðattaches€to€decisions€granting€summary€judgment€because€they€involve€onlyñBñÏñBññBñÏñBñquestions€of€law;€thus,€the€reviewing€court€must€make€a€fresh€determinationñ BñÏñ Bññ!BñÏñ!Bñconcerning€whether€the€requirements€of€Rule€56€have€been€met.€€òòGonzales€v.€AlmanÐ ô4 ÐConst.€Co.,óó€857€S.W.2d€42€(Tenn.€1993).Ð Ä Ðà ` àIn€ruling€on€motions€for€summary€judgment€both€the€trial€court€and€theÏsupreme€court€must€consider€the€matter€in€the€same€manner€as€a€motion€for€aÏdirected€verdict€made€at€the€close€of€plaintiffððs€proof,€i.e.,€it€must€view€all€affidavitsÏand€other€records€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€opponent€of€the€motion€and€allÏlegitimate€conclusions€of€fact€therefrom€in€that€favor.€€If€after€so€doing€a€disputedÏissue€of€a€material€fact€is€made€out,€the€motion€must€be€denied.€€òòKeene€v.€CrackerÐ  Ð  ÐBarrel€Old€Country€Store,€Inc.,óó€853€S.W.2d€501€(Tenn.€App.€1992).Ð `" " Ðà ` àThe€pleadings€in€the€tort€action€constitute€an€admission€as€contemplated€byÏRule€803(1.2),€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€We€note€the€rule€specifically€providesÏthat€statements€admissible€under€this€exception€are€not€conclusive.€€The€AdvisoryÏCommission€comment€concerning€this€last€sentence€in€the€rule€states:€€ð ðall€partyÏadmissions€are€simply€evidentiary,€not€binding,€and€are€subject€to€being€explainedÏaway€by€contradictory€proof.ððÌà ` àIn€examining€the€summary€judgment€record€in€its€most€favorable€light€toÏplaintiff,€we€are€of€the€opinion€the€record€is€not€sufficient€to€support€the€granting€ofÏthe€motion€which€dismissed€the€case.€€The€admission€of€the€original€complaint€in€theÏtort€action€is€merely€evidence€supporting€defendantsðð€contention.€€There€is€otherÏevidence€in€the€record€such€as€expert€medical€testimony€as€well€as€the€pendingÏmotion€to€amend€the€original€complaint€which€could€be€considered€as€ð ðcontradictoryÏproofñ"Bñ.ñ"Bñððñ#Bñ.ñ#Bñ€€This€contradictory€evidence€cannot€be€weighed€as€to€its€value€in€summaryÏjudgment€proceedings€because€proceedings€of€this€nature€do€not€involve€findings€ofÐ Œ;Ì7> Ðfact€or€the€weighing€of€evidence.€€òòHamrick€v.€Spring€City€Motor€Co.,óó708€S.W.2d€383,Ð À Ð388€(Tenn.€1986).€€Thus,€we€find€an€issue€of€fact€does€exist.Ìà ` àThe€cases€upon€which€defendants€rely,€òòSudduthóó€and€òòDickersonóó,€supra,€wereÐ \œ Ðnot€disposed€of€at€the€summary€judgment€stage€but€from€a€hearing€on€the€merits€ofÏthe€claim.Ìà ` àAs€to€the€trial€courtððs€action€in€declining€to€accept€new€affidavits€after€entry€ofÏthe€order€sustaining€the€summary€judgment€motion,€we€would€cite€the€cases€ofÏòòSchaefer€v.€Larsen,óó€688€S.W.2d€433€(Tn.€Ap.€1984)€and€òòRichland€Cty.€Club€v.€CRCÐ \œ  ÐEquities,€Inc.,óó€832€S.W.2d€554€(Tn.€Ap.€1991).€€These€decisions€recognize€that€rulesÐ ,l Ðinvolving€post€trial€motions€after€a€hearing€on€the€merits€are€different€from€post€trialÏmotions€after€sustaining€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€and€carry€different€burdensÏof€proof.Ìà ` àThe€judgment€is€reversed€and€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€entryÏof€an€order€overruling€the€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€areÏtaxed€to€ñ$Bñthe€ñ$Bñdefendants.ÌÌÔ% € ÔÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌÓ  ÓFrank€F.€Drowota€III,€JusticeÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€œJudgeñ2BñÌñ2Bññ2BñÌñ2Bññ2BñÌñ2Bññ2BñÌñ2Bññ2BñÌñ2Bññ2BñÌñ2Bññ2BñÌñ2Bññ2BñÌñ2Bññ2BñÌñ2Bññ2BñÌñ2Bññ2BñÌñ2Bññ2BñÌñ2Bññ2BñÌñ2Bññ2BñÌñ2Bññ2BñÌñ2Bññ2BñÌñ2Bññ2BñÌñ2Bññ2BñÌñ2Bññ1Bññ1Bññ2BñÐ j<ª8? Ðñ2Bññ1Bññ1Bññ2Bñ‡ñ2Bññ1BñÒ` ÒÔ‡X>’ XXXèÔÌßn€*8($hxóR `€€Ektt06£°¨8nßâ ` £` £` $` $âÌà@n n àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEE€ˆÌà@##$àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àÌÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€à p àÐ `   Ðà  àà ° àà  àà ` àà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àLINDAÏGRAYÌâ ` $` $` £` £âà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€€SEVIER€CHANCERYÌà ¸ àPlaintiff/Appellant,à À àà  à€€€€€)à p àNo.€96„6„188Ð  `  ÐÒ HÒ€€à ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€à h à€€€€€à À àà  à€€€€€)à p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð àÐ P  ÐÓ àœX°œXÓà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€)Ìà ¸ àà0  àà0h8"8"àà0Àh8"h8"àà0À8"À8"à€€€€€)à p àNo.€03S01„9807„CH„00075à Ð àÐð0 8"8" Ðv.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà0  à€€€€€)Ðà 8"8" Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€)Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€)à p àà È àà  àà x à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð À ÐTENNESSEE€RESTAURANT€ASSN.€€€)€€à0 p àTeleford€E.€Forgety,à x àà Ð àà @Ð àà @Ð àà @Ð àаðp8"p8" ÐSELF„INSURED€and€HONEYMOON€€€)€à p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à€€€€Ð  à ÐHIDEAWAY,€INC.à h àà À àà  à€€€€€)à p àÐ Ð Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€)Ìà ¸ àDefendants/Appellees.à  à€€€€€)€€€€€Ð p° ÐÌÌÌà ¸ àà  àà h à€€€€€€€€JUDGMENT€ORDERÌÌÓ€Óà ¸ à€This€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€the€orderÏof€referral€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;ÌÌà ¸ àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€memorandum€Opinion€of€theÏPanel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌÌà ¸ àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€facts€and€conclusionsÏof€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€theÏJudgment€of€the€Court.ÌÌà ¸ àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€Appellant,€Tennessee€RestaurantÏAssociation€Self€„Insured€and€Honeymoon€Hideaway,€Inc.,€€for€which€executionÏmay€issue€if€necessary.€Ì€€€€€€08/04/99Ô#†XèX XX>’­1#Ôñ1Bñ›€Ð (2h.9 Ѐ