WPC} 0# U: % 0(b #w@/4o 0J 0T 0^8 0h 0r 0|p 0 0r 1uU,w 0dU, U*3 B)] DC AM  0@ D3X B D+ v~ vQ AO$s 0D9HP LaserJet 4 Plus/4M PlusHPPCL5E,,,,0 ,rAZ"Arial RegularX($- - UUӀdO 3|x2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd-%"C << G !  #d#     YYY   FILED X June20,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk ("$    '''''dxd d'dxdPtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco -%/(C` << CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ! . &Xd&#Xd#       \RA'\ћ7qXXdd7    @ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL@ ATNASHVILLEGLENNH.HALL,    )      ) Plaintiff/Appellee,   ) RUTHERFORDCHANCERY      )       ) Hon.RobertE.Corlew,III,̜VS.      ) Chancellor      )       ) No.01S019510CH00175-ٜL#$";+'h|`  `LBRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE,INC. )̜andINSURANCECOMPANYOF )THESTATEOFPENNSYLVANIA, )      ) Defendants/Appellants.  )ForAppellants:     ForAppellee:PatrickA.Ruth     R.StevenWaldronKittyBoyte      TerryA.FannNashville,Tennessee    Murfreesboro,Tennessee@ MEMORANDUMOPINION@ MembersofthePanel:@ AdolphoA.Birch,Jr.,AssociateJustice@ @ BenH.Cantrell,SpecialJudge@ JoeC.Loser,Jr.,SpecialJudge̜AFFIRMED       Cantrell,SpecialJudge    0 @ OPINION  X  ThisworkerscompensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)forhearingandreportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.  Thetrialcourtawardedtheemployee,GlennHall,workerscompensationbenefitsforthetotallossofhearinginhisleftear.Onappealtheemployerassertsthattheemployeefailedtonotifytheemployeroftheinjuryasrequiredbytheworkerscompensationstatute.Weaffirmthetrialcourtsfindingthatthepropernoticewasgiven.@ I.   Mr.HalltestifiedthatonJune22,1993hisleftearbeganhurtingafteranexplosionoccurredinthedepartmentwhereheworked.Explosionsarenotuncommoninthatdepartment,andMr.Hallcustomarilyworeearplugstoprotecthisearsfromthenoise.Atthetimeoftheaccident,however,Mr.Hallhadremovedtheearplugsbecausehewasshuttingdowntheprocesstoinvestigateaproblem.Mr.Halltoldacoworkerthathisearwashurtingandwenttoseehissupervisor.Hetoldthesupervisorthathisearhurt,andthesupervisorreferredMr.Halltothecompanynurse.  ThecompanynursewasnotcalledtotestifybuttheformsgeneratedbyMr.Hallsvisittothenursewereintroducedasbusinessrecords.TherecordsshowthatMr.Hallhadaninnerearinfection,wasoutoftheantibiotichehadbeentaking,andwasreferredtothecompanydoctor.TherecordsdonotreflectthatMr.Hallclaimedhisearproblemswereworkrelated.NeitherdothedoctorsnotesfromthatsamedayreflectthatMr.Hallwasclaimingaworkrelatedinjury.Mr.Hall,however,testifiedthathetoldthenurseandthedoctorabouttheexplosionandtheinjurytohisear.  Mr.Hallalsotestifiedthatsixoreightdaysaftertheaccidenthetoldthemanagerofhisdepartmentabouttheaccident,andthatatashiftmeetingthenextmorningthesupervisortalkedabouttheexplosionandtheinjurytoMr.Hall.Neitherthesupervisornorthedepartmentmanagertestifiedatthetrial.  ThetrialjudgefoundthatMr.Hallwasacrediblewitnessandthathehadgivenhisemployerthestatutorynotice.@ II.   ThenoticerequirementissetoutinTenn.CodeAnn.506201whichprovidesinpertinentpart:8 8 Everyinjuredemployeeor[his]representativeshall,immediatelyupontheoccurrenceofaninjury,orassoonthereafterasisreasonableandpractical,giveorcausetobegiventotheemployerwhohasnotactualnotice,writtennoticeoftheinjury,...andnocompensationshallbepayableundertheprovisionsofthischapterunlesssuchwrittennoticeisgiventotheemployerwithinthirty(30)daysaftertheoccurrenceoftheaccident,unlessreasonableexcuseforfailuretogivesuchnoticeismadetothesatisfactionofthetribunaltowhichtheclaimforcompensationmaybepresented.  Timelynoticetoanagentorrepresentativeoftheemployerissufficientnoticeunderthestatute,aslongastheagentorrepresentativehasactualorapparentauthoritytoreceivenoticeonbehalfoftheemployer.Kirkv.͜MagnavoxConsumerElectronicsCo.,665S.W.2d711(Tenn.1984).Oralnoticetotheemployeessupervisorissufficientespeciallywheretheemployerdoesnotclaimanyprejudicefromthelackofwrittennotice.AluminumCompanyofAmericav.Baker,542S.W.2d819(Tenn.1976).  ThediscrepanciesbetweenMr.Hallstestimonyattrialandinhisdiscoverydepositionandthelackofanynoticeinhismedicalrecordsimmediatelyaftertheaccidentcastsomedoubtonhisversionofthefacts.Butthecredibilityissuewasresolvedinhisfavorbythetrialjudgeandthatdeterminationisordinarilynotreexaminedonappeal.Kirkv.MagnavoxConsumerElectronicsCo.,665S.W.2d711(Tenn.1984).ThetrialjudgesfindingthatMr.Hallgavetherequirednoticeispresumedtobecorrect.Rule13(d),Tenn.R.App.Proc.Wecannotfindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstit.  Thejudgmentisaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellants.      ________________________________      BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:̜_______________________________̜ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.ASSOCIATEJUSTICE̜_______________________________JOEC.LOSER,JR.,SPECIALJUDGE