ÿWPCú …# VU:a %› 0û¡w@œ 4Ü ð ÿ  0J 0TW 0^« 0h 0rq 0|ã 0†_ 0å 1uu 0dêU *NB)xDC¡ AMä§1 BØœõv~‘vÓ D3â 0@ AOUƤ 0Dj D/® BݘHP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLhÎ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Ó~Ð$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ LegalLˆhÐ (Avery 4167 Post Card AØ'ÿ LegalhÐ (Avery 4167 Post CardTÑÔ€Xm¢XXXÔÑ7€¥3XXdìXXdæ7Ñ ÓÔÕDÖP×EØÙ ÚÓ€æÓ€òÚƒç"x„àL„ô3|xòH2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òOctoberÏ22,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó d ’Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òOctoberÏ22,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÙ€€ÙÓ` °‚X× ¸ ™XÓßR€#$"A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌÌÌÌò òÓ  ÓIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌWORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌKNOXVILLE,€APRIL€1997€SESSIONó ó€ÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌMERLIN€STEPHEN€HANDLEY,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àMcMINN€CHANCERYÌà àPlaintiff/Appellantà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Earl€H.€Henley,Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àChancellorÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌTRAVELERS€INSURANCE€COMPANYà à)à àÌand€CANTEEN€FOOD€SERVICES,€à à)à àNO.€€03S01„9611„CH„00113ÌINC.,à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appelleesà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€the€Appellees:ÌÌó óóóCharles€C.€Guinn,€Jr.à àà àà àThomas€E.€LeQuireÌ#1€Washington€Ave.à àà àà àDavid€C.€NagleÌP.O.€Box€946à àà àà àà àSuite€200€Flatiron€Bldg.ÌAthens,€Tenn.€€37371„0946à àà à707€Georgia€Ave.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€€37402ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€N€ÌÌÌÌMembers€of€Panel:ÌÌó óóóE.€Riley€Anderson,€JusticeÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌò òà àà àà àà àó óÌò òAFFIRMEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àTHAYER,€Special€Judgeó óÌÌÓÓà àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workers'ÏCompensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€ofÏfindings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€Ìà àPlaintiff,€Merlin€Stephen€Handley,€has€appealed€from€the€action€of€the€trial€courtÏin€dismissing€his€claim€for€benefits.€€The€Chancellor€held€plaintiff€had€failed€to€carryÏthe€burden€of€proof€in€establishing€his€heart€attack€was€caused€by€his€work€activity.Ìà àPlaintiff,€44€years€of€age,€was€employed€by€defendant,€Canteen€Food€Services,ÏInc.,€as€a€route€salesman.€€His€duties€required€him€to€stock€and€service€vendingÏmachines€on€an€established€route.€€On€December€13,€1994,€he€had€moved€a€largeÏnumber€of€soft€drink€cases€(75„80)€prior€to€servicing€vending€machines€on€his€route.€ÏThis€work€was€at€a€time€when€the€building€where€he€was€working€was€particularlyÏwarm.€€He€began€to€feel€unusually€short€of€breath;€had€some€pain€in€his€chest€andÏtingling€under€his€arm.Ìà àAfter€some€period€of€time,€he€decided€to€go€to€a€doctor€who€concluded€he€wasÏhaving€or€was€about€to€have€a€ð ðfull€blownðð€heart€attack.€€He€was€immediatelyÏadmitted€to€a€hospital€where€he€remained€for€less€than€one€week.€€After€beingÏdischarged,€he€was€off€work€for€about€six€weeks.€€Sometime€after€returning€to€work,Ïhe€continued€to€experience€further€problems€and€eventually€terminated€hisÏemployment€with€defendant.€€He€found€employment€involving€desk€work€where€hisÏincome€at€the€time€of€trial€was€somewhat€higher€than€his€earnings€as€a€routeÏsalesman.Ìà àPlaintiff€testified€he€had€never€experienced€any€heart€problems€prior€to€his€heartÏattack;€that€his€mother€had€a€heart€attack€in€her€fifties€and€he€had€a€couple€of€unclesÏwho€died€at€a€young€age€from€heart€disease.€€He€also€admitted€he€had€smokedÏsince€the€age€of€twenty€and€was€a€heavy€smoker€consuming€one€and€a€half€to€twoÏpacks€a€day.Ìà àThe€only€expert€medical€testimony€was€the€deposition€of€Dr.€Gregory€Brewer,€aÏcardiologist€who€treated€plaintiff.€€His€diagnosis€was€acute€myocardial€infarction.€ÏœHe›€found€œatherosclerotic›€disease€as€evidenced€by€a€80„85%€blockage€oneÏcoronary€artery€and€a€90%€blockage€of€another€coronary€artery.Ìà àAt€different€points€during€his€examination,€Dr.€Brewer€declined€to€be€pinnedÏdown€on€the€causation€questions.€€When€asked€if€the€physical€activity€of€moving€theÏsoft€drink€cases€could€have€caused€the€heart€attack,€the€doctor€replied;€€ð ðItððs€difficultÏto€say€what€specific€activity€causes€a€heart€attack.€€So€it€cannot€be€excluded,€but€IÏcanððt€say€for€sure€definitely€œthat€that€caused€myocardial€infarction€.€.€.€.ðð€€When€toldÏby€counsel€he€was€not€asking€for€certainty€in€his€question,€the€doctor€replied:€Íð ðThereððs€not€a€way€that€I€can€say€for€sure.ðð€€(Deposition€of€Dr.€Brewer,€pages€16€&Ï17).Ìà àAt€another€point,€when€faced€with€the€same€question€of€causation,€the€doctorÏreplied:€€ð ðThatððs€hard€to€answer€too.€€And€the€fact€that€he€was€also€smoking€at€theÏtime.€€And€thatððs€known€to€cause€vasal€constriction.ðð€€(Deposition€of€Dr.€Brewer,Ïpage€20).Ìà àFinally,€counsel€tried€again€and€asked€if€physical€activity€could€have€aggravatedÏhis€pre„existing€heart€disease€to€the€extent€that€it€would€precipitate€a€heart€attackÏand€the€doctor€replied:€€ð ðIððm€going€to€say€that€there€is€no€way€that€I€cannot€excludeÏthat€that›€is€a€contributor.ðð€€(Deposition€of€Dr.€Brewer,€pages€21€&€22).Ìà àOn€cross„examination,€the€doctor€admitted€the€ð ðmyocardial€infarction€can€occurÏat€random€without€an€obvious€precipitating€event.€€So,€yes,€it€can€possibly€occur€atÏwork;€it€can€possibly€occur€at€home€in€a€recliner.ðð€€(Deposition€of€Dr.€Brewer,€pageÏ33).Ìà àThe€review€of€the€case€is€òòde€novoóó€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€theÏcorrectness€of€the€findings€of€fact€unless€we€find€the€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÏis€otherwise.€€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).Ìà àAn€employee€has€the€burden€of€proving€every€element€of€the€case,€includingÏcausation€and€permanency€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòTindall€v.€WaringÏPark€Assððnóó,€725€S.W.2d€935,€937€(Tenn.€1987).Ìà àThe€rule€is€well„settled€that€if€the€physical€activity€or€exertion€or€strain€of€theÏemployeeððs€work€produces€the€heart€attack€or€aggravates€a€pre„existing€heartÏcondition,€the€resulting€death€or€disability€is€the€result€of€an€accident€arising€out€ofÍand€in€the€course€and€scope€of€the€employment.€€òòBacon€v.€Sevier€Countyóó,€808ÏS.W.2d€46€(Tenn.€1991).€€It€makes€no€difference€that€the€employee,€prior€to€theÏattack,€suffered€from€a€pre„existing€heart€disease€or€that€the€attack€was€produced€byÏonly€ordinary€exertion€or€the€usual€physical€strain€of€the€employeeððs€work.€€òòFlowersÏv.€South€Central€Bell€Telephone€Co.óó,€672€S.W.2d€769,€770€(Tenn.€1984).Ìà àIn€reviewing€the€testimony€of€the€only€expert€medical€witness,€we€find€that€heÏgave€several€explanations€as€to€what€could€cause€a€heart€attack€but€he€had€noÏopinion€as€to€the€probable€or€likely€cause€of€plaintiffððs€heart€attack.€€The€trial€courtÏfound€the€evidence€did€not€preponderate€towards€establishing€the€heart€attack€wasÏcaused€by€plaintiffððs€work€activity.€€We€cannot€say€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€this€conclusion€by€the€trial€court.Ìà àPlaintiff€also€contends€the€trial€court€was€in€error€in€excluding€an€exhibit€from€theÏevidence.€€Counsel€attempted€to€introduce€a€small€card€which€was€styled€ð ðMedicalÏExaminerððs€Certificateðð€and€was€dated€October€20,€1994.€€The€certificate€was€signedÏby€a€doctor€and€stated€plaintiff€was€found€to€be€qualified€to€drive€a€commercialÏvehicle.€€Defendants€objected€to€its€introduction€on€the€ground€it€was€hearsay,€andÏthe€Chancellor€sustained€the€objection.Ìà àOn€appeal€plaintiff€contends€the€document€is€required€by€certain€federalÏregulations€and€that€these€regulations€provide€that€a€certificate€of€this€nature€cannotÏbe€issued€unless€the€party€is€found€to€be€free€of€any€heart€disease€etc.€which€wouldÏadversely€affect€oneððs€ability€to€drive€a€commercial€vehicle.€€Plaintiff€argues€thatÏsince€44€U.S.C.€ðð€1507€provides€the€contents€of€the€Federal€Register€shall€beÍjudicially€noticed,€the€document€is€admissible€under€subsection€(10)€œof›€Rule€902,ÏòòTenn.€R.€of€Evid.óóÌà àWe€do€not€find€any€error€on€the€exclusion€of€this€evidence.€€At€the€trial€below,€itÏwas€offered€in€evidence€without€counsel€giving€the€trial€court€any€reason€why€it€wasÏadmissible€or€for€what€purpose.€€On€its€face€it€appears€to€be€a€hearsay€statement,Ïand€counsel€did€not€offer€to€introduce€it€under€Rule€902€or€any€other€rule.€ÏTherefore,€we€are€of€the€opinion€it€cannot€be€insisted€admissible€for€this€purpose€forÏthe€first€time€on€œappeal.€€òòTenn.€R.€Evidóó.,€Rule€103(a)(2).›Ìà àThe€judgment€entered€below€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€are€taxed€to€theÏplaintiff€and€sureties.ÌÓÓà àÌà àÔ% € Ôà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌE.€Riley€Anderson,€JusticeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€œJudgeÇßJ€#&;+'b|ï ` 0* `€@ÿJßà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÓ  ÓAT€KNOXVILLEÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌMERLIN€STEPHEN€HANDLEY€à àà à€€€€€)à àMcMinn€County€No.€18,859Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellantà àà à€€€€€à à€€€€€)à àHon.€Earl€H.€Henley,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€)à àChancellorÌvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€)à àSupreme€CourtÌTRAVELERS€INSURANCE€COMPANY€and)€€€€No.€03„S„01„9611„CH„00113ÌCANTEEN€FOOD€SERVICES,€INC.à à€€€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€)à àAffirmedÌà àDefendants/Appelleesà à€€€€€à à€€€€€)Ìà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€ÌÌà@ àòòJUDGMENT€ORDERóóÌÓ€ÓÌà àà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€motion€for€review€pursuant€to€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(5)(B),€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€of€referral€to€theÏSpecial€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel's€MemorandumÏOpinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€areÏincorporated€herein€by€reference;ÌÌà àà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€review€is€not€well„taken€and€should€be€denied;€andÌÌà àà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€lawÏare€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€judgment€ofÏthe€Court.ÌÌà àà àCost€will€be€paid€by€plaintiff„appellant€and€surety,€for€which€execution€mayÏissue€if€necessary.ÌÌÌà àà àIt€is€so€ordered€this€_____€day€of€_____________,€1997.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌÌAnderson,€C.J.,€not€participating›