ÿWPCË "U Bì %.U.4rb 0Ô 0Ja«n®» 0riÛ 0TÛ 0^/ 0h 0rõ w@g 4§ 0|» 0†7 0½ 1uM U, 0dî U,R ü~ v~zvÓøô\  `*Times New RomanTTô"ÝÆÿA€ArialTT'    0 .   (e2dž$©©Ý ƒ u€!ÝÔ€XÐXôôÔÔ€X˜7XXXÐÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô3|x«ô\  `*Times New RomanTTôôCô\  PŽ6QôP"ÝÆÿA€ArialTTomanTTXXaÝÆÿptQXpô\  `*Times New RomanTTXXPô\  PŽ6QXPô\  `*Times New RomanTT¼¼^ô\  PŽ6Q¼P(Ju€$¡¡Ô€XÐXôôÔÔ€X˜7XXXÐÔÓ  Ó2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô PDPDPPDgdO˜ ðd2J 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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco òÝ ƒ !ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓÔ€ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÌÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  eskto Monaco ÒÒ  eskto Monaco ÒÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÖ€ÖÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€¼ÔÔ€ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÌSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌ(March€14,€1996€Session)ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓRICHARD€A.€HARRIS,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àà àMAURY€CIRCUITÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee,€€€€)à àà àHon.€Jim€T.€Hamilton,Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àà àJudgeÌv.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àà àNo.€01S01„9510„CV„00176ÌTRIANGLE€AUTO€SPRINGS€€€€€€€€€)ÌCOMPANY,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellant.€€)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òòFor€Appellee:óóÌÌTerry€L.€Hill€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Lawrence€D.€SandsÌManier,€Herod,€Hollabaugh€&€Smith€€€€€€€€€€€Sands€&€SandsÌNashville,€Tennessee€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Columbia,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓòòM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌÌÌòòMembers€of€Panelóó:ÌÌAdolpho€A.€Birch,€Jr.,€Associate€Justice,€Supreme€CourtÌBen€H.€Cantrell,€Special€JudgeÌJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓÌÓ  ÓAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIED€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Loser,ÏJudgeÓ ¹ ÓÌÑ7€NXôdÈXXdð7ÑÑ X Ñà àà àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€theÏSpecial€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€inÏaccordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€andÏreporting€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€In€this€appeal,€theÏemployer,€Triangle€Auto€Springs€Company,€contends€(1)€the€award€ofÏpermanent€partial€disability€benefits€is€excessive€and€(2)€the€trial€courtÏabused€its€discretion€by€commuting€such€award€to€a€lump€sum.€€The€panelÏconcludes€that€the€judgment€should€be€modified€as€provided€herein.Ó rAÓÌà àà àOn€October€4,€1991,€the€employee€or€claimant,€Richard€H.ÏHarris,€felt€a€sharp€pain€in€his€back€while€lifting€an€automobile€spring€atÏwork€for€the€employer.€€The€employer€referred€him€to€the€Mid„TennesseeÏBone€and€Joint€Clinic€where€his€injury€was€diagnosed€as€a€probableÏruptured€disk.€€Medication€was€prescribed€and€he€returned€to€work.€€WhenÏhe€did€not€improve€from€conservative€care,€a€CAT€scan€was€ordered,Ïwhich€confirmed€a€ruptured€disk€in€the€low€back,€with€L5€radiculopathyÏfrom€a€pinched€nerve.Ìà àà àUltimately,€the€claimant€was€referred€to€Dr.€Robert€Weiss,Ïwho€performed€a€lumbar€laminectomy.€€The€surgery€was€successful€andÏthe€claimant€was€finally€released€from€the€surgeon's€care€with€a€weightÏlifting€limitation€of€fifty€pounds€occasionally€and€thirty€poundsÏrepetitively.€€Dr.€Weiss€estimated€his€permanent€anatomical€impairment€atÏten€percent€from€guidelines€of€the€American€Medical€Association.Ìà àà àThe€claimant€returned€to€work€for€Triangle€in€January€ofÍ1993,€but€in€a€lighter€position,€where€he€could€work€within€his€limitations.€ÏWhen€he€was€laid€off€from€that€position€and€no€other€was€found€within€hisÏlimitations,€he€attempted€to€rehabilitate€himself€by€returning€to€college€andÏstudying€toward€an€Associate€of€Science€degree.€€The€employer€paid€half€ofÏhis€expenses.€€At€the€time€of€the€trial,€he€was€working€as€a€technician€in€theÏPhysical€Therapy€Department€at€Maury€Regional€Hospital.€€He€is€studyingÏto€become€a€physical€therapist.Ìà àà àThe€claimant€and€his€wife€own€their€home€and€are€current€onÏtheir€debts,€a€home€mortgage€and€a€debt€secured€by€their€1993€JeepÏCherokee.€€They€have€been€married€for€sixteen€years€and€have€a€youngÏdaughter.Ìà àà àThe€trial€judge€found,€among€other€things,€that€the€claimantÏhad€a€permanent€partial€disability€of€sixty€percent€to€the€body€as€a€wholeÏand€awarded€benefits€accordingly,€which€he€commuted€to€a€lump€sum.€ÏAppellate€review€is€de€novo€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,Ïaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact,€unlessÏthe€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€sectionÏ50„6„225(e)(2).€€This€tribunal€is€required€to€conduct€an€independentÏexamination€of€the€record€to€determine€where€the€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€lies.€€òòWingert€v.€Government€of€Sumner€Countyóó,€908€€S.W.2d€Ï921€(Tenn.€1995).Ìà àà àOnce€the€causation€and€permanency€of€an€injury€have€beenÏestablished€by€expert€testimony,€the€trial€judge€may€consider€manyÏpertinent€factors,€including€age,€job€skills,€education,€training,€duration€ofÏdisability,€and€job€opportunities€for€the€disabled,€in€addition€to€anatomicalÏimpairment,€for€the€purpose€of€evaluating€the€extent€of€a€claimant'sÏpermanent€disability.€€òòMcCaleb€v.€Saturn€Corp.óó,€910€€S.W.2d€€412€(Tenn.Ï1995).€€From€our€independent€examination€of€the€record€and€considerationÏof€the€pertinent€factors,€the€panel€finds€that€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€a€finding€of€sixty€percent€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€asÏa€whole€and€in€favor€of€an€award€based€on€thirty„five€percent€to€the€bodyÏas€a€whole.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€modified€accordingly.Ìà àà àPermanent€partial€disability€benefits€may,€in€the€discretion€ofÍthe€trial€judge,€be€awarded€in€a€lump€sum.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€50„6„229(a).€€In€determining€whether€to€commute€an€award,€the€courts€mustÏconsider€(1)€whether€the€commutation€will€be€in€the€best€interest€of€theÏemployee,€and€(2)€the€ability€of€the€employee€to€wisely€manage€and€controlÏthe€commuted€award.€€We€are€not€persuaded€that€the€trial€judge€abused€hisÏdiscretion€by€commuting€the€award€in€this€case.Ìà àà àAs€modified,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€CostsÏon€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€parties,€one„half€each.Ó *bÓÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓ_______________________________Ó ÓÌÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Joe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€JudgeÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌAdolpho€A.€Birch,€Jr.,€Associate€JusticeÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌBen€H.€Cantrell,€Senior€JudgeÌ