ÿWPCì# Æ# ä UNï %= 0ûC U:>4xŒÆ›aw@iÆ© oÆuÆ;Æ 0JÇ 0T 0^e 0hà 0r+ 0| 0† 0Ÿ 1u/ 0d¤U> BFU*cU*B)·DCà D3# AOV¸¥ 0@] 0Kv~èvÓf D+9" AOd" 0D³" D/÷" B&# A©C#˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÓH=$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XÎ_XXXÔÑ7€¾úXXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularR¦"3|xí Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 Ù Ú Û EÜ Ý EÞ ß Eà á Dâ Ó€‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5HƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd%%%%'ÿÿdxd-.)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ®Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€&ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òJuneÏ3,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó 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 Ò'ÈÈÈÈdxd-‚ƒCþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd -.:›&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€&ÔÑ#€''Xd#ÑÑ#€''Xd#ÑÝ  Ýò òÑ  ÑÓ  Ó›Þ ÞÌÌÓ  Óó óà@ àò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€œKNOXVILLEÔ% € Ôó ó›ÌÌÌÌÌVERNON€HARRIS,à àà àà àà à)à àWASHINGTON€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àPlaintiff/Appellantà àà àà à)à àNO.€03S01„9606„„CV„00069Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€€RICHARD€G.€JOHNSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGE̜ـÙßR€+,)A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRß›BURLINGTON€INDUSTRIES,€INC.,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appelleeà àà à)Ìà àÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€the€Appellee:Ìó óóóœShannon›€D.€Faulkner,€IIIà àà àà àJ.€Eddie€œLauderback›ÌGilbert€&€Faulknerà àà àà àà àHerndon,€Coleman,€œBrading›€&€œMcKee›ÌSuite€625à àà àà àà àà à104€E.€Main€StreetÌ625€Gay€Streetà àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€1160ÌKnoxville,€TN€37902à àà àà àJohnson€City,€TN€37605„1160ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌMembers€of€Panel:Ìóóó óÌFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€JusticeÌWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌJoseph€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àINMAN,€SeniorÏJudgeÌÓÓó 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 àThe€appellant€recognizes€the€established€rule€in€this€State€that€a€secondÏinjury€is€not€compensable€unless€there€is€evidence€of€an€anatomical€œchange,›ÏòòCunningham€v.€Goodyear,€óó841€S.W.2d€888€(Tenn.€1991),€but€insists€the€rule€shouldÏnot€have€been€applied€in€this€case.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€alleged€and€testified€that€he€injured€his€back€on€January€4,€1994Ïwhile€lifting€a€heavy€œobject€during€the€course€of€his€employment.›Ìà àHe€had€injured€his€back€in€1991,€and€was€treated€by€chiropractic,€but€did€notÏpursue€a€claim€for€benefits.€€Between€1991€and€1994€he€denied€a€re„injury,€butÏtestified€to€a€number€of€ð ðflare„ups.ðð€€The€plaintiff€insists€that€he€suffered€anÏaggravation€of€the€1991€injury€and€that€he€is€entitled€to€benefits€accordingly.Ìà àFollowing€the€January€4,€1994€injury,€he€sought€chiropractic€treatment€again,Ïand€was€referred€to€Dr.€Stephen€œNatelson›,€a€neurosurgeon,€who€performed€aÏhemilaminectomy.€€The€plaintiff€represented€to€Dr.€œNatelson›€that€he€had€no€previousÏback€problems.€€He€was€initially€seen€by€Dr.€Natelson€on€November€14,€1994.€€TheÏcorrective€surgery€was€performed€on€January€10,€1995.Ìà àOn€January€5,€1994,€the€day€after€the€plaintiff€œallegedly€injured›€his€back,€heÏwas€seen€by€Dr.€John€L.€Holbrook,€an€orthopedic€surgeon,€to€whom€he€related€aÏlengthy€history€of€back€problems.€€A€comprehensive€examination€was€madeÏresulting€in€a€final€diagnosis€of€degenerative€disc€disease.€€He€was€seen€again€onÏMay€24,€1994,€complaining€of€back€pain,€and€another€examination€resulted€in€theÏsame€findings€as€before.€€During€all€this€time€the€plaintiff€was€also€being€treated€byÏchiropractic.€€Dr.€Holbrook€testified€that€there€were€no€anatomical€changes€œin›€theÏplaintiffððs€lumbar€spine€between€1991€and€œ1994;›€i.e.,€that€the€plaintiff€had€notÏsuffered€a€re„injury€as€claimed.Ìà àOur€review€is€òòde€novoóó€on€the€record,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€of€the€findings€of€fact€œof€the€trial€court€unless›€the€preponderance€ofÏevidence€is€otherwise.€€T.€C.€A.€ðð€50„6„225(e);€òòLock€v.€National€Union€FireÏInsurance€Company,€óó809€S.W.2d€483€(Tenn.€1991).€€This€standard€of€reviewÏrequires€the€reviewing€court€to€examine,€in€depth,€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findingsÏand€conclusions.€€òòGalloway€v.€Memphis€Drum€Services,€óó822€S.W.2d€584€(Tenn.Ï1991).€€We€are€required€to€conduct€an€independent€examination€of€the€record€toÏdetermine€where€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€lies.€€òòWingert€v.€Government€ofÏSumner€County,€óó908€S.W.2d€921€(Tenn.€1995).€€Ìà àAll€of€the€medical€proof€in€this€case€was€taken€by€deposition€and€theseÏdepositions€were€introduced€as€exhibits€at€the€trial.€€This€court€is,€therefore,€as€wellÏsituated€to€gauge€the€weight,€worth€and€significance€of€the€medical€proof€as€was€theÏtrial€court.€€òòœSeiber›€v.€œGreenbrier›€Industries,€Inc.,€óó906€S.W.2d€444€(Tenn.€1995).Ìà àThe€medical€evidence€clearly€reveals€that€the€plaintiff€had€a€significant€lowÏback€problem€before€his€claimed€work€injury€on€January€4,€1994,€and€that€thisÏhistory€extended€over€at€least€a€two„year€period.€€In€Tennessee,€work€thatÏaggravates€an€employeeððs€pre„existing€injury€or€condition€by€increasing€the€amountÏof€pain,€but€œwhich›€does€not€otherwise€ð ðinjure€or€advance€the€severityðð€of€theÏemployeeððs€injury€or€pre„existing€condition,€is€not€œcompensable.›€€òòCunningham€v.ÏGoodyear€Tire€and€Rubber€Company,€óó811€S.W.2d€888€(Tenn.€1991).Ìà àBoth€orthopedic€surgeons€testified€that€there€was€no€significant€change€in€theÏplaintiffððs€low€back€condition€during€the€interim€as€revealed€by€the€ððpre„injuryðð€andÏððpost„injuryðð€MRI€scans.Ìà àThe€Chancellor€applied€the€œrule›€in€òòCunningham,€œsupra,óó›€and€dismissed€theÏcomplaint.€€We€have€reviewed€all€of€the€medical€evidence€and€agree€with€theÏappellee€that€the€great€preponderance€of€the€evidence€establishes€beyondÏperadventure€that€the€severity€of€the€plaintiffððs€low„back€condition€œwas€ð ðnot›Ïadvancedðð€by€the€claimed€1994€injury.€€Moreover,€we€note€that€the€credibility€of€theÏplaintiff€posed€a€serious€barrier€to€the€resolution€he€œseeks;›€his€discovery€testimonyÏabout€an€injury€brought€on€by€weight€lifting,€or€from€alighting€from€an€automobile,€orÏfrom€yard€work,€or€from€a€water€slide€while€on€vacation,€as€contradistinguished€fromÏin„court€testimony,€was€productive€only€to€buttress€the€expert€testimony.Ìà àThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court,Ïwhich€is€affirmed€at€the€costs€of€the€appellant.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€JusticeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJoseph€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€Judgeà àœÇÒ  ÒÒ H Òà àà àà àÌà àà àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€à à€€€€€€€€€AT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÒ S ÒÒ H ÒVERNON€HARRIS,€à àà à€€€€€€)€€€WASHINGTON€CIRCUIT€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àà à€€€€€€)€€€€No.€16599€€à à€€€€€€à à€à à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à€€€€€Ï)à àà à€à àÌvs.€€à àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€)€€€€€Hon.€Richard€G.€Johnson.,à à€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï)€€€€€JudgeÌBURLINGTON€INDUSTRIES,€INC.€€€€€)Ì€€€€à àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€Defendant/Appellee,à àà à€€€€€€€)€€€€€No.€03S01„9606„CV„00069€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà à€à àà àÌÓ ì ÓÌÓffÓà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€òòJUDGMENT€ORDERóóÌà àÌà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€ofÏreferral€to€the€Special€Workerðð€Compensation€Panel,€and€the€PanelððsÏMemorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€whichÏare€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ìà àÌà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€Opinion€of€theÏPanel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌÌà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panelððs€findings€of€act€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€JudgmentÏof€the€Court.ÌÌà àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€€to€the€plaintiff„appellant,€Vernon€Harris€andÌGilbert€and€Faulkner.€surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€ÌÌ06/03//97à àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌà à›à àà à