ÿWPCž 2# ÌU:× % 0(4?Sbw@jªª 0Jª 0Tô 0^H 0h¦ 0r 0|€ 0†ü 0‚ 1u 0d‡ AQëÆ< 0D 0@F 0D† U*Ê D/ô B# B@ D3] B) DC¹ AMü çI ç0 U6v~MvÓ˘HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÐ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡¢VK!xlar3|xn \]E^P_™`DaTbÓ€lmVnî2 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!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó< Œ 9p`(Arial(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d****7Border 1dd!#+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÝÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌOctober€17,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ÝÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌOctober€17,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó< Œ 9p`(Courier NewPtPtHPð€ÿÜÿìô”(üHPð€P € €'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  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ Ð ÒÓ  ÓÑ  Ñò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑIN›€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€PANELÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÙ€!ÙÓ  ÓœßL€,-+;+'h|` ç `€€Lß›ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌANGELA€K.ÏHILL,à àà àà àà à)à àFRANKLINÏCHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à)à àNo.€œ01SO1„9505„CH„00071›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€Below€à à13,718€€Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àÌROYAL€INSURANCE€COMPANYà à)à àHON.€JEFFREY€F.€STEWARTÌand€CKR€INDUSTRIES,€INC.,à àà à)à àCHANCELLORÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellants.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àà àà àFor€the€Appellee:óóó óÌÌRandolph€A.€Veazeyà àà àà àà àClinton€H.€SwaffordÌConnie€Jonesà àà àà àà àà àSWAFFORD,€PETERS€&€PRIESTÌGLASGOW€&€VEAZEYà àà àà àà à100€First€Avenue,€SWÌWashington€Squareà àà àà àà àWinchester,€Tennessee€37398Ì222€Second€Avenue€North,€Suite€312ÌP.€O.€Box€198681ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219„8681ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òòòœMEMORANDUM€OPINIONó óóó›ÌÌÌÌò òòòMembers€of€the€Paneló ó:óóÌÌJustice€Frank€Drowota,€IIIÌSenior€Judge€John€K.€ByersÌSpecial€Judge€Robert€L.€ChildersÌÓ  ÓÌÌò òÌÌÌAFFIRMED.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àœCHILDERS,›€Special€Judgeó óÌÌÓÓà àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workers'ÏCompensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ððÏ50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law.€€Our€review€is€òòde€novoóó€on€the€record€accompanied€by€a€presumption€thatÏthe€findings€of€fact€of€the€trial€court€are€correct€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€ÏòòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).€€Ìà àThe€trial€court€awarded€Plaintiff€Hill€$16,212.00€permanent€partial€disability€benefits,Ïrepresenting€eighty€(80)€weeks€at€the€benefit€rate€of€$202.65€per€week,€or€twenty€percentÏ(20%)€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole;€and€future€medical€expensesÏpursuant€to€the€œTennessee€Workersðð€Compensation€Act.›€€The€trial€court€also€allowed€anÏattorneys€fee€of€twenty€percent€(20%)€of€the€award,€in€the€amount€$3,242.40,€to€be€paid€inÏlump€sum.Ìà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in:ÌÓÓà àà à1.à àFinding€that€a€vocational€disability€based€upon€a€permanentÏœà àà àà àmedical›€œrestriction,›€with€medical€testimony€of€no€medicalÍœà àà àà àà àimpairment›€rating€in€œaccordance›€with€œA.M.A.›€Guidelines€forÏœà àà àà àà àEvaluation›€of€Permanent€œImpairment,›€constitutes€aÏcompensable€œà àà àà àpermanent›€partial€disability€œunder›€the€Workersðð€CompensationÏAct.Ìà àà àÌà àà à2.à àAwarding€permanent€partial€disabilityœ€benefits€to€the€Plaintiff€thatÏà àà àà àwere€excessive€and€against€the€›weight€œof€the€evidence.›Ìà àà àÌÓÓà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ìà àMs.€Hill€filed€the€complaint€€in€the€Chancery€Court€for€Franklin€County,€Tennessee,Ïagainst€her€employer,€Defendant€CKR€Industries,€seeking€to€recover€unpaid€benefits€underÏthe€Tennessee€Workers'€Compensation€Act€for€work„related€injuries.€€Ms.€Hill€alleged€thatÏshe€suffered€injuries€as€a€result€of€exposure€to€chemicals€in€use€at€the€CKR€Plant.€€This€caseÏwas€consolidated€with€three€(3)€additional€cases€for€trial€œdue›€to€significant€similarities€in€theÏcases.Ìà àAt€CKR,€Ms.€Hill€€worked€as€a€Mucote€sprayer.€€Mucote€is€a€sealant,€used€to€preventÏrubber€weather€stripping€from€drying€out,€and€contains€two€solvents,€toluene€and€methyl€ethylÏketone.€€Ms.€Hill€began€suffering€from€nose€bleeds,€difficulty€in€breathing,€upset€stomachs,Ïand€dizzy€spells€while€at€work.€€She€complained€to€the€human€resources€supervisor€andÏsafety€and€environmental€coordinator€about€her€symptoms€and€was€moved€to€œanotherÏposition.›€€When€œshe€was€later›€returned€to€the€spraying€job,€she€was€offered€a€larger€mask€andÏa€respirator.€€Ms.€Hill€testified€that€she€was€told€that€she€would€get€used€to€the€chemicals,€butÏshe€did€not.€€Ìà àMs.€Hill€was€treated€by€Dr.€Stensby€who€concluded€that€her€problems€were€caused€byÏexposure€to€Mucote.€€Dr.€Stensby€œtestified›€that€this€exposure€caused€an€acute€bronchialÏspasm€which€in€his€opinion€was€not€of€a€permanent€nature€and€would€be€relieved€if€she€wasÏno€longer€exposed€to€Mucote.€€Dr.€Stensby€found€that€Ms.€Hill€had€no€physical€impairmentÍand€therefore€gave€her€no€œimpairment€€rating›€pursuant€to€the€œA.M.A.›€Guidelines.€Ìà àMr.€Edwards,€a€vocational€consultant€with€over€twenty€years€experience,€testified€onÏMs.€Hill's€behalf€at€trial.€€He€testified€that€the€chemicals€causing€Ms.€Hill's€problems,€orÏchemicals€similar€to€those,€are€found€in€twenty„five€percent€(25%)€of€the€work€places.€€HeÏopined€that€in€his€experience€an€individual€with€a€respiratory€insult€should€not€work€in€anÏindustrial€environment€that€has€respiratory€irritants.€€œÌà àThe€trial€court€held€that€although€no€medical€impairment€rating€was€given€pursuant€toÏthe€A.M.A.€Guidelines,€because€the€doctorððs€findings€indicated€that€Ms.€Hill€has€a€residualÏimpairment€resulting€from€her€injuries€that€is€permanent€in€nature,€she€carried€her€burden€ofÏproof€establishing€both€medical€causation€and€a€permanent€impairment.€€The€permanentÏimpairment€being€€the€restriction€that€Ms.€Hill€should€no€longer€be€exposed€to€Mucote€or€itsÏcomponents.Ìà àThe€provisions€of€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241€óódo€not€apply€in€this€case€because€theÏPlaintiffððs€injuries€occurred€in€May€of€1992.€òò€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241€óóexpressly€states€thatÏit€applies€only€to€those€injuries€occurring€after€August€1,Ï1992.à àòòÓ  Óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòà àà àà àà àà àà àóóà àà àà àà àà àà àPERMANENCYÌÓ  Óà àThe€Appellant€contends€that€because€the€medical€expert€testimony€presented€at€trial€Ïshowed›€that€Ms.€Hillœ€did€not€sustain›€any€permanent€physical€or€medical€impairment€under€theÏœA.M.A.›€œGuidelines›€or€otherwise,€she€œwas›€not€entitled€to€recover€permanent€partial€disabilityÏbenefits.€€However,€it€is€undisputed€œthat›€œMs.€Hill›€was€instructed€by€her€physician€not€to€returnÏto€work€at€CKR€because€of€the€potential€for€exposure€to€certain€chemicals€which€caused€herÏœillness.›€€It€is€further€undisputed€that€CKR€terminated€the€employment€€œof€Ms.€Hill›€based€on€theÍmedical€advice€that€she€not€€return€to€work€in€the€work€€environment€at€CKR.Ìà àPermanency€must€be€established€in€worker's€compensation€cases.€€òòJohnson€v.ÏMidwesco,€Inc.óó,€806€S.W.2d€804,€806€(Tenn.€1990)€(citing€òòBlaylock€v.€Williamsóó,€483€S.W.2dÏ578€(Tenn.€1972);€òòFloyd€v.€Tennessee€Dickel€Distilling€Co.óó,€463€S.W.2d€684€(Tenn.€1971).€€ÏAppellant€argues€that€œMs.€Hill€›€failed€to€establish€the€permanency€of€her€condition€through€theÏmedical€proof€regarding€the€restriction€on€œher€›€work€environment.€€We€disagree.Ìà àAppellee€argues€that€the€facts€of€this€case€are€analogous€to€those€in€òòCorcoran€v.ÏFoster€Auto€GMC,€Inc.óó,€746€S.W.2d€452€(Tenn.€1988),€and€should€be€construed€in€the€sameÏmanner.€€In€òòCorcoranóó,€the€plaintiff€was€working€as€an€automobile€mechanic€when€in€theÏcourse€of€his€employment€he€suffered€a€hernia.€€òòId.€at€óó454.€€The€plaintiff€underwent€surgery€toÏrepair€the€hernia€and€returned€to€work€a€couple€of€weeks€later€with€permanent€restrictions€onÏlifting€and€straining.€€òòId.óó€€A€vocational€expert€testified€on€behalf€of€the€plaintiff€as€to€theÏdecreased€chance€for€the€plaintiff€to€compete€for€many€jobs.€€òòId.€atóó€455.€€The€doctor€whoÏtestified€on€behalf€of€the€plaintiff€agreed€that€the€chance€of€reoccurrence€was€significantÏenough€that€plaintiff€should€not€do€any€lifting€or€straining,€but€declined€or€was€unable€toÏattribute€a€disability€impairment€rating€to€the€plaintiff.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€defendantsððÏmotion€to€dismiss,€due€to€the€doctor's€failure€to€attribute€an€anatomical€disability€rating€to€theÏplaintiff.€€On€appeal,€this€Court€refused€to€permit€denial€of€compensation€because€a€doctor€toÏwhom€the€plaintiff€was€taken€by€the€defendants€declined€or€refused€to€attribute€an€anatomicalÏdisability€rating€to€the€œplaintiff.›€€This€Court,€while€recognizing€that€"an€anatomical€disabilityÏrating€based€on€one€of€the€two€statutory€references€is€preferable€and€ordinarily,€if€notÏuniformly,€part€of€the€proof€offered€by€either€or€both€parties,"€held€that€"the€ultimate€issue€is€notÏthe€extent€of€anatomical€disability€but€that€of€vocational€disability,€the€percentage€of€whichÍdoes€not€definitely€depend€on€the€medical€proof€regarding€a€percentage€of€anatomicalÏdisability."€€òòCorcoranóó,€746€S.W.2d€at€œ457.€€"We›€do€not€think€that,€when€medical€evidenceÏestablished€permanency,€the€failure€of€a€medical€expert€to€attribute€a€percentage€ofÏanatomical€disability€can€justify€a€denial€of€compensation€if€other€evidence€demonstrates€thatÏan€award€of€benefits€is€appropriate."€€òòId.ó󀀜Ìà àIn›€this€case,€the€weight€of€the€evidence€demonstrated€that€œMs.€Hill›€was€in€fact€entitledÏto€an€award€of€benefits.€€œShe›€was€exposed€to€chemicals€during€her€employment€at€CKR,Ïsuffered€physical€reactions€due€to€that€exposure,€and€was€terminated€due€to€her€inability€toÏtolerate€the€work€environment€at€CKR.Ìà àTaken€as€a€whole,€the€medical€proof€shows€that€the€residual€impairment€from€œMs.ÏHill's›€injury€is€permanent.€€œTherefore›€we€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€finding€that€aÏvocational€œdisability€existed›€based€œupon€the€testimony€of€the€medical€experts€that›€aÏpermanent€medical€œrestriction€existed,›€œeven€though€›€œno€medical€impairment›€rating€œwas€givenÏby€any€of€the€medical€experts.€€We€find€that€this€constitutes€a€permanent›€partial€disabilityÏunder€the€Workers'€Compensation€Act.€€œÌà@ àà€ àÌà@ àDISABILITY€AWARDÌà àThe€Appellants€argue€that€the€amount€of€permanent€partial€disability€awarded€to€theÏMs.€Hill€€was€excessive€and€against€the€weight€of€the€evidence.€€Ms.€€Hill€is€thirty„four€(34)Ïyears€old€and€has€a€tenth€grade€education.€Her€work€experience€included€cleaning€motelÏrooms€and€offices,€inspecting€clothing,€and€planting€and€potting€trees€at€a€commercialÏnursery.€€She€testified€during€the€trial€that€she€was€going€to€have€to€give€up€her€job€as€aÏcafeteria€worker€she€obtained€subsequent€to€her€termination€at€CKR€because€of€her€adverseÍreaction€to€bleach€used€in€the€cafeteria.€€€à àThe€€vocational€expert€testified€that€he€evaluatedÏMs.€Hill€to€assess€her€industrial€disability.€€He€opined€that€she€should€not€be€exposed€to€anyÏindustrial€environment€where€additional€respiratory€insult€could€occur,€and€that€she€isÏrestricted€to€a€ð ðclean€office€environmentðð€for€the€rest€of€her€working€life.€€He€further€opined€thatÏMs.€Hill's€industrial€wage€earning€loss€ranges€from€forty€percent€(40%)€to€seventy„five€percentÏ(75%).€€€€Ìà àOnce€causation€and€permanency€have€been€established€by€expert€medical€testimony,Ïthe€trial€judge€may€consider€many€pertinent€factors,€including€age,€job€skills,€education,Ïtraining,€duration€of€disability,€anatomical€disabilities€established€by€medical€experts,€and€jobÏopportunities€available€to€a€worker€with€those€anatomical€disabilities,€to€determine€the€extentÏof€the€workerððs€industrial€disability.€€òòWorthington€v.€Modine€Manufacturing€Co.,€óó798€S.W.€2dÏ232,€234€(Tenn.€1990).€€Even€where€an€expert€testifies€as€to€vocational€disability,€the€trialÏjudge€is€not€required€to€accept€without€reservation€the€expertððs€opinion,€but€is€charged€withÏmaking€an€independent€evaluation€based€on€the€factors€above.€€òòMiles€v.€Liberty€MutualÏInsurance€Co.,€óó798€S.W.€2d€665,€666€(Tenn.€1990).€€The€trial€court€considered€the€Plaintiff'sÏage,€her€education,€her€work€history€and€testimony€concerning€her€ability€to€work,€and€howÏher€skills€and€limitations€would€affect€her€reemployment€in€the€local€job€market.à àÌà àWe›€also€find€that€the€weight€of€the€evidence€supports€the€amount€of€the€permanentÏpartial€disability€awarded€to€œMs.€Hill›.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€areÏassessed€to€the€Appellants.€€We€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€the€entry€of€any€orderÏnecessary€to€carry€out€this€judgment.Ìà àÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àœ€€€______________________________________›ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àœ€€€Robert›€L.€Childers,€Special€JudgeÌÌœCONCUR:›ÌÓÓœÌ________________________________›ÌFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€JusticeÌœÌÌ________________________________›ÌÓÓJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌœÇÒ  ÒÒ £ ÒòòÔ€%¼ÔßJ€,.;+'b|òÿ` ç `€@ÿJßà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌANGELA€K.€HILL,à àà àà à}à àFRANKLIN€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à}à àNo.€13,718€BelowÌà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà àà àà à}Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à}à àHon.€Jeffrey€F.€StewartÌvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à}à àChancellorÌà àà àà àà àà àà à}ÌROYAL€INSURANCE€COMPANYà à}à àNo.€01S01„9505„CH„00071Ìand€CKR€INDUSTRIES,€INC.,à àà à}Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à}Ìà àDefendants/Appellantsà àà à}à àAFFIRMED.ÌÌÌà@ àJUDGMENT€ORDERÌÌÌÓ€Óà àà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€theÏorder€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€theÏPanel's€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference.Ìà àà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€Opinion€ofÏthe€Panel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€and€the€Court€hereby€recommendsÏthat€the€opinion€of€the€Workersðð€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€be€published;€andÌà àà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€madeÏthe€judgment€of€the€Court.ÌÓ ` ` šXÓà àà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€appellants€and€their€surety€for€which€executionÏmay€issue€if€necessary.ÌÓÓà àà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€on€October€17,€1996.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌóóÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ€/ÔÔ€/Ôœ