ÿWPC}" …# VUNa %¯ 0(µU:Ýw@ 4W k 0Dz 0J¾ 0T 0^\ 0hº 0r" 0|” 0† 0– 1u& 0d› ÿ AMTU>kU *©U*ÓB)ý B&DCC AM†ÛÓ D3®dáv~E 0XÃvÓbî 0âö AOØ Æ'! 0Dí! D/1" B`"˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular MGUNGoeOGr‚PGQGeRGr‚SGTGUGDVGӀ܀ƒ"#3|xaG(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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 << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌò òApril€7,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€!ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d d####7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÑÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÑ È ÑÑ Ú ÑÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€!ÔÔ€!ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóConversely,€an€employer€is€not€responsible€for€workersðð€compensation€benefits€if€theÏemployment€does€not€cause€an€actual€progression€or€aggravation€of€the€pre„existing€condition€butÏmerely€produces€additional€symptoms€or€pain.€€€òòTownsend€v.€Stateóó,€826€S.W.2d€434,€436€(Tenn.Ï1992);€òòCunningham€v.€Goodyear€Tire€&€Rubber€Co.óó,€811€S.W.2d€888,€891€(Tenn.€1991);€òòSmith€v.ÏSmithððs€Transfer€Corp.óó,€735€S.W.2d€221€(Tenn.€1987);€òòBoling€v.€Raytheon€Co.óó,€223€Tenn.€528,Ï448€S.W.2d€405€(1969).Ì$$$$'ÿÿdxd ZÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÑ È ÑÑ Ú ÑÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€!ÔÔ€!ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThat€statute€provides€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:ÌÌà8 àà8 à(b)(1)(A)€In€cases€where€the€injured€employee€has€received€or€willÏreceive€a€workersðð€compensation€award€or€awards€for€permanentÏdisability€to€the€body€as€a€whole,€and€the€combination€of€suchÏawards€equals€or€exceeds€one€hundred€percent€(100%)Ïpermanent€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole,€the€employee€shallÏnot€be€entitled€to€receive€from€the€employer€or€its€insurance€carrierÏany€compensation€for€permanent€disability€to€the€body€as€a€wholeÏthat€would€be€in€excess€of€one€hundred€percent€(100%)Ïpermanent€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole,€after€combiningÏawards.€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(B)€Benefits€which€may€be€due€the€employee€for€permanentÏdisability€to€the€body€as€a€whole€in€excess€of€one€hundred€percentÏ(100%)€permanent€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole,€afterÏcombining€awards,€shall€be€paid€by€the€second€injury€fund.ÌPtPtHHøHÿöÿòV,(ühhØ hd'0ÿÎÿºF ® (0"ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò- ù-(’(2Ä!$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑȰÑÑÚ°ÑÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X«XXXÔÔ€ôbíôXX«Ôà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€!ԛр1ÑÑ7€æ XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  Ñò òØ ØÓ&€""X°d&ÓœßR€%A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRߛԀ!¼ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEó óÔ€!XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòò òFOR€PUBLICATIONóóó óÌÌRONALD€WAYNE€HILLòò,à àà àóóà àà à)à àò òFiled:ó ó€òòApril€7,€1997óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellantà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Billy€Joe€White,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àChancellorÌvs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àCampbell€CountyÌEAGLE€BEND€MANUFACTURING,€INC.,à à)à àà àà àÌTRANSPORTATION€INSURANCEà àà à)ÌCOMPANY,à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àSupreme€CourtÌà àDefendant,à àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03„S01„9511„CH„00123Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìandà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌLARRY€BRINTON,€JR.,€DIRECTORà àà à)ÌOF€THE€DIVISION€OF€WORKERSððà àà à)ÌCOMPENSATION,€TENNESSEEà àà à)ÌDEPARTMENT€OF€LABOR,€SECONDà àà à)ÌINJURY€FUND,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà àà à)à àà àÌÌÌòòÌÌÌÌFor€Plaintiff„Appellantà àà àà àà àFor€Defendant„Appelleeóóà àà àÌJohn€T.€Marchà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDavid€H.€Dunawayà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌDunaway€&€Associatesà àà àà àÌLafollette,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àDianne€Stamey€DycusÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSenior€CounselÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCivil€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àOffice€of€the€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÔ€!„Ôà@ àò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ€!XÔÌÌÌJUDGMENT€OF€TRIAL€COURT€à àà àà àà àà àDROWOTA,€J.€ÌAFFIRMED.ÌÓÓà àThis€case€presents€for€review€the€decision€of€the€Chancery€Court€ofÏÑ , ÑÑ ` ÑCampbell€County€finding€the€plaintiff,€Ronald€Wayne€Hill,€to€be€permanently€andÏtotally€disabled.€€The€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€uponÏreference€for€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€50„6„225(e)(5)€(Supp.€1996),€found€that€Hill€had€suffered€only€an€increase€inÏpain,€not€a€compensable€injury€by€accident,€and€dismissed€the€case.€€Thereafter,ÏHill€filed€a€motion€for€full€court€review€of€the€Panel€decision€pursuant€to€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(5)(B)€(1996€Supp.).€We€granted€the€motion€for€reviewÏto€determine€whether€Hill€suffered€a€work„related€injury€by€accident€which€wouldÏentitle€him€to€receive€workersðð€compensation€benefits€for€the€physical€impairmentÍand€for€any€related€mental€disorder.€€After€carefully€examining€the€record€beforeÏus€and€considering€the€relevant€authorities,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€finding€thatÏHill€suffered€a€work„related€injury€by€accident€which€rendered€him€totally€andÏpermanently€disabled.€ÌÌ€Ìà@ àò òòòB€A€C€K€G€R€O€U€N€Dóóó óÌà àThe€plaintiff,€Ronald€Wayne€Hill,€was€forty€years€old€at€the€time€of€trial€andÏpossessed€a€GED.€€His€prior€work€experience€consisted€primarily€ofÏmanufacturing€and€carpentry€jobs,€including€small€parts€assembler,€productionÏwelder,€press€operator,€and€construction€laborer.€€While€employed€for€theÏdefendant€Eagle€Bend€Manufacturing€Company,€Hill€was€an€assembly€workerÏwhich€was€classified€as€medium€level€work€with€occasional€lifting€up€to€oneÏhundred€pounds.ÌÌà àPrior€to€the€injury€at€issue€in€this€appeal,€Hill€previously€had€received€aÏcourt€approved€workersðð€compensation€settlement€award€of€11.5€percentÍpermanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole€for€a€back€injury€he€sustainedÏon€August€2,€1990.€€After€returning€to€work€for€Eagle€Bend,€Hill€again€injured€hisÏback€on€October€29,€1991€and€was€required€to€undergo€back€surgery€on€JanuaryÏ15,€1992€and€May€6,€1992.€€Eventually€Hill€received€a€workersðð€compensationÏaward€of€88.5€percent€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole€as€aÏresult€of€this€second€injury.€ÌÌà àFollowing€these€back€surgeries,€Hill€first€returned€to€work€in€June,€1992.€ÏHe€initially€worked€four€hours€per€day,€but€was€increased€to€six€hours€per€day€inÏJuly€and€thereafter€to€eight€hours€per€day.€€Hill€was€working€eight€hours€per€dayÏwith€restrictions€of€no€heavy€repetitive€lifting€when€he€was€again€injured€onÏOctober€20,€1992.€€Hill€testified€that€while€lifting€a€box€of€automotive€parts€on€thatÏdate€he€felt€a€severe€pain€in€his€back€that€ran€down€into€his€buttocks€and€legs.€HillÏtestified€that€the€October€20€injury€caused€him€more€pain€than€he€had€ever€beforeÏexperienced.€€Hill€said€that€as€a€result€of€the€injury,€he€has€been€unable€to€returnÏto€work€and€has€experienced€severe€emotional€problems.ÌÌà àHillððs€treating€board€certified€orthopedic€surgeon,€Dr.€James€Maguire,Ïtestified€that€the€back€condition€from€which€Hill€continues€to€suffer€is€causallyÏrelated€to€the€October€20€injury.€€While€acknowledging€that€Hillððs€MRI€studies€doÏnot€show€a€significant€interval€change€following€the€October€20€injury,€Dr.ÏMaguire€testified€that€Hill€had€suffered€a€further€permanent€injury€andÏexacerbation€of€his€pre„existing€back€condition€as€a€result€of€the€October€20,Ï1992€incident.€€Dr.€Maguire€concluded€that€Hillððs€condition€is€not€a€temporaryÏflare„up€and€assessed€a€19€percent€permanent€impairment€to€the€body€as€aÏwhole€which€included€the€October€20€injury€as€well€as€the€prior€back€injuries.€ÏBased€upon€Hillððs€physical€condition€and€the€severe€debilitating€pain€that€he€hadÏexperienced€since€the€October€20€injury,€Dr.€Maguire€imposed€a€permanent€noÏlifting€restriction€upon€Hill.ÌÌà àFollowing€the€October€20€injury,€Dr.€Maguire€also€referred€Hill€to€aÏpsychiatrist€for€treatment€of€depression.€€Hill€had€never€seen€a€psychiatrist€beforeÏthat€time.€€Dr.€Martin€Gebrow€evaluated€Hill€and€diagnosed€major€affectiveÏdisorder,€depressed€type,€single€episode.€Dr.€Gebrow€opined€that€the€mentalÍdisorder€is€directly€attributable€to€the€October€20€injury.€€€Dr.€Gebrow€testified€thatÏHillððs€depression€had€become€chronic€and€permanent€and€he€classified€HillððsÏpermanent€medical€impairment€from€the€depression€as€class€four,€markedÏimpairment,€indicating€that€Hill€is€depressed€to€an€extent€that€it€significantlyÏimpedes€all€useful€functioning.€€Dr.€Gebrow€stated€that€Hill€is€unable€to€maintainÏconcentration€and€is€unable€to€tolerate€even€ordinary€work€stresses€or€pressure.€ÏAs€for€Hillððs€prognosis,€€Dr.€Gebrow€opined€that€Hill€will€remain€chronicallyÏdepressed€and€will€have€to€remain€on€anti„depressant€medication€and€painÏmedication€to€cope€with€his€condition.€€Dr.€Gebrow€concluded€that€the€injury„induced€depression€will€prevent€Hill€from€returning€to€gainful€employment.ÌÌà àDr.€Norman€Hankins,€a€vocational€expert,€also€testified.€€Assuming€theÏrestrictions€imposed€by€Dr.€Maguire,€Dr.€Hankins€opined€that€Hill€is€100€percentÏvocationally€disabled.€€Dr.€Hankins€based€his€opinion€on€Hillððs€education,Ïemployment€background,€mental€disorder,€as€well€as€the€19€percent€impairmentÏrating€and€lifting€restriction€assigned€by€Dr.€Maguire.ÌÌà àAfter€considering€the€uncontradicted€proof€of€Hillððs€anatomical€andÏvocational€disability,€the€trial€court€found€that€Hill€had€sustained€a€work„relatedÏinjury€by€accident€on€October€20,€1992€which€rendered€him€permanently€andÏtotally€disabled.€€The€trial€court€apportioned€100€percent€of€the€liability€to€theÏSecond€Injury€Fund€because€Hill€had€received€two€prior€workersðð€compensationÏawards€which€totaled€100€percent.€€The€Second€Injury€Fund€appealed.€€UponÏreference€for€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€50„6„225(e)(5)€(Supp.€1996),€the€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€AppealsÏPanel€found€that€Hill€had€suffered€only€an€increase€in€pain,€not€a€compensableÏinjury€by€accident,€and€dismissed€the€case.€€Thereafter,€we€granted€Hillððs€motionÏfor€full€court€review€and€now€reject€the€Panelððs€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw€and€affirm€in€its€entirety€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€finding€Hill€totally€andÏpermanently€disabled€and€apportioning€the€liability€to€the€Second€Injury€Fund.ÌÌà@ àò òòòCOMPENSABLE€INJURYóóó óÌà àIn€workersðð€compensation€cases,€the€scope€of€review€in€this€Court€onÏissues€of€fact€is€de€novo€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€aÍpresumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€findings,€unless€the€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)€(2)€(1996€Supp.);€òòLollar€v.ÏWal„Mart€Stores,€Inc.óó,€767€S.W.2d€143€(Tenn.€1989).€€When€a€trial€court€has€seenÏand€heard€witnesses,€especially€where€issues€of€credibility€and€weight€of€oralÏtestimony€are€involved,€considerable€deference€must€be€accorded€the€trial€courtððsÏfactual€findings.€€òòHumphrey€v.€David€Witherspoon,€Inc.óó,€734€S.W.2d€315€(Tenn.Ï1987).€With€these€principles€in€mind,€we€examine€the€record€in€this€case€toÏdetermine€whether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.ÌÌà à€It€is€well„established€that€the€plaintiff€in€a€workersðð€compensation€suitÏbears€the€burden€of€proving€every€element€of€the€case€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence,€including€the€existence€of€a€work„related€injury€by€accident.€€òòSeeóó€òòTallyÏv.€Virginia€Ins.€Reciprocalóó,€775€S.W.2d€587,€591€(Tenn.€1989).€€An€injury€mustÏboth€ð ðarise€out€ofðð€as€well€as€be€ð ðin€the€course€ofðð€employment€to€beÏcompensable€under€workersðð€compensation.€€The€phrase€ð ðin€the€course€ofðð€refersÏto€time,€place€and€circumstances,€and€ð ðarising€out€ofðð€refers€to€cause€or€origin.€€ÏAn€accidental€injury€arises€out€of€and€is€in€the€course€and€scope€of€employment€ifÍit€has€a€rational€connection€to€the€work€and€occurs€while€the€employee€isÏengaged€in€the€duties€of€employment.€€òòOrman€v.€Williams€Sonoma,€Inc.óó,€803ÏS.W.2d€672,€676€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àExcept€in€the€most€obvious€and€routine€cases,€the€claimant€in€a€workersððÏcompensation€action€must€establish€causation€by€expert€medical€evidence.€€òòIdóó.€€ÏAlthough€causation€cannot€be€based€upon€speculative€or€conjectural€proof,Ïabsolute€medical€certainty€is€not€required€and€reasonable€doubt€is€to€beÏconstrued€in€favor€of€the€employee.€€òòWhite€v.€Werthan€Indus.óó,€824€S.W.2d€158,Ï159€(Tenn.€1992).€€It€is€entirely€appropriate€for€a€trial€judge€to€predicate€an€awardÏon€medical€testimony€to€the€effect€that€a€given€incident€ð ðcould€beðð€the€cause€of€theÏemployeeððs€injury,€when€the€trial€judge€also€has€heard€lay€testimony€from€which€itÏmay€reasonably€be€inferred€that€the€incident€was€in€fact€the€cause€of€the€injury.€ÏòòOrmanóó,€803€S.W.2d€at€676.ÌÌà àThe€evidence€in€this€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€theÏOctober€20€injury€exacerbated€Hillððs€pre„existing€back€condition€and€renderedÍhim€totally€and€permanently€disabled.€€Prior€to€that€incident,€Hill€was€workingÏeight€hours€per€day€with€a€minimal€lifting€restriction.€€Since€the€injury,€Hill€hasÏbeen€immobilized€both€physically€and€mentally.€€He€has€been€unable€to€return€toÏwork€and€Dr.€Maguire€has€imposed€a€permanent€no€lifting€restriction€which€willÏlikely€prevent€him€from€ever€returning€to€gainful€employment€in€light€of€hisÏeducation€and€training.€€Dr.€Maguire€testified€that€the€October€20€injury€caused€aÏpermanent€worsening€of€HiIlððs€back€condition€and€was€not€simply€a€temporaryÏflare„up€of€the€pre„existing€problems.€€Dr.€Maguire€opined€that€Hill€has€sustainedÏsome€permanent€impairment€as€a€result€of€the€October€20€injury.€€Hill€testified€thatÏsince€the€October€20€injury€he€has€been€unable€to€do€any€type€of€work.€€WhenÏconsidered€in€conjunction€with€Hillððs€testimony,€any€equivocation€reflected€in€Dr.ÏMaguireððs€testimony€as€to€causation€constitutes€exactly€the€type€of€reasonableÏdoubt€that€must€be€construed€in€favor€of€the€employee€and€compensability.€ÏòòWhiteóó,€824€S.W.2d€at€160.€€Moreover,€as€a€result€of€the€October€20€injury,€HillÏdeveloped€a€severe€debilitating€mental€condition€which€has€been€diagnosed€asÏpermanent.€€This€condition€prevents€Hill€from€concentrating€and,€according€to€Dr.ÏGebrow,€will€prevent€him€from€obtaining€gainful€employment€in€the€future€sinceÍhe€is€unable€to€tolerate€the€normal€stress€attendant€to€employment.€€Finally,€Dr.ÏHankins,€in€consideration€of€Hillððs€education,€background,€physical€and€mentalÏcondition€opined€that€Hill€is€one€hundred€percent€totally€and€permanentlyÏdisabled.€€This€proof€was€uncontradicted.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€theÏevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings€that€HillÏsustained€a€compensable€injury€which€rendered€him€totally€and€permanentlyÏdisabled.ÌÌÌÌà àThe€Second€Injury€Fund€argues€that€the€October€20€injury€is€notÏcompensable€because€it€produced€only€an€increase€in€Hillððs€pain.€€We€disagree.€ÏAn€employer€is€responsible€for€workers€compensation€benefits,€even€though€theÏclaimant€may€have€been€suffering€from€a€serious€pre„existing€condition€orÏdisability,€if€employment€causes€an€actual€progression€or€aggravation€of€the€priorÏdisabling€condition€or€disease€which€produces€increased€pain€that€is€disabling.€ÏòòFink€v.€Caudleóó,€856€S.W.2d€952,€958€(Tenn.€1993);€€òòWhiteóó,€824€S.W.2d€at€161;ÍòòTalleyóó,€775€S.W.2d€at€592€(ð ðThere€is€no€doubt€that€pain€is€considered€a€disablingÏinjury,€compensable€when€occurring€as€the€result€of€a€work„related€injury.ðð)€€AnÏemployer€takes€an€employee€as€he€or€she€is€and€assumes€the€responsibility€ofÏhaving€a€pre„existing€condition€aggravated€by€a€work„related€injury€which€mightÏnot€affect€a€normal€person.€€òòIdóó.€€€This€rule€applies€as€well€to€the€aggravation€of€aÏpre„existing€ð ðnervousðð€condition€by€a€physical€injury.€€òòBatson€v.€Cigna€Property€&ÏCas.€Companiesóó,€874€S.W.2d€566,€570€(Tenn.€1994);€òòThomas€v.€Aetna€Life€&ÏCas.€Co.óó,€812€S.W.2d€278,€284€(Tenn.€1991);€òòGluck€Brothers,€Inc.€v.€Pollardóó,€221ÏTenn.€383,€426€S.W.2d€763€(1968);€òòMinton€v.€Leonardóó,€219€Tenn.€642,€412€ÌS.W.2d€886€(1967).× ƒ( ××  ×ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€Hill€suffered€a€work„related€injury€on€October€20,€1992€whichÏcaused€a€progression€of€his€pre„existing€back€condition€which€producedÏdisabling€pain.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude,€that€the€evidence€supports€the€trialÍcourtððs€finding€that€Hill€suffered€a€compensable€injury€by€accident.€€ÌÌà àIn€light€of€our€conclusion€that€Hill€suffered€a€compensable€injury€onÏOctober€20,€the€Second€Injury€Fund€concedes€that€Hill€is€entitled€toÏcompensation€for€any€mental€disorder€which€resulted€from€the€injury.€€We€agree.ÏThis€Court€has€recognized€two€factual€situations€in€which€employees€mayÏrecover€compensation€benefits€for€mental€disorders.€€First,€recovery€isÏappropriate€for€a€mental€injury€by€accident€or€occupational€disease,€standingÏalone,€if€the€mental€disorder€is€ð ðcaused€by€an€identifiable,€stressful,€work„relatedÏevent€producing€a€sudden€mental€stimulus€such€as€fright,€shock€or€excessiveÏunexpected€anxiety.ðð€€€òòBatsonóó,€874€S.W.2d€at€570,€òòquotingóó€òòGatlin€v.€City€ofÏKnoxvilleóó,€822€S.W.2d€587,€591„92€(Tenn.€1991).€€Secondly,€compensation€forÏpsychological€disorders€has€been€allowed€when€an€employee€sustains€aÏcompensable€work„related€injury€by€accident€and€thereafter€experiences€aÏmental€disorder€which€is€caused€by€the€original€compensable€work„related€injury.€ÏòòBatsonóó,€874€S.W.2d€at€570;€òòGluck€Brother,€Inc.óó,€òòsupraóó;€òò€Mintonóó,€òòsupraóó.ÌÌà àThe€evidence€in€this€case€is€clear€that€the€October€20€compensable€work„related€injury€resulted€in€a€mental€disorder.€€Prior€to€the€October€20€injury,€HillÏhad€never€seen€a€psychiatrist€and€had€no€history€of€mental€disorders.€€Dr.ÏGebrow€attributed€the€mental€condition€to€the€October€20€injury.€€Accordingly,€HillÏis€entitled€to€recover€for€the€mental€disorder€which€resulted€from€theÏcompensable€injury.ÌÌà àHaving€concluded€that€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€courtððs€findings€thatÏHill€suffered€a€compensable€injury€which€rendered€him€totally€and€permanentlyÏdisabled,€we€also€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€apportioning€the€award€to€theÏSecond€Injury€Fund.€Pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€50„6„208(b)(1991€Repl.€&ÏSupp.€1996),× ƒ+ ××  ×€the€Second€Injury€Fund€is€liable€for€benefits€in€excess€of€100Ípercent€when€the€sum€of€two€or€more€prior€workers€compensation€awards€forÏpermanent€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole€equal€or€exceed€100€percentÏpermanent€disability.€€òòHenson€v.€City€of€Lawrenceburgóó,€851€S.W.2d€809,€812Ï(Tenn.€1993).€€In€this€case,€Hill€has€two€prior€workers€compensation€œawards›€forÏpermanent€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole€which€total€100€percent,€11.5€percentÏand€88.5€percent,€respectively.€€Therefore,€in€this€case,€the€trial€court€correctlyÏapportioned€the€award€of€100€percent€total€disability€to€the€Second€Injury€Fund.ÌÌà@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONó óóóÌà àFor€the€reasons€previously€stated€herein,€the€evidence€in€this€recordÏsupports€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Hill€sustained€a€compensable€injury€byÏaccident€on€October€20,€1992€which€rendered€him€totally€and€permanentlyÏdisabled.€€Therefore,€we€reject€the€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€of€theÍSpecial€Workersðð€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€defendant,€Second€Injury€Fund.Ìà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÓÓà à_____________________________________Ïà àà àà àà àà àFrank€F.€œDrowota,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àJusticeÓÓÌÓÓConcur:ÌÌBirch,€C.€J.,€ÌReid,€Holder,€JJ.ÌAnderson,€J.,€Not€Participating.ÌÓÓ