ÿWPC> /# ¢U:­ %ç 0(í4)8w@@€ 0J€ 0TÊ 0^ 0h| 0rä 0|V 0†Ò 0X 1uè 0d]U *ÁB)ë AQ Æe 0D+ 0@o 0D¯ DCó D/6 Be B‚ D3Ÿ AMÒ ç ç v~í vÓk˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLüÏ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡¢VK!lar3|x7 %[&'(E)*+Ó€56V7î2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó7Border 1dd(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd!#%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 óPtPtHPð€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 ÒÙ€!ÙÓ  ÓÑ  Ñò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑßL€*+%;+'h|` ç `€€LßIN›€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€PANELÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌBARBARA€ANN€HOLT,à àà àà à)à àFRANKLIN€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à à€à àà à)à àNo.€œ01SO1„9505„CH„00071(A)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€Below€œ€€13,719›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„8681ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òÌÓ  ÓòòœMEMORANDUM€OPINIONó óóó›ÌÌÌÌò òòòMembers€of€the€Paneló ó:óóÌÌJustice€Frank€Drowota,€IIIÌSenior€Judge€John€K.€ByersÌSpecial€Judge€Robert€L.€ChildersÌÓ  ÓÌÌò òÌÌÌÌœAFFIRMED.›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€Ms.€Holt€$13,196.80€permanent€partial€disability€benefits,Ïrepresenting€eighty€(80)€weeks€at€the€benefit€rate€of€$164.96€per€week,€or€twenty€percentÏ(20%)€to€the€body€as€a€whole;€and€future€medical€benefits€pursuant€to€the€TennesseeÏWorkersðð€Compensation€Act.€€The€trial€court€also€allowed€attorneys€fees€of€twenty€percentÏ(20%)€of€the€award,€in€the€amount€of€$2,639.36,€to€be€paid€in€lump€sum.Ìà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in:ÌÓÓà àà àœ1.€€€€›€€œà àFinding›€that€a€vocational€disability€based€upon€a€permanent€œ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïmedical›€œrestriction,›€with€medical€testimony€of€no€medical€œà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àimpairment›Ïrating€in€œaccordance›€with€œA.M.A.›€Guidelines€for€œà àÌà àà à€€€€€€à àEvaluation›€œof›€Permanent€œImpairment,›€œconstitutes›€a€compensable€œà àà à€€€€€Ïà àpermanent›€œ€partial›€disability€œunder›€the€Workers'€œCompensation›€œà àà àà àAct.›ÌÌà àà à2.à àAwarding€permanent€partial€disability€benefits€to€the€Plaintiff€thatÏœà àà àà àwere›€œexcessive›€and€against€the€weight€of€the€evidence.ÌÌà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ìà àÌà àMs.€Holt€filed€her€complaint€in€the€Chancery€Court€for€Franklin€County,€œà àÌÌTennessee,›€ÓÓagainst€her€employer,€Defendant€CKR€Industries,€seeking€to€recover€unpaidÏbenefits€under€the€Tennessee€Workers'€Compensation€Act€for€work„related€injuries.€€Ms.€HoltÏalleged€that€she€suffered€injuries€as€a€result€of€exposure€to€chemicals€in€use€at€the€CKRÏPlant.€€The€case€was€consolidated€with€three€(3)€other€cases€for€trial€due€to€significantÏsimilarities€in€the€cases.€€The€opinion€of€the€Court€on€the€first€issue€is€contained€in€the€case€ofÏòòAngela€K.€Hill€v.€Royal€Insurance€Company€and€CKR€Industries,€Inc.,€No.€œ01S01„9505„CH„00071,€óófiled€simultaneously€with€this€opinion.€€The€Court€held€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€inÏfinding€that€a€vocational€disability€existed€based€upon€the€testimony€of€the€medical€expertsÏthat€a€permanent€medical€restriction€existed€which€constitutes€a€permanent€partial€disabilityÏunder€the€Workerððs€Compensation€Act,€even€though€no€medical€impairment€rating€was€givenÏby€any€of€the€medical€experts.›ÌÓ  Óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÓ  Óà àAsÏto€the€second€issue,€the€Appellants€argue€that€the€amount€of€permanent€partial€disabilityÏawarded€to€Ms.€Holt€was€excessive€and€against€the€weight€of€the€evidence.€€Ms.€€Holt€is€forty„five€(45)€years€old€and€has€a€tenth€grade€education.€Her€work€experience€included€working€atÏthe€Jack€Daniels€Distillery,€handling€the€personal€business€matters€for€an€individual,€andÏsome€training€as€a€physical€therapist.Ìà àAt€CKR,€Ms.€Holt's€job€involved€trimming€rubber€to€go€around€car€windows.€€She€wasÏnot€directly€engaged€in€the€use€of€chemicals€in€performing€this€job,€but€was€in€the€vicinity€ofÍchemicals.€€Ms.€Holt€began€suffering€from€nausea,€dizziness,€hoarseness,€and€difficulty€inÏbreathing€while€on€the€job.Ìà àAt€trial€Ms.€Holt€also€testified€that€since€her€termination€at€CKR€she€has€had€lungÏproblems€and€headaches€that€seemed€to€be€triggered€by€fumes€from€a€tow€motor€or€video€jetÏmachine.€€She€also€testified€that€she€has€been€diagnosed€as€having€high€blood€pressure€andÏwas€first€diagnosed€with€this€condition€and€placed€on€medication€after€her€chemicalÏexposure.€Ìà àMs.€Holt€was€treated€by€Dr.€Stensby€who€diagnosed€her€condition€as€a€hypersensitiveÏreaction€to€Mucote.€€Dr.€Stensby€testified€that€her€condition€was€consistent€with€repeatedÏexposure€to€Mucote.€€Dr.€Stensby€stated€that€Ms.€Holt€retained€no€permanent€disabilityÏpursuant€to€the€œA.M.A.›€Guidelines€as€a€result€of€this€exposure.€€Dr.€Stensby€testified€that€Ms.ÏHolt€was€sensitized€to€Mucote€and€could€not€now€or€in€the€future€be€exposed€to€it€without€riskÏof€recurring€symptoms.Ìà àMr.€Edwards,€a€vocational€consultant€with€over€twenty€years€experience,€testified€onÏMs.€Holt's€behalf€at€trial.€€He€testified€that€the€chemicals€causing€Ms.€Holt'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.€€He€also€conducted€an€evaluation€of€Ms.ÏHolt€to€access€industrial€disability.€€His€opinion€was€that€she€suffered€a€seventy€(70%)€toÏninety€percent€(90%)€industrial€wage€earning€loss.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€jobÍopportunities€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.,€óó795€S.W.€2d€665,€666€(Tenn.€1990).Ìà àThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Ms.€HoltÏsuffered€a€twenty€percent€(20%)€vocational€disability.Ì€€à àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€are€assessed€to€the€Appellants.€€WeÏremand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€the€entry€of€any€order€necessary€to€carry€out€thisÏjudgment.ÌÌà àÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àœà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï______________________________________›Ìà àà àà àà àœ€€€€€Robert›€L.€Childers,€Special€JudgeÌÓÓÌÌœCONCUR:›ÌÓÓœÌ________________________________›ÌFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€JusticeÌÓÓÌÓÓ________________________________ÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€œJudgeÇÒ  ÒÒ £ ÒòòÔ€¼ÔßJ€*,;+'b|òÿ` ç `€@ÿJßà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌBARBARA€ANN€HOLT,à àà àà à}à àFRANKLIN€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à}à àNo.€13,719€BelowÌà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà àà àà à}Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à}à àHon.€Jeffrey€F.€Stewart,Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à}à àChancellorÌà àà àà àà àà àà à}ÌROYAL€INSURANCE€COMPANYà à}à àNo.€01S01„9505„CH„00071(A)Ìand€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;€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€XÔ›