ÿWPC&# Æ# ä U:ï %) 0û/ w@*4j~ “Æ›ÆaÆ'ÆíƳ 0Jy 0Tà 0^ 0hu 0rÝ 0|O 0†Ë 0Q 1uá 0dVU*º BäB)DC* AOm¨¼ D3dv~—vÓ 0@è 0K(! D+s! AOž! 0Dí! D/1" B`" A©}"˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,hh,,,0nLhÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Óý,$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XûXXXÔÑ7€>‚XXdðXXdð7Ñ ,-.U/U012345Ó€·‚^!3|x@HRLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial d% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd-.'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ žÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òFebruaryÏ27,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó%%%%'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'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'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÝ  Ý›ò òÓ  ÓÞ ÞÌIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANEL̜ـÙßR€()'A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRß›KNOXVILLE,€DECEMBER€1996€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° Òó óHUBERT€M.€HURD,à àà àà à)à àKNOX€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€H.€DAVID€CATE,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àCHANCELLORÌGENERAL€SHALE€PRODUCTS€à àà à)ÌCORPORATION€and€CNA€à àà à)ÌINSURANCE€COMPANY,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellantsà àà à)à àNO.€€03S01„9603„CH„00026ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€the€Appellantsà àà àà àFor€the€Appellee:ÌÌó óóóMichael€œJ.›€Mollenhourà àà àà àJ.€Anthony€FarmerÌP.O.€Box€9799à àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€709ÌKnoxville,€TN€€37940à àà àà àKnoxville,€TN€€37901ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌÌMembers€of€Panel:ÌÌó óóóÌE.€Riley€Anderson,€JusticeÌRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌœò òÓ  ÓAFFIRMED.ÌÌ›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àTHAYER,€Special€Judgeó óÌÑ  ÑÓÓà àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€SpecialÏWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordanceÏwith€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€theÏSupreme€Court€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€Ìà àDefendants,€General€Shale€Products€œCorporation›€and€CNA€InsuranceÏœCompaÌny,›€have€appealed€from€the€action€of€the€trial€court€in€awarding€plaintiff,€HubertÏM.€Hurd,€30%€permanent€partial€disability€benefits€to€the€body€as€a€whole.Ìà àThe€only€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthe€award€of€benefits.Ìà àPlaintiff€Hurd€was€injured€in€the€course€and€scope€of€his€employment€onÏAugust€20,€1990,€while€manually€rolling€up€a€truck€cover.€€The€equipment€didÏnot€work€properly,€and€plaintiff€was€pushing€with€his€right€arm€when€he€tore€aÏbiceps€tendon.Ìà àPlaintiff€was€63€years€of€age€at€the€time€of€the€trial.€€He€completed€the€8thÏgrade€and€later€received€a€G.E.D.€certificate.€€He€had€been€employed€byÏGeneral€Shale€for€41€years€and€at€the€time€of€the€accident€was€operating€aÏdump€truck.€€During€his€entire€employment,€he€had€worked€at€different€positionsÏsuch€as€a€grinding€machine€operator,€a€brick€machine€operator,€a€fireman€onÏthe€kiln,€a€œforkÔ% € Ôlift›€operator€and€a€œfront„end›€loader€operator.Ìà àHe€continued€to€work€after€the€accident€at€the€same€job€as€his€employerÏinstalled€an€electric€motor€on€the€vehicle€which€would€roll€up€the€truck€cover€andÏeliminate€the€manual€operation.€€Although€he€has€continued€to€work,€he€told€theÏcourt€he€does€not€have€the€strength€in€his€arm€and€shoulder€as€prior€to€thisÏinjury;€he€testified€his€grip€in€his€arm€is€now€weak€and€when€he€carries€anything,Ïit€is€hard€to€straighten€his€arm€back€out.Ìà àDr.€John€Bell,€an€orthopaedic€surgeon,€treated€plaintiff€for€his€injuries.€ÏHis€testimony,€which€was€by€deposition,€indicated€plaintiff€had€sustained€anÏinjury€to€his€arm€and€shoulder€from€the€tear€of€the€tendon€and€a€neck€injuryÏwhere€there€was€an€aggravation€of€a€previous€condition€due€to€degenerativeÏchanges.€€He€said€surgery€on€the€arm€was€not€performed€as€it€would€notÏimprove€his€strength.€€Treatment€consisted€of€therapy€and€medication€on€aÏregular€basis€for€some€period€of€time.Ìà àThe€doctor€gave€plaintiff€a€medical€impairment€of€5%€to€the€right€arm€andÏshoulder€which€converted€to€a€9%€impairment€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€HeÏadded€a€3%€impairment€of€the€neck€resulting€in€a€total€impairment€of€12%€to€theÏwhole€body.Ìà àPrior€to€this€accident,€plaintiff€had€received€a€workersðð€compensationÏsettlement€of€45%€to€the€body€as€a€whole€due€to€the€development€of€an€asthmaÏcondition.€€He€testified€the€asthma€did€prevent€him€from€doing€strenuousÏphysical€work€but€it€had€no€effect€on€his€right€arm€and€shoulder.€€He€told€the€trialÏcourt€that€he€had€to€avoid€dusty€work€conditions,€and€the€asthma€problem€wasÏgenerally€under€control€with€the€medication€he€was€taking.Ìà àAt€the€prior€trial€and€the€hearing€before€the€Chancellor€in€the€presentÏcase,€plaintiff€was€questioned€extensively€concerning€how€each€injury€affectedÏhis€work€activity.€€He€detailed€numerous€things€he€could€not€do€because€of€theÏasthma€condition.€€He€also€admitted€he€could€not€do€many€of€the€same€activitiesÏbecause€of€his€arm€and€shoulder€injury.€€This€testimony€forms€the€basis€ofÏdefendantsðð€appeal€as€they€insist€there€is€no€new€or€additional€legal€disability€asÏa€result€of€the€second€claim.Ìà àOur€review€of€the€case€is€òòde€novoóó€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€theÏcorrectness€of€the€findings€of€fact€unless€we€find€the€preponderance€isÏotherwise.€€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).Ìà àAn€employee€has€the€burden€of€proving€every€element€of€the€case,Ïincluding€causation€and€permanency€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€ÏòòTindall€v.€Waring€Park€Assððnóó,€725€S.W.2d€935,€937€(Tenn.€1987).Ìà àIn€fixing€legal€or€vocational€disability,€anatomical€disability€ratings€areÏonly€one€of€many€factors€to€be€considered.€€The€real€test€is€whether€there€hasÏbeen€a€decrease€in€the€employeeððs€capacity€to€earn€wages€in€any€line€of€workÏavailable€to€the€employee€considering€his€age,€education,€skills,€training,€localÍjob€opportunities€and€capacity€to€work€at€types€of€employment€available€inÏclaimantððs€disabled€condition.€€òòOrman€v.€Williams„Sonoma,€Inc.óó,€801€S.W.2dÏ672,€678€(Tenn.€1991).Ìà àIn€determining€whether€the€employeeððs€capacity€to€earn€wages€has€beenÏdecreased,€this€is€to€be€examined€in€relation€to€the€open€labor€market€and€notÏwhether€the€employee€is€able€to€return€and€perform€the€job€held€at€the€time€ofÏthe€injury.€€òòClark€v.€Natððl€Union€Fire€Ins.€Co.óó,€774€S.W.2d€586,€588€(Tenn.€1989).Ìà àIt€is€true€as€insisted€by€defendants€the€employee€was€already€limited€inÏsome€activities€by€the€prior€workersðð€compensation€claim€due€to€the€asthmaÏcondition.€€On€the€œother€hand,›€the€claimant€did€detail€limitations€from€the€armÏand€shoulder€injury€which€were€new€limitations€on€his€work€activity.€€To€thisÏextent,€his€claim€for€a€new€permanent€injury€and€disability€would€be€supported.Ìà àIn€considering€his€age,€work€experience,€education€and€all€of€the€otherÏfactors€which€must€be€examined,€we€cannot€say€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€the€award€of€benfits€allowed€by€the€Chancellor.Ìà àThe€judgment€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€are€taxed€to€theÏdefendants€jointly.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌE.€Riley€Anderson,€JusticeÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€œSÌSpecial›€œJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÇÇÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àà àà àÌà àà àà àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€AT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÌÒ S ÒÒ ° ÒHUBERT€M.€HURD,€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à€à à€)€€€€€€€€€KNOX€CHANCERYà àà àà àà à€à à€à à€à à€à àÏ)à àNo.110338„2€€à àà à€€à à€à àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà à€)à à€à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àHon.€H.€David€Cateà àÌvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àChancellorÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à à03S01„9603„CH„00026ÌGENERAL€SHALE€PRODUCTSà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€ÌCORPORATION€and€CNA€à à€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à€)ÌINSURANCE€CO.à àà àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà à€Defendants/Appellants.à àà à€)à àà àà àà à€Ô€$îÔÌÌÌÌÓffÓà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€òòJUDGMENT€ORDERóóÌÌà àà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,Ïincluding€the€order€of€referral€to€the€Special€WorkerððÏCompensation€Panel,€and€the€Panelððs€Memorandum€OpinionÏsetting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€whichÏare€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ìà àÌà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€theÏMemorandum€Opinion€of€the€Panel€should€be€accepted€andÏapproved€;€andÌÌà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panelððs€findings€of€act€andÏconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decisionÏof€the€Panel€is€made€the€Judgment€of€the€Court.ÌÌà àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€defendants€jointly€andÏtheir€sureties,€Lewis,€King€Krieg,€Waldrop€&€Catron,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€Ì€Ì02/27/97à àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÔ€$XÔÌ