ÿWPC( ²N‰¤º‹ã+ŠÜ àþñh}êëâ©¥’d&éôÁ©Þ0ñÐ{WÓb>Ðsâ³ÇQ´GNê`Œb¯KW$¿Dù'I+/iø‰é·È ‡k€¯ÃÉÏ®bj¨«¾—eÔ Ò;CX¸Ø—@ò H9â+ý¿Xˆ‘Eîm†›cÇKüòJ$Ä÷Aa°—Ñ9’†–¸ µÎ#H¾ÿÅg Ú””H=-Ùý2 ó0+bt”G»bÔHGh`Žõ9“ö°ÚíøåÁ›Ÿ–Ê0)#‚–Î6±¡{s£<ÊÔ”eÍKò µ!á$jæ£ nÒ|uÐÅM ËdùÖÀµv_„¨Ú.æ¹fÐ"—dL=^P5šéäF×dþ²h1su:´³ê{Ü^x¸ Nu¬Cãšþ£ŽyœK¨ýöø±”ã¶íÞÚ†‚@þì ´ˆýß:ÉÂÑ‹ór Y_îz{EÈA .§›…:BÛ3ÖÕ—l>ƒ‘ ´ê²7( ⥛¼¸›œµ²)tXž4ÄîïDyIôL(,ûÝ\oà‡\aÞ7˜Ÿe©-¦aðÊØ^rÕ5náEÌNì0õ- -~m¢sYojþ°>ä?-Å.à{‡Íí¦ßРبÛSø¿@¿Tͨó95ÇòÌ…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0û¥ U:  4Ú î íý U:ê $*w@2 0?r 0D±íõU:ââââââââââââââââââââ B D3999 0llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll AOƒÆÒÒ 0D˜ D/Ü B ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÓH=$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XÎ_XXXÔÑ7€¾úXXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial Regularw€#%x3|x¤2 ãÔ€ X˜›XXXÔÔ€ èK)èX X˜›ÔÔ Ad ÔÓ  ÓFILEDÔ€ výè èK)ÔÐ  ÐÌò òJanuary€7,€1999Ð  ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€CourtÏClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularH ‡2eˆ2Ó€“2V”2D•2D–2V—2D˜2V™2îš2Ó€(ï(3•y$¤¤Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€X˜›XXXÔÑ7€%sXXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ãÔ€X˜›XXXÔÔ€èK)èXX˜›ÔÔ Ad ÔÓ  ÓFILEDÔ€výèèK)ÔÐ  ÐÌò òJanuary€7,€1999Ð  ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€CourtÏClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d$$$$'ÿÿdxd(ï3¹$££Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€X˜›XXXÔÑ7€%sXXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€X˜›XXXÔÑ7€%sXXdìdÈ7ÑÝ  Ýñ‡2ñ›ñ‡2ññ‡2ñ›ñ‡2ñÑÀ°ÑÑX°Ñò òÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÌÌó óÓ#ÓÓ  Óà@@Ü Ü Ìàò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ˜Ø ÐWORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌñˆ2ñœßl€*6&"h 8 `€€Exqtt06°p¨çlßñˆ2ññ™2ññˆ2ñ›ñˆ2ññ™2ññˆ2ñâ °°$$âñˆ2ññ”2ññ“2ñÐ #p°°° #Ðñ“2ññ”2ñKNOXVILLE,›€JUNE€1998€SESSIONó óÐ p° ÐÓPÓœñ•2ñÌ›Ìñ•2ñ›ÌÌÌGREGORY€HALEà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àMcMINNÐ  N ÐCHANCERYÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ Ú   Ðà ` àPlaintiff/Appellantà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ À  Ðâ $$°°âà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌV.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ ŒÌ  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ r²  ÐATHENS€STOVE€WORKSà À àà  à)à p àÐ X˜  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àHon.€Earl€H.€Henley,Ð >~ Ðà ` àDefendant/Appelleeà À àà  à)à p àChancellorÐ $d Ðò òòòà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó óóóà  à)Ð  J Ðandà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð ð0 Ðòòò òà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àó óóó)òòò òà p àÐ Ö Ðó óóóSUE€ANN€HEAD,€DIRECTOR€OF€THE€à  à)Ð ¼ü ÐSECOND€INJURY€FUNDà h àà À àà  à)Ð ¢â Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àDefendant/Appelleeà À àà  à)òòò òà p àóóó óNO.€03S01„9708„CH„00104ò òòòÐ n® ÐÌÌÌÌÌFor€the€Appellant:à  àà h àà À àà  àà p àFor€the€Appellees:Ð ð0 Ðó óóóÌConrad€Finnellà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àDonald€B.€ReidÐ    ÐP.O.€Box€1476à  àà h àà À àà  àà p à10€West€Madison€Ave.Ð ¨!è! ÐCleveland,€Tenn.€€37364„1476à À àà  àà p àP.O.€Box€628Ð Ž"Î" Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAthens,€Tenn.€€37371„0628ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àKathleen€W.€StrattonÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à425€Fifth€Ave.€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€Bldg.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€Tenn.€€37243ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÐ V-–). ÐÌò òòòMembers€of€Panel:Ð (/h+0 ÐÌó óóóWilliam€M.€Barker,€JusticeÐ 1@-2 ÐJoe€C.€Loser,€Special€JudgeÌRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌÓ<ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àTHAYER,€Special€JudgeÐ ®<î8? ÐÐ ”=Ô9@( ÐÓÓà ` àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workers'ÏCompensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€findings€ofÏfact€and€conclusions€of€law.€Ìà ` àThe€employee,€Gregory€Hale,€has€perfected€an€appeal€from€a€decision€of€theÏtrial€court€which€declined€to€modify€and€increase€an€award€of€25%€permanent€partialÏdisability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.Ìà ` àPlaintiff€began€working€for€defendant,€Athens€Stove€Works,€in€1987€andÏsustained€an€on„the„job€injury€during€1988€which€resulted€in€surgery€on€his€back€for€aÏdisc€problem.€€His€doctor€gave€him€a€15%€medical€impairment€and€the€court€awardedÏ25%€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole,€etc.€€After€being€off€from€work€for€about€elevenÏmonths,€he€returned€to€work€performing€the€same€duties.Ìà ` àOn€about€April€17,€1990,€while€working€as€a€welder,€he€sustained€anotherÏinjury€to€his€back.€€A€trial€was€conducted€on€June€4,€1993€which€resulted€in€anÏadditional€award€of€25%€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€AÏjudgment€for€this€award€was€entered€on€August€13,€1993.€€Before€the€judgmentÏbecame€final,€plaintiff€filed€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€and/or€to€alter€the€judgmentÏseeking€to€increase€the€award€based€on€newly€discovered€medical€evidence.€€TheÏrecord€indicates€there€were€no€further€hearings€until€July€1997€when€the€courtÏreconsidered€the€case€by€reviewing€additional€medical€records€of€the€treatingÏphysician€and€plaintiffððs€testimony€and€determined€it€was€not€appropriate€to€adjust€orÏalter€the€award€of€disability.Ìà ` àAt€the€trial€for€the€second€and€last€injury,€plaintiff€testified€he€was€34€years€ofÏage€and€was€a€high€school€graduate.€€He€said€he€also€had€some€vocational„technicalÏschool€training€and€possessed€a€drafting€license.€€He€stated€that€after€the€1990Ïinjury,€he€continued€to€do€light€work€(mostly€sweeping)€until€about€June€22,€1990,Ïwhen€he€was€terminated€because€his€employer€stated€there€was€no€work€availableÏwhich€he€could€do€in€his€condition.Ìà ` àThe€record€indicates€he€has€not€worked€since€leaving€employment€withÏdefendant.€€He€told€the€court€he€was€in€a€great€deal€of€pain€and€could€not€sit€or€standÏfor€any€prolonged€period€of€time€and€that€he€had€to€take€medication€regularly€toÏmask€the€pain.€€His€complaints€of€pain€were€to€his€low€back€and€leg.Ð t;´7> Ðà ` àThe€only€other€witness€was€his€treating€doctor,€John€T.€Purvis,€a€neurologicalÏsurgeon,€who€saw€and€treated€him€for€both€injuries.€€Dr.€Purvis€testified€by€depositionÏand€stated€he€had€performed€back€surgery€for€the€1988€injury€and€that€when€he€sawÏhim€on€May€15,€1990€after€the€second€injury,€he€was€worse€and€had€not€completelyÏrecovered€from€his€first€injury.€€He€said€his€osteoarthritis€in€his€lumbar€spine€was€theÏprincipal€problem€and€this€pre„dated€the€second€injury.€€The€doctor€told€the€court€thatÏemployee€ñ‡2ñœñ‡2ñHaleñ‡2ñ›ñ‡2ñ€did€not€appear€able€to€do€any€of€the€jobs€he€had€been€trained€for€andÏhe€was€of€the€opinion€he€should€be€in€a€job€where€he€could€move€about€and€changeÏpositions€frequently.Ìà ` àAfter€the€second€injury€which€aggravated€the€old€injury,€his€diagnosis€wasÏlumbar€spondylosis€with€neuropathy€of€the€L5€and€S1€nerve€roots€right.€€He€testifiedÏhe€was€unable€to€do€any€type€of€manual€labor€and€should€not€lift€over€10€pounds€andÏhe€should€avoid€repetitive€bending€or€stooping.€€He€gave€an€additional€5%Ïimpairment€for€the€second€injury€saying€the€basic€problem€was€the€osteoarthritis.Ìà ` àUpon€reviewing€this€evidence,€the€trial€court€awarded€the€employee€25%Ïpermanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole€and€dismissed€the€case€againstÏthe€Second€Injury€Fund.€€The€evidence€relating€to€the€rehearing€or€reconsideration€ofÏthe€25%€award€consisted€of€stipulated€medical€records€of€Dr.€Purvis€which€coveredÏnumerous€visits€after€the€June€1993€trial€and€certain€testimony€from€the€employee.€ÏWith€regard€to€the€employeeððs€testimony,€he€described€his€condition€as€it€existed€inÏ1997€and€told€the€court€he€felt€he€was€unable€to€do€any€type€of€work€and€wasÏreceiving€social€security€disability€benefits.Ìà ` àAll€of€the€records€of€Dr.€Purvis€found€plaintiff€continued€to€appear€worse;€thatÏsome€question€existed€as€to€whether€there€was€a€herniated€disc;€a€lumbarÏmyelography€and€CT€scanning€ñ‡2ñœñ‡2ñwasñ‡2ñ›ñ‡2ñ€ordered€which€showed€severe€spondylosis€at€L5„¼S1€and€very€definite€at€L3„4€and€L4„5€with€some€nerve€root€compression€at€L5„S1€onÏleft;€a€July€13,€1993€progress€note€indicated€he€felt€the€patient€would€benefit€fromÏlaminectomy€L3„L5€and€a€progress€note€during€August€1993€indicated€this€surgeryÏwas€performed.Ìà ` àOther€records€of€the€doctor€indicated€that€on€May€11,€1994€patient€appearedÏsome€better€but€was€still€having€back€and€leg€pain.€€During€April€and€May,€1995,€theÏdoctor€wrote€a€letter€to€plaintiffððs€counsel€stating€there€was€no€change€in€plaintiffððsÐ t;´7> Ðpermanent€partial€impairment€and€that€he€felt€it€would€still€be€ñ‡2ñœñ‡2ñratedñ‡2ñ›ñ‡2ñ€at€ñ‡2ñœñ‡2ñ25ñ‡2ñ›œñ‡2ñ%ñ‡2ñ›ñ‡2ñ€which€theÏtrial€court€interpreted€as€meaning€no€change€in€the€5%€impairment€and€the€25%Ïaward€for€the€second€injury.€€Upon€weighing€the€new€evidence,€the€court€declined€toÏadjust€the€award€of€disability.€€A€motion€to€reconsider€was€filed€and€overruled.Ìñ‡2ñœ›ñ‡2ñà ` àThe€case€is€to€be€reviewed€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctnessÏof€the€findings€of€fact€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€T.C.A.Ïðð€50„6„225(e)(2).Ìà ` àThe€primary€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthe€decision€to€not€increase€the€25%€award€of€disability.€€In€this€connection,€we€findÏthe€complaints€of€pain€by€the€plaintiff€during€the€1993€trial€and€up€until€1995€areÏabout€the€same.€€He€still€has€problems€with€his€back€and€leg.€€At€the€1993€trial€Dr.ÏPurvis€opined€he€had€not€completely€recovered€from€problems€related€to€the€1988Ïinjury€and€was€of€the€opinion€he€should€be€in€other€employment.€€It€is€true€that€hisÏrecords€of€visits€during€1993„1995€contain€some€new€findings€but€his€opinion€as€toÏimpairment€seems€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€no€additionalÏimpairment€has€resulted.€€The€trial€court€was€in€a€much€better€position€to€judgeÏplaintiffððs€credibility€and€we€must€defer€to€this€to€a€certain€extent.€€From€ourÏindependent€examination€of€the€evidence,€we€cannot€say€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€court.Ìà ` àThe€ñ‡2ñœñ‡2ñSecondñ‡2ñ›ñ‡2ñ€ñ‡2ñœñ‡2ñInjuryñ‡2ñ›ñ‡2ñ€ñ‡2ñœñ‡2ñFundñ‡2ñ›ñ‡2ñ€argues€the€25%€award€of€disability€was€not€subject€toÏreconsideration€because€of€ñ‡2ñœñ‡2ññ†2ñthe›€ñ†2ñprovisionsñ‡2ñ›ñ‡2ñ€of€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„231€prohibiting€modificationÏof€lump€sum€payments.€€We€do€not€believe€this€statute€has€application€to€the€facts€ofÏthis€case.€€First,€the€record€does€not€establish€the€award€was€paid€by€defendant.€ÏAdditionally,€we€construe€the€statute€to€apply€to€final€judgments.€€The€judgment€inÏquestion€was€not€final€when€the€motion€to€alter€or€amend€it€was€filed€on€August€26,Ï1993,€within€the€time€allowed€by€Rule€59.€€T.R.Civ.P.Ìà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€are€taxed€toÏthe€plaintiff„employee.ÌÌÔ% € ÔÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌÌÐ Z<š8? ÐCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JusticeÌÌÌÌ________________________________Ìœñ—2ññ–2ñÐ  ¼ ü  Ðñ–2ññ—2ñJoe›€C.€Loser,€Special€œJudgeñ˜2ñÐ  ¼ ü  Ðñ˜2ññ™2ñ›ñ™2ññ™2ñÒXHÒÌÌÌÌà@MMDàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌÌñ™2ññš2ññš2ññ™2ññ™2ññš2ñßl€*6&"h 8 `€€Eh% tt06 $ ¨çlßâ   €%€%âñš2ññ™2ñà@  "ÔàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌÌÌÌGREGORY€HALE,€à  àà h àà À àà  à)€à p àMcMinn€ChanceryÐ ¼ ü  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àNo.€€17,404Ð ¢ â  Ðà ` àPlaintiff„Appellant,à h àà À àà  à)Ð ˆÈ  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìâ €%€%  âv.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àHon.€Earl€H.€Henley,€ChancellorÐ T”  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ :z  ÐATHENS€STOVE€WORKS,€et€al.,à  à)à p àNO.€03S01„9708„CH„00104ñ™2ññš2ññ™2ñÔ‡X%sXXX˜›ÔÔ#†X˜›XXX%sØ1#Ôñ™2ññš2ññ™2ñà (# àÐ  ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€€€à  à)à p àÐ F Ðà ` àDefendant„Appellee.à À àà  à)à p àAFFIRMEDÐ ì, ÐÌÔ‡5 k5XX˜›ÔÌÌÌò òà@ŽŽ(DàòòÔ#†X˜›X55 kó3#ÔJUDGMENT€ORDERóóó óˆÐ :z ÐÓÖÓÓ€ÖÓÌÓÖ€Œ4ÓÓÖÓà ` àà ¸ àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€motion€for€review€pursuant€to€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(5)(B),€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€of€referral€to€theÏSpecial€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel's€Memorandum€OpinionÏsetting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€byÏreference;ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€review€is€not€well„¼taken€and€should€be€denied;€andÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€judgment€ofÏthe€Court.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àCosts€are€taxed€to€the€plaintiff„appellant€and€his€surety,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àPER€CURIAMÌÌBarker,€J.,€not€participating€ñ™2ñ›€