ÿWPCo 0UB° %òU.ør& 0˜%nY5 0rŽ  w@ 4@ 0JT 0Tž 0^ò 0hP 0r¸ 0|* 0†¦ 0, 1u¼ 0d1 AQ•Ææ 0D¬ 0@ð 0D0t D/ B¼ BÙ D3öB))DCR AM•<âv~vÓœô\  `*Times New RomanTTô"ÝÆÿA€ArialTT'    0 .   (e2Ó&$©©Ý ƒ ú‰!ÝÔ€XŸŸXôôÔÔ€XØFXXXŸŸÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý3|x"«ô\  `*Times New RomanTTôôCô\  PŽ6QôP"ÝÆÿA€ArialTTomanTTXXaÝÆÿptQXpô\  `*Times New RomanTT¼¼^ô\  PŽ6Q¼Pô\  `*Times New RomanTT6ô\  PŽ6QPô\  `*Times New RomanTT,,)ô\  PŽ6Q,P(Jú‰$¡¡Ô€XŸŸXôôÔÔ€XØFXXXŸŸÔÓ  Ó DPDPDDUUÓ€"µQ+!ìô2 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 Ý ƒ !ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ 8 ÒÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ@  ÔÚ  ÚÚ  ÚÔA  ÔÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓ(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d****7Border 1dd!#+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ 2Ý ƒ !ÝÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌOctober€10,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@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€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ 8 ÒÖ€%ÖÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ&  ÔÔ€¼ÔÔ€ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€!ÙßL€,-+;+'h|â` ç `€€LßÌSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATIONÏAPPEALS€PANELÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌ(June€25,€1996€Session)ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓJOSEPH€H.€JARREAU,à àà àà àà à)€€€€€WILSON€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellant,à àà à)€€€€€Hon.€Bobby€Capers,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€Judge.Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€No.€01S01„9512„CH„00228ÌVANLINER€INSURANCE€COMPANY,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellee.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òòFor€Appellee:ÌóóÌDavid€W.€Piper€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€,Ô€Ô€¼Ô€€€€€€€Peter€S.€RosenÌNashville,€Tennessee€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Levine,€Mattson,€Orr€&ÏGeraciotiÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓòòM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌÌÌòòMembers€of€Panelóó:ÌÌFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€Associate€Justice,€Supreme€CourtÌJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌÔ'  ÔHamilton€V.€Gayden,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓÌÓ  ÓAFFIRMED€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Loser,ÏJudgeÓ ¹ ÓÌà àà àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€theÏSpecial€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€inÏaccordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€andÏreporting€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€This€appeal€presentsÏthe€questions€whether€and€under€what€circumstances,€if€any,€an€injuredÏworker€may€give€up€his€right€to€future€medical€expenses.€€The€panelÏconcludes€the€trial€court's€judgment,€approving€a€settlement€in€which€theÏright€to€future€medical€expenses€was€voluntarily€surrendered€forÏconsideration,€should€be€affirmed.Ó rAÓÌà àà àThe€employee€or€claimant,€Jarreau,€commenced€this€civil€actionÏby€filing€a€complaint€for€workers'€compensation€benefits,€averring€that€heÏhad€suffered€an€injury€by€accident€arising€out€of€and€in€the€course€of€hisÏemployment€by€Ozark€Motor€Lines,€Inc.€€The€complaint€further€averred,€inÏrelevant€part,€that€his€injury€had€been€diagnosed€as€a€tear€of€the€left€medialÏmeniscus,€that€he€had€reached€maximum€medical€recovery€and€would€retainÏa€permanent€impairment€but€that€there€was€a€genuine€dispute€as€to€the€extentÏof€his€permanent€disability.€€He€sought€to€recover€medical€and€permanentÏpartial€disability€benefits.Ìà àà àVanliner€Insurance€Company€served€its€answer€admitting€it€wasÏthe€insurer€for€Ozark,€but€denying€that€the€claimant€had€suffered€aÏcompensable€injury€or€that€he€was€permanently€disabled.€€On€September€8,Ï1994,€before€the€case€could€be€tried,€the€claimant€and€his€attorney€and€theÏattorney€for€Vanliner€appeared€before€Judge€Capers€seeking€approval€of€aÏnegotiated€settlement.Ìà àà àBy€the€settlement€terms,€the€claimant€was€to€receiveÏ$25,459.20,€representing€a€permanent€partial€disability€of€forty€percent€toÏthe€left€leg,€and€an€additional€$9,540.80€in€consideration€of€the€claimant'sÏrelinquishment€of€any€claim€for€future€medical€benefits,€for€a€total€ofÏ$35,000.00.€€Additionally,€the€claimant€had€already€received€$15,481.30€inÏmedical€benefits€and€$12,481.30€in€temporary€total€disability€benefits.Ìà àà àWe€find€in€the€record€no€transcript€of€the€settlement€hearing,Ïbut€Judge€Capers€found€that€Dr.€Robert€V.€Russell€had€opined€the€claimantÏhad€reached€maximum€medical€improvement€and€would€retain€a€permanentÏanatomical€impairment€of€ten€percent€to€the€leg.€€The€judge€further€foundÏthe€settlement€to€be€in€the€best€interest€of€the€claimant,€"in€light€of€theÏcontroversy€and€dispute€between€the€parties."€€The€agreement€was€approvedÏas€a€full,€final€and€complete€settlement€of€Mr.€Jarreau's€claim€against€theÏemployer€and€its€insurer.ÌÌà àà àAlmost€eight€months€later,€on€April€28,€1995,€the€claimantÏapplied€to€the€court,€per€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02,€for€an€order€setting€asideÏthe€settlement€order€on€the€ground€that€the€order€was€"based€upon€a€mistakeÏof€fact€induced€by€erroneous€medical€information€relating€to€his€condition€asÏit€existed€at€the€time€said€settlement€was€entered€into."€€The€motion€wasÏsupported€by€Dr.€Russell's€affidavit€and€a€complete€set€of€his€relevantÏmedical€records€and€correspondence€between€him€and€the€claimant's€formerÏattorney.€€The€doctor€opined€in€his€affidavit€that€(1)€"...€a€workers'Ïcompensation€settlement€based€upon€a€10%€anatomical€impairment€rating€isÏinadequate"€and€(2)€"...€it€would€be€fundamentally€unfair€to€terminate€JosephÏJarreau's€future€medical€benefits€in€exchange€for€$9,540.80.€€As€I€informedÏ(the€claimant's€former€attorney)€total€knee€athroplasty€bills€usually€exceedÏtwenty€thousand€($20,000.00)€dollars."Ìà àà àAfter€hearing€the€motion€on€affidavits,€the€trial€judgeÏdisallowed€the€motion.€€A€motion€for€relief€based€on€Rule€60.02€addressesÏitself€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€Appellate€review€is€toÍdetermine€if€the€discretion€was€abused.€€òòBanks€v.€Dement€Const.€Co.,€Inc.óó,Ï817€€S.W.2d€€16,€18€(Tenn.€1991);€òòToney€v.€Mueller€Co.óó,€810€€S.W.2d€€145,Ï146€(Tenn.€1991).Ìà àà àThe€adequacy€or€inadequacy€of€an€award€of€permanentÏdisability€benefits€is€not€a€medical€issue€but€one€to€be€addressed€by€the€courtsÏfrom€a€consideration€of€numerous€factors,€often€including,€but€rarelyÏlimited€to,€the€degree€of€a€claimant's€medical€or€anatomical€impairment.€ÏDoctors€often€disagree€as€to€the€degree€of€a€claimant's€permanentÏimpairment,€even€when€interpreting€scientific€guidelines.€€In€this€case,€Dr.ÏRussell's€records€reflect€that€before€the€settlement€was€presented€to€the€courtÏfor€approval€he€notified€the€claimant's€attorney€that€the€claimant€couldÏreturn€to€work€without€limitation,€but€with€a€permanent€impairment€ratingÏof€ten€percent€according€to€AMA€Guidelines.Ìà àà àIt€further€appears€from€the€record€that€the€doctor€notified€theÏclaimant's€attorney€that€the€claimant€was€"headed€straight€for€some€type€ofÏcorrective€surgery€which€in€my€opinion€is€a€total€knee€athroplasty,"€that€"atÏthe€present€time€we€are€seeing€bills€from€Baptist€Hospital€in€the€range€of€20Ïto€25€thousand€dollars€for€such€a€procedure,"€and€that€such€surgery€"withÏgood€results€carries€a€60€to€70€percent€permanent€partial€impairment€of€theÏlower€extremity...."€€The€doctor's€affidavit€further€declares€that€"...JosephÏJarreau€elected€not€to€have€corrective€knee€surgery€in€June€of€1994...."€€TheÏdoctor's€affidavit€does€not€declare€that€he€made€any€mistake€in€assessing€theÏdegree€of€the€claimant's€permanent€impairment.ÌÌà àà àAlthough€claims€under€the€workers'€compensation€law€may€beÏsettled€between€or€among€the€interested€parties,€such€settlements€are€notÏbinding€on€either€party€unless€reduced€to€writing€and€approved€by€the€judgeÏof€a€circuit,€chancery€or€criminal€court€of€the€county€where€the€claim€forÏcompensation€is€entitled€to€be€made.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€50„6„206Ï(1991€Repl.)€€The€judge€to€whom€the€proposed€settlement€is€presented€mustÏexamine€the€facts€of€the€case€and€determine€(1)€that€the€employee€isÍreceiving,€according€to€the€terms€of€the€settlement,€substantially€the€benefitsÏprovided€by€the€workers'€compensation€law€or€(2)€that€the€settlement€isÏotherwise€in€the€best€interest€of€the€employee.€€òòSeeóó€òòThompson€v.€Firemen'sÏFund€Insurance€Co.óó,€798€€S.W.2d€€235€(Tenn.€1990).Ìà àà àBy€entering€into€lump€sum€settlements,€both€parties€run€a€riskÏof€injury.€€The€employee€runs€the€risk€that€his€disability€may€increase€in€theÏfuture€and€the€employer€runs€the€risk€that€the€disability€of€the€employee€mayÏdecrease€in€the€future,€but€both€parties€are€bound€and€foreclosed€by€theÏentry€of€a€valid€judgment€approving€a€lump€sum€settlement.€€òòCorby€v.ÏMatthewsóó,€541€€S.W.2d€€789,€793€(Tenn.€1976).Ìà àà àOur€review€of€the€record€in€this€case€fails€to€reveal€any€abuseÏof€discretion€by€the€trial€judge.€€Moreover,€it€clearly€appears€from€theÏrecord€that€the€trial€judge€examined€the€facts€and€determined€that€theÏsettlement€of€a€disputed€claim€was€in€the€best€interest€of€the€employee€beforeÏapproving€it.Ìà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€accordingly€affirmed.€€CostsÏon€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€plaintiff„appellant.Ó *bÓÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓ_______________________________Ó ÓÌÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Joe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€JudgeÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€Associate€JusticeÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌHamilton€V.€Gayden,€Jr.,€JudgeÌ