ÿWPC¢# …U-BV %˜U .žrÌ 0> Ë nÛ 0rßQ 0’Qw@ã4# {@7 0Jw 0TÁ 0^ 0hs 0rÛ 0|M 0†É 0O 1uß 0dT¸B)ÑDCú B= AMZ,§fÓv~9 D3·vÓê 0@½! AOý!ÆL" 0D# D/V# B…#ô\  `*Times New RomanTTô"ÝÆÿA€ArialTT'    0 .   (e2…>$©©Ý ƒ @!ÝÔ€X¤XôôÔÔ€XÞ˜XXX¤ÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý3|x@«ô\  `*Times New RomanTTôôCô\  PŽ6QôP"ÝÆÿA€ArialTTomanTTXXaÝÆÿptQXpô\  `*Times New RomanTT¼¼^ô\  PŽ6Q¼Pô\  `*Times New RomanTT,,)ô\  PŽ6Q,Pô\  `*Times New RomanTT6ô\  PŽ6QPô\  `*Times New RomanTTXXPô\  PŽ6QXP(J@$¡¡Ô€X”XôôÔÔ€XžXXX”ÔÓ  Ó<««DÉ:QuickFormat1Ô€ô›‰ôôôÔÔ€¼>¼ôô›‰ÔÔÔòòÓ  ÓÓ<(ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œX<ÓÓ€ÓÔ€ô›‰ôôôÔÔ€¼>¼ôô›‰ÔÔÔóóÓ  ÓÓ<(ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œX<ÓÓ€Ó *D+U,D-D.U/D01D2Ó€>©U!(ÿÿ ` ¸ <‚‚D}«:QuickFormat1Ô€¼ÔÔ€¼ÿÿ¼ÔÔ  ÔòòÓ  ÓÓ<(ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿŒX<ÓÔ€¼ÔÔ€¼ÿÿ¼ÔÔ  ÔóóÓ  ÓÓ<(ÿÿ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ÿÿŒX<Ó2 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 Ý ƒ !ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ 8 ÒÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ@  ÔÚ  ÚÚ  ÚÔA  ÔÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓ% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd d€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ "Ý ƒ !ÝÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òOctober€17,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHPð€ÿÜÿìô”(üHPð€P € €'%%%%'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ 8 ÒÖ€"ÖÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÙ€€ÙÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ&  ÔÔ€¼ÔÔ€ÔßL€&'$;+'h|` Å `€€LßIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALSÏPANELÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌ(August€5,€1996€Session)ÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓJOHNNY€JOBE,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€€ANDERSON€CIRCUITÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee,€€€€€€€€€Ô€,Ô€Ô€¼Ô€)€€€€€Hon.€James€B.€Scott,€Jr.,Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€Ô€Ô€¼Ô€€€Ô€ôÔ€Ô€¼Ô€)€€€€€Judge.Ìv.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€,Ô€Ô€¼Ô€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€,Ô€Ô€¼Ô€€)€€€€€No.€03S01„9512„CV„00131ÌM.€K.€FERGUSON,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€,Ô€Ô€¼Ô€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellant€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€,Ô€Ô€¼Ô€€€€€€)Ìand€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€XÔ€Ô€¼Ô€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€,Ô€Ô€¼Ô€€€€)ÌSECOND€INJURY€FUND,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€Ô€Ô€¼Ô€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€,Ô€€Ô€¼Ô€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellee.€€€€Ô€XÔ€Ô€¼Ô€€)ÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òòFor€Appellee,€Jobe:ÌóóÌDonald€B.€Oakley€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€J.€Anthony€FarmerÌMorristown,€Tennessee€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Knoxville,€TennesseeÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òòFor€Appellee,€Second€Injury€Fund:óóÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Charles€W.€BursonÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Attorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Dianne€Stamey€DycusÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Senior€CounselÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Nashville,€TennesseeÌÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓòòM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌòòMembers€of€Panelóó:ÌÔ'  ÔÌE.€Riley€Anderson,€Associate€Justice,€Supreme€CourtÌWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓÌÓ  ÓModified€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Loser,€JudgeÓ ¹ ÓÌÝ‚ ÿÝÔ€ÔÔ€¼ÔòòÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓÓ€ÓÝ  ÝMEMORANDUM€OPINIONÔT€ ÔÓ rAÓÝ‚ ÿÝÓÓÓ ` ŒXÓÓ  ÓóóÝ  ÝÌÓ€Óà àà àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€SpecialÏWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€withÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€section€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€of€findings€ofÏfact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€The€issue€in€this€appeal€is€whether€the€award€ofÏpermanent€disability€benefits€is€excessive.€€As€discussed€below,€we€have€concludedÏthe€judgment€should€be€modified.Ìà àà àThe€employee€or€claimant,€Jobe,€was€59€years€old€at€the€time€of€theÏtrial.€€He€has€a€ninth€grade€education€and€is€a€skilled€carpenter,€capable€of€readingÏplans€and€performing€supervisory€duties.€€On€May€5,€1993,€he€fell€at€work€and€wasÏslightly€injured,€but€continued€to€work.€€On€August€24,€of€the€same€year,€he€injuredÏhis€lower€back€while€lifting€a€cabinet€at€work.Ìà àà àHe€was€treated€by€Dr.€David€Hauge€for€a€herniated€lumbar€disc€fromÏthe€second€injury€and€a€herniated€cervical€disc,€possibly€from€the€earlier€injury.€€Dr.ÏHauge€assigned€a€permanent€impairment€rating€of€seven€percent€to€the€whole€body.€ÍDr.€Berta€Bergia,€whom€the€claimant€saw€for€an€examination€and€evaluation,Ïassigned€permanent€impairment€ratings€of€five€percent€for€the€cervical€disc€and€tenÏpercent€for€the€lumbar€disc.€€Dr.€Bergia€said€the€claimant€should€not€do€more€thanÏsedentary€work.€€The€claimant€has€not€returned€to€work.Ìà àà àThe€trial€judge€awarded€permanent€partial€disability€benefits€based€onÏthirty€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole€for€the€May€5th€injury€and€one€hundred€percentÏfor€the€August€24th€injury.€€Because€the€combined€award€totaled€one€hundred€thirtyÏpercent,€the€employer€was€ordered€to€pay€on€the€basis€of€one€hundred€percent€andÏthe€remaining€thirty€percent€was€assessed€against€the€second€injury€fund€(the€fund).Ìà àà àBoth€the€employer€and€the€fund€contend€the€award€is€excessive.€ÏAppellate€review€of€an€award€of€workers'€compensation€benefits€is€de€novo€upon€theÏrecord€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€theÏfindings€of€fact,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€section€50„6„225(e)(2).€€This€tribunal€is€required€to€conduct€an€independentÏexamination€of€the€record€to€determine€where€the€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÏlies.€€òòGalloway€v.€Memphis€Drum€Serviceóó,€822€€S.W.2d€€584,€586€(Tenn.€1991).Ìà àà àIn€Tennessee,€an€employer€takes€an€employee€as€he€is€and€cannotÏescape€liability€when€the€employee,€upon€suffering€a€work„related€injury,€incursÏgreater€disability€because€the€new€injury€is€superimposed€upon€a€preexisting€injuryÏor€disability.€€òòFink€v.€Caudleóó,€856€€S.W.2d€€952€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€òòBaxter€v.€Smithóó,Ï211,€€Tenn.€€347,€364€€S.W.2d€€936€(1962),€our€Supreme€Court€found€the€doctrineÏof€contribution€and€apportionment€to€be€inconsistent€with€that€rule€and€rejected€asÍ"mere€speculation"€any€effort€to€apportion€the€disability€of€a€worker€who€becameÏdisabled€as€a€result€of€a€succession€of€injuries.€€And€in€òòBennett€v.€Howard€Johnson'sÏMotor€Lodgeóó,€714€€S.W.2d€€273€(Tenn.€1986),€that€court€recognized€what€hasÏbecome€known€as€the€"successive€injury"€or€"last€injurious€injury"€rule,€when€itÏstated:Ìà0 àà àà àThe€last€successive€employer€or€insurance€carrier,€taking€theÏemployee€as€he€is€found€at€the€time€of€the€accident,€will€be€liable€for€theÏentire€resulting€disability,€including€all€medical€expenses€arising€from€theÏdisability€and€regardless€of€any€pre„existing€condition....This€rule€appliesÏwhether€the€subsequent€injury€aggravates€or€merely€òòcombines€withóó€a€previousÏinjury€or€condition€of€the€employee.€(emphasis€supplied).Ìà àà àFor€injuries€occurring€on€or€after€August€1,€1992,€where€an€injuredÏworker€is€entitled€to€receive€permanent€partial€disability€benefits€to€the€body€as€aÏwhole,€and€the€pre„injury€employer€does€not€return€the€employee€to€employment€at€aÏwage€equal€to€or€greater€than€the€wage€the€employee€was€receiving€at€the€time€of€theÏinjury,€the€maximum€permanent€partial€disability€award€that€the€employee€mayÏreceive€is€six€times€the€medical€impairment€rating.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€50„6„241(b)€(1996€Supp.).€€If€a€court€awards€a€multiplier€of€five€or€greater,€then€theÏcourt€must€make€specific€findings€of€fact€detailing€the€reasons€for€its€award,Ïconsidering€all€relevant€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€50„6„241€(c)€(1996ÏSupp.).€€In€this€case,€the€trial€judge€made€the€requisite€findings€of€fact,€but€allowedÏbenefits€far€in€excess€of€six€times€any€of€the€medical€impairment€ratings.Ìà àà àIn€the€light€of€the€the€above€authorities,€we€conclude€the€award€ofÏbenefits€on€the€basis€of€one€hundred€thirty€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole€to€beÏexcessive.€€Moreover,€from€our€independent€examination€of€the€evidence,€we€findÏthe€evidence€to€preponderate€in€favor€of€an€award,€from€the€combination€of€the€twoÏinjuries,€based€on€sixty€percent€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.Ìà àà àThe€panel€is€further€impelled€to€address€and€respectfully€reject€theÏcontention€of€the€claimant€that€Dr.€Hauge's€opinions€should€receive€less€weight€andÏbe€considered€less€valuable€than€those€of€Dr.€Bergia€because€they€were€admitted€intoÏevidence€in€the€form€of€unsworn€written€reports€and€records,€rather€than€byÏdeposition,€without€objection.€€It€is€our€opinion€that€the€practice€of€admitting€intoÏevidence,€by€consent€of€the€parties,€the€reports€and€records€of€experts€is€to€beÏencouraged€as€a€means€of€reducing€the€cost€to€the€parties€of€preparing€and€presentingÏtheir€claims€and€defenses.€€In€so€expressing€ourselves,€we€recognize€that€an€adverseÏparty€might€not€be€inclined€to€forego€his€right€to€cross€examine€the€expert€andÏwhatever€he€or€she€may€gain€by€such€cross€examination.€€Our€experience€has€been,Ïthough,€that€experts€rarely€change€their€opinions,€even€in€the€face€of€the€most€skillfulÏcross€examination.€€Thus,€we€hold,€by€consenting€to€the€admission€of€written€reportsÏof€an€expert,€a€party€waives€the€oath€and€opportunity€to€cross€examine€and€that€suchÏevidence€is€not€to€be€devalued€for€the€absence€thereof.Ìà àà àThe€award€is€modified€in€accordance€with€our€above€findings€andÏconclusions€and,€because€the€claimant's€disability€does€not€exceed€one€hundredÏpercent,€the€case€is€dismissed€as€to€the€second€injury€fund.€€The€case€is€remanded€toÏthe€trial€court€for€entry€of€a€judgment€consistent€with€this€memorandum€opinion.€ÏThe€compensation€rate€shall€be€the€one€in€effect€on€August€24,€1993.€€Costs€onÍappeal€are€taxed€to€the€plaintiff„appellee.Ó *bÓÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓ_______________________________Ó ÓÌÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Joe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€JudgeÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌE.€Riley€Anderson,€JusticeÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌWilliam€H.€Inman,€JudgeÌÑ€(ÑÇÌà àà àà àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€AT€KNOXVILLEÌÓÓJOHNNY€JOBE,à à€à àà à€€€€€€€€€€€)à àANDERSON€€CIRCUITà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÏ)€à àà àÌà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à àà àà à€)à àNo.€94LA0079Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà à€à àà àà à€)à àNo.€03S01„9512„CV„00131Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àHon.€James€B.€Scott,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àJudgeÌM.K.€FERGUSON€,à àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà à€à à€)à àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àDefendant„Appellant,à à€)à àà àà àà àà à€à àÌandà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àMODIFIEDÌSECOND€INJURY€FUND,à àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àDefendant„Appellee.à à€€à à€)à àà àà à€à àà àÌÌà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€JUDGMENT€ORDERÌÌÌà àà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€the€ÌÌorder€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€ÌÌPanelððs€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€ÌÌconclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;ÌÌà àà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€ÌÌOpinion€of€the€Panel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌÌà àà àIt€it,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panelððs€findings€of€fact€and€ÌÌconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€ÌÌmade€the€Judgment€of€the€Court.ÌÌà àà àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€plaintiff€/appellee,€Johnny€Jobe,€ÌÌfor€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€ÌÌ10/17/96ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ€à àà à€€à àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ€à àà à€€