ÿWPCø 0# °U:» %õ 0ûûw@ö46JY 0Ja « ± · 0T½ 0^ 0ho 0r× 0|I 0†Å 0K 1uÛ U,P 0d| U,à U* B)6 DC_ 0@¢ D3â B D+2 AM] ¤ª v~N AOÌÆvÓá 0D´˜HP LaserJet 4 Plus/4M PlusHPPCL5E,,,,0 , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Óý,$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XûXXXÔÑ7€>‚XXdðXXdð7Ñ ÛÊÜÝ{ÞDßàDáÊâÓ€íðdO˜ $T$3|xð2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  ÔÈRÈRHR2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò'''''ÿÿdxd d'ÈÈÈÈdxd-%$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ šÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ YYY ÔÓ  ÓFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌò òJuneÏ20,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`-%/(Cþÿ` << CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÝ  Ý›à@ àò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OFÏTENNESSEEÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERSððÏCOMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌÌÙ€-ÙœßL€)*$;+'h|3Ñ` à. `€€Lß›Ìó óJOHNSON€CONTROLS,à àà àà à)à àPERRYÏCIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff„Appellantà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.ÏDONALD€P.€HARRISÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àCIRCUITÏJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌœSHELBY›€J.€œCOTHAM›€andà àà àà à)ÌLARRY€œBRINTON›,€DIRECTOR,à àà à)ÌSECOND€INJURY€FUNDà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants„Appelleesà àà à)à àNO>€œ01S01›„9511„CV„00212ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€the€Appellees:ÌÌóóJohn€D.€Burlesonà àà àà àà àPhillip€W.€œKendrick›ÌDale€œConder›,€Jr.à àà àà àà àœKendrick›€&ÏœKendrick›ÌœRainey›,€œKizer›,€Butler,€œReviere›à àà à5115€Maryland€WayÌ&€Bell,€œP.L.C.›à àà àà àà àœBrentwood›,€TN€37027Ì105€S.€Highland€AvenueÌP.€O.€Box€1147à àà àà àà àDianne€œStamey›ÏœDycus›ÌJackson,€TN€38302„1147à àà àà à1510€ParkwayÏTowersÌà àà àà àà àà àà à404€RobertsonÏParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TNÏ37243„0499ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌà@ àMembers€of€Panel:ÌÌó óóóà@ àFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€JusticeÌà@ àJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌà@ àRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌà à€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òMODIFIED€and€AFFIRMED.à àà àà àTHAYER,€Special€Judgeó óÌÌÓÓà àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€SpecialÏWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€withÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€CourtÏof€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€Ìà àPlaintiff,€Johnson€Controls,€Inc.,€instituted€suit€against€defendant,€œShelby›€J.ÏœCotham›,€seeking€a€determination€as€to€whether€the€defendant€employee€hadÏsustained€a€work„related€injury€which€was€compensable.€€The€Circuit€Judge€foundÏthe€claim€to€be€compensable€and€awarded€100€percent€permanent€disabilityÏbenefits€apportioning€75€percent€of€the€award€to€plaintiff„employer€and€25€percentÍto€the€Second€Injury€Fund.Ìà àThe€employer€has€appealed€the€decision€insisting€defendantððs€kneeÏcondition€was€not€caused€by€her€work€activities€and€that€her€tendinitis€in€her€handÏwas€not€a€permanent€injury.€€The€employee€contends€the€evidence€supports€the€trialÏcourtððs€findings€and€that€the€trial€court€was€in€error€in€directing€the€award€of€disabilityÏbe€reduced€or€set„off€by€amounts€paid€to€her€for€short€term€disability€benefits€whichÏshe€received€for€about€five€months.Ìà àShelby€J.€Cotham€is€52€years€of€age€and€has€a€œ7th›€grade€education.€€SheÏhas€been€employed€by€plaintiff€for€about€22€years.€€During€most€of€her€employmentÏshe€has€been€on€production€work€on€an€assembly€line€or€œsubline›€assemblyÏrequiring€repetitive€use€of€her€hands€and€prolonged€periods€of€standing€and/orÏsitting.Ìà àThe€record€indicates€she€had€suffered€from€osteoarthritis€in€her€knees€sinceÏ1984„1989;€her€hand€problem€first€began€during€April,€1993;€she€worked€throughÏJune,€1994,€and€did€not€ever€return€to€work€as€she€testified€she€could€not€performÏher€work€duties€while€standing€or€sitting€and€that€œher›€hands€would€go€to€sleep€atÏnight;€that€she€could€not€grip€anything€and€her€arm€hurt.€€Her€employer€was€awareÏof€her€osteoarthritis€as€it€had€resulted€in€her€being€off€from€work€twice€during€theÏyears€1992„1993.Ìà àThe€employer€questions€the€trial€courtððs€findings€that€her€osteoarthritis€wasÏaggravated€by€her€work€conditions.€€Two€physicians€testified€by€deposition€and€theirÏtestimony€is€in€conflict€on€the€medical€questions.€€The€trial€court€resolved€the€disputeÏby€accepting€the€testimony€of€her€treating€physician.Ìà àDr.€Stephen€L.€œAverett›,€an€internal€medicine€physician,€testified€defendantÏhad€severe€osteoarthritis€in€her€knees€and€that€her€condition€had€been€aggravatedÏby€her€work.€€In€response€to€a€question€as€to€whether€the€work€activity€merelyÏcaused€more€pain,€he€stated,€ð ðIððm€saying€that€her€work€aggravated€and€acceleratedÏthe€process€of€arthritis€in€her€knees.ðð€€He€also€said€her€tendinitis€in€both€hands€wasÏa€result€of€her€repetitive€motions€at€work.€€Dr.€œAverett›€had€written€a€letter€to€plaintiff„employer€during€September,€1994,€stating€she€was€permanently€and€totallyÏdisabled€and€later€in€giving€his€deposition,€he€expressed€an€opinion€in€medicalÏterms€by€saying€she€had€a€25€percent€medical€impairment€to€each€arm.€€He€statedÏhe€had€seen€her€for€several€years.Ìà àDr.€David€S.€œKnapp›,€a€physician€of€rheumatology,€only€saw€defendant€oneÏtime€in€1993€and€on€a€second€occasion€during€July,€1994.€€He€was€of€the€opinionÏher€work€activity€only€increased€her€knee€symptoms,€with€no€permanent€change€of€aÏstructural€nature.€€He€found€tendinitis€in€her€left€wrist€but€did€not€place€anyÏpermanent€restrictions€on€the€use€of€her€hands.€€He€admitted€she€could€not€return€toÏher€regular€job€and€said€she€should€not€be€doing€work€that€required€her€to€beÏstanding,€walking€and€lifting€or€prolonged€sitting€on€an€ongoing€basis.Ìà àThe€trial€court€also€heard€from€witness€Rebecca€Williams,€a€vocationalÏdisability€evaluator,€who€gave€an€opinion€defendant€was€100€percent€vocationallyÏdisabled.Ìà àAppellate€review€of€a€trial€courtððs€decision€in€a€case€of€this€nature€is€òòde€novoóóÏupon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctnessÏof€the€findings€of€fact€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€òòTenn.ÍCode€Ann.€ððóó€50„6„225(e)(2).Ìà àAn€employee€has€the€burden€of€proving€every€element€of€the€case,€includingÏcausation€and€permanency€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòœTindall›€v.€œWaring›ÏPark€œAssn.,›€óó725€S.W.2d€935,€937€(Tenn.€1987).Ìà àIn€cases€where€expert€medical€testimony€is€presented€by€deposition€and€isÏconflicting,€the€appellate€court€is€in€as€good€a€position€as€the€trial€court€in€reviewingÏand€weighing€testimony€and€determining€credibility€questions€and€questionsÏconcerning€the€weight€of€expert€testimony.€€òòLanders€v.€Firemanððs€œFundÔ% € Ô,›€Inc.,óó€775ÏS.W.2d€355,€356€(Tenn.€1989).òòÌà àóóFrom€our€independent€review€of€the€record,€we€cannot€conclude€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€court€on€the€award€ofÏdisability.Ìà àThe€employee€has€assigned€error€on€the€part€of€the€trial€court€in€allowing€aÏset„off€of€amounts€paid€by€plaintiffððs€disability€insurance€carrier€against€the€workersððÏcompensation€award.€€In€this€connection,€the€parties€had€stipulated€employeeÏCotham€had€received€$333.60€per€week€in€short€term€disability€benefits€from€JulyÏ11,€1994€to€December€11,€1994.€€It€was€also€stipulated€she€had€never€been€paidÏany€workersðð€compensation€benefits€and€she€reached€maximum€medicalÏimprovement€on€July€8,€1994.Ìà àWe€agree€it€was€not€proper€to€allow€the€set„off.€€Since€defendantððs€maximumÏmedical€improvement€occurred€shortly€after€leaving€her€employment,€the€awardÏwould€have€to€be€construed€as€one€for€permanent€disability€benefits€asÏdistinguished€œfroÔ% € Ôm›€temporary€total€disability€benefits.€€Ìà àThe€question€of€whether€an€employer€is€entitled€to€a€set„off€of€the€amount€ofÏshort€term€disability€benefits€paid€by€a€company€disability€insurance€policy€againstÏpermanent€disability€benefits€was€most€recently€addressed€in€the€case€of€òòœCantrell›€v.ÏElectric€Power€Board,óó€811€S.W.2d€84€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€this€case€the€employerÏsought€a€set„off€of€$11,273.€œwÔ% € Ôhich›€the€trial€court€denied.€€The€Supreme€Court€heldÏthe€denial€of€the€set„off€was€proper€against€an€award€of€permanent€disabilityÏbenefits€as€a€matter€of€public€policy€and€cited€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððóó€50„6„114€whichÏprovides:ÌÒ m ÒÒ ½ ÒÓÓð ðNo€contract€or€agreement,€written€or€implied,€nor€rule,Ïregulation,€or€other€device,€shall€in€any€manner€operate€toÏrelieve€any€employer€in€whole€or€in€part€of€any€obligationÏcreated€by€this€law.ððòòÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ½ ÒÓ K ÓÓÓóóThe€opinion€went€on€to€state€the€statute€was€evidence€of€legislative€intentÏto€prohibit€a€judicially„imposed€set„off€which€would€operate€to€relieve€theÏemployer€of€statutory€liability€for€permanent€disability€benefits.Ìà àThe€employee€also€claims€the€appeal€was€frivolous€and€that€aÏpenalty€should€be€assessed.€€Although€we€have€concurred€with€defendantÏin€disposition€of€the€issues€of€the€case,€we€find€the€issues€raised€were€realÏand€not€of€a€trivial€nature.Ìà àIt€results€the€action€of€the€trial€court€is€modified€to€disallow€the€claimÏby€plaintiff€for€a€set„off€against€the€award€of€permanent€disability€benefitsÏand€the€judgment€in€all€other€respects€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€areÏtaxed€to€the€plaintiff„employer€and€sureties.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€JusticeÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€œJudgeòò›ÌÒ  ÒÒ H Òóó