ÿWPCÒ fúDgçDî˜F[~ Z7ÀkÏL"á«j!ùš ”*ùA9ÈŠ/ˆ6`âæ÷ ±«þmþ•…òÈ–®Â_PÝ´nz¼ˆW!ùËÄtÑý¤êڶι.µû|À2µdZã”i~«÷3¹«/.0I±ÎŠ_@‹åúÒGè¡ã¯¿ö”ÿÒoë©îË÷)R¹3ÐEr‡*°é ÙÖÓû°î© $œŒÔlQ&‰Â$¿ú›Ök›7#¼6z~w¾Ê{g8Ö´œ)»‹½î‹Áÿš E$è“xåp«b…Û.2ŒvÙ Põˆ:g¥}ß×ìà—e¾šÀæ34Tt€ª q1S{Õ?ó-™8ü÷ѯҰŽOnõ~3ì̬>ý½ÿûÕW‘ª.ù‘u›­Šôž@vnë¿>SH7I›Úö§GËä°X[`ðöyú‚IÅîídÝÞ‘ñfh&i„Ñ•A0#˜›ßðRBHe4A*ö…VHgSjÁO¤YçùÔÕ‚‘ nw+­<´Gez2(Ý”àdÉ:W•o\oè¢sw!”³åŽqg¡¯ …,Ç›;4%ùR@Ä ˆàKÁq±lâÓ‡ÓÞÅg?CÔ·”7½æ›Çíž ¡K»Âª¹#  UN) %w 0û} U :x4²ÆëÕU:À úw@ 0?H 0D‡ëËU:¶ðUFðððððððððððððððððð B666666 D3SSS 0††††††††††††† D+ AOÈÆ 0DÝ D/! BPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP AYmÆÆ 0FŒ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÓH=$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XÎ_XXXÔÑ7€¾úXXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial Regularux-&øð 3|xv\ áÔ€ XÁXXXÔÔ€ è»sèX XÁÔÔ Ad ÔÓ  ÓFILEDÔ€ ¦ßè è»sÔÐ  ÐÌò òMarch€4,€1999Ð  ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€CourtÏClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularH m\Dn\o\ p\Pq\Pr\Es\t\Uu\Vv\î(ï(3óy$¤¤Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XÁXXXÔÑ7€eXXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó áÔ€XÁXXXÔÔ€è»sèXXÁÔÔ Ad ÔÓ  ÓFILEDÔ€¦ßèè»sÔÐ  ÐÌò òMarch€4,€1999Ð  ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€CourtÏClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular<4šÛ 9Z ‹.Courier New Regular d$$$$'ÿÿdxd(ï3¹}$££Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XÁXXXÔÑ7€eXXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ý'ÈÈÈÈdxd€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd·-¸:Müÿ << deUU…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(n$––ò ò(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)ó óÝ ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XÁXXXÔÑ7€eXXdìdÈ7ÑÝ  Ýño\ñ›ño\ñÑÀ°ÑÑX°Ñò òÓ  ÓÑ  Ñño\ñ›ño\ñño\ñßn€*8($hxÙÿAü `€€EQÀtt06‰À¨ænߛ⠉‰$$âño\ñ€Ð À Ðó óÓÓÓ  Óà@@Ü Ü Ìàò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ¬ì Ðà@@B B ÌàSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@@ˆˆÌàAT€KNOXVILLEó óÐ „Ä ÐÓøÓœà ` àño\ñ›ño\ñà ¸ àño\ñ›ño\ñà  àño\ñ›ño\ñà h àño\ñ›ño\ñà À àño\ñ›ño\ñà  àño\ñ›ño\ñà p àño\ñ›ño\ñà È à›ÌÌño\ñßl€*6&"h 8 `€€ExC tt06°< ¨ílßœño\ñÌÌâ $$‰‰âJOSEPH€WALTON€JAMES,à À àà  à)Ð  H Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ î .  Ðà ` àPlaintiff/Appelleeà h àà À àà  à)à p àANDERSON€œà x àà Ð àà (# àÐ Ô   Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àñp\ñà h àñp\ññp\ñà À àñp\ññp\ñà  àñp\ññn\ñ)ñn\ñà p àCIRCUIT›à  àà x àà Ð àà (# àÐ º ú  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àœñq\ñà h àà À àà  àñq\ñ)›à p àÐ  à  Ðv.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àNO.€€œ03S01„ñm\ñÐ †Æ  Ðñl\ñ9ñl\ññm\ñ9802„CV„00012à (# àÐ †Æ  Ðà ` à›à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àœñr\ñà p àñr\ññv\ñ›ñv\ññs\ñ)ñs\ññs\ñ›ñs\ññr\ñ)ñr\ñ›à p àÐ l¬  ÐTHE€TRAVELERS€INSURANCEà À àà  à)à p àHON.€JAMES€B.€SCOTT,€JR.,Ð R’  ÐCOMPANY,à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àJUDGEÐ 8x Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àDefendant/Appellantà À àà  à)Ð D ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòÌFor€the€Appellant:à  àà h àà À àà  àFor€the€Appellee:Ð :z ÐÌó óóóImogene€A.€Kingà  àà h àà À àà  àRoger€L.€RidenourÐ R ÐFrantz,€McConnell€&€Seymour,€LLPà  àRidenour,€Ridenour€&€FoxÐ ø8 ÐP.O.€Box€39à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àP.O.€Box€530Ð Þ ÐKnoxville,€TN€€37901òòò òà h àà À àà  àó óóóClinton,€TN€€37717„0530òòò òÐ Ä Ðóóó óÌÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÐ  'L#' ÐÌò òòòMembers€of€Panel:Ð Þ(%) ÐÌó óóóChief€Justice€E.€Riley€Andersonòòò òÐ ¶*ö&+ Ðó óóóSenior€Judge€John€K.€ByersÐ œ+Ü', ÐSpecial€Judge€Roger€E.€Thayer¹Ó’ ÓÌÌÌÌÌÔ% € ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àBYERS,€Senior€JudgeÐ È;8> ÐÌòòò òÓ  ÓÓÓœñt\ñÐ ”=Ô9@( Ðñt\ñOPINIONó óóó›Ð À ÐÓ  Óà ` 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 ` àReview€of€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€theÐ È   Ðrecord€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€theÏfindings,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ïðð€50„6„225(e)(2);€òòStone€v.€City€of€McMinnville,€óó896€S.W.2d€548,€550€(Tenn.€1995).€Ð 0p ÐThe€application€of€this€standard€requires€this€Court€to€weigh€in€more€depth€the€factualÏfindings€and€conclusions€of€the€trial€court€in€a€workersðð€compensation€case.€€òòSeeÐ Ì  ÐCorcoran€v.€Foster€Auto€GMC,€Inc.,€óó746€S.W.2d€452,€456€(Tenn.€1988).Ð œÜ Ðà ` àThe€trial€court€awarded€the€plaintiff€55€percent€vocational€disability€to€the€leftÏleg.à ` àÐ 8x Ðà ` àThe€defendant€raises€the€following€issues:ÌÒ` ÒÓÓI.à ¸ àWhether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€à (# àœÐ Ð Ðà ¸ àdetermination›€that€plaintiff€sustained€vocational€disability€of€55%€to€the€¼à ¸ àleg,€where€no€medical€restrictions€were€imposed€on€his€activities,€he€¼à ¸ àwas€able€to€resume€and€sustain€his€pre„accident€employment,€and€¼à ¸ àretained€the€ability€to€perform€other€pre„accident€employments.ÌÌII.à ¸ àWhether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€à (# àœÐ 4$t $ Ðà ¸ àdetermination›€that€plaintiff€sustained€vocational€disability€in€the€amount€¼à ¸ àof€55%€to€the€leg,€where€its€decision€was€based€on€findings€of€fact€that€¼à ¸ àwere€either€improper€to€consider€or€not€supported€by€a€preponderance€¼à ¸ àof€evidence.ÌÌÒ` SÒÓaÓà ` àWe€affirm€the€judgment.Ìà ` àThe€plaintiff,€age€57€at€the€time€of€trial,€graduated€from€high€school€andÏreceived€vocational€training€as€a€hydraulic€mechanic€while€serving€in€the€U.S.€AirÏForce.€€His€employment€history€includes€working€as€a€roustabout,€a€truck€crane€oiler,Ïa€machine€operator,€a€fork€crane€operator,€and€a€tractor„trailer€truck€driver.€€In€MarchÏ1975,€he€went€to€work€for€the€predecessor€of€Titan€Tire€or€Dico€Tire,€where€he€stillÏworks€as€a€spray€operator€or€green€tire€sprayer.€€Ìà ` àThe€plaintiff€testified€that€on€May€21,€1996€the€sprayer€he€was€usingÏmalfunctioned€and€began€spraying€paint€on€the€floor.€€He€explained€that€heÏâ âcontinued€to€work€until€his€feet€got€twisted€around€and€he€fell€with€his€left€leg€beneathÐ Ä96< Ðhis€body,€injuring€his€knee.€€The€defendant€concedes€that€the€plaintiff€sustained€a€Ïcompensable€work€injury.€€Ìâ âà ` àThe€plaintiff€immediately€reported€this€injury€to€his€supervisor€and€he€wasÏtaken€to€Dr.€Cumberledge€for€treatment.€€Dr.€Cumberledge€referred€him€to€Dr.€Hovis,Ïan€orthopedic€surgeon,€for€further€evaluation€and€treatment.€€The€plaintiff€testifiedÏthat€when€he€returned€to€work€in€September€1996,€after€Dr.€Hovis€released€him€withÏtemporary€restrictions,€he€had€a€ð ðroughðð€time€because€he€had€to€do€a€lot€of€twisting,Ïlifting,€and€pulling.€€He€also€testified€that€since€his€1996€knee€injury€he€does€not€haveÏð ðgood€stabilityðð€and€ð ðbabiesðð€his€left€leg.€€In€order€to€return€to€full„time,€unrestrictedÏduty,€the€plaintiff€underwent€and€passed€a€physical€examination.€€Since€DecemberÏ1996,€he€has€performed€his€regular€job€duties€and€has€earned€at€least€as€muchÏmoney€as€he€did€before€the€injury.€€€€€€€òòò òÐ „Ä Ðà ` àóóó óPrior€to€the€injury€in€this€case,€the€plaintiffððs€medical€history€consisted€of€a€carÐ P Ðaccident€which€caused€him€to€have€balance€problems,€bilateral€carpal€tunnel€surgery,Ïarthritis€in€both€knees,€and€a€15„20€year€old€knee€injury€for€which€he€once€took€pain€Ïmedication€on€a€regular€basis.€€At€the€time€of€trial,€he€was€taking€an€arthritis€pill.€€TheÏplaintiff€testified€that€although€he€is€slower€since€the€injury,€he€has€continued€to€mowÏthe€lawn,€trim€the€hedges,€and€hunt€deer€and€turkey€with€a€rifle€and€bow.€€Finally,€heÏstated€that€he€could€perform€such€previous€jobs€as€crane€operator,€tractor„trailerÏtruck€driver,€and€builder/sorter€of€pallets.€€ò òòòÐ ä%$"& Ðà ` àóóó óThirteen€months€after€the€injury€in€this€case,€the€plaintiff€was€involved€in€anÐ °'ð#( Ðaccident€where€his€4„wheeler€turned€over€on€top€of€him,€causing€an€injury€to€his€rightÏhip.€€The€plaintiff€testified€that€his€right€hip€gives€him€more€trouble€at€work€than€hisÏleft€leg€does.€€Mr.€Stooksbury,€the€curing€superintendent€at€Titan/Dico€for€sevenÏyears,€testified€that€he€observes€and€talks€to€the€plaintiff€everyday€at€work.€€He€saidÏthat€the€plaintiffððs€work€speed€has€not€been€affected€by€his€knee€injury,€but€that€heÏhas€complained€about€his€hip€on€the€job.€€òòò òÐ x2¸.4 Ðà ` àóóó óThe€only€medical€evidence€was€given€by€deposition€by€Dr.€William€Hovis,€aÐ D4„06 Ðboard€certified€orthopedic€surgeon€and€the€treating€physician.€€Dr.€Hovisðð€initialÏdiagnostic€testing€revealed€that€the€plaintiff€had€sustained€tears€of€the€medialÏmeniscus,€lateral€meniscus,€and€anterior€cruciate€of€the€left€knee,€which€he€believedÏwere€caused€by€his€work€accident.€€He€found€that€the€plaintiffððs€preexisting€arthritis€inÐ t;´7> Ðhis€left€knee€was€severe€and€opined€that€it€had€been€aggravated€by€his€work€injury.€ÏOn€June€28,€1996,€Dr.€Hovis€performed€arthroscopic€surgery€to€repair€the€tears€in€theÏplaintiffððs€left€knee.€€He€released€him€to€return€to€work€on€September€3,€1996€withÏtemporary€restrictions€of€four€hours€a€day€for€two€weeks€and€increasing€to€eightÏhours€a€day,€as€well€as€a€temporary€weight€restriction€of€50€pounds.€€Dr.€HovisÏdetermined€that€he€reached€maximum€medical€improvement€on€December€23,€1996,Ïwhen€he€released€him€to€work€with€no€restrictions.€€The€plaintiff€returned€to€him€onÏMarch€24,€1997€doing€well€but€slow€at€his€job;€Dr.€Hovis€found€that€his€knee€wasÏstable€at€that€time.€€Dr.€Hovis€opined€that€the€plaintiff€sustained€a€15€percent€(nineÏpercent€for€repair€of€the€menisci€and€six€percent€for€aggravation€of€the€preexistingÏarthritis)€permanent€partial€impairment€to€his€left€leg€as€a€result€of€the€May€1996€workÏaccident€according€to€the€òòAMA€Guides.€€óóDr.€Hovis€discussed€with€the€plaintiff€theÐ „Ä Ðpossibility€of€total€knee€arthroplasty€or€knee€joint€replacement€in€the€future.Ìà ` àRegarding€the€first€issue,€the€defendant€says€that€the€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€does€not€support€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€55€percent€permanent€partialÏdisability€to€the€left€leg€because€of€the€following€facts:€€(1)€the€plaintiff€has€Ïsuccessfully€passed€a€physical€examination€and€has€performed€his€regular€job€dutiesÏfor€more€than€one€year€since€the€work€injury;€(2)€Dr.€Hovis€eventually€released€theÏplaintiff€to€return€to€work€without€restrictions;€(3)€the€plaintiff€stated€that€he€couldÏperform€such€previous€jobs€as€crane€operator,€tractor„trailer€truck€driver,€andÏbuilder/sorter€of€pallets;€(4)€the€plaintiff€has€continued€to€do€yard€work€and€hunt€sinceÏthe€work€injury;€and€(5)€the€plaintiff€did€not€offer€proof€establishing€that€his€jobÏopportunities€in€the€open€labor€market€have€been€diminished€by€the€knee€injury.€€€€€Ìà ` àThe€plaintiff€contends€that€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€supports€theÏtrial€courtððs€award€of€55€percent€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€left€leg€based€onÏthe€following€facts:€€(1)€he€continues€to€work€despite€afflictions€and€never€complains,Ïand€the€trial€court€found€him€to€be€ð ðunexaggerated€and€refreshingly€honestðð;€(2)€heÏsuffered€a€compensable€knee€injury€at€work€for€Titan/Dico€and€required€surgery€andÏmay€require€a€future€joint€replacement;€(3)€Dr.€Hovis€testified€that€the€plaintiff€tends€toÏminimize€his€pain;€and€(4)€Dr.€Hovis€opined€that€the€plaintiff€suffers€from€a€15€percentÏâ âpermanent€partial€disability€to€the€left€leg€based€solely€on€the€May€1996€work€injury.€Ð ¬9ì5< Ðà ` àWe€find€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€determination€thatÏâ âthe€plaintiff€sustained€a€55€percent€disability€to€his€left€leg€as€contended€by€theÏdefendant.€€The€medical€evidence€is€that€the€plaintiff€suffered€a€15€percent€medicalÏimpairment€to€his€knee€as€a€result€of€this€fall.€€Nine€percent€of€this€was€based€on€theÏactual€injury€to€the€leg€and€six€percent€was€based€upon€the€aggravation€of€hisÏpreexisting€condition€of€arthritis.€€The€defendant€is€liable€for€both€the€injury€to€the€legÏas€well€as€for€the€aggravation€of€the€preexisting€condition.Ìà ` àNext,€the€defendant€says€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trialÏcourtððs€determination€that€plaintiff€sustained€vocational€disability€in€the€amount€of€55Ïpercent€to€the€leg€because€it€was€based€on€findings€of€fact€that€were€either€improperÏto€consider€or€not€supported€by€a€preponderance€of€evidence.Ìà ` àThe€trial€courtððs€memorandum€opinion€stated,€ÌÒ` ÒÓÓThe€plaintiff€is€not€as€productive€as€other€employees€who€perform€the€sameÏwork€function€and€he€has€problems€with€his€knees€as€well€as€his€hip€and€otherÏjoints€as€a€result€of€a€degenerative€arthritis€condition€including€the€left€knee.€ÏThe€doctor€has€given€the€plaintiff€an€anatomical€disability€of€15€percent€to€theÏleft€leg€(excluding€the€arthritic€condition)€and€opines€that€a€knee€replacementÏwith€an€artificial€joint€is€a€future€consideration.Ì€€ÌÒ` >3ÒÓL3Óà ` àFirst,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€does€not€support€the€trial€courtððsÏfinding€that€the€plaintiff€was€less€productive€than€co„workers€since€his€knee€injuryÏbecause€he€continues€to€successfully€perform€his€regular€job€duties€and€earns€atÏleast€as€much€money€as€he€did€before€the€injury,€and€his€superintendent€testified€thatÏhis€work€speed€has€not€been€affected€by€his€knee€injury.€€Ìà ` àSecond,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€misconstrued€the€plaintiffððsÏimpairment€rating€because€Dr.€Hovisðð€rating€did€include€six€percent€for€his€preexistingÏarthritis,€and€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€considered€the€possibility€of€futureÏknee€replacement€as€contributing€to€his€vocational€disability€because€Dr.€Hovis€didÏnot€testify€that€his€knee€injury€caused€the€future€need€for€joint€replacement.€€Ìà ` àThird,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€considered€theÏplaintiffððs€hip€condition€or€other€joint€problems€as€contributing€to€his€vocationalÏdisability€because€he€testified€that€his€hip€injury€has€caused€him€more€difficulty€atÏwork€than€his€left€leg,€and€there€was€no€medical€evidence€that€his€right€hip€was€everÏarthritic.€€The€defendant€asks€this€Court€to€reduce€the€plaintiffððs€vocational€disabilityÏâ âto€reflect€his€minimal€loss€of€capacity.€€Ð Ž:Î6= Ðà ` àWe€find€that€the€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€under€the€second€issue€itÏâ âraises.€€The€trial€judge€properly€considered€all€the€factors€in€this€case.€€The€questionÏconcerning€the€hip€is€insignificant,€and€the€award€is€justified€without€regard€to€the€hipÏproblem.Ìà ` àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€The€cost€of€this€appeal€is€taxed€toÏthe€defendant.à  àÐ ¼ ü  ÐÓÓÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_____________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌE.€Riley€Anderson,€Chief€JusticeÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€œJudgeñu\ñÐ  Î Ðñu\ññv\ñ›ñv\ññv\ñÔ‡¼a? ¼XXÁÔà ` àÔ#†XÁX ¼¼a?ê=#ÔÔ‡Šè¯ ŠXXÁÔà ¸ àà  àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEE€€Ô#†XÁX ŠŠè¯8>#ÔÐ À Ðà@ÌÌ.ÌàˆÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÒÒà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H àà   àà ø àà P àà ¨ àà  àÌà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H àà   àà ø àà P àà ¨ àà  àà X àà °" àÌà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H à€€€à   àÐ P Ðà 8 àà à àà 8 àà  àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H àà   àà ø àÌÒ(HÒà è àà @ àÌJOSEPH€WALTON€JAMES,à H à)€ANDERSON€CIRCUIT€€Ð  B Ðà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H à)€No.€97LA0102¹Ò (Òà è àPlaintiff„Appellee,à ð àà H à)à   àà ø àà P àà ¨ àÐ Î   Ðà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð à€€€€à H à)à   àà ø àà P àà ¨ àà  àà X àÐ ´ ô  Ðà è àà @ à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à H à)€No.€€03S01„9802„CV€„00012Ð šÚ  Ðà è àv.à @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H à)Ð €À  Ðà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H à)Ìà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H à)€Hon.€James€B.€Scott,€Jr.ÌTHE€TRAVELERS€INSURANCEà H à)€JudgeÐ 2r ÐCOMPANYà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H à)Ð X Ðà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H à)Ìà è àDefendant„Appellant.à H àà   à)à ø àà P àÓ€ÓÐ ä$ Ðà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H àà   àà ø àÌà è àà @ àà ˜ àÌà è àà @ àà ˜ à€€€€€€JUDGMENT€ORDERÌ€€€€€€€€Ô‡XÑ3 XXXÁÔà è àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€à X àÐ Hˆ Ðrecord,including€the€order€of€referral€to€the€à  àà X àÐ °ð ÐSpecial€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€à X àÐ ñ1 ÐPanel's€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€à X àofÐ 2r! Ðfact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€à X àÐ s³# Ðherein€by€reference;Ìà è àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€à  àà X àÐ õ!5' Ðmemorandum€Opinion€of€the€Panel€should€be€accepted€andÏapproved;€andÌà è àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€à  àà X àÐ ¸%ø!- Ðfindings€of€facts€and€conclusions€of€law€are€à  àà X àÐ ù&9#/ Ðadopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€madeÏthe€Judgment€of€the€Court.Ìà è àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellant,TheÏTravelers€Insurance€Company€and€Imogene€A.€King,€surety,forÏwhich€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€à ¨ àÐ >-~)9 Ð03/04/99à @ àÔ#†XÁX XXÑ3rF#Ôñv\ñ›Ð .¿*; Ð