ÿWPCÓ ÒY+±É—Ǒ؛xh#À¿Ÿ^bl¦š7,%R•^ÚÅ›ÓB ¢eöb‘{Þåaý90kZ*+px vÆÑ5(!¨ M»—õUù»a2^žå P?#1Ôy7_`XÀ¿2,”ÛÛ„-‡\[â Í+­aß©~ Ó+·ÍK“U0’õ¡ÓœFíøQ "PïÑR¡†àì :²0ʯÝb  âl+Õ{C`ÁÏA‘´èÛ”à¯_ê$±’_ ai4à ¹÷Ò >ú%ÔÑ.ê¿,f–”åjÊÛ`6?tXÈN˜öÄ/‘fªÐŒª‚K6#±z?"ÅY¾î‹*™]jóÓŠèòÿÒ@±hí±Âø<Þq]Í4ÙY%/CÇ5ªrDÐÎh¡Ý¶qNõe[¢\t°Sìë'ÏV„ÞL‰ˆÞ1aÅtà5>°[ïÌc8+J±ƒx£ulݧ+³­Ì”¤èúŒ­ÒëÈh}Ÿ¬Û’™¾Àyâ‘72°ù2ª€Ñëè ·6ˆª;ÆCJÂ4’iO¾áÀj$âh$ëô‚G?v#Ó”8lu–æ^LÙãÒUKÌj„ ‚•â £C¥• Ç èQÅ«>ÎËlˆœ¾›ÏÖ¨ËB;BhìîBRúüÛ¹#  UN) %w 0û} U :x4²ÆíÕU: üwL  0?V 0D•ÙUNÙÙ'''''''''''''''''' B777777 D3TTT 0‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡ D+žžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžž AOÉÆ 0DÞ D/" BQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ AYnÆÇ 0F˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÑ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÓH=$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XÎ_XXXÔÑ7€¾úXXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial Regularyš&øð 3|xœC ãÔ€ XHšXXXÔÔ€ è«"èX XHšÔÔ Ad ÔÓ  ÓFILEDÔ€ fõè è«"ÔÐ  ÐÌò òAugust€27,€1999Ð  ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€CourtÏClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularH ‡CˆCD‰CŠCD‹CDŒCCŽCeCÓ€šCV›CîœCU(ï(3¼|$¤¤Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XHšXXXÔÑ7€uLXXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular Ô‡XHšXXXÔÔ‡è«"èXXHšÔÔ Ad ÔÓ  ÓFILEDÔ#†XHšXèè«"#ÔÔ‡fõXXHšÔÐ  ÐÌò òAugust€27,€1999Ð  ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€CourtÏClerkó ó d$$$$'ÿÿdxd(ï3¼F$££Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XHšXXXÔÑ7€uLXXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ý'ÈÈÈÈdxd€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””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€XHšXXXÔÑ7€uLXXdìdÈ7ÑÝ  ÝñŽCñ›ñŽCññŽCññƒCñ›ñƒCññŽCñÑÀ°ÑÑX°Ñò òÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÌÌó óÓ-ÓÓ  Óà@@Ü Ü Ìàò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ˜Ø ÐSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌñCñœßl€*6&"h 8 `€€Exqtt06°p¨çlߛ⠰°$$âñCñKNOXVILLE,€MAY€1999€SESSIONó óÐ p° ÐÓZÓÌÌœñœCñÌñœCñ›œñœCñÌñœCñ›ÌÌÌâ $$°°âROBERT€JONESà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àCUMBERLAND€CIRCUITÐ ¦æ  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ ŒÌ  Ðà ` àPlaintiff/Appelleeà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ r²  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌV.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àHon.€John€J.€Maddux,à Ð àà (# àÐ >~ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àJr.,€Circuit€JudgeÐ $d ÐLIBERTY€MUTUAL€INSURANCE€à  à)à p àÐ  J ÐCOMPANYà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð ð0 Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àDefendant/Appellantà À àà  à)à p àNo.€03S01„9806„CV„00057Ð ¼ü ÐÌòòò òÌÌÌÌFor€the€Appellant:à  àà h àà À àà  àà p àFor€the€Appellee:Ð 8x Ðó óóóÌDavid€H.€Dunawayà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJoe€M.€LooneyÐ  J Ð100€South€Fifth€St.à  àà h àà À àà  àñŽCñœñŽCñ€ñŽCñ›ñŽCñà p à156€Rector€AvenueÐ ð0 ÐP.O.€Box€231à  àà h àà À àà  àà p àP.O.€Box€1250Ð Ö ÐLafollette,€Tenn.€€37766à h àà À àà  àà p àCrossville,€Tenn.€€38557Ð ¼ ü  ÐÌÌÌÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÐ  &`"& ÐÌò òòòMembers€of€Panel:Ð ò'2$( ÐÌó óóóFrank€F.€Drowota€III,€JusticeÐ Ê) &* ÐJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌÓM ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ Ž=Î9@X ЇAFFIRMED.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àTHAYER,€Special€JudgeÐ À 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€insurance€carrier,€Liberty€Mutual€Insurance€Company,€has€appealed€theÏtrial€courtððs€award€of€60%€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€SinceÏthe€award€did€not€result€in€invoking€any€provision€of€the€second€injury€fund€statute,ÏT.C.A.€ðð€50„6„208,€the€case€against€the€state€fund€was€dismissed.Ìà ` àThe€trial€commenced€on€August€16,€1996€and€continued€through€severalÏhearings€until€a€final€hearing€on€March€6,€1998.€€While€there€were€many€issues€at€theÏtrial€stage,€the€appeal€only€involves€two€issues.€€The€insurance€company€contendsÏ(1)€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€award€of€60%€permanent€disability€andÏ(2)€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€that€the€employee€wasÏentitled€to€temporary€total€disability€benefits€up€to€December€1,€1997.Ìà ` àWe€have€carefully€examined€the€lengthy€record€and€are€of€the€opinion€theÏjudgment€entered€below€should€be€affirmed.Ìà ` àThe€employee,€Robert€Jones,€sustained€a€work„related€back€injury€on€July€20,Ï1994€when€he€fell€from€standing€on€a€five€gallon€barrel€ñŽCñœñŽCñoñŽCñ›œñŽCñrñŽCñ›ñŽCñ€drum.€€At€the€date€of€theÏinitial€hearing,€he€testified€he€was€40€years€of€age,€had€a€G.E.D.€certificate€and€hadÏreceived€some€vocational€training.€€He€contends€he€sustained€physical€and€mentalÏinjuries€as€a€result€of€the€accident.Ìà ` àPrior€to€the€accident€in€July€1994,€plaintiff€had€received€several€warningsÏconcerning€unexcused€absences€from€work€and€was€eventually€terminated€after€theÏaccident€during€March€or€April€1995.€€He€told€the€trial€court€he€had€missed€severalÏdays€work€due€to€doctor€visits€and€upon€returning€to€work€was€told€he€did€not€haveÏauthority€to€be€absent€and€he€was€terminated.€€He€stated€he€had€not€worked€sinceÏthe€termination€and€that€he€was€not€able€to€work;€that€he€still€endured€a€lot€of€painÏand€felt€he€was€100%€disabled.Ìà ` àHis€testimony€also€indicates€that€after€the€accident€in€question,€he€becameÏseparated€and€divorced€from€his€wife,€lost€his€house€due€to€a€fire€and€was€caring€forÏâ âhis€two€small€children.Ð Ž:Î6= Ðà ` àNumerous€expert€medical€witnesses€testified.€€With€respect€to€his€physicalÏâ âinjury€claim,€the€trial€court€heard€the€deposition€testimony€of€Dr.€William€Kennedy,€anÏorthopedic€surgeon,€Dr.€William€ñŽCñœñŽCññ‹CñEñ‹CññŒCñKñŒCñ.ñŽCñ›ñŽCñ€Bailey,€a€physical€rehabilitation€ñŽCñœñŽCñmedicineñ‡CñÏñ‡CññˆCñ›ÏñˆCñphysicianñŽCñ›ñŽCñ€and€the€medical€report€of€Dr.€Mark€T.€McQuain,€also€a€ñŽCñœñŽCñphysicalñ‰CñÏñ‰CññŠCñ›ÏñŠCñrehabilitationñŽCñ›ñŽCñ€medicine€physician.Ìà ` àDr.€Kennedy€was€an€evaluating€doctor€and€was€of€the€opinion€plaintiff€hadÏsustained€a€back€strain.€€He€found€degenerative€disc€disease€with€trauma.€€HeÏopined€plaintiff€had€a€8%€medical€impairment€and€felt€restrictions€should€be€imposedÏon€bending,€stooping,€etc.€€Dr.€Baileyððs€testimony€was€in€conflict€with€Dr.€KennedyððsÏassessment.€€He€treated€plaintiff€on€several€occasions€and€diagnosed€him€as€havingÏa€back€strain€but€gave€no€permanent€impairment€and€released€him€to€return€to€workÏwithout€any€restrictions.€€Dr.€McQuainððs€medical€report€indicated€a€5%€medicalÏimpairment,€2€ðð%€due€to€pre„existing€degenerative€joint€changes€and€2€ðð%€due€toÏinjury€sustained€in€July€1994€accident.Ìà ` àIn€connection€with€the€claim€for€mental€injury,€the€trial€court€heard€the€oral€andÏdeposition€testimony€of€Dr.€Jerry€B.€Lemler,€a€psychiatrist,€the€deposition€testimonyÏof€Dr.€Chris€D.€Houser,€a€psychiatrist,€and€the€deposition€testimony€of€Dr.€James€W.ÏVarner,€also€a€psychiatrist.Ìà ` àDr.€Lemler€did€not€treat€plaintiff€but€made€several€evaluation€examinations.€ÏHe€originally€opined€plaintiff€was€suffering€from€major€depression€and€alcohol€abuseÏand€that€his€impairment€was€50%€to€the€whole€body.€€After€the€passage€of€someÏperiod€of€time,€he€re„examined€plaintiff,€determined€his€alcohol€problem€had€beenÏresolved€and€reduced€his€estimate€of€disability€to€37.5%€impairment,€being€moderateÏimpairment€under€AMA€guidelines.Ìà ` àDr.€Houser€treated€plaintiff€for€some€period€of€time€and€diagnosed€he€wasÏsuffering€from€major€depression.€€He€was€also€of€the€opinion€that€the€work„relatedÏinjury€was€a€major€contributing€factor€to€his€mental€problems.€€During€his€firstÏdeposition,€he€opined€the€mental€injury€was€not€permanent€if€he€received€properÏpsychiatric€treatment€but€admitted€he€was€not€able€to€work€at€that€time€(July€1997).€ÏHe€testified€that€he€was€55„75%€impaired€and€after€proper€treatment,€the€impairmentÏshould€be€reduced€to€10„20%.€€In€testifying€by€a€second€deposition€some€period€ofÏtime€later,€he€felt€the€impairment€was€still€in€the€10„20%€range€(mild€impairment)€andÐ t;´7> Ðwhen€he€was€asked€about€the€permanency€of€same,€he€replied€ð ðIt€would€be€hard€toÏsay€permanent,€but€at€least€at€this€point€I€would€say€persistent.ðð€€Near€the€end€of€thisÏdeposition€he€was€asked€if€the€permanency€of€impairment€was€more€likely€than€not,Ïhe€answered€in€the€affirmative.Ìà ` àDr.€Varner,€an€evaluating€doctor,€was€of€the€opinion€there€was€no€evidence€ofÏdepression,€no€permanent€impairment,€employee€Jones€could€return€to€work€and€thatÏany€current€symptoms€were€not€work„related€but€due€to€his€separation€from€his€wifeÏand€financial€difficulties.Ìà ` àThe€trial€court€also€heard€the€oral€testimony€of€Dr.€Norman€Hankins,€aÏvocational€consultant,€who€opined€plaintiff€had€100%€vocational€disability€based€onÏDr.€Lemlerððs€assessment€and€about€66%€vocational€disability€by€Dr.€HouserððsÏassessment.Ìà ` àIn€rendering€a€decision€of€60%€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole,€the€trial€judgeÏspecifically€found€plaintiffððs€return€to€work€was€not€meaningful€in€the€sense€of€theÏmultiplier€statute,€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(1),€and€therefore€the€2€ðð€times€cap€of€theÏaward€did€not€apply.Ìà ` àOn€appeal€the€case€is€to€be€reviewed€de€novo€accompanied€by€a€presumptionÏof€the€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact€ñŽCñœñŽCñunlessñCñ€we€findñCññŽCñ›ñŽCñ€the€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€is€otherwise.€€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).Ìà ` àThe€rule€is€that€if€there€is€conflicting€medical€testimony,€the€trial€judge€hasÏdiscretion€to€conclude€that€the€opinion€of€a€particular€expert€should€be€accepted€overÏthat€of€another€expert€and€that€one€expertððs€testimony€contains€a€more€probableÏexplanation€than€another€expertððs€testimony.€€òòThomas€v.€Aetna€Life€&€Cas.€Co.,óó€812Ð H+ˆ', ÐS.W.2d€278€(Tenn.€1991).Ìà ` àIn€making€this€choice€between€conflicting€opinions,€the€trial€court€is€allowed€toÏconsider€the€qualifications€of€the€experts,€the€circumstances€of€their€examination,€theÏinformation€available€to€them,€and€the€evaluation€of€the€importance€of€thatÏinformation€by€other€experts.€€òòOrman€v.€Williams„Sonoma,€Inc.,óó€803€S.W.2d€672,€676Ð H4ˆ06 Ð(Tenn.€1991).Ìà ` àConflicting€evidence€was€presented€with€respect€to€both€issues€raised€by€theÏinsurance€company.€€As€to€the€60%€award€of€disability,€evidence€was€presented€asÏto€the€physical€injury€finding€no€permanent€impairment,€a€2€ðð%€impairment€and€8%Ð |;¼7> Ðimpairment.€€With€regard€to€the€mental€injury,€evidence€ranged€from€no€impairment,Ï10„20%€impairment€and€37.5%€impairment.€€A€combination€of€the€two€injuries€wouldÏrange€from€no€impairment€to€45.5%€impairment.Ìà ` àThe€trial€judge€chose€to€accept€the€testimony€that€permanent€impairmentÏexisted€and€fixed€the€award€at€60%.€€This€award€was€a€great€deal€less€than€plaintiffððsÏclaim€of€total€disability€and€not€in€excess€of€the€six€times€cap€imposed€by€theÏprovisions€of€the€multiplier€statute.€€We€cannot€say€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€the€courtððs€finding€of€disability.Ìà ` àIn€connection€with€the€issue€of€temporary€total€disability,€the€court€fixed€thisÏrecovery€to€stop€on€December€1,€1997.€€Defendant€contends€the€award€should€notÏgo€beyond€July€29,€1997.Ìà ` àTemporary€total€disability€benefits€end€when€the€employee€becomes€able€toÏwork€at€any€employment€permitted€by€the€nature€of€his/her€injuries€or€has€attainedÏmaximum€recovery.€€òòLock€v.€National€Union€Fire€Ins.€Co.€of€Pittsburg,€Pa.,óó€809Ð \ ÐS.W.2d€483€(Tenn.€1991).Ìà ` àIn€giving€testimony€concerning€the€physical€injury,€Dr.€Bailey€testified€plaintiffÏreached€maximum€improvement€on€October€24,€1994.€€Dr.€Kennedy€did€notÏspecifically€address€this€question€and€Dr.€McQuainððs€reported€indicated€maximumÏimprovement€was€attained€upon€his€May€1,€1996€examination.€€Ìà ` àAs€to€the€claim€for€the€mental€injury,€Dr.€Lemler€fixed€maximum€medicalÏimprovement€on€May€20,€1997.€€Dr.€Houser,€the€treating€psychiatrist,€stated€in€hisÏfirst€deposition€he€had€not€reached€maximum€improvement€as€of€the€date€of€theÏdeposition€testimony,€July€29,€1997,€and€that€it€would€be€ð ðin€the€range€of€6€months€toÏa€yearðð€before€reaching€this€point€in€his€recovery.€€At€the€date€of€the€secondÏdeposition€on€February€3,€1998,€he€testified€plaintiff€still€remained€unable€to€work.Ìà ` àThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€finding€of€the€trial€court€onÏthis€issue.Ìà ` àThe€judgment€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€defendant.ÌÌà ` àÔ% € ÔÓÓà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌÌÐ ^<ž8? ÐCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌÓ  ÓFrank€F.€Drowota€III,€JusticeÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€œJudgeñšCñÐ  ¼ ü  ÐñšCññ›Cñ›ñ›Cññ›CñÒ` ÒÔ‡X>¦ XXXHšÔÌßn€*8($hxóR `€€Ektt06£°¨8nßâ ` £` £` $` $âÌà@n n àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEE€ˆÌà@##$àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àÌÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€à p àÐ `   Ðà  àà ° àà  àà ` àà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àÌROBERT€JONESà h àà À à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€€CUMBERLANDÐ @ € Ðâ ` $` $` £` £âCIRCUIT€€à  àà h àà À àà  àà p à€€€€€à È à€€€€€)à  àNo.€95„697Ð 0 p  ÐÒ HÒ€€à ¸ àPlaintiff„Appellee,à À à€€€€€€€à  à€€€€€)à p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð àÐ  `  ÐÓ àœX°œXÓà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€)à p àNo.€03S01„9806„CV„00057à Ð àÐ P  Ðv.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà0  à€€€€€)Ð@ 8"8" Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€)à p àà È àà  àà x à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ð0  ÐLIBERTY€MUTUAL€INSURANCEà  à€€€€€)à p àHon.€John€J.€Maddux,€Jr.Ð à  ÐCOMPANYà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€)à p àCircuit€JudgeÐ Ð Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€)à p à€€€Ð À Ðà ¸ àDefendant„Appellant€à À à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ð °ð Ðà ¸ àÌà ¸ àà  à€€€€€à h àà À àà  àà p àà È à€€€€€Ð Ð Ѐ€€€à ¸ àà  àà h à€€€€€€€€€à À à€€€€€€€€€€Ð €À ÐÌà ¸ àà  àà h à€€€€€€€€JUDGMENT€ORDERÌÌÓ€Óà ¸ à€This€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€the€orderÏof€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel'sÏmemorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,Ïwhich€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;ÌÌà ¸ àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€memorandum€Opinion€of€theÏPanel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌÌà ¸ àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€facts€and€conclusionsÏof€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€theÏJudgment€of€the€Court.ÌÌà ¸ àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€defendant,€Liberty€Mutual€InsuranceÏCompany€and€Joe€M.€Looney,€surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€Ì€€€€€€08/27/99Ô#†XHšX XX>¦X3#Ôñ›Cñ›€Ð ð-0*4 Ѐ