ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0JH 0T’ Ææ Ƭ Ær Æ8 0^þ 0h\ 0rÄ 0|6 0†² 08 1uÈ 0d=U>¡B)ß BDC% AMhU *µß D3í 0D fd 0@Ê v~vÓ– AQiƺ 0D€ D/Ä Bó˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ …†Ó€’•V–î—Ó€£¤§¨§aö"3|x¨2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52, 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< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d d$$$$7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òAugust€18,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó%%%%'ÿÿdxd(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òAugust€18,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€+-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  Ý›ò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€#¼ÔÑ7€¥VXXdìdÈ7ÑœÞ ÞÌIN›€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌ̜ـ€ÙßR€')&A1-j|®©` Å `€€@ÿRß›ÌAT€JACKSONÌ(May€23,€1997€Session)Ì__________________________________________________________________ÌÓ  ÓÌPAUL€WAYNE€KING,ÌÌà àPlaintiff„Appellee,ÌÌvs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àDocket€Number€œ02S01›„9611„CH„00100ÌÌGOODYEAR€TIRE€&€ÌRUBBER€COMPANYÌÌà àDefendant„Appellant.Ì___________________________________________________________________ÌÌÌFor€Appellant:à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFor€Appellee:ÌÌRandy€N.€œChism›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJeffrey€A.ÏœGarrety›ÌUnion€City,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœGarrety›€&ÏSandersÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJackson,ÏTennesseeÌà àÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓÌÌMEMORANDUM€OPINIONÌÌóóó óMailed€June€€€€€€€,€1997ÌÌòòÌÌÌMembers€€of€€Panel:ÌÌóóà àà àà àà àJanice€M.€Holder,€Associate€Justice,€Supreme€CourtÌà àà àà àà àRobert€A.€œLanier›,€Circuit€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àDon€R.€Ash,€Circuit€JudgeÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌœ€AFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIEDà à›à àà àà àà àà àà àœLanier›,ÏJudgeÔ€#XÔÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€#ŠÔÌMEMORANDUM€OPINIONÌóóÌÓ  Óó óÌÓÓà àThis€workersðð€compensation€appeal€€has€been€referred€to€this€Special€WorkersððÏCompensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€œT.C.A.›€ðð€50„6„225€(e)€(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.Ìà àThe€first€issue€presented€on€this€appeal€is€whether€or€not€the€requirements€of€ÏœT.C.A.›€ðð€50„6„241,€limiting€an€award€of€permanent€partial€disability€to€2€ðð€times€theÏmedical€impairment€rating,€should€have€been€applied€to€the€award€in€this€case.Ìà àIt€is€not€disputed€that€the€claimant€sustained€an€accidental€injury€arising€out€ofÏand€in€the€course€of€€his€employment€with€the€defendant€employer€when,€on€July€11,Ï1994,€while€working€as€a€œtirebuilder›,€he€sustained€an€injury€to€his€left€shoulder.€€HeÏsubsequently€saw€Dr.€James€R.€œWilkinson›,€an€orthopedic€surgeon.€€On€October€6,€1994,ÏDr.€œWilkinson›€performed€a€surgical€procedure€on€his€shoulder€which€involved€dissectingÍthe€deltoid€muscle,€removing€the€œcoracoacromial›€ligament€and€changing€the€€anatomicÏconstruct€of€€the€shoulder.€€€Dr.€œWilkinson›€gave€his€opinion€that€the€claimant€hadÏsustained€a€permanent€anatomical€impairment€of€6%€to€the€left€upper€extremity€due€toÏjoint€crepitation,€which€amounted€to€4%€of€the€body€as€a€whole.€€He€agreed€that,€basedÏupon€his€range€of€motion,€his€impairment€should€be€an€extra€2%.€€Dr.€œWilkinson›€testifiedÏthat€he€would€expect€claimant€to€have€some€weakness€in€his€shoulder€and€would€benefitÏfrom€possibly€avoiding€overhead€and€heavy€lifting€and€pushing€and€pulling€away€from€Ïhis€body.€€He€felt€that€claimant€could€have€some€problems€with€his€shoulder€performingÏhis€previous€job.€€Dr.€œWilkinson›ððs€rating€converts€to€4%€physical€impairment€to€the€bodyÏas€a€whole.Ìà àOn€January€6,€1995,€claimant€was€released€by€Dr.€œWilkinson›€to€return€to€work,Ïand€he€did€return€to€work€with€the€defendant€employer€at€his€previous€job,€earning€theÏsame€wages.€€On€May€10,€1995,€claimant€saw€Dr.€Robert€Barnett€one€time€at€€theÏsuggestion€of€€his€attorney.€€Claimant€gave€a€history€to€Dr.€Barnett€of€popping€andÏcreaking€in€his€shoulder,€which€had€improved,€but€said€that€he€still€felt€the€sensation€of€itÏwhen€he€moved€his€shoulder.€€He€also€complained€of€€ð ðsome€problemsðð€working€aboveÏthe€waist€level,€apparently€involving€some€weakness€in€his€arm€or€shoulder.€€Dr.€Barnett€Ïfelt€that€the€condition€had€improved€but€was€certainly€not€completely€well€at€that€time.€ÏHe€said€that€€the€claimantððs€main€limitation€would€be€in€overhead€work.€€He€consideredÏthe€crepitation€ð ðmild.ðð€€He€also€had€€limited€€motion€and€weakness.€€He€said€that€heÏwould€expect€the€claimant€to€ð ðhave€problemsðð€if€€his€job€involved€lifting€eighty€poundsÏwith€the€help€of€a€hydraulic€or€vacuum€device€€and€if€he€had€to€lift€that€above€a€shoulderÏwaist,€almost€to€shoulder€level.€€The€doctor€also€would€expect€him€ð ðto€have€problemsððÏwith€moving€his€arm€sideways€and€lifting€away€from€his€body.€€He€felt€that€it€wasÍpossible€that€the€claimant€would€continue€to€regain€strength€in€his€shoulder€sevenÏmonths€after€surgery.€€€He€felt€that€claimant€should€be€limited€in€overhead€work,€but€€noÏother€restrictions€were€recommended.€€He€expected€the€patient€€to€regain€more€strengthÏin€his€shoulder.€€His€opinion€was€that€the€claimant€had€sustained€a€10%€permanentÏpartial€disability€to€the€arm.€€The€parties€apparently€agreed€that€Dr.€Barnettððs€ratingÏwould€equate€to€6%€permanent€partial€impairment€to€the€body€as€a€whole€according€toÏthe€€A.M.A.€Tables.€(Brief€of€Appellant,€page€4;€Brief€of€€Appellee,€page€7).Ìà àAs€mentioned€above,€claimant€did€return€to€work€with€the€defendant€at€the€sameÏrate€of€pay€that€he€was€making€prior€to€his€injury€and€remained€at€that€work€for€almostÏseven€months€without€€loss€of€time€from€work€or€€returning€to€his€treating€physician.€€HisÏjob€was€basically€that€of€building€tires.€€It€is€the€claimantððs€position€that,€when€heÏreturned€to€work,€he€had€significant€problems€with€pain€and€discomfort€in€doing€theÏwork€and€was€not€able€to€do€the€job€as€well€as€he€did€previously.€€He€complained€of€Ïpain€and€felt€that€he€was€putting€himself€at€risk€of€injury€by€continuing€in€the€sameÏposition.€€After€this€€approximately€seven€month€period,€claimant€decided€to€bid€on€aÏlower€paying,€less€strenuous€€job€from€the€claimantððs€€point€of€view,€giving€as€a€reasonÏthat€it€would€be€easier€on€his€shoulder.€€Ìà àThe€employer€insists€that€the€trial€courtððs€€award€of€€18%€permanent€partialÏdisability€to€the€body€as€a€whole€is€not€permitted€under€these€circumstances,€as€itÏexceeds€the€maximum€permissible€award€under€œT.C.A.›€ðð€50„6„241,€which€is€2€ðð€€timesÏthe€anatomical€disability€rating.€€As€the€highest€rating€in€this€case€is€6%€to€the€body,€it€isÏthe€employerððs€position€that€the€plaintiff€€would€be€entitled€to€no€more€than€15%Ïpermanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.Ìà àWhile€the€amount€of€disability€in€dispute€on€this€question€is€not€substantial,€theÍquestion€raised€by€the€employer€is€an€important€one€for€this€panel,€involving€as€it€does€aÏquestion€of€whether€or€not€the€law€was€correctly€applied€to€the€facts.€€Conclusions€of€Ïlaw€are€subject€to€òòde€novo€óóreview€on€appeal€without€any€presumption€of€correctness.€ÏòòPresley€vs.€Bennettóó,€860€œS.W.2d›,€857€(Tenn.€1993).òòÌà àóó€The€courts€€must€give€effect€to€laws€€passed€by€the€elected€representatives€of€theÏpeople.€€The€intentions€of€the€General€Assembly€in€enacting€the€law€must€be€determinedÏand€carried€out€by€the€Court.€€The€pertinent€portion€of€the€statute€reads€as€follows:ÌÒ T ÒÒ ° ÒÒ T ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àà àÔ€#XÔ...€Where€an€injured€employee€is€eligible€to€receive€any€permanentÏà àà àpartialà àdisability€benefits€.€.€.€€and€the€pre„injury€employer€returns€theÏà àà àemployee€€to€employment€at€a€wage€equal€to€or€greater€than€the€wageÏà àà àthe€employee€à àwas€receiving€at€the€time€of€the€injury,€the€maximumÏà àà àpermanent€partial€disability€award€that€the€employee€may€receive€is€2Ïà àà àðð€(two€and€one„half)à àtimes€€the€medical€impairment€rating€determinedÏà àà àpursuant€to€the€provisions€of€the€American€Medical€Association€guidesÏà àà à.€.€.€€in€making€determinations,€the€Court€shall€consider€all€pertinentÏà àà àfactors,€including€lay€and€expert€testimony€.€.€.€€ÌÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€#ŠÔÌÓÓà àIt€appears€clearly€to€be€€the€intention€of€the€foregoing€statute€to€adopt,€as€a€matterÏof€public€policy,€an€arbitrary€maximum€in€workersðð€compensation€benefits€with€all€of€theÏhardships€and€benefits€which€such€legislation€necessarily€carries€with€it.€€As€in€the€caseÏof€statutes€of€limitations,€the€General€Assembly€has€taken€upon€itself€to€decide€what€isÏbest€for€the€people€of€€the€State€as€a€whole,€even€though€circumstances€may€causeÏhardships€to€individuals€on€occasion.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€statute€is€not€to€be€used€asÏa€mere€device€by€either€the€employer€or€employee€to€reach€a€result€not€intended€by€theÏlaw.€€Existing€interpretations€of€€this€statute€already€make€it€clear€that€an€employer€mayÏnot€unfairly€€restrict€an€employeeððs€award€of€disability€benefits€€by€pretending€€to€offer€aÏreturn€to€the€previous€employment€which€the€employee€is€obviously€unable€to€carry€out.€ÏOn€the€other€hand,€the€authorities€are€equally€clear€that€the€employee€may€not€avoid€theÏlimitation€on€his€disability€award€by€taking€upon€himself€the€decision€to€not€return€to€theÍprevious€employment€for€personal€or€insubstantial€reasons.€€The€test€of€both€isÏð ðreasonablenessðð.€€The€statute€must€contemplate€that€a€person€left€with€some€permanentÏdisability€will€have€some€degree€of€discomfort€or€inconvenience€in€performing€his€priorÏemployment.€€It€would€be€highly€unusual€if€he€did€not.€€However,€it€seems€to€this€panelÏthat,€where€the€employee€is€€able€to€perform€his€previous€occupation,€although€withÏsome€discomfort€or€inconvenience,€and€he€earns€the€same€or€greater€salary,€he€mustÏsubmit€to€the€maximum€limitation€placed€upon€the€disability€award€by€the€act€of€€theÏlegislature.Ìà àIn€this€case,€nowhere€does€Dr.€Barnett€testify€that€the€plaintiff€cannot€or€shouldÏnot€be€able€to€perform€the€job€which€he€was€performing€before€and€after€the€accidentÏand€surgery€in€question.€€He€merely€states€his€opinion€that€there€are€certain€things€thatÏwill€cause€himððproblemsðð€or€which€should€be€avoided€if€possible.€€Dr.€œWilkinson›,€theÏtreating€physician,€is€even€less€restrictive€in€his€advice.€€Ìà àTherefore,€it€is€the€opinion€of€this€panel€that€the€plaintiffððs€award€must€be€limitedÏto€2€ðð€times€€the€highest€permanent€€impairment€rating€to€the€body€as€a€whole,€thusÏentitling€him€to€no€more€than€15%€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€òòÏNewton€vs.€Scott€Health€Care€Center,óó€€914€œS.W.2d›,€885€(Tenn.€1995).€Ìà àThe€next€issue€for€decision€is€whether€or€not€temporary€partial€benefits€areÏdetermined€by€€comparing€the€employeeððs€previous€average€weekly€wage€and€currentÏwage€or€whether€they€must€be€determined€by€comparing€the€previous€basic€salary€wage,Ïwithout€consideration€of€other€compensation,€and€the€current€wage.€Ìà àThe€statute€in€question,€œT.C.A.›€ðð€50„6„207,€provides,€€among€other€things,€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà àà àà à(1)€€€€TEMPORARY€TOTAL€DISABILITYÒ ° ÒÒ € Òà àà àà àÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÒ   ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ  Òà àà àà àÔ€#XÔFor€injury€producing€€temporary€total€disability,€(66€and€2/3€%)€Ìà àà à€€€à àof€the€òòaverage€weekly€wagesóó€as€defined€in€this€chapter,€subjectÌà àà à€€€€€€à àto€the€maximum€weekly€benefit€and€minimum€weekly€benefit;Ìà àà à€€€€€€à àprovided,€that€if€€the€employeeððs€òòweekly€wagesóó€are€equal€to€or€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€à àgreater€than€the€minimum€weekly€benefit,€such€employee€shallÌà àà à€€€€€€à àreceive€not€less€than€the€minimum€weekly€benefit;€and€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€à àprovided€further,€that€if€such€employeeððs€òòaverage€weekly€wagesóóÌà àà à€€€€€€€à àare€less€than€the€minimum€weekly€benefit€such€employee€shall€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€à àreceive€the€full€amount€of€such€employeeððs€òòaverage€weeklyóóÏà àà àà àòòwages,óó€€but€in€no€event€shall€the€compensation€paid€be€less€thanÏà àà àà àthe€minimum€weekly€benefit.€€Where€a€fractional€week€of€€Ñ€,ÑÇà àà à€€€€€€€à àtemporary€total€disability€is€involved,€the€compensation€forÌà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àeach€day€shall€be€1œ/7th›€of€the€amount€due€for€a€full€week;ÌÒ   ÒÒ ° Òà àà àÔ€#ŠÔÌà àà à(2)à à€€€€TEMPORARY€PARTIAL€DISABILITYÌà àà àà àÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ  Òà àà àà àÔ€#XÔIn€all€cases€of€temporary€partial€disability,€the€compensationÌà àà à€€€€€€€€à àshall€be€(66€and€2/3%)€of€the€difference€between€òòthe€wage€ofÏtheóóÌà àà àà àòòworker€at€the€time€of€the€injuryóó€and€the€wage€such€worker€isÏable€à àà àà àto€earn€in€such€workerððs€partially€disabled€condition€.€.€.€Ïpayment€à àà àà àto€be€made€at€the€intervals€when€the€wage€was€payable,Ïas€nearlyÌà àà à€€€€€€€€à àas€may€be,€and€subject€to€the€same€maximum,€as€stated€inÏà àà àà àà àsubdivision€(1).€€In€no€event€shall€the€compensation€beÏless€than€à àà àà àthe€minimum€weekly€benefit;€.€.€.ÌÒ   ÒÒ  ÒÒ   ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÓ  ÓÔ€#ŠÔÌÓ  Óà àœT.C.A.›€ðð€50„6„102€provides€as€follows:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àà àà àÔ€#XÔ(1)€(A)€ð ðAverage€Weekly€Wagesðð€means€the€earnings€of€the€Ìà àà àà àinjured€employee€in€the€employment€in€which€the€injuredÌà àà àà àemployee€was€working€at€the€time€of€the€injury€during€theÌà àà àà àperiod€of€fifty„two€weeks€immediately€preceding€the€dateÌà àà àà àof€the€injury€divided€by€52;€but€if€the€injured€employee€Ìà àà àà àlost€more€than€seven€days€during€such€period€when€the€Ìà àà àà àinjured€employee€did€not€work,€although€not€in€the€sameÌà àà àà àweek,€then€the€earnings€for€the€remainder€of€such€fifty„two€Ìà àà àà àweeks€shall€be€divided€by€the€number€of€weeks€remaining€Ìà àà àà àafter€the€time€so€lost€has€been€deducted;€...€(D)€whereverÌà àà àà àallowances€of€any€character€made€to€any€employee€in€Ìà àà àà àlieu€of€wages€are€specified€as€part€of€the€wage€contract,€ÌÒ   ÒÒ  ÒÒ   ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ  Òà àà àà àthey€shall€be€deemed€a€part€of€such€employeeððs€earningsÔ€#ŠÔ;ÌÌà àà àà à.€.€.€(4)€€PERMANENT€TOTAL€DISABILITYÌÌà àà àà àÔ€#XÔ(A)€for€permanent€total€disability€.€.€.€(66€and€2/3€%)€of€theÌà àà àà àòòwages€received€at€the€time€of€the€injuryóó,€subject€to€theÌà àà àà àmaximum€weekly€benefit€and€minimum€weekly€benefit;Ìà àà àà àprovided€that€if€the€employeeððs€òòaverage€weekly€wagesóó€areÌà àà àà àequal€to€or€greater€than€the€minimum€weekly€benefit,€Ìà àà àà àsuch€employee€shall€receive€not€less€than€the€minimumÌà àà àà àweekly€benefit;€provided€further,€that€if€such€employeeððsÌà àà àà àòòaverage€weekly€wagesóó€are€less€than€the€minimum€weeklyÌà àà àà àbenefit,€such€employee€shall€receive€the€full€amount€ofÌà àà àà àsuch€employeeððs€òòaverage€weekly€wagesóó,€but€in€no€event€Ìà àà àà àshall€the€compensation€paid€be€less€than€the€minimumÌà àà àà àweekly€benefit€.€.€.€[Emphasis€added]ÌÒ   ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÔ€#ŠÔÌà àThe€employer€complains€that€the€trial€judge€awarded€an€amount€of€temporaryÍpartial€disability€benefits€based€upon€the€òòaverage€weekly€wagesóó€of€the€employeeÏœrather€than€his€òòbase€salaryóó€at€the€time€of€the€accident.›€€The€employer€points€to€the€factÏthat€the€term€ð ðaverage€weekly€wageðð€is€used€in€some€parts€of€the€statute€quotedÏabove,€while€the€statute€on€temporary€partial€disability€benefits€refers€only€to€ð ðtheÏwageðð€of€€the€worker.€€The€employer€would€thus€urge€upon€this€court€a€restrictiveÏinterpretation€of€the€word€ð ðwage,ðð€€confining€it€to€the€basic€salary€of€a€worker,Ïregardless€of€what€other€sums€he€was€able€to€earn€in€addition.€€Thus,€for€example,Ïovertime,€bonuses,€incentive€pay€and€other€such€compensation€would€not€beÏconsidered€part€of€the€ð ðwageðð€of€€the€worker€under€the€employerððs€interpretation.Ìà àIn€putting€forth€€its€€position,€the€employer€€relies€not€only€upon€the€aforesaidÏlanguage€of€the€statute,€but€also€the€case€of€€œòòMcCracken›€vs.€œRhyneóó›,€€264€œS.W.2d›€226Ï(Tenn.€1953).€€Stated€succinctly,€€that€case€holds€that,€€under€the€language€of€€theÏstatute€then€in€effect,€a€worker€entitled€to€benefits€for€permanent€partial€disability€forÏa€non„scheduled€injury€is€entitled€to€comparison€with€his€actual€earnings€at€the€timeÏof€the€injury,€rather€than€his€average€weekly€wage.€€As€stated,€that€case€did€not€dealÏwith€the€statute€before€us,€but€with€one€with€similar€language.€€The€court€noted€that€itÏhad€often€been€assumed€by€its€predecessors€that€the€term,€ð ðwageðð€meant€averageÏweekly€wages.€€It€€went€on€to€hold,€however,€that€the€term€used€in€the€statute€inÏquestion€must€not€have€been€synonymous€with€ð ðaverage€weekly€wagesðð€becauseÏthe€portions€of€the€workersðð€compensations€statute€in€which€the€term,€ð ðaverageÏweekly€wageðð€appears€were€those€€(as€in€the€case€of€injuries€to€a€scheduled€member)Ïœin€which›€the€injuries€had€no€necessary€connection€with€the€workerððs€earningÏcapacity.€€This€obscure€rationale€would€not€seem€to€answer€the€question€of€whyÏbenefits€should€be€calculated€on€one€aspect€of€income€rather€than€another.€€As€in€thatÍcase€the€ruling€of€€the€court€and€the€selection€of€€the€meaning€was€for€the€benefit€ofÏthe€worker,€one€œcan›€only€speculate€that€the€court€was€following€its€time„honoredÏinclination€to€favor€the€injured€worker.€€We€are€respectfully€of€the€opinion€that€theÏdecision€should€be€confined€to€the€specific€facts€and€statute€with€which€it€dealt,€andÏshould€not€be€considered€binding€authority€in€this€or€any€other€case.Ìà àWe€are€left,€€then,€with€the€question€of€how€to€interpret€the€apparentÏinconsistency€between€the€provisions€of€the€temporary€partial€portion€of€the€Act€andÏthe€other€portions€of€the€Act.€€Once€again,€we€must€attempt€to€give€meaning€to€theÏintention€of€the€legislature€when€it€enacted€this€law.€€€The€law€is€for€the€benefit€of€theÏworker.€€All€of€€the€portions€of€€the€statute€should€be€harmonized€and€read€inÏconjunction€with€each€other,€if€€possible.€€The€Tennessee€Workersðð€Compensation€ActÏprovides€a€comprehensive€scheme€of€compensation€for€injured€workers.€€It€is€to€beÏliberally€construed€to€the€end€that€workersðð€€receive€the€benefits€intended€by€theÏstatute.€€It€is€noteworthy€that€the€term,€ð ðaverage€weekly€wagesðð€appears€at€Ïnumerous€places€throughout€the€Act,€even€appearing€within€the€same€paragraph€inÏsubdivision€(4)€of€€50„6„207€and€50„6„102€€as€an€apparent€modifier€of€€the€terms€Ïð ðweekly€wagesðð€and€œð ðwages›€received€at€the€time€of€the€injury.ðð€€Also,€as€quoted€inÏthe€Act€above,€the€definition€of€€ð ðaverage€weekly€wagesðð€expressly€includes€Ïð ðallowances€of€any€character€made€to€any€employee€in€lieu€of€wages€.€.€.ðð€[œT.C.A.›€ððÏ50„6„102€(a)€(1)€(D)].€€It€has€been€said€that€the€earnings€of€€an€employee€includeÏanything€received€by€him€under€the€terms€of€his€employment€contract€from€which€heÏrealizes€economic€gain.€€òòP.€&€œL.›€Construction€Company€vs.€œLankfordóó›,€559€œS.W.2d›Ï793€(Tenn.€1977).€€Ìà àAlthough€the€employer€hypothecates€a€number€of€circumstances€under€whichÍit€fears€that€an€employee€will€receive€a€benefit€not€contemplated€by€the€Act,€nothingÏin€the€Act€suggests€that€it€intends€for€the€wages€of€€the€worker€to€be€artificiallyÏrestricted€to€some€employer„defined€sum€such€as€the€ð ðjob€wage€levelðð€which€theÏemployer€in€this€case€apparently€paid€as€a€base€salary.€€To€hold€otherwise€could€resultÏin€an€employee€whose€income€is€heavily€dependent€upon€bonuses€or€commissions€orÏother€such€irregular€compensation€receiving€less€than€the€statute€intends.€€The€basicÏpurpose€of€this€statute€is€to€give€the€worker,€in€those€situations€in€which€he€is€able€toÏreturn€to€work€but€not€able€to€earn€as€much€as€he€was€previously€able€to€earn€in€aÏnon„injured€condition,€a€small€sum€to€apply€towards€the€difference.€€Ìà àTherefore,€we€do€not€consider€this€challenge€to€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€theÏtemporary€partial€disability€benefits€to€be€valid.Ìà àThe€final€issue€for€determination€is€whether€or€not€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€the€award€to€the€plaintiff€€of€permanent€partial€disability€in€the€amountÏawarded€by€the€trial€court.€€Ìà àWe€have€heretofore€discussed€in€some€detail€the€medical€and€employmentÏhistory€of€the€claimant.€€Without€repeating€what€has€already€been€said,€we€note€thatÏthe€plaintiff€did€undergo€significant€surgery€and€some€medical€restrictions€by€not€onlyÏthe€physician€who€saw€him€at€the€suggestion€of€€his€attorney€but€his€treating€surgeon.€ÏAdding€that€to€the€deference€which€we€owe€to€the€trial€judge€who€observed€theÏplaintiff,€and€based€upon€the€entire€record,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€this€issue€mustÏbe€determined€in€favor€of€the€worker,€and€his€award€set€at€the€maximum€allowable,Ï15%€to€the€body€as€a€whole.Ìà àTherefore,€the€judgment€of€€the€trial€court€is€€affirmed,€as€modified€by€this€order.€€ÏThe€costs€of€€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€defendants„appellants.ÌÓÓœà à›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœà àà à__________________________________›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àROBERT€A.€œLANIER›,€JUDGEÌÓÓÌÓÓœ€€›ÌÌÌÌÌÌœÌÌÌÌCONCUR:›ÌÌœÌ_________________________________________›ÌJanice€M.€Holder,€Associate€Justice,€Supreme€CourtÌÌÌ__________________________________________ÌœDon›€R.€Ash,€Circuit€JudgeÌÓÓ€à àà à€€Ìà àà àÌà àà à€œÔ€#XÔÇÑ ` ÑÔ€(ÔßJ€'.;+'b|Є` Å `€@ÿJßà@ àÔ€(¼ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÔ€(XÔÌÌÓÓÌÓ#` p…X LÐ X#ÓPAUL€WAYNE€KING,à àà à)à àOBION€CHANCERYÌÓ#` p` LÐ X#Óà à)à àNO.€18,288ÌÓ` p` ¸ ’XÓà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à à)à àÌÓ#` p` ¸ LÐ X#Óà àà à)à àHon.€W.€Michael€Maloan,Ìvs.à àà à)à àChancellorÌà àà à)ÌGOODYEAR€TIRE€&€RUBBER€COMPANY,à à)à àNO.€02S01„9611„CH„00100Ìà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à à)à àAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIED.ÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€(¼ÔJUDGMENT€ORDERÔ€(XÔÌÌÌÓÓÓ` p`  ’XÓà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€theÏorder€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€theÏPanel's€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference.Ìà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€Opinion€ofÏthe€Panel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€andÍconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€madeÏthe€judgment€of€the€Court.Ìà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€Appellant,€and€surety,€for€which€execution€mayÏissue€if€necessary.Ìà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€this€18th€day€of€August,€1997.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌ(Holder,€J.,€not€participating)ÌÌÌÌÔ€#Ô›