WPC 3UN %( 0(.RVw@4 U< 0JO 0T D3   0^& 0h 0r 0|^ 0 0` 1u 0deU> AQ X 0D 0@b 0D B) D/ B> B[ x DC AM U* : v~6 v  (hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($H:\SYSTEM\WORDPERF\TEMPLATE\MEMOFORM.WPT ./U0 12E3E45U6E7ӀQ+!@\3|x@-Bu Z$Arrus BT Roman2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  '''''dxdH2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1  % Line 7 d((' dxd dP Pdb1%%%%7Border 1dd!#*C << G<  9p`(Arial !  ""  ,,   YYY FILED,XOctober10,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@b2Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   BA Op Geneva  BA Op Geneva b3b4 ! .   !\RA'\  %  L+-*;+'h|`  `L@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL@ ATNASHVILLE@ (June25,1996Session)% ) KENNETHW.LEACH%)",@ )  DAVIDSONCIRCUIT@ )  PlaintiffAppellee,@ )  Hon.RandolphA.Veazey,@ )  SpecialJudge.vs.@ )% 1 %1@ )  No.01S019601CV00021% / DRIVERPOWERLEASING&@ )HUMBOLDTEXPRESS%/-,@ )@ )  DefendantAppellant.@ )XForAppellant:J.MatthewPowersLeitner,Warner,Moffitt,Williams,Dooley,Carpenter&NapolitanNashville,TennesseeForAppellee:ShelleyI.StilesBrentwood,Tennessee@ % 2 MEMORANDUMOPINION%2@ MembersofPanel:@ FrankF.Drowota,III,AssociateJustice,SupremeCourt@ JoeC.Loser,Jr.,SpecialJudge@ HamiltonV.Gayden,Jr.,SpecialJudgeAFFIRMED        Gayden,Judge   7XXdXXd7 ThisworkerscompensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.section506225(e)(3)forhearingandreportingoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.Inthisappeal,thedefendantassertsthatthetrialcourterredinfindingthattheclaimantwasinjuredinthecourseandscopeofhisemployment.Inthealternative,defendantcontendsthatiftheinjurywereworkrelatedthetrialcourtsawardwasexcessive.Thepanelconcludesthattheawardshouldbeaffirmed.̛̜ Claimant,KennethLeach,wasanemployeeofdefendant,DriverPowerϜLeasingCompany.Claimanthadbeendrivingtruckssince1970,andbeganhisemploymentfordefendantinSeptember1991.Claimantis46yearsold,hasa9yearoldsonandismarried.̛ ClaimantsufferedsomebackpainonMay28,1992,andproperlynotifieddefendant;however,hedidnotstopworking,orpursuemedicaltreatment.OnDecember11,1992,claimantallegeshereceivedadisablinginjurytohisbackwhilehooking thegladhandsandpigtailsofhistruck͜(connectingthetrailers).OnDecember14,1992,claimantnotifiedMargaretWright,defendantspersonresponsibleforreceivingworkinjurynoticesfromemployees,ofhisinjury.OnDecember23,1992,claimantwastreatedbyDr.Cushman,adoctorapprovedbydefendant.HetoldDr.CushmanabouttheDecemberinjuryandthathehadalsohurthisbackafewmonthsback.ThedoctordiagnosedtheclaimantashavingaherniateddiskandperformedsurgeryinJanuaryof1993.ClaimantdidnotreturntoworkuntilApril.ϜDefendantfoundtheclaimantmedicallyincapableofreturningtowork,andrefusedtolethimdriveagain.ClaimantthensecuredemploymentwithSpartanExpress.̛̜ Dr.CushmanassignedMr.Leachaneightpercentpermanentmedicalimpairmenttothebodyasawhole.ThecasewastriedbeforeRandolphA.VeazeysittingasaspecialjudgefortheHonorableWalterC.Kurtz.TheTrialJudgeassignedaneighteenpercentvocationaldisabilityratingtoMr.ϜLeachwhichathisworkerscompensationrateof$318.24resultedinanawardforpermanentpartialdisabilityintheamountof$22,913.28. Appellatereviewisdenovoupontherecordofthetrialcourt,accompaniedbyapresumptionofcorrectnessoffindingsoffact,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.CodeAnn.Section506225(e)(2). Defendantsprimarycontentiononappealisthatthetrialcourterredinfindingtheinjuryaroseinthecourseofclaimantsemployment.Thecruxofdefendantsargumentisthatthemedicalexpertstestimonydoesnotsupportthefindingofaworkrelatedinjury.DefendantrejectstheexperttestimonygivenbyDr.Cushmanbecausedefendantcontendsthat(1)Dr.Cushmanwasgivenincorrectfactsbytheclaimantand(2)theclaimantstestimonyisconflictingbothastothehistoryofapriorinjuryandalsoastotheoccurrenceoftheinjuryinDecember. First,defendantassertsthatDr.CushmanwastoldbyclaimantthathereceivedaninjurytwomonthspriortotheDecemberincident.Consequently,defendantarguesthattherearethreeinjuriesthatarecausallysignificant:theMayinjury,theDecemberinjury,andanunreportedOctoberinjury.DefendantclaimsthatthisunreportedOctoberinjurycreatesaconflictbetweentheclaimandthehistoryreliedonbyDr.Cushman.DefendantsassertionofanOctoberinjuryisnotsupportedbyDr.Cushmansdepositiontestimony.Itisclearthatwhatclaimantreallytoldthedoctorinrelatingthehistoryofhisinjuryisthatapriorinjuryoccurred afewmonthsback.Moreover,theinjurywithrespecttowhichDr.CushmangavehisϜopinionwastheDecemberinjury,andwhetherthepriorinjuryoccurredinMayorOctoberisirrelevant.̛̜ Second,defendantassertsthatclaimanttoldDr.Cushmanthattheinjuryoccurredwhilehewasconnectingatraileratwork.ThedefendantclaimsDr.Cushmanbasedhisopinionthattheinjurywasworkrelatedonthefactthattheclaimantwasliftingsomethingwhenheinjuredhisbackandthustheelementofliftingiscriticaltothedoctorsconclusion.Defendantcontendsthatatonepointclaimantsaidtheinjuryoccurredwhenhewashookingthe gladhand.Sincehookingthegladhandsinvolvesclimbingratherthanlifting,defendantarguesthatthedoctorsopiniononcausationisbaseduponincorrectfactsandisthereforeinvalid.Thetrialcourtcorrectlyfoundthatitwasirrelevantwhetherclaimantwashookingthejoedogsorgladhandsofhistruck.Eitherway,theinjuryresultedfrom Mr.Leach...actingwithinthecourseandscopeofhisemploymentandconductingreasonabledutiesinrelationshiptohisemployment.̛̜ Third,defendantclaimsthatessentialproofregardingcausationismissing.Dr.Cushmantestifiedthatdiskherniationscanoccurspontaneously.DefendantassertsthatconsequentlytherewasnomedicalproofofcausationforeithertheMayorDecemberinjuries.Experttestimonyisrequiredtoestablishthecausalrelationshipbetweentheinjuryandtheemploymentactivity.Anaward,however,canbeconditionallypredicatedonexperttestimonywhichsaystheaccident couldbethecause,whenthereissupportinglaytestimony.Talleyv.VirhinaiInsuranceReciprocal,775S.W.2d587,591(Tenn.1989).Dr.CushmandidtestifythataproblemsuchasMr.Leachscouldoccurspontaneously;however,thedoctorrepeatedlyassertedhisopinionthatthisinjurymorethanlikelyaroseoutoftheclaimantsemployment.ThistestimonythattheinjurymorethanlikelyaroseoutofclaimantsemploymentissufficienttomeettherequirementsoftheWorkersCompensationAct.Afterreviewingtherecordthepanelconcludesthatclaimantproperlyprovidedexperttestimonyastothecausalrelationshipbetweenhisinjuryandhisemployment. Finally,thepanelconcludesthatthetrialcourtproperlyfoundthepercentageofvocationaldisabilityinthiscase. Dr.Cushman assessedtheclaimantwithaneightpercentbodyasawholeimpairment.Inmakingitsdeterminationofeighteenpercentvocationaldisability,thetrialcourtϜconsideredsuchfactorsas, theClaimantsage,jobskills,education,training,durationofdisability,jobopportunitiesforthedisabled,andtheanatomicalimpairment.Boonev.BICSofTennessee,Inc,775S.W.2d359,363(Tenn.Ϝ1989).Mr.Leachwasa46yearoldmalewithaGED.Mr.Leachhasbeenassessedwithaneightpercentmedicaldisability,andhasreturnedtowork,thoughnotdoingthesamejob.BasedonthefactthatMr.Leachisworkingnow,buthaslimitedopportunitiesbecauseofhislevelofeducationalandvocationaltraining,aneighteenpercentimpairmentratingisfair.Defendantprovidednoevidencethatthisratingisexcessive.Atrialcourtshouldtakeintoaccountnumerousfactors,otherthanjustthemedicalimpairment,whendeterminingvocationaldisability.Thetrialcourtdidthatinthiscase.Thus,inaccordancewithT.C.A.506225(e)(2),thispanelpresumesthecorrectnessofthetrialcourtsfindingofaneighteenpercentpermanentpartialdisability.̜ Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedtothedefendant.X  _________________________________ XHamiltonV.Gayden,Jr.,SpecialJudgeCONCUR:____________________________________FrankF.Drowota,III,AssociateJustice____________________________________JoeC.Loser,Jr.,SpecialJudge ԛ