ÿWPC## Æ# ä U:ï %) 0û/ *w@04p„Æ“ÆYÆåÆíƳ 0Jy 0Tà 0^ 0hu 0rÝ 0|O 0†Ë 0Q 1uá 0dVU*ºB)ä B DC* AOm¥¼v~a D3ßvÓ 0@å 0K%! D+p! AO›! 0Dê! D/." B]" A©z"˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Ó­$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XXXXÔÑ7€.íXXdðXXdð7ÑH ÐEÑEÒÓÔÕDÖ×DØÓ€ä·‚^!À¡3|xæLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d$$$$7Border 1dd -.&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ›Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òMarchÏ17,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h%%%%'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'ÈÈÈÈdxd -‚ƒCþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd -.:›&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÝ  Ý›ò òÓÓÓÓÓ  ÓÞ ÞÌIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANEL̜ـ ÙßR€'(&A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRß›KNOXVILLE,€DECEMBER€1996€SESSIONÌÓÓÓ  ÓÌÌÓÓó óLEA€INDUSTRIES,à àà àà àà à)à àœGRAINGER›€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€CHESTER€S.€RAINWATERÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àChancellorÌCHARLES€HIXON,à àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellantà àà à)à àNO.€03S01„9606„CH„00067ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€the€Appellantà àà àà àà àà àFor€the€Appellee:ÌÌó óóóRichard€Bakerà àà àà àà àà àDebra€L.€œFulton›ÌœGilreath›€&€Associatesà àà àà àà àœFrantz›,€œMcConnell›€&€œSeymour›ÌP.€O.€Box€1270à àà àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€39Ì550€Main€Ave.,€Suite€600à àà àà àà àKnoxville,€Tenn.€37901ÌKnoxville,€Tenn.€37901Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSandra€E.€KeithÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à1510€Parkway€TowersÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à404€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tenn.€37243„0499ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌÌMembers€of€Panel:ÌÌó óóóÌE.€Riley€Anderson,€JusticeÌRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òÓ  ÓMODIFIED€AND€AFFIRMED.à àà àà àà àTHAYER,€Special€Judgeó óÌÓÓà àœÌà àÔ% € ÔThis›€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 àThe€appeal€has€resulted€from€a€finding€by€the€trial€court€that€Defendant,ÏCharles€A.€Hixon,€was€entitled€to€permanent€disability€benefits€of€17.5%€to€the€bodyÏas€a€whole.€€The€Chancellor€was€of€the€opinion€the€award€was€limited€to€2„1/2€timesÏthe€medical€impairment€rating€of€7%€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(1).Ìà àOn€appeal€the€employee€has€raised€numerous€issues€regarding€the€limit€ofÏthe€award.Ìà àIt€is€insisted€the€court€was€in€error€in€not€applying€subsection€(b)€of€theÏstatute,€which€would€fix€the€limit€of€the€award€at€6€times€the€medical€impairmentÏrating;€that€the€court€failed€to€apply€subsection€(a)(2)€which€would€have€permitted€anÏincreased€award;€that€the€court€should€have€allowed€greater€benefits€pursuant€toÍT.C.A.€ðð€50„6„242;€that€subsection€(a)(2)€is€unconstitutional€as€it€requires€anÏemployee€to€file€a€new€cause€of€action€when€the€employee€may€not€have€receivedÏan€initial€award€of€benefits€prior€to€the€expiration€of€the€one€year€period€of€time.Ìà àThe€employer,€Lea€Industries,€raises€an€issue€concerning€causation€of€theÏinjury.€€It€is€insisted€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€does€not€support€the€trialÏcourtððs€finding€the€ruptured€disc€was€caused€by€the€incident€at€work.Ìà àEmployee€Hixon€is€49€years€of€age€and€completed€the€œ9th›€grade.€€Most€of€hisÏwork€experience€has€been€in€the€furniture€construction€industry.€€On€November€6,Ï1992,€he€was€bending€down€to€pick€up€some€lumber€when€he€felt€pain€in€his€back.€ÏHe€was€taken€to€the€hospital€where€he€was€admitted€and€stayed€for€a€period€of€fiveÏdays.€€About€ten€days€after€being€released,€he€returned€to€work€at€the€same€rate€ofÏpay.€€He€told€the€court€he€continued€to€have€pain€and€worked€under€restrictions€ofÏnot€bending€over;€and€not€being€on€his€feet€or€sitting€for€long€periods€of€time.€€HeÏcontinued€like€this€until€July€22,€1993,€when€he€left€work€saying€his€physicalÏcondition€would€not€permit€him€to€continue.€€There€is€no€other€evidence€in€theÏrecord€disputing€his€reason€for€leaving€his€employment.Ìà àHe€has€a€ruptured€disc€and€as€of€the€date€of€the€trial€below,€he€had€elected€toÏnot€have€surgery€testifying€he€was€told€surgery€might€help€his€condition€and€it€mightÏnot.€€He€has€not€looked€for€other€employment€because€of€his€condition.€€TheÏmedical€evidence€indicates€surgery€would€improve€his€condition.Ìà àThere€is€conflict€in€the€medical€evidence€in€regard€to€the€causation€question.€ÏAll€of€this€evidence€was€presented€by€deposition.Ìà àDr.€Stephen€E.€œNatelson›,€a€neurosurgeon,€testified€a€C.T.€Scan€taken€onÍNovember€9,€1992€showed€ð ðan€annular€tear€or€a€slight€bulge€to€the€disc€at€œL4›„5€onÏthe€leftðð;€that€another€C.T.€Scan€taken€on€August€31,€1993€showed€a€ð ðlarge€rupturedÏdisc.ðð€€He€was€of€the€opinion€the€incident€of€November€6,€1992€caused€the€ruptureÏof€the€disc€and€he€gave€the€employee€a€5%€impairment€rating€to€the€body€as€aÏwhole€for€the€untreated€ruptured€disc.Ìà àDr.€David€H.€œHauge›,€a€neurosurgeon,€testified€the€C.€T.€Scan€indicated€aÏlarge€ruptured€disc€and€he€felt€the€history€of€the€event€of€November€6,€1992€was€theÏcause€of€the€rupture€and€he€gave€a€7%€impairment€rating.€€He€also€said€theÏemployee€was€afraid€of€surgery€as€he€had€friends€who€had€not€done€well€afterÏsimilar€surgery.Ìà àDr.€William€J.€œGutch›,€an€orthopedic€surgeon,€saw€defendant€while€he€wasÏhospitalized.€€His€initial€diagnosis€was€acute€back€strain€with€possible€discÏherniation.€€He€later€became€aware€of€the€C.T.€and€œM.R.I.›€test€results€showing€aÏruptured€disc.Ìà àDr.€Fred€A.€Killefer,€a€neurosurgeon,€first€saw€defendant€on€August€19,€1993.€ÏHe€was€of€the€opinion€the€November€9,€1992€C.T.€Scan€showed€a€bulging€discÏwhich€was€not€related€to€the€November€6th€incident€at€work€as€it€had€been€there€forÏseveral€years.€€He€testified€the€August€31,€1993€M.R.I.€results€indicated€a€rupturedÏdisc€which€he€felt€had€occurred€during€May€or€June,€1993€when€the€defendant€wasÏœat›€home€and€bent€over€to€pick€up€his€child€and€complained€of€pain.Ìà àDr.€Patricia€E.€Perry,€a€œradiologist,›€testified€the€November€1992€C.T.€ScanÏrevealed€a€bulging€disc€and€the€August€1993€Scan€indicated€a€dramatic€difference.Ìà àDr.€Jeffrey€œUzzle›,€a€physician€specializing€in€physical€medicine€andÍrehabilitation,€testified€the€cause€of€defendantððs€problems€was€the€work€incident€ofÏNovember€6,€1992€and€an€aggravation€of€his€symptoms€during€June€1993€when€heÏbent€over€to€pick€his€child€up€and€felt€his€back€start€hurting€again.Ìà àThe€case€is€to€be€reviewed€on€appeal€òòde€novoóó€accompanied€by€aÏpresumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact€unless€the€preponderance€ofÏthe€evidence€is€otherwise.€€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).Ìà àThe€œòòde›€novoóó€review€does€not€carry€a€presumption€of€correctness€to€a€trialÏcourtððs€conclusions€of€law€but€is€confined€to€factual€findings.€€òòUnion€Carbide€v.ÏœHuddleston›,€óó854€S.W.2d€87€(Tenn.€1993).Ìà àOn€the€causation€of€injury€question€raised€by€the€employer,€we€find€the€trialÏcourt€was€faced€with€conflicting€medical€opinions.€€The€court€resolved€this€disputeÏby€accepting€the€testimony€of€Dr.€œNatelson›€and€Dr.€œHauge›€over€other€testimony.€€InÏreviewing€the€record,€we€cannot€say€the€evidence€preponderates€against€thisÏfactual€finding€by€the€trial€court.Ìà àThe€other€questions€in€the€case€deal€with€the€courtððs€finding€the€award€ofÏbenefits€was€controlled€by€the€language€of€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(1).€€If€the€employeeÏsustains€a€compensable€injury€and€is€returned€to€work€by€the€pre„injury€employer€atÏa€wage€greater€or€equal€to€the€wage€the€employee€was€earning€prior€to€the€injury,Ïthe€award€of€benefits€to€the€employee€shall€be€limited€to€2„1/2€times€the€medicalÏimpairment€rating€under€subsection€(a)(1)€of€this€statute.€€On€the€other€hand,€if€theÏemployee€is€not€returned€to€work€by€the€pre„injury€employer€at€a€wage€greater€orÏequal€to€the€wage€the€employee€was€earning€prior€to€the€injury,€the€award€ofÏbenefits€to€the€employee€shall€be€limited€to€six€times€the€medical€impairment€ratingÍunder€subsection€(b)€of€the€statute.Ìà àThis€statute€does€not€and€cannot€define€all€of€the€circumstances€which€mightÏarise€in€determining€whether€there€has€or€has€not€been€a€ð ðreturn€to€workðð€within€theÏmeaning€of€the€statute.€€Therefore,€the€courts€have€been€required€to€assess€theÏpeculiar€facts€of€each€case€and€construe€the€statute€to€determine€its€application.Ìà àThus,€the€initial€question€under€the€facts€of€this€case€is€whether€theÏemployeeððs€return€to€work€was€meaningful€or€not.€€If€the€return€to€work€under€all€theÏcircumstances€is€considered€to€be€ð ðmeaningful,ðð€then€subsection€(a)(1)€caps€theÏaward.€€However,€if€it€is€determined€the€return€to€work€under€all€of€the€circumstancesÏwas€not€ð ðmeaningful,ðð€then€subsection€(b)€caps€the€award.Ìà àIn€determining€this€initial€question,€we€are€of€the€opinion€the€provisions€ofÏsubsection€(a)(2)€have€no€application.€€This€subsection€provides€the€industrialÏdisability€award€may€be€reconsidered€by€the€court€when€the€employee€is€no€longerÏemployed€by€the€pre„injury€employer,€the€loss€of€employment€occurs€within€400Ïweeks€of€the€day€the€employee€returned€to€work,€and€a€new€cause€of€action€is€filedÏwithin€one€year€of€the€employeeððs€loss€of€employment.€€The€reconsidered€award€isÏlimited€to€the€multiplier€maximum€of€subsection€(b).Ìà àIf€the€initial€question€results€in€a€finding€that€the€return€to€work€wasÏmeaningful,€an€employee€may€apply€to€the€court€to€reconsider€the€award€cappedÏunder€subsection€(a)(1)€provided€the€employee€qualifies€with€all€of€the€requirementsÏof€(a)(2).Ìà àIn€the€present€case,€the€Chancellor€applied€subsection€(a)(1)€finding€theÏemployee€voluntarily€left€his€employment€but€made€no€finding€as€to€whether€or€notÍthe€return€to€work€was€meaningful.Ìà àWe€find€employee€Hixon€returned€to€his€employment€in€an€injured€conditionÏand€that€he€attempted€to€work€in€this€condition€for€a€period€of€eight€months.€€HisÏleaving€employment€was€obviously€because€of€his€physical€condition€due€to€theÏwork„related€injury€and€under€all€of€the€circumstances,€we€find€his€return€to€workÏwas€not€meaningful€in€the€sense€of€the€statute.€€Thus,€the€award€should€not€exceedÏthe€cap€of€6€times€the€medical€impairment€rating€under€subsection€(b).€€We€concurÏwith€the€finding€of€a€medical€impairment€rating€of€7%€and€fix€the€award€of€benefits€atÏ42%€to€the€body€as€a€whole.Ìà àHaving€found€the€provisions€of€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(2)€have€no€application€toÏthe€facts€of€present€case,€we€do€not€find€it€appropriate€to€consider€the€numerousÏquestions€concerning€this€subsection€raised€in€the€briefs€of€the€parties€about€theÏapplication€of€the€statute.€€The€constitutional€attack€must€await€the€facts€of€a€caseÏwhere€a€partyððs€rights€are€adversely€affected€by€this€subsection.Ìà àWe€find€the€award€of€42%€disability€is€reasonable€under€the€evidence€of€theÏcase€and€are€of€the€opinion€benefits€should€not€be€further€increased€under€theÏprovisions€of€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„242.Ìà àAlso,€the€employeeððs€contention€the€trial€court€was€in€error€in€failing€to€permitÏhim€to€reopen€the€case€and€submit€new€evidence€after€the€trial€and€rendition€of€theÏdecision€is€without€merit.Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€modified€to€award€the€defendant„employeeÏ42%€permanent€disability€benefits€to€the€body€as€a€whole€and€as€modified€theÏjudgment€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€are€taxed€to€plaintiff„employer€andÍsureties.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌE.€Riley€Anderson,€JusticeÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€œJudgeÇÒ  ÒÒ H Òà àà àà àÌà àà àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€à à€€€€€€€€€AT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÌÒ S ÒÒ H ÒLEA€INDUSTRIES,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à€)€€€€€GRAINGER€COUNTYÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€€€NO.€98„087€€€€€€€à à€€€€€€à àÏà àà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€)à à€à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìvs.€€à àà àà àà àà àà à€)€€€€€€€Hon.€Chester€S.€Rainwater€à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€)€€€€€€€JudgeÌà àà à€à àà àà àà à€)à àÌCHARLES€HIXON,à àà àà àà à€)Ìà à€€€€à àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àÌà àDefendant/€Appellant.à àà à€)à à03S01„9606„CH„00067ÌÔ€#îÔÌÌÓffÓà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€òòJUDGMENT€ORDERóóÌà àà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,Ïincluding€the€order€of€referral€to€the€Special€WorkerððÏCompensation€Panel,€and€the€Panelððs€Memorandum€OpinionÏsetting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€areÏincorporated€herein€by€reference;Ìà àÌà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€MemorandumÏOpinion€of€the€Panel€should€be€accepted€and€approved€;€andÌÌà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panelððs€findings€of€act€andÏconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€ofÏthe€Panel€is€made€the€Judgment€of€the€Court.ÌÌà àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€Plaintiff„employer,€LeaÏIndustries,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€Ì€03/17/97à àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÔ€#XÔà à›