ÿWPC‚ 9# .UN9 %‡ 0N 0±ÛbŒw@”4Ôè÷†ÿ… 0J 0T× 0^+ 0h‰ Æñ Æ· Æ} ÆC 0r 0|{ 0†÷ 0} 1u  AQ‚ÆÓ 0j™ 0@ 0DC 0d‡ D/ë B B7 D3TU>‡B)ÅDCî AM1U*~J¨?òv~1vÓ¯˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLHÎ'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular¼(&öy$¡¡Ó  ÓÙñÓ Ù(a(24$¤¤Ý ƒöy!ÝÓ  ÓÙñÓ ÙÝ  ÝÔ€XˆX¼¼Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù- çEèéEêë{ìíÓ€÷úûD5D""(3|xûbaker v. CKR Industries - Brandt Opinion Ì ' ' IB011C20IB011C2 .   2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 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@ 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)!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(B3wÕ$¢¢Ý ƒöy!ÝÓ  ÓÙñÓ ÙÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d11117Border 1dd!#2Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial @Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÔ€0¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€4ÔÔ€4ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€4XÔÌÌJanuary€17,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó 5Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÔ€0¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€4ÔÔ€4ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€4XÔÌÌJanuary€17,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó 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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€0ÔÔ€0¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€fʼ¼ddÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñò òÙ€!ÙßR€352A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àÔ€0 ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÔ€0„ÔÌà@ àó óÔ€0îÔ(October€22,€1996€Session)Ô€0„Ôò òÌÌÔ€0¼ÔÌó óROBERT€E.€LIVELY,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà à)à àRUTHERFORD€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Robert€E.€Corlew,€œIII,›ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àChancellorÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€€€€€ÌTEXTRON€AEROSTRUCTURES,à à)à àNo.€01S01„9604„CH„00070ÌA€Division€of€Avco€Corporation,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌChristopher€K.€Thompsonà àà àà àJohn€J.€HancockÌMurfreesboro,€Tennesseeà àà àà àTracy€ShawÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHOWELL€&€FISHERÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€0 Ôò òòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONóóó óÌÌÌÔ€0¼Ôà@ àòòMembers€of€Panelóó:ÌÌà0 àà0 àFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€Associate€Justice,€Supreme€CourtÌà àà àà àà àRobert€S.€Brandt,€Senior€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœà àBrandt,›€JudgeÇÓ€ÓÔ€0„Ôà@ àò òòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONóóó óÌÔ€0¼ÔÌà àThis€workersðð€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€SpecialÏWorkersðð€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€œCourt›€in€accordanceÏwith€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€of€findingsÏof€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.ÌÌà àThe€plaintiff€appeals€from€the€œtrial›€courtððs€finding€that€the€permanentÏimpairment€did€not€result€from€1992€injuries€at€Textron€Aerostructures.€ÏFinding€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€decision,€we€affirm.€ÌÌà àDr.€Wesley€Coker€started€treating€the€plaintiff€in€March€1994€forÏherniated€discs€that€were€causing€nerve€root€pressure.€€The€plaintiff€was€inÏbad€shape€when€he€first€saw€him,€according€to€Coker,€as€he€had€to€be€helpedÏinto€the€doctorððs€office€and€told€the€doctor€about€two€months€of€excruciatingÏpain.€€After€switching€to€the€care€of€a€chiropractor,€the€plaintiff€returned€toÏCoker€who€performed€surgery€in€June€1994.€€Dr.€Coker€testified€that€theÏplaintiff€suffers€a€13%€whole€body€impairment.€But€Dr.€Coker€did€not€offerÏany€testimony€about€what€caused€the€plaintiffððs€back€trouble.€€ÌÌà àThe€issue€in€this€case€is€whether€the€plaintiff€established€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that€his€impairment€resulted€from€two€injuriesÏat€Textron,€one€on€March€5,€1992€and€another€on€October€3,€1992.€€The€trialÏcourt€decided€that€the€plaintiff€did€not€prove€his€case,€and€there€is€ampleÏevidence€to€support€the€decision.ÌÌà àThe€plaintiff€and€his€wife€were€injured€in€a€car€wreck€on€the€way€toÏwork€on€the€morning€of€February€10,€1994.€€The€plaintiff€had€workedÏregularly€before€the€accident,€but€did€not€work€any€after€it.€€This€tends€toÏsuggest€that€the€car€wreck,€not€the€injuries€years€earlier,€caused€the€backÏtrouble€Dr.€Coker€treated.ÌÌà àThe€plaintiff€called€Textron€following€the€wreck€to€report€that€he€wasÏnot€coming€to€work.€€The€reason,€he€said,€was€that€he€slipped€a€disc€in€hisÏback€while€driving€to€work.€€The€plaintiffððs€wife€worked€at€Textron,€too,€andÏshe€also€called€in€saying€her€back€hurt€as€a€result€of€the€car€wreck.€€ÌÌà àThe€plaintiff€applied€for€sickness€and€accident€benefits€for€the€backÏinjury€he€said€he€sustained€in€the€wreck.€€He€certified€that€he€did€not€injureÏhimself€at€work€and€that€the€injury€did€not€arise€out€of€the€employment.€ÏReceipt€of€those€benefits€and€the€statements€the€plaintiff€made€to€get€them€areÏtotally€contrary€to€his€contention€that€the€1992€injuries€caused€his€disability.ÌÌà àWhen€the€plaintiff€first€visited€Dr.€Coker,€he€filled€out€a€formÏindicating€that€the€onset€of€pain€came€from€the€car€wreck.€€When€Dr.€CokerÏcompared€the€results€of€a€December€1992€MRI€with€the€one€he€ordered€inÏMarch€1994€„€that€is,€an€MRI€after€the€1992€work€injuries€and€an€MRI€afterÏthe€1994€wreck€„€the€doctor€found€that€the€disc€herniation€that€would€causeÏnerve€root€compression€did€not€appear€in€the€first€MRI€as€it€did€in€the€second.ÌÌà àDr.€David€Gaw€provided€the€only€that€evidence€that€the€1992€workÏincidents€caused€the€plaintiffððs€back€injury€that€Dr.€Coker€treated.€€Dr.€GawÍsaw€the€plaintiff€once,€in€April€1995,€at€the€request€of€the€plaintiffððs€attorney.€ÏThis€was€over€three€years€after€the€first€1992€work€injury.€€Dr.€GawððsÏconclusion€on€causation€is€obviously€based€upon€the€history€the€plaintiff€gaveÏhim.€€ÌÌà àMuch€of€what€the€plaintiff€told€the€doctor€turns€out€to€be€untrue.€€TheÏplaintiff€€told€Dr.€Gaw€he€had€no€previous€back€problems€until€the€MarchÏ1992€injury€at€work.€€In€truth,€he€hurt€his€back€in€July€1983€and€again€inÏJanuary€1991.€€The€plaintiff€was€treated€in€1992€for€a€back€problem€sustainedÏwhile€playing€basketball.€€He€apparently€did€not€tell€Dr.€Gaw€about€that,Ïeither.ÌÌà àDr.€Gaw€recollects€that€the€plaintiff€€told€him€that€he€and€his€wife€wereÏon€the€way€to€see€a€doctor€for€treatment€for€the€1992€injuries€when€the€carÏwreck€occurred€in€1994.€€In€truth,€they€were€on€their€way€to€work.€€TheÏplaintiff€did€not€tell€Dr.€Gaw€that€he€worked€between€the€1992€incidents€andÏthe€1994€wreck€and€did€not€tell€Dr.€Gaw€that€he€started€missing€work€after€theÏwreck.€€Dr.€Gaw€based€his€causation€conclusion€in€part€upon€his€assumption,Ïincorrect€it€turns€out,€that€the€plaintiff€did€not€seek€any€medical€treatment€forÏthe€car€wreck.€ÌÌà àMoreover,€when€asked€about€a€note€from€another€doctor€who€treatedÏthe€plaintiff€following€the€1992€injuries,€Dr.€Gaw€testified€that€it€wouldÏappear€that€the€plaintiff€had€recovered€from€the€1992€back€injuries.€ÌÌà àThe€plaintiff€saw€his€family€physician,€Gary€Schwartz,€following€theÏFebruary€1994€car€wreck,€and€their€is€nothing€in€Dr.€Schwartzððs€notesÏindicting€any€complaint€about€back€problems€related€to€employment.€ÏSchwartz€sent€the€plaintiff€to€Coker.€€Dr.€Schwartz€saw€the€plaintiff€beforeÏthat€off€and€on€for€a€year,€and€the€only€complaint€of€back€pain€came€fromÏmoving.ÌÌà àAnd,€finally,€there€is€the€timing€of€the€suit.€€The€plaintiff€did€not€make€aÏclaim€for€workers€compensation€until€1994€„€after€the€wreck.€ÌÌà àReview€by€this€Court€is€de€novo,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€of€the€findings€of€the€trial€court,€unless€the€preponderance€of€œthe›Ïevidence€is€otherwise.€€œTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).›€€TheÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€courtððs€decision.€€We€affirmÏthe€decision€at€the€plaintiffððs€costs.€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRobert€S.€Brandt,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ________________________________ÌFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€Associate€JusticeÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€œJudgeÌÌÒ  ÒÒ £ Òòòà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌßJ€36;+'b|±þ ` ç `€@ÿJßÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌROBERT€E.€LIVELY,à àà àà à}à àRUTHERFORD€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à}à àNo.€94WC„314€BelowÌà àPlaintiff/Appellantà àà à}Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à}à àHon.€Robert€E.€Corlew,€III,Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à}à àChancellorÌà àà àà àà àà àà à}ÌTEXTRON€AEROSTRUCTURES,à à}à àNo.€01S01„9604„CH„00070ÌA€Division€of€Avco€Corporation,à à}Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à}Ìà àDefendant/Appelleeà àà à}à àAFFIRMED.ÌÌÌà@ àJUDGMENT€ORDERÌÌÌÓ€Óà àà 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€conclusionsÏof€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference.Ìà àà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€OpinionÏof€the€Panel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌà àà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€isÏmade€the€judgment€of€the€Court.ÌÓ ` ` šXÓà àà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€Plaintiff/Appellant€and€Surety€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÓÓà àà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€on€January€17,€1997.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌóó›