ÿWPC# Æ# ä U:ï %) 0û/ w@*4j~ÆSÆ[Æ!ÆçÆ­ 0Js 0T½ 0^ 0ho 0r× 0|I 0†Å 0K 1uÛ 0dPU*´B)Þ BDC$ AOg¥¶v~[ D3ÙvÓ  0@ß 0K! D+j! AO•! 0Dä! D/(" BW" A©t"˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Óý,$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XûXXXÔÑ7€>‚XXdðXXdð7Ñ bcVd îeEfDgEhiDjÓ€v·‚^!3|xxLevel 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 òÓ  ÓÞ ÞÌIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌKNOXVILLE,€DECEMBER€1996€SESSION̜ـ ÙÓ  ÓßR€'(&A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRß›ÌÌÌÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° Òó óDAVID€B.€MASE,à àà àà àà à)à àKNOX€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.€DALE€C.€WORKMAN,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àCIRCUIT€JUDGEÌCOCA„COLA€ENTERPRISES,€INC.,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellantà àà à)à àNO.€€03S01„9605„CV„00054ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€the€Appellantà àà àà àà àà àFor€the€Appellee:ÌÌó óóóPaul€D.€Hogan,€Jr.à àà àà àà àà àJames€œR.›€LaFevorÌHogan€&€Hogan,€Attys.à àà àà àà àRowland€&€RowlandÌ620€W.€Hill€Ave.à àà àà àà àà à312€Gay€StreetÌKnoxvillle,€Tenn.€37902à àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€2111Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€Tenn.€€37901„2111ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ̛̜ÌÌÌÌò 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€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌ̛̜ÌÌœò òÓ  ÓAFFIRMED›à àà àà àà àœà àà àà àTHAYER,›€SpecialÏJudgeó óÌÑ  ÑÓÓà àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€SpecialÏWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordanceÏwith€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€theÏSupreme€Court€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€Ìà àDefendant,€Coca„Cola€Enterprises,€Inc.,€has€appealed€from€the€trialÏcourtððs€action€in€awarding€plaintiff,€David€B.€Mase,€35%€permanent€partialÏdisability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.Ìà àThe€employer€contends€the€trial€court€was€in€error€in€ruling€it€liable€for€theÏcompensable€injury€as€opposed€to€applying€the€Last€Injury€Rule,€which€wouldÏhave€fixed€liability€against€the€employeeððs€last€employer.€€An€issue€is€alsoÏraised€as€to€whether€the€trial€court€was€in€error€in€awarding€an€amount€ofÏdisability€which€was€in€excess€of€2ðð€times€the€medical€impairment€rating.Ìà àPlaintiff€was€30€years€of€age€at€the€time€of€the€trial€and€had€completed€theÏ12th€grade.€€He€testified€he€was€injured€while€working€on€October€15,€1993,Íwhen€he€was€stacking€twelve„pack€cartons€of€drinks€at€a€customerððs€business;Ïthat€he€experienced€pain€in€his€left€hip€and€leg;€he€was€referred€by€his€employerÏto€Dr.€Don€King,€who€treated€him€with€medication€and€therapy;€he€was€releasedÏto€return€to€work€on€November€12,€1993,€and€returned€to€the€same€job€at€theÏsame€rate€of€pay;€he€told€the€trial€court€he€did€not€feel€able€to€work€but€attemptedÏto€do€so€anyway.Ìà àPlaintiff€was€terminated€by€defendant€on€December€2,€1993.€€There€is€aÏconflict€in€the€evidence€as€to€the€exact€reason€for€his€discharge.€€PlaintiffÏtestified€a€supervisor€requested€that€he€sign€a€written€statement€agreeing€heÏcould€be€terminated€if€he€did€not€meet€certain€standards€of€work;€that€he€told€theÏcompany€official€that€he€would€not€sign€the€statement€because€his€physicalÏcondition€would€not€permit€him€to€comply€with€the€statements€and€that€he€wasÏterminated€for€failing€to€execute€the€statement.Ìà àThe€record€indicates€that€during€1992€and€1993€plaintiff€had€beenÏwarned€a€number€of€times€by€his€employer€that€his€performance€on€the€job€wasÏnot€satisfactory€and€that€he€had€œbeen›€tardy€in€reporting€to€work€often.Ìà àThe€supervisor€testified€he€met€and€discussed€with€plaintiff€his€poor€jobÏperformance€on€December€3rd;€he€offered€him€an€opportunity€to€return€to€work€ifÏhe€would€agree€to€perform€up€to€their€standards;€plaintiff€responded€by€sayingÏhe€could€not€do€that€but€did€not€say€why€or€mention€his€physical€condition€as€aÏreason.Ìà àAfter€being€discharged,€plaintiff€was€employed€during€the€same€monthÏwith€the€Knox€County€Juvenile€Court€as€a€correction€or€detention€officer.€€TheÍrecord€is€silent€as€to€his€rate€of€pay€in€this€position.€€Also,€during€the€same€monthÏof€his€discharge€and€reemployment,€he€returned€to€see€Dr.€King€stillÏcomplaining€of€physical€problems.€€Dr.€King€ordered€MRI€studies€which€thenÏrevealed€definite€disc€protrusions€at€L3„4€and€L4„5€levels.€€He€was€then€referredÏto€an€orthopedic€surgeon,€Dr.€John€H.€Bell,€who€saw€him€on€January€6,€1994Ïand€later€performed€surgery.€€Plaintiff€was€released€to€return€to€work€on€May€5,Ï1995.Ìà àDr.€Bell€continued€to€see€plaintiff€on€a€regular€basis€after€he€was€releasedÏas€he€was€still€complaining€of€pain€in€his€low€back,€left€hip€and€having€someÏswelling€about€his€back.€€He€gave€a€ten€percent€medical€impairment€rating€toÏthe€body€as€a€whole.Ìà àWe€must€review€the€record€of€findings€by€the€trial€court€òòde€novoóóÏaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact€unlessÏthe€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).Ìà àWhere€the€trial€court€has€seen€and€heard€witnesses€and€issues€ofÏcredibility€and€the€weight€of€oral€testimony€are€involved,€the€trial€court€is€in€aÏbetter€position€to€judge€credibility€and€weight€œof€evidence›€and€considerableÏdeference€must€be€accorded€to€those€circumstances.€€òòLanders€v.€FiremanððsÏFund€Ins.€Co.óó,€775€S.W.2d€355,€356€(Tenn.€1989).Ìà àThe€first€question€deals€with€the€Last€Injury€Rule.€€The€employer€arguesÏplaintiffððs€employment€with€the€Juvenile€Court€aggravated€his€condition,€and€thisÏlast€employer€should€be€the€legally€responsible€party.Ìà àWe€do€not€find€the€evidence€to€support€this€contention.€€While€it€is€true€theÏemployee€continued€to€suffer€from€his€condition€during€his€short€period€ofÏreemployment,€there€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€which€indicates€he€sustainedÏan€injury€with€the€last€employer€or€that€his€condition€was€aggravated€by€his€newÏduties.€€To€the€contrary,€plaintiffððs€testimony€as€to€how€he€was€injured€and€Dr.ÏBellððs€opinion€that€this€work€activity€in€all€probability€caused€the€rupture€of€theÏdiscs€is€the€only€evidence€concerning€how€his€injury€occurred.Ìà àThe€primary€issue€is€whether€the€award€of€disability€is€limited€to€2ððÏtimes€the€medical€impairment€rating€provided€in€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(1)€orÏwhether€the€award€may€be€fixed€under€subsection€(b)€of€the€statute€up€to€aÏmaximum€of€6€times€the€medical€impairment.Ìà àIf€the€employee€sustains€a€compensable€injury€and€is€returned€to€work€byÏthe€pre„injury€employer€at€a€wage€greater€or€equal€to€the€wage€the€employeeÏwas€earning€prior€to€the€injury,€the€award€to€the€employee€shall€be€limited€toÏ2ðð€times€the€medical€impairment€rating€under€subsection€(a)(1).€€However,€ifÏthe€employee€is€not€returned€to€work€by€the€pre„injury€employer€at€a€wageÏgreater€or€equal€to€the€wage€the€employee€was€earning€prior€to€the€injury,€theÏaward€to€the€employee€shall€be€limited€to€6€times€the€medical€impairment€ratingÏunder€subsection€(b).Ìà àT.C.A.€ðð€50„6„241€does€not€and€cannot€define€all€the€circumstancesÏwhich€might€arise€in€determining€whether€there€has€or€has€not€been€a€ð ðreturn€toÏworkðð€within€the€meaning€of€the€statute.€€Therefore,€the€courts€have€beenÏrequired€to€assess€the€peculiar€facts€of€each€case€and€construe€the€statute€toÍdetermine€its€application.€€In€doing€this,€we€must€keep€in€mind€that€the€intent€ofÏthe€legislature€in€passing€this€act€was€to€encourage€employers€to€returnÏemployees€to€work€upon€their€recovery€from€injury.Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€the€facts€of€the€case€authorized€an€award€in€excessÏof€the€cap€imposed€under€subsection€(a)(1),€and€we€cannot€say€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€this€conclusion.€€The€return€to€work€period€was€veryÏshort€and€Dr.€Bell€was€of€the€opinion€plaintiff€should€not€have€returned€to€workÏwith€defendant€even€after€his€recovery€from€surgery.€€Therefore,€it€appearsÏplaintiffððs€return€to€work€was€not€meaningful€in€the€sense€of€the€statute€andÏinitially€the€capping€of€the€claim€would€fall€under€subsection€(b),€which€imposesÏa€cap€of€6€times€the€medical€impairment€rating.€€The€trial€courtððs€award€of€35%Ïdisability€with€an€impairment€rating€of€10%€is€well€within€the€scope€of€the€statue.Ìà àWe€are€of€the€opinion€the€provisions€of€subsection€(a)(2)€have€noÏapplication€to€the€facts€of€this€case.€€If€the€initial€question€results€in€a€finding€thatÏthe€return€to€work€was€meaningful,€an€employee€may€apply€to€the€court€toÏreconsider€the€award€capped€under€subsection€(a)(1)€provided€the€employeeÏqualifies€with€all€of€the€requirements€of€(a)(2).Ìà àThe€judgment€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€are€taxed€to€defendantÏand€sureties.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 ° Òà àà àà àÌà àà àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€à à€€€€€€€€€AT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÌÒ S ÒÒ ° ÒDAVID€B.€MASE,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à€)€€€€€KNOX€CIRCUITÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€€€NO.€1„251„95€€€€€€€à à€€€€€€à àÏà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€)à à€à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìvs.€€à àà àà àà àà àà à€)€€€€€€€Hon.€Dale€C.€Workman€à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€)€€€€€€€JudgeÌà àà à€à àà àà àà à€)à àÌCOCA„COLA€ENTERPRISES,€INC.à à€)à àà àà àà à€Ìà à€€€€à àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àÌà àDefendant/€Appellant.à àà à€)à à03S01„9605„CV„00054ÌÔ€#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,€whichÏare€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ìà àÌà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€theÏMemorandum€Opinion€of€the€Panel€should€be€accepted€andÏapproved€;€andÌÌà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panelððs€findings€of€act€andÏconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decisionÏof€the€Panel€is€made€the€Judgment€of€the€Court.ÌÌà àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€defendant/€appellant,ÏCoco„Cola€Enterprises,€Inc.€and€Paul€D.€Hogan,€Jr.,€Surety,€forÏwhich€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€Ì€03/17/97à àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÔ€#XÔà à›