ÿWPC¹ …U:V %€– n­& 04Ó  w@ 4G 0J[ 0T¥ Æù Æ¿ Æ… ÆK 0^ 0ho 0r× 0|I 0†Å 0K 1uÛ 0dPB)´DCÝ B  AM=U *Š´fÏ D35hv~ƒ 0@vÓA AOÆc 0D) D/m Bœ4AÁ A`"Antique OliveX' Ì Alma MilamOpinion  0 .   3|t,«4AÁ A`"Antique OliveXX~AÁ P’…-7ûXP( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Ó {  E  Ó€VîÓ€)obF"(8Ôôx2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd d€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òFebruary€10,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ%%%%'ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òFebruary€10,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€€QXXdædÈ7ÑÞ ÞÌÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌÙ€€ÙßR€&($A1-j|ò(` Å `€€@ÿRßÑ€)ÑÇÑ ` ÑÔ€'Ôà@ àÔ€'¼ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÔ€'XÔÌÌÌÓ#` p…X LÐ X#ÓALMA€J.€MILAM,à àà àà à)à àSHELBY€CHANCERYÌÓ#` p` LÐ X#Óà à)à àNO.€104128„3€R.D.ÌÓ` p` ¸ ’XÓà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à à)à àÌÓ#` p` ¸ LÐ X#Óà àà à)à àHon.€D.€J.€Alissandratos,Ìvs.à àà à)à àChancellorÌà àà à)ÌMCI€TELECOMMUNICATIONSà à)à àNO.€02S01„9604„CH„00040ÌßJ€&+;+'b|àP` Å `€@ÿJßCORPORATION€and€GALLAGHERà à)ÌBASSETT€SERVICES,à à)Ìà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees.à à)à àAFFIRMED.ÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€'¼ÔJUDGMENT€ORDERÔ€'XÔÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌÓ` p`  ’XÓà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€the€orderÏof€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel'sÏMemorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€whichÏare€incorporated€herein€by€reference.ÌÓ  Óà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€Opinion€of€theÏPanel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€judgment€ofÍthe€Court.Ìà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€Appellant,€and€surety,€for€which€execution€mayÏissue€if€necessary.Ìà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€this€10th€day€of€February,€1997.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌ(Reid,€J.,€not€participating)ÌÌÌÌÔ€ÔÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓALMA€J.€MILAM,à àà àà àà à€à à)€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€NO.€02„S01„9604„CH„00040Ìà àà àPlaintiff„Appellant,à àà àà à)€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€SHELBY€CHANCERY€COURTÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€NO.€104128„Part€IIIÌMCI€TELECOMMUNICATIONSà àà àà à)ÌCORPORATION€and€GALLAGHERà àà à)€€€HONORABLE€D.€J.ÏALISSANDRATOS,ÌBASSETT€SERVICES,à àà àà àà à)ÏCHANCELLORÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àDefendants„Appellee,à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àà àFORÏAPPELLEE:óóò òÌÌó óMarcus€Nahon€à àà àà àà àà àSamÏL.€Crain,€Jr.ÌMarc€A.ÏSorinà àà àà àà àà àLaurie€M.ÏMeehanÌ5100€Poplar€Avenueà àà àà àà à130€NorthÏCourt€AvenueÌSuiteÏ2500à àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis€Tennessee€38103à àMemphis,€Tennessee€38137ÌÌÌÌÌÌà àòòM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌÌòòMembers€of€PanelóóÌÌÌLyle€Reid,€Associate€Justice,€Supreme€CourtÌF.€Lloyd€Tatum,€Special€JudgeÌJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àTatum,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòò òMEMORANDUM€OPINIONó óóóÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÌÌà àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€toÏthe€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€SupremeÍCourt€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€forÏhearing€and€reporting€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€ÌÌà àThis€is€an€appeal€by€the€employee€plaintiff,€Alma€J.ÏMilam,€from€a€judgment€in€favor€of€MCI€TelecommunicationsÏCorporation,€the€employer/defendant.€€The€plaintiff,€prior€to€trial,Ïvoluntarily€dismissed€the€suit€with€prejudice€as€to€GallagherÏBassett€Services,€Inc.€€ÌÌà àOn€this€appeal,€the€Plaintiff€presents€two€issues:€ÓÓÌÌÌà àIssue€Number€1:à0 àDid€the€trial€courtÏcommit€error€byÏfinding€significantÏquestions€of€causationÏand€in€the€process€ruleÏagainst€Plaintiff?ÌÌà àIssue€Number€2:à0 àDid€the€trial€courtÏcommit€error€inÏfinding€that€theÏPlaintiff€failed€toÏprove€by€aÏpreponderance€of€theÍevidence€that€theÏPlaintiff€suffered€aÏpermanent€partialÏdisability€as€a€resultÏof€her€on€the€jobÏinjury?ÓÓÌÌà àIn€arguing€Issue€Number€1,€the€Plaintiff€says€thatÏcausation€was€not€an€issue€in€this€case;€that€it€was€stipulated€byÏthe€Defendant.€€In€an€oral€pronouncement€of€his€findings,€the€trialÏjudge,€after€hearing€all€the€evidence€and€argument€of€counsel€stated:ÓÓÌÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€Court€finds€that€there€is€regretfully€aÏsignificant€question€of€causation,€degree€andÏ[sic]€credibility€of€the€Plaintiff.€€AndÏregretfully€the€Court€finds€that€none€of€theseÏcan€be€resolved€in€favor€of€the€Plaintiff.€€ÓÓÌÌÌà àIt€was€the€theory€of€the€Plaintiff€that€in€April,€1993,€anÏair€conditioner€vent€fell€onto€her€head€at€her€work€place€causing€herÏto€have€severe€headaches€since€that€time€and€that€these€headachesÍare€permanent€and€disabling.€€It€was€the€Defendant's€theory€that€theÏaccident€caused€the€Plaintiff€no€permanent€injury€or€disability.ÌÌà àIn€arguing€that€there€was€no€issue€as€to€causation,€theÏPlaintiff€relies€upon€two€statements€made€by€defense€counsel.€TheÏfirst€statement€relied€upon€was€made€during€the€opening€remarks€ofÏdefense€counsel€as€follows:ÓÓÌÌÌà8 àà8 àThere€is€no€contest,€your€Honor,€that€this€„„„ÏMs.€Milam€sustained€an€injury€by€accidentÏarising€out€of€and€in€the€course€of€herÏemployment.€€The€issue€in€this€case€is€doesÏshe€have€any€disability€as€a€result€of€thatÏaccident,€that's€it."ÓÓÌÌà àThe€above€is€no€admission€or€stipulation€that€theÏaccident€was€the€causation€of€any€disability€or€permanent€injury€onÏthe€part€of€the€Plaintiff.€€This€was€merely€a€statement€that€theÏtestimony€of€the€Plaintiff€that€an€accident€occurred€would€not€beÏcontested.€€Defense€counsel€made€a€specific€statement€that€theÍissue€in€the€case€was€whether€the€Plaintiff€had€a€disability€as€aÏresult€of€the€accident.€€ÌÌà àThe€Plaintiff€relies€upon€another€statement€made€byÏdefense€counsel€during€his€argument€at€the€conclusion€of€theÏPlaintiff's€proof€for€a€directed€verdict.€€Counsel€stated:ÓÓÌÌÌà8 àà8 àAs€you€know,€your€Honor,€it€goes€withoutÏsaying€that€the€Plaintiff€bears€the€burden€ofÏproving€two€things€as€a€threshold€toÏrecovering€any€benefits.€€And€that€isÏpermanency€of€the€condition€and€causation.ÌÌà8 àà8 àI€don't€think€there€is€any€way€I€could€makeÏthis€argument€on€causation.ÓÓÌÌà àThe€defense€counsel€was€stating€that€he€could€not€makeÏan€argument€for€a€directed€verdict€on€the€issue€of€causation.€€AtÏleast€one€of€the€doctors€who€testified€rendered€the€opinion€that€theÏPlaintiff€was€permanently€disabled€by€her€headaches€and€that€theÏcausation€for€the€disability€was€the€on€the€job€accident.€€With€thisÍtestimony,€it€is€obvious€that€there€was€a€question€of€fact€to€beÏdetermined€on€the€causation€issue€and€that€a€motion€for€a€directedÏverdict€on€this€question€would€be€frivolous.€€This€is€not€a€stipulationÏthat€the€accident€caused€any€permanent€disability.€€Incidentally,€theÏmotion€for€a€directed€verdict€was€overruled€by€the€trial€court.€€TheÏfirst€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àIn€the€second€issue,€we€are€called€upon€to€determineÏwhether€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€requires€a€finding€thatÏthe€Plaintiff€suffered€a€permanent€disability€as€a€result€of€injuriesÏshe€sustained€in€the€accident.€€This€issue€overlaps€the€first€issueÏand€our€discussion€is€also€applicable€to€the€first€issue.ÌÌà àThe€Plaintiff€testified€that€she€was€forty„five€years€ofÏage€and€had€a€high€school€education.€€She€finished€three€years€ofÏcollege€and€had€further€training€in€banking.€€She€has€worked€as€aÏbank€teller,€substitute€teacher,€and€a€post€office€clerk.€€ÌÌà àAt€the€suggestion€of€the€trial€court,€the€details€of€theÏaccident€were€not€testified€to.€€She€was€an€employee€at€MCIÏCommunications€as€a€customer€service€representative.€€This€workÏinvolved€the€helping€of€customers€with€their€problems€by€telephone.€€ÌÌÌà àThe€Plaintiff€testified€that€during€trial,€on€a€scale€of€oneÏto€ten,€she€had€a€number€seven€headache.€€A€number€one€headacheÏwas€very€mild€and€a€number€ten€is€very€severe€on€this€scale.€€SheÏsaid€that€she€was€nauseated€at€the€time€of€trial.€€ÌÌà àShe€returned€to€work€for€about€a€week€or€week€and€one„half€while€being€treated€by€Dr.€Empting.€€Dr.€Empting€sent€her€back€toÏwork€but€she€was€unable€to€work€because€of€her€headaches.€€SheÏtestified€that€she€had€to€leave€the€telephone€every€day€because€ofÏthe€headaches€and€the€employer€would€not€permit€her€to€go€to€theÏrest€room.€€She€testified€that€she€suffered€with€nausea,€blurredÏvision€and€dizziness.€€She€cannot€drive.ÌÌà àShe€testified€that€she€had€from€one€to€five€headaches€perÏday.€€At€another€point€she€testified€that€she€had€headaches€three€orÏfour€times€per€week€and€again€she€testified€that€since€the€accidentÏshe€has€not€had€a€solid€day€free€of€headaches.€€She€testified€that€onÏthe€one€to€ten€scale,€some€of€her€headaches€were€between€numberÏtwo€and€number€three€and€others€are€eleven.€€She€testified€that€sheÏcould€go€back€to€work€for€MCI€on€a€part„time€basis€"if€they€would€letÏher."€ÌÌà àShe€testified€that€her€superior€gave€her€a€"one€on€one."€ÏThis€is€a€warning€orally€given€by€the€supervisor€and€the€next€step€isÏtermination€according€to€her.€€ÌÌà àShe€has€been€treated€mainly€by€Dr.€Wright€who€last€sawÏher€on€May€16,€1995.€€She€testified€that€she€has€not€improved€sinceÏthe€accident.€€Dr.€Wright€has€tried€her€on€between€forty€and€fiftyÏmedications€for€the€migraine€headaches.€€Some€are€not€effective€andÍshe€has€side€effects€from€the€others.€€Dr.€Wright€prescribed€a€drugÏcalled€imitrex,€but€she€cannot€afford€this€and€her€employer€will€notÏpay€for€it.€€She€testified€that€she€was€on€blood€pressure€medication.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€the€Plaintiff€testified€that€sheÏhad€hypertension€and€that€the€medication€given€to€her€forÏhypertension€caused€severe€headaches€before€the€accident.€€SheÏdenied€having€blurred€vision€before€the€accident€but€testified€thatÏshe€had€blurred€vision€since€the€accident.€€She€denied€having€troubleÏsleeping€before€the€accident€and€denied€telling€a€doctor€that€she€hadÏtrouble€sleeping€before€the€accident.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination€she€was€presented€with€a€formÏthat€she€had€filled€out€for€a€Dr.€Patchen€at€the€Health€First€MedicalÏGroup€on€January€5,€1993€before€the€accident€occurred€in€April,Ï1993.€€On€this€form,€she€stated€that€she€had€blurred€vision,€ringingÏears€and€sinus€trouble.€€Though€she€marked€that€she€had€sinus€troubleÏshe€testified€that€this€was€hay€fever,€but€she€did€not€check€the€markÍfor€hay€fever.€€On€the€form€under€the€heading€"miscellaneousÏcomplaints"€she€reported€that€she€had€headaches€and€inability€toÏsleep.€€She€identified€a€document€from€Dr.€Patchen€dated€January€5,Ï1993,€stating€that€her€hypertension€was€severe€and€that€medicationÏcaused€the€headaches.€€She€testified€that€the€medication€also€causedÏthe€blurred€vision.€€She€admitted€that€before€the€accident€she€hadÏregular€headaches.€ÌÌà àElizabeth€Courturier,€a€supervisor,€at€MCI,€testified€thatÏshe€was€a€customer€service€representative€in€1992€and€worked€withÏthe€plaintiff.€€During€this€period,€the€plaintiff€complained€to€her€ofÏhaving€headaches.€€She€and€another€supervisor€disputed€Plaintiff'sÏtestimony€that€termination€would€be€considered€after€the€"one€onÏone".€€They€testified€that€there€were€several€steps€to€be€takenÏbefore€termination€could€be€considered.ÌÌà àThe€testimony€revealed€that€these€supervisors€wouldÏhave€worked€with€the€Plaintiff€had€Dr.€Wright€placed€restrictions€onÍher€when€she€was€released€by€him€to€return€to€work.€€The€doctorÏplaced€no€restrictions€on€the€Plaintiff€that€would€enable€theseÏsupervisors€to€work€with€her€and€make€exceptions€for€her.€ÌÌà àDr.€Lance€J.€Wright€testified€for€the€Plaintiff€byÏdeposition.€€He€had€been€practicing€neurology€for€three€and€one„halfÏyears€at€the€time€his€deposition€was€taken€on€October€20,€1994.€€ÌÌà àDr.€Wright€first€saw€plaintiff€on€June€7,€1993.€€HeÏobtained€a€history€that€the€plaintiff€had€been€having€headaches€sinceÏApril,€1993,€when€an€air€conditioner€vent€fell€on€her€head.€€She€didÏnot€lose€consciousness€according€to€the€history€that€she€gave€to€theÏdoctor.€€She€had€no€lacerations€when€he€saw€her.ÌÌà àDr.€John€Crockerall,€an€associate€of€Dr.€Wright,€saw€theÏPlaintiff€before€Dr.€Wright.€€Dr.€Crockerall€ordered€a€CAT€scan€andÏEEG€which€Dr.€Wright€reviewed.€€Both€were€normal.€€Dr.€Wright'sÏexamination€revealed€no€anatomical€disorder,€no€nerve€disorder,€noÍpsychological€disorder€or€clinical€depression.€€His€diagnosis€based€onÏhistory€and€complaints€given€to€him€by€the€Plaintiff€was€post„traumatic€chronic€headache.€€Dr.€Wright€continued€to€treat€theÏPlaintiff€until€August,€1994,€when€he€released€her€withoutÏrestriction.ÌÌà àDr.€Wright€treated€the€Plaintiff€with€some€eight€to€tenÏmedications€but€she€had€side€effects€from€them.€€For€example,€oneÏmedication€caused€wheezing,€another€caused€depression€and€anotherÏincreased€her€blood€pressure.€€She€improved€with€some€of€theseÏmedications€as€long€as€she€could€take€them.ÌÌà àBy€May€18,€1994,€her€headaches€had€improved€with€timeÏand€without€medication.€€By€then,€according€to€what€she€told€theÏdoctor,€the€headaches€were€no€longer€occurring€every€day,€but€wereÏoccurring€at€least€two€times€per€week.ÌÌà àDr.€Wright€testified€that€"some€headaches€after€headÍtrauma€will€last€a€week,€some€will€last€a€year,€and€some€will€lastÏfor€thirty€years."€€Dr.€Wright€testified€that€the€Plaintiff€had€aÏpermanent€partial€disability€rating€of€fifteen€percent€to€the€body€asÏwhole€which€he€based€on€chronic€pain.€€The€pain€was€not€related€toÏan€anatomical€defect€referred€to€in€the€AMA€Guidelines.€€Dr.€WrightÏtestified€that€there€is€nothing€in€the€guidelines€that€will€directlyÏsupport€the€fifteen€percent€disability€figure.€€He€gave€a€functionalÏdisability€rating€and€not€an€anatomical€impairment€rating.ÌÌà àDr.€Wright€referred€Plaintiff€to€Dr.€Atkins,€aÏpsychologist,€who€saw€her€on€December€9,€1993.€€Dr.€Atkins€reportedÏto€Dr.€Wright€that€the€Plaintiff€complained€of€a€"number€9"€headacheÏat€the€time€he€saw€her€but€she€showed€no€evidence€of€distress€orÏdiscomfort.€€The€number€9€figure€was€on€the€scale€of€zero€to€ten.ÌÌà àDr.€Anthony€Segal,€a€neurosurgeon,€saw€the€Plaintiff€onÏAugust€5,€1993.€€She€gave€him€a€history€similar€to€that€given€to€Dr.ÏWright,€but€she€told€him€that€she€was€in€fact€knocked€unconscious€inÍthe€accident€that€occurred€on€April€27,€1993.€€She€described€the€airÏconditioner€vent€to€be€about€two€feet€long€and€nine€inches€wide,Ïmade€of€thin€metal.€€She€told€him€that€she€had€some€headacheÏimmediately€and€a€couple€of€days€later€started€having€migraine€typeÏheadaches.€€At€the€time€Dr.€Segal€saw€her,€she€said€that€she€wasÏhaving€headaches€once€or€twice€a€week.ÌÌà àDr.€Segal€testified€that€the€Plaintiff€was€five€feet€fourÏinches€tall€and€weight€two€hundred€ten€pounds.€€The€neurologicalÏexamination€was€entirely€normal€and€she€demonstrated€no€excessÏpain€behavior.€€Dr.€Segal€testified€that€her€history€and€complaintsÏwere€typical€of€post„traumatic€migraine€"as€we€see€it€in€patientsÏwho€have€not€had€migraines€previously."€€He€testified€that€thisÏcondition€clears€from€"six€months€to€a€year€or€even€eighteen€monthsÏfrom€the€accident."€€Dr.€Segal€thought€at€the€time€that€he€saw€herÏthat€she€should€be€left€with€no€impairment€rating.ÌÌà àDr.€Robert€Paul€Christopher€also€testified€by€deposition.€ÍHe€is€a€rehabilitation€medicine€expert€and€is€a€professor€and€chief€ofÏthe€division€of€rehabilitation€medicine€at€the€University€ofÏTennessee€Medical€School.€€He€teaches€assessment€of€impairmentÏwith€reference€to€the€AMA€Guidelines€and€has€been€taught€by€some€ofÏthe€authors€of€the€guidelines.€€Dr.€Christopher€never€saw€theÏPlaintiff,€but€he€has€reviewed€the€notes€of€Dr.€Lance€Wright,€theÏdeposition€of€Dr.€Wright,€the€notes€of€Dr.€Crockerall,€the€report€fromÏDr.€Keith€Atkins€and€several€reports€from€Dr.€L.D.€Empting.€€Dr.ÏChristopher€testified€that€Dr.€Wright€had€given€a€disability€ratingÏand€not€an€impairment€rating.€€He€stated€that€an€impairment€ratingÏis€the€anatomical€loss€of€function€due€to€illness€or€injury.€€AÏdisability€rating€includes€anatomical€impairment€and€also€takes€intoÏaccount€other€factors.€€An€impairment€rating€is€given€by€a€physician,Ïbut€a€disability€rating€is€given€by€courts.€€In€his€opinion,€she€did€notÏhave€an€impairment€rating€according€to€AMA€Guidelines.€€ÌÌà àThe€telephone€deposition€of€Dr.€Larry€Duane€Empting€wasÏtaken€by€the€Defendant.€€He€is€board€certified€in€both€psychiatry€andÍneurology.ÌÌÌà àDr.€Empting€testified€that€he€first€saw€the€Plaintiff€onÏJanuary€17,€1994.€She€gave€a€history€of€having€been€struck€on€theÏvertex€of€the€head€by€a€five€pound€ventilator€metal€panel€in€April,Ï1993.€€She€told€him€that€she€developed€ongoing€severe€headaches€twoÏor€three€times€per€week€and€then€a€chronic€daily€headacheÏsuperimposed€upon€that.€€She€gave€him€no€history€of€havingÏheadaches€before€the€accident.€€She€told€him€that€she€did€not€loseÏconsciousness€and€that€she€had€a€knot€or€swelling€on€her€head€but€noÏlaceration.€€The€blow€to€her€head€was€cushioned€by€a€wig.€€ÌÌà àAfter€conducting€an€examination€which€he€found€to€beÏnormal,€he€concluded€that€she€had€post€concussion€migraines.€€HeÏtestified€that€she€was€on€the€mild€end€of€the€spectrum€of€migraines.€ÏThe€most€severe€has€stroke„like€symptoms.€€He€prescribedÏdesipramine€and€calan.ÌÌà àOn€February€7,€1994,€she€returned€complaining€of€aÏjittery€sensation€and€some€nausea.€€The€jittery€sensation€could€comeÏfrom€desipramine€and€the€nausea€could€come€from€calan.€€She€hadÏalready€discontinued€the€desipramine.€€He€then€prescribed€a€drugÏcalled€depakene.€€Dr.€Empting€testified€that€the€side€effects€wereÏminor,€could€be€tolerated€and€would€not€prevent€her€from€performingÏher€duties€at€MCI.€€ÌÌÌà àOn€February€28,€1994,€she€returned€still€complaining€ofÏheadache€and€side€effects€and€she€felt€that€medication€was€notÏworth€trying.€€She€was€complaining€of€nausea,€but€she€had€noÏvomiting€or€dehydration€and€her€appetite€was€not€reduced.ÌÌà àThe€doctor€did€not€prescribe€any€further€medicineÏbecause€she€would€not€tolerate€the€minor€side€effects€of€theÏmedication.€€She€told€the€doctor€that€she€had€rather€tolerate€theÍheadaches€than€the€side€effects.€€Dr.€Empting€thought€that€she€couldÏperform€her€job€with€the€headaches€and€released€her€for€work€onÏMarch€1,€1994,€without€restrictions.ÌÌà àA€plaintiff€seeking€workers'€compensation€benefits€hasÏthe€burden€of€proving€every€element€of€her€claim€by€a€preponderanceÏof€the€evidence.€€òòTinall€v.€Waring€Park€Associationóó,€725€S.W.2d€935Ï(Tenn.€1987).€€Appellate€review€is€de€novo€upon€the€record€of€theÏtrial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€theÏfindings€of€fact,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€isÏotherwise.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).€€ThisÏtribunal€is€required€to€conduct€an€independent€examination€of€theÏevidence€to€determine€where€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€lies.€ÏòòWingert€v.€Government€of€Sumner€Countyóó,€908€S.W.2d€921€(1995).ÌÌà àWhere€the€trial€judge€has€seen€and€heard€witnesses,Ïespecially€when€issues€of€credibility€and€weight€to€be€given€oralÏtestimony€are€involved,€on€review€considerable€deference€must€stillÍbe€accorded€to€those€circumstances.€€òòTownsend€v.€Stateóó,€826€S.W.2dÏ434€(Tenn.€1992).€€However,€this€tribunal€is€as€well€situated€toÏgauge€the€weight,€worth€and€significance€of€deposition€testimony€asÏthe€trial€judge.€€òòSeiver€v.€Greenbriar€Industries,€Inc.óó,€906€S.W.2d€444Ï(Tenn.€1995).€€All€of€the€medical€proof€in€this€case€was€byÏdeposition.€€The€other€evidence€was€by€oral€testimony.€€ÌÌà àThere€are€numerous€discrepancies€in€the€Plaintiff's€oralÏtestimony€which€we€have€not€attempted€to€describe€in€this€opinion.€ÏShe€demonstrated€no€outward€signs€of€pain€or€discomfort€whenÏvisiting€her€various€doctors,€but€after€their€depositions€were€takenÏshe€did€demonstrate€facial€expressions€of€pain€in€court.€€She€gaveÏnone€of€her€doctors€the€history€of€previous€headaches€in€1992€and€inÏJanuary€1993€before€the€accident€in€April.€€While€she€insisted€theÏheadaches€prevented€her€from€working€at€a€job€which€she€said€thatÏshe€enjoyed,€at€her€request€she€had€her€four€year€old€grandchildÏtaken€from€day€school€and€the€Plaintiff€cared€for€her.€€ÌÌà àAs€above€stated,€we€must€give€deference€to€theÏconclusions€of€the€trial€judge€who€had€an€opportunity€to€observe€andÏhear€the€witness'€testimony€and€we€find€that€the€evidence€isÏsufficient€to€support€the€conclusion€of€the€trial€judge€that€theÏwitness€was€not€credible.€€All€of€the€doctors€based€their€conclusionsÏsolely€upon€what€the€Plaintiff€told€them.€€Her€credibility€has€beenÏsuccessfully€attacked.€€The€doctors€did€not€know€of€the€plaintiff'sÏprior€history€of€headaches.€€The€only€doctor€who€supports€theÏplaintiff's€claim€for€permanent€disability€is€Dr.€Wright,€who€did€notÏbase€his€estimate€on€the€guidelines€and€did€not€render€an€impairmentÏrating.€€He€discharged€her€to€return€to€work€without€restriction.ÌÌà àWe€have€carefully€reviewed€this€entire€record€and€findÏthat€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€court'sÏjudgment.€€We€concur€that€the€Plaintiff€has€failed€to€prove€her€caseÏwith€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€It€results€that€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌà àCosts€are€adjudged€against€the€Plaintiff.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àF.€LLOYD€TATUM,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ________________________________ÌLYLE€REID,€ASSOCIATE€JUSTICEÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJOE€C.€LOSER,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÓ  Ó