ÿWPC] …UBV %˜U .žrÌ 0> Ë n®Û 0r‰ û w û 4 0J 0Tc 0^· 0h 0r} 0|ï 0†k 0ñ 1uU,ö 0d"U,†.²B)àDC  BL AMi>¶v~ôvÓr D3E 0@x AO¸Æ 0DÍ D/ B@ô\  `*Times New RomanTTô"ÝÆÿA€ArialTT'    0 .   (e2‰Ž$©©Ý ƒ K†!ÝÔ€X¤XôôÔÔ€XÞïXXX¤ÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý3|x «ô\  `*Times New RomanTTôôCô\  PŽ6QôP"ÝÆÿA€ArialTTomanTTXXaÝÆÿptQXpô\  `*Times New RomanTT¼¼^ô\  PŽ6Q¼Pô\  `*Times New RomanTT,,)ô\  PŽ6Q,P(JK†$¡¡Ô€X¤XôôÔÔ€XÞïXXX¤ÔÓ  ÓÓ€´½ 2 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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco $Ý ƒ !ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ@  ÔÚ  ÚÚ  ÚÔA  ÔÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓ% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd d€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ 4Ý ƒ !ÝÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òJune€10,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÖ€"ÖÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ&  ÔÔ€¼ÔÔ€ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌÙ€€ÙßL€&'$;+'h|` Å `€€LßÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌ(March€6,€1996€Session)ÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓREVA€PITTS,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€ÏCAMPBELL€CHANCERYÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€€Hon.€Billy€Joe€White,Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€€Chancellor.Ìv.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€€No.€03S01„9509„CH„00108ÌNATIONAL€UNION€FIRE€INSURANCE€€)ÌCOMPANY€and€SUE€ANN€HEAD,€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌDIRECTOR€OF€THE€DIVISION€OF€€€€€€€€€€)ÌWORKERS'€COMPENSATION,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌTENNESSEE€DEPARTMENT€OF€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌLABOR,€SECOND€INJURY€FUND€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Defendants„Appellants.€€€€€Ô€,Ô€Ô€¼Ô€€€€)ÌÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó,€òòNational€Unionóó:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òòFor€Appellee:ÌóóÌLinda€J.€Hamilton€Mowles€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€David€H.€DunawayÌLewis,€King,€Krieg,€Waldrup€&€Catron€€€€€€€David€H.€Dunaway€&ÏAssociatesÌKnoxville,€Tennessee€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€,Ô€Ô€¼Ô€€€Lafollette,€TennesseeÌÌòòFor€Appellant,€Second€Injury€Fund:ÌóóÌCharles€W.€BursonÌAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌSandra€E.€KeithÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌNashville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÔ'  ÔÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓòòM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌòòMembers€of€Panelóó:ÌÌPenny€J.€White,€Associate€Justice,€Supreme€CourtÌWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓMODIFIED€IN€PARTÌAFFIRMED€IN€PARTÌÓ  ÓREVERSED€IN€PART€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Loser,ÏJudgeÓ ¹ ÓÌà àà àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€theÏSpecial€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€inÏaccordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€andÏreporting€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€In€this€appeal,€theÏemployer's€insurer,€National€Union,€asserts€that€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€the€trial€court's€findings€that€(1)€the€claimant's€injury€was€oneÏarising€out€of€her€employment,€(2)€the€claimant€is€permanently€and€totallyÏdisabled€,€and€(3)€the€claimant€gave€the€required€notice€to€the€employer.€ÏThe€Second€Injury€Fund€(the€Fund)€asserts€that€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€the€trial€court's€finding€that€(1)€the€claimant€is€permanently€andÏtotally€disabled€and€(2)€the€claimant€is€entitled€to€more€than€twenty„twoÏweeks€of€temporary€total€disability.€€The€panel€has€concluded€that€theÏjudgment€should€be€modified€as€set€forth€below.Ó rAÓÌà àà àThe€employee€or€claimant,€Reva€Pitts,€is€thirty„nine€and€has€aÏhigh€school€education.€€She€has€some€computer€training.€€From€a€previousÏinjury€she€received€a€workers'€compensation€based€on€forty€percent€to€theÏbody€as€a€whole.Ìà àà àIn€her€duties€as€a€tire€builder€for€the€employer,€Dico€Tire,ÏInc.,€she€operated€a€machine€by€pushing€foot€pedals.€€As€a€result,€sheÏgradually€developed€foot€pain€in€both€feet,€which,€on€July€24,€1992,€Dr.ÏJames€Engblom€diagnosed€as€tarsal€tunnel€syndrome,€superimposed€onÏother€foot€maladies.Ìà àà àThe€doctor€operated€on€both€feet€and€estimated€her€permanentÏimpairment€at€fourteen€percent€to€both€feet.€€She€reached€maximumÏmedical€improvement€for€her€left€foot€on€August€3,€1992€and€for€her€rightÏfoot€on€November€6,€1992.Ìà àà àDr.€Catherine€Gyurik,€a€psychiatrist,€began€evaluating€theÏclaimant€on€July€28,€1993,€and€diagnosed€recurrent€depressionÏchronologically€related€to€her€foot€problems.€€The€doctor€did€not€testifyÏthe€claimant€was€permanently€impaired€by€her€mental€condition.€€Dr.ÏNorman€Hankins,€a€vocational€expert,€testified€that€the€claimant€was€eighty„one€percent€disabled€from€the€foot€injury€and€subsequent€surgery,€based€onÏrestrictions€from€a€physical€therapist.Ìà àà àThe€chancellor€found€the€employee€to€be€permanently€andÏtotally€disabled€and€apportioned€forty€percent€of€the€award€of€disabilityÏbenefits€to€the€Fund€and€sixty€percent€to€the€employer.€€Additionally,€theÏchancellor€awarded€temporary€total€disability€benefits€from€May€21,€1992Ïto€August€22,€1992,€and€from€September€4,€1992€through€November€6,Ï1992.Ìà àà àAppellate€review€is€de€novo€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,Ïaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€findings€of€fact,€unlessÏthe€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€sectionÏ50„6„225(e)(2).€€The€standard€requires€this€tribunal€to€conduct€anÏindependent€examination€of€the€evidence€to€determine€where€theÏpreponderance€lies.€€òòGalloway€v.€Memphis€Drum€Serviceóó,€822€€S.W.2d€Ï584,€586€(Tenn.€1991).Ìà àà àWhen€an€injury,€not€otherwise€specifically€provided€for€in€theÏWorkers'€Compensation€Act€(the€Act),€totally€incapacitates€a€coveredÏemployee€from€working€at€an€occupation€which€brings€her€an€income,€suchÏemployee€is€considered€totally€disabled.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€50„6„207(4)(B);€òòProst€v.€City€of€Clarksvilleóó,€688€€S.W.2d€€425€(Tenn.€1985).€€InÏorder€for€an€award€of€permanent€disability€to€lie,€the€claimant€must€presentÏmedical€proof€that€her€injuries€are€permanent.Ìà àà àThe€only€medical€proof€of€a€permanent€injury€is€that€she€has€aÏpermanent€impairment€of€her€feet.€€An€injury€to€both€feet€is€oneÏ"otherwise€specifically€provided€for€in€the€Act."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€sectionÏ50„6„207(3)(A)(z).€€From€a€consideration€of€the€pertinent€factors,Ïincluding€the€claimant's€skills,€training,€education,€age,€local€jobÏopportunities€and€the€claimant's€capacity€to€work€in€her€partially€disabledÏcondition,€to€the€extent€that€those€factors€have€been€proved,€the€panel€findsÏthat€the€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€an€award€based€on€fortyÏpercent€to€both€feet.€€The€judgment€is€modified€accordingly.Ìà àà àThe€period€of€temporary€total€disability€found€by€theÏchancellor€represents€the€period€of€time€necessary€for€the€claimant€to€haveÏsurgery€and€recuperate€from€that€surgery.€€The€evidence€fails€toÏpreponderate€against€that€finding.€€The€award€of€temporary€total€disabilityÏbenefits€is€accordingly€affirmed.Ìà àà àWhere€an€injured€employee€has€one€or€more€prior€awardsÏunder€the€Act,€and€the€combination€of€all€such€awards€equals€or€exceedsÏone€hundred€percent€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole,Ïthen€the€Fund€will€pay€the€benefits€due€the€employee€in€excess€of€oneÏhundred€percent.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€50„6„208(B);€òòSitz€v.€GoodyearÏTruck€Tire€Centeróó,€762€€S.W.2d€€886€(Tenn.€1988).€€Scheduled€memberÏawards€are€equated€to€a€percentage€of€the€body€as€a€whole€for€the€purposeÏof€determining€whether€a€new€permanent€partial€disability€award,€whenÏadded€to€a€prior€award,€exceeds€one€hundred€percent.€€òòHenson€v.€City€ofÏLawrenceburgóó,€851€€S.W.2d€€809€(Tenn.€1993).Ìà àà àBecause€the€total€of€the€claimant's€prior€award€and€this€award,Ïwhich€equates€to€one€based€on€forty€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole,€do€notÏexceed€one€hundred€percent,€the€judgment€against€the€Second€Injury€FundÏis€reversed.Ìà àà àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€plaintiff€and€National€Union,Ïone„half€each.Ìà àà àÌà àà àÓ *bÓÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓ_______________________________Ó ÓÌÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Joe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€JudgeÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌPenny€J.€White,€Associate€JusticeÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌ