ÿWPCò 0# °U:» %õ 0ûûw@ö46JY a 0Jg 0T±  0^  0hi 0rÑ 0|C 0†¿ 0E 1uÕ U,J 0dv U,Ú U* B)0 DCY AMœ 0@é D3) B\ D+y ¤¤ v~HvÓÆ AO™Æè 0D®˜HP LaserJet 4 Plus/4M PlusHPPCL5E,,,,0 , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Óý,$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XûXXXÔÑ7€>‚XXdðXXdð7Ñ e[fg{hEijDkÊlÓ€wzdO˜ 3|xzHR2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÈR2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd-%#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò'''''ÿÿdxd d'ÈÈÈÈdxd šÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ YYY ÔÓ  ÓFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌò òJuneÏ20,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(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-%/(Cþÿ` << CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€  X„d&ÓÑ#€  Xd#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÓ  Óò ò›IN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATIONÏAPPEALS€PANELÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌó óÌJOHN€PRIMM,à àà àà àà à)à àMAURYÏCIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà àà àà à)à àHON.€JIMÏT.€HAMILTON,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àCircuitÏJudgeÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÙ€-ÙœßL€$)#;+'h|` à. `€€Lß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌUCAR€CARBON€COMPANY,€INC.,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellantà àà à)à àNO.€Ï01S01„9511„CV„00204ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€theÏAppellee:ÌÌó óóóKitty€Boyteà àà àà àà àà àJohn€S.€Colley,ÏIIIÌJulia€J.€Tateà àà àà àà àà àColley€&€ColleyÌ150€Second€Avenue€Northà àà àP.€O.€Box€1476ÌSuite€201à àà àà àà àà àColumbia,€TNÏ38402„1476ÌNashville,€TN€37201ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONÌÌMembers€of€Panel:ÌÌó óóóFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€JusticeÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òMODIFIED€and€AFFIRMED.à àà àà àTHAYER,€Special€Judgeó óÌÓÓà àThis€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 àDefendant,€UCAR€Carbon€Company,€Inc.,€has€appealed€from€the€action€ofÏthe€trial€court€in€awarding€plaintiff,€John€Primm,€65%€permanent€partial€disabilityÏbenefits€to€the€body€as€a€whole.Ìà àDefendant€contends€the€trial€court€was€in€error€(1)€in€awarding€65%€disabilityÏto€the€body€as€a€whole,€(2)€in€denying€Defendant€a€set„off€for€payments€of€short„termÏdisability€insurance€benefits€and€(3)€in€commuting€the€award€to€one€lump€sumÏpayment.Ìà àPlaintiff€is€63€years€of€age€and€has€a€12th€grade€education.€€He€has€followedÏconstruction€work€for€many€years€and€had€worked€for€Defendant€for€13€years€priorÏto€the€time€in€question.€€During€October,€1993,€he€was€injured€while€using€a€pry€barÏto€move€a€heavy€metal€plate.€€He€said€he€felt€a€pinch€in€his€back€and€shoulder€andÏreported€the€injury€to€his€employer.€€He€continued€to€work€on€and€off€for€differentÏperiods€of€time€until€his€surgical€procedures€were€over.€€After€finally€being€releasedÏby€his€physician,€he€told€the€trial€court€he€could€not€work€at€his€old€job€and€heÏelected€to€retire€during€March,€1995.Ìà àThe€testimony€of€Dr.€Eslick€Daniel,€an€orthopedic€surgeon,€was€presented€byÏdeposition.€€He€indicated€he€first€saw€plaintiff€on€November€3,€1993,€when€he€notedÏplaintiff€had€degenerative€disc€disease€of€his€back€and€early€arthritic€changes€of€hisÏshoulder.€€His€first€diagnosis€was€a€shoulder€and€back€strain€and€he€said€plaintiffÏdid€not€indicate€his€problem€was€work„related.€€Upon€seeing€him€a€second€time,€hisÏdiagnosis€was€a€rotator€cuff€strain€with€some€tendinitis.€€He€noted€that€between€theÏtwo€visits€the€patient€had€also€seen€a€hospital€emergency€room€doctor.€€Dr.€DanielÏhad€scheduled€a€CT€Scan€but€plaintiff€declined€to€take€the€test€as€he€said€the€doctorÏhad€accused€him€of€ð ðfakingðð€the€injury.€€Dr.€Daniel€did€not€recall€nor€deny€thisÏconversation.Ìà àPlaintiff€decided€to€see€another€doctor€designated€by€Defendant.€€ThisÏphysician€referred€him€to€Dr.€Greg€Lanford,€a€neurosurgeon,€who€examined€plaintiffÏon€March€3,€1994.€€Dr.€Lanford€testified€by€deposition€and€stated€his€diagnosis€wasÏcervical€œradiculopathy›€which€was€not€work„related€and€after€several€months€ofÏcomplaints€of€low€back€pain€and€leg€pain,€he€ordered€a€myelogram€and€post„myelogram€CT€on€his€lumbar€and€cervical€area.€€This€revealed€a€lumbar€rupturedÏdisc€at€œL5›œ„S1Ô% € Ô›€on€the€left.Ìà àDr.€Lanford€performed€surgery€on€his€back€during€August,€1994,€finding€anÏ8%€medical€impairment€and€later€performed€neck€surgery€resulting€in€a€13%Ïmedical€impairment€which€he€rounded€off€to€20%€total€impairment.€€Restrictions€ofÏavoiding€heavy€lifting,€bending€and€stooping€were€imposed€as€a€result€of€the€discÏsurgery.Ìà àDr.€Lanford€seemed€to€be€somewhat€puzzled€by€the€fact€plaintiff€did€notÏindicate€to€Dr.€Daniel€his€problem€was€work„related.€€However,€when€told€thatÏplaintiff€gave€a€work„related€injury€history€to€the€emergency€room€doctor,€he€testifiedÏthat€plaintiffððs€history€would€be€consistent€with€a€diagnosis€of€an€aggravation€of€aÏpre„existing€condition€in€his€neck€and€back.Ìà àThe€review€of€the€case€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,Ïaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact€unless€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).òòÌà àóóAn€employer€takes€an€employee€as€he€is€and€assumes€the€risk€of€having€aÏweakened€condition€aggravated€by€an€injury€which€might€not€affect€a€normalÏperson.€€òòHarlan€v.€McClellan,€óó572€S.W.2d€641€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€employer€takesÏthe€employee€with€all€pre„existing€conditions,€and€cannot€escape€liability€when€theÏemployee,€upon€suffering€a€work„related€injury,€incurs€disability€far€greater€than€ifÏhe€had€not€had€the€pre„existing€conditions.€€òòRogers€v.€Shaw,óó€813€S.W.2d€397Ï(Tenn.€1991).Ìà àThe€record€indicates€plaintiff€had€not€had€any€problems€with€his€neck€or€backÍprior€to€the€work€incident€during€October,€1993,€and€that€his€physical€conditionÏcontinued€to€deteriorate€until€his€surgical€procedures€were€over.€€The€trial€courtÏresolved€the€question€of€causation€of€injuries€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff€and€from€ourÏindependent€review,€we€cannot€say€the€evidence€preponderates€against€thisÏfinding.€€Also,€we€do€not€find€the€evidence€to€preponderate€against€the€extent€of€theÏaward€of€disability€when€considering€plaintiffððs€age,€education,€impairment€ofÏearning€capacity,€etc.Ìà àThe€second€issue€deals€with€Defendantððs€request€for€a€set„off€of€short€termÏdisability€benefits€paid€to€plaintiff€from€August€16,€1994€through€February€28,€1995Ïfor€a€total€sum€of€$11,132.15.€€This€set„off,€if€allowed,€would€be€against€temporaryÏtotal€disability€benefits.€€The€Circuit€Judge€denied€the€request€construing€theÏstatutory€language€of€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„128€as€precluding€the€set„off.€€This€statuteÏprovides:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ½ ÒÓÓà àð ðIf€any€employer€knowingly,€willfully,€and€intentionally€causesÏa€medical€or€wage€loss€claim€to€be€paid€under€health€or€sicknessÏand€accident€insurance,€when€the€employer€knew€that€the€claimÏarose€out€of€a€compensable€work„related€injury€and€should€haveÏbeen€submitted€under€its€workersðð€compensation€insuranceÏcoverage,€then€such€employer€shall€be€fined€five€hundred€dollarsÏ($500),€and€the€employer€may€not€offset€any€sickness€and€accidentÏincome€benefit€paid€to€the€employee€against€temporary€totalÏdisability€benefit€payment€liability€due€to€the€employee€pursuant€toÏthe€provisions€of€this€chapter.ððÌÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÌÓÓà àWe€find€the€denial€of€the€set„off€by€the€trial€court€to€be€proper€but€for€differentÏreasons.€€First,€the€statute€does€not€create€a€right€to€a€set„off€but€merely€prohibits€itÏunder€certain€circumstances.€€The€right€to€a€set„off€of€this€nature€against€temporaryÏtotal€disability€benefits€was€most€recently€addressed€in€the€case€of€òòSimpson€v.ÍFrontier€Community€œCr›.€Union,óó€810€S.W.2d€147€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€this€case€a€set„offÏof€$18,422.12€was€not€allowed€because€the€Supreme€Court€found€the€disabilityÏinsurance€policy,€which€was€introduced€as€evidence€during€the€trial,€did€not€containÏan€explicit€set„off€clause€allowing€the€payments€as€credits€against€temporary€totalÏbenefits.€€The€opinion€went€on€to€state€the€right€to€a€set„off€was€a€matter€of€aÏcontractual€nature€between€the€parties€and€would€only€be€recognized€where€thereÏwas€an€express€provision€in€the€policy€of€insurance.Ìà àIn€the€present€case,€the€disability€insurance€policy€was€not€admitted€asÏevidence€and€Defendant€has€failed€to€show€it€is€entitled€to€the€set„off€as€a€result€ofÏpolicy€language€explicitly€allowing€the€credits.€€Thus,€we€construe€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„128Ïas€precluding€the€set„off€where€the€right€to€same€exists€under€the€ruling€of€theÏòòSimpsonóó€case.òòÌà àóóFinally,€Defendant€contends€the€award€of€disability€should€not€have€beenÏcommuted.€€We€agree€with€this€contention.€€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„229€requires€the€court€toÏconsider€whether€the€commutation€would€be€in€the€best€interest€of€the€employeeÏand€the€ability€of€the€employee€to€wisely€manage€and€control€any€commuted€award.€ÏThe€only€evidence€in€this€regard€was€plaintiffððs€testimony€that€he€owned€90€acres€ofÏpasture€land€where€he€kept€48€head€of€cattle;€that€the€total€payoff€of€his€mortgageÏwas€about€$52,000.;€he€was€receiving€$819.€œper›€month€in€Social€Security€benefits;Ïthat€he€had€received€some€type€of€settlement€from€Union€Carbide€which€was€paid€inÏa€lump€sum;€and€he€and€his€wife€handled€their€money.€€These€few€facts€would€notÏsupport€findings€as€required€by€the€statute.€€The€award€should€be€paid€as€generalÏlaw€directs€and€we€note€that€a€considerable€portion€of€the€award€will€have€accruedÍby€the€time€this€judgment€becomes€final.Ìà àPlaintiffððs€claim€that€the€appeal€of€the€case€is€frivolous€is€without€merit.Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€modified€as€indicated€and€affirmed€in€allÏother€respects.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€are€taxed€to€Defendant€and€sureties.Ìœ›à àÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€JusticeÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€Judge€œ›Ô% € Ô