ÿWPC …<VUN’ %à 0(æENw@^4ž²Á 0JÉ 0T Æg Æ- Æó ƹ 0^ 0hÝ 0rE 0|· 0†3 0¹ 1uI 0d¾U>" B`U *}B)§DCÐ D3 0DF AMŠ 0@×ëv~vÓŽ AQaƲ 0Dx D/¼ BëC:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\LEGAL.WPT(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡c:\wpwin60\template\oldtemps\legal.wpt E DÓ€V î!Ó€-§aö"øð Ôô3|x-2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd&&&&'ÿÿdxd(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò áÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òAugust€18,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òAugust€18,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 Ò€+-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€'ÔÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ à(May€23,€1997€Session)ÌÌßA€&) °°xdME°- xAßÌÌSHARON€RIVERS,Ìœ›Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,ÌÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNO.€œ02S01›„9612„CV„00105ÌÌœCIGNA›€PROPERTY€AND€CASUALTYà àà àà àMADISON€CIRCUIT€ÌCOMPANIES,à àà àà àà àà àà àHONORABLE€WHIT€S.€œLAFON›Ì̜ـ€ÙßR€,.)A1-j|W“` Å `€€@ÿRß›à àDefendants/Appellant.ÌÌÌßA€&) °°xdE°êxAßÌÌÌÌòòÌFOR€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àà àòòà àFOR€APPELLEEóó:òòÌÌóóRobert€O.€œBinkley›,€Jr.à àà àà àà àà àSteve€TaylorÌœRainey›,€œKizer›,€Butler,€œReviere›€&€Bellà àà àà àMemphis,€TennesseeÌJackson,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌà@ àMEMORANDUM€OPINIONÌà@ àMailed€June€____,€1997ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòMembers€of€Panelóó:ÌÌÓ  ÓJanice€M.€Holder,€Associate€Justice,€Supreme€CourtÌRobert€A.€Lanier,€Circuit€JudgeÌDon€R.€Ash,€Circuit€JudgeÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœò òAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIEDó ó›à àà àà àà àà àœLanier,›€JudgeÌÇÑ7€U]XdìXXdì7Ñà@ àòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONóóÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€workersðð€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€WorkersððÏCompensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€Section€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€of€findings€of€factÏand€conclusions€of€law.Ìà àThe€first€issue€presented€to€the€Court€is€whether€or€not€the€trial€court€erred€inÏfinding€that€the€plaintiff€was€entitled€to€benefits€for€permanent€partial€disability€basedÏupon€fifty€percent€(50%)€to€the€left€lower€extremity.Ìà àIt€is€not€disputed€that€the€claimant€sustained€an€accidental€injury€arising€out€ofÏand€in€the€course€of€her€employment€with€the€defendant€on€January€24,€1995,€whenÏher€left€foot€became€crushed€between€pieces€of€equipment.€€She€did€not€have€aÏfracture€but€had€a€crush€injury€of€the€soft€tissue€to€the€left€foot.€€She€was€placed€in€aÏcast€and€given€medication€and€recommendations€for€exercise€and€warm€soaks.€€SheÏeventually€returned€to€work€around€March€1,€1995.€€She€was€under€the€treatment€ofÏthe€physician€provided€by€the€employer€but€was€released€to€resume€her€work€and€sheÏdid€resume€her€regular€work€as€a€œstacker›€machine€operator€for€approximately€oneÏyear.€€She€continued€to€have€complaints€of€pain€and€irritation€in€her€ankle€from€time€toÏtime€and€saw€the€company€doctor.€€Some€time€after€July€11,€1995,€her€supervisor€toldÏher€that€the€employer€would€not€be€responsible€for€her€doctorððs€bill€for€the€precedingÏvisit€to€the€company€doctor.€€Subsequent€to€that,€however,€she€returned€to€see€theÏcompany€œdoctor,€who€saw€her€without€expense€to€her.›€€He€felt€that€she€reachedÏmaximum€medical€recovery€on€July€25,€1995€and€opined€that€she€had€not€suffered€anyÍpermanent€impairment.€€He€concluded€that€she€had€sustained€a€soft€tissue€injuryÏwithout€any€fracture€or€disarrangement€of€the€joint.€€On€January€17,€1996,€PlaintiffððsÏattorney€referred€her€to€a€rheumatologist€in€Memphis€without€prior€notice€orÏconsultation€with€the€employer.€€She€was€subsequently€seen€and€treated€by€theÏrheumatologist.€€She€had€been€satisfied€with€the€treatment€given€to€her€by€theÏcompany€doctor€before€her€supervisor€told€her€that€his€bill€would€not€be€paid.Ìà àThe€rheumatologist€has€testified€that€the€claimant€suffered€a€fifteen€percentÏ(15%)€permanent€impairment€to€her€left€lower€extremity.€€He€based€his€opinion€uponÏhis€observations,€œattempting€to€relate€them›€to€the€American€Medical€AssociationÏGuides€to€the€Evaluation€of€Permanent€Impairment,€œ4th›€Ed.,€although€he€was€unable€toÏfind€any€specific€provision€for€her€type€of€injury€in€the€Guides.€€He€extrapolated€fromÏexisting€guidelines€for€other€portions€of€the€body.€€The€employerððs€attorney€hasÏasserted€that€there€were€guidelines€more€appropriate€which€should€have€been€œused,›Ïand€œhas›€attached€copies€of€what€purport€to€be€those€guidelines€to€the€appellate€brief.€ÏHowever,€as€no€such€information€is€in€the€record,€the€Court€may€not€consider€thoseÏassertions€by€the€employerððs€counsel.Ìà àClaimant€has€continued€to€work€for€the€same€employer,€sometimes€working€48Ïhours€per€œweek,›€and€has€never€refused€any€overtime€because€of€her€injury.€€She€hasÏreceived€a€promotion€and€a€raise€and€is€now€employed€driving€a€tow€motor€forklift.€ÏShe€is€no€longer€on€her€feet€as€much€as€she€was€previously.Ìà àThe€Court€is€required€to€review€the€evidence€in€this€case€òòde€novoóó,€with€aÏpresumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€finding€of€the€facts€of€the€trial€judge,€unless€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€œT.C.A.›€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).€€Applying€thatÍstandard€to€the€evidence€in€this€case,€we€find€there€is€evidence,€based€upon€theÏrheumatologistððs€testimony€that€she€had€developed€some€arthritis€and€effusion€as€wellÏas€crepitus€in€the€joint€of€her€ankle.€€œHe›€was€of€the€opinion€that€she€had€sustained€aÏfifteen€percent€(15%)€permanent€partial€impairment.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€Court€mustÏtake€into€consideration€that€she€sustained€no€broken€bones,€has€returned€to€work€andÏnot€only€been€able€to€perform€her€work€in€a€vigorous€manner€but€has€received€aÏpromotion€and€additional€pay.€€The€Court€also€notes€that€the€rheumatologist€was€notÏable€to€find€a€provision€in€the€AMA€Guides€for€his€opinion,€although€he€did€explain€hisÏmanner€of€calculating€the€disability.€€The€company€doctor,€whose€qualificationsÏconsisted€of€primarily€of€family€practice,€was€of€the€opinion€that€the€worker€would€haveÏno€permanent€impairment,€but€he€had€not€seen€her€for€a€considerable€time.Ìà àWhile€generally,€the€ability€of€an€employee€to€work€does€not€deprive€him€or€herÏof€benefits€for€injury€to€a€œscheduled›€member,€the€fact€of€employment€after€an€injury,€theÏearning€power€of€the€injured€worker,€and€his€or€her€earnings€are€to€be€taken€intoÏconsideration€along€with€all€other€factors€involved.€€òòDuncan€v.€Boeingóó,€825€œS.W.2d›€416Ï(Tenn.€1992).€€Based€upon€all€of€the€foregoing,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€an€award€of€fifty€percent€(50%)€to€the€left€leg€and€that€suchÏaward€should€be€modified€to€twenty„five€percent€(25%)€of€the€left€leg.Ìà àThe€second€issue€presented€to€the€Court€is€whether€or€not€the€medical€expenseÏof€the€rheumatologist€is€the€obligation€of€the€employer.€€Generally,€a€worker€mustÏaccept€the€medical€services€tendered€to€him€or€her€by€the€employer.€€When€the€workerÏseeks€the€medical€services€of€a€physician€not€furnished€by€the€employer,€justificationÏmust€be€shown€by€the€worker.€€Generally,€the€worker€must€show€either€inadequateÍtreatment€beyond€a€mere€disagreement€as€to€the€course€of€treatment,€as€well€as€theÏworkerððs€notification€to€the€employer€of€dissatisfaction€with€the€treatment.€€In€theÏpresent€case,€the€only€justification€offered€by€the€worker€for€abandoning€herÏemployerððs€physician€and€seeking€one€of€her€own€is€the€statement€to€her€by€herÏsupervisor.€€However,€after€that€statement,€she€returned€to€see€the€company€physicianÏand€was€received€by€him€without€difficulty.€€Therefore,€she€owed€her€employer€at€theÏvery€least€a€request€for€a€different€physician.€€In€fact,€as€stated€above,€she€said€that€sheÏhad€no€complaint€about€the€treatment€by€the€company€physician.€€For€those€reasons,Ïthe€fee€for€services€by€the€rheumatologist,€Dr.€œRizk›€must€be€borne€by€the€worker.Ìà àFinally,€complaint€is€made€by€the€worker€of€the€trial€courtððs€assessment€of€half€ofÏthe€discretionary€œcosts›€to€the€worker.€€Of€course,€the€fees€charged€to€the€claimant€byÏthe€treating€physician€œor›€a€specialist€to€whom€the€employee€was€referred€for€givingÏtestimony€by€oral€deposition€are€required€to€be€paid€by€the€employer€when€theÏemployee€is€the€prevailing€party,€unless€ð ðthe€interest€of€justice€require€otherwise.ðð€ÏœT.C.A.›€ðð€50„6„226(c)(1).€€In€this€case,€although€we€have€found€the€œservice›€fee€forÏtreatment€by€Dr.€œRizk›€to€be€unauthorized€medical,€his€testimony€was€valuable€to€theÏCourt€and,€as€this€Court€believes€the€worker€is€entitled€to€an€award,€she€is€consideredÏto€be€ð ðthe€prevailing€party,ðð€so€as€to€support€award€of€those€expenses€against€theÏemployer.€€As€to€any€other€discretionary€costs,€provided€under€œTRCP›€54,€theÏincreasing€weight€of€appellate€decisions€seems€to€suggest€that€the€prevailing€partyÏshould€be€awarded€such€expenses€as€are€outlined€in€œTRCP›€54,€unless€the€amountsÏthereof€are€found€to€be€unreasonable.€€As€the€latter€œare›€not€in€dispute€in€this€case,ÏPlaintiff€is€awarded€the€discretionary€costs€in€question.Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€thus€affirmed,€as€modified€hereby.€€Costs€onÏappeal€are€taxed€to€the€defendants/appellants.ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àßA€&)À°hdEÀ« hAßÌà àà àà àà àà àà àRobert€A.€Lanier,€Circuit€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÓÓ_____________________________ÌJanice€M.€Holder,€Associate€JusticeÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌDon€R.€Ash,€Circuit€œJudgeÇÑ ` Ñà@ àÔ€'¼ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÔ€'XÔÌÌÌÓ#` p…X LÐ X#ÓSHARON€RIVERS,à àà àà à)à àMADISON€CIRCUITÌÓ#` p` LÐ X#Óà à)à àNO.€C„95„323ÌÓ` p` ¸ ’XÓà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à à)à àÌÓ#` p` ¸ LÐ X#Óà àà à)à àHon.€Whit€LaFon,Ìvs.à àà à)à àJudgeÌà àà à)ÌCIGNA€PROPERTY€AND€CASUALTYà à)à àNO.€02S01„9612„CV„00105ÌCOMPANIES,à à)Ìà àà à)ÌßJ€,/;+'b|ÐX` Å `€@ÿJßà àDefendant/Appellant.à à)à àAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIED.ÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€'¼ÔJUDGMENT€ORDERÔ€'XÔÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÌÓ` 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.Ìà 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€ofÏthe€Court.Ìà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€Appellant,€and€surety,€for€which€execution€mayÏissue€if€necessary.Ìà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€this€18th€day€of€August,€1997.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌ(Holder,€J.,€not€participating)ÌÌÌÌ›