ÿWPC^ …# VU:a %› 0û¡w@œ 4Ü ð ÿ  0J 0TW 0^« 0h 0rq 0|ã 0†_ 0å 1uu 0dêU*NB)xDC¡ AMä§1v~ØvÓV B) D3F 0@y AO¹Æ 0DÎ D/ BA˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀäÌÀÀÌÀä0 , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Óý,$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XûXXXÔÑ7€>‚XXdðXXdð7Ñ GUHDIîJDKULMNOPÓ€©U!3|x[HI2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òOctoberÏ15,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÓ  Óò ò›IN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATIONÏAPPEALS€PANELÌÙ€€ÙœßL€!" ;+'h|` à. `€€Lß›KNOXVILLE,€JULY€1996€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌó óSHELBY€WILLIAMS€INDUSTRIES,Ïà à)à àHAMBLEN€CHANCERYÌINC.,à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellantà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.ÏDENNIS€H.€INMAN,ÌALTONÏSANE,à àà àà àà à)à àCHANCELLORÌò ò€à àà àà àà àà àà àó ó)Ìà àDefendant/Appelleeà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNO.Ï03S01„9601„CH„00004ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€theÏAppellee:ÌÌóóJoseph€J.€Dohertyà àà àà àà àFletcher€L.€IrvinÌWimberly€&€Lawsonà àà àà à319€EastÏBroadwayÌLiberty€Centerà àà àà àà àNewport,€TNÏ37821ÌP.€O.€Box€1066ÌMorristown,€TN€37816„1066ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òòòM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌM€e€m€b€e€r€s€€€o€f€€€P€a€n€e€l:ÌÌó óóóPenny€J.€White,€JusticeÌRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€IN€PART;ÌREVERSED€IN€œPART.›à àà àà àà àà àTHAYER,€Special€JudgeÌÓÓà 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 àPlaintiff,€Shelby€Williams€Industries,€Inc.,€instituted€suit€against€Defendant,ÏAlton€Sane,€seeking€a€determination€as€to€whether€the€defendant€had€sustained€aÏwork„related€injury€which€was€compensable.€€The€Chancellor€found€the€claim€to€beÏcompensable€and€fixed€defendantððs€permanent€partial€disability€at€fifty€percent€toÏthe€body€as€a€whole.Ìà àThe€employer€has€appealed€insisting€the€evidence€is€not€sufficient€to€supportÏthe€award€and€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.Ìà àThe€employee€is€forty€years€old€and€has€a€œtwelfth„grade›€education.€€HeÏtestified€he€sustained€an€injury€on€July€12,€1994,€while€assembling€chair€backs;€heÏwas€using€a€two„wheel€dolly€œand,›€as€he€rolled€it,€a€chair€frame€started€to€slide€offÏand€he€attempted€to€catch€it€with€the€dolly€in€one€hand€and€the€frame€in€the€otherÏhand;€while€in€this€position,€he€felt€a€jolt€in€his€low€back;€the€next€morning€his€legsÏœtingled,›€and€there€was€a€numb€feeling.Ìà àHe€was€seen€at€the€hospital€emergency€room€and€was€released;€he€also€sawÏthe€company€physician€and€later€an€orthopedic€surgeon;€he€returned€to€work€onÏAugust€30,€1994.Ìà àThe€employee€told€the€court€he€was€injured€again€on€October€7,€1994,€whileÏdoing€the€same€type€work;€he€œsaid,›€while€in€a€twisted€position,€he€bent€over€œto›€get€aÏchair€œseat;€as›€he€was€reaching€for€the€seat,€he€œsneezed,›€œand›€it€felt€like€he€had€beenÏshot;€he€saw€the€company€doctor€again€and€the€orthopedic€surgeon,€whoÏdiagnosed€the€problem€as€a€ruptured€disc;€surgery€was€performed€duringÏNovember,€1994;€and€he€had€not€been€released€to€return€to€work€as€of€the€date€ofÏthe€trial€on€August€31,€1995.Ìà àDr.€William€Foster,€an€orthopedic€surgeon,€testified€by€deposition€and€statedÏhe€saw€defendant€shortly€after€both€the€July€and€October€incidents;€his€opinion€inÏJuly€was€that€he€had€suffered€a€lumbar€strain€with€a€possible€ruptured€œdis,c›€but€heÏdid€not€do€further€testing€as€his€patient€seemed€to€improve€and€returned€to€work;€heÏexamined€him€again€on€October€21,€œ1994›€and€ordered€a€myelogram€test€whichÏindicated€a€ruptured€disc;€it€was€his€opinion€both€incidents€together€resulted€in€theÏrupture€of€the€œdisc,›€and€he€declined€to€say€the€sneeze€was€the€only€causation€factor;Íhe€said€the€rupture€started€at€the€July€incident€and€was€aggravated€by€the€secondÏevent€in€October;€he€gave€defendant€a€fifteen€percent€medical€impairment€andÏanticipated€he€would€be€able€to€work€again€but€subject€to€restrictions€on€bendingÏand€lifting.Ìà àDr.€Wayne€Page,€a€family€practice€physician,€testified€by€deposition€andÏstated€he€saw€the€defendant€on€behalf€of€the€employer;€his€diagnosis€was€a€backÏœstrain,›€and€he€was€of€the€opinion€the€injury€was€not€work„related€as€the€sole€causeÏof€the€injury€was€due€to€the€sneezing;€he€gave€an€eight€percent€medical€impairmentÏrating;€he€also€examined€that€portion€of€the€plant€where€defendant€worked€and€saidÏthere€was€nothing€in€the€atmosphere€to€cause€the€sneeze.€€Ìà àThe€employer€argues€there€was€no€causal€connection€between€theÏemployeeððs€work€and€the€resulting€injury;€that€the€sneeze€was€unrelated€to€the€workÏœactivity,›€and€the€claim€does€not€arise€out€of€any€hazard€of€the€employment.Ìà àOur€review€of€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€theÏrecord€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€theÏfinding,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððóóÏ50„6„225(e)(2).€òòÌà àóóOur€research€has€not€led€us€to€any€case€in€our€jurisdiction€where€theÏemployee€sneezed€under€circumstances€similar€to€the€present€case.€€However,€inÏthe€case€of€òòTapp€v.€Tapp,€óó236€S.W.2d€977€(Tenn.€1951),€the€employee,€whileÏdriving€an€automobile€to€make€a€delivery,€suffered€a€coughing€spell€due€to€anÏasthmatic€condition€and€blacked€out€causing€the€automobile€to€run€into€a€ditch.€€TheÏtrial€court€dismissed€the€claim€for€workersðð€compensation€benefits€finding€the€injuryÍdid€not€result€from€an€accident€ð ðarising€out€ofðð€his€employment.€€The€Supreme€CourtÏreversed,€holding€that€where€the€personal€physical€disturbance€suddenly€andÏwithout€expectation€occurs€and€contributes€to€cause€an€injury€to€an€employee€atÏwork,€the€claim€is€compensable€provided€there€is€present€another€hazard€incident€toÏthe€employment€which€is€generally€known€to€exist€and€which€is€shown€to€be€theÏimmediate€cause€of€the€accident.€€The€decision€also€states€œthat›€causal€connectionÏdoes€not€mean€proximate€cause€as€used€in€the€law€of€negligence€but€is€cause€in€theÏsense€that€the€accident€had€its€origin€in€the€hazards€to€which€the€employmentÏexposed€the€employee€while€doing€the€work.Ìà àIn€the€present€action,€the€trial€court€found€ð ðthe€sneeze€in€conjunction€with€theÏcontorted€positionðð€of€the€employee€caused€injury€to€the€ruptured€disc.€€We€cannotÏsay€the€evidence€preponderates€against€this€œfinding,›€and€we€are€of€the€opinion€theÏrule€as€announced€in€the€òòTappóó€case€would€render€the€claim€for€benefitsÏcompensable.Ìà àIt€is€also€contended€the€award€of€fifty€percent€disability€to€the€body€as€a€wholeÏis€excessive.€€Considering€the€employeeððs€age,€education,€work€experience€and€allÏother€factors€used€in€determining€an€employeeððs€ability€to€earn€wages€in€the€openÏlabor€market,€we€do€not€think€the€evidence€preponderates€against€this€award.€€TheÏemployee€had€not€returned€to€work€as€of€the€date€of€the€trial.Ìà àAn€issue€is€also€presented€regarding€the€trial€courtððs€action€in€allowing€theÏemployer€to€pay€a€portion€of€the€judgment€into€the€registry€of€the€court€as€a€means€ofÏstopping€the€accrual€of€interest€on€the€judgment€during€the€appeal€period.Ìà àThe€judgment€provided€that€a€portion€of€the€award€was€commuted€in€order€toÍpay€attorneyððs€fees€and€the€sum€of€$15,000.00€to€the€employee.€€After€entry€of€same,Ïthe€employer€filed€a€motion€under€òòRule€67.03,€œTenn.›€R.€Civ.€P.,€óóreciting€that€aÏsignificant€portion€of€the€award€was€not€due€and€payable€and€requested€the€court€toÏpermit€it€to€pay€same€to€the€court€and€the€employer€would€not€under€this€procedureÏbe€liable€for€further€interest.€€The€motion€also€stated€that€Tennessee€WorkersððÏCompensation€statutes€imposed€interest€on€a€judgment€at€the€prime€interest€rateÏplus€five€percent€and€that€this€would€œpose›€an€oppressive€burden€on€the€employer.Ìà àThis€motion€was€œsustained,›€and€the€sum€of€$37,500.00€was€paid€to€the€ClerkÏand€Master€for€investment€in€an€interest„bearing€account.€€The€Chancellor€directedÏthe€parties€to€raise€an€issue€concerning€the€validity€of€this€action.ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  Óà àThe€employee€argues€the€provisions€of€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððóó€50„6„225(h)(1)Ïcontrol€the€question.€€This€section€of€the€Workersðð€Compensation€Act€provides:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ½ ÒÓÓÌœIf›€the€judgment€or€decree€of€a€court€is€appealed€pursuant€toÏsubsection€(e),€interest€on€the€judgment€or€decree€shall€beÏcomputed€from€the€œdate›€that€the€judgment€or€decree€is€entered€at€anÏannual€rate€of€interest€five€(5)€percentage€points€above€the€averageÏprime€loan€rate€.€.€.€ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÓ  ÓÓÓà àWe€have€examined€the€rule€and€the€statute€and€have€concluded€they€are€notÏin€conflict€as€proposed€by€the€employer.€€We€note€there€is€no€language€in€òòRule€67óóÏwhich€permits€a€party€to€proceed€under€the€rule€after€entry€of€a€judgment€against€theÏparty.€€The€rule€is€commonly€referred€to€as€an€interpleader€rule€and€is€most€oftenÏused€prior€to€adjudication€of€a€claim€œin€the›€trial€court.€€We€do€not€deem€it€necessaryÏto€fix€all€boundaries€of€the€rule€but€simply€find€and€hold€òòRule€œ€41,›€œTenn.›€R.€œAppÔ% € Ô.›€P.Ïóóprovides€for€the€accrual€of€interest€on€appealed€cases€and€that€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððóóÍ50„6„225(h)(1)€regulates€the€rate€of€interest€on€workersðð€compensation€cases€whileÏon€appeal.€€To€this€extent€the€action€of€the€Chancellor€is€reversed€and€the€judgmentÏis€to€draw€interest€pursuant€to€the€quoted€statutory€language.Ìà àEmployee€Sane€raises€an€issue€regarding€the€action€of€the€trial€court€inÏallowing€a€set„off€in€the€sum€of€$3,380.00€as€a€credit€against€the€award€of€accruedÏtemporary€total€disability€benefits.€€These€payments€were€made€under€groupÏinsurance€coverage€and€included€sick€pay€benefits.Ìà àWe€agree€it€was€not€proper€to€allow€this€credit€against€temporary€totalÏdisability€benefits.€€The€right€to€a€set„off€of€this€nature€was€œrecently›€addressed€by€theÏSupreme€Court€in€òòSimpson€v.€Frontier€Community€œCr›.€Union,€óó810€S.W.2d€147Ï(Tenn.€1991).€€In€this€case€a€set„off€of€$18,422.12€was€not€allowed€because€theÏcourt€found€the€disability€insurance€policy,€which€was€introduced€as€evidence,€didÏnot€contain€an€explicit€set„off€clause€allowing€the€payments€as€credits€againstÏdisability€benefits.€€The€opinion€also€stated€the€right€to€a€set„off€existed€as€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€intoÏevidence€and€the€employer€has€failed€to€show€it€is€entitled€to€the€set„off€as€a€resultÏof€policy€language€explicitly€allowing€the€credits.Ìà àIt€results€the€judgment€entered€in€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€as€to€the€award€ofÏdisability€but€is€reversed€as€to€the€accrual€of€interest€and€allowance€of€a€set„off.€ÏCosts€of€the€appeal€are€taxed€to€plaintiff„employer€and€sureties.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌPenny€J.€White,€JusticeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€œSpecial›€œJudgeÇà àà àà àÌà àà àà àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€AT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÌÌSHELBY€WILLIAMS€INDUSTRIES,à à€)€€€€€€à àà àHAMBLEN€CHANCERY€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àPlaintiff„Appellant,à àà àà à€)à àà àNo.€94„335Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àà àNo.€03S01„9601„CH„00004Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àà àHon.€Dennis€H.€Inman,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àà àChancellorÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€)ÌALTON€SANE,€€à à€à àà àà à€)à àà àAFFIRMED€IN€PART;Ìà à€à àà àà àà à€à à€)à àà àREVERSED€IN€PART.à àà à€à àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àDefendant„Appellee,à àà à€)à àà à€Ìà à€€à àà àà àà àà à€)à àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€ÌÌà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€JUDGMENT€ORDERÌÌà àÌà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€ofÌÌreferral€to€the€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panelððs€ÌÌMemorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€ÌÌare€incorporated€herein€by€reference;ÌÌà àà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€Opinion€of€ÌÌthe€Panel€€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andIt€it,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€ÌÌPanelððs€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€ÌÌdecision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€Judgment€of€the€Court.ÌÌà àà àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€plaintiff„employer,€Shelby€Williams€ÌÌIndustries,€Inc.€and€sureties€Wimberly€&€Lawson,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€ÌÌnecessary.€ÌÌ10/15/96ÌÌÌà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ€à àà à€€à àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ€à àà à€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ€à àà à€€à àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ€à àà à€€›