ÿWPCð /# ¢UN­ %û 0(w@)4i}Œ 0JŒ 0TÖ 0^* 0hˆ 0rð 0|b 0†Þ 0d 1uô 0diU>ÍB) DC4 AQw ÆÈ 0DŽ 0@Ò 0D AMV D/£ BÒ Bï D3 U*? i „ v~ŸvÓ˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ EeFGDHIÓ€SPTUUVîWD„e"B3|xW2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó!#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€*ÔÔ€*ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€*XÔÌÌMay€16,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€*ÔÔ€*ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€*XÔÌÌMay€16,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó 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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€¼ÔÑ7€å<XXdìdÈ7ќـ!ÙßR€%+A1-j|¾o` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌMARGARET€ANN€SCRUGGS,à à)à àMarshall€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àœà à›à à)à àNo.€01S01„9504„CH„00052Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Tyrus€H.€Cobb,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àChancellor.ÌNATIONAL€HEALTHCORP,€L.P.,à à)Ìd/b/a€MERIHIL€HEALTH€CAREà à)ÌCENTER,€INC.,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:òòà àà àà àà àà àFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌBarbara€G.€Medleyà àà àà àà àRandal€T.€WilsonÌBussart€&€Medleyà àà àà àà àà àShelbyville,€TennesseeÌLewisburg,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONÌÌÌÌóóAFFIRMEDà àà àà àà àà àMADDUX,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÇÓÓÓ  Óà àà àThis€workersðð€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€SpecialÏWorkersðð€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€withÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€SupremeÏCourt€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€For€the€reasons€set€forth€below,Ïthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌà àà àThe€plaintiff,€Margaret€Ann€Scruggs,€injured€her€neck€on€DecemberÏ25,€1991,€while€employed€as€a€nurseððs€aid€by€the€defendant,€National€Healthcorp,ÏL.P.,€d/b/a/€Merihil€Health€Care€Center,€Inc.€€The€plaintiff,€was€52€years€old€atÏthe€time€of€trial.€€She€did€not€finish€the€seventh€grade.€€Her€employment€historyÏconsists€of€working€as€a€private€sitter€and€in€various€restaurants€and€factories.€ÏShe€has€had€training€as€a€nurseððs€aide.ÌÌà àà àPlaintiff€was€first€treated€for€her€work„related€neck€injury€by€Dr.ÏKenneth€J.€Phelps.€€She€informed€Dr.€Phelps€that€she€was€experiencing€pain€fromÏher€neck€that€was€radiating€down€into€her€left€arm€causing€loss€of€grip€strength€inÏher€hand.€€Dr.€Phelps€confirmed€plaintiffððs€complaint€of€pain€and€loss€of€gripÏstrength,€scheduled€physical€therapy€and€imposed€lifting€restrictions.€€Dr.€PhelpsÏcontinued€to€see€plaintiff€through€October,€1992,€because€she€continued€toÏcomplain€of€symptoms€similar€to€those€she€had€complained€of€after€the€accident.€ÏShe€also€indicated€she€had€additional€problems€such€as€pain€down€her€back€andÍinto€her€left€leg,€spasms€in€her€back,€difficulty€sleeping€and€panic€attacks.ÌÌà àà àFrom€January€of€1993€through€January€of€1994,€plaintiff€was€treatedÏby€Dr.€Richard€Fishbein,€an€orthopedic€surgeon.€€Dr.€Fishbein€diagnosed€plaintiffÏas€having€a€cervical€strain€with€nerve€root€irritation.€€He€assigned€a€6€percentÏpermanent€anatomical€impairment€rating€to€the€whole€body.€€He€also€suggestedÏcertain€permanent€restrictions€regarding€lifting.ÌÌà àà àœA€portion€of€the›€chancellorððs€memorandum€states€as€follows:Ìà àð ðThe€medical€testimony€consists€of€the€deposition€of€Dr.€Phelps€and€Dr.ÏFishbein.€€Various€medical€reports€and€notes€are€attached€as€an€exhibit€to€Dr.ÏFishbeinððs€deposition.Ìà àDr.€Phelpsðð€prognosis€is€somewhat€confusing€and€it€appears€he€wasÏinconsistent€at€times.€€He€does€not€give€an€impairment€rating.€€Dr.€Fishbein€is€ofÏthe€opinion€that€Plaintiff€sustains€6%€permanent€partial€impairment€to€the€body€asÏa€whole.€€His€diagnosis€is€that€of€a€cervical€strain€with€nerve€root€irritation€at€CÏ5„6€and€C€6„7.€€She€retains€limitation€of€motion.€€He€restricted€her€fromÏrepetitive€lifting€to€the€right€upper€extremity€to€5€to€10€lbs.€and€maximally€20Ïpounds.ððÌÌà àà àAfter€her€injury€the€plaintiff€tried€to€go€back€to€work€at€severalÍdifferent€€businesses.€€Her€injury€prevented€her€from€continuing€to€work€at€theseÏjobs.€€Working€as€a€nurseððs€aide€is€the€job€she€really€knows.€€She€cannot€performÏthat€work€now€due€to€her€injury.ÌÌà àà àThe€chancellor€found€that€plaintiff€had€sustained€a€40€percentÏpermanent€partial€vocational€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole€and€awardedÏbenefits€accordingly.ÌOn€appeal,€defendant€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€award€as€being€excessive.€€OurÏreview€of€the€courtððs€award€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€on€the€record€accompanied€by€aÏpresumption€that€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€is€correct€unless€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).ÌÌà àà àThe€extent€of€vocational€disability€is€a€question€of€fact€to€beÏdetermined€from€all€the€evidence,€including€lay€and€expert€testimony.€€òòHenson€v.ÏCity€of€Lawrenceburgóó,€851€S.W.2d€809,€812€(Tenn.€1993);€òòWorthington€v.ÏModine€Mfg.€Co.óó,€798€S.W.2d€232,€234€(Tenn.€1990).€€Factors€to€be€consideredÏin€determining€the€extent€of€vocational€disability€include€the€employeeððs€jobÏskills,€education,€age,€training,€duration€of€disability,€extent€of€anatomicalÏdisability,€and€the€employeeððs€capacity€to€work€at€the€kinds€of€employmentÏavailable€to€her€in€her€disabled€condition.€€See€òòPerkins€v.€Enterprise€Truck€Lines,ÏInc.óó,€896€S.W.2d€123,€127€(Tenn.€1995);€òòOrman€v.€Williams€Sonoma,€Inc.óó,€803ÍS.W.2d€672,€678€(Tenn.€1991).€€Furthermore,€the€employeeððs€own€assessment€ofÏher€physical€condition€and€resulting€disability€is€competent€testimony€that€shouldÏbe€considered.€€òòOrmanóó,€803€S.W.2d€at€678.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case,€the€proof€showed€that€the€employee€is€52€years€old€andÏhas€less€than€a€seventh€grade€education.€€Her€work€experience€is€that€of€a€privateÏsitter,€nurseððs€aide,€restaurant€employee,€and€factory€worker.€€€She€was€assigned€aÏpermanent€anatomical€impairment€rating€of€6€percent€to€the€whole€body€and€isÏrestricted€from€repetitive€lifting€of€more€than€5€to€10€pounds,€from€occasionalÏlifting€of€more€than€15€pounds,€and€maximum€lifting€of€20€pounds.€€ConsideringÏthe€employeeððs€age,€educational€level,€and€the€limited€scope€of€employmentÏexperience,€these€restrictions€are€of€great€significance.€€€Additionally,€theÏemployee€testified€that€she€was€no€longer€able€to€perform€her€job€as€a€nurseððsÏaide€and€that€her€physical€problems€have€continued€to€persist€more€than€two€yearsÏafter€she€was€injured.€€Given€these€circumstances,€we€cannot€conclude€that€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€assessment€of€vocationalÏdisability.ÌÌà àà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÏaffirmed.€€Costs€are€taxed€against€the€appellant.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Maddux,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌConcur:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€JusticeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€œJudgeÌÌÇÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ £ ÒòòßJ€%,;+'b|` ç `€@ÿJßà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌMARGARET€ANN€SCRUGGS,à àà à}à àMARSHALL€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à}à àNo.€8583€BelowÌà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà àà àà à}Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à}à àHon.€Tyrus€H.€Cobb,Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à}à àChancellorÌà àà àà àà àà àà à}ÌNATIONAL€HEALTHCORP,€L.P.,à à}Ìd/b/a€MERIHIL€HEALTH€CAREà à}à àNo.€01S01„9504„CH„00052ÌCENTER,€INC.,à àà àà àà à}à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à}Ìà àDefendant/Appellantà àà à}à àAFFIRMED.ÌÌÌà@ àJUDGMENT€ORDERÌÌÌÓ€Óà àà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€theÏorder€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€theÏPanel's€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusionsÏof€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference.Ìà àà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€OpinionÏof€the€Panel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌà àà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€isÏmade€the€judgment€of€the€Court.ÌÓ ` ` šXÓà àà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€Defendant/Appellant€and€Surety,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÓÓà àà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€on€May€16,€1997.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌóóÌÌÌÌÌ›