ÿWPCb! …# VULa %­ 0(³4ÛïU:þ8 0l@ 0D¬ 0Jð 0T: 0^Ž 0hì w@T Æ” ÆZ Æ Ææ 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0  1u° 0d% B‰ D3¦U*ÙB) 0@,DCl AM¯íüsé\v~lvÓê AO½Æ 0DÒ D/! BE!˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 .@FÐ Z‹4GeoSlab703 Lt BT LightX($¡¡obF"x3|xÚ"Arial Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(%Ã$òòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÑÒӠԠՠ֠נؠ٠ڠLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d))))'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò,,,,7Border 1dd€-.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ãÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òFebruary€21,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó iÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€+ÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóDefendants€in€their€brief€correctly€assert€that€plaintiff€was€employed€forÏtwenty„six€weeks.€€Counselððs€December€20,€1996€letter€refers€to€five€(5)€weeksÏworked€on€an€hourly€basis€and€twenty„four€(24)€weeks€worked€in€all.€€AllÏcalculations€in€the€letter€are€based€on€that€number.€€Plaintiff€in€his€brief€referredÏto€six€(6)€weeks€worked€on€an€hourly€basis.€€Counselððs€letter€of€January€2€refersÏto€five€(5)€weeks€worked€on€an€hourly€basis.€€Because€of€the€analysis€we€haveÏadopted,€it€is€not€necessary€to€resolve€this€inconsistency.€€The€exhibit€itselfÏshows€seven€(7)€weeks€worked€in€1993€and€twenty„six€(26)€weeks€workedÏaltogether.€€We€have€used€twenty„six€(26)€weeks€in€our€calculations.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òFebruary€21,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHøHÿöÿòV,(ühhØ hd'0ÿÎÿºF ® 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  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›Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\Ñò òÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€+ÔÑ7€R‡XXdædÈ7Ñœ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌó óÌÌÌò òRONNIE€SETTLES,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à)à àHARDIN€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€C.€CREED€McGINLEYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGE€€€€€ÌSHARPS€MILL€FOREST€PRODUCTSà à)ÌINC.€and€OLD€REPUBLIC€INSURANCE)à àNo.€02S01„9607„CV„00069̜ـ€ÙßR€/0.A1-j|FG` Å `€€@ÿRß›COMPANY,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellants.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€APPELLANTSóó:òòà àà àà àFOR€APPELLEEóó:€€ÌChristopher€V.€Sockwellà àà àà àSteve€BealÌP.€O.€Box€357à àà à€à àà à22€Monroe€StreetÌLawrenceburg,€TN€38464à àà àLexington,€TN€38351ÌÌBennett€L.€PughÌ1700€Financial€CenterÌ505€N.€20th€StreetÌBirmingham,€AL€35203„2607ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONóóÌÌÌÌÌà@ àMEMBERS€OF€PANEL:ÌÌà@ àLYLE€REID,€JUSTICEÌà@ àJOE€C.€LOSER,€JR.,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌà@ àCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIEDà àà àà àà àCLARK,€SPECIALÏJUDGEÌÓÓó óÌÌÑ7€R‡XXdæXXdæ7Ñà àThis€workerððs€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€specialÏworkerððs€compensation€appeals€panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€withÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€SupremeÏCourt€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€The€trial€court€awarded€theÏplaintiff€a€permanent€partial€disability€of€ten€(10%)€percent€to€the€body€as€aÏwhole€and€found€his€proper€compensation€rate€to€be€$366.68.€€DefendantsÏhave€appealed,€alleging€that€plaintiff€did€not€prove€that€his€facial€disfigurementÏmaterially€affected€his€employability,€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€setting€theÏcompensation€rate€at€$366.68.ÌÌà àOn€May€4,€1994,€plaintiff€was€employed€by€Sharps€Mill€Forest€ProductsÏ(ð ðSharps€Millðð)€as€a€logger.€€On€that€day€he€was€injured€when€a€chain€saw€struckÏhim€in€the€face,€causing€severe€lacerations€and€bleeding.€€Plaintiff€hasÏundergone€several€surgeries€to€repair€the€injuries€to€his€facial€area.€€ÌÌà àDr.€John€R.€Werther,€plaintiffððs€treating€physician,€gave€him€a€fifteenÏ(15%)€percent€impairment€to€the€body€as€a€whole€for€his€facial€scar€and€residualÏnasal€deformity,€and€a€three€(3%)€percent€impairment€to€the€body€as€a€whole€forÏresidual€facial€numbness.€€The€only€restriction€imposed€by€Dr.€Werther€was€theÏavoidance€of€recurrent€injury.€€In€March€1995€Dr.€Stephen€Pratt,€a€boardÏcertified€plastic€surgeon,€examined€plaintiff.€€His€opinion€was€that€plaintiff€had€aÏClass€I€scar,€translating€to€a€permanent€impairment€between€zero€(0%)€percentÏto€nine€(9%)€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€Functionally,€Dr.€Pratt€found€thatÏthe€plaintiff€would€not€have€any€limitations€or€restrictions€in€the€work€place.€€Dr.ÏPratt€also€found€that€plaintiff€was€well€adjusted€to€his€injury€and€that€he€neverÏreported€any€psychological€problems€to€him.ÌÌà àAppellate€review€is€de€novo€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,Ïaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact,€unlessÏthe€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50„6„225(e)(2).€€This€tribunal€is€required€to€conduct€an€independent€examination€ofÏthe€record€to€determine€where€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€lies.€€òòWingertÏv.€Government€of€Sumner€Countyóó,€908€S.W.2d€921€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà@ àI.€€DisfigurementÌà àDefendants€do€not€contest€the€serious€nature€of€the€injuries€sustained€inÏthe€on„the„job€accident.€€The€only€issue€raised€in€this€regard€is€how€theÍplaintiffððs€disfigurement€relates€to€his€employability.ÌÌà àPlaintiff€does€not€have€any€trouble€with€reading,€writing,€arithmeticalÏcalculations,€or€other€basic€skills.€€He€was€an€A€and€B€student€in€high€schoolÏand€has€his€G.E.D.€€He€testified€that€he€would€not€have€any€trouble€going€backÏto€college,€and€that€he€picks€up€new€job€skills€quickly.€€Since€being€releasedÏfrom€his€doctorððs€care€in€May€1995€he€has€obtained€work€with€PremierÏConstruction€doing€pipe€fabricating€and€pipe€fitting.€€He€also€runs€a€blow€torchÏand€a€pipe€threading€machine€while€working€on€the€construction€site.€€DuringÏthe€course€of€this€employment€he€has€never€worked€less€than€forty„five€(45)€orÏfifty€(50)€hours€per€week.€€He€is€still€able€to€work€heavy€machinery,€including€allÏtypes€of€machinery€associated€with€logging.€€He€also€has€the€skill€to€drive€trucksÏand€feels€that€he€could€still€perform€that€job.€€Plaintiff€is€able€to€do€carpentryÏwork€and€bills€for€such€work€at€$12.00€per€hour.€€He€also€works€on€automobilesÏand€engines.€€Plaintiff€further€testified€that€while€performing€the€logging€jobs,€theÏonly€people€he€dealt€with€were€other€loggers€in€the€woods.ÌÌà àT.C.A.€ðð50„6„207(3)(E)€provides€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àFor€serious€disfigurement€to€the€head,€face€or€hands,€notÏresulting€from€the€loss€of€a€member€or€other€injury€specificallyÏcompensated,€so€altering€the€personal€appearance€of€the€injuredÏemployee€as€to€materially€affect€such€injured€employeeððsÏemployability€in€the€employment€in€which€such€injured€employeeÏwas€injured€or€other€employment€for€which€such€injured€employeeÏis€then€qualified,€sixty„six€and€two„thirds€percent€(66„2/3%)€of€theÍaverage€weekly€wages€for€such€period€as€the€court€may€determineÏnot€exceeding€two€hundred€weeks.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àWhen€benefits€are€sought€under€the€disfigurement€statute,€the€burden€isÏon€the€employee€to€prove€that€(1)€a€serious€disfigurement€has€been€sustained,Ï(2)€the€disfigurement€materially€affects€the€employment,€(3)€the€condition€isÏpermanent,€and€(4)€a€work„related€injury€caused€the€disfigurement.€€òòWilkes€v.ÏResource€Authority€of€Sumner€Countyóó,€932€S.W.2d€458€(Tenn.€1996).ÌÌà àDuring€oral€argument€counsel€for€defendants€acknowledged€that€hisÏposition€as€to€disfigurement€may€have€been€eroded€by€the€recent€holding€of€theÏSupreme€Court€in€òòWilkesóó.€€We€agree.€€In€this€case€there€is€no€dispute€about€theÏserious€nature€of€the€injury€or€that€it€was€work„related.€€While€the€employeeÏretains€no€physical€dysfunction€from€the€scar,€Dr.€Werther€also€testified€that€heÏretains€a€permanent€impairment€of€three€(3%)€percent€to€the€whole€body€basedÏon€continuing€problems€with€his€sinuses€and€residual€facial€numbness.€ÏTherefore,€the€employee€has€sustained€his€burden€of€proving€that€theÏdisfigurement€materially€affects€his€employment€and€that€the€condition€isÏpermanent.€€€The€evidence€fails€to€preponderate€against€the€finding€of€the€trialÏjudge€that€plaintiff€sustained€a€ten€(10%)€percent€permanent€partial€disability€toÏthe€body€as€a€whole.ÌÌà@ àII.€€Compensation€RateÌà àDefendants€next€contend€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€setting€plaintiffððsÏcompensation€rate€at€$366.68.€€Although€plaintiff€initially€asserted€this€as€theÏcorrect€rate,€counsel€conceded€during€oral€argument€that€the€rate€was€notÏsupported€by€the€proof€in€the€case.€€Both€parties€were€requested€to€do€their€ownÏcalculations€and€provide€them€to€the€court,€and€they€have€now€done€so.ÌÌÌÌà àT.C.A.€ðð50„6„102(a)(1)€provides€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà à(A)à àð ðAverage€weekly€wagesðð€means€the€earnings€of€theÏinjured€employee€in€the€employment€in€which€the€injuredÏemployee€was€working€at€the€time€of€the€injury€during€the€period€ofÏfifty„two€(52)€weeks€immediately€preceding€the€date€of€the€injuryÏdivided€by€fifty„two€(52);€.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àà à(B)à àWhere€the€employment€prior€to€the€injury€extendedÏover€a€period€of€less€than€fifty„two€(52)€weeks,€the€method€ofÏdividing€the€earnings€during€that€period€by€the€number€of€weeksÏand€parts€thereof€during€which€the€employee€earned€wages€shallÏbe€followed;€provided,€that€results€just€and€fair€to€both€parties€willÏthereby€be€obtained;ÌÌà8 àà à(C)à àWhere€by€reason€of€the€shortness€of€the€time€duringÏwhich€the€employee€has€been€in€the€employment€of€theÏemployeeððs€employer,€it€is€impracticable€to€compute€the€averageÏweekly€wages€as€above€defined,€regard€shall€be€had€to€theÏaverage€weekly€amount€which€during€the€first€fifty„two€(52)€weeksÏprior€to€the€injury€or€death€was€being€earned€by€a€person€in€theÏsame€grade,€employed€at€the€same€work€by€the€same€employer,Ïand€if€there€is€no€such€person€so€employed,€by€a€person€in€theÏsame€grade€employed€in€the€same€class€of€employment€in€theÏsame€district;€.€.€.€ÌÌÌÌÓÓThe€documents€submitted€by€the€employer€show€that€for€the€first€few€weeks€ofÏhis€employment,€plaintiff€worked€as€an€hourly€employee€and€earned€a€total€ofÏ$1,750.91.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€He€eventually€was€placed€in€a€different€job€and€began€beingÏcompensated€based€on€tonnage.€€During€the€next€nineteen€(19)€weeks€heÏearned€$8,108.41.€€The€trial€court€apparently€disregarded€two€weeks€duringÏFebruary€1994€based€on€testimony€that€an€ice€storm€prevented€crews€fromÏworking.€€The€trial€court€appeared€to€subtract€these€nine€(9)€weeks€of€wages,Ïdividing€the€remaining€gross€wages€to€reach€a€weekly€amount.€€However,€thatÏcomputation€still€does€not€result€in€a€rate€of€$366.68.€€The€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings€in€this€regard.ÌÌà àThis€court€finds€that€in€making€the€wage€calculation,€the€original€sevenÏ(7)€weeks€of€employment€at€an€hourly€rate€should€be€included.€€òòSeeóó€òòRussell€v.ÏGenesco,€Inc.óó,€651€S.W.2d€206€(Tenn.€1983).€€The€week€of€February€18,€1994,Ïduring€the€ice€storm,€should€be€excluded,€along€with€wages€earned€that€week.€ÏThe€remaining€eighteen€(18)€weeks€of€employment€should€be€included.€€WeÏfind€this€method€of€computation€meets€the€ð ðjust€and€fairðð€provision€of€T.C.A.€ðð50„6„102(1)(B).€€This€results€in€gross€earnings€of€$9,710.53€over€a€period€of€twenty„five€(25)€weeks,€or€an€average€weekly€wage€of€$388.42€and€a€compensationÏrate€of€$259.08€per€week.€€We€find€this€figure€to€be€the€proper€compensationÏrate€for€plaintiff€in€this€case.ÌÌà àWe€therefore€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€finding€of€a€ten€(10%)€percentÏpermanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole,€and€modify€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court€to€reflect€a€compensation€rate€of€$259.08€per€week.€€As€modified,Ïthe€case€is€remanded€to€the€Circuit€Court€for€Hardin€County€for€the€entry€of€anyÏorders€necessary€to€carry€out€this€judgment.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€equallyÏto€plaintiff€and€defendant.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€SPECIALÏJUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ______________________________________ÌLYLE€REID,€JUSTICEÌÌÌÌ______________________________________ÌJOE€C.€LOSER,€JR.,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌœÇÑ ` Ñà@ àÔ€+¼ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÓ` °‰Xx‘XÓà@ àAT€JACKSONÔ€+XÔÌÌÌÓ#` p…XÈôÐ X#ÓRONNIE€SETTLES,à àà à)à àHARDIN€CIRCUITÌÓ#` p` ÈôÐ X#Óà à)à àNO.€2339ÌÓ ` p` ¸ Èx‘X Óà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à à)à àÌÓ#` p` ¸ ÈôÐ X#Óà àà à)à àHon.€C.€Creed€McGinley,Ìvs.à àà à)à àJudgeÌà àà à)ÌSHARPS€MILL€FOREST€PRODUCTS,à à)à àNO.€02S01„9607„CV„00069ÌINC.€and€OLD€REPUBLIC€INSURANCE€CO.à à)Ìà àà à)ÌßJ€/2;+'b|#*` Å `€@ÿJßà àDefendant/Appellants.à à)à àAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIED.ÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€+¼ÔJUDGMENT€ORDERÔ€+XÔÌÌÓÓÌÓ` p`  ’XÓà 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 àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€OpinionÏof€the€Panel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌà 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.Ìà àCosts€will€be€paid€equally€by€Appellant€and€Appellee,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ìà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€this€21st€day€of€February,€1997.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌ(Reid,€J.,€not€participating)ÌÌÌÌ›