WPC< 6# UN %] 0cU:^4w@ 0? 0DB  0D 0J 0T 0^n 0h 0r4 0| 0" 0 1u8 0d AQb 0( 0@? B D/ B D3U>U *YU*B)DC AMf.v~viHP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(H=$  HTR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalTX_XXX7XXdXXd7,  AZ"Arial Regulare" 3|xt  b c Dd De f Dg Ӏq r s t D((3{$ H=!  HTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXXXXX7>XXdd7   `   0  (#$  0  H($$   1  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X!"#&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ H=!  HTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXXXXX7>XXdd7  ("$     d((' dxdP Pd$$$$'dxd<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Arial<  9p`(Times% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd!#0C << G  !  #d#,    H \RA'\-#d#  ""  -   YYY FILED-XMay16,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#,    H \RA'\-#d#  ""  -   YYY FILED-XMay16,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ! . ,    H \RA'\-#..Xd##..Xd#  ݛ @ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE̜!R120A1-j|Z` . `@Rߛ@ SPECIALWORKERS'COMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL@ ATNASHVILLEFEBRUARY1997SESSION ̀MICHAELSINIARD,   ) MAURYCIRCUIT      )  Plaintiff/Appellant   ) NO.0S019609CV00175      ) v.      ) HON.JIMT.HAMILTON,      ) JUDGE SATURNCORPORATION,  )      ) Defendant/Appellee  )       FortheAppellant:    FortheAppellee: J.AnthonyArena    ThomasH.Peebles,IVSchulman,LeRoy&Bennett,P.C. BrianA.Lapps,Jr.501UnionBuilding,7thFloor  WallerLandsenDortch&Davis,PLLCP.O.Box190676    809SouthMainStreet,Suite300Nashville,TN372190676   PostOfficeBox1035      Columbia,TN384021035̀   MEMORANDUMOPINIONMembersofPanel JusticeFrankF.Drowota,IIISeniorJudgeWilliamH.InmanSpecialJudgeWilliamS.Russell    AFFIRMED      INMAN,SeniorJudge  ќ̛  Thisworkers'compensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)forhearingandreportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw. Theplaintiff,age43,remainsemployedbySaturnCorporation,wherehebeganin1990.Hedevelopedcarpaltunnelsyndromeinbothwristsin1994andwasprovidedwithsplints,medication,andaccesstophysicaltherapy. IntimetheplaintiffwasreferredtoDr.JamesWiesman,anorthopedicsurgeon,whoperformedacarpaltunnelreleaseonhisrighthand.HereturnedtoworkforSaturnwhichassignedhimajobnotinvolvingrepetitiveuseofhishands. Theplaintifffiledthiscomplaintseekingbenefitsforapermanentpartialdisabilityoccasionedbytheassertedimpairmentcausedbythecarpaltunnelsyndrome.Thetrialjudgeawardedbenefitsbasedonafindingoftenpercentpermanentpartialdisabilitytohisrightarm.Theplaintiffappeals,insistingtheawardisinadequateforthereasonshereafterdiscussed. Thetreatingphysiciantestifiedthatthereleasesurgerywassuccessfulandthattheplaintiffretainedatwo(2)percentimpairmenttohisrightarm. TheplaintiffwasreferredbyhisattorneytoDr.DavidW.Gaw,alsoanorthopedicsurgeon,forevaluation.Dr.Gawsawtheplaintiffonlyononeoccasion.Heconductedvarioustestsandconcludedthattheplaintiffhadatenpercentpermanentpartialimpairmenttohisrightarm.HedisdainedasunauthorizedbytheAMAGuidesanevaluationoftwo(2)percentimpairmentasfoundbyDr.Wiesman. Ourreviewofthefindingsoffactmadebythetrialcourtisdenovoupontherecordofthetrialcourt,accompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthefinding,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(2).Stonev.CityofMcMinnville,896S.W.2d584(Tenn.1991). TheplaintiffcriticizesDr.WiesmanforhisallegedfailuretousetheAMAGuides.WhileDr.WiesmanapparentlywasnotenamoredbytheGuides,hetestifiedthat IusedthoseGuides,andthat Ididtheimpairmentratingbasedonone,myexperience,basedontwo,theTable16Guidelines,andmyevaluationofthepatient. `  r   Ӝ Thephysiciansjudgmentandhisorherexperience,training,skill,andthoroughnessinexaminingthepatientandapplyingthefindingstoGuidescriteriawillbefactorsinestimatingthedegreeofthepatientsimpairment.Theseattributescomposetheartofmedicine,whichtogetherwithafoundationinscience,constitutetheessenceofmedicalpractice.Theevaluatorshouldunderstandthatotherconsiderationswillalsoapply,suchasthesensitivity,specificity,accuracy,reproducibility,andtheinterpretationoflaboratorytestsandclinicalprocedures,andvariabilityamongobserversinterpretationsofthetestsandprocedures.   r   H   AmericanMedicalAssociationGuidestotheEvaluationofPermanentImpairment,Ϝ4thEd.,at3(1.3). TheGuidesarenotthesoledeterminingfactorinsettinganawardofvocationaldisability.Inmakingdeterminations,thecourtshallconsiderallpertinentfactors,includinglayandexperttestimony,employeesage,education,skillsandtraining,localjobopportunitiesandcapacitytoworkattypesofemploymentavailableinclaimantsdisabledcondition.Tenn.CodeAnn.506241(a)(1).Itisabundantlyclearinthisrecordthatthetrialcourtconsideredallofthesefactors,inadditiontooneinvolvingthecredibilityoftheplaintiff,whomtheevidencerevealswaslessthancandidabouttheextentofanyresidualdifficultiesintheuseofhisrightarm.Moreover,thetrialcourtwaswithinhisdiscretioninfindingDr.WiesmansopiniontobeofgreaterworththanDr.Gaws.SeeHinsonv.WalMartStores,654S.W.2d675(Tenn.1983). Theappellantnextinsiststhatitwaserrortoallowextrinsicevidenceofspecificinstancesofconductforthepurposeofattackinghiscredibility.Thisargumentreferstothetestimonyofatherapist,SteveMcClellan,whoperformedafunctionalcapacityevaluationoftheplaintiff. Itisinsistedthatthistestimonywasimproperlyadducedsolelyforthepurposeofattackingthecredibilityoftheplaintiff.Mr.McClellantestifiedthattheplaintiffrevealednoindicationofillnessbehavior,andhebelievedtherewasadegreeofsymptomexaggeration.Theappellantequatesthisopiniontoanattackonhiscredibilitybywayofaspecificinstance,incontraventionofRule608,TennesseeRulesofEvidence.Wedonotagree.Thefunctionalcapacityevaluationisauseful,sometimesrevealing,procedurerelevanttoadeterminationofimpairment.Thefactthatthisproceduremayindicatesymptommagnificationorexaggerationandtothatextentnecessarilyreflectontheplaintiffscredibility,doesnotrunitcountertoRule608. Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthejudgment,whichisaffirmedatthecostsoftheappellant,andthecaseisremandedforallappropriatepurposes.      ___________________________________      WilliamH.Inman,SeniorJudgeCONCUR:________________________________FrankF.Drowota,III,Justice________________________________WilliamS.%  Russell,SpecialJudge    -@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEEJ13;+'b|` 0* `@J@ ATNASHVILLEMICHAELSINIARD,   } MAURYCIRCUIT      } No.6795Below Plaintiff/Appellant  }      } Hon.JimT.Hamilton,vs.      } Judge      }SATURNCORPORATION,  } No.01S019609CV00175      } Defendant/Appellee  } AFFIRMED.@ JUDGMENTORDER  ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtupontheentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferraltotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanel'sMemorandumOpinionsettingforthitsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference.  Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthattheMemorandumOpinionofthePanelshouldbeacceptedandapproved;and  Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanel'sfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawareadoptedandaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgmentoftheCourt. ` ` X  CostswillbepaidbyPlaintiff/AppellantandSurety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.  ITISSOORDEREDonMay16,1997.       PERCURIAM-X