WPC6" UBV %U .r 0>  n 0rw@4< 0JP 0T 0^ 0hL 0r 0|& 0 0( 1u 0d-$B)DC AM: B)v~vK D3 0@Q AO  0D! D/! B"\  `*Times New RomanTT"AArialTT'    0 .   (e2n$  !X/XX(3XXX/   3|x\  `*Times New RomanTTC\  P6QP"AArialTTomanTTXXaptQXp\  `*Times New RomanTT^\  P6QP\  `*Times New RomanTTXXP\  P6QXP\  `*Times New RomanTT  k\  P6Q P\  `*Times New RomanTT6\  P6QP\  `*Times New RomanTT,,)\  P6Q,P(J$X?XXXXX?  P D P DPDVӀobF"\ 2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X   !X     8    ` ` X    @      A     ` X   !  X     8    ` ` X    @      A     ` X% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd-#C << G d   !  X      YYY FILEDX April1,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva %%%%'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd  ! . X   \RA'\      8    &      !   ` ` X\RA'\ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEER$&#A1-j|3 `  `@RSPECIALWORKERS'COMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANELATJACKSON(August29,1996Session)   ` XMICHAELEUGENESMITH,  )OBIONCHANCERY      )̀PlaintiffAppellee, )Hon.WilliamMichaelMalone,̀ԀԀ,ԀԀ)Chancellor.v.      )̀ԀԀԀԀ)No.02S019603CH00037GOODYEARTIREANDRUBBER )COMPANY,    )      )̀DefendantAppellant. )ForAppellant:ForAppellee:RandyN.ChismJeffreyA.GarretyElam&GlasgowGarrety&SandersUnionCity,TennesseeJackson,Tennessee   ` ` XMEMORANDUMOPINIONMembersofPanel:LyleReid,AssociateJustice,SupremeCourtF.LloydTatum,SpecialJudgeJoeC.Loser,Jr.,SpecialJudge'     ` X   ` ` X   ` X  AFFIRMEDLoser,Judge     ` ` XMEMORANDUMOPINION rA   ` X  Thisworkers'compensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.section506225(e)(3)forhearingandreportingoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.Inthisappeal,theemployercontendstheawardofpermanentpartialdisabilitybenefitsisexcessiveand,particularly,thattheawardexceedsthelimitationcontainedinTenn.CodeAnn.section506241(a)(1).Asdiscussedbelow,thepanelhasconcludedtheawardshouldbeaffirmed.  Theemployeeorclaimant,Smith,isfortysevenandahighschoolgraduate.HehasworkedforGoodyearsince1969,atseveraldifferentjobs,allinvolvingmanuallabor.OnMay13,1994,heinjuredhisbacklifting.  Theclaimantwasreferredtoanorthopedicsurgeon,whodiagnosedacentraldischerniationatL5S1,whichwassurgicallyrepairedbilaterally.Asaresultoftheinjuryandsurgery,hecanliftonly30poundsfrequentlyand50poundsoccasionally.Heisfurtherlimitedinhisbodilyactivitiesandhasapermanentmedicalimpairmentoftenpercenttothewholebody.Theoperatingsurgeontestifiedthattheclaimantismedicallydisqualifiedfromreturningtohispreinjuryjoboranyotheronewhichwouldrequireheavyliftingorpainfulactivity.  Whentheclaimantreturnedtoworkafteraperiodofrecuperation,hewasofferedachoiceofjobs.Theoneheacceptedwaswithinhislimitations,buthereceivesalowerhourlywagethanhewasearningbeforetheinjury.Hecontinuestohavepainandstiffnessfromworking.  Thechancellorawardedpermanentpartialdisabilitybenefitsonthebasisoffortypercenttothebodyasawhole.Appellatereviewisdenovoupontherecordofthetrialcourt,accompaniedbyapresumptionofcorrectnessofthefindingsoffact,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.CodeAnn.section506225(e)(2).  ForinjuriesoccurringafterAugust1,1992,incaseswhereandinjuredworkerisentitledtopermanentpartialdisabilitybenefitstothebodyasawholeandthepreinjuryemployerreturnstheemployeetoemploymentatawageequaltoorgreaterthanthewagetheemployeewasreceivingatthetimeoftheinjury,themaximumpermanentpartialdisabilityawardtheemployeemayreceiveistwoandonehalftimesthemedicalimpairmentrating.Tenn.CodeAnn.section506241(a)(1).Iftheofferofreturnemploymentisnotreasonableinlightofthecircumstancesoftheemployee'sphysicaldisabilitytoperformtheofferedemployment,thentheofferofemploymentisnotmeaningfulandtheinjuredemployeemayreceivedisabilitybenefitsuptosixtimesthemedicalimpairment.Newtonv.ScottHealthCareCenter,914S.W.2d884(Tenn.1995).  Ontheotherhand,anemployeewillbelimitedtodisabilitybenefitsofnotmorethantwoandonehalftimesthemedicalimpairmentratingifhisrefusaltoreturntoofferedworkisunreasonable.Id.Theresolutionofwhatisreasonablemustrestonthefactsofeachcaseandbedeterminedthereby.Id.  Whilesomeofthejobsfromwhichthisemployeecouldhavechosenwouldhavepaidawageequaltoorgreaterthanhispreinjurywage,wecannotsaytheevidencepreponderatesagainstthechancellor'sfindingthattheemployeeactedreasonablyinacceptingworkwithinhismedicallimitationsandrestrictions.Becausetheemployerchoosestopayalowerwageforthejobtheemployeereasonablychose,thechancellorcorrectlyconcludedthatTenn.CodeAnn.section506241(a)(1)isinapplicable.  Theevidencealsofailstopreponderateagainstanawardbasedonfortypercentpermanentpartialdisabilitytothebodyasawhole.Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaccordinglyaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedtothedefendantappellant. *b   ` ` X_______________________________   ӀJoeC.Loser,Jr.,Judge   ` XCONCUR:_________________________________LyleReid,AssociateJustice_________________________________F.LloydTatum,Judge