WPCA  8#  UN+ %y 0U:z4w@ 0? 0D^  0J 0D 0T6 0^ 0h 0rP 0| 0> 0 1uT 0d AQ-~ 0D 0@[ B D/ B D3U>7U *uU*B)DC AM5K2v~vnHP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(H=$  HTR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalTX_XXX7XXdXXd7,  AZ"Arial Regulare" 3|xU :;<=D>ӀHIVJ KӀU((3$ H=!  HTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXxXXX7 XXdd7   `   0  (%$  1  H2 0Indent123  ($$   1  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X!"#&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ H=!  HTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXxXXX7 XXdd7  ("$     d((' dxdP Pd$$$$'dxd<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Arial<  9p`(Times% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd!#1C << G  !  #d#-    H \RA'\.#d#  ""  .   YYY FILED.XJune24,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#-    H \RA'\.#d#   $       Applicable,however,toinjuriestothebodyasawholeandnottoscheduledmembers.Atchleyv.LifeCareCtr.,906S.W.2d428(Tenn.1995).  !#d#-    H \RA'\.#d#  ""  .   YYY FILED.XJune24,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ! . -    H \RA'\.#//Xd##//Xd#  ݛ   X @ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE̜!R231A1-j|` 81 `@Rߛ@ SPECIALWORKERS'COMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL@ ATNASHVILLEAPRIL1997SESSION SSISERVICES,INC.,   ) COFFEECIRCUIT      )  Plaintiff/Appellee   ) NO.01S019609CV00191      ) v.      ) HON.GERALDL.EWELL,SR.,      ) JUDGEHOWARDL.BAKER,   )      ) Defendant/Appellant  ) FortheAppellant:    FortheAppellee: H.ThomasParsons   GaryS.NapolitanParsons,Nichols&Johnson  D.ScottBennett101WestMainStreet   Leitner,Williams,Dooley&NapolitanManchester,TN37355   ThirdFloor,PioneerBuilding      Chattanooga,TN37402   MEMORANDUMOPINIONMembersofPanel: JusticeLyleReidSeniorJudgeWilliamH.InmanSpecialJudgeWilliamS.Russell  MODIFIED       INMAN,SeniorJudge  Thisworkers'compensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)forhearingandreportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw. Thisactionbeganasoneforadeclaratoryjudgmentundertheworkerscompensationlawsthattheaccidentsufferedbytheemployee( hereafter,plaintiff)resultedinminimalimpairmentonly.Theplaintiffcounterclaimed,allegingthathesustainedajobrelatedrotatorcufftearofhisleftshoulderwithabicepstendontearrequiringsurgicalrepaironMay20,1993,andthatheaggravatedtheconditionintheSpringof1994whenfurthersurgerywasrequired. Theplaintiffis59yearsold,employedasapainter,withanexcellentworkethic.Itisnotcontrovertedthathesufferedtheinjuryasalleged.Hereturnedtofull,uninterruptedemploymentinDecember,1994withrestrictions.Thetrialcourtfoundthattheplaintiffhadsustaineda13percentpermanentpartialdisabilitytohiswholebody,andthatthe capembodiedinthe1992Amendmentshouldapplysincetheplaintiffhasreturnedtomeaningfulworkactivities.Theplaintiffappeals,insisting(1)thattheawardof13percentpermanentpartialdisabilitytothewholebodyis contrarytotheevidenceandthelaw,and(2)thattheplaintiffis entitledtomorethan13percentpermanentpartialvocationalimpairmenttothebodyasawhole. Ourreviewofthefindingsoffactmadebythetrialcourtisdenovoupontherecordofthetrialcourt,accompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthefinding,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(2).Stonev.CityofMcMinnville,896S.W.2d584(Tenn.1991). Wherethemedicaltestimonyispresentedbydeposition,thisCourtisabletomakeitsownindependentassessmentofthemedicalprooftodeterminewherethepreponderanceoftheevidencelies.Cooperv.INA,884S.W.2d446(Tenn.1994). Dr.RichardBagby,Jr.,aboardcertifiedorthopedicsurgeon,testifiedthattheplaintiffsufferedacompleterotatorcufftearinApril1993whichwassurgicallycorrectedonMay20,1993.Theplaintiffreturnedtowork,asapainter,onSeptember7,1993.InFebruary,1994,hebeganexperiencingincreasedpainattributabletooverheadreaching.Injectionsprovidedsomerelief,butthepainpersistedwithsignsofinflammation.InJune,1994,Dr.BagbydidanMRIwhichrevealedanew,completerotatorcufftearcausedbyreachingoverheadtopaint.SurgerywasperformedonAugust15,1994torepairtherotatorcuff.Dr.Bagbytestified:  8 ...itcouldntberepairedcompletelybecauseitwassuchextensivetearingandsomuchretractionthattheedgescouldnotbebroughtbacktotheiroriginalsurfacecompletely...    Becausefluidcontinuedtoexudefromthewound,anothersurgerywasperformedthenextdaytorepairtheouterskinandfascia.Theplaintiffcontinuedtocomplainofpainforseveralmonths,andattimesexhibitedarecurrenceoffluidintheshoulder.InMay,1994,theplaintiffwaspermittedtoreturntowork,butwasrestrictedtoaliftinglimitationoftenpoundsnotabovechestlevelandaheightlimitationofsixfeetonaladder.Hetestifiedthattheplaintiffretainedan18percentpermanentimpairmentofhisleftarm,whichheextrapolatedto11percenttothewholebody. Dr.JeffreyP.Lawrence,aboardcertifiedorthopedicspecialist,firstexaminedtheplaintiffonJuly26,1994.Heconfirmedtherotatorcuffinjury,andsawhimanadditionalfourtimes,chieflyatthebehestoftheemployer,with,aswededuce,theeagercooperationoftheplaintiff.Heopinedthattheplaintiffhada22percentimpairmenttohisleftarm,whichheextrapolatedto13percentpermanentpartialdisabilitytohiswholebody.Healsoimposedliftingrestrictions. Laytestimonywasdirectedtotheinhibitingnatureoftherestrictions.Forinstance,theplaintiffssupervisortestifiedthatbecauseoftherestrictionsplacedonhimtheplaintiffwouldnotbeabletoperform75percentofapaintersnormaljob.Therewaslittlecountervailingtestimonythattheplaintiffwouldhavetoenduretheworkrestrictions. ThiscaseiscontrolledbyTenn.CodeAnn.506241,sincetheinjuryoccurredafterAugust1,1992.Accordingly,sincetheplaintiffwasreturnedtoworkinameaningfulway,forawageequaltoorgreaterthanbeforehisinjury,themaximumawardhemayreceiveis2.5timesthemedicalimpairmentrating. 4   ׀Inmakingdeterminations,theCourtisrequiredtoconsiderallpertinentfactors,includinglayandexperttestimony,employeesage,education,skillsandtraining,localjobopportunitiesandcapacitytoworkattypesofemploymentavailableinclaimantsdisabledcondition.Tenn.CodeAnn.506241(a)(1). Weaccordtotheexperiencedtrialjudgealldeference,butinlightofallofthefactorsthatmustbeconsidered,especiallywhensuperimposeduponaworkerwhoisgenuinelyinjured,hasclearlynotexaggeratedhiscondition,andwhosecredibilityisnotreproachedinanyway,weconcludethatthepreponderantproofrequiresanupwardmodificationoftheaward.Wenotethesefactors:  8 Theplaintiffis59yearsold.Hehasan8thgradeeducation.Heislimitedtoessentiallymenialwork,andwedonotdenigratetheskillrequiredofapainter.Asalreadystated,hisinjuryisreal,hisdiscomfortisgenuine,hisdisabilityandlimitationsarenotseriouslycontroverted.Herealisticallycannotperformmanyrequisitesofhisjob;itmayberemarkable%  ԛthatowingtohisgrit,ontheonehand,andthebenevolenceandsupportofhisemployer,ontheother,theplaintiffisworkingatall.Thereislittledoubtthatmuchofthelabormarketisclosedtohim.   Fromallofwhichwefindthattheawardshouldbemodifiedtofindthattheplaintiffhasapermanentpartialdisabilitytohisbodyasawholeof32.5percent.See,Hensonv.CityofLawrenceburg,851S.W.2d809(Tenn.1993);Worthingtonv.ModineMfg.,798S.W.2d232(Tenn.1990). ThecomplaintwasfiledJune14,1994.Theawardshouldbepaidinalumpsum.Tenn.CodeAnn.506229(a);Perduev.GreenBranchMiningCo.,837S.W.2d56(Tenn.1992). Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed,asmodified,andremanded,withcostsassessedtotheappellee.      ___________________________________      WilliamH.Inman,SeniorJudgeCONCUR:_________________________________LyleReid,Justice_________________________________WilliamS.Russell,SpecialJudge    .J25;+'b|s` 81 `@J@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLESSISERVICES,INC.,   } COFFEECIRCUIT      } No.26627Below Plaintiff/Appellee   }      } Hon.GeraldL.Ewell,Sr.,vs.      } Judge      }HOWARDL.BAKER,   } No.01S019609CV00191      } Defendant/Appellant  } MODIFIED.@ JUDGMENTORDER  ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtupontheentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferraltotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanel'sMemorandumOpinionsettingforthitsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference.  Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthattheMemorandumOpinionofthePanelshouldbeacceptedandapproved;and  Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanel'sfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawareadoptedandaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgmentoftheCourt. ` ` X  CostswillbepaidbyPlaintiff/Appellee,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.  ITISSOORDEREDonJune24,1997.       PERCURIAM.Xԛ