ÿWPCÌ 0# °UN» %  0(47KZw@b 0J¢ 0Tì 0^@ 0hž 0r 0|x 0†ô 0z 1u  0dU>ã AQ! Ær 0D8 0@| 0D¼ U* D/* BY Bv D3“ B)Æ DCï AM2 ü v~{ vÓù˜HP LaserJet 4 Plus/4M PlusHPPCL5E,,,,0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡µQ+!3|xñ  ß à Pá â ã Ó€í Pî Dï Dð bñ b2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó< Œ 9p`(Arial(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d****7Border 1dd!#+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ òÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌOctober€10,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@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  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ ø ÒÒ H ÒÙ€!ÙÓ  ÓÑ  Ñò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€%ÔßL€,-+;+'h|` ç `€€LßIN›€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATIONÏPANELÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÓ  Óó óÌÌST.€PAUL€FIRE€&€MARINEà àà à)ÌINSURANCE€COMPANY€andà àà à)ÌLINEAL€GROUP,€INC.,à àà àà à)à àRUTHERFORD€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à àà à)à àNO.€01S01„9509„CV„00146Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(No.€Below€31413)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Robert€E.€CorlewÌCECIL€CARRICK,à àà àà àà à)à àJudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòò òFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àà àà àFor€the€Appellee:óóó óÌÌKent€E.€Krauseà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€BurtonÌBREWER,€KRAUSE,€BROOKSà àœà àà àDANIEL,›€BURTON€œ&€ASSOCS.€Ì€€&€MILLSà àà àà àà àà àà à401W.€Main,€P.€O.€Box€960ÌSuite€2600,€The€Towerà àà àà àà àMurfreesboro,€TN€€37133„0960›Ì611€Commerce€Streetà àà àà àà àœ(615)€893„8300›ÌNashville,€œTN€€37203à àà àà àà à›Ì(615)€256„8787ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óòòò òMEMORANDUM€OPINIONó óóớ̜ÌÌÌÌÌÌòòò òMembers€of€Panel:ó óóóÌJustice€Frank€F.€Drowota,€IIIÌSenior€Judge€John€K.€ByersÌSpecial€Judge€Robert€L.€ChildersÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMED.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àCHILDERS,ÏSpecial€Judgeó óÌÇÓ  ÓÓÓœ›œ›à àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€SpecialÏWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€withÏTòòenn.óó€Còòodeóó€Aòònnóó.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€CourtÏof€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.Ìà àThe€trial€court€awarded€Defendant/Counter„Plaintiff€85%€permanent€partialÏdisability€to€the€left€lower€extremity.€€Plaintiff/Counter„Defendant€below€appeals,Ïarguing€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€the€employeeððs€testimony€wasÏcredible;€that€the€employee€failed€to€prove€that€he€sustained€a€permanent€injuryÏwhich€arose€out€of€and€in€the€course€of€his€employment;€that€the€employee€failedÏto€give€proper€notice€of€his€injury;€that€the€evidence€does€not€support€an€award€ofÏ85%€to€the€lower€extremity;€and€that€the€medical€treatment€awarded€by€the€trialÏcourt€was€unauthorized€and€should€not€have€been€allowed.€€Ìà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ìà àDefendant/Counter„Plaintiff€worked€at€Samsonite€for€30€years.€ÏDefendant/Counter„Plaintiffððs€other€work€experience€includes€growing€tobaccoÏand€peppers,€raising€cattle,€and€performing€various€odd€jobs.ÏDefendant/Counter„Plaintiff€has€a€high€school€education€and€some€training€inÏelectronics.Ìà àDefendant/Counter„Plaintiffððs€duties€at€Samsonite€included€counting€andÏtransferring€chairs€from€one€line€to€another.€€This€involved€shifting€his€weight€fromÏone€leg€to€the€other.€€It€also€involved€spending€long€periods€of€time€on€his€feetÏwhile€working€on€a€concrete€floor.Ìà àBecause€Defendant/Counter„Plaintiff€suffered€several€strokes€since€theÍtime€of€the€injury€and€was€unable€to€remember€many€of€the€specific€factsÏsurrounding€his€injury€so€as€to€be€unavailable,€the€trial€court€relied€onÏDefendant/Counter„Plaintiffððs€deposition€testimony.€€Defendant/Counter„PlaintiffÏwas€55€years€old€on€the€date€that€he€gave€his€deposition€testimony.Ìà àDefendant/Counter„Plaintiff€testified€that€he€suffered€from€pain€in€his€leftÏknee.€€For€four€or€five€months€prior€to€the€injury€complained€of,ÏDefendant/Counter„Plaintiffððs€leg€would€swell€from€hip€down€to€ankle.€€ÌÑ H Ñà àDefendant/Counter„Plaintiff€told€his€foreman€about€the€problems€with€hisÏlegs€and€that€he€thought€the€problems€were€work„related.€€Defendant/Counter„Plaintiff€had€previously€requested€that€mats€be€put€down€on€the€concrete€floor€inÏhis€work€area€to€relieve€some€of€the€stress€to€his€legs.€€Defendant/Counter„Plaintiff€testified€that€the€swelling€did€not€bother€him€as€much€when€he€was€notÏworking€on€the€concrete€floor.€Ìà àDefendant/Counter„Plaintiff€testified€that€on€April€27,€1992,€his€supervisorÏasked€him€to€work€overtime.€€Defendant/Counter„Plaintiff€told€his€supervisor€thatÏhe€would€be€willing€to€work€if€his€leg€held€out.€€Around€3:00€p.m.,ÏDefendant/Counter„Plaintiff€heard€a€pop€and€felt€his€knee€lock€up.€€He€did€notÏwork€the€overtime.€€Defendant/Counter„Plaintiff€told€his€group€leader€that€heÏwould€need€someone€to€replace€him€on€the€line€because€his€leg€was€locked€up,Ïhe€could€not€stand€on€it,€and€he€needed€to€go€see€a€doctorÌà àDefendant/Counter„Plaintiff€went€to€the€office€of€the€plant€nurse,€but€sheÏwas€not€in€her€office.€€Plaintiff€then€went€to€see€Dr.€Reuhland.€€Dr.€ReuhlandÏsubsequently€referred€Defendant/Counter„Plaintiff€to€Dr.€Haynes€who€sawÍDefendant/Counter„Plaintiff€a€couple€of€days€later.Ìà àDr.€Haynes€testified€by€deposition€that€Defendant/Counter„Plaintiff€told€himÏthat€he€had€been€having€some€pain,€and€while€at€work,€twisted€and€feltÏsomething€in€his€knee€pop.€€Dr.€Haynes€opined€that€Defendant/Counter„PlaintiffððsÏcondition€is€the€type€that€takes€months€or€years€to€develop.€€Dr.€Haynes€testifiedÏthat,€based€upon€Defendant/Counter„Plaintiffððs€description€of€his€work,€Dr.ÏHaynes€strongly€suspected€that€Defendant/Counter„Plaintiffððs€injury€was€work„related.Ìà àDr.€Haynes€further€testified€that€a€document€sent€to€the€plant€nurseÏindicating€that€Defendant/Counter„Plaintiffððs€injury€was€not€work„related€was€aÏclerical€error€on€the€part€of€his€staff.€€Dr.€Haynes€testified€that€he€askedÏDefendant/Counter„Plaintiff€why€the€claim€was€not€filed€under€workerððsÏcompensation.Ìà àDefendant/Counter„Plaintiff€and€his€wife€each€testified€thatÏDefendant/Counter„Plaintiff€called€his€supervisor€at€home€after€being€examinedÏby€Dr.€Reuhland.€€At€trial,€the€supervisor€did€not€recall€having€such€a€conversationÏwith€Defendant/Counter„Plaintiff.€Ìà àThe€plant€nurse€reported€Defendant/Counter„Plaintiffððs€injury€as€sick€leaveÏand€€automatically€put€Defendant/Counter„Plaintiff€on€sick€leave€pay€which€lastedÏ26€weeks.€€The€plant€nurse€testified€that€she€did€not€specifically€askÏDefendant/Counter„Plaintiff€whether€his€injury€occurred€at€work.€€The€plant€nurseÏalso€admitted€that€she€had€signed€Defendant/Counter„Plaintiffððs€name,€withÏDefendant/Counter„Plaintiffððs€permission,€to€insurance€documents.Ìà àOur€review€is€de€novo€on€the€record€accompanied€by€the€presumption€thatÏthe€findings€of€fact€of€the€trial€court€are€correct€unless€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€otherwise.€€òòTenn.€Code€Annóó.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).€€The€plaintiff€mustÏprove€every€element€of€his€case€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòWhite€v.ÏWerthan€Industriesóó,€824€S.W.2d€158,€159€(Tenn.€1992).Ìà àWe€find€that€there€was€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€assessment€ofÏDefendant/Counter„Plaintiffððs€credibility.€€Although€Defendant/Counter„PlaintiffððsÏtestimony€was€given€by€deposition€and€Defendant/Counter„Plaintiff€could€notÏremember€many€details€on€the€date€of€trial,€the€trial€judge€had€the€opportunityÏboth€to€consider€Defendant/Counter„Plaintiffððs€deposition€and€to€observe€theÏother€witnesses€who€testified€in€the€trial,€none€of€whom€were€willing€to€questionÏDefendant/Counter„Plaintiffððs€veracity.€€œà àWe›€also€find€that€there€was€no€error€inÏthe€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Defendant/Counter„Plaintiff€proved€that€he€sustainedÏa€permanent€injury€that€arose€out€of€and€in€the€course€of€his€employment€and€thatÏDefendant/Counter„Plaintiff€gave€proper€notice€of€his€injury.€€The€trial€court€foundÏthat€the€Defendant/Counter„Plaintiff€walked€with€apparent€and€great€pain€from€theÏwork€site€to€his€car€at€the€end€of€the€work€day.€€€The€trial€court€also€found€thatÏbecause€Defendant/Counter„Plaintiff€was€not€so€impaired€at€the€beginning€of€theÏday,€this€was€sufficient€notice€of€an€injury€arising€out€of€and€in€the€course€ofÏemployment.€€Under€these€facts,€we€agree.Ìà àThe€trial€judge€concluded€that€the€impairment€rating€given€by€Dr.€Haynes,Ïcoupled€with€the€lay€testimony€that€the€injury€was€substantially€disabling€toÏDefendant/Counter„Plaintiff,€entitled€Defendant/Counter„Plaintiff€to€an€award€ofÍ85%€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€lower€left€œextremity.›€€We€find€that€theÏevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€judgeððs€finding€thatÏDefendant/Counter„Plaintiff€suffered€an€85%€permanent€partial€disability€to€theÏlower€left€extremity.€€Therefore,€we€affirm€the€judgment€at€the€costs€of€theÏAppellant.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœRobert›€L.€Childers,€Special€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:à àÌÌÌ________________________________ÌFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€JusticeÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌÓÓ