ÿWPC½ T œÐ{XI_XâE³†›]…ª£@ó¼É ü1? }7ÌY[v¡]pIIlÔÂá•Lâ„@¡‚ã6 ÑÆS‘‰äŽ/%¡»ºBJªÚ1ø…¶†Ûbvý©TÀ©R ÷ñŠêB]‰ùé5>(ª¡DYKVAž«Ë“á2duƒ6˦d$¥JæÔOÆÞIÁu‡.-zb‡Ç,q÷;fn^¾’¡ÌïÁz~õÆ–p‹jQghZO¦.Þépâ#Züxúþ6ûÙÿ¨ $–ÉÊ×I ¹øU²µh_Â%Ÿ“hxU?ÿ1ʘüõfPhïkQIYGËÇž—ÇÁ¢ ÿ:»†©œ ÂÈó tÉ¢€2ÁQi»ºGlÙ¼ëÆˆ¬ùÎ¥%>dF÷3àEP]·®ßtCÊ>L|Çk/~®ýÜÒ€¯%@ˆ‚REÿ(t\kÇŠ asC§Âë¾ ä,"qbu:«0Ý4ÞMœ¦ÔË7òû¶…3] ŽÌŽbØOYng FDôÑ­Õ/ßñmóÛ²¶öà¹#  UN) %w 0û} U :x4²ÆìÕU:Á ûw@  0?I 0DˆÌÌUFÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛ B!!!!!! D3>>> 0qqqqqqqqqqqqq D+ˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆ AO³Æ 0DÈ D/  B;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; AYXƱ 0Fw˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÓH=$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XÎ_XXXÔÑ7€¾úXXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial Regularºyj&øð 3|xâ; âÔ€ XØ®XXXÔÔ€ èkièX XØ®ÔÔ Ad ÔÓ  ÓFILEDÔ€ vƒè èkiÔÐ  ÐÌò òMarch€25,€1999Ð  ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€CourtÏClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularH Ï;™Ð;PÑ;PÒ;DÓ; eÔ;DÕ;Ö;Ó€á;Vâ;î(ï(3àv$¤¤Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XØ®XXXÔÑ7€% XXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ô‡XØ®XXXÔÔ‡èkièXXØ®ÔÔ Ad ÔÓ  ÓFILEDÔ#†XØ®Xèèki#ÔÔ‡vƒXXØ®ÔÐ  ÐÌò òMarch€25,€1999Ð  ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€CourtÏClerkó ó<4šÛ 9Z ‹.Courier New Regular d$$$$'ÿÿdxd(ï3¶j$££Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XØ®XXXÔÑ7€% XXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ý'ÈÈÈÈdxd€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd·-¸:Müÿ << deUU…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(n$––ò ò(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)ó óÝ ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XØ®XXXÔÑ7€% XXdìdÈ7ÑÝ  ÝñÓ;ñ›ñÓ;ññÓ;ññÌ;ñ›ñÌ;ññÓ;ñÑÀ°ÑÑX°Ñò òÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÌÌó óÓ-ÓÓ  Óà@@Ü Ü Ìàò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ˜Ø ÐSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌKNOXVILLE,€DECEMBER€1998€SESSIONó óÐ p° ÐÓZÓñÖ;ñœßl€*6&"h 8 `€€Exbtt06°\¨ìlߛ⠰°$$âñÖ;ñÌÌÌÌÌJACKIE€W.€SMITHà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àBRADLEYÐ Ú   ÐCHANCERYÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ ¦æ  Ðâ $$°°âà ` àPlaintiff/Appelleeà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ ŒÌ  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌV.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àHon.€Earl€H.€Henley,à Ð àà (# àÐ X˜  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àChancellorÐ >~ ÐGEORGIA€PACIFIC€CORPORATIONà  à)à p àÐ $d Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àDefendant/Appellantà À àà  à)à p àNo.€03S01„9803„CH„00028Ð ð0 ÐÌòòò òÌÌÌÌFor€the€Appellant:à  àà h àà À àà  àà p àFor€the€Appellee:Ð l¬ Ðó óóóÌWilliam€G.€McCaskill,€Jr.à h àà À àà  àà p àBert€BatesÐ >~ Ð2908€Poston€Ave.à  àà h àà À àà  àà p àP.O.€Box€177Ð $d ÐNashville,€Tenn.€€37203à h àà À àà  àà p àCleveland,€Tenn.€€37364„0177Ð  J ÐÌÌÌÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÐ n#®# ÐÌò òòòMembers€of€Panel:Ð @%€!% ÐÌó óóóE.€Riley€Anderson,€Chief€JusticeÐ 'X#' ÐJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌÓN ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ Ž=Î9@( ÐAFFIRMED.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àTHAYER,€Special€JudgeÐ À ÐÌÓÓà ` àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workers'ÏCompensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€findings€ofÏfact€and€conclusions€of€law.€Ìà ` àThe€appeal€has€been€perfected€by€the€defendant„employer,€Georgia€PacificÏCorporation,€from€the€action€of€the€trial€court€in€awarding€the€employee,€Jackie€W.ÏSmith,€50%€loss€of€hearing€in€both€ears.€€The€trial€judge€dismissed€a€claim€for€a€backÏinjury€and€the€appeal€only€relates€to€the€award€of€benefits€for€the€loss€of€hearingÏinjury.Ìà ` àOn€appeal€the€employer€contends€(1)€proper€notice€of€the€loss€of€hearingÏinjury€was€not€given,€(2)€the€claim€was€not€filed€within€the€one€year€statute€ofÏlimitations€period,€and€(3)€the€50%€award€is€excessive€and€should€be€reduced.Ìà ` àPlaintiff€has€worked€at€defendantððs€plant€for€about€25€years.€€He€testified€thatÏthere€was€a€great€deal€of€noise€at€the€production€line€and€his€job€duties€required€himÏto€wear€a€headset€which€covered€his€ears€and€he€had€to€communicate€with€co„¼workers€with€a€microphone€attached€to€the€head€unit.€€He€stated€he€was€55€years€ofÏage€and€had€a€sixth€grade€level€of€education.Ìà ` àThe€record€indicates€the€employer€tested€employees€yearly€for€hearing€lossÏand€that€during€November€1995,€plaintiff€received€a€letter€from€defendant€indicatingÏthat€recent€testing€showed€a€reduced€hearing€level€and€that€he€may€need€to€see€aÏdoctor€for€an€examination€and€possible€medical€treatment.€€Upon€receiving€the€formÏletter,€he€stated€he€asked€Shawna€Burke,€the€companyððs€human€resourceÏadministrator,€to€send€him€to€a€doctor€for€this€testing.€€He€said€she€refused€ñÓ;ñœñÓ;ñhisñÓ;ñ›ñÓ;ñÏrequest€saying€the€workersðð€compensation€carrier€would€not€pay€for€it.€€PlaintiffÏcontinued€to€work€and€eventually€went€to€see€Dr.€Timothy€Viser€for€the€examination.€ÏThis€visit€was€on€May€14,€1996€and€he€also€saw€the€doctor€during€August€1996€and€aÏlast€visit€on€September€30,€1997.Ìà ` àPlaintiff€testified€that€on€the€first€visit€to€the€doctor€he€was€told€the€hearing€lossÏwas€probably€due€to€conditions€at€work€but€he€was€not€told€he€had€a€permanentÏinjury€until€the€last€visit.€€He€stated€on€the€second€visit€the€doctor€requested€that€heÏwait€one€year€before€returning€for€the€third€visit€and€further€testing.Ð t;´7> Ðà ` àPlaintiff€had€filed€a€complaint€on€March€19,€1997€for€a€back€injury€and€theÏcomplaint€was€amended€on€December€16,€1997€alleging€the€loss€of€hearing€injury.Ìà ` àThe€review€of€the€case€is€de€novo€on€the€record€accompanied€by€a€Ïpresumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact€unless€the€preponderance€ofÏthe€evidence€is€otherwise.€€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).€Ìà ` àThe€first€issue€raises€a€question€ñÓ;ñœñÓ;ñof€whetherñÓ;ñ›ñÓ;ñ€notice€of€the€hearing€loss€injuryÏwas€rendered€to€defendant.€€The€notice€of€injury€statute,€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„201,€generallyÏrequires€that€written€notice€of€injury€be€given€within€30€days€after€the€occurrence€ofÏan€accident€unless€the€employer€has€actual€notice€of€such€event.€€The€statute€alsoÏprovides€that€failure€to€comply€with€the€notice€requirement€may€be€excused€where€aÏreasonable€excuse€exists.Ìà ` àIn€gradual€injury€cases,€it€is€difficult€to€pinpoint€when€an€accidental€injuryÏoccurs€when€the€injury€results€from€repetitive€work„related€causes€over€a€long€periodÏof€time.€€Thus,€the€rule€has€developed€that€in€this€type€of€case€the€accidental€injury€isÏconsidered€generally€to€have€occurred€when€the€employee€becomes€disabled€toÏwork.€€òòBarker€v.€Home„Crest€Corporation,óó€805€S.W.2d€373,€375€(Tenn.€1991);€òòBrownÐ ´ô ÐShoe€Company€v.€Reed,óó€350€S.W.2d€65,€70„71€(Tenn.€1961).Ð „ Ä  Ðà ` àThe€employer€contends€that€it€only€had€notice€of€the€loss€of€hearing€claim€aÏfew€weeks€before€the€trial€and€this€resulted€from€a€communication€from€theirÏattorney.€€During€plaintiffððs€examination,€he€testified€that€he€had€complained€aboutÏthe€noise€to€Gary€Auberry€and€to€Shawna€Burke€and€on€page€19€of€the€transcript€theÏfollowing€question€and€answer€appears:ÌñÏ;ñÒ` ÒñÏ;ñQ.à ¸ àDid€you€discuss€with€Shawna€whether€or€not€in€your€opinion€that€the€ñÓ;ñœñÓ;ññÐ;ñÐ P+', Ðà ¸ àñÐ;ñhearingñÓ;ñ›ñÓ;ñ€environment€that€you€were€working€in€caused€that€hearing€ñÓ;ñœñÓ;ññÑ;ñà (# àÐ -\). ÐñÑ;ñloss?ñÓ;ñ›ñÓ;ñÌA.à ¸ àYeah.€€I€talked€to€her€about€it,€yeah.Ð ´0ô,2 ÐñÏ;ñÒ` ÒñÏ;ñOn€cross„examination,€plaintiff€was€asked€why€he€did€not€go€back€and€notify€hisÏemployer€the€doctor€had€said€the€loss€of€hearing€was€work„related.€€He€replied€thatÏthe€company€was€aware€it€was€work„related€because€they€had€sent€him€the€letterÏconcerning€the€loss€of€hearing.Ìà ` àThe€reasons€for€the€statutory€notice€requirement€are€(1)€to€give€the€employerÏan€opportunity€to€make€an€investigation€while€the€facts€are€accessible€and€(2)€toÐ |;¼7> Ðenable€the€employer€to€provide€timely€and€proper€treatment€for€the€injured€employee.€ÏòòMcCaleb€v.€Saturn€Corp.,óó€910€S.W.2d€412€(Tenn.€1995);€òòMasters€v.€IndustrialÐ ŒÌ ÐGarments€Mfg.€Co.,óó€595€S.W.2d€811€(Tenn.€1980).Ð \œ Ðà ` àUnder€all€of€the€circumstances€of€the€case,€we€are€of€the€opinion€the€noticeÏdefense€is€not€valid.€€Notice€of€injury€and€notice€of€lawsuit€are€two€distinct€things.€€WeÏbelieve€defendant€is€insisting€on€lack€of€notice€of€the€œlñÔ;ñeñÔ;ññÕ;ñañÕ;ñtter›€in€respect€to€this€issue.Ìà ` àThe€second€issue€deals€with€the€statute€of€limitations.€€Plaintiff€testified€thatÏafter€he€was€told€by€the€doctor€that€his€loss€of€hearing€was€work„related,€he€thoughtÏthe€condition€was€treatable€and€was€not€aware€he€had€sustained€a€permanent€injuryÏuntil€September€30,€1997.€€His€suit€against€defendant€for€an€alleged€back€injury€wasÏamended€on€December€16,€1997€to€assert€the€hearing€loss€injury.Ìà ` àThe€general€rule€is€that€the€date€the€employeeððs€disability€manifests€itself€to€aÏperson€of€reasonable€diligence,€not€the€date€of€the€accident,€triggers€the€statute€ofÏlimitations.€€òòHibner€v.€St.€Paul€Mercury€Ins.€Co.,óó€619€S.W.2d€109€(Tenn.€1981);Ð $d ÐòòJones€v.€Home€Indem.€Ins.€Co.,óó€679€S.W.2d€445€(Tenn.€1984).Ð ô4 Ðà ` àWe€are€of€the€opinion€the€statute€of€limitations€did€not€commence€to€run€in€thisÏcase€until€September€30,€1997,€when€plaintiff€was€first€informed€he€had€sustained€aÏpermanent€loss€of€hearing.€€Thus,€the€amended€complaint€which€was€filed€about€2€ððÏmonths€later€on€December€16,€1997€was€timely.Ìà ` àThe€last€issue€relates€to€the€award€of€50%€loss€of€hearing€in€both€ears.€€Dr.ÏViser,€who€was€board€certified€in€otolaryngology,€testified€plaintiff€had€a€16.25Ïbinaural€hearing€impairment.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€theÏaward€of€50%€legal€disability€to€both€ears.€€òòSee€Hawkins€v.€Consolidated€AluminumÐ X+˜', ÐCorp.,óó€742€S.W.2d€253€(Tenn.€1987)€where€18%€binaural€disability€was€fixed€as€aÐ (-h). Ð50%€permanent€injury€award€for€loss€of€hearing€resulting€from€a€noisy€workÏenvironment.Ìà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€are€taxed€toÏdefendant„employer.ÌÔ% € ÔÓÓÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌÌÐ r<²8? ÐñÓ;ññË;ñœñË;ññÓ;ñ‡ñÒ;ññË;ñÌñË;ñ›ñË;ñÌñË;ññÒ;ñCONCUR:ñÓ;ñ›ñÓ;ñÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌE.€Riley€Anderson,€Chief€JusticeÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€Judge€œñá;ñÐ  ¼ ü  Ðñá;ññâ;ñ›ñâ;ññâ;ñÒøÒÔ‡¼ñ} ¼XXØ®ÔÓ  Óà0 @P àà @¨ àÔ#†XØ®X ¼¼ñ}*#ÔÔ‡Š¸ß ŠXXØ®ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEE€€Ô#†XØ®X ŠŠ¸ßf*#ÔÐ À ÐÓ*ÓÓ  Óßl€*6&"h 8 `€€Ex¹tt06°¸¨çlßâ ø°ø°ø$ø$âà@@.àà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àÌà @P àà @¨ àà @ àà @X à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€AT€KNOXVILLEÌÓð*ÓÒøÒâ °°$$âà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H àà   àà ø àà P àà ¨ àÌà è àÌà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H àà   àà ø àà P àà ¨ à¼à è àà @ àà ˜ àÌà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H à€€€à   àÐ  \ Ðà 8 àà à àà 8 àà  àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H àà   àà ø àÌâ $$°°âÒ(HÒà è àà @ àÌ€€€€€€€€JACKIE€W.€SMITH,à ð àà H àà   à)à ø à€BRADLEY€CHANCERYÐ Î   Ðà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H à€€€€€€€à   à)€à ø à€No.€97„088Ð ´ ô  ÐÒ (Òà è àPlaintiff„Appellee,à ð àà H à€€€€€€€à   à)à ø àà P àà ¨ àà  àÐ šÚ  ÐÓ àœX°œXÓà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð à€€€€à H à€€€€€€€à   à)à ø àà P àà ¨ àà  àà X àÐ €À  Ðà è àà @ àà ˜ à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€€€€€€€€€No.€€03S01„9803„CH€„¼00028Ìà è àv.à @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H à€€€€€€€à   à)Ð 2r Ðà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H à€€€€€€€à   à)Ð X Ѐ€€€€€€€GEORGIA€PACIFIC€CORPORATION€)€à ø àHon.€Earl€H.€Henleyà X à€€€€€€€€€Ð þ> Ѐ€€€€€€€€€à @ àà ˜ àà ð à€€€€€€€€€€€à   à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à ¨ àChancellorÐ ä$ Ðà è àDefendant/Appellantà H à.à   à€à ø à)à P àÐ Ê  Ðà è àà @ à€€€€€€€€à ˜ àà ð àà H àà   à)à ø àÐ °ð ÐÌà è àà @ à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à   àÓ€Óà ø àà P àà ¨ àà  à€€€€€€Ð |¼ Ðà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð à€€€€€JUDGMENT€ORDERÌ€€€€€€€€Ô‡XB4 XXXØ®Ôà è àà @ à€This€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€€€€Ð .n Ðà è àrecord,€including€the€order€of€referral€to€the€SpecialÏà è àWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel's€¼à è àMemorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€à X àÐ X! Ðà è àfact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€are€à ¨ àincorporated€Ð Y ™# Ðà è àherein€by€reference;ÌÌà è à€€€€€€Whereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€¼à è àmemorandum€Opinion€of€the€Panel€should€be€accepted€€€€€Ï€€€€€and€approved;€andÌÌà è à€€€€€€€It€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€€€€€€Ï€€€€€findings€of€facts€and€conclusions€of€law€are€adopted€€€Ï€€€€€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€€€€Ï€€€€€the€Judgment€of€the€Court.ÌÌà è à€€€€€€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€defendant,€¼à è àGeorgia€Pacific€Corporation€and€William€Ritchie€Pigue,€Ï€€€€€surety,for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€¼à è àÌ€€€€€€03/25/99Ô#†XØ®X XXB4e5#Ôñâ;ñ›