WPC RseSIOtyK_0h>"4ɞq&mLʷY\O E8pDJ/aC濠 dz:X`tP1W^˲"B3S%{fϗ:Lt"LqF(*/0TS2+`e]cLBm sSye9~XZa! D>Y&f7C 3%gbL96:9鮰1uYL&ÄSq\O|R>> 0qqqqqqqqqqqqq D+ AO 0D D/  B;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; AYX 0FwHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(H=$  HTR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalTX_XXX7XXdXXd7,  AZ"Arial Regularux-& 3|x:  XXXX KDX X Ad   FILED  KD   March10,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial RegularH :D:P:E:P:D:D:E:E::E((3~$ H=!  HTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXXXXX7XXdd7   `   0  (#$  0   XXXXKDXX Ad   FILED#XXKD#XX   March10,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk <4 9Z .Courier New Regular d$$$$'dxd(3$ H=!  HTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXXXXX7XXdd7  'dxd-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd-:M << deUULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(n$ (  1  ) H=!  HTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXXXX7HXXdd7  ::::X     #  @@  INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERS'COMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANELKNOXVILLE,DECEMBER1998SESSION  p P:l*6&"h 8 `Exbtt06\lߛ $$:::CHARLINESUERTH:: h     ) p ::MORGAN    CHANCERY:: `     h     ) p     $$ ` Plaintiff/Appellant h     ) p     `     h     )V. `     h     ) p Hon.::FrankV.Williams,III,:: (#  X   `     h     ) p ::Chancellor:: >~ ::REDKAPINDUSTRIES,INC.  ::  ) p  $d  `     h     ) ` Defendant/Appellee    ) p No.::03S019803CH00024:: 0  FortheAppellant:   h      p FortheAppellee: l  ::RogerL.Ridenour   h      p RobertR.Ramey >~ Ridenour,Ridenour&Fox h      p Upchurch,Colvard,York&Ramey $d P.O.Box530   h      p P.O.Box3549  J Clinton,Tenn.377170530     p Crossville,Tenn.385573549:: 0    MEMORANDUMOPINION  T$ $  MembersofPanel: &&f"&  E.RileyAnderson,ChiefJustice '>$( JohnK.Byers,SeniorJudgeRogerE.Thayer,SpecialJudgeP :: =9@ MODIFIED::and::AFFIRMED.::     p   THAYER,SpecialJudge   ` Thisworkers'compensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)forhearingandreportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.:: ` Plaintiff,CharlineSuerth,hasperfectedthisappealfromtheactionofthetrialcourtinawardingher7%permanentpartialdisabilitybenefitstothebodyasawholefromheremployer,RedKapIndustries,Inc. ` PlaintiffsustainedaworkrelatedinjuryduringOctober1995toherrightshoulder.Theorthopedicsurgeonwhotreatedhertestifiedbydepositionandstatedshehada3%medicalimpairmenttothebodyasawholeasaresultofasmallrupturedrotatorcufftearandadhesivecapsulitis.Surgerywasperformedandshemadearealgoodrecoveryandreturnedtoworkatawageequaltoorinexcessofwagespaidtoherpriortotheaccident.Herreturntoworkwassubjecttorestrictionsofnotliftingovertenpoundsandnooverheadworksoherelbowwouldremainbelowhershoulderheight. ` ThetrialcourtfoundtheprovisionsofT.C.A.506241(a)(1)controlledthedeterminationoftheawardofpermanentdisabilityandcappedtheawardat2timesthemedicalimpairmentof3%. ` PlaintiffconcedesthisapplicationofthestatutewasproperbutcontendsthetrialcourtwasinerrorinfailingtofindthattheemployeemetthreeoutofthefourconditionssetforthinT.C.A.506242. ` Review::of::thecaseonappealis::denovoontherecordaccompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthefindingsoffactunlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.T.C.A.::506225(e)(2).However,denovoreviewdoesnotcarryapresumptionofcorrectnesstoatrialcourtsconclusionoflawbutisconfinedtofactualfindings.UnionCarbidev.Huddleston,854S.W.2d87,91(Tenn. x2.4 1993). ` Thestatuteinquestionallowsadditionalbenefits inappropriatecaseswherepermanentmedicalimpairmentisfoundandtheemployeeiseligibletoreceivethemaximumdisabilityawardunder506241(a)(2)or(b).Insuchcasesthecourtmustfindbyclearandconvincingevidenceatleastthreeofthefollowingfouritems: x;7> ` (1)Theemployeelacksahighschooldiplomaorgeneralequivalencydiplomaortheemployeecannotreadorwriteonagradeeight(8)level;(2)Theemployeeisagefiftyfive(55)orolder;(3)Theemployeehasnoreasonablytransferablejobskillsfrompriorvocationalbackgroundandtraining;and(4)Theemployeehasnoreasonableemploymentopportunitiesavailablelocallyconsideringtheemployeespermanentmedicalcondition.::::`  ` Therecordindicatesplaintiffwas63yearsofageandhadcompletedtheeighthgrade.Shedidnothaveanyvocationaltrainingbutinthepastshehadworkedinabakery,asacashierandageneralfactoryworker.Atthetimeoftheaccidentandatthetrialbelow,shewasasewingmachineoperator. ` Twovocationalconsultantstestifiedinpersonbeforethetrialcourt.WitnessRodneyCaldwelltestifiedplaintiffdidnothaveanyskillstransferabletoanyothertypeofworkexceptworkshehadperformedinthepast.WitnessMikeGallowaytestifiedplaintiffhadskillstransferableonlywithintheindustryshewasworkingandthattherewerejobsoutsidetheindustryshecouldperform.Thesewouldbekitchenworker,housekeeper,hostess,laundryworker,cashier,parkinglotattendant,etc. ` Thus,itisclearfromtheevidenceplaintiffqualifiesunderthefirsttwoconditionsassheisover55yearsofageandonlyhasaneighthgradeeducation.Itisalsoapparentshedoesnotqualifyunderthefourthconditionasotherjobsareavailablewhichshecanperform. ` Thisappealhasresultedoverthetrialcourtsrulingthatshedoesnotqualifyunderthethirdcondition.Theargumentsonappealaswellasthosebeforethetrialcourtcenteredonquestionsregardingthemeaningofthewords skilland transferable. ` Wedonotfindtheseissuestobedeterminativeoftheappeal.OurclosereadingofthestatuteleadsustotheconclusionthatT.C.A.506242hasnoapplicationtothefactsoftheinstantcase.Atthetimeofthetrialbelow,Ms.Suerthhadreturnedtoworkatawageequaltoorgreaterthanwagesshewasreceivingpriortohersustainingtheinjury.Sinceherdisabilitywastohershoulder,theawardhadtobefixedtothebodyasawholeandthetrialcourtcorrectlyappliedthe2timescapsetforthinsubsection(a)(1)ofT.C.A.506241. t;7>  ` ThelanguageofT.C.A.506242isclearthatitonlyhasapplicationtocaseswheretheemployeeiseligibletoreceivethemaximumdisabilityawardundersubsections(a)(2)or(b)ofT.C.A.506241.Themaximumcapunderthesesectionsofthestatuteissixtimesthemedicalimpairmentandthiswouldonlyresultwhenthetrialcourtdeterminestheemployeehasnotreturnedtoworkaftertheinjuryorwhereareconsiderationisappropriateundersection(a)(2)afteranawardwasinitiallycappedundersubsection(a)(1). ` Sincethisappealdoesnotarisefromamaximumawardofsixtimesthe:medicla::medical:impairmentundersubsection(a)(2)or(b)ofT.C.A.506241,thestatutewhichplaintiffreliesuponhasnoapplication. ` Legislativeintentorpurposeistobeascertainedprimarilyfromthenaturalandordinarymeaningofthelanguageused,withoutforcedorsubtleconstructionthatwouldlimitorextendthemeaningofthelanguage.CarsonCreekResortsv. P Dept.ofRevenue,865S.W.2d1(Tenn.1993);NationalGasDistributors,Inc.v.  ` State,804S.W.2d66(Tenn.1991).Wherethelanguagecontainedwithinthefour 0 cornersofastatuteisplain,clearandunambiguousandtheenactmentiswithinlegislativecompetency, thedutyofthecourtsissimpleandobvious,namely,tosaysiclexscripta,andobeyit.Millerv.Childress,21Tenn.(2Hum.)319,32122 X"" (1841). ` WefindthelanguageofthestatuteinquestionisclearandunambiguousandholdthatT.C.A.506242doesnotapplytoawardsofdisabilitywhichareinitiallycappedat2timesthemedicalimpairmentundersection(a)(1)ofthestatute.:: ` Thejudgmentis::modifiedandaffirmed.::Costsoftheappealaretaxedto::plaintiffappellant.:: ` ::::%  ::    h      p :::  :::::: `     h     :___________________________________:: `     h     RogerE.Thayer,SpecialJudge:::̛:CONCUR:::________________________________E.RileyAnderson,ChiefJustice________________________________JohnK.Byers,SeniorJudge  j<8? ;XX ` #XX;)#XX   INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE#XX*#  @.l*6&"h 8 `Extt06l $$ `     h   ATKNOXVILLE $$   @     H      P      @     H      P      @     @     H     \  8   8   8      @     H     (H ""   @  ""CHARLINESUERTH,   H )  MORGANCHANCERY       @     H )  No.9659   (  PlaintiffAppellant,   H )     P         @     H )     P      X       @  H )  No.03S019803CH00024 f    v. @     H ) L     @     H )REDKAPINDUSTRIES,INC.::::񀀀::::)   P      X ::COMPAN::Y, X    @    : H ::::񀀀)::  :::)::::񀀀  ::Hon.FrankV.Williams,III. > Ѐ::   @    )Chancellor        ::񀀀  DefendantAppellee. H :񀀀:)     $    @     H        @    JUDGMENTORDER̀X} XXX  ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtupontheentire X  / record,includingtheorderofreferraltotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanel'sMemorandumOpinionsettingforthitsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference;  Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthatthe   X   % memorandumOpinionofthePanelshouldbeacceptedandapproved;and  Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanel'sfindingsoffactsandconclusionsoflawareadoptedandaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadetheJudgmentoftheCourt.  Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellant,CharlineSuerth,andRogerL.Ridenour,surety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. H  +%(7 03/10/99#XX XX}4#ԛ