ÿWPC" …U/BV %˜U.žrÌ 0> Ë n¯Û 0rŠüw.ü4* 0J> 0Tˆ 0^Ü 0h: 0r¢ 0| 0† 0 1u¦ 0d$˜B)¼DCå AM( Bu,’f¾v~$vÓ¢ D3u 0@¨ AOè Æ7! 0Dý! D/A" Bp"ô\  `*Times New RomanTTô"ÝÆÿA€ArialTT'    0 .   (e2Œþ$©©Ý ƒ †!ÝÔ€Xä&XôôÔÔ€XXXXä&ÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý3|x«ô\  `*Times New RomanTTôôCô\  PŽ6QôP"ÝÆÿA€ArialTTomanTTXXaÝÆÿptQXpô\  `*Times New RomanTT¼¼^ô\  PŽ6Q¼Pô\  `*Times New RomanTTXXPô\  PŽ6QXPô\  `*Times New RomanTT  kô\  PŽ6Q Pô\  `*Times New RomanTT6ô\  PŽ6QPô\  `*Times New RomanTT,,)ô\  PŽ6Q,P(J†$¡¡Ô€X”bXôôÔÔ€XNâXXX”bÔÓ  ÓÓ€ Vîƒo!( 2 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 Ý ƒ !ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ 8 ÒÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ@  ÔÚ  ÚÚ  ÚÔA  ÔÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓ Ý ƒ !ÝÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ 8 ÒÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ@  ÔÚ  ÚÚ  ÚÔA  ÔÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓ% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d "Ý ƒ !ÝÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òDecember€6,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  inion Geneva ÒÒ  inion Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ 8 ÒÖ€ ÖÑ  ÑÔ&  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÖ€!ÖÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€¼ÔÔ€ÔÞ ÞÌIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌÙ€€ÙÙ€€ÙßR€$&#A1-j|F;` Å `€€@ÿRßÌAT€JACKSONÌ(August€29,€1996€Session)ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓCAROLYN€S.€TODD,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€€DYER€CIRCUITÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€XÔ€Ô€¼Ô€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee,€€€€€Ô€ Ô€Ô€¼Ô€)€€€€€Hon.€J.€Steven€Stafford,Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€ÔÔ€Ô€Ô€¼ÔÔ€Ô€)€€€€€Judge.Ìv.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€XÔ€Ô€¼Ô€Ô€,ÔÔ€Ô€Ô€¼ÔÔ€Ô)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€ôÔ€Ô€¼Ô€€Ô€Ô)€€€€€No.€02S01„9603„CV„00023ÌST.€PAUL€FIRE€AND€MARINE€€€€€€€Ô€,ÔÔ€Ô€Ô€¼ÔÔ€Ô€€€)ÌINS.€COMPANY,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€ÔÔ€Ô€Ô€¼ÔÔ€Ô€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€ÔÔ€Ô€Ô€¼ÔÔ€Ô€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellant.€€€€€€)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òòFor€Appellee:ÌóóÌMarianna€Williams€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Steve€TaylorÌAshley,€Ashley€&€Arnold€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Memphis,ÏTennesseeÌDyersburg,€TennesseeÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÔ'  ÔÌÌÌÌòòMembers€of€Panelóó:ÌÌLyle€Reid,€Associate€Justice,€Supreme€CourtÌF.€Lloyd€Tatum,€Special€JudgeÌJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓMODIFIED€IN€PARTÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Loser,€JudgeÓ ¹ ÓÌòòÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓMEMORANDUM€OPINIONóóÓ rAÓÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓà àà àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€beenÏreferred€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€AppealsÏPanel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€section€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€ofÏfindings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€In€this€appeal,€theÏemployer's€insurer€contends€(1)€benefits€should€be€deniedÏbecause€of€a€false€application€for€employment,€(2)€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€awarding€medical€expenses€not€authorized€byÍit,€(3)€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€temporary€totalÏdisability€benefits€from€the€date€of€the€injury€untilÏSeptember€13,€1993€and€(4)€the€award€of€medical€benefitsÏbased€on€ten€percent€permanent€partial€disability€to€theÏbody€as€a€whole€is€excessive.€€The€employee€contends€theÏaward€of€permanent€partial€disability€benefits€isÏinadequate.€€As€discussed€below,€the€panel€has€concludedÏthe€award€of€temporary€total€disability€benefits€should€beÏmodified€and€the€judgment€otherwise€affirmed.Ìà àà àThe€employee€or€claimant€is€thirty„four€and€has€anÏeighth€grade€education.€€She€first€completed€a€jobÏapplication€on€September€25,€1989€and€was€hired€as€aÏflagman€at€Ford€Construction€Company,€but€performed€otherÏjobs,€including€driving€a€truck€and€shoveling€or€sweepingÏasphalt.€€Because€the€work€was€seasonal,€she€signed€threeÏsubsequent€applications.€€In€her€applications,€the€claimantÏdenied€any€previous€back€injury€or€workers'€compensationÏclaim.Ìà àà àIn€both€respects,€the€application€was€false.€€SheÏhad€in€fact€received€in€the€past€benefits€for€a€back€injury,Ïfrom€another€employer.Ìà àà àOn€July€2,€1992,€the€claimant€injured€her€backÏwhile€shoveling€asphalt€at€work.€€She€continued€working€untilÏJuly€16th,€when€she€was€referred€to€Dr.€J.€Canale.€€Dr.€CanaleÏdiagnosed€myositis€and€muscle€inflammation,€for€which€heÏtreated€her€conservatively€until€August€27th,€when€heÍreleased€her€to€return€to€work€without€restrictions,Ïlimitations€or€permanent€impairment.Ìà àà àThe€claimant€informed€the€employer€that€she€wasÏdissatisfied€with€Dr.€Canale€and€asked€to€be€referred€toÏanother€doctor.€€In€her€testimony,€she€said€the€insuranceÏcompany€failed€to€provide€her€with€the€name€of€anotherÏdoctor€or€a€list€from€whom€she€could€have€made€a€choice.€ÏThe€trial€judge€apparently€believed€her.Ìà àà àOn€the€advice€of€her€attorney,€she€saw€Dr.€JamesÏMcAfee€on€September€11,€1992.€€Dr.€McAfee€diagnosedÏcervical€strain,€for€which€he€prescribed€physical€therapy€andÏnerve€blocks.€€The€doctor€opined€the€injury€was€related€toÏthe€injury€at€work€and€estimated€the€claimant's€permanentÏimpairment€at€eight€percent€to€the€whole€body,€fromÏappropriate€guidelines.€€The€claimant€incurred€medicalÏexpenses€for€care€prescribed€by€Dr.€McAfee€totalingÏ$5,974.00,€which€the€trial€court€found€to€be€reasonable€andÏreasonably€necessary.Ìà àà àWe€find€in€the€record€no€medical€evidence€that€theÏclaimant's€injury€of€July€2,€1992€was€causally€related€to€herÏprevious€back€injury.€€The€medical€proof€was€by€deposition.Ìà àà àThe€trial€court€awarded€temporary€total€disabilityÏbenefits€for€66€weeks,€permanent€partial€disability€benefitsÏon€the€basis€of€ten€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole€andÍmedical€benefits€of€$5,974.00.€€Appellate€review€is€de€novoÏupon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€aÏpresumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact,€unlessÏthe€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€section€50„6„225(e)(2).€€Conclusions€of€law€are€subjectÏto€de€novo€review€without€any€presumption€of€correctness.€ÏòòPresley€v.€Bennettóó,€860€€S.W.2d€€857€(Tenn.€1993).Ìà àà àWhere€the€trial€judge€has€seen€and€heard€theÏwitnesses,€especially€if€issues€of€credibility€and€weight€toÏbe€given€oral€testimony€are€involved,€considerableÏdeference€must€be€accorded€those€circumstances€on€review.€ÏòòHumphrey€v.€David€Witherspoon,€Inc.óó,€734€€S.W.2d€€315€(Tenn.Ï1987).€€This€tribunal€is,€however,€as€well€situated€to€gaugeÏthe€weight,€worth€and€significance€of€deposition€testimonyÏas€the€trial€judge.€€òòSeiber€v.€Greenbrier€Industries,€Inc.óó,€906€ÏS.W.2d€€444€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓ(1)€False€Application€for€Employment.ÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓà àà àA€false€statement€in€an€employee's€application€forÏemployment€will€bar€recovery€of€workers'€compensationÏbenefits€if€all€three€of€the€following€elements€exist:€first,Ïthe€employee€must€have€knowingly€and€willfully€made€aÏfalse€representation€as€to€her€physical€condition;€second,Ïthe€employer€must€have€relied€upon€the€falseÏrepresentation€and€such€reliance€must€have€been€aÏsubstantial€factor€in€the€hiring;€and€third,€there€must€haveÏbeen€a€causal€connection€between€the€false€representationÍand€the€injury.€€òòFederal€Copper€and€Aluminum€Company€v.ÏDickeyóó,€493€€S.W.2d€€463€(Tenn.€1973).€€The€causal€connectionÏrequired€is€a€factual€showing€that€the€injury€upon€which€theÏclaim€is€based€is€causally€related€to€the€employee's€priorÏinjury€or€physical€condition€which€was€wrongfully€concealedÏfrom€the€employer.€€òòDaniels€v.€Gudis€Furniture€Co.óó,€541€ÏS.W.2d€€941€(Tenn.€1976).€€Ìà àà àAs€already€noted,€the€evidence€fails€to€establishÏthe€required€causal€connection.€€Consequently,€the€evidenceÏfails€to€preponderate€the€findings€of€the€trial€court€withÏrespect€to€this€issue.ÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓ(2)€Medical€Expenses.ÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓà àà àWhen€a€covered€employee€suffers€an€injury€byÏaccident€arising€out€of€and€in€the€course€of€employment,€theÏemployer€is€required€to€provide,€free€of€charge€to€theÏinjured€employee,€all€medical€and€hospital€care€which€isÏreasonably€necessary€on€account€of€the€injury.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€section€50„6„204.€€The€employer€is€required€to€provideÏthe€injured€employee€with€the€names€and€addresses€of€threeÏor€more€reputable€physicians€or€surgeons€not€associatedÏtogether€in€practice€if€available€in€the€community€fromÏwhich€the€injured€employee€may€have€the€privilege€ofÏselecting€the€operating€surgeon€or€attending€physician.€€Id.Ìà àà àIf€an€employer€fails€to€give€the€employee€theÍopportunity€to€choose€the€treating€physician€from€a€panel€ofÏat€least€three,€it€risks€having€to€pay€all€reasonable€medicalÏexpenses€incurred€for€treatment€of€the€employee's€injuriesÏby€a€physician€of€the€employee's€own€choosing.€€òòLindsey€v.ÏStrohs€Cos.,€Inc.óó,€830€€S.W.2d€€899€(Tenn.€1992).€€When€thisÏclaimant€expressed€dissatisfaction€with€Dr.€Canale,€itÏbecame€the€duty€of€the€employer€or€its€insurer€to€provide€aÏlist€of€three€doctors€other€than€Dr.€Canale.€€Because€theÏevidence€in€this€regard€was€in€the€form€of€oral€testimony,€itÏfails€to€preponderate€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€courtÏas€to€the€second€issue.ÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓ(3)€Temporary€Total€Disability€Benefits.ÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓà àà àTemporary€total€disability€refers€to€the€injuredÏemployee's€condition€while€disabled€to€work€because€of€theÏinjury€and€until€the€employee€€recovers€as€far€as€the€natureÏof€the€injury€permits.€€òòRedmond€v.€McMinn€Countyóó,€209€€Tenn.€Ï463,€354€€S.W.2d€€435€(1962).€€Benefits€for€such€disability€areÏpayable€until€the€injured€employee€is€able€to€return€to€work.€ÏòòSimpson€v.€Satterfieldóó,€564€€S.W.2d€€953€(Tenn.€1978).€€TheÏemployee€may€not€extend€the€period€by€simply€not€working.Ìà àà àFrom€our€independent€examination€of€the€record,Ïwe€find€that€Dr.€Canale€was€in€the€best€position€to€determineÏwhen€the€claimant€was€able€to€return€to€work.€€Accordingly,Ïwe€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÏfindings€of€the€trial€court€as€to€this€issue€and€in€favor€of€aÏfinding€that€she€was€totally€disabled€from€July€16,€1992Íuntil€August€27,€1992.€€The€judgment€is€modified€to€provideÏtemporary€total€disability€benefits€between€those€dates.ÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓ(4)€Permanent€Partial€Disability€Benefits.ÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓà àà àOnce€the€causation€and€permanency€of€an€injuryÏhave€been€established€by€expert€testimony,€the€trial€judgeÏmay€consider€many€pertinent€factors,€including€age,€jobÏskills,€education,€training,€duration€of€disability€and€jobÏopportunities€for€the€disabled,€in€addition€to€anatomicalÏimpairment,€for€the€purpose€of€evaluating€the€extent€of€aÏclaimant's€permanent€disability.€€òòMcCaleb€v.€Saturn€Corp.óó,Ï910€€S.W.2d€€412€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€judgment€fails€toÏpreponderate€against€the€trial€court's€finding€of€ten€percentÏpermanent€partial€disability.ÌÓ` ‚£‰XÓà à€€€€As€modified€with€respect€to€temporary€totalÏdisability€benefits,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÏaffirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€defendant„appellant.Ó *bÓÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓ_______________________________Ó ÓÌÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Joe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€JudgeÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌLyle€Reid,€Associate€JusticeÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌF.€Lloyd€Tatum,€JudgeÌÑ€'ÑÇÑ ` ÑÔ€Ôà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÔ€XÔÌÌÌÓ#` p…X LÐ X#ÓCAROLYN€S.€TODD,à àà à)à àDYER€CIRCUITÌÓ#` p` LÐ X#Óà à)à àNO.€92„501ÌÓ` p` ¸ ’XÓà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à à)à àÌÓ#` p` ¸ LÐ X#Óà àà à)à àHon.€J.€Steven€Stafford,Ìvs.à àà à)à àJudgeÌà àà à)ÌST.€PAUL€FIRE€AND€MARINE€à à)ÌINSURANCE€COMPANY,à à)à àNO.€02S01„9603„CV„00023Ìà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à à)à àMODIFIED€IN€PART;Ìà àà à)à àAFFIRMED.ÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€¼ÔJUDGMENT€ORDERÔ€XÔÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÌÓ` p`  ’XÓà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€theÏorder€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€theÏPanel's€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference.Ìà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€OpinionÏof€the€Panel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€isÍmade€the€judgment€of€the€Court.Ìà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€Appellant,€and€surety,€for€which€execution€mayÏissue€if€necessary.Ìà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€this€6th€day€of€December,€1996.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌ(Reid,€J.,€not€participating)ÌÌÌÌÔ€ÔÔ€¼Ô