ÿWPCÁ. …# VU La %­ 0 (³4ÛïU:þ8 0l@ 0D¬ Æð 0J¶ 0T w@T 0^” D3ò Æ% Æë Ʊ 0hw 0rß 0|Q 0†Í 0S 1uã BX 0du 0@ÙU*B)CDCl AM¯íüˆé÷q¨hp-ó õ!6…#»$v~Ë%vÓI' AO-Æk- 0D1. D/u. B¤.˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 .@FÐ Z‹4GeoSlab703 Lt BT LightX($¡¡obF"x3|x!"Arial Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(3Ã$òòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÷  ø  ù  ú  û Ó€!U!  ! !Ó€!2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô))))'ÿÿdxd‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 526 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 !"$% ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) dP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d88887Border 1dd€-9Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ãÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€7ÔÔ€7ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€7XÔÌÌò òFebruary€25,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€7ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ~Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€7ÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóNo€direct€testimony€about€the€plaintiff€was€ever€presented€in€this€case.€ÏThe€facts€summarized€here€are€derived€from€the€pleadings,€medical€records,Ïand/or€briefs.€€Neither€party€has€complied€fully€with€T.R.A.P.€27(a)(6),€whichÏrequires€that€all€facts€recited€in€the€brief€must€be€supported€by€appropriateÏreferences€to€the€record.€€Many€facts€asserted€by€both€parties€in€the€briefs€areÏnot€found€anywhere€in€the€record.€€This€has€made€our€review€very€difficult.Ì íÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€7ÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóNo€deposition€or€formal€report€from€Dr.€Scott€is€found€in€the€record.€ÏCopies€of€his€office€notes€and€correspondence€are€contained€in€the€file€for€caseÏ134143„8,€filed€by€agreement€as€a€supplement€to€the€record€in€this€court€onÏNovember€4,€1996.€€As€filed,€pages€5€and€€6€of€his€office€notes€appear€to€beÏmissing.€€Thus,€no€information€exists€concerning€plaintiffððs€treatment€from€MarchÏ8€to€October27,€1991.€€Plaintiff€concedes€in€her€brief€that€on€March€21,€1991€Dr.ÏScott€diagnosed€plaintiff€with€ulnar€neuropathy€of€the€left€elbow,€and€ulnar€nerveÏentrapment€secondary€to€chronic€repetitive€flection€and€extension€of€her€elbowÏat€work.€€This€diagnosis€was€based€on€the€results€of€an€EMG€ordered€by€Dr.ÏScott.€€The€diagnosis€is€not€found€in€the€record.€€However,€the€results€of€theÏEMG€performed€on€March€13€are€included.€Ì žÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€7ÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThis€information€does€not€come€from€Dr.€Scottððs€notes;€chronologically,€itÏfalls€within€the€time€frame€for€which€his€notes€are€missing.€€However,€plaintiffÏprovided€this€information€to€Dr.€Rizk,€and€it€was€not€disputed€by€either€party.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€7ÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóConcerning€plaintiffððs€left€extremity€problems,€nothing€is€mentioned€inÏDr.€Scottððs€notes€until€October€28,€1991,€where€it€is€designated€ð ðNewÏComplaintðð.€€As€noted€in€footnote€2,€òòsupraóó,€certain€pages€of€the€notes€areÏmissing.€€However,€it€is€undisputed€that€plaintiff€contended€in€her€February€1991Ïcomplaint€that€she€had€problems€with€both€wrists.€€Dr.€Scottððs€records€alsoÏcontain€a€copy€of€his€January€8,€1991€letter€to€an€insurance€claimÏrepresentative.€€The€copy€includes€a€handwritten€annotation,€apparently€byÏplaintiff,€that€she€had€problems€with€both€hands€for€four€or€five€years.€Ì fÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€7ÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóNo€information€from€Dr.€Patterson€was€included€in€the€record.€€PlaintiffÏalso€was€treated€by€other€doctors€during€this€time,€but€their€findings€are€notÏincluded€in€the€record€either.Ì éÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€7ÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóNo€other€evidence€of€these€events€is€found€in€the€record.Ì ëÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€7ÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóIt€should€be€noted€that€Dr.€Rizkððs€testimony€on€this€issue€is€complicatedÏsomewhat€by€his€obvious€confusion,€during€part€of€the€questioning,€aboutÏwhether€certain€questions€pertained€to€right€or€left€side€problems.€€However,€heÏclearly€agreed€that€plaintiff€had€suffered€left€extremity€problems€as€early€asÏ1991.Ì ,Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€7ÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóSo€far€as€we€can€tell,€no€written€motion€to€amend€has€been€filed.€€TheÏproposed€substitute€letter€is€not€part€of€the€record.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€7ÔÔ€7ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€7XÔÌÌò òFebruary€25,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€7ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(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  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\Ñò òÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€7ÔÑ7€BœXXdædÈ7ÑœÞ ÞÌÌ›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌó óÌÌÌò òWILMA€USELTON,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€GEORGE€H.€BROWN,ÏJR.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGE€€€€€ÌCONWOOD€COMPANY,€LP,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02S01„9607„CV„00070̜ـ€ÙßR€:;9A1-j|xâ` Å `€€@ÿRß›à àDefendant/Appellee.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€APPELLANTóó:òòà àà àà àà àFOR€APPELLEEóó:€€ÌRichard€D.€Clickà àà àà àà àKenneth€R.€RudstromÌBradley€G.€Kirkà àà à€à àà à80€Monroe€Avenue,€Suite€500ÌBatemen€&€Childersà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103Ì1010€Cotton€Exchange€Bldg.ÌP.€O.€Box€3351ÌMemphis,€TN€38173„0351à àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONóóÌÌÌÌÌà@ àMEMBERS€OF€PANEL:ÌÌà@ àLYLE€REID,€JUSTICEÌà@ àJOE€C.€LOSER,€JR.,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌà@ àCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCLARK,€SPECIALÏJUDGEÌÓÓó óÌà àThis€workerððs€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€specialÏworkerððs€Ñ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ7€BœXXdæXXdæ7Ñcompensation€appeals€panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€withÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€SupremeÏCourt€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€On€appeal€plaintiff€contends€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€dismissing€her€complaint€for€benefits€based€on€a€priorÏsettlement€when€the€medical€proof€evidenced€that€she€sustained€a€separateÏcompensable€injury.€ÌÌà àThe€complaint€in€this€action€alleges€that€in€December€1993€plaintiffÏsustained€€ð ðinjuries€and/or€aggravations€of€prior€conditions€to€the€left€extremityÏand€left€elbow.ð ð€Defendant€answered€and€contended€that€plaintiffððs€action€wasÍbarred€based€on€a€prior€workerððs€compensation€settlement€between€theseÏparties€approved€by€a€different€judge€on€December€16,€1992.€€Oral€argument€ofÏcounsel€was€conducted€in€the€trial€court€on€March€12,€1996.€€The€deposition€ofÏDr.€Tewfik€E.€Rizk€and€certain€of€his€notes€were€provided€to€the€trial€judge,€alongÏwith€the€pleadings€from€the€prior€case€file.€€No€other€proof€was€presented.€€TheÏtrial€court€granted€defendantððs€oral€motion€to€dismiss,€finding€that€all€matters€inÏcontroversy€between€the€parties€had€been€resolved€in€the€prior€case.€€We€affirmÏthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àPlaintiff€is€a€female€resident€of€Tipton€County,€who€has€been€employedÏby€the€defendant,€a€manufacturer€of€tobacco€related€products,€for€several€yearsÏas€a€stem€picker€and€packer.× ƒ< ××  ×€€As€a€result€of€the€repetitive€nature€of€her€work,€inÏ1990€plaintiff€began€experiencing€problems€with€her€right€shoulder€and€rightÏhand.€€She€first€saw€Dr.€Dan€Scott€on€October€29,€1990.€€He€began€treating€herÏfor€problems€with€her€right€shoulder€and€her€right€and€left€wrists.€€In€NovemberÏ1990€plaintiff€Ñ ° ÑÑ ° Ñunderwent€a€carpal€tunnel€release€on€her€right€wrist,€a€mechanicalÏneurolysis€of€the€right€median€nerve,€and€a€resection€of€the€transverse€carpalÏligament.€ÌÌà àOn€February€25,€1991,€plaintiff€filed€a€complaint€for€workerððsÏcompensation€benefits€in€case€number€134143„8.€€The€complaint€alleged€theÏpresence€of€carpal€tunnel€syndrome€in€both€wrists,€and€right€shoulder€problems.ÌÌà àIn€March€1991€Dr.€Scott€ordered€an€EMG€on€plaintiffððs€left€side€also.€€HeÏapparently€made€a€diagnosis€of€problems€to€the€left€extremity€as€well.× ƒ= ××  ×ÌÌà àIn€May€1991€plaintiff€underwent€surgery€on€her€right€shoulder.× ƒ> ××  ×€€€InÏOctober€1991€she€complained€of€numbness€and€pain€in€her€left€hand,€both€onÏthe€ulnar€and€median€sides.œ× ƒ? ××  ×›€€An€EMG€was€performed,€and€plaintiff€ultimatelyÍwas€referred€to€Dr.€Stan€Patterson.× ƒ@ ××  ×€€In€April€1992,€Dr.€Dan€Scott€advisedÏdefendantððs€claims€representative€by€letter€that€plaintiff€had€sustained€a€fifteenÏ(15%)€permanent€partial€impairment€which€was€related€to€her€left€upperÏextremity.€€That€impairment€translated€to€seven€and€one„half€(7„1/2%)€percentÏimpairment€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€ÌÌà àIn€December€1992€a€settlement€was€entered€into€between€plaintiff€andÏdefendant€and€its€workerððs€compensation€carrier€in€case€134143„8.€€It€wasÏapproved€by€the€court€on€December€16,€1992.€€This€agreement€relied€on€theÏfindings€of€Dr.€Dan€Scott,€attached€as€exhibits€to€the€order.€€The€settlement€wasÏapproved€based€on€an€impairment€rating€of€thirty€(30%)€percent€to€the€body€as€aÏwhole,€to€be€paid€on€a€structured€basis.€€Medical€coverage€was€left€open€for€aÏperiod€of€two€years€from€the€date€of€entry€of€the€order.€€The€order€specificallyÏstated€that€plaintiffððs€injury€resulted€from€the€development€of€right€ulnar€nerveÏentrapment€and€impingement€syndrome€of€the€shoulder,€and€òòleftóó€carpal€tunnelÏsyndrome€secondary€to€repetitive€motion€and€use€at€work.ÌÌà àOn€November€4,€1993,€plaintiff€filed€a€motion€in€case€number€134143„8Ïto€amend€and€clarify€the€prior€order,€claiming€that€the€order€mistakenlyÍreferenced€an€injury€to€her€left€side.€€The€statements€made€in€her€motionÏcontradicted€the€prior€medical€reports€of€Dr.€Scott,€and€were€accompanied€onlyÏby€her€own€affidavit.€€In€January€1994€defendants€presented€an€affidavit€statingÏthat€$5,000.00€in€medical€benefits€had€been€paid€by€them€for€treatment€toÏplaintiffððs€left€extremity€since€March€1991.€€They€further€asserted€that€paymentsÏcontinued€to€be€made€for€left€extremity€treatment€after€the€1992€settlement.€ÏDefendant€representatives€also€asserted€that€they€would€not€have€settled€theÏcase€unless€plaintiffððs€claims€for€injuries€to€both€extremities€were€settled.€€AfterÏreview€of€all€affidavits,€the€circuit€judge€in€that€case€denied€plaintiffððs€motion€toÏamend€and€clarify€the€order€in€the€prior€settlement.€€His€order€was€enteredÏMarch€1,€1994.ÌÌà àIn€September€1994,€while€medical€expenses€were€still€open€under€theÏprior€order,€plaintiff€filed€this€new€action€for€workerððs€compensation€benefits€fromÏher€employer€under€docket€number€64686„2.€€She€alleged€that€she€hadÏsustained€new€Ñ  Ñinjuries€and/or€aggravations€of€prior€conditions€to€the€leftÏextremity€and€elbow.€€She€had€continued€to€work€for€the€defendant€throughoutÏthe€intervening€months.ÌÌà àThe€only€medical€evidence€submitted€in€the€second€case€was€theÏdeposition€of€Dr.€Tewfik€E.€Rizk€and€his€notes.€€Dr.€Rizk€first€saw€plaintiff€onÏSeptember€8,€1995€for€a€tingling€sensation€in€both€hands,€pain€in€both€upperÍextremities,€and€a€painful€right€shoulder.€€She€related€that€she€œhad€had›€rightÏshoulder€surgery€in€1991.€€She€told€him€she€developed€left€upper€extremityÏproblems€in€early€1995€and€had€a€left€carpal€tunnel€syndrome€releaseÏperformed€in€April€1995.× ƒA ××  ×€€His€diagnosis€was€that€plaintiff€had€bilateral€postÏcarpal€tunnel€syndrome,€right€shoulder€post€impingement€surgery,€andÏmyofacial€pain,€probably€myositis.€€Dr.€Rizk€testified€that€he€had€reviewedÏrecords€provided€to€him€by€plaintiff€which€showed€that€she€had€been€diagnosedÏas€having€problems€on€her€left€side€for€several€years€and€had€been€diagnosedÏas€having€carpal€tunnel€syndrome€on€the€left€as€far€back€as€1991.× ƒB ××  ×ÌÌà àOn€the€day€the€present€case€was€set€for€trial,€defendant€made€aÏpreliminary€motion€to€dismiss€the€case€on€the€basis€that€all€issues€had€beenÏresolved€in€the€previously„filed€case.€€After€arguments€of€counsel€and€a€reviewÏof€the€record€in€both€cases,€the€trial€judge€agreed€with€defendantððs€contentionÏand€dismissed€the€case.ÌÌà àAppellate€review€is€de€novo€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,Íaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact,€unlessÏthe€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50„6„225(e)(2).€€This€tribunal€is€required€to€conduct€an€independent€examination€ofÏthe€record€to€determine€where€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€lies.€€òòWingertÏv.€Government€Ñ ° Ñof€Sumner€Countyóó,€908€S.W.2d€921€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà àThe€burden€to€establish€each€element€of€a€workersðð€compensation€claimÏis€upon€the€employee€claiming€benefits.€€òòOster€v.€Yatesóó,€845€S.W.2d€215€(Tenn.Ï1992).€€One€of€these€elements€is€establishing€that€an€injury€occurred€duringÏemployment.€€òòSmith€v.€Empire€Pencil€Companyóó,€781€S.W.2d€833€(Tenn.€1989).€ÏAnother€requires€medical€proof€of€causation.€€òòTindall€v.€Waring€ParkÏAssociationóó,€725€S.W.2d€935€(Tenn.€1987).€€Further,€a€mere€increase€in€painÏfrom€the€aggravation€of€a€preexisting€condition€does€not€constitute€a€newÏcompensable€injury.€€òòCunningham€v.€Goodyear€Tire€&€Rubber€Companyóó,€811ÏS.W.2d€888,€890€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àAlthough€not€specifically€addressed€by€either€party,€this€court€mustÏdetermine€the€proper€standard€for€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€decision.€€If€the€oralÏmotion€made€and€granted€is€based€on€Rule€12.02(6)€of€the€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.,€thenÏwe€are€limited€to€consideration€of€the€allegations€in€the€complaint,€and€we€mustÏconstrue€the€complaint€liberally€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff,€taking€all€the€allegationsÏof€fact€therein€as€true.€€òòRandolph€v.€Dominion€Bank€of€Middle€Tennesseeóó,€826ÏS.W.2d€477,€478€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€If€the€trial€court€considered€affidavits€andÍother€extraneous€matters€in€making€its€determination,€then€the€review€of€itsÏdecision€must€be€based€on€the€standard€provided€under€Rule€56€for€motions€forÏsummary€judgment.€€òòKnierim€v.€Leatherwoodóó,€542€S.W.2d€806,€808€(Tenn.Ï1976).€€Because€it€is€clear€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€deposition€andÏnotes€of€Dr.€Rizk€and€the€pleadings€and€notes€of€Dr.€Scott€from€the€prior€case,Ïwe€will€review€its€decision€to€grant€the€motion€to€dismiss€using€the€standard€ofÏreview€for€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56€motions.€€There€must€be€no€genuine€issue€withÏregard€to€material€facts€relevant€to€the€claim€or€defense€embodied€in€the€motion,Ïand€the€moving€party€must€be€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€based€onÏthe€undisputed€facts.€€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€211€(Tenn.€1993).€€PlaintiffÏappears€to€agree€with€this€analysis,€since€her€argument€is€based€on€Rule€56.ÌÌà àDefendantsðð€motion€is€based€on€principles€of€res€judicata€and/orÏcollateral€estoppel.€€The€doctrine€of€res€judicata€bars€a€second€suit€between€theÏsame€parties€on€the€same€cause€of€action€with€respect€to€all€the€issues€whichÏwere€or€could€have€been€brought€in€a€former€suit.€€òòWall€v.€Wallóó,€907€S.W.2d€œ829,Ï832›€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€A€plaintiff€may€not,€by€disclaiming€or€failing€to€present€aÏparticular€fact€or€theory,€preserve€such€fact€or€theory€to€be€used€as€a€ground€forÏa€second€suit.€€òòMcKinney€v.€Widneróó,€746€S.W.2d€699€(Tenn.€App.€1987).€€TheÏdoctrine€of€collateral€estoppel€bars€the€same€parties€or€their€privies€fromÏrelitigating€in€a€second€suit€issues€that€were€actually€litigated€and€determined€inÏa€former€suit.€€òòDickerson€v.€Godfreyóó,€825€S.W.2d€692,€694€(Tenn.€1992).€€ThisÏdoctrine€does€not€apply€to€issues€that€were€not€necessary€for€the€decision€in€theÍformer€case,€òòScales€v.€Scalesóó,€564€S.W.2d€667,€670€(Tenn.€App.€1977),€orÏwhen€the€party€against€whom€the€preclusion€is€sought€did€not€have€a€full€andÏfair€opportunity€to€litigate€the€issue€in€the€prior€suit.€€òòMorris€v.€Esmark€Apparel,ÏInc.óó,€832€S.W.2d€563,€566€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€One€defending€on€the€basis€ofÏres€judicata€or€collateral€estoppel€must€demonstrate€that€(1)€the€judgment€in€theÏprior€case€was€final€and€concluded€the€rights€of€the€party€against€whom€theÏdefense€is€asserted,€and€(2)€both€cases€involved€the€same€parties,€the€sameÏcause€of€action,€or€identical€issues.€€òòScales€v.€Scalesóó,€564€S.W.2d€667,€670Ï(Tenn.€App.€1977).ÌÌà àPlaintiffððs€second€lawsuit€involved€the€same€parties,€the€same€cause€ofÏaction,€and€the€same€issue€regarding€permanent€impairment€to€her€leftÏextremity,€which€were€considered€and€determined€in€her€first€lawsuit.€€AlthoughÏthey€ultimately€settled€their€œfirst€suit,›€both€parties€had€full€opportunity€to€litigateÏthe€issues.€€The€medical€€proof€in€this€record€is€woefully€incomplete,€but€it€isÏclear€that€plaintiff€had€experienced€problems€with€her€left€extremity€as€far€backÏas€1991.€€The€judgment€order€in€case€number€143143„8€clearly€reflects€injuriesÏto€both€plaintiffððs€right€and€left€extremities.€€Dr.€Scottððs€April€1992€letter€confirmsÏthe€left€side€impairment.€€Defendants€made€payments€of€$5,000.00€for€treatmentÏfor€these€earlier€problems.€€Although€Dr.€Rizkððs€notes€reference€treatment€byÏother€physicians,€their€records€have€not€been€presented.€€The€medicalÏtestimony€provided€from€Dr.€Rizk€by€deposition€does€not€support€a€diagnosis€ofÏa€new€and€independent€injury.€€On€the€record€presented,€we€find€that€noÍgenuine€issue€exists€as€to€the€material€facts€relevant€to€this€issue.€€DefendantsÏare€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.ÌÌà àDuring€oral€argument€counsel€for€plaintiff€asserted€that€the€originalÏmedical€information€provided€by€Dr.€Dan€Scott€in€case€number€134143„8€wasÏwrong.€€He€stated€that€the€doctor€has€since€dictated€a€new€letter€making€theÏcorrections,€and€he€argued€that€he€should€be€permitted€to€amend€his€complaintÏand/or€the€proof€to€present€this€information.€€Counsel€for€defendants€objectedÏbecause€the€new€report€is€dated€more€than€one€year€after€the€originalÏsettlement€in€that€case.ÌÌà àPlaintiffððs€motion€to€amend€is€denied.€€No€authority€has€been€citedÏgranting€us€authority€to€permit€this€amendment€at€this€time.€€This€informationÏdoes€not€constitute€post„judgment€facts€under€Rule€14,€T.R.A.P.,€and€was€notÏfiled€in€compliance€with€Rule€22.× ƒC ××  ×€€Under€Rule€13(c),€T.R.A.P.,€we€are€prohibitedÏfrom€considering€other€facts€outside€the€record.€€To€the€extent€some€errorÏoccurred€in€the€findings€made€in€case€number€134143„8,€that€error€would€haveÏto€be€corrected€in€the€trial€court€by€application€under€Rule€59€or€Rule€60,€Tenn.ÏR.€Civ.€P.€€Such€a€motion€was€filed€and€denied,€and€no€appeal€has€been€taken.ÌÌÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€accordingly€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appealÏare€taxed€to€the€plaintiff/appellant.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€SPECIALÏJUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ______________________________________ÌLYLE€REID,€JUSTICEÌÌÌÌ______________________________________ÌJOE€C.€LOSER,€JR.,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌœÇÑ ` Ñà@ àÔ€7¼ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÔ€7XÔÌÌÌÓ#` p…XÈôÐ X#ÓWILMA€USELTON,à àà àà à)à àSHELBY€CIRCUITÌÓ#` p` ÈôÐ X#Óà à)à àNO.€64686€T.D.ÌÓ ` p` ¸ Èx‘X Óà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à à)à àÌÓ#` p` ¸ ÈôÐ X#Óà àà à)à àHon.€George€H.€Brown,€Jr.,Ìvs.à àà à)à àJudgeÌà àà à)ÌCONWOOD€COMPANY,€LP,à à)à àNO.€02S01„9607„CV„00070ÌßJ€:D;+'b|$ ` Å `€@ÿJßà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à à)à àAFFIRMED.ÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€7¼ÔJUDGMENT€ORDERÔ€7XÔÌÌÓÓÌÓ` 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€conclusionsÏof€law,€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€isÏmade€the€judgment€of€the€Court.Ìà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€Appellant,€and€surety,€for€which€executionÏmay€issue€if€necessary.Ìà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€this€25th€day€of€February,€1997.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌ(Reid,€J.,€not€participating)ÌÌÌÌ›