ÿWPCí …# VU:a %› 0¸¡4Y m 0ü| 0Dx R¼  D3 w A 0JK 0T• 0^é 0hG 0r¯ 0|! 0† 0# 1u³U,( 0dTU,¸bäU*ìB)DC? AM‚•Ï BdU6v~· 0@5vÓu AOHÆ— 0D] D/¡ BИHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX( 7$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ` ` ÑÓÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑà~| xxxxxx3|xÂ(¬(3T6$¤¤Ý ƒ 7!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ` °ÑÓÓÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóH@ô@@ôøð AZ‹"Arial Regular****'ÿÿdxdÂÓ€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco- ù-< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ‹Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òMayÏ1,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó d< Œ 9p`(Courier NewPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  eskto Monaco ÒÒ  eskto Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€##X„d&ÓÑ#€##Xd#ÑÔ€%ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÑ€$ÑÑ7€Ÿ‡XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÑ  ÑÙ€€ÙßL€()';+'h|` à. `€€LßIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€PANELÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÓ  Óó óÌÌÌÌCLIFFORD€E.€WELLS,€à àà àà à)ÌÏà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJEFFERSON€CIRCUITÌà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà àà àà à)à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€BenÏHooper,Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌJEFFERSON€CITY€ZINC,€INC.à àà à)à àNO.€Ï03S01„9509„CV„00100Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(No.Ï12,507€Below)Ìà àDefendant/Appellantà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌandà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌSUE€ANN€HEAD,€Director,à àà à)ÌTennessee€Department€of€Labor,à à)ÌDivision€of€Workers'€Compensation,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appelleeà àà à)ÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó„„à àòòà àFor€the€Appelleeóó„„Ìà àà àà àà àòòSecond€InjuryÏFundóó:à àòòClifford€E.€Wellsóó:ó óÌÌA.€Benjamin€Strand,€Jr.à àCharles€W.ÏBursonà àà àJames€M.€DavisÌRebecca€D.€Sloneà àà àAttorneyÏGeneralà àà à214€N.€Jackson€St.ÌStrand€&€Goddardà àà à€€€€&€Reporterà àà àMorristown,€TN€€37814ÌP.O.€Box€219à àà àSandra€E.€KeithÌDandridge,€TN€€37725à àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà à1510€Parkway€TowersÌÔ% € Ôà àà àà àà à404€James€Robertson€Pkwy.Ìà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0499ÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONÌÌÌMembers€of€Panel:ó óóóÌÌChief€Justice€E.€Riley€AndersonÌSenior€Judge€John€K.€ByersÌSpecial€Judge€Roger€E.€ThayerÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òAFFIRMEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBYERS,€SeniorÏJudge€ÌAS€MODIFIEDòòÌÑ p ÑÓÓà àó óóóThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€SpecialÏWorkers'ÌCompensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€òòTenn.€CodeÏAnnóó.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€findings€ofÏfact€and€conclusions€of€law.ÌÔ€+Ôà àÔ€%ÔThe€employer€appeals€the€trial€court's€finding€that€the€plaintiff€is€100%Ïpermanently€and€totally€disabled,€its€apportionment€of€70%€of€the€liability€to€theÍemployer€and€30%€to€the€Second€Injury€Fund€and€its€commutation€of€the€award€toÏa€lump€sum.Ìà àWe€modify€the€judgment€to€void€the€commutation€of€the€award€to€a€lump€sumÏpayment.€€As€modified,€we€affirm€the€judgment.Ìà àThe€plaintiff,€51€at€the€time€of€trial,€has€a€ninth„grade€education.€€His€pastÏwork€experience€includes€farming,€paint€spray€mixing€and€operating€andÏsupervision€of€same,€millwrighting,€construction€and€working€in€the€defendant'sÏmines.Ìà àHe€began€working€for€the€defendant€in€1977.€€He€suffered€a€back€injury,Ïpossibly€in€the€course€and€scope€of€his€employment€with€the€defendant„employer,Ïin€1978.€€A€lumbar€laminectomy€was€performed€in€1985€as€a€result€of€that€injury.€ÏNo€workers'€compensation€claim€was€ever€filed,€and€the€employer€did€not€pay€anyÏmedical€expenses.€€Plaintiff€re„injured€his€back€on€February€21,€1992,€while€movingÏa€pump€in€the€course€of€his€employment.€€He€was€laid€off€by€the€employer€in€JuneÏ1994,€never€having€returned€to€work.Ìà àDr.€John€Bell,€an€orthopaedic€surgeon,€treated€the€plaintiff€after€his€1992Ïinjury.€€He€had€also€performed€the€plaintiff's€1985€surgery,€after€which€he€hadÏassigned€the€plaintiff€a€15%€permanent€impairment.€€He€assigned€the€plaintiff€a€fiveÏpercent€impairment€rating€for€the€1992€injury€under€the€most€recent€edition€of€theÏA.M.A.€Guides.€€He€restricted€the€plaintiff€from€lifting€more€than€35€poundsÏoccasionally,€20€pounds€frequently,€climbing€and€kneeling,€bouncing,€crouching€orÍcrawling€more€than€occasionally.€€He€had€apparently€informed€the€plaintiff€of€similarÏrestrictions€following€the€1985€surgery€but€had€assigned€no€official€restrictions€dueÏto€concerns€that€the€plaintiff€would€not€be€able€to€return€to€work.€€He€opined€that€theÏplaintiff's€prognosis€following€the€1992€injury€was€poor.Ìà àThe€plaintiff's€attorney€referred€the€plaintiff€to€Dr.€Russell€McKnight,€aÏpsychiatrist.€€Dr.€McKnight€diagnosed€the€plaintiff€as€suffering€from€depression€notÏotherwise€specified€and€anxiety/depressive€syndrome€with€insomnia€secondary€toÏpain.€€He€assigned€the€plaintiff€a€25%€impairment€rating€and€opined€that€the€plaintiffÏwas€not€capable€of€working€with€the€public€or€dealing€with€work€stressors€or€a€rigidÏschedule.€€He€opined€that€the€plaintiff€was€not€malingering.Ìà àThe€employer€referred€the€plaintiff€to€an€independent€medical€evaluation€byÏDr.€Marshall€Hogan,€another€psychiatrist.€€Dr.€Hogan's€findings€were€consistentÏwith€that€of€Dr.€McKnight.Ìà àThe€employer€also€had€a€spinoscopy€performed€upon€the€plaintiff.€€Dr.ÏMcIlwain€reviewed€the€spinoscopy€and€found€the€plaintiff€to€be€moderately€limitedÏwith€his€limitations€due€mostly€to€the€lumbar€fusion€and€muscular€deconditioning.€ÏHe€did€not€examine€the€plaintiff.Ìà àDr.€Norman€Hankins,€a€vocational€rehabilitation€counselor,€evaluated€theÏplaintiff€at€the€request€of€the€plaintiff's€attorney.€€He€opined€that€the€plaintiff€wasÏ100%€permanently€and€totally€disabled€from€the€second€injury€alone.€€He€furtherÍopined€that,€if€the€plaintiff's€mental€disability€could€be€cured€or€controlled,€he€wouldÏbe€highly,€although€not€totally,€disabled.Ìà àThe€plaintiff,€his€brother,€a€co„worker€and€a€friend€€testified€at€trial€to€theÏsecond€accident€and€the€drastic€decrease€in€the€plaintiff's€ability€to€work,€performÏchores€and€pursue€his€hobbies€following€the€second€injury.€€The€plaintiff€testifiedÏthat€he€cannot€stand,€walk€or€sit€for€extended€periods€of€time€without€frequentÏbreaks.Ìà àOur€review€is€de€novo,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€that€the€trial€court'sÏfindings€of€fact€are€correct€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòTenn.ÏCode€Annóó.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).€€Where€the€trial€court€has€seen€and€heard€witnesses,Ïespecially€where€credibility€or€weight€of€oral€testimony€is€at€issue,€we€must€affordÏhis€findings€considerable€deference.€€òòLanders€v.€Fireman's€Ins.€Co.óó,€775€S.W.2dÏ355€(Tenn.€1989).€€We€may€make€our€own€independent€evaluation€of€documentaryÏevidence,€such€as€the€depositions€of€the€physicians€and€Dr.€Hankins€in€this€case.€ÏòòId.óóÌà àThe€employer€raises€several€issues€in€challenging€the€trial€court's€finding€ofÏ100%€permanent€and€total€disability.€€It€challenges€the€trial€court's€finding€that€theÏplaintiff€is€credible,€the€trial€court's€inclusion€of€out„of„court€observation€of€theÏplaintiff€in€reaching€his€judgment€and€the€standard€used€by€the€trial€court€in€findingÏthe€plaintiff€to€be€so€disabled.€€The€plaintiff€further€contends€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€a€finding€of€100%€permanent€and€total€disability.Ìà àAs€stated€above,€we€defer€greatly€to€the€trial€court€where€the€credibility€of€aÏwitness€who€testified€live€at€trial€is€questioned.€€The€trial€court€carefully€consideredÏthe€documentary€evidence€presented€by€the€employer€and€the€trial€testimony€andÏfound€the€plaintiff€to€be€credible.€€We€find€the€evidence€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€the€trial€court's€finding.€€The€employer€also€presented€arguments€based€onÏevidence€produced€by€an€investigator€who€followed€the€plaintiff€and€taped€hisÏactivities€after€the€trial€in€this€case.€€The€employer€filed€a€motion€for€new€trial€basedÏon€this€"newly€discovered"€evidence,€which€the€trial€court€properly€denied.€€TheÏemployer€could€have€easily€gathered€evidence€of€the€plaintiff's€activities€prior€to€theÏtrial.Ìà àThe€employer€points€to€the€memorandum€opinion€of€the€trial€court€asÏcontaining€reversible€errors.€€The€trial€judge€stated€that€he€had€observed€theÏplaintiff's€gait€after€the€plaintiff€had€left€the€courtroom.€€Although€this€is€notÏadmissible€evidence,€we€do€not€find€that€it,€in€conjunction€with€the€remainingÏevidence,€preponderates€against€the€trial€court's€judgment.Ìà àThe€employer€also€argues€that€the€trial€judge€used€the€wrong€standard€inÏreaching€its€final€judgment,€namely€his€finding€that€the€plaintiff€could€not€work€eightÏhours€a€day€for€five€days€a€week.€€In€the€context€of€the€opinion,€this€statementÏclearly€represents€a€permissible€factor€to€be€considered€in€reaching€an€award.€€TheÏtrial€judge€considered€the€plaintiff's€ability€to€work€within€a€schedule€in€conjunctionÍwith€the€plaintiff's€age,€education,€skills,€medical€impairment€and€other€factors€inÏdetermining€vocational€impairment.Ìà àWe€find€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€court'sÏjudgment€that€the€plaintiff€is€100%€permanently€and€totally€disabled.Ìà àWe€also€find€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trialÏcourt's€apportionment€of€liability.€€Dr.€Hankins€opined€that€the€plaintiff€is€100%Ïpermanently€and€totally€disabled€by€the€second€injury€alone€and€highly€disabledÏwithout€any€consideration€of€the€mental€disability.€€Although€Dr.€Hankins€alsoÏopined€that€the€plaintiff€was€55%€to€65%€vocationally€disabled€from€his€firstÏinjury/surgery,€the€trial€court€pointed€out€that€the€plaintiff€worked€for€close€to€sevenÏyears€in€the€mines€following€the€surgery€without€any€serious€difficulties.€€Further,Ïthe€testimony€of€the€plaintiff€and€his€various€witnesses€indicates€that€there€has€beenÏa€sharp€decline€in€his€physical€abilities€after€the€second€accident.Ìà àWe€find€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€commuting€the€award€to€aÏlump€sum€payment.€€The€plaintiff€has€no€outstanding€debts.€€He€does€not€have€aÏdemonstrated€need€for€housing,€as€he€lives€with€his€parents€and€owns€his€ownÏhome€free€of€mortgage€besides.€€He€did€not€indicate€any€specific€plan€forÏrehabilitation€for€which€he€might€need€a€lump€sum€payment.€€Furthermore,€no€proofÏwas€offered€that€he€has€any€other€periodic€income€to€support€him.€€We,€therefore,Ïmodify€the€judgment€as€to€its€requirement€that€the€award€be€paid€in€a€lump€sumÏrather€than€in€periodic€weekly€installments.Ìà àWe€modify€the€judgment€by€not€allowing€payment€of€the€award€in€a€lumpÏsum€and€affirm€the€judgment€as€modified.€€Costs€are€assessed€to€the€defendant,ÏJefferson€City,€Zinc,€Inc.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌE.€Riley€Anderson,€Chief€JusticeÌÌÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€Judge