WPC:- zn?nD pl" tQ: i)KXpXi8V_FMwRYMYx }}0nsv I"!5 Ľ |ՆjI}B^ËN?m9MfM6A! T@| Z1x.-pNjUo %OoOz?tKol7;y Sl,|qHDBdžy&.9[XH&4L,>b\!yJ [.jŪ3KcG{MQq3 ]F]E2L1> N+$2E!) JN_$]>(>iHrFjQ ^NÊ%HT-R̮Wl#eWL#~,&*9)|Mrmw 9AQgKyU,B %` ~f 0t 0kX 0p 0m3 0r 0 0 0 0^ 0% 0 0o 0 0 0 0j 06 0W 0jf J! 0#U:##n# 0r%f&w@f&4&&&U:''U:( B')')')')') D3D)D)D) 0w)w)w)w)w)w)w)w)w)w)w)w)w) D+********************************************************************* AO0*** 0DE+ D/+ B++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ AY+., 0F,\  `*Times New RomanTT'  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AOC0AOC .   h:Default ParaDefault Paragraph FontXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTWT:endnote textendnote text  XXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTW^:endnote refeendnote referenceXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTWV:footnote texfootnote text  XXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTW`:footnote reffootnote referenceXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTW85T,toc 1toc 1   `         >4X` hp x (#>88T,toc 2toc 2   `         >4X` hp x (#>8;T,toc 3toc 3  `         >4X` hp x (#>8;T,toc 4toc 4  ` h        >4X` hp x (#>8;T,toc 5toc 5  ` h        >4X` hp x (#>85T,toc 6toc 6   `         >4X` hp x (#>8!,toc 7toc 7          85T,toc 8toc 8   `         >4X` hp x (#>85T,toc 9toc 9   `         >4X` hp x (#>@8T0index 1index 1   `         >4X` hp x (#>@8T0index 2index 2   `         >4X` hp x (#>P5T8toa headingtoa heading   %        >4X` hp x (#>@0captioncaption  XXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTW^:_Equation Ca_Equation CaptionXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTW @ y)OOO      (#X  Woodsv.ModineAppeal  @    1  A  ?+ ` hp x (#(#?(e2y$ !OOO   <6X9`("Courier NewTT3|x3\  `*Times New RomanTTC\  P6QP\  `*Times New RomanTTXXP\  P6QXP<6X9`("Courier NewTTTTXXx6X@DQX@(J$NBNBNB  *D+,E-P./D012D3Uy&T $$$ Ad   FILED$m$   June23,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular """ Ad   FILED#""#"m"   June23,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk ,kAZ"Arial Regular d%%%%'dxd(f3$ !OOO   'dxd-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd-:M << deUULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(n$ (  1  ) !OOO   TR[A'3'A' Legal3'TX  3 P p x (#X3XXO  INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANELl!*6&"h 8 `Ett06Hl HH(#(#ATKNOXVILLE 2233   (#(#HHLANAR.WOODS  ) p ANDERSONCOUNTYCIRCUIT h`   P   ) p  XP   P PlaintiffAppellee,  ) p  H@   P   ) p  80  vs. P   ) p NO.97LA0287 (   P   ) p   MODINEMANUFACTURING  ) p THEHONORABLE  COMPANY,  ) p JAMESB.SCOTT,JR.,JUDGE   P   ) P DefendantAppellant.  )  &  FortheAppellant:   p   FortheAppellee: '3  GeorgeH.Buxton,III   p   RogerL.Ridenour xp 31EastTennesseeAvenue   p   P.O.Box530 h` OakRidge,Tennessee37830   p   Clinton,Tennessee37717 X P  &  ̀MEMORANDUMOPINION  %! '%  MembersofPanel:  (!$ JusticeWilliamM.BarkerSpecialJudgeHowellN.PeoplesSpecialJudgeJoeC.Loser,Jr.  &  AFFIRMEDandREMANDED   p   PEOPLES,SpecialJudge  (2 +. 'X/ :37 Ї&      OPINION [      '=   Ӏ P ThisworkersXޞXXX=XXXXޞԀcompensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkersXޞXXX=XXXXޞ   CompensationAppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.XޞXXX'XXXXޞ   506225(e)(3)forhearingandreportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.Thethresholdissueinthisappealiswhetherthetrialcourterredinawardingtheplaintiffadisabilityratingof25percenttothebodyasawhole. P Ourreviewoffindingsoffactbythetrialcourtisdenovoupontherecordofthetrialcourt,accompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthefindings,unlesstheevidenceotherwisepreponderates.Tenn.CodeAnn.XޞXXX'XXXXޞ506225(e).   P Thetrialcourtfoundthattheplaintiffhadsustaineda25percentpermanentpartialdisabilitytothebodyasawholeduetoaworkrelatedaccident.Theplaintiff,LanaWoods,wasawardedtotalpermanentpartialdisabilitybenefits,futuremedicalexpensesandpretrialexpenses.Thedefendant,ModineManufacturingCompany,appealsthejudgmentofthetrialcourtonthegroundthattheevidencepreponderatesagainsttheawardofthetrialcourt.Specifically,thedefendantarguesthattheevidencedoesnotsupportthepercentageofdisabilityawardedandrequeststhatthispanelreduceandamendthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.̀ P Theplaintiff,ontheotherhand,contendsthat(1)theevidencesupportsthetrial (!$ courtawardof25percentpermanentpartialdisability,and(2)thisappealisfrivolousandsheshouldbeawardeddamagespursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.XޞXXX'XXXXޞ506225(i).Aftercarefully ,%( examiningtherecordbeforeusandconsideringtherelevantauthorities,weaffirmthetrialcourtjudgmentandawardtheplaintiffinterest,tobedeterminedonremand,onaccruedbutunpaidbenefitsfromthedateofthetrialcourtXޞXXX=XXXXޞsjudgment.Thepanelisnotpersuadedthat (2 +. thisappealisfrivolousorsolelyfordelay,therefore,theplaintiffsXޞXXX=XXXXޞԀrequestforliquidated 4-0 damagesisdenied.̀ P OnFebruary7,1997,whileworkingforModineManufacturingCompany,the 704 plaintiffinjuredherbackwhilecleaninganATImachine.ThePlaintiffbeganworkingfor 926 defendantaftergraduatingfromhighschoolandhadbeenemployedthereforapproximately26years.Althoughplaintiffhashadseveralinjuriesatworkoverthepast26years,thisisherfirstclaimforworkersXޞXXX=XXXXޞԀcompensationbenefits.Followingherinjury,theplaintiffwas   directedbyheremployertoseethecompanyphysician,Dr.Rice,afamilyphysician.Dr.Ricesenttheplaintifftophysicaltherapy.Whentheplaintiffdidnotexperienceadecreaseinherpain,sheaskedtoseeaspecialistandthedefendantsentplaintifftoseeDr.RobertFinelli,aneurosurgeon.̀ P Dr.FinellisawtheplaintiffonMarch27,1997andonApril4,1997.Hetestified, (  bydeposition,thattheplaintiffcomplainedoflowerbackpainandpaininherleftleg.Initially,Dr.Finellitreatedherconditionconservativelynotingthattheplaintiffhadapositivestraightlegraisingatfifteendegrees.Subsequently,Dr.FinellirecommendedthataMRIbeperformed.TheMRIindicatedthattheplaintiffhadadegenerativediscdiseaseatL23andL5S1.OnApril4,1997,seeingnoevidenceofneuralimpingement,Dr.Finelliconcludedthattheplaintiffhadmechanicalbackpainandrecommendedtherapy,exerciseandflexibility.Hereleasedtheplaintifftoreturntoworkwithoutfurthertreatment.AfterreviewingAMAguidelines,Dr.Finelliopinedthatplaintiffsufferedfromafivepercentpermanentpartialimpairmenttothebodyasawhole.̀ P TheplaintiffXޞXXX=XXXXޞspainpersistedsosherequestedtoseeanorthopedicphysician. &" ThedefendantsenttheplaintifftoseeDr.JamesMaguire,Jr.onApril22,1997.BasedontheplaintiffXޞXXX=XXXXޞsmedicalhistoryandaphysicalexamination,Dr.Maguirerecommendedan *#& epiduralsteroidblockandamyelogram.HeopinedthatplaintiffhadabulgingdiscattheL23level,andconcludedthattherewasnoevidenceofdefinitenerverootimpingement.Herecommendedmoreaggressiveconservativetherapyintheformofaworkhardeningtypeprogram.Afterreceivingthreeepiduralblocks,plaintiffexperiencedadecreaseinherpainforaboutsix(6)months.Dr.Maquirereleasedherandopinedthatshehadanonverifiableradicularsyndromethatwouldgiveherfivepercentimpairmenttothebodyasawhole.AfterreleasebyDr.Maquire,thepainreturnedwiththesameintensityasbeforeandplaintiffrequestedanindependentmedicalevaluationfromaphysiciannotchosenbythedefendant. 926 TheplaintiffwasinstructedbythecourttoseeDr.GeronBrown,Jr.,anorthopedicsurgeon,foraonetimeindependentmedicalevaluation.Asaresultofthemedicalhistoryandaphysicalexamination,Dr.Brownopinedthatplaintiffhadanacutelumbarstrain,whichresultedinatenpercentimpairmentratingtothebodyasawholeunderAMAguidelines.HetestifiedshehadarestrictionofXޞXXXAXXXXޞlightwork,XޞXXX@XXXXޞԀandthatheconsideredherregularjobat  ModineManufacturingCompanytofitthatrestriction.Dr.Brownalsotestifiedthathereliedonthesymptomsrelatedbytheplaintiffinadditiontotheobjectivephysicalexaminationfindingsinassessingapermanentimpairmentrating.̀ P Thedefendantassertsthatthemedicalproofofferedattrialfailstosupportthe25  percentpermanentpartialdisabilityawarded.Specifically,thedefendantcontendsthattheawardisexcessivebecausethetrialcourtdisregardedthetestimonyofthetwotreatingphysiciansandreliedsolelyuponthetestimonyofanexaminingphysician.Additionally,thedefendantassertsthatthetrialcourtfailedtoprovideareasonableexplanationastowhytheopinionsofthetwotreatingphysiciansweredisregarded.Thedefendantaversthatwhenthereisnoreasontodisregardthetestimonyofatreatingphysician,suchtestimonyisentitledtoseriousconsideration.Tosupportthiscontention,defendantreliesonOrmanv. (#  WilliamsSonoma,Inc.,803S.W.2d672(Tenn.1991).However,thefactsinthatcase %  substantiallydifferfromthepresentcaseandthereisnoreasoninthisrecordtoquestionthereliabilityofthetestimonyoftheevaluatingphysician.̀ P Thedefendantcontendsthatmoreweightshouldbegiventothetreatingphysician *#& andarguesthatitwouldbeXޞXXXAXXXXޞlogicalXޞXXX@XXXXޞԀtorelyuponthetreatingphysicianXޞXXX=XXXXޞsopinions. ,%( However,itiswellsettledlawinTennesseethatwhentheopinionsofmedicalexpertsdifferinworkersXޞXXX=XXXXޞԀcompensationcases,thetrialcourthasdiscretiontoaccepttheopinionofone H0@), medicalexpertoveranother.Johnsonv.Midwesco,Inc,.801S.W.2d804,806(Tenn.1990). (2 +. ЀIndoingso,thecourtisallowed,amongotherthings,toconsiderthequalificationsoftheexperts,thecircumstancesoftheirexamination,theinformationavailabletothem,andtheevaluationoftheimportanceofthatinformationbyotherexperts.Ormanat677. 704 9 A p x (#P X9Ӏ A Viewingthemedicalproofincombinationwiththetestimonyoftheplaintiffand 926 findingnoreasonintherecordtoquestionthetestimonyoftheevaluatingphysicianappointedbythetrialcourt,wefindthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthefindingsofthetrialjudge.9 P p x (#A X9Ӏ P Theplaintiffaversthatsheshouldbeawardedfrivolousappealdamagesbecause   therewasnoreasonforthisappeal.WhenitappearsthatanappealinaworkersXޞXXX=XXXXޞ  compensationcaseisfrivolousortakensolelyfordelay,thereviewingcourtmay,uponmotionofeitherpartyoronitsowninitiative,awarddamagesagainsttheappellantandinfavoroftheappelleewithoutremand,foraliquidatedamount.Tenn.CodeAnn.XޞXXX'XXXXޞ506 (  225(i).̀ P Anappealisfrivolousifitisdevoidofmeritandifithaslittlechanceofsuccess.  LibertyMut.Ins.Co.v.Taylor,590S.W.2d920,92223(Tenn.1979);IndustrialDev.Bd.  V.Hancock,901S.W.2d382,385(Tenn.1995).Anappealhasnoreasonablechanceof  successwhenreversalofthetrialcourtdecisionwouldrequirerevolutionarychangesintheestablishedstandardofreview.Davisv.GulfIns.Group,546S.W.2d583,586(Tenn. h` 1997).Wedonotfindtheappealtobefrivolous.̀ P Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedandthecaseisremandedforall (#  appropriatepurposes.CostsareassessedtotheAppellant.̀̀̀Ӏ P   _______________________________ ,%(  P   HowellN.Peoples,SpecialJudgè̀̀̀ Concur:  810*- Ѐ̀̀̀___________________________̀WilliamM.Barker,Justicè̀̀̀___________________________̀JoeC.Loser,SpecialJudge  :37 ` TR[A' Legal[A'A' LegalA' LegalT@DINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ff)DATKNOXVILLEl#*6&"h 8 `E tt06H l ` H` H` (#` (#  p       p         p       p   p      XP   ` (#` (#` H` H  p      x  LANAR.WOODS)0 p ANDERSONCIRCUIT80 p(#p(# Ѐ 1񀀀)1 p N('0'()o)+.+)9)*)7)    *7LA0287 (  Ҁ PlaintiffAppellee,, p   ,.񀀀./- p -/0񀀀0) p      x   $ XP X$ 0  0h8"8"0h8"h8"08"8")0p8"8"No.03S019810CV00110 p8"p8" v.    h   0  )8"8"     h     )MODINEMANUFACTURING  )0 p Hon.JamesB.Scott,Jr.p8"p8" COMPANY,   h     ) p Judge      h     )   Defendant/Appellant,    ) p       h      p       p      x   xp @FF'JUDGMENTORDER ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtupontheentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferraltotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanel'smemorandumOpinionsettingforthitsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference; Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthatthememorandumOpinionofthePanelshouldbeacceptedandapproved;and Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanel'sfindingsoffactsandconclusionsoflawareadoptedandaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadetheJudgmentoftheCourt. CostsonappealaretaxedtotheAppellant,ModineManufacturingCompanyandGeorgeH.Buxton,III,surety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.̀06/23/99