ÿWPCŽ ápáÒ¾’÷ü÷x,™õ/ŠpÅÔá›}<Âø˜ä“ÿ9_vàÜsô´w«¬ä`q¸#›†:½‘ý ´þh©šV°4P–_Ì‘è#ß›]-3•T÷õDÈ}´p'Pü|¤Nä ßFZ–ºù§ ÌŠúó'D¦Û×.-¼9"'UWéÛ´Eßû¿Ž°_>°€SJäºK'Ý@†³Þk`/ˆ؛Ëňj° àúªYSëížõ½%hlHÆ­PƒŒš¥FÆk®–Æ_FÇNûH,£»£úÆzh„pH'_5 ¦¶¸+p¨z³_º—fãça—“4ê›Õ"¶ ”y(uX±GöNí;=¿ xCÅ|- ¿7ÚAh«ós‘´¦3yf Aqü®Å4¾È44•çZ’fˆncôA 0"´p#í(Ø}~às^-%ßiŸBZ½*fß_êŽÞ“ÅSU (/ùG¯GXÍ™|ì|O!F]«twÀ"u¿W¼`µ`å~Ì’YW¼&?Ö+bRy§ëÝýc÷÷ƒ&«µ<úâ¥nZxõ·#  UN %[ 0(a T‰ 4Ý ñ w@UBH 0DŠUBÎL\(dU:Œ(ÆU:îÆ(ÆîÆ´Æzzzzzzzzz AQ@Æ‘ 0DWW 0D›› D/ß B B+ D3HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH 0D{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ A¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ 0P>˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡c:\office\wpwin\template\legal\11deny.wptAq$%3|xã ÃPÄPÅPÇVÈîÉÓ€ÕÖÓ€âã4*NewsGoth BT Roman(3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý+@FÐAZ‹*NewsGoth BT RomanC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT Ý ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XšóXXXÔÔ€*NXXšóÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XšóX*NÔÐ  ÐÌò òOctober€29,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô¥¯ôXXšóÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XšóXXXÔÔ€*NXXšóÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XšóX*NÔÐ  ÐÌò òOctober€29,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô¥¯ôXXšóÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 !`#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd&&&&'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý`yúÿ  <<= 8ÀÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ((3/Q$««Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ d ÔÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑ„°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ  ÔÔ€ XÚãXXXÔÑ7€ E| %%dÞXXdð7ÑñÖñ›ñÖñÑTR[  AØ'ÿBond3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑñãññÖñßr€(<,(j 8` `€€@E ±` ttx$X°ð ÕrßñÖññãññãññãññÖñ›ñÖñà@  Dàò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌñãñœßt€(>.*jxžß` `€€@E¾` ttx$ö¹¶ œ tß›ñãñà@[[DàSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELˆÌà@pp*DàAT€JACKSONˆÌà@``#Dà(April€13,€1998,€Session)òòˆÐ †Ö ÐÌÌÌÌóóœADVO›,€INC.€AND€INSURANCEà h àœà À à›à  à€€€€€)Ð @  ÐCOMPANY€OF€NORTH€œAMERICA,à À à›à  à€€€€€)Ð 2 ‚  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€)Ìà ` àPlaintiffs/Appellantsà h àà À àà  à€€€€€)à p àà È àœSHELBY›€COUNTY€CIRCUITÐ f  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€)Ìv.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€)à p àà È àNO.€œ02S01›„9711„CV„00096Ð úJ  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€)ÌDENISE€PHILLIPS,à  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€)à p àà È àHON.€ROBERT€A.€œLANIER›,Ð Þ. Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€)à p àà È àJUDGEÐ Ð  Ðà ` àDefendant/Appellee.à h àà À àœñÃñà  àñÃñ›€€€€€)Ð Â Ðó óÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€the€Appellant:à  àà h àà À àà  àóó€€€€€òòFor€the€Appellee:ó óóóÐ n¾ ÐÌœLeland›€M.€œMcNabb›à  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€Marvin€A.€œBienvenu›,€Jr.Ð R¢ МMcNABB›,€œHOLLEY›€&€œWALDROP›à h àà À à€€€œñÄñà  àñÄñ›€€œGATTI›,€œKELTNER›,€œBIENVENU›€&€œMONTESI›Ð D” Ð1770€œKirby›€Parkway,€Suite€222à À àà  à€€€€€219€Adams€AvenueÐ 6† ÐMemphis,€TN€38138„7405à h àà À à€€€œñÅñà  àñÅñ›€€Memphis,€TN€38103Ð (x ÐÌÌÌÌÌà@ÅÅ&Dàòòò òMEMORANDUM€OPINIONó óóóˆÐ Ô$$ " ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@'Dàò òòòMEMBERS€OF€PANEL:óóó óˆÐ d,´'* ÐÌà@#Dàò òJUSTICE€JANICE€M.€HOLDERˆÐ H.˜), Ðà@ŒŒ"DàSENIOR€JUDGE€JOHN€K.€BYERSˆÌà@’’DàSPECIAL€JUDGE€J.€STEVEN€STAFFORDó óˆÐ ,0|+. ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òÌÐ v<Æ7; ÐMODIFIED€AND€REMANDEDà€FF9€%àSTAFFORD,€SPECIAL€JUDGEó óˆÐ ° Ðà@,Dàò òòòOPINIONóóó óˆÐ ¢ò ÐÌÓÓà ` àThis€workerððs€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€WorkersððÏCompensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„¼225(e)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw.Ìà ` àReview€of€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record,Ð f  Ðaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€findings,€unless€the€preponderanceÏof€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2);€òòòòStone€v.€City€of€œMcMinnville›óó,Ð Þ. Ðóó896€S.W.2d€548,€550€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€application€of€this€standard€requires€this€Court€to€weighÐ Â Ðin€more€depth€the€factual€findings€and€conclusions€of€the€trial€court€in€a€workerððsÏcompensation€case.€€òòSee€òòœCorcoran›€v.€Foster€Auto€œGMC›,€Inc.óó,óó€746€S.W.2d€452,€456€(Tenn.€1988).€Ð ŠÚ ÐHowever,€considerable€deference€must€be€given€to€the€trial€judge,€who€has€seen€and€heardÏwitnesses€especially€where€issues€of€credibility€and€weight€of€oral€testimony€are€involved.òò€€òòJonesÐ R¢ Ðv.€Hartford€Accident€and€Indemnity€Companyóó,€óó811€S.W.2d€516€(Tenn.€1991).Ð 6† Ðà@22,Dàò òòòISSUESóóó óˆÐ  j Ðà ` àThe€issues€presented€for€this€Panelððs€review€are:ÌÓÓà ` à1.à0 ¸ àIs€the€defendantððs€rotator€cuff€injury€an€injury€to€a€scheduled€member€or€to€theÐ â#2! Ðbody€as€a€whole?Ð ¸ €%¸ €% ÐÌà ` à2.à0 ¸ àDoes€the€defendant€have€the€option€to€treat€her€injury€as€an€injury€to€aÐ ¸&"$ Ðscheduled€member€or€an€injury€to€the€body€as€a€whole?Ð ¸ €%¸ €% ÐÌÓÓà ` àFor€the€following€reasons,€we€find€that€the€defendantððs€rotator€cuff€injury€is€an€injuryÏto€the€whole€body.€€We€further€find€that€the€defendant€does€œnot€possess›€the€right€to€selectÏwhether€œher›€injury€œis€to›€be€treated€as€an€injury€to€the€whole€body€or€to€a€scheduled€member.Ìà@XX-Dàò òFACTSˆÐ :/Š*- Ðà ` àó óThe€facts€surrounding€the€defendantððs€injury€and€œits€compensability›€are€not€disputed.€Ð 1n,/ ÐThe€defendant€is€a€42€year€old€woman.€€She€attended€the€twelfth€grade€but€did€not€graduateÏfrom€high€school.€€She€has€not€obtained€her€GED€nor€has€she€received€any€additional€vocationalÏtraining.Ìà ` àOn€March€10,€1995,€the€defendant€tripped€and€fell€at€work€hitting€her€left€side€and€herÏleft€shoulder.€€She€experienced€pain€in€her€shoulder€as€a€result€of€the€fall.Ð ’:â59 Ðà ` àOn€March€14,€1995,€she€was€seen€by€Dr.€œRiley›€Jones,€a€board€certified€orthopedicÏsurgeon.€€Dr.€Jones€diagnosed€the€defendant€with€œmyofascial›€pain,€started€her€treatmentÏprogram€with€anti„œinflammatories›,€changed€her€duty€status€to€sedentary€and€placed€her€œin›Ïtherapy.€€Upon€further€examination,€Dr.€Jones€ordered€the€defendant€to€undergo€an€œMRI›€whichÏrevealed€a€tear€of€the€supraspinatus€which€is€a€tendon€located€at€the€top€of€the€rotator€cuff.Ìà@\\'Dàò òMEDICAL€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ $t  Ðà ` àAs€the€result€of€the€injury,€Dr.€Jones€performed€an€œarthroscopy›€œneer›€œacromioplasty›€onÏthe€defendant.€€In€this€procedure,€the€underside€of€the€acromion€is€removed.€€The€purpose€ofÏthis€procedure€is€to€increase€the€space€between€the€bone€and€the€rotator€cuff€thereby€allowingÏthe€muscles€more€freedom€and€eliminating€any€impingement.€€Dr.€Jones€also€trimmed€the€endÏof€the€œclavicle.›Ìà ` àAfter€the€surgery,€Dr.€Jones€was€required€to€manipulate€the€defendantððs€shoulder.€€InÏthis€procedure,€the€defendant€was€put€to€sleep€and€movement€was€forced€on€her€shoulder€inÏorder€to€break€up€the€scar€tissue.€€This€procedure€was€necessary€because€the€defendant€hadÏa€low€threshold€of€pain.Ìà ` àDr.€Jones€testified€that€the€defendant€suffered€a€10%€permanent€partial€disability€to€theÏupper€extremity€as€a€result€of€the€injury.€€This€equates€to€a€rating€of€6%€to€the€body€as€aÏwhole.€€He€stated€that€the€AMA€Guidelines€rate€this€injury€to€the€upper€extremity€due€to€theÏlack€of€flexion€extension€and€the€relative€value€of€the€functional€unit€to€the€upper€extremity.€ÏDr.€Jones€also€testified€that€the€bone€that€he€operated€on€is€at€the€point€of€connection€betweenÏthe€shoulder€blade€and€clavicle€or€collar€bone.Ìà ` àThe€defendant€was€returned€to€her€regular€duty€on€June€8,€1995.Ìà ` àThe€defendant€testified€that€she€is€still€employed€by€the€plaintiff€and€is€earning€theÏsame€amount€of€money€that€she€earned€before€the€injury.€€Prior€to€the€injury,€she€wasÏemployed€as€a€crew€leader.€€She€is€unable€to€perform€that€job€and€is€now€employed€as€aÏquality€clerk.€€She€stated€that€she€is€right€handed€and€that€she€experiences€pain€every€day€asÏa€result€of€the€injury.Ìà ` àThe€defendant€testified€she€is€unable€to€use€her€left€arm€to€lift€anything€and€that€sheÏhas€lost€approximately€75%€of€the€strength€in€her€left€arm.€€The€defendant€formerly€enjoyedÏplaying€softball€and€volleyball€but€is€unable€to€play€either€sport€now.€€She€is€also€unable€toÐ „;Ô6: Ðhang€curtains,€wring€out€a€mop,€or€pick€up€her€grandchild.€€She€testified€she€was€unable€toÏdo€any€job€that€requires€her€to€lift€above€her€waist.à È àÐ ”ä Ðà ` àThis€case€was€heard€by€the€trial€court€on€May€7,€1997.€€On€May€8,€1997,€the€courtÏentered€a€written€judgment.€€The€court€stated€in€its€judgment€that€the€only€issue€for€itsÏdetermination€was€whether€the€injury€suffered€by€the€defendant€was€confined€to€a€scheduledÏmember€or€whether€it€should€be€attributed€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€The€court€found€from€theÏfacts€presented€that€the€injury€extended€beyond€the€defendantððs€arm€and€awarded€theÏdefendant€a€judgment€for€15%€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€whole€body.Ìà ` àOn€May€9,€1997,€the€court€filed€a€written€ð ðAmendment€to€Judgment.ðð€€In€this€order,€theÏcourt€stated€that:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àà  àð ðSince€the€purpose€of€the€Act€is€to€be€viewed€with€an€eyeÏtoward€protection€of€the€worker,€it€is€the€opinion€of€the€courtÏthat€the€worker€should€have€the€option€of€selecting€whether€orÏnot€he€or€she€wishes€to€be€compensated€on€the€basis€of€loss€ofÏa€scheduled€member€or€to€the€body€as€a€whole.ððÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓÓà ` àThe€Court€then€modified€its€judgment€to€award€the€defendant€benefits€of€40%€permanentÏpartial€disability€to€the€left€arm.Ìà@ÛÛ+Dàò òANALYSISó óˆÐ  !\ Ðà ` àDr.€Jones€testified€that€the€defendant€suffered€an€injury€to€the€rotator€cuff.€€The€boneÏthat€he€operated€on€is€at€the€point€of€connection€between€the€shoulder€blade€and€the€clavicleÏor€the€collar€bone.€€When€describing€the€injury€and€the€procedure€he€employed€to€repair€theÏinjury,€he€continually€referred€to€the€shoulder,€acromion,€œsupraspinatus,›€collar€bone,€andÏshoulder€blade.€€In€discussing€the€extent€of€the€disability€suffered€by€the€defendant,€Dr.€JonesÏtestified€that€she€had€suffered€a€10%€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€upper€extremity.€€HeÏthen€translated€the€rating€to€a€6%€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€WhenÏquestioned€about€why€he€gave€a€rating€to€the€upper€extremity€he€stated€that:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àð ðWell,€according€to€the€A.M.A.€Guides,€and€Iððm€looking€at€it,€all€ofÏthese€ratings€are€to€the€upper€extremity.€€I€will€give€you€FigureÏ38,€Page€43.€€Upper€extremity€impairments€due€to€lack€of€flexion,Ïextension€shoulder.€€Relative€value€of€this€functional€unit€is€toÏthe€upper€extremity.ððÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓÓà ` àT.C.A.€ðð€50„6„207€provides€the€œschedule›€of€compensation€under€the€Tennessee€WorkersððÏCompensation€Act.€€The€statute€specifically€lists€various€scheduled€members.€€When€the€injuryÏsuffered€is€to€something€other€than€a€scheduled€member,€the€statute€provides€that:Ð „;Ô6: ÐÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àð ðAll€other€cases€of€permanent€partial€disability€not€aboveÏenumerated€shall€be€apportioned€to€the€body€as€a€whole,€whichÏshall€have€a€value€of€four€hundred€(400)€weeks,€and€there€shallÏbe€paid€compensation€to€the€injured€employee€for€theÏproportionate€loss€of€use€of€the€body€as€a€whole€resulting€fromÏthe€injury.ððÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓÓà ` àIn€òòòòWells€v.€Sentry€Insurance€Companyóóóó,€834€S.W.2d€935,€937€(Tenn.€1992),€the€SupremeÐ N ž ÐCourt€defined€an€upper€extremity€as:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àð ð.€.€.€the€upper€extremity€is€a€unit€of€the€whole€man.€It€may€beÏdivided€into€four€sections:€the€hand,€the€wrist,€the€elbow,€and€theÏshoulder.€Moreover,€an€'upper€extremity'€is€not€a€scheduledÏmember.€This€extremity€necessarily€includes€the€fingers,€theÏthumb,€the€hand,€and€the€arm€-€all€scheduled€members,Ïirrespective€of€their€being€included€in€the€term€'extremity'€orÏ'upper€extremity.ðððð€(Citations€omitted.)€€€See€also€òòòòœChapman›€v.Ð Â ÐClement€Brothers,€Inc.óó,óó€435€S.W.2d€117€(Tenn.€1968)д¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓÓà ` àFurther,€the€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€a€shoulder€is€not€a€scheduled€member.ÏòòòòContinental€Insurance€Companies€v.€œPruitt›óóóó,€541€S.W.2d€594€(Tenn.€1976).Ð |Ì Ðà ` àIn€òòòòWade€v.€œAetna›€Casualty€and€Surety€Companyóóóó,€735€S.W.2d€215,€217€(Tenn.€1987),€theÐ `° ÐSupreme€Court€discussed€the€difference€between€injuries€to€a€scheduled€member€and€injuriesÏto€the€body€as€a€whole€and€stated€that:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àð ðIn€T.C.A.€ðð€50-6-207(3),€which€provides€for€awards€of€permanentÏpartial€disability,€the€legislature€has€specifically€designated€ratesÏof€recovery€for€permanent€impairment€of€certain€parts€of€theÏbody,€i.e.€scheduled€members.€Permanent€partial€disabilities€toÏareas€not€specifically€enumerated€as€scheduled€members€are€toÏbe€assessed€as€a€percentage€of€the€ððbody€as€a€whole.ðð€This€CourtÏhas€repeatedly€held€that€an€award€of€permanent€partial€disabilityÏfor€an€injury€to€a€scheduled€member€is€exclusively€controlled€byÏthe€rate€established€by€the€legislature€for€that€member€and€isÏnot€includable€in€an€award€to€"the€body€as€a€whole."€€€(CitationsÏomitted.)Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓÓà ` àIn€òòòòSmith€v.€Empire€Pencil€Companyóóóó,€781€S.W.2d€833,€837€(Tenn.€1989),€the€Supreme€CourtÐ d,´'* Ðdiscussed€an€injury€to€the€rotator€cuff€and€stated€that:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àð ðThis€record€is€replete€with€references€to€injury€to€plaintiff'sÏshoulder€in€depositions€by€both€doctors.€The€only€definition€ofÏððupper€extremityðð€we€have€found€in€the€case€law€is€that€noted€inÐ 2`-0 ÐòòòòœChapman›óóóó,€supra.€It€includes€the€hand,€the€wrist,€the€elbow€andÐ 3R.1 Ðthe€shoulder.€It€is€an€injury€not€otherwise€specifically€provided€forÏin€T.C.A.€ðð€50-6-207(3).€It€does€therefore€fall€under€the€provisionsÏof€T.C.A.€ðð€50-6-207(3)(F)€to€be€apportioned€to€the€body€as€aÏwhole.ððÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓÓà ` àIt€is€clear€from€our€review€of€the€medical€testimony€that€the€defendantððs€injury€is€not€Ïto€a€scheduled€member.€€No€where€does€Dr.€Jones€state€that€the€injury€suffered€by€theÐ ’:â59 Ðdefendant€should€be€ascribed€to€the€arm.€€Therefore,€based€on€the€medical€evidence€andÏpursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€50-6-207(3)(F),€the€injury€suffered€by€the€defendant€must€be€consideredÏas€an€injury€to€the€whole€body.Ìà ` àIt€is€also€undisputed€that€the€defendant€has€made€a€meaningful€return€to€work€and€isÏearning€a€wage€equal€to€or€greater€than€that€earned€before€the€injury.€€Accordingly,€theÏmaximum€award€that€the€defendant€may€receive€is€2.5€times€the€medical€impairment€rating.€ÏThis€would€provide€the€defendant€with€a€maximum€award€of€15%€permanent€partial€disabilityÏto€the€whole€body.€€See€T.C.A.€ðð€50-6-241.Ìà ` àThe€defendant€asserts€that€we€should€construe€the€Workersðð€Compensation€Act€€so€thatÏshe€would€not€be€limited€by€the€2.5€times€multiplier€contained€in€T.C.A.€ðð€50-6-241.€€As€aÏbasis€for€this,€the€defendant€asserts€that€T.C.A.€ðð€50-6-116€states€that€the€WorkersððÏCompensation€Act€is€a€remedial€statute€which€requires€it€to€be€given€an€equitable€constructionÏby€the€courts€so€that€the€objects€and€purposes€of€the€chapter€may€be€realized€and€attained.€ÏThis€Panel€œdoes›€œnot€dispute€the›€direction€provided€in€T.C.A.€ðð€50-6-116.€€However,€in€order€toÏcomply€with€the€defendantððs€request,€we€would€be€required€to€ignore€the€plain€meaning€of€œT.C.A.›Ïðð€50-6-207(3)(F)€and€the€cases€cited€herein.€€In€the€event€that€the€defendant€believes€anÏinequity€exists€in€the€current€statutory€scheme,€it€is€a€matter€for€the€legislature€to€considerÏand€not€this€Panel.Ìà ` àAdditionally,€the€defendant€contends€that€there€have€been€no€cases€decided€since€theÏ1992€amendments€to€the€Workersðð€Compensation€Act€that€specifically€address€the€injuryÏsuffered€by€the€defendant€in€light€of€the€2.5€times€limitation€contained€in€T.C.A.€ðð€50-6-241.ÏHowever,€we€have€been€able€to€find€two€cases€in€which€the€issue€raised€by€the€defendant€hasÏbeen€present€but€was€not€specifically€addressed€by€the€Court.€€In€òòòòœJernigan›€v.€Henry€I.€œSiegel›Ð H.˜), ÐCompany,€Inc.óóóó,€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee,€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€atÐ ,0|+. ÐJackson,€Appeal€No.€œ02S01›„9510„CV„00101€(1996€Tenn.€Lexis€301),€filed€May€3,€1996,€and€òòòòSSIÐ 2`-0 ÐServices,€Inc.€v.€Howard€L.€Bakeróóóó,€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee,€Special€Workersðð€CompensationÐ ô3D/2 ÐAppeals€Panel,€at€Nashville,€Appeal€No.€œ01S01›„9609„CV„00191€(1997€Tenn.€Lexis€331),€filed€JuneÏ24,€1997,€the€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€reviewed€cases€in€which€theÏâ âplaintiffs€suffered€rotator€cuff€injuries.€€In€both€cases,€the€Panel€found€that€the€injuries€wereÐ  9ð48 Ðinjuries€to€the€body€as€a€whole€and€applied€the€2.5€times€multiplier€contained€in€T.C.A.€ððÏ50-6-241.Ìâ âà ` àThe€defendant€also€submits€that€she€should€be€allowed€to€elect€whether€her€injuryÏshould€be€treated€as€an€injury€to€a€scheduled€member€or€as€an€injury€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€ÏWe€have€been€provided€with€no€authority€that€would€give€the€defendant€this€right.€€Additionally,Ïour€research€has€failed€to€produce€any€case€law€or€statute€consistent€with€this€position.€ÏAccordingly,€we€find€that€the€defendant€does€not€have€the€right€to€select€whether€the€injuryÏis€treated€as€an€injury€to€a€scheduled€member€or€as€an€injury€to€the€body€as€a€whole.Ìà ` àà@__*Dàò òòòCONCLUSIONóóó óˆÐ Ð  Ðà ` àThe€Panel€finds€that€the€defendant€has€suffered€an€injury€to€the€rotator€cuff€which€is€Ïan€injury€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€The€Panel€additionally€œfinds›€that€since€the€defendant€hasÏreturned€to€work€and€is€earning€a€wage€equal€to€or€greater€than€what€she€received€prior€toÏthe€injury,€she€is€limited€to€a€recovery€of€2.5€times€her€medical€impairment€rating.€€As€such,Ïthe€Panel€finds€that€the€defendant€has€suffered€a€15%€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€wholeÏbody.Ìà ` àThe€Panel€also€finds€that€the€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€select€whether€her€injuryÏshould€be€treated€as€an€injury€to€a€scheduled€member€or€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€This€is€aÏdetermination€to€be€made€by€the€court€based€upon€the€law€and€facts€of€each€particular€case.Ìà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€modified€so€that€the€defendant€is€awarded€aÏjudgment€€of€15%€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€whole€body.€€This€case€is€remanded€toÏthe€trial€court€for€implementation€of€this€order.€€The€costs€of€the€appeal€are€taxed€to€theÏdefendant.ÌÓÓÌÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àòòà p à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð 1n,/ Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€óóà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àò òJ.€STEVEN€STAFFORD,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÐ 2`-0 ÐÌœCONCUR:ó ó›Ð ô3D/2 МòòÌ̛̀€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€Ð ¼7 36 Ðò òJANICE€M.€HOLDER,€JUSTICEÐ ®8þ37 Мó óòòÌ̛Р„;Ô6: Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ ° Ðò òJOHN€K.€BYERS,€SENIOR€œJUDGEñÇñÐ  ¢ò ÐñÇññÈñ›Ò€ÒÒ„XÒÑ` °ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿLegal Red[  AØ'ÿBond AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑà@³³êàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ `  ÐÌà@)êàAT€JACKSONˆÌÌÌœñÈññÕññÉñœñÉñßr€(<,(j 8` `€€@Eô` ttx$,ð ÙrßñÕññÈñ›ÌADVO,€INC.€AND€INSURANCE€à@ÉÉ.êà)ˆà è àSHELBY€COUNTYÐ  ¬ ÐCOMPANY€OF€NORTH€AMERICA,à@ÉÉ.êà)ˆÐ þž Ðà Ø àà@ÉÉ.êà)ˆà è àNO.€02S01„9711„CV„00096Ð ð Ðà Ø àAPPELLANTSà@ÉÉ.êà)ˆÐ â‚  ÐñÈññÈñà@ÉÉ.êà)ˆà è àHON.€ROBERT€LANIERÐ Ôt  МñÈññâññÕñœñÕñßt€(>.*jxúW` `€€@Eî` ttx$&Æð + tßñâññâñßt€(>.*jxq` `€€@E7` ttx$@Æð E tß›ñâññÈñv.à@ÉÉ.êà)ˆà è àJUDGEÐ Æf  Ðà@ÉÉ.êà)ˆÌDENISE€PHILLIPS,à@ÉÉ.êà)ˆà è àÐ ªJ  Ðà@ÉÉ.êà)ˆÌà Ø àAPPELLEEà@ÉÉ.êà)ˆà0 è àÐŽ.èT$èT$ ÐÌÌÌà@*êàòòòŒòJUDGMENTóŒóóóˆÐ Vö ÐÌÌÌÓÓà Ø àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€motion€for€review€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð50„6„225(e)(5)(B),€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€of€referral€to€the€SpecialÏWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel's€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forthÏits€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ìà Ø àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€review€is€not€well€takenÏand€should€be€denied;€and€Ìà Ø àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€areÏadopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€judgment€of€the€Court.Ìà Ø àThe€Clerk€shall€submit€the€panelððs€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€forÏpublication.Ìà Ø àCosts€will€be€paid€by€appellee,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ìà Ø àIt€is€so€ordered.Ìà Ø àÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àPER€CURIAMñÈñó ó