ÿWPC% Æ# ä UNï %= 0ûC U:>4xŒÆ›Æa '-w@5 0?u 0D´ÆøƾÆ„ 0DJ 0JŽ 0TØ 0^, 0hŠ 0rò 0|d 0†à 0f 1uö 0dk BÏU>ìU** D3TU*‡U6± 0@ç 0K'v~rvÓð D+Ã" AOî" 0D=# D/# B°# AYÍ# 0F&$ A©l$˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÓH=$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XÎ_XXXÔÑ7€¾úXXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular%€X$3|x'Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5H 'U 'D'D'D'U'D'D'U'D'U(ï(32s$¤¤Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XÈXXXÔÑ7€5XXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý2 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 d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Times< Œ 9p`(Courier New("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿáùEG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò'ÈÈÈÈdxd-‚ƒCþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd-¸:Müÿ << deUU(n$––ò ò(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)ó ó-.:›&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€(ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€)ÔÑ#€++Xd#ÑÑ#€++Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÑ À ÑÑ X Ñò ò›Þ ÞÌÌÌó óà@ àò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌWORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌKNOXVILLE,€DECEMBER€1997€SESSIONó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌLUCY€B.€ANDERSON,€INDIV.€&€ASà à)à àHAMBLEN€CIRCUITÌADMIN.€OF€THE€ESTATE€OF€BILLYà à)ÌJOE€ANDERSON,€DECEASEDà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àPlaintiff/Appellantà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Ben€K.€Wexler,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àCircuit€JudgeÌLENZING€U.S.A.à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àDefendant/Appelleeà àà à)à àNO.€03S01„9704„CV„00036Ìò òòòÌÌÌÌÌFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àà àà àFor€the€Appellee:Ìó óóóÌPhillip€L.€Boydà àà àà àà àà àDonald€B.€OakleyÌP.O.€Box€298à àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€1853ÌRogersville,€Tenn.€37857à àà àà àà àMorristown,€Tenn.€€37816ÌÌEdward€R.€SempkowskiÌ425€North€Jackson€St.ÌMorristown,€Tenn.€€37814ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òòòM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌò òòòMembers€of€Panel:ÌÌó óóóE.€Riley€Anderson,€Chief€JusticeÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àTHAYER,€Special€JudgeÌÌÓÓà àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€SpecialÏWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€withÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€CourtÏof€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€Ìà àThe€appeal€has€been€perfected€by€Lucy€Anderson,€widow€and€administratrixÏof€the€Estate€of€Billy€Joe€Anderson,€deceased,€from€a€ruling€by€the€trial€court€that€herÏclaim€for€death€benefits€was€not€compensable€as€she€failed€to€establish€herÏhusbandððs€death€was€caused€by€his€work€activities.Ìà àAt€the€time€of€his€death,€Mr.€Anderson€was€54€years€of€age,€was€six€foot€fourÏinches€tall€and€weighed€between€260„280€pounds.€€He€had€been€employed€as€aÏcutter€operator€with€defendant,€Lenzing€U.S.A.,€for€about€six€years€but€had€worked€aÏtotal€of€21€years€for€the€company.€€Plaintiff€testified€her€husband€was€in€good€health,Ïtook€no€medication€and€never€complained€of€chest€pains.€€She€said€he€smokedÏcigars€sometimes€but€did€not€appear€to€inhale€the€smoke.€€She€also€stated€he€hadÍno€complaints€before€reporting€to€work€on€March€11,€1993.€€He€was€working€the€ð ðCððÏshift€which€started€at€12€midnight€and€ended€at€7:00€a.m.Ìà àArvine€Taylor,€decedentððs€shift€supervisor,€testified€and€described€the€dutiesÏof€a€cutter€operator.€€The€employer€is€engaged€in€the€business€of€producing€rayonÏfiber.€€As€the€material€moves€through€the€production€line,€it€is€called€a€ð ðtow.ðð€€A€cutterÏoperator€is€responsible€for€keeping€the€œtow›€moving€down€the€production€line.€€IfÏknots€appear€in€the€tow,€the€operator€uses€a€knife€and€cuts€the€knot€out.€€If€the€towÏstops€for€any€reason,€the€operator€reels€it€back€up€on€the€machine€and€continuesÏthe€process.€€Also,€if€co„workers€spot€a€knot€along€the€production€line,€a€horn€isÏsounded€to€alert€the€cutter€operator.€€It€appears€a€cutter€operator€has€theÏresponsibility€of€watching€over€several€machines€involved€in€this€process.Ìà àOn€the€night€in€question,€the€deceased€was€looking€after€four€units€on€theÏproduction€line.€€The€evidence€indicates€that€among€the€four€machines,€there€wereÏ42€breaks€during€the€shift.€€Records€showed€there€was€a€break€on€unit€#2€at€5:25Ïa.m.€and€at€6:30€a.m.,€unit€#4€and€unit€#1€were€down.€€Supervisor€Taylor€told€theÏcourt€the€records€indicated€it€was€an€average€night€on€the€production€line.€€He€saidÏit€would€normally€take€ten€to€fifteen€seconds€to€remove€a€small€knot€and€that€thereÏwas€very€little€physical€exertion€in€cutting€out€a€knot€or€resuming€a€tow€if€it€wasÏdown.Ìà àWitness€John€Dye,€a€co„worker,€was€the€last€person€to€see€Mr.€AndersonÏprior€to€his€death.€€He€testified€the€deceased€walked€by€his€work€station€about€6:10Ïa.m.€as€he€just€happened€to€glance€at€the€clock.€€At€6:30€a.m.,€he€noticed€the€towÏwas€down€and€went€to€check€about€the€situation.€€He€found€Mr.€Anderson€lyingÏdown€on€the€floor€near€his€machines.€€No€one€could€find€a€pulse€or€detect€anyÍbreathing€movements.€€He€was€taken€immediately€to€Morristown„Hamblen€HospitalÏwhere€he€was€pronounced€dead€on€arrival.Ìà àPlaintiff€presented€expert€medical€testimony€from€Dr.€John€H.€Kinser€and€Dr.ÏKeith€E.€Pratt.€€Both€doctors€testified€by€deposition€and€stated€they€had€never€seenÏor€treated€the€deceased€employee.à àÌà àDr.€Kinser€was€a€family€practice€physician€and€the€medical€examiner€forÏHamblen€County.€€He€executed€the€death€certificate€which€indicated€the€cause€ofÏdeath€was€myocardial€infarction.€€He€testified€he€reviewed€the€medical€records€ofÏdefendant€employer,€depositions€from€two€co„workers€describing€the€decedentððsÏwork€duties€and€a€deposition€of€the€plaintiff€widow.€€From€this€information,€he€formedÏthe€opinion€the€fatal€heart€attack€was€caused€by€the€work€activities.€€Specifically,€heÏresponded,€ð ðIn€my€opinion,€it€was€caused€by€his€physical€activity€and€the€addedÏactivities€from€these€more€than€usual€breakdown€that€he€had€during€this€period€ofÏtime.ðð€€When€asked€what€specific€physical€activity€caused€the€attack,€he€said€ð ðHisÏoperating€his€normal€job,€by€pulling€these€tows€up,€getting€them€started€backÏthrough€his€roller,€.€.€.€.€.€.ððÌà àDr.€Pratt,€an€internal€medicine€physician,€testified€he€reviewed€the€sameÏmedical€records€and€depositions€and€was€of€the€opinion€ð ðthe€increased€level€ofÏstress€most€definitely€could€have€precipitated€a€myocardial€infarction.ðð€€He€admittedÏthe€employee€had€some€risk€factors€such€as€high€blood€pressure,€mild€obesity€andÏelevated€cholesterol€level.€€At€another€point€during€his€testimony€he€said€the€recordsÏdid€not€indicate€the€work€duties€ð ðnecessarily€encompass€strenuous€physical€activity,Ïbut€it€appears€to€me€that€it€would€be€a€much€more€stressful€environment.ððÌà àDefendant€employer€presented€witness€Eddie€Davis,€who€was€the€coronerÏfor€Hamblen€County.€€He€testified€he€came€to€the€hospital€emergency€room€afterÍbeing€called€at€about€7:00€a.m.€€He€said€it€was€his€duty€to€see€if€there€was€anyÏsuspicions€of€foul€play.€€He€talked€to€hospital€personnel€and€the€plaintiff€widow.€€HeÏindicated€a€nurse€was€present€when€he€talked€to€plaintiff.€€He€quoted€plaintiff€asÏsaying€her€husband€had€a€history€of€high€blood€pressure;€that€he€was€not€taking€hisÏmedication;€and€that€he€had€been€complaining€of€chest€and€arm€pains€for€about€aÏweek€and€refused€to€see€a€doctor.€€Since€there€was€nothing€suspicious€about€theÏdeath,€an€autopsy€was€not€ordered.Ìà àDefense€witness€Gerry€Wilburn,€a€registered€nurse,€testified€by€depositionÏand€stated€she€helped€compile€the€emergency€room€record.€€She€said€plaintiff€toldÏher€Mr.€Anderson€had€a€history€of€high€blood€pressure;€that€he€would€not€takeÏmedication€because€it€made€him€feel€bad;€and€he€complained€of€chest€and€armÏpains€for€several€weeks€and€refused€any€medical€attention.Ìà àPlaintiff€denied€giving€a€history€of€information€as€stated€by€the€coroner€andÏthe€nurse€but€admitted€she€was€very€upset€while€at€the€emergency€room.€€She€didÏnot€remember€ever€seeing€the€coroner.Ìà àThe€employerððs€expert€medical€witness€was€Dr.€George€M.€Krisle€III,Ïcardiologist,€who€testified€by€deposition€and€who€had€never€seen€or€treated€theÏdeceased€employee.€€He€stated€he€had€been€in€the€cardiology€field€for€about€twentyÏyears€and€only€saw€patients€with€cardiology€problems.€€When€the€hypotheticalÏcausation€question€was€asked,€he€responded€by€stating€that€Mr.€Anderson€hadÏcertain€risk€factors€such€as€extra€weight,€high€blood€pressure,€smoking€and€previousÏhigh€cholesterol€readings€and€that€the€emergency€room€record€indicated€he€hadÏbeen€having€symptoms€for€about€two€weeks.€€He€felt€these€would€be€causativeÏfactors€for€a€myocardial€infarction.€€He€stated€he€was€of€the€opinion€the€work€activityÏwould€not€have€caused€the€heart€attack€if€what€had€been€described€to€him€was€hisÍcustomary€and€normal€work€assignment.€€He€admitted€that€stress€could€cause€aÏheart€attack€but€the€stressful€event€was€usually€due€to€something€stunning,Ïoverwhelming,€etc.€€He€reiterated€several€times€that€his€normal€job€activities€wouldÏnot€generally€be€a€cause€of€his€heart€attack.€€Ìà àThe€trial€court€took€the€issues€under€advisement€and€later€filed€a€writtenÏopinion€wherein€he€specifically€found€the€expert€medical€testimony€was€in€conflictÏand€after€considering€all€the€evidence,€he€gave€greater€weight€to€the€testimonyÏgiven€by€the€cardiologist€than€the€other€medical€testimony.€€In€considering€theÏquestion€of€whether€stress€caused€the€heart€attack,€the€court€made€findings€thatÏnothing€unusual€had€occurred€during€the€work€shift€other€than€the€performance€ofÏhis€normal€job€assignment.€€Accordingly,€the€court€held€plaintiff€had€failed€to€carryÏher€burden€of€proof€and€the€complaint€was€to€be€dismissed.Ìà àPlaintiff€insists€the€trial€court€misapplied€the€law€in€reaching€a€decision€andÏalso€gave€undue€weight€to€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Krisle.Ìà àOur€review€of€the€case€is€de€novo€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€theÏcorrectness€of€the€findings€of€fact€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€isÏotherwise.€€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).Ìà àAn€employee€has€the€burden€of€proving€every€element€of€the€case,€includingÏcausation€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòTindall€v.€Waring€Park€Assððn,óó€725ÏS.W.2d€935,€937€(Tenn.€1987).€€There€is€no€presumption€as€to€causation€merelyÏbecause€an€employee€(not€a€policeman€or€fireman)€is€found€dead€at€his€post.€€òòKingÏv.€Jones€Truck€Lines,óó€814€S.W.2d€23€(Tenn.€1991).Ìà àIn€òòBacon€v.€Sevier€County,óó€808€S.W.2d€46€(Tenn.€1991),€the€Supreme€CourtÏsummarized€the€many€rules€of€law€dealing€with€the€recovery€of€benefits€where€anÏemployee€has€suffered€a€heart€attack€which€is€causally€related€to€the€employment.€ÍIn€an€exhaustive€opinion€citing€numerous€cases,€the€Court€stated€recovery€ofÏbenefits€depended€upon€the€application€of€two€distinct€rules.€€The€two€rules€areÏdivided€into€two€classes:€€(1)€where€the€heart€attack€is€caused€by€physical€exertionÏor€strain€and€(2)€where€the€heart€attack€is€caused€by€stress,€tension€or€some€type€ofÏemotional€upheaval.Ìà àIn€our€review€of€the€expert€medical€testimony,€we€find€the€trial€court€was€facedÏwith€somewhat€conflicting€theories€as€to€whether€Mr.€Andersonððs€heart€attack€wasÏcaused€by€physical€exertion€or€the€stress€of€his€employment.€€Dr.€Kinser€was€of€theÏopinion€the€physical€exertion€along€with€the€ordinary€stress€of€his€work€was€theÏcausative€factor.€€On€the€other€hand,€Dr.€Pratt€and€Dr.€Krisle€limit€their€opinionsÏ(which€are€different)€to€dealing€only€with€stress€and€emotional€upheaval.€€Thus,€theÏtrial€court€was€confronted€with€which€rule€to€apply€in€analyzing€the€facts€of€the€case.€ÏWe€think€it€is€apparent€from€the€written€findings€that€the€court€declined€to€accept€theÏopinion€of€Dr.€Kinser€that€physical€exertion€or€strain€was€a€causative€factor.€€FromÏour€independent€review,€we€find€the€greater€weight€of€the€evidence€supports€theÏtrial€court€in€applying€the€ð ðstressðð€rules€as€opposed€to€the€ð ðphysical€exertionðð€rules.Ìà àIn€choosing€which€medical€testimony€to€accept,€the€trial€court€may€considerÏthe€qualifications€of€the€experts,€the€circumstances€of€their€examination,€theÏinformation€available€to€them€and€the€evaluation€of€the€importance€of€thatÏinformation€by€other€experts.€€òòOrman€v.€Williams„Sonoma,€Inc.,óó€803€S.W.2d€672,Ï676€(Tenn.€1991).Ìà àIf€there€is€conflicting€medical€testimony€on€causation€of€any€injury,€the€trialÏjudge€has€discretion€to€conclude€that€the€opinion€of€a€particular€expert€should€beÏaccepted€over€that€of€another€expert€and€that€one€expertððs€testimony€contains€aÍmore€probable€explanation€than€another€expertððs€testimony.€€òòThomas€v.€Aetna€LifeÏ&€Cas.€Co.,óó€812€S.W.2d€278€(Tenn.€1991).Ìà àIn€order€to€recover€when€there€is€no€physical€exertion€but€there€is€emotionalÏstress,€worry,€shock€or€tension,€the€heart€attack€must€be€immediately€precipitated€byÏa€specific€acute€or€sudden€stressful€event€rather€than€generalized€employmentÏconditions.€€òòBacon,€supra;€Sexton€v.€Scott€County,óó€785€S.W.2d€814€(Tenn.€1990);ÏòòHelton€v.€Food€Lion,€Inc.,óó€738€S.W.2d€626€(Tenn.€1987);€òòAllied€Chemical€Corp.€v.ÏWells,óó€578€S.W.2d€369,€372€(Tenn.€1979).€€Thus,€the€normal€ups€and€downs€areÏpart€of€any€employment€relationship€and€do€not€justify€finding€an€ð ðaccidental€injuryððÏfor€purposes€of€workersðð€compensation€law.€€òòSexton,€supra.óóÌà àIn€reviewing€the€case€under€the€stress€rules,€the€trial€court€found€theÏdeceased€employee€had€been€performing€his€normal€and€usual€duties€and€thatÏthere€was€not€any€evidence€of€an€event€or€specific€incident€of€an€unusual€orÏabnormal€nature€that€had€occurred€during€the€work€shift.€€We€also€note€thatÏplaintiffððs€experts€base€their€opinions€on€stress€that€occurs€from€general€workingÏconditions€which€is€not€sufficient€to€support€a€recovery€of€benefits.€€Since€theÏmedical€evidence€does€not€identify€any€specific€traumatic€event€that€led€to€theÏattack,€we€find€the€court€correctly€followed€the€law€and€the€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€the€findings€of€fact.Ìà àTherefore,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€areÏtaxed€to€plaintiff.Ìà àœÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌÌ›œÌ›ÌÓÓœÔ% € Ô›à àà àà àà àà à___________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:Ìœ________________________________›ÌE.€Riley€Anderson,€Chief€JusticeÌœÌ________________________________›ÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€Judge€œÌ›ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœÇÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÌà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€IN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà à€à à€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àAT€KNOXVILLEà àà àÌÌÌÌÒ Ê ÒÒ H Òà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÒ S ÒÒ H Òà àà àLUCY€B.€ANDERSON,€INDIV.€&à àà à)€€€€HAMBLEN€CIRCUITÌADMIN.€OF€THE€ESTATE€OF€BILLY€€€à à)€€€€No.€€93„CV„350à àà àà àÏANDERSON,€DECEASEDà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€Hon€Ben€K.€Wexlerà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€Ïà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à)€€€€€Judgeà àà àà àà àà à€€€€à àà àà à€€€€€€€Ïà àà àà à)à à€à àÌvs.€€à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌLENZING€U.S.A.à àà àà àà à)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà à)€€€€€€No.€03S01„9701„CH„00036Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà à)à àÌà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€à àÌà àÌÌà àà àà àà àJUDGMENT€ORDERÌà àà àà àÌà à€€€€€€€€€€€ÓfæÓÓ ø ÓÓ` Ü…X ì–XÓThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€theÏorder€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€Panel,€and€the€PanelððsÏMemorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€whichÏare€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ìà àà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€Opinion€of€theÏPanel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌà àà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panelððs€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€JudgmentÏof€the€Court.€€à àà àÌÒ  ÒÒ H Òà à€€€€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€plaintiff/appellant,€Lucy€B.€Anderson.Ïand€B.€Evelyn€Anderson,€surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌ03/03/98Ì€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÙ€Ù<<€Conversion€error€>>à àà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€motion€forÏreview€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann€.ðð€50„6„225€(e)€(5)€(B),€the€entire€record,Ïincluding€the€order€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€AppealsÏPanel,€and€the€Panelððs€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€factÏand€conclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ìà àà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€review€is€notÏwell€taken€and€should€be€denied;€andÌà àà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panelððs€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€isÏmade€the€judgment€of€the€Court.Ìà àà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€the€plaintiff„appellant€and€sureties,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ìà àà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€this€____€day€of€June,€1997.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌÌAnderson,€J.€„€Not€ParticipatingÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌal€to€the€Special€Workerðð€Compensation€Panel,€and€the€Panelððs€MemorandumÏOpinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€areÏincorporated€herein€by€reference;Ìà àÌà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€Opinion€of€theÏPanel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌÌà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panelððs€findings€of€act€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€theÏJudgment€of€the€Court.ÌÌà àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€€to€the€plaintiff„appellant,€Vernon€Harris€andÌGilbert€and€Faulkner.€surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€ÌÌ06/03//97à àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌà àœÔ€,ÔÔ€,Ô›