ÿWPCê  b %l^ r 0ˆ~UNwT4Xl z{ÒõÇ mÉ#ÁàUN¡ Æï Ƶ Æ{ ÆA  N E 0J 0T] 0D± 0^õ 0hS 0r» 0|- 0†© 0/ 1u¿ 0d4U>˜U*Öòv~òbpvÓx 0ëK B 6 0@S D3“ D-Æ 0Kó AS>Æ‘ 0¤W 0Dû A«?  »A’8+â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularòK+\Pê:i¢Ø+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2, 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< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Times èÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÔ€*¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€*XÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€*ôÔWe€commend€the€trial€courtððs€use€of€alternative€findings€in€this€case,€as€encouraged€by€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court.€€òòSeeóó€òòCunningham€v.€Shelton€Sec.€Serv.,€Inc.óó,€_____€S.W.3d€_____€(Tenn.€2001)€(Dismissal€at€theÏclose€of€a€workerððs€compensation€claimantððs€proof€is€rarely€appropriate.€€Instead,€the€trial€court€should€hear€the€entireÏcase€and€make€appropriate€findings€of€fact,€and€alternative€findings€when€necessary,€for€appellate€review.)ÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`- ù-Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  Serv Geneva ÒÒ  Serv Geneva Ò(|G2ë¸$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ä»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X{¤X»»Ô d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3…÷$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ä»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€*ÔÔ€*¼ÔÑ#€++¼d#ÑÑ#€++¼d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ8€jÌXXdê»»d 8ÑÓ  ÓÔ€*îÔà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÔ€*¼ÔÌMay€16,€2001€SessionÌÔ€*XÔÌò òÔ€*¼ÔMARY€ELLEN€BARNES€v.€YASUDA€FIRE€and€MARINE€INSURANCEÏCOMPANYÔ€*XÔó óÌÌà@ àò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÌà@ àNo.€305806„5€T.D.€€€€€€Kay€S.€Ô_ÔRobilioÔ_Ô,€JudgeÌÌßA€V) °°` d€÷E<ã` AßÌÌNo.€W2000„02559„SC„WCM„CV€„€Mailed€July€2,€2001;€Filed€September€24,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÌÌßA€V) °°` dE<¢` AßÌó óÌÓ  ÓThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workers'€CompensationÏAppeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€forÏhearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€In€thisÏappeal,€the€employee€insists€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€denial€of€workers'€compensationÏbenefits€and€asks€this€tribunal€to€determine€the€extent€of€her€vocational€impairment.€€As€discussedÏbelow,€the€panel€has€concluded€the€judgment€of€dismissal€should€be€reversed,€the€conditional€awardÏof€permanent€partial€disability€benefits€based€on€30€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole€affirmed,€and€theÏcause€remanded€with€instructions.ÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óò òTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)€(2000)€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€CourtÏReversed€in€Part,€Affirmed€in€Part€and€Remanded.ó óÌÌÓ  ÓòòJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Sp.€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJanice€M.€Holder,€J.,óó€andÏòòRobert€L.€Childers,€Sp.€J.óó,€joined.ÌÌRichard€D.€Click,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Mary€Ellen€Barnes.ÌÌRonald€L.€Harper€and€R.€Scott€Vincent,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Yasuda€Fire€andÏMarine€Insurance€Company€of€America.ÌÌÓ  Óò òMEMORANDUM€OPINIONó óÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€employee€or€claimant,€Mary€Ellen€Barnes,€was€37€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€trial.€€SheÏhas€a€high€school€education,€has€taken€some€college€courses€and€has€worked€as€a€service€stationÏsupervisor,€in€food€service€and€in€production.€€At€the€time€of€her€claimed€injury,€she€was€working€inÏproduction€for€Sharp€Manufacturing€Company,€repetitively€lifting€and€placing€parts.€€On€June€7,Ï1999,€she€felt€a€sharp€pain€radiating€down€her€left€arm.€€She€continued€working€and€reported€theÏaccident€to€her€employer€the€next€day.€€She€believes€her€injury€was€caused€by€repetitive€lifting.ÌÌà àMs.€Barnes€has€had€neck€pain€and€headaches€off€and€on€since€1984.€€The€medical€proof€asÏto€causation€is€less€than€consistent,€but€it€is€clear€that€the€claimant€will€retain€some€degree€ofÏpermanent€disability.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€injury€occurred€while€the€claimant€was€working€for€theÏemployer,€Sharp€Manufacturing€Company,€but€disallowed€the€claim€for€insufficient€proof€ofÍmedical€causation.€€Appellate€review€is€de€novo€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€aÏpresumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€isÏotherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).€€The€reviewing€court€is€required€to€conduct€anÏindependent€examination€of€the€record€to€determine€where€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€lies.€ÏòòÔ_ÔWingertÔ_Ô€v.€Government€of€Sumner€Countyóó,€908€S.W.2d€921,€922€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà àConclusions€of€law€are€subject€to€de€novo€review€on€appeal€without€any€presumption€ofÏcorrectness.€€òòÔ_ÔNuttÔ_Ô€v.€Champion€Intern.€Corp.óó,€980€S.W.2d€365,€367€(Tenn.€1998).€€Where€the€trialÏjudge€has€seen€and€heard€the€witnesses,€especially€if€issues€of€credibility€and€weight€to€be€given€oralÏtestimony€are€involved,€considerable€deference€must€be€accorded€those€circumstances€on€review.€ÏòòÔ_ÔKellermanÔ_Ô€v.€Foodóó€òòLion,€Inc.óó,€929€S.W.2d€333,€335€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€appellate€tribunal,€however,Ïis€as€well€situated€to€gauge€the€weight,€worth€and€significance€of€deposition€testimony€as€the€trialÏjudge.€€òòOrman€v.€Ô_ÔSonomaÔ_Ô,€Inc.óó,€803€S.W.2d€672,€676„77€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àAn€accidental€injury€arises€out€of€oneððs€employment€when€there€is€apparent€to€the€rationalÏmind,€upon€consideration€of€all€the€circumstances,€a€causal€connection€between€the€conditions€underÏwhich€the€work€is€required€to€be€performed€and€the€resulting€injury,€and€occurs€in€the€course€ofÏoneððs€employment€if€it€occurs€while€an€employee€is€performing€a€duty€he€was€employed€to€do.€ÏòòFink€v.€Ô_ÔCaudleÔ_Ôóó,€856€S.W.2d€952€(Tenn.€1993).€€ð ðArising€out€ofðð€refers€to€the€origin€of€the€injuryÏin€terms€of€causation€and€ð ðin€the€course€ofððrelates€to€time,€place€and€circumstance.€€òòÔ_ÔMcCurryÔ_Ô€v.ÏContainer€Corp.€of€Americaóó,€982€S.W.2d€841,€843€(Tenn.€1998).€€For€an€accidental€injury€to€beÏcompensable,€both€components€are€required.€€òòÔ_ÔMcCalebÔ_Ô€v.€Saturn€Corp.óó,€910€S.W.2d€412€(Tenn.Ï1995).€€They€are€not€synonymous€terms.€€òòÔ_ÔMcCurryÔ_Ôóó€at€843.€€Not€every€injury€by€accident€whichÏoccurs€in€the€course€of€employment€is€compensable;€it€is€only€compensable€if€it€also€arises€out€ofÏemployment,€but€any€reasonable€doubt€as€to€whether€such€an€injury€arises€out€of€the€employmentÏshould€be€resolved€in€favor€of€the€employee.€€òòÔ_ÔReeserÔ_Ô€v.€Yellow€Freight€System,€Inc.óó,€938€S.W.2dÏ690,€692€(Tenn.€1997).ÌÌà àWe€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€injury€to€Ms.€Barnes€occurred€in€the€courseÏof€employment.€€The€issue€then,€fairly€stated,€is€whether€there€is€a€causal€connection€between€theÏwork€she€was€required€to€perform€and€the€resulting€injury,€from€a€consideration€of€all€theÏcircumstances.€€In€all€but€the€most€obvious€cases,€causation€and€permanency€may€only€beÏestablished€through€expert€medical€testimony.€€òòThomas€v.€Aetna€Life€and€Ô_ÔCasÔ_Ô.€Co.óó,€812€S.W.2dÏ278,€283€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àThe€first€physician€the€claimant€visited€following€her€June€7,€1999€injury€was€Dr.€Ô_ÔArsenÔ_ÔÏÔ_ÔHaigÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔManugianÔ_Ô,€a€board€certified€orthopedic€surgeon,€to€whom€she€gave€a€history€of€progressivelyÏworsening€pain€in€her€left€side,€shoulder€and€arm,€numbness,€loss€of€motion€and€weakness€of€herÏneck€and€headaches.€€She€had€reported€neck€pain€without€arm€pain€on€a€visit€to€the€same€clinic€inÏ1998€when€she€saw€a€different€doctor€on€three€occasions.€€She€told€Dr.€Ô_ÔManugianÔ_Ô€on€June€14,Ï1999,€that€certain€activities€at€work€caused€numbness€in€her€left€hand.€€She€continued€working€andÏreturned€to€Dr.€Ô_ÔManugianÔ_Ô€for€conservative€care.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔManugianÔ_Ô€testified€on€direct€examination€thatÏthere€appeared€to€be€no€evidence€of€a€specific€incident€at€work€that€triggered€the€injury.€€A€magneticÏresonance€imaging€scan,€ordered€by€the€doctor,€revealed€disc€protrusions€at€C„5€and€C„4.€€OnÏcross„examination,€Dr.€Ô_ÔManugianÔ_Ô€conceded€that€the€claimantððs€repetitive€use€of€her€hands€and€armsÏat€work€could€have€aggravated€a€pre„existing€degenerative€or€other€condition.€€He€referred€her€to€Dr.ÏGary€L.€Ô_ÔKellettÔ_Ô,€a€board€certified€neurosurgeon,€and€the€two€doctors€performed€corrective€surgeryÏand€fusion€of€the€claimantððs€neck.€€In€response€to€a€hypothetical€question,€Dr.€Ô_ÔKellettÔ_Ô€opined€theÏinjury€probably€occurred€on€the€job.ÌÌà àOn€December€22,€1999,€the€claimant€visited€Dr.€Joseph€C.€Ô_ÔBoalsÔ_Ô,€III,€whose€qualificationsÍas€an€expert€are€not€questioned,€for€an€examination€and€evaluation.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔBoalsÔ_Ô€testified€withoutÏequivocation€that€her€injury€was€work€related.€€All€of€the€medical€proof€in€the€case€is€by€deposition.ÌÌà àAn€injury€is€compensable,€even€though€the€claimant€may€have€been€suffering€from€a€seriousÏpre„existing€condition€or€disability,€if€a€work„connected€accident€can€be€fairly€said€to€be€aÏcontributing€cause€of€such€injury.€An€employer€takes€an€employee€as€he€is€and€assumes€the€risk€ofÏhaving€a€weakened€condition€aggravated€by€an€injury€which€might€not€affect€a€normal€person.€ÏòòParks€v.€Tennessee€Municipal€League€Risk€Management€Poolóó,€974€S.W.2d€677,€679€(Tenn.€1998).€ÏGiven€the€medical€testimony,€the€fact€that€the€record€contains€no€other€explanation€and€the€fact€thatÏthe€injury€occurred€at€work,€the€panel€has€concluded€that€the€claimantððs€injury€was€probably€oneÏarising€out€of€her€employment€and€should€be€held€compensable.€€The€judgment€of€dismissal€isÏtherefore€reversed.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€gave€the€claimant€a€permanent€disability€rating€of€30€percent€to€the€body€as€aÏwhole.× ƒ, ××  ×€€The€claimant€has€asked€this€court€to€review€that€finding.€€The€extent€of€an€injured€workerððsÏvocational€disability€is€a€question€of€fact.€€òòSeals€v.€England/Corsair€Upholstery€Mfg.óó,€984€S.W.2dÏ912,€917€(Tenn.€1999).ÌÌà àOnce€the€causation€and€permanency€of€an€injury€have€been€established€by€expert€testimony,Ïthe€trial€judge€may€consider€many€pertinent€factors,€including€age,€job€skills,€education,€training,Ïduration€of€disability,€and€job€opportunities€for€the€disabled,€in€addition€to€anatomic€impairment,€forÏthe€purpose€of€evaluating€the€extent€of€a€claimantððs€permanent€disability.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241(b).€€The€opinion€of€a€qualified€expert€with€respect€to€a€claimantððs€clinical€or€physicalÏimpairment€is€a€factor€which€the€court€will€consider€along€with€all€other€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances,€but€it€is€for€the€court€to€determine€the€percentage€of€the€claimantððs€industrialÏdisability.€€òòÔ_ÔPittmanÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔLascoÔ_Ô€Ind.,€Inc.óó,€908€S.W.2d€932,€936€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà àDr.€Ô_ÔManugianÔ_Ô€estimated€the€claimantððs€permanent€medical€impairment€at€12€percent€to€theÏbody€as€a€whole.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔBoalsÔ_Ô€estimated€her€permanent€medical€impairment€at€21€to€25€percent.€€BothÏused€AMA€guidelines.€€As€already€noted,€the€claimant€is€in€her€late€thirties€with€a€high€schoolÏeducation€and€limited€skills.€€She€works€with€her€hands.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔBoalsÔ_Ô€testified€that€she€should€avoidÏworking€over€her€head,€repetitive€flexion,€extension€and€rotation€of€her€neck,€and€repetitive€lifting.€ÏHe€prescribed€a€weight€limit€of€about€15€pounds.€€She€was€totally€disabled€from€July€17,€1999€toÏNovember€17,€1999,€when€she€returned€to€work€without€any€reduction€in€pay.€€In€cases€where€anÏinjured€worker€is€entitled€to€permanent€partial€disability€benefits€to€the€body€as€a€whole€and€the€pre„injury€employer€returns€the€employee€to€employment€at€a€wage€equal€to€or€greater€than€the€wage€theÏemployee€was€receiving€at€the€time€of€the€injury,€the€maximum€permanent€partial€disability€awardÏthe€employee€may€receive€is€two€and€one„half€times€the€medical€impairment€rating€pursuant€to€theÏprovisions€of€the€òòAmerican€Medical€Association€Guides€to€the€Evaluation€of€Permanent€ImpairmentóóÏor€the€òòManual€for€Orthopedic€Surgeons€in€Evaluating€Permanent€Physical€Impairmentóó.€€See€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(1).ÌÌà àWhen€the€medical€testimony€differs,€the€trial€court€must€choose€which€view€to€believe.€€InÏdoing€so,€the€court€is€allowed,€among€other€things,€to€consider€the€qualifications€of€the€experts,€theÏcircumstances€of€their€examination,€the€information€available€to€them,€and€the€evaluation€of€theÍimportance€of€that€information€by€other€experts.€€òòOrman€v.€Williams€Ô_ÔSonomaÔ_Ô,€Inc.óó,€803€S.W.2dÏ672,€676€(Tenn.€1991).€€Moreover,€it€is€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge€to€conclude€theÏopinion€of€certain€experts€should€be€accepted€over€that€of€other€experts€and€that€it€contains€the€moreÏprobable€explanation.€€òòHinson€v.€Wal„Mart€Stores,€Inc.óó,€654€S.W.2d€675,€676„7€(Tenn.€1983).ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€accepted€the€opinion€of€Dr.€Ô_ÔManugianÔ_Ô€and€conditionally€awardedÏpermanent€partial€disability€benefits€based€on€two€and€one„half€times€his€impairment€rating.€€FromÏour€independent€examination€of€the€record,€we€cannot€say€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€byÏdoing€so€or€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€an€award€of€permanent€partial€disability€benefitsÏbased€on€30€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole.ÌÌà àFor€the€above€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€dismissing€the€case€for€insufficientÏproof€of€causation€is€reversed.€€The€conditional€award€of€permanent€partial€disability€benefits€isÏaffirmed€and€the€case€remanded€to€the€Circuit€Court€for€Shelby€County€for€entry€of€a€judgmentÏconsistent€herewith,€including€an€award€of€medical€expenses,€if€any,€paid€by€the€claimant€andÏtemporary€total€disability€benefits€in€accordance€with€the€stipulation€of€the€parties.€€Costs€are€taxedÏto€the€appellee,€Yasuda€Fire€and€Marine€Insurance€Company.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________________€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOE€C.€LOSER,€JR.,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÔ€*¼Ôà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÔ€*XÔÌÌÓ  Óò òà@ àòò€Ô€*¼ÔMARY€ELLEN€BARNESóó€v.€òòYASUDA€FIRE€óóandòò€MARINE€INSURANCEÏCOMPANYó óóóÌÓ  Óò òà@ àÌÔ€*XÔà@ àCircuit€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÌà@ àNo.€305806„5€T.D.ó óÌÌÌà@ àßA€V) °°¸ d¯2E™ ¸ AßÌÌò òà@ àNo.€W2000„02559„SC„WCM„CV€„€Filed€September€24,€2001ó óÌÌßA€V) °°¸ d Et¸ AßÌò òÌó óà@ àÌò òà@ àJUDGMENT€ORDERÔ€*¼Ô€ó ó€ÌÌÔ€*XÔà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€motion€for€review€filed€by€the€defendant/appellee,ÏYasuda€Fire€and€Marine€Insurance€Company,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(5)(B),Ïthe€entire€record,€including€the€order€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€AppealsÏPanel,€and€the€Panel's€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;ÌÌà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€review€is€not€well„taken€and€shouldÏbe€denied.ÌÌà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€are€adoptedÏand€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€judgment€of€the€Court.ÌÌà àCosts€are€taxed€to€the€defendant/appellee,€Yasuda€Fire€and€Marine€Insurance€Company,€andÏits€surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌà àIt€is€so€ORDERED.ÌÌ€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€Ô_ÔCURIAMÔ_ÔÌÌÌHolder,€J.,€not€participating€ÌÌ