ÿWPC> ±Wó´²oYSÁ_,÷^íŠú‘6‰.8ž@ÁðÀVžœ%´œæé!Ð.}ßjIŽêÍoò6r9Ï!Gõ»¼c"ŒâŸŸv´Êà<ìchL Š(‡¥]8Òw »‚1É_M' z× ©© ÙxÑZŒ4Æ¥³¸;>,ÈÍ eü¦Ëšy…òÕì"ÊŒï±ð;˜0*TÙ «íöG±úÇ¿ôä')ì+ ¨žéá ÕºNbõ@Ýtƒ¾L ëk£Y8µ?¹þPW"ûÙ™Ø*rp„¿ÊâL^Ëï66;²Ý¡VÎü>Ü,È|V˜e/s­Rž\ßTàp®/‚–Z2§ç´îñhû‘ –¿ù¼––e3f O±Øó!gdx|#&¬>ºUàÒØ¡pk&´‡²¼íÔûiBï¡th¦6wj]X¥ÝˆFòv§†5ïš0ëûüf€#þWŠÀã/À<÷i±…=p±;&·Wí€èp ºîÊâ)záÞœÔ(Ø7x“…Ž ¬ñXdVÂ~b|Ötµzr a/"ÿ­Ssò ŠÚOâaè ÝÏËéîʆ¨þ‰–ñ«ìVž#1Û_³x¦OÁ¤ÅZíŽ7…y¿`áóÒp«˜½Ûɘ%ƒúì¬db#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ U N· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë ë N±N³ zµE/Ò11      ! )))))))))))b111111111111111111111111111111111111 0ë9999 B $$ 0¤A D5å D- 0KGG AS’Æå 0¤« 0DO A«“˜\\IB27S11T\stats1ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»W«ƒ/s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular8AÅ.ê:i¢×+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptH45678- ù-(|G2š $¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ym»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€XùX»»Ô d(|3„$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ym»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3„$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ym»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Yí»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼Yí»»»ÔÑ8€ AXXdì»»d8ÑÓ  ÓÔ‡îLœî»¼YíÔà@@7 7 ìàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÐ Ö& Ðà@@ƒƒìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼Yí»îîLœî#ÔÐ üL ÐSeptember€19,€2003€SessionÐ "r ÐÔ‡X AX»¼YíÔÌò òÔ#†¼Yí»XX A#ÔSHARON€A.€BATTLEòòóó€v.€METHODIST€MEDICAL€CENTERòòóóÔ‡X AX»¼YíÔó óÐ  p ÐÌà@@¼¼ìàò ò€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Anderson€CountyÐ  p Ðà@@ôôìàNo.€AOLA0312€€€€€€James€B.€Scott,€Jr.,€Circuit€JudgeÐ  \ ÐÌFiled€December€3,€2003Ð ä4  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Ï` AßÐ Ð  ÐÌNo.€E2002„00566„Ô_ÔWCÔ_Ô„R3„CVÐ Ë  ÐÔ#†¼Yí»XX A›#ÔÔ‡X AX»¼YíÔÌßA€V) °°` dE<¢` AßÐ £ó  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓThis€workersðð€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workersðð€CompensationÐ žî ÐAppeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€forÐ ŠÚ Ðhearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€Ô#†¼Yí»XX A–#ÔÔ‡X AX»¼YíÔThe€trialÐ vÆ Ðcourt€awarded€the€employee€5€percent€permanent€partial€disability€for€a€shoulder€injury€and€35Ð b² Ðpercent€permanent€partial€disability€for€a€neck€injury.€€Plaintiff€contends€the€awards€are€insufficient;Ð Nž Ðthe€court€was€in€error€in€capping€the€awards€at€two€and€one„half€times€impairment;€and€the€court€wasÐ :Š Ðin€error€in€allowing€discretionary€costs.€€The€judgment€is€affirmed.Ð &v ÐÓÓÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)€(1999)€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€isÐ þN ÐAffirmed.ó óÐ ê: ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÓ  ÓRoger€E.€Thayer,€Sp.€J.,€€Ô#†¼Yí»àX A‡#ÔÔ‡X AX.¼YíÔóódelivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJohn€K.€Byers,€Sr.€J.óó,€joined.€Ð  ÐòòE.€Riley€Anderson,€J.óó,€did€not€participate€in€the€case.Ð ®þ ÐÌApril€Carroll€Ô_ÔMeldrumÔ_Ô,€of€Clinton,€Tennessee,€for€Appellant,€Sharon€A.€Battle.Ð † Ö ÐÌRobert€W.€Ô_ÔKnoltonÔ_Ô,€of€Oak€Ridge,€Tennessee,€for€Appellee,€Methodist€Medical€Center.Ð ^"®! ÐÓH ÓÓ  Óò òÌÌMEMORANDUM€OPINIONó óÔ#†¼Yí»XX A‘ #ÔÔ‡X AX»¼YíÔÐ "%r $ ÐÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Yí»XX AÒ #ÔÔ€X AX»¼YíÔà  àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€awarded€the€plaintiff,€Sharon€A.€Battle,€a€total€of€40€percentÐ ú&J"& Ðpermanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole€as€a€result€of€sustaining€two€separate€work„relatedÐ æ'6#' Ðinjuries.€€Plaintiff€is€dissatisfied€with€the€awards€and€has€appealed.Ð Ò("$( ÐÌòòò òÓ  ÓBasic€FactsÐ ª*ú%* ÐÓ° ÓÌà  àó óóóAt€the€time€of€the€trial,€plaintiff€was€fifty„two€years€of€age€and€was€a€high€school€graduate.€Ð ‚,Ò', ÐAfter€working€a€number€of€years€as€a€waitress€and€grocery€store€produce€manager,€she€obtained€anÐ n-¾(-ýú ÐÔ_Ôassociates€degree€from€Roane€State€Community€College€in€radiological€technology.€€In€1989€sheÐ ° Ðbegan€working€for€the€defendant,€Methodist€Medical€Center,€in€Oak€Ridge€as€an€x„ray€technician.Ð œì ÐÌà  àOn€January€21,€1999,€she€injured€her€right€shoulder€at€work€and€did€not€return€to€work€untilÐ tÄ Ðsometime€in€March€of€the€same€year.€€She€was€treated€with€cortisone€injections€and€returned€to€workÐ `° Ðat€the€same€rate€of€pay.€€On€February€3,€2000,€while€working€in€the€surgery€room,€she€tripped€overÐ L œ Ðsome€wires€and€fell€to€the€floor€causing€an€injury€to€her€neck.€€She€underwent€surgery€during€OctoberÐ 8 ˆ Ð2000€for€a€ruptured€disc.€€At€the€time€of€the€trial€below,€she€testified€she€was€still€having€pain€fromÐ $ t Ðboth€injuries.€€She€returned€to€work€from€this€second€injury€at€the€same€rate€of€pay.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àUpon€her€return€to€work€from€this€second€injury,€the€doctor€imposed€restrictions€of€notÐ è 8  Ðworking€more€than€eight€hours€a€day€or€forty€hours€a€week.€€After€working€for€some€period€of€time,Ð Ô$  Ðshe€said€that€she€had€missed€some€work€and€that€one€of€her€supervisors€had€mentioned€to€her€thatÐ À  Ðshe€had€been€ð ðcalling€inðð€a€lot€and€thereafter,€she€decided€to€voluntarily€reduce€her€work€scheduleÐ ¬ü  Ðto€a€four€day€work€week.€€On€cross„examination€she€admitted€some€of€the€absences€from€work€wereÐ ˜è  Ðdue€to€several€other€health€problems€and€not€as€a€result€of€the€two€work€injuries.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àDr.€Duncan€L.€McKellar,€Jr.,€and€orthopaedic€surgeon,€testified€by€deposition€and€stated€heÐ \¬ Ðtreated€her€for€the€shoulder€injury€and€that€she€had€chronic€tendinitis.€€He€treated€her€with€medicationÐ H˜ Ðand€physical€therapy€and€gave€a€2€percent€medical€impairment.€€He€also€indicated€she€should€restrictÐ 4„ Ðher€work€activities€if€she€was€working€over€her€head.Ð  p ÐÌà  àDr.€Joel€Ragland,€a€neurosurgeon,€testified€by€deposition€and€stated€he€treated€her€for€theÐ øH Ðneck€injury€and€she€had€a€ruptured€disc€at€the€C5„6€level€on€the€left.€€He€said€she€had€complainedÐ ä4 Ðof€some€numbness€in€her€feet€extending€up€her€legs.€€Her€symptoms€did€not€improve€much€and€aÐ Ð  Ðfusion€was€performed€on€October€26,€2000.€€He€was€of€the€opinion€she€had€a€25€percent€impairmentÐ ¼  Ðand€told€her€not€to€work€more€than€eight€hours€a€day€or€forty€hours€a€week.€€There€was€also€aÐ ¨ø Ðrestriction€on€overhead€reaching.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àDefendant€hospital€called€only€one€witness€who€was€Michael€Galloway,€a€vocationalÐ l¼ Ðdisability€consultant.€€He€testified€Ms.€Battle€did€not€have€any€vocational€disability€in€her€presentÐ X ¨ Ðoccupation€but€said€she€would€have€a€15€percent€vocational€disability€as€to€her€prior€workÐ D!” Ðexperience.Ð 0"€  ÐÌòòò òÓ  ÓFindings€of€the€Trial€Courtóóó óÐ $X" ÐÓ/ÓÌà  àThe€trial€court€awarded€the€plaintiff€5€percent€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€aÐ à%0!$ Ðwhole€as€a€result€of€the€shoulder€injury€and€35€percent€permanent€partial€disability€as€a€result€of€theÐ Ì&"% Ðneck€injury.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌò òòòÓ  ÓStandard€of€Reviewóóó óÐ )à$( ÐÓ¤ÓÌà  àThe€review€of€the€appeal€is€òòde€novo€óóaccompanied€by€a€presumption€that€the€findings€of€theÐ h+¸&* Ðtrial€court€are€correct€unless€we€find€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ ° ÐAnn.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).Ð œì ÐÌòòò òÓ  ÓIssues€on€Appealóóó óÐ tÄ ÐÓÓÌà  àPlaintiff€contends€the€awards€are€insufficient€under€the€evidence€as€the€trial€court€limited€theÐ L œ Ðawards€so€that€the€employee€would€not€be€discharged;€that€the€court€was€in€error€in€capping€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðawards€at€two€and€one„half€the€medical€impairment;€and€the€court€was€in€error€in€not€allowing€anÐ $ t Ðitem€of€expense€for€discretionary€costs.€€Defendant€claims€the€appeal€is€frivolous.Ð  ` ÐÌòòò òÓ  ÓAnalysis€of€Issuesóóó óÐ è 8  ÐÓ; ÓÌà  àThe€trial€court€awarded€the€employee€5€percent€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€asÐ À  Ða€whole€for€the€shoulder€injury€and€indicated€the€award€was€capped€at€two€and€one„half€times€theÐ ¬ü  Ð2€percent€medical€impairment€pursuant€to€the€provisions€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(1).€€TheÐ ˜è  Ðrecord€indicates€that€the€employee€returned€to€work€after€this€first€injury€at€the€same€rate€of€pay€andÐ „Ô  Ðsame€job€and€she€continued€to€work€regularly€until€she€was€involved€in€the€second€accident.€Ð pÀ ÐTherefore,€we€find€the€court€was€correct€in€fixing€the€award€of€disability€at€5€percent€for€the€shoulderÐ \¬ Ðinjury.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€court€awarded€the€employee€35€percent€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€aÐ  p Ðwhole€for€the€neck€injury€which€was€much€less€than€the€statutory€cap€of€two€and€one„half€times€theÐ  \ Ð25€percent€medical€impairment.€€Therefore,€the€questions€on€appeal€are€whether€the€award€isÐ øH Ðinsufficient€and€if€so,€whether€the€statutory€cap€comes€into€play€in€fixing€an€adequate€award.€€TheÐ ä4 Ðemployee€argues€the€award€of€disability€was€limited€by€the€court€in€order€to€protect€her€from€beingÐ Ð  Ðdischarged€by€her€employer.€€It€is€further€insisted€the€employee€did€not€have€a€meaningful€return€toÐ ¼  Ðwork€as€she€had€to€reduce€her€work€hours€after€the€second€injury.€€In€fixing€the€35€percent€award,Ð ¨ø Ðthe€trial€court€did€indicate€that€an€employee€with€a€large€disability€award€might€not€be€retained€inÐ ”ä Ðemployment€but€also€stated:Ð €Ð ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAnd€the€way€that€I€reached€that€percentage€was€really€the€inability€ofÐ X ¨ Ðher€to€be€able€to€pursue€to€the€same€degree,€because€she€had€certainÐ D!” Ðwork€weeks€that€she€was€keeping€over€and€above€the€forty€hours.€Ð 0"€  ÐNow,€I€realize€that€sheððs€making€more€than€she€did€before,€and€thisÐ #l! Ðmay€be€quite€disappointing€to€you,€but€you€know,€when€I€read€thoseÐ $X" Ðdoctors€depositions,€and€know€that€she€has€had€that€fusing€to€her€neckÐ ô$D # Ðand€she€canððt€do€overhead€work€.€.€.€.Ðà%0!$` x` x ÐÌà  àIn€determining€vocational€disability,€a€court€is€required€to€consider€all€pertinent€factors,Ð ¸'#& Ðincluding€lay€and€expert€testimony,€employeeððs€age,€education,€skills€and€training,€local€jobÐ ¤(ô#' Ðopportunities€and€the€capacity€to€work€at€types€of€employment€available€in€claimantððs€disabledÐ )à$( Ðcondition.€€òòò òPowell€v.€Blalock€Plumbing€and€Elec.óóó ó,€78€S.W.3d€893€(Tenn.€Workers€Comp.€PanelÐ |*Ì%) Ð2002);€òòò òNelson€v.€Wal„Mart€Stores,€Inc.óóó ó,€8€S.W.3d€625,€629€(Tenn.€1999).€€We€find€the€court€basedÐ h+¸&* Ðits€decision€upon€considering€the€proper€factors.Ð ° ÐÌà  àIn€our€review€of€the€entire€record,€we€cannot€say€the€award€of€35€percent€disability€isÐ ˆØ Ðinadequate€and€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€award.€€Finding€that€the€award€ofÐ tÄ Ðdisability€is€adequate,€we€are€not€confronted€with€the€question€of€which€cap€should€apply€under€theÐ `° Ðstatute.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€employee€also€contends€the€trial€court€was€in€error€in€declining€to€allow€a€certain€itemÐ $ t Ðof€expense€as€discretionary€costs.€€The€employer€objected€and€the€court€did€not€allow€the€employeeÐ  ` Ðto€recover€an€expert€witness€fee€($250.00)€and€the€court€reporter€charges€($200.45)€when€plaintiffÐ ü L  Ðtook€the€discovery€deposition€of€witness€Michael€Galloway.€€This€witness€was€a€vocational€disabilityÐ è 8  Ðconsultant€of€the€defendant€who€personally€appeared€and€testified€at€the€trial.€€The€trial€court€allowedÐ Ô$  Ðplaintiff€to€recover€other€discretionary€costs€in€the€total€sum€of€$1383.15.Ð À  ÐÌà  àRule€54.04(2),€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.,€authorizes€a€trial€court€in€its€discretion€to€allow€costs€forÐ ˜è  Ðreasonable€and€necessary€expert€witness€fees€for€depositions€or€trials€and€for€reasonable€andÐ „Ô  Ðnecessary€court€reporter€charges€at€depositions€or€trials.€€A€vocational€disability€expert€is€aÐ pÀ Ðð ðnecessary€expertðð€and€his€fees€for€appearing€and€testifying€at€trial€may€be€allowed€as€a€discretionaryÐ \¬ Ðcost.€€òòò òMiles€v.€Marshall€C.€Voss€Health€Care€Ctr.óóó ó,€896€S.W.2d€773€(Tenn.€1995).Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àWe€would€first€begin€by€pointing€out€that€the€allowance€of€expenses€or€costs€under€this€ruleÐ  p Ðis€not€mandatory€but€rests€in€the€sound€discretion€of€the€court€and€on€appeal,€the€ruling€will€not€beÐ  \ Ðdisturbed€unless€it€appears€the€court€abused€its€discretion.€€The€circumstances€surrounding€the€trialÐ øH Ðof€a€claim€may€be€such€as€to€justify€or€deny€the€allowance€of€an€item€of€expense€under€Rule€54.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€plaintiff€was€informed€the€defendant€would€be€calling€MichaelÐ ¼  ÐGalloway€as€a€vocational€disability€witness€and€plaintiff€decided€to€take€his€discovery€deposition€toÐ ¨ø Ðlearn€of€his€findings€and€opinions.€€From€the€record€it€does€not€appear€the€plaintiff€used€the€discoveryÐ ”ä Ðdeposition€in€any€manner€under€Rule€32,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€€We€do€not€find€the€evidence€is€sufficientÐ €Ð Ðfor€us€to€conclude€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€employer€insists€the€appeal€is€frivolous.€€While€we€have€not€agreed€with€plaintiffððsÐ D!” Ðargument€of€the€issues,€we€do€not€find€the€appeal€to€be€of€a€frivolous€nature.Ð 0"€  ÐÌòòò òÓ  ÓConclusionóóó óÐ $X" ÐÓ#8ÓÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€plaintiffÐ à%0!$ Ðemployee.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àROGER€E.€THAYER,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÐ h+¸&* ÐÐ  ° ÐÔ‡¼Yí»XX AÔà@7 7 ìàÔ#†X AX»¼Yí,:#ÔÔ‡¼Yí»XX AÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@° ° ìàAT€KNOXVILLE,€TENNESSEE€Ô#†X AX»¼Yí€:#ԈР ÐÌÌÌò òÔ‡¼Yí»XX AÔÓ  ÓSHARON€A.€BATTLE€V.€METHODIST€MEDICAL€CENTERÔ#†X AX»¼Yí?;#ÔÔ‡¼Yí»XX AÔÐ ˜ è ÐAnderson€County€Circuit€CourtÔ#†X AX»¼Yí¹;#Ôó óÐ ¬ ü ÐÓ^;Óà@WW$ìàò òÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%†j<ÔÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%† ˆ<ÔÔ% ‡! ÔÔ%†!¦<ÔÔ% ‡" ÔÔ%†"Ä<ÔNo.€AOLA0312ˆÐ À  ÐÌà@ùù"ìàDecember€3,€2003ˆÐ ˜ è  ÐÌßA€V) °°` d€÷E<o` AßÐ pÀ  ÐÌà@èèìàNo.€Ô% ‡# ÔE2002„€00566„WC„R3„CVÔ%†#«=ԈРk»  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<B` AßÐ C“  Ðó óÌà@±±&ìàò òJUDGMENTó óˆÐ >Ž ÐÌòòóó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€This€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€of€referralÐ f Ðto€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel's€memorandum€Opinion€settingÐ R Ðforth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ð î> ÐÌà  àà ` àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€memorandum€Opinion€of€the€PanelÐ Æ Ðshould€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÐ ² ÐÌà  àà ` àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€facts€and€conclusions€of€law€areÐ ŠÚ Ðadopted€and€affirmed€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€Judgment€of€the€Court.Ð vÆ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellant,€Sharon€A.€Battle,€for€which€executionÐ Nž Ðmay€issue€if€necessary.€Ð :Š ÐÌ€ÌÔ% € ÔÌà  àà ` àÌ