WPC PpEfX9tHo"I'XpEZ)qaǘFxϙP?_C1fp u ,H:*OG|Ut!OVmuq(q.c+m:<Uďn8v?õBïc{<+DieF|v4 0w8K"Vh*=:!Dv79H>6 Q0`Onl4bcQ҈aeCǁ5TB1.Sp O~ c9'Y$I|RcV/Aj30*E5T8mi_Sҩ2j@XtE.a A2'{"C p׊z\pr~'xNO;=|׺6 Wi{:EUC2kOy7Ouv:b#\ % ^ # 0/ U N w 4 z  i x mz   _ %  NN z/Eb 0     B  0 D3 D- 0K ASb 0{ 0D AcHP LaserJet 4Si,,,,,,0{) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularք^)TLD  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|xU Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt- -(|G24$ !.8dd8         0  XX d(|3)$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3)$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _8CXXdd8  g@@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL , @@ATKNOXVILLE#g# X August30,2000Session 4 XCX #XXC#STEPHEN_BENKER_Ԁ_v.WILLIAMS_ԀTELECOMMUNICATIONSSERVICE, <  INC.,etal.XCX  T  @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtfor_Sevier_ԀCounty \  @@No.98665IBenW.HooperII,CircuitJudge L  @@*AV) ` dE<` A l  No.E199901967_WC_ԄR3CV#XXC#XCXԄMailedOctober20,2000 k  #XXC#XCXFiled:November27,2000  [ AV) ` dE<` A ;      ThisworkerscompensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkersCompensation : AppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)for * hearingandreportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.The  employerhasappealedfromthetrialcourtsrulingtheemployeeistotallydisabledraisingissues   concerningcompensabilityoftheclaimandtheapportionmentoftheaward.Judgmentofthetrial  courtisaffirmed.#XXCK#XCX     Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(1999)AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtis z Affirmed.  j     Thayer,Sp.J.#XC#XCX.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAnderson,C.J.andByers,Sr.J., J joined. :     `     h      p      x  RobertW._Knolton_,ofOakRidge,Tennessee,fortheAppellants,WilliamTelecommunications "j  Service,Inc.andInsuranceCompanyoftheStateofPennsylvania.  #Z! PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,andE.Blaine_Sprouse_,AssistantAttorney $: # General,ofNashville,Tennessee,fortheAppellee,StateSecondInjuryFund. %*!$ J.AnthonyFarmer,ofKnoxville,Tennessee,fortheAppellee,Stephen_Benker_. ' #& {   OPINION #XXC #XCX )$(   #XXC #XCX  Theemployer,WilliamsTelecommunicationsService,Inc.,andtheInsuranceCompanyof z+&* theStateofPennsylvania,haveappealedfromthetrialcourtsrulingfindingtheemployee,Stephen j,'+ _Benker_,tobetotallydisabled.#XXC#XCX Z-(, _ԇ   Facts     EmployeeBenkerwas51yearsofageandwasahighschoolgraduatewithsomevocational  training.Hispriorworkhistorywasalaborer,maintenanceworker,constructionworkerand  carpenter.HewasemployedasatelephonecomputerservicesysteminstalleronSeptember23, p 1997,whenhetrippedonsomephonecordsandfell.Whenthisoccurred,hetestifiedhetwistedhis `  back,feltsharppaindownhislegandsomenumbnessinhislowback. P    Priortothisaccident,hehaddiscsurgeryin1975or1976andreturnedtowork.In1990he 0  hadanotherdiscoperationandreturnedtowork.Hehadcomplaintsfrombackproblemsforseveral  p  yearspriortotheincidentinquestionandhadmissedworkatdifferenttimesbetween1990andthe `  accidentin1997.HehasnotworkedsincetheSeptember23rdincidentandstatesheisnotableto P  workatanyofthejobshehasheld.Hiswife,LisaBenker,testifiedastohisphysicallimitations @  andtestifiedthatshedoeseverythingbothinsideandoutsidetheirhomeandthat ourentirelifehas 0  changed,everythingisdifferent.     Dr.JohnT.Purvis,aneurosurgeon,performedthesecondsurgeryin1990whichinvolved  aruptureddisc.Hesawtheemployeeagainaftertheincidentinquestionandstatedthathehad  severeosteoarthritisinhislowbackandwithhispriorhistoryofhavingdiscsurgerytwice,hewould  beverysensitivetoanytypeofinjurytotheback.HeconcludedthatBenkersustainedan  aggravationandaccelerationofhislumbarspondylosistosuchanextentthathewasunabletowork; p thattherewassomeanatomicalchangeandhewassurprisedthathehadworkedaslongashedid. ` Hegaveimpairmentsof10percentduetothe1976surgery,15percentduetothe1990surgeryand P 10percentduetotheSeptember1997accident. @   OpposingthismedicaltestimonywasthewrittenmedicalreportofDr.ArcherBishop.He  p performedanindependentmedicalexaminationonNovember1,1998andwasoftheopinionthe ` accidenthadonlyincreasedhispainandthattherewasnoadditionalimpairment. P   Witness,JulianNadolsky,avocationalconsultant,testifiedtheemployeehad nocapacity 0 toearnalivinginanyoccupationbasedontheopinionofDr.Purvis.Headmittedthattherewould   benovocationaldisabilityunderDr.Bishopsconclusion. !   ThetrialcourtfoundtheaccidentofSeptember23,1997renderedtheemployeetotally #! disabledandapportionedtheawardofpermanenttotaldisabilitypursuanttosubsection(a)(1)of $" Tenn.CodeAnn.506208.Thecourtorderedtheemployertopay60percentoftheawardand % # thestatesecondinjuryfundtopaytheremaining40percent. p&!$    IssuesonAppeal  P(#& *  Theemployerandinsurancecompanycontend:(1)theaccidentinquestiondidnotcause 0*%( anyanatomicalchangeintheemployeespreexistingcondition,(2)theemployeewasnottotally  +p&) disabledasaresultofthelastaccidentand(3)thecourtwasinerrorinapportioningagreaterportion ,`'* oftheawardtotheemployer.     StandardofReview     Inaworkerscompensationcase,thereviewonappealisdenovoaccompaniedbya p presumptionofthecorrectnessofthefindingsoffactunlesswefindthepreponderanceofthe `  evidenceisotherwise.Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(2).Wherethereisconflictingmedical P  testimony,thetrialjudgehasdiscretiontoconcludethattheopinionofaparticularexpertshouldbe @  acceptedoverthatofanotherexpert.Thomasv.AetnaLife&Cas.Co.,812S.W.2d278(Tenn. 0  1991);Johnsonv.Midwesco,Inc.,801S.W.2d804(Tenn.1990).  p     IssueofCompensability  P  #"  ItisinsistedthattheSeptember23rdincidenthasonlyresultedintheemployeesuffering 0  morepainandthisaloneisnotsufficienttorendertheclaimcompensable.     Anemployerisresponsibleforworkerscompensationbenefits,eventhoughtheclaimant  mayhavebeensufferingfromapreexistingconditionordisability,iftheemploymentcausesan  actualprogressionoraggravationofthepriordisablingconditionordisease,whichproduces  increasedpainthatisdisabling,orthereisananatomicalorphysiologicalchangeinthepreexisting  condition.Sweatv.SuperiorIndus.,966S.W.2d31(Tenn.1998);Hillv.EagleBendMfg.,Inc.,942 p S.W.2d483,488(Tenn.1997). `   WefindthetestimonyofDr.JohnT.Purviswaswithinthislastmentionedruleashe @ testifiedtherewasanatomicalandphysiologicalchangesthatcausedincreasedinflammation.The 0 trialcourtchosetoacceptthisevidenceandwecannotsaytheremainingevidencepreponderates  p againstthisconclusion. `    AwardofTotalDisability  @ '  Fromourexaminationoftherecord,wedonotfindthistobeaviableissue.TheStateFund   agreeswiththeemployeethattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsconclusion ! thattheemployeeistotallydisabled.Duringopeningstatementsatthetrialcourtlevel,counselfor "  theemployerconcededthatiftheclaimwasfoundtobecompensable,theStateFundwouldbe #! responsibleformostoftheawardofpermanentdisability.Additionally,wefindthelayandexpert $" evidencesupportsthetrialcourtinawardingpermanenttotaldisability. % #    ApportionmentofAward  `'"% *  Itisarguedthatundertheproofofpriordisabilities,thetrialcourtwasinerrorin @)$' apportioningagreaterpartoftheawardtotheemployer.Thecourtdirectedtheemployertopay60 0*%( percentandtheStateFundtopay40percent.Tenn.CodeAnn.506208(a)(1)providesthatthe  +p&) employerisonlyliableforthedisabilitythatresultsfromsubsequentinjurythatrendered_the ,`'* employeepermanentlyandtotallydisabled,withoutconsiderationofanydisabilitycausedbyprior  injuries.TheSecondInjuryFundpointsourthatemployee_Benker_Ԁreturnedtoworkafterbothprior  surgicalproceduresandwasphysicallyabletoparticipateinmanynonworkactivitiesthathecould  nolongerdoafterthelastinjury.    Theapportionmentoftheawardoftotaldisabilityisprimarilyaquestionoffactforthetrial `  courttoresolve.Fromourindependentreviewoftherecord,wecannotsaytheevidence P  preponderatesagainsttheapportionmentordered. @     Conclusion   p  /  Thereisampleevidenceintherecordtosupportthetrialcourtonthevariousissues P  presentedbythecase.Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthecourtsvariousrulings.The @  judgmentisaffirmed.Costsoftheappealaretaxedtotheemployerandinsurancecompany. 0         `     h     ___________________________________     `     h     ROGERE.THAYER,SPECIALJUDGE   XXC@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @ ATKNOXVILLE,TENNESSEE   #XCX2# XXC  STEPHEN_BENKER_ԀVS.WILLIAMSTELECOMMUNICATIONSSERVICE#XCXz3#  8 3@ CircuitCourtfor_Sevier_ԀCounty  P @nn$No.98CV665I  @ @*AV) ` dE< ` A߈   @ No.E199901967_WC_ԄR3CVFiledNovember27,2000       `     h AV) ` dE<` A    __@&_ JUDGMENT _Ԉ      ` ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtupontheentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferral ~ totheSpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanelsmemorandumOpinionsetting n forthitsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference; ^    ` Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthatthememorandumOpinionofthePanelshould N beacceptedandapproved;and >    ` Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanelsfindingsoffactsandconclusionsoflaware .~ adoptedandaffirmedandthedecisionofthePanelismadetheJudgementoftheCourt. n    ` CostsonappealaretaxedtotheWilliamTelecommunicationssystems,Inc.and ^ InsuranceCompanyoftheStateofPennsylvaniaandRobertW._Knolton_,surety,forwhich N executionissueifnecessary. > _11/27/00_  __