ÿWPC‹ ·#  UN %k 0(q w@™ 4Ù í ü T LX L¤ 0Dð 0J4 0T~ 0^Ò 0h0 0r˜ 0|  0†† 0  1uœ 0d AQuÆÆ 0DŒ 0@Ð 0D D/T Bƒ B  D3½U>ðB).DCW AMšU*çúf úqv~kvÓé A¼ 0P;˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ÷øùúVû îüÓ€   GSƒ$æ3|x c:\office\wpwin\template\legal\11deny.wptC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPTC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT(3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d,,,,7Border 1dd!#-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ðÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌApril€22,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ ðÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌApril€22,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò#yúÿ  <<= 8ÀÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ((3/Q$««Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ d ÔÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àSPECIAL€œWORKERSððCOMPENSATION›€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌGLORIA€BENSONà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà à€€€€€Plaintiff/Appellantà àà à)à àDAVIDSON€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNO.€œ01S01„9706„CH„00137›ÌÙ€!ÙœßR€.0-A1-j|÷ÿ¼` ç `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌNORTHERN€œTELECOM›,€INC.à àà à)à àHONORABLE€IRVIN€œKILCREASE›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àCHANCELLORÌà à€€€€€Defendant/Appelleeà àà à)ó ó€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àà àà àà àFor€the€Appellee:ÌÌóóó óDaniel€Toddà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMark€œSpoden›Ì219€Second€Avenue€Northà àà àà àà àà àœSunTrust›€CenterÌSuite€300à àà àà àà àà àà àà à424€Church€Street,€Suite€800ÌNashville,€Tennessee€œ3720l›à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€œ372l9›ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDiane€œDycus›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœ2nd›€floor,€œCordell›€Hull€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONÌÌà@ àMembers€of€Panel:óóó óÌÌà@ àJustice€œAdolpho€A.›€Birch,€Jr.Ìà@ àSenior€Judge€John€K.€ByersÌà@ àSpecial€Judge€Hamilton€V.€œGayden›,€Jr.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHamilton€œGayden›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSpecial€Judgeó óÌÌ€€€€This€œworkersððcompensation›€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€ÌÌAppeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð.€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€ÌÌhearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.ÌÌÌ€€€€€The€plaintiff€filed€this€suit€and€alleged€she€sustained€a€back€injury€on€September€13,€1991,€ÌÌwhile€trying€to€lift€a€typewriter€and€alleged€a€gradual€worsening€of€that€injury€in€January,€1995.ÌÌÌ€€€€€At€the€time€of€the€trial€the€plaintiff€had€been€working€for€her€employer,€Northern€œTelecom›,€for€ÌÌ21€years.€€At€the€time€of€the€alleged€injury,€and€up€until€the€date€of€the€trial€the€plaintiff€worked€ÌÌin€her€home.ÌÌÌ€€€€€Contrary€to€plaintiffsðð€allegation€that€she€had€injured€her€back€on€September€13,€1991,€while€ÌÌattempting€to€lift€a€typewriter,€€Dr.€Leon€œEnsalada›€testified€by€deposition€that€the€plaintiff€€ÌÌinjured€her€back€cleaning€out€a€closet€in€May,€1991€in€a€non€work€related€incident;€the€basis€for€ÌÌDr.€œEnsalada›ððs€testimony€was€a€statement€by€the€plaintiff€herself€€to€Dr.€œEnsalada›€that€she€had€ÌÌinjured€her€back€while€cleaning€out€a€closet€and€medical€records€from€plaintiffsðð€physician€at€the€ÌÌtime€of€the€May,€1991,€closet€incident.€The€previous€history€was€given€by€the€plaintiff€€to€her€ÌÌprevious€physician,€Dr.€Lee€œSelby›.€€Dr.€œEnsalada›€testified€that€the€plaintiffððs€œradiculopathy›€ÌÌoriginated€from€the€May,€1991€incident.€€ÌÌÌ€€€€€At€the€trial,€however,€the€plaintiff€testified€that€she€could€not€remember€cleaning€the€closets€ÌÌnor€seeing€Dr.€œSelby›€seven€times€in€May€for€the€injury.€Though€the€Chancellor€did€not€address€a€ÌÌcredibility€issue,€it€is€clear€from€the€record€that€credibility€was€a€paramount€consideration.ÌÌÌ€€€€€Dr.€Gregory€œLanford›,€plaintiffððs€treating€physician,€who€did€not€have€the€benefit€of€Dr.€ÌÌœSelby›ððs€earlier€records€concerning€the€non€work€related€closet€injury,€diagnosed€the€plaintiff€as€ÌÌsuffering€from€œradiculopathy›€and€he€performed€surgery€on€a€ruptured€disc.€€Dr.€œLanford›€related€ÌÌthe€chronic€problems€with€plaintiffððs€back€and€subsequent€surgery€to€the€typewriter€incident.ÌÌÌ€€€€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€plaintiff€did€not€meet€her€burden€of€proving€causation.€€The€ÌÌCourt€found€that€the€injury€resulted€from€the€May,€1991€non€work€related€injury.ÌÌÌ€€€€€The€issues€before€us€on€this€appeal€€are:€(1)€Did€the€court€err€in€finding€the€plaintiff€did€not€ÌÌœà@ à2Ìmeet›€her€burden€of€proof€on€the€issue€of€causation,€and€(2)€Whether€previous€payment€of€ÌÌtemporary€total€benefits€from€the€alleged€September,€1991,€claim,€and€the€admission€in€ÌÌdefendantððs€subsequent€pleadings€in€this€case,€estop€the€defendant€from€disputing€causation?ÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€The€plaintiff€€had€the€burden€of€proof€to€prove€every€element€of€her€case.€€òòHumphry€v.€ÌÌDavid€œWithersoon›,€Inc.óó€734€œS.W.2nd›€315€(Tenn.1987).€€Dr.€œSelby›ððs€records,€reasonably€relied€ÌÌupon€by€Dr.€œEnsalada›,€connect€the€plaintiffððs€low€back€pain€to€the€non€work€related€May,€1991,€ÌÌinjury.€€Dr.€œEnsalada›,€the€most€recent€treating€physician€also€testified;€however,€he€did€not€have€ÌÌthe€benefit€of€€Dr.€œSelby›ððs€records€as€did€Dr.€œEnsalada›.€€And,€to€reiterate,€the€plaintiff€admitted€to€ÌÌDr.€œEnsalada›€that€she€injured€her€back€in€May€1991.ÌÌÌ€€€€€It€is€discretionary€with€the€trial€Judge€to€give€weight€to€the€respective€medical€opinions€and€to€ÌÌaccept€those€opinions€it€believes€is€the€more€probable.€€òòœHinson›€v.€Wal„Mart€Stores,€Inc.óó,€654€ÌÌœS.W.2nd›€675.(1983).€€In€this€case,€the€panel€does€not€disturb€the€finding€of€the€Chancellor€on€the€ÌÌissue€of€causation,€that€the€injury€was€non€work€related.ÌÌÌ€€€€€The€defendant€has€also€argued€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€holding€that€the€plaintiff€was€not€ÌÌentitled€to€permanent€partial€benefits€because€the€defendant€admitted€the€injury€as€being€work€ÌÌrelated€in€their€answer€and€also€because€the€defendant€paid€plaintiff€temporary€total€benefits€for€a€ÌÌperiod€of€time€for€the€same€injury€benefits.ÌÌÌ€€€€€Based€on€the€record,€it€is€clear€the€issue€of€causation€was€tried€by€consent.€Plaintiffððs€counsel€ÌÌdid€not€object€to€presentation€of€Dr.€œEnsalada›ððs€testimony€nor€did€plaintiffððs€counsel€object€to€the€ÌÌcross„examination€of€the€plaintiff€about€the€closet€injury.€€In€addition.€Plaintiffððs€counsel€cross„ÌÌexamined€Dr.€œEnsalada›€and€had€the€opportunity€to€question€him€relative€to€the€closet€injury.ÌÌÌ€€€€€While€it€is€true€the€pleadings€of€the€defendant€do€not€reflect€a€denial€of€the€claim,€ÌÌnevertheless€the€proof€introduced€at€the€trial€and€during€the€taking€of€Dr.€œEnsalada›ððs€deposition€ÌÌreflect€that€the€plaintiff€€knew€or€should€have€known€the€causation€of€the€claimed€injury€was€an€ÌÌissue.€€It€is€also€true€that€the€defendant€did€not€move€to€amend€its€pleadings€at€any€time€during€ÌÌthe€trial€or€in€a€post€trial€motion.€€However,€in€this€case€this€is€not€fatal€as€the€test€is€substance€ÌÌover€form:€Did€the€plaintiff€have€a€fair€chance€to€try€the€issue€and€present€its€own€proof?€€We€ÌÌœà@ à3Ìanswer›€in€the€affirmative.ÌÌÌ€€€€€ð ðGenerally€speaking,€trial€by€implied€consent€will€be€found€where€the€party€opposed€to€the€ÌÌamendment€knew€or€should€reasonably€should€have€known€of€the€evidence€relating€to€the€new€ÌÌissue€did€not€object€to€the€evidence,€and€was€not€prejudiced€thereby.ðð€òòœZack›€Cheek€Builders,€Inc.€ÌÌV.€œMcLeod›óó,€597€œS.W.›€œ2nd›€888,€890€(Tenn.€1980).ÌÌÌ€€€€€As€to€the€remaining€issue€of€whether€previous€payment€of€temporary€total€benefits€estop€the€ÌÌdefendant€from€controverting€permanent€disability€benefits,€the€panel€cites€part€of€T.C.A.€ðð.€50„ÌÌ6„205(d):Ì€€€€€(d)€If€payments€have€been€made€without€an€award,€and€the€employer€subsequentlyÌ€€€€€elects€to€controvert€his€liability,€notice€of€controversy€shall€be€filed€with€the€director€Ì€€€€€within€€(15)€days€of€the€due€date€of€the€first€omitted€payment.€€In€such€cases€the€prior€Ì€€€€€payment€of€compensation€shall€not€be€considered€a€binding€determination€of€the€œobliga›„Ì€€€€€œtions›€of€the€employer€as€to€future€compensation€payments.€€Likewise,€the€acceptanceÌ€€€€€of€compensation€by€the€employer€shall€not€be€considered€a€binding€determination€of€the€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïobligations€of€the€employer€as€to€future€compensation€payments;€nor€shall€the€acceptance€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïof€€compensation€by€the€employee€be€considered€a€binding€determination€of€his€rights.ððÌ€€€€€Ì€€€€€The€Panel€holds,€as€a€matter€of€law€,€that€the€defendant€could€raise€the€€issue€of€ÌÌcompensability€of€permanent€partial€benefits€after€payment€of€temporary€total€benefits.Ì€€€€Ì€€€€€We€affirm€the€œjudgment›€of€the€œtrial€court.€€Costs€to€be€paid€by€Plaintiff/Appellant.›ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHamilton€V.€œGayden›,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ__________________________ÌœAdolpho›€A.€œBirch,€Jr.,›€JusticeÌÌÌ__________________________ÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌœÌÌÑ€1ÑÇÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` Ñà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌßJ€.2;+'b|–„` ç `€@ÿJßÌÌÌGLORIA€BENSON,à@ à)à àDAVIDSON€CHANCERYÌà@ à)à àNO.€95„1285„IÌà àPLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,à@ à)Ìà@ à)à àHON.€IRVIN€KILCREASE,Ìv.à@ à)à àCHANCELLORÌà@ à)ÌNORTHERN€TELECOM,€ET€AL.,à@ à)à àS.€CT.€NO.€01S01„9706„CH„00137Ìà@ à)Ìà àDEFENDANTS/APPELLEES.à@ à)à0 àAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òJUDGMENTó óóóÌÌÌÓÓà 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€Special€Workers'ÏCompensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel's€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€itsÏfindings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ìà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€review€is€not€well€taken€andÏshould€be€denied;€and€Ìà 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 àCosts€will€be€paid€by€Plaintiff/Appellant,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ìà àIt€is€so€ordered€this€22nd€day€of€April,€1998.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌÌBIRCH,€J.€NOT€PARTICIPATING