ÿWPCÜ X»8R«µ©kT òBÀ¥‡VÑ>¨uà…Hâ;w…³ ÀÁ…¢B¤Ö"G`YS#´ÀV‰UgñOayF½>$g¦5M/N¬”ð°ò”?v¬³ü;æÃ˜ÜJ ÍvÈ,xö 5 KdyÌ u”¸Žä%¿¼ÅŽxÚy÷¨-F ‡ ó5~]e•t»É²óÜ$þŠŽ6¶Z~™y@èÓÍ×ëÙ8¡†o0ÎD£³&²Éx6+½EýøØô½Výå¿%k¬u#“AÆ6<2"W_ÿl´÷K’;%\‰Z˜92&úM“ Êˆc‘Y¹.YfWsvi„Ö>鳿^U–BÅ]öeu Yv¾g6ƒ{ :f52úÏØ$¬×«$§ó°=|À[<^§@H¯ß%ŒA8+ŒcMÀ´IÜcƒèsµSYrX³b.ÓÊ’0(5Y=…Î…¾YC­kºQ\tzM `ñFeSg®O×{Þݦ[èaß°¼fùÄY'鉪*©‚%²¼ÿ&‘g„»Ü­Ý#©zXƒz«2äÄÆ^{ |  "Ì÷ €/J¾h-OH°1ãf4=ƒÕÏÔ æL|¥ $ɳÁ}0fÓ'§&œô<Ô‰Uy²Ÿû …# F UNQ %Ÿ 0û¥ U:  4Ú î  ý U:  CIw@Q 0?‘ 0DÐU:U<N ŠU:–––––––––––––––––– BÐÐÐÐÐÐ D3ííí 0                                                                                   AO7Ɔ† 0DL D/ B¿˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÓH=$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XÎ_XXXÔÑ7€¾úXXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial Regularw€#%3|xÊY Ô€X¨€XXXÔÔ€G?XX¨€ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X¨€XG?ÔÐ  ÐÌò òOctober€6,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô˜æôXX¨€ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,ó‚ AZ"Arial RegularH «YÓ€·YV¸YV¹Y îºYU»YD¼Y½YÓ€ÉYÊYD(ï(32‚$¤¤Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€X¨€XXXÔÑ7€Õ&XXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular.èB' Z‹$Arrus BT Roman Ô€X¨€XXXÔÔ€G?XX¨€ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X¨€XG?ÔÐ  ÐÌò òOctober€6,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô˜æôXX¨€ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d$$$$'ÿÿdxd(ï3Á¼$££Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€X¨€XXXÔÑ7€Õ&XXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€X¨€XXXÔÑ7€Õ&XXdìdÈ7ÑÝ  ÝñªYñ›ñªYññªYñ›ñªYñÑÀ°ÑÑX°Ñò òÓ  ÓÑ  Ñ€Ìó óÓ#ÓÓ  Óà@@Ü Ü Ìàò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ¬ì Ðà@@B B ÌàSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌñ«Yñœßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@E0…` ttx$h„ð Õrßñ«YññÊYññ·YñÐ  „Ä( Ðñ·YññÊYññ«Yñ›ñ«Yñà@@ˆˆÌàAT€KNOXVILLEó óÐ „Ä ÐÓPÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌGLENN€M.€BERGER,à h àà À àà  à)Ð º ú  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ  à  Ðà ` àPlaintiff/Appelleeà h àà À àà  à)à p àHAMBLEN€CIRCUITà Ð àà (# àÐ †Æ  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ l¬  Ðv.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àNO.€€03S01„9708„CV„00102Ð R’  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ 8x ÐLEAR€SEATING€CORPORATION,à  à)à p àHON.€KINDALL€LAWSON,Ð ^ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àJUDGEÐ D Ðà ` àDefendant/Appellantà À àà  à)Ð ê* ÐÌÌÌÌÌò òòòÌÌFor€the€Appellant:à  àà h àà À àà  àFor€the€Appellee:Ð &f ÐÌóóó óJeffrey€C.€Taylorà  àà h àà À àà  àDouglas€R.€BeierÐ þ> ÐWimberly,€Lawson€&€Seale,€PLLCà  àEvans€&€Beier,€LLPÐ ä$ ÐLiberty€Centerà  àà h àà À àà  àP.O.€Box€1754Ð Ê  Ð929€West€First€North€Streetà À àà  àMorristown,€TN€€37816„1754Ð ° ð  ÐP.O.€Box€1066ÌMorristown,€TN€€37816„1066ò òòòÐ |"¼" Ðóóó óÌÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÐ Ä)&* ÐÌò òòòMembers€of€Panel:Ð –+Ö', ÐÌó óóóSpecial€Judge€Charles€D.€Susano,€Jr.Ð n-®). ÐSenior€Judge€John€K.€ByersÌSpecial€Judge€Joe€C.€Loser,€Jr.ÌÓÜ ÓÌÌÌÌÌÔ% € ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àBYERS,€Senior€JudgeÐ š=Ú9@O Їòòò òÓ  ÓÓÓOPINIONó óóóÐ À ÐÓ  Óà ` àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workers'ÏCompensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€findings€ofÏfact€and€conclusions€of€law.€Ìà ` àReview€of€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€theÐ ð 0 Ðrecord€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€theÏfindings,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ïðð€50„6„225(e)(2);€òòStone€v.€City€of€McMinnville,€óó896€S.W.2d€548,€550€(Tenn.€1995).€Ð X˜  ÐThe€application€of€this€standard€requires€this€Court€to€weigh€in€more€depth€the€factualÏfindings€and€conclusions€of€the€trial€court€in€a€workersðð€compensation€case.€€òòSeeÐ ô4 ÐCorcoran€v.€Foster€Auto€GMC,€Inc.,€óó746€S.W.2d€452,€456€(Tenn.€1988).Ð Ä Ðà ` àIn€this€case,€the€plaintiff€brought€suit€against€the€defendant,€alleging€that€heÏwas€entitled€to€workersðð€compensation€benefits€as€a€result€of€back€injuries€which€heÏsuffered€during€his€employment€in€August€1994€and€May€1996.€€The€trial€court€foundÏthat€the€plaintiff€timely€notified€the€defendant€of€these€injuries€and€determined€thatÏthese€injuries€arose€out€of€and€in€the€course€and€scope€of€his€employment€with€theÏdefendant.€€The€trial€court€awarded€the€plaintiff€100€percent€permanent€total€disabilityÏbut€did€not€award€him€ñªYñœñªYñcertain€discretionaryñªYñ›ñªYñ€costs.€€The€trial€court€denied€theÏdefendantððs€motion€to€reduce€the€judgment€by€the€amount€of€social€security€benefitsÏattributable€to€employer€contributions€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207(4)(A).€€€€Ìà ` àThe€defendant€appeals€and€raises€the€following€issues:ÌÒ` ÒÓÓÔ€ XLAXXX¨€Ôð ð1.à0 ¸ àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€determining€that€the€plaintiff€providedÐ Œ)Ì%* Ðadequate€notice€of€an€injury€as€defined€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„¼201,€50„6„202?Ð ¸ $¸ $ ÐÌ2.à0 ¸ àWhether€the€plaintiffððs€claim€for€benefits€is€barred€by€the€one„yearÐ L-Œ). Ðstatute€of€limitations€as€set€forth€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„203?Ð ¸ $¸ $ ÐÌ3.à0 ¸ àWhether€the€court€erred€in€its€award€and€assessment€of€benefits€in€lightÐ 0\,1 Ðof€the€medical€and€lay€testimony€at€trial?Ð ¸ $¸ $ ÐÌ4.à0 ¸ àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€permanent€total€disability?Ðì2,/4¸ $¸ $ ÐÌ5.à0 ¸ àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€defendantððs€Motion€to€ReduceÐ Ì4 16 Ðthe€Judgement€[sic]€by€the€amount€of€social€security€benefitsÏattributable€to€employer€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207Ï(4)(A)?ððÐ ¸ $¸ $ ÐòòÌÌÌóóThe€plaintiff€raises€this€single€issue€on€appeal:Ð \;œ7= ÐòòÐ L<Œ8> Ðóóð ð1.à0 ¸ àThe€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€award€discretionary€costs.ððÐÀ¸ $¸ $ ÐÌÒ` íÒÓûÓà ` àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÓ  Óò òFACTSÐ €À ÐÓ  Óó óà ` àThe€plaintiff,€age€53€at€the€time€of€trial,€has€a€high€school€education€and€noÐ `   Ðadditional€formal€education.€€In€the€1960s,€he€attended€short€term€courses€andÏobtained€certificates€in€welding,€automatic€transmission€repair,€starter€and€generatorÏrepair,€and€automotive€machine€shop€operation.€€His€employment€history€includesÏworking€as€an€automobile€engine€mechanic,€as€a€riveting€machine€operator,€as€aÏcenterless€grind€operator,€as€a€maintenance€repairer,€and€as€an€automobile€partsÏcounter€sales€person.€€In€1977,€the€plaintiff€began€work€for€the€defendant€as€aÏmaintenance€repairer€of€production€equipment€and€machinery.€€In€this€capacity,€heÏwas€required€to€lift€100€pounds€or€more;€frequently€bend,€crouch,€kneel,€ñªYñœñªYñand€climb;ñªYñ›ñªYñÏand€occasionally€crawl.€Ìà ` àThe€plaintiff€testified€that,€while€working€for€the€defendant€in€August€1994,€he€Ìfell€three€times€during€the€course€of€one€week.€€On€August€2,€1994,€he€fell€backÏwhen€he€slipped€off€of€a€ladder€and€bent€his€back,€but€his€partner,€Mac€Foulks,Ïcaught€him€before€he€hit€the€floor.€€On€August€4,€1994,€his€right€leg€gave€out€as€heÏstepped€from€a€stool€and€fell€onto€a€table,€hitting€his€chest€and€causing€him€to€bleed.€ÏThe€plaintiff€testified€that€these€falls€caused€him€some€pain€in€his€back€but€that€he€feltÏlike€he€could€continue€working€as€long€as€he€did€not€overdo€himself.€€He€did€notÏreport€either€of€these€falls€to€the€defendant.€€€€€€€€€Ìà ` àThen,€on€August€5,€1994,€the€plaintiff€was€drilling€a€pipe€when€the€drill€caughtÏand€jerked€him€off€of€a€ladder€and€threw€him€onto€a€desk.€€He€said€he€fell€three€toÏfour€feet€and€landed€on€his€back.€€Mr.€Foulks€was€not€present€when€he€fell,€but€theÏplaintiff€testified€that€he€told€him€about€the€fall€later€that€day.€€Mr.€Foulks€testified€thatÏhe€remembered€the€three€specific€incidents€in€which€the€plaintiff€fell€but€that€he€couldÏnot€say€whether€they€all€occurred€in€the€same€week.€€The€plaintiff€testified€that€heÏtried€to€inform€the€defendant€about€the€third€fall€because€his€back€pain€was€becomingÏworse.€€He€said€that€he€went€to€the€nurseððs€station€and€the€personnel€department€butÏâ âthat€nobody€was€there€to€tell.€€Mr.€Foulks€testified€that€he€saw€the€plaintiff€leave€to€goÐ  :`6: Ðreport€this€fall.€€Deciding€to€report€this€fall€on€Monday€when€he€returned€to€work,€theÏplaintiff€said€he€left€work€without€informing€the€defendant€about€this€fall.Ìâ âà ` àThe€plaintiff€testified€that€when€he€got€home€on€the€evening€of€August€5,€1994Ïhe€developed€more€pain,€experienced€numbness€in€his€leg,€and€had€troubleÏsleeping.€€The€plaintiffððs€wife€testified€that€her€husband€told€her€about€the€fall€whenÏhe€got€home.€€On€Saturday€August€6,€1994,€the€plaintiff€went€to€his€family€doctor,€Dr.ÏCooze,€for€low€back€pain€and€received€a€shot€for€the€pain.€€On€Sunday€August€7,Ï1994,€he€was€taken€to€the€emergency€room€by€the€rescue€squad€after€he€coughedÏhard€and€his€leg€gave€out€and€he€fell€to€the€floor.€€The€plaintiff€testified€that€he€was€inÏtoo€much€pain€to€get€up€or€walk€at€that€time€and€that€he€was€hospitalized€inÏMorristown.€€Dr.€Cooze€saw€him€again€the€next€day€and€referred€him€to€Dr.€SandersÏin€Knoxville.€€Dr.€Ragland,€an€associate€of€Dr.€Sanders,€also€saw€the€plaintiff€andÏshortly€thereafter€performed€two€back€surgeries€on€him.€€The€first€surgery€wasÏperformed€on€August€13,€1994€and€the€second€surgery€was€performed€on€August€30,Ï1994.€€Ìà ` àIn€order€to€be€excused€from€work€on€August€8,€1994,€the€plaintiffððs€wifeÏtelephoned€the€guard€at€the€defendantððs€plant€and€told€him€that€her€husband€fell€atÏwork€and€injured€his€back€and€that€he€was€currently€in€the€hospital.€€She€also€testifiedÏthat€she€obtained€a€doctorððs€excuse€from€Dr.€Cooze€and€that€she€delivered€it€to€theÏdefendant€on€August€8,€1994.€€At€that€time,€the€plaintiffððs€wife€obtained€some€forms€inÏorder€to€make€a€claim€for€disability€insurance€benefits.€€The€plaintiff€testified€that€hisÏwife€filled€out€the€claim€forms€but€that€he€signed€them.€Ìà ` àThe€description€of€the€accident€on€the€first€claim€form€read:€€ð ðHurt€back€at€workÏwhen€fell€off€ladder,€but€didnððt€cause€much€pain€until€started€coughing€on€8„7„94.€ÏThis€pain€put€me€on€floor€and€I€had€to€be€removed€by€ambulance€to€hospital.ðð€€TheÏfirst€claim€form€was€checked€ð ðnoðð€to€the€question€of€whether€the€claim€was€related€toÏemployment€with€a€question€mark€beside€it.€€The€plaintiffððs€wife€said€she€deliveredÏthis€claim€form,€which€had€been€completed€by€Dr.€Cooze,€to€the€defendant€aroundÏAugust€22,€1994.€€She€testified€that€she€checked€ð ðnoðð€at€the€direction€JewelÏHudgens,€who€worked€in€personnel€at€the€defendantððs€plant€and€told€her€over€theÏtelephone€to€check€that€the€accident€was€not€work€related€until€it€could€beÐ <@8< Ðdetermined€otherwise.€€The€plaintiffððs€wife€explained€that€she€added€the€questionÏmark€because€she€knew€that€her€husband€was€injured€at€work.€€On€the€other€hand,ÏMs.€Hudgens€testified€from€her€notes€of€the€telephone€conversation€that€the€plaintiffÏinjured€his€back€at€home€and€that€she€did€not€discuss€the€forms€with€the€plaintiffððsÏwife.Ìà ` àThe€description€of€the€accident€on€the€second€claim€form€read:€€ð ðHurt€my€backÏwhen€I€fell€off€ladder,€but€didnððt€cause€much€pain€until€I€started€coughing€on€8„7„94.€ÏThis€pain€put€me€on€the€floor€and€I€had€to€be€removed€by€ambulance€to€hospital.ðð€ÏThe€second€form€was€checked€ð ðyesðð€to€the€question€of€whether€the€claim€was€relatedÏto€employment€and€was€delivered€to€the€defendant€by€the€plaintiffððs€wife€aroundÏSeptember€9,€1994€after€being€completed€by€Dr.€Ragland.€€She€explained€that€sheÏchecked€ð ðyesðð€on€this€form€because€she€had€learned€from€Dr.€Ragland€that€coughingÏcould€not€have€caused€her€husbandððs€condition.Ìà ` àThe€company€nurse,€Janet€Elkins€LaFerney,€testified€for€the€defendant.€€AfterÏbriefly€looking€at€these€claim€forms,€Ms.€LaFerney€sent€them€to€Aetna€InsuranceÏCompany,€the€disability€insurer,€for€payment.€€However,€she€stated€that€the€plaintiffÏdid€not€follow€the€proper€procedure€in€claiming€that€his€injury€was€related€to€work.€ÏShe€explained€that€even€though€the€claim€form€stated€ð ðhurt€back€at€workðð€it€did€notÏqualify€as€a€work€related€injury€because€the€plaintiff€used€a€claim€form€for€disabilityÏinsurance€benefits€instead€of€following€the€procedure€for€reporting€work€relatedÏinjuries.Ìà ` àOn€October€3,€1994,€Aetna€sent€the€plaintiff€a€letter€wherein€it€refusedÏpayment€of€his€claims€because€they€ñªYñœñªYñappeared€to€beñªYñ›ñªYñ€work€related€and€recommendedÏthat€he€submit€a€claim€for€workersðð€compensation€(the€defendant€is€self„insured€forÏworkersðð€compensation).€€Later,€Aetna€issued€checks€to€the€plaintiff,€but€he€testifiedÏthat€he€never€cashed€these€checks€at€the€advice€of€his€attorney.€€The€plaintiff€has€notÏreceived€any€workersðð€compensation€benefits€from€the€defendant€as€a€result€of€theseÏinjuries.Ìà ` àThe€plaintiff€returned€to€work€on€January€12,€1995€with€restrictions€from€Dr.ÏRagland€that€he€not€lift€more€than€30€pounds,€climb€ladders,€or€crawl.€€However,€theÏplaintiff€testified€that€he€went€back€to€performing€his€normal€work€duties€within€a€shortÐ <@8< Ðtime.€€He€testified€that€he€reinjured€his€back€at€work€on€May€8,€1996€while€carryingÏpaint€cans€on€a€mezzanine.€€He€also€testified€that€he€felt€something€pop€in€his€backÏñªYñœñªYñonñªYñ›ñªYñ€May€20,€1996€while€climbing€inside€a€welder€at€work.€€He€said€he€immediatelyÏinformed€his€supervisor€after€both€of€these€incidents.€€Further,€the€plaintiff€testifiedÏthat€his€supervisor€told€him€that€he€filed€these€claims€with€the€ñªYñœñªYñdefendant€on€theÏplaintiffððs€behalf.ñªYñ›ñªYñ€€After€the€last€incident,€Dr.€Ragland€performed€a€third€back€surgeryÏon€the€plaintiff€on€June€13,€1996.€€He€has€not€returned€to€work€since€May€20,€1996Ïand€has€not€applied€for€work€anywhere€else.Ìà ` àThe€plaintiff€testified€that€he€has€a€lot€of€lower€back€pain€and€right€legÏnumbness€as€a€result€of€these€injuries€and€surgeries.€€He€said€he€always€walks€withÏa€cane€now€because€his€leg€gives€out.€€He€stated€that€he€cannot€sit€or€stand€for€longÏperiods€and€that€he€lies€down€a€lot.€€Further,€the€plaintiff€testified€that€he€goes€to€aÏhealth€club€where€he€works€his€biceps,€triceps,€and€his€chest€and€sits€in€the€sauna.€ÏHe€explained€that€he€did€these€exercises€in€his€therapy€and€that€he€uses€his€arms€aÏlot€to€get€up€and€down.Ìà ` àIn€1992,€the€plaintiff€sustained€a€work€related€injury€to€his€back.€€He€did€notÏundergo€surgery€and€he€returned€to€work€without€restrictions.€€He€testified€that€heÏwas€able€to€perform€his€normal€work€duties€until€August€1994.€€He€stated€that€heÏreceived€workersðð€compensation€benefits€for€this€prior€injury€and€that€he€was€familiarÏwith€the€policies€which€must€be€followed€for€reporting€injuries€and€receiving€workersððÏcompensation€benefits.ÌÓ  Óò òMEDICAL€EVIDENCEó óÐ  +`'* ÐÓ  Óà ` àDr.€Derek€A.€Cooze,€the€plaintiffððs€family€doctor,€testified€by€deposition.€€OnÏAugust€6,€1994,€he€saw€the€plaintiff€for€complaints€of€cold€symptoms€and€low€backÏpain€and€stiffness.€€At€that€time,€the€plaintiff€was€given€an€intramuscular€cortisoneÏinjection€to€relieve€his€back€pain.€€Dr.€Cooze€saw€the€plaintiff€again€in€the€hospital€onÏAugust€7€or€8,€1994,€stating€that€he€was€complaining€of€severe€back€pain,€right€legÏpain,€and€numbness€in€his€lower€back.€€Dr.€Cooze€explained€that€x„rays€and€an€MRIÏscan€of€the€plaintiff€revealed€that€he€had€herniated€discs€at€L4„L5€and€L5„S1,€both€ofÏwhich€were€impinging€on€a€nerve.€€He€diagnosed€the€plaintiff€with€herniated€nucleusÏpulposus€and€opined€that,€within€a€reasonable€degree€of€medical€certainty,€aÐ <@8< Ðcoughing€episode€could€not€cause€this€condition.€€Dr.€Cooze€further€opined€thatÏinjuries€or€degenerative€changes€were€more€likely€than€not€the€cause€of€the€plaintiffððsÏcondition.€€On€cross„examination,€Dr.€Cooze€stated€that€he€could€not€say,€within€aÏreasonable€degree€of€medical€certainty,€the€plaintiffððs€disc€injuries€were€related€to€aÏspecific€incident€at€work.€€Dr.€Cooze€referred€the€plaintiff€to€Dr.€Sanders.Ìà ` àDr.€Joel€B.€Ragland,€a€neurosurgeon,€served€as€the€plaintiffððs€treating€surgeonÏafter€his€partner,€Dr.€Sanders,€saw€him€but€later€became€unavailable.€€Testifying€byÏdeposition,€Dr.€Ragland€explained€that€he€first€saw€the€plaintiff€on€August€12,€1994Ïand€reviewed€the€MRI€scan€as€well€as€Dr.€Sandersðð€history€that€the€plaintiff€twistedÏhis€back€when€he€fell€off€of€a€ladder,€that€he€had€back€pain,€that€he€later€coughedÏwhich€worsened€his€pain,€and€that€he€later€experienced€pain€in€his€right€leg.€€HeÏdiagnosed€the€plaintiff€with€a€two€level€herniated€lumbar€disc€with€right€legÏradiculopathy€and€performed€a€right€L4„L5€discectomy€on€August€13,€1994€on€anÏemergency€basis.€€Dr.€Ragland€examined€the€plaintiff€again€on€August€23€and€29,Ï1994€and€found€positive€signs€of€a€problem€with€the€L5„S1€disc€based€upon€a€newÏMRI€scan.€€On€August€30,€1994,€Dr.€Ragland€performed€a€L5„S1€discectomy€andÏalso€removed€some€additional€bone€at€L4„L5.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà ` àDr.€Ragland€determined€that€the€plaintiff€reached€maximum€medicalÏimprovement€on€January€12,€1995€and€released€him€to€return€to€work€withÏrestrictions€that€he€not€lift€more€than€30€pounds,€climb€ladders,€or€crawl.€€Based€uponÏa€reasonable€degree€of€medical€certainty,€he€opined€that€the€plaintiff€suffered€from€aÏ13€percent€impairment€to€the€body€as€a€whole€according€to€the€òòAMA€Guides€óóand€thatÐ  +`'* Ðhis€work€injury€was€the€cause€of€his€medical€condition€and€subsequent€surgeries.€€OnÏcross„examination,€he€stated€that€it€is€possible€for€a€cough€to€rupture€a€disc€but€thatÏhe€finds€that€possibility€to€be€unlikely.Ìà ` àIn€a€second€deposition,€Dr.€Ragland€stated€that€the€plaintiff€continued€to€returnÏwith€complaints€of€back,€leg,€and€hip€pain€through€May€1996.€€He€performed€a€thirdÏback€surgery€on€the€plaintiff€for€a€new€disc€fragment€on€June€13,€1996.€€As€a€result€ofÏthis€surgery,€Dr.€Ragland€opined€that€the€plaintiff€had€an€additional€one€percentÏimpairment€but€that€he€could€not€say€the€new€disc€fragment€was€caused€by€his€workÏactivity.€€On€the€issue€of€disability,€he€testified€as€follows:€€ð ð.€.€.€[the€plaintiff]€wouldÐ <@8< Ðdefinitely€be€at€severe€limitation€due€to€his€condition€and€I€would€be€somewhatÏsurprised€if€there€would€be€a€job€available€that€would€allow€him€to€work.€€IÏcommented€later€on€that€it€would€be€my€guess€that€he€would€be€able€to€work€at€theÏsedentary€level€at€best€and€I€wasnððt€even€sure€how€he€would€tolerate€that.ððÌà ` àDr.€Gilbert€L.€Hyde,€an€orthopedic€surgeon,€testified€by€deposition.€€OnÏNovember€20,€1995,€he€examined€the€plaintiff,€reviewed€his€medical€records,€andÏrecorded€his€history€of€injury€and€treatment€in€order€to€perform€an€independentÏmedical€evaluation.€€Dr.€Hyde€opined€that€the€plaintiffððs€work€injury€in€August€1994Ïwas€the€cause€of€his€back€condition€and€subsequent€surgeries€and€that€he€sustainedÏa€20€percent€impairment€to€the€body€as€a€whole€according€to€the€òòAMA€Guidesóó.€€HeÐ  à Ðsaw€the€plaintiff€again€on€August€16,€1996€and€recorded€that€he€ñªYñœñªYñsufferedñªYñ›ñªYñ€two€moreÏback€injuries€at€work€on€May€8€and€20,€1996€and€ñªYñœñªYñunderwentñªYñ›ñªYñ€a€third€back€surgery€onÏJune€13,€1996.€€Dr.€Hyde€opined€that€the€plaintiffððs€work€injuries€in€May€1996€wereÏthe€cause€of€the€third€back€surgery€and€calculated€his€total€impairment€rating€at€28Ïpercent€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€Further,€he€determined€that€the€plaintiff€shouldÏpermanently€avoid€the€following:€€lifting€20€to€25€pounds€maximally€and€10€to€15Ïpounds€frequently;€repetitive€bending,€twisting,€and€stooping;€and€prolonged€riding,Ïdriving,€and€sitting.€€Finally,€Dr.€Hyde€stated€that€a€cough€is€an€unlikely€cause€of€aÏherniated€disc€but€that€it€is€possible.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà ` àDr.€Julian€Naldosky,€who€has€a€doctorððs€degree€in€counselor€education€with€anÏemphasis€in€rehabilitation,€testified€at€trial€as€an€expert€vocational€witness€for€theÏplaintiff.€€The€plaintiff€was€referred€to€Dr.€Naldosky€for€physical€testing,€physicalÏcapacity€testing,€and€ñªYñœñªYña€vocationalñªYñ›ñªYñ€assessment.€€In€addition€to€performing€these€tests,ÏDr.€Naldosky€reviewed€the€plaintiffððs€medical€records€and€the€medical€depositionsÏand€took€a€history€of€his€education,€employment,€and€work€injuries.€€Dr.€NaldoskyÏexpressed€this€opinion€about€the€plaintiffððs€vocational€disability:ÌÒ` ÒÓÓà ¸ àMy€opinion€based€upon€all€of€the€information€is€that€Mr.€Berger€wouldÏbe€capable,€would€be€physically€capable,€of€performing€some€unskilled,Ïsedentary€occupations,€primarily€sedentary€occupations€that€include€jobs€suchÏas€a€speaker€assembler,€a€gasket€inspector,€a€grinding€machine€operator,€aÏpackager€of€small€parts€or€small€products,€a€stencil€cutter,€a€lock€assemblerÏand€a€bottling€line€attendant.€€I€think€theyððre€pretty€consistent€with€the€resultsÏof€our€testing€as€well€as€the€limitations€noted€by€Dr.€Ragland€and€Dr.€Hyde.Ìà ¸ àAssuming€that€he€can€do€these€jobs€he€would€be€„„€Mr.€Berger€wouldÏhave€a€vocational€disability€of€about€ninety„five€percent.€€That€is€he€would€beÐ <@8< Ðunable€to€perform€about€ninety„five€percent€of€the€jobs€in€the€local€laborÏmarket€that€he€could€have€performed€before€sustaining€his€initial€low€backÏinjury,€having€the€surgery,€sustaining€another€injury€and€so€on.Ìà ¸ àHowever,€Mr.€Berger€has€chronic€pain€thatððs€severe.€€He€has€a€historyÏof€three€low€back€surgeries.€€He€does€not€have€relevant€transferable€skills.€ÏHeððs€fifty„three€years€of€age.€€Because€of€all€these€factors€itððs€very€doubtfulÏthat€heððll€be€able€to€obtain€and€maintain€employment€in€any€occupation.€.€.€.€€IÏthink€realistically€heððs€a€hundred€percent€disabled€for€work.ÌÌÒ` ±QÒÓ¿QÓÓ  Óò òANALYSISó óÐ 0 p  ÐÔ‡X¨€XX XLAÔò òNoticeó óÐ P  ÐÓ  Óà ` àThe€first€issue€presented€by€the€defendant€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€inÏdetermining€that€the€plaintiff€provided€adequate€notice€of€his€injury€in€August€1994.ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„201€requires€the€employee€to€notify€the€employer€of€a€workÏinjury€within€30€days€of€its€occurrence€unless€there€is€a€reasonable€excuse.Ìà ` àThe€plaintiff€says€he€complied€with€this€rule€by€providing€both€actual€noticeÏand€written€notice€within€30€days€of€his€injury€at€work.€€He€says€actual€noticeÏoccurred€when€his€wife€telephoned€the€guard€at€the€defendantððs€plant€on€August€8,Ï1994€and€informed€him€thatÔ#† XLAXXX¨€dW#Ô€he€fell€at€work€and€injured€his€back€and€that€he€wasÐ |¼ Ðcurrently€in€the€hospital.€€In€addition,€he€says€the€defendant€received€actual€noticeÏwhen€his€wife€telephoned€Jewel€Hudgens€and€discussed€the€fact€that€her€husbandÏfell€at€work€and€injured€his€back€but€that€she€was€not€sure€how€to€fill€out€the€claimÏforms.Ìà ` àAs€for€written€notice,€the€plaintiff€says€his€wife€obtained€a€doctorððs€excuse€fromÏDr.€Cooze€and€she€delivered€it€to€the€defendant€on€August€8,€1994.€€Furthermore,Ïshe€obtained€some€forms€in€order€to€make€a€claim€for€disability€insurance€benefits.€ÏOn€the€first€form,€the€plaintiffððs€wife€filled€out€the€description€of€the€accident€to€read:€Ïð ðHurt€back€at€work€when€fell€off€ladder,€but€didnððt€cause€much€pain€until€startedÏcoughing€on€8„7„94.€€This€pain€put€me€on€floor€and€I€had€to€be€removed€byÏambulance€to€hospital.ðð€€She€testified€that€she€delivered€this€claim€form€to€theÏdefendant€around€August€22,€1994.€€This€claim€form€was€checked€ð ðnoðð€to€theÏquestion€of€whether€the€claim€was€related€to€employment€with€a€question€markÏbeside€it.€€€She€testified€that€she€checked€ð ðnoðð€at€the€direction€Ms.€Hudgens,€who€toldÏher€over€the€telephone€to€check€that€the€accident€was€not€work€related€until€it€couldÏbe€determined€otherwise.€€The€plaintiffððs€wife€explained€that€she€added€the€questionÏmark€because€she€knew€that€her€husband€was€injured€at€work.€€Ð `< 8= Ðà ` àIn€response€to€the€plaintiffððs€assertion€of€actual€notice,€the€defendant€pointsÏout€that€Ms.€Hudgensðð€notes€of€her€telephone€conversation€with€the€plaintiffððs€wifeÏindicate€that€he€injured€his€back€at€home€and€therefore€prove€that€the€defendant€didÏnot€receive€notice€of€a€work€related€injury.€€Regarding€written€notice,€the€defendantÏargues€that€even€if€the€first€claim€form€was€returned€to€the€defendant€by€August€22,Ï1994,€ð ðit€is€insufficient€to€provide€notice€of€the€time,€place,€cause€of€the€injury€so€as€toÏenable€the€defendant€to€either€(1)€make€an€investigation€while€the€facts€areÏaccessible€or€(2)€to€provide€timely€and€proper€treatment€for€the€ñªYñœñªYñplaintiff.ððñªYñ›ñªYñ€€ñªYñœñªYñòòSee€AetnañªYñ›ñªYñÐ à  ÐCasualty€ñªYñœñªYñ&ñªYñ›ñªYñ€Surety€Co.€v.€Long,óó€569€S.W.2d€444€(Tenn.€ñªYñœñªYñ1978).ñªYñ›ñªYñ€€The€defendant€alsoÐ À Ðadds€that€the€plaintiff€did€not€tell€his€supervisor€or€the€company€nurse€about€any€ofÏhis€three€alleged€falls€during€the€first€week€of€August€1994€even€though€he€wasÏfamiliar€with€the€policies€which€must€be€followed€for€reporting€injuries€and€receivingÏworkersðð€compensation€benefits.€€€€€Ìà ` àÔ‡X¨€XX XLAÔFirst,€we€note€that€where€the€trial€judge€has€made€a€determination€based€uponÐ  ` Ðthe€testimony€of€witnesses€whom€he€has€seen€and€heard,€great€deference€must€beÏgiven€to€that€finding€in€determining€whether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÏtrial€judgeððs€determination.€€òòSeeóó€òòHumphrey€v.€David€Witherspoon,€Inc.,€óó734€S.W.2dÐ „!Ä  Ð315€(Tenn.€1987).Ô#† XLAXXX¨€­d#ÔÔ‡X¨€XX XLAÔ€€After€a€careful€examination€of€the€record,€we€find€that€theÐ T#”" Ðevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€that€theÏplaintiff€gave€timely€notice€of€his€injury€at€work€in€August€1994.€€It€is€clear€that€theÏplaintiff€complied€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„201€through€(1)€his€wifeððs€telephoneÏconversation€with€Ms.€Hudgens€during€which€she€said€her€husband€fell€at€work€andÏinjured€his€back€and€(2)€the€first€claim€form€which€stated€ð ðHurt€Ô#† XLAXXX¨€zf#Ôback€at€work€when€fellÐ P,(, Ðoff€ladderÔ‡X¨€XX XLAÔðð€and€was€delivered€to€the€defendant€around€August€22,€1994.€€Ô#† XLAXXX¨€Ûh#ÔÔ‡X¨€XX XLAÔÐ 4.t*. ÐÔ#† XLAXXX¨€^i#ÔÔ‡X¨€XX XLAÔÓ  Óò òStatute€ñªYñœñªYñOfñªYñ›ñªYñ€Limitationsó óÐ 0X,0 ÐÓ  Óà ` àThe€second€issue€presented€by€the€defendant€is€whether€the€plaintiffððs€claimÏfor€benefits€is€barred€by€the€applicable€statute€of€limitationsÔ#† XLAXXX¨€µi#ÔÔ‡X¨€XX XLAÔ.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„Ð ¼3ü/4 Ð6„203€requires€the€employee€to€file€a€claim€for€workersðð€compensation€within€oneÏyear€of€a€work€injury.Ìà ` àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€plaintiffððs€lay€and€medical€proof€failed€toÏestablish€either€a€new€work€related€injury€to€his€back€or€an€aggravation€of€hisÐ ì:,7< Ðpreexisting€back€condition€from€1992€and€that€therefore€his€claim€for€benefits€isÏbarred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€The€plaintiff€says€he€presented€overwhelmingÏproof€that€his€injuries€and€subsequent€surgeries€resulted€from€his€work€related€fall€onÏAugust€5,€1994.Ìà ` àWe€agree€with€the€plaintiff.€€After€carefully€reviewing€the€record,€we€find€theÏfollowing€with€respect€to€the€medical€evidence:€€Ô#† XLAXXX¨€ñj#Ô(1)€Dr.€Cooze€opined€that€a€coughingÐ ¼ ü  Ðepisode€could€not€cause€the€plaintiffððs€condition€and€that€injuries€or€degenerativeÏchanges€were€more€likely€than€not€the€cause€of€his€condition;€(2)€Dr.€Ragland€opinedÏthat€the€plaintiffððs€work€injury€was€the€cause€of€his€medical€condition€and€subsequentÏsurgeries,€stating€that€it€is€possible€for€a€cough€to€rupture€a€disc€but€that€he€finds€thatÏpossibility€to€be€unlikely;€and€(3)€€Dr.€Hyde€opined€that€the€plaintiffððs€work€injury€inÏAugust€1994€was€the€cause€of€his€back€condition€and€subsequent€surgeries.€€HavingÏfiled€his€complaint€on€November€29,€1994,€wÔ‡X¨€XX XLAÔe€find€ñªYñœñªYñtheñªYñ›ñªYñ€plaintiff€filed€suit€within€oneÐ à  Ðyear€of€his€work€injury€on€August€5,€1994.€òòÐ Ä ÐóóÓ  Óò òCausationÐ Ð Ðó óÓ  Óà ` àThe€third€issue€presented€by€the€defendant€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ h¨ Ðits€award€and€assessment€of€benefits€to€the€plaintiff€in€light€of€the€medical€and€layÏtestimony€at€trial.€€Even€if€the€plaintiff€met€the€burden€of€proving€causation,€theÏdefendant€says€the€trial€court€should€have€based€the€determination€of€his€vocationalÏdisability€on€the€testimony€of€the€treating€physician.€€We€disagree€with€both€of€theseÏarguments.Ô#† XLAXXX¨€œp#ÔÔ‡X¨€XX XLAÔÐ d(¤$( Ðà ` àIn€order€to€be€eligible€for€workersðð€compensation€benefits,€an€employee€mustÏsuffer€ð ðan€injury€by€accident€arising€out€of€and€in€the€course€of€employment€whichÏcauses€either€disablement€or€death.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„102(a)(5).€€TheÏphrase€ððarising€out€ofðð€refers€to€causation.€€The€causation€requirement€is€satisfied€ifÏthe€injury€has€a€rational,€causal€connection€to€the€work.€€òòReeser€v.€Yellow€FreightÐ `1 -2 ÐSys.,€Inc.,€óó938€S.W.2d€690,€692€(Tenn.€1997)€(citations€omitted).òòÐ 03p/4 Ðóóà ` àAlthough€causation€cannot€be€based€upon€merely€speculative€or€conjecturalÐ 5@16 Ðproof,€absolute€certainty€is€not€required.€€Any€reasonable€doubt€in€this€regard€is€to€beÏconstrued€in€favor€of€the€employee.€€We€have€thus€consistently€held€that€an€awardÏmay€properly€be€based€upon€medical€testimony€to€the€effect€that€a€given€incidentÏð ðcould€beðð€the€cause€of€the€employeeððs€injury,€when€there€is€also€lay€testimony€fromÐ 0 Ðwhich€it€may€be€reasonably€inferred€that€the€incident€was€in€fact€the€cause€of€theÏinjury.€€òòId.€€óóIn€this€case,€as€in€all€workersðð€compensation€cases,€the€claimant's€ownÐ ŒÌ Ðassessment€of€his€physical€condition€and€resulting€disabilities€is€competent€testimonyÏand€cannot€be€disregarded.€òò€Tom€Still€Transfer€Co.€v.€Way,óó€482€S.W.2d€775,€777Ð ( h Ð(Tenn.€1972).Ìà ` àBased€upon€the€lay€and€expert€testimony€in€this€case,€we€find€the€evidenceÏdoes€not€preponderate€against€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€that€the€plaintiff€isÏentitled€to€workersðð€compensation€benefits€for€the€back€injuries€he€sustained€duringÏhis€employment€with€the€defendant.€€The€plaintiff€testified€that€he€fell€three€times€atÏwork€during€the€first€week€of€August€1994,€the€last€of€which€caused€him€enough€backÏpain€to€report€it€to€the€defendant,€which€he€tried€to€do.€€All€of€these€accidents€wereÏverified€by€the€plaintiffððs€partner,€Mac€Foulks,€and€the€last€fall€was€also€verified€by€theÏplaintiffððs€wife.Ìà ` àIn€addition,€as€set€forth€in€greater€detail€in€the€section€of€this€opinion€dealingÏwith€the€issue€of€statute€of€limitations,€it€is€evident€that€all€three€expert€witnessesÏtestified€that€the€plaintiffððs€back€condition€and€surgeries€were€mostly€likely€caused€byÏhis€work€injury€on€August€5,€1994.€€Finally,€we€do€not€agree€with€the€defendantððsÏcontention€that€the€trial€court€was€required€to€base€the€determination€of€the€plaintiffððsÏvocational€disability€on€the€testimony€of€the€treating€physician€in€accordance€withÏòòJames€H.€Davis€v.€Van€Liner€Ins.€Co.,óó€No.€02S01„9411„CV„00077,€Hardin€CountyÐ ì%,"& Ð(Tenn.€June€26,€1995).€€This€case€merely€holds€that€the€trial€judge€may€give€moreÏweight€to€the€treating€physicianððs€testimony€under€certain€circumstances.ÌÔ#† XLAXXX¨€„s#ÔÔ‡X¨€XX XLAÔÓ  Óò òPermanent€Total€Disability€Awardó óÐ T+”', ÐÓ  Óà ` àThe€fourth€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€theÏplaintiff€permanent€total€disability.€€The€defendant€says€the€plaintiff€should€notÏreceive€permanent€total€disability€benefits€or€at€the€least€should€only€receive€aÏmodified€award.€€We€disagree.Ìà ` àIn€addressing€this€issue,€the€defendant€points€out€that€the€Special€WorkersððÏCompensation€Appeals€Panel€held€that€where€the€employee€has€a€medicalÏimpairment€rating€of€less€than€16.7€percent,€the€employee€may€not€be€found€to€beÏpermanently€totally€disabled€within€the€ambit€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207(4)(A),Ïbut€rather€his€disability€must€be€determined€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241.€Ð Œ;Ì7> ÐòòSeiber€v.€Greenbrier,óó€906€S.W.2d€444,€447€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€defendant€argues€thatÐ À ÐDr.€Raglandððs€impairment€rating€of€14€percent€should€be€followed€instead€of€Dr.ÏHydeððs€impairment€rating€of€28€percent€because€Dr.€Hyde€only€saw€the€plaintiff€onÏtwo€occasions€and€formed€an€opinion€without€all€of€the€pertinent€facts€and€medicalÏrecords.€€In€addition,€the€defendant€points€out€that€Dr.€Naldosky€said€the€plaintiffÏwould€be€capable€of€performing€sedentary€work€and€that€the€plaintiff€admitted€that€heÏgoes€to€the€health€club€to€lift€weights.€€Therefore,€because€Dr.€Ragland€issued€anÏimpairment€rating€of€less€than€16.7€percent€and€because€the€plaintiff€can€performÏsome€work€and€is€not€ð ðtotally€disabled,ðð€the€defendant€says€the€plaintiff€is€not€entitledÏto€permanent€total€disability€benefits.Ìà ` àñªYñœñªYñTheñªYñ›ñªYñ€Supreme€Court€specifically€overruled€ñªYñœñªYñthat€portion€of€theñªYñ›ñªYñ€òòSeiberóó€ñªYñœñªYñdecisionñªYñ›ñªYñ€inÐ ¼ü Ðthe€case€of€òòDavis€v.€Reagan,óó€951€S.W.2d€766€(Tenn.€1997).€€The€Court€in€òòDavisóó€ñªYñœñªYñheldñªYñ›ñªYñÐ ŒÌ Ðthat€ð ððð€50„6„241€is€inapplicable€to€awards€of€permanent€total€disability€and€does€notÏpreclude€a€trial€judge€from€awarding€permanent€total€disability€merely€because€anÏanatomical€impairment€rating€is€less€than€16.7€percent.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€769.€€€Ð ô4 Ðà ` àIn€accordance€with€the€holding€of€òòDavis,óó€we€do€not€look€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð Ä Ð50„6„241€for€determining€the€plaintiffððs€disability€but€instead€focus€on€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€50„6„207(4)(B),€which€states:€€ð ðWhen€an€injury€not€otherwise€specificallyÏprovided€for€in€this€chapter,€as€amended,€totally€incapacitates€the€employee€fromÏworking€at€an€occupation€which€brings€such€employee€an€income,€such€employeeÏshall€be€considered€ððtotally€disabled.ðððð€€Ìà ` àThe€question€then€becomes€whether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÏtrial€courtððs€finding€that€the€plaintiff€is€totally€disabled.€€In€making€this€determination,Ïð ðthe€extent€of€disability€is€a€question€of€fact€for€the€trial€court€to€determine€from€all€ofÏthe€evidence,€including€lay€and€expert€testimony.ðð€€òòCorcoran€v.€Foster€Auto€GMC,Ð ô.4+0 ÐInc.,óó€746€S.W.2d€452,€458€(Tenn.€1988).€Ô#† XLAXXX¨€ #ÔÔ‡X¨€XX XLAÔ€After€a€careful€review€of€the€lay€and€expertÐ Ä0-2 Ðtestimony,€we€find€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€award€ofÏpermanent€total€disability.Ìà ` àA€review€of€Dr.€Raglandððs€testimony€on€the€subject€of€disability€shows€that€Ô#† XLAXXX¨€š‹#ÔheÐ ,6l28 Ðstated€the€following:€€ð ð.€.€.€[the€plaintiff]€would€definitely€be€at€severe€limitation€due€toÏhis€condition€and€I€would€be€somewhat€surprised€if€there€would€be€a€job€availableÏthat€would€allow€him€to€work.€€I€commented€later€on€that€it€would€be€my€guess€that€heÐ Ð;8> Ðwould€be€able€to€work€at€the€sedentary€level€at€best€and€I€wasnððt€even€sure€how€heÏwould€tolerate€that.ðð€€In€addition,€although€Dr.€Naldosky€thought€that€the€plaintiffÏwould€be€capable€of€performing€some€sedentary€jobs,€he€concluded€that:€€ð ð.€.€.€Mr.ÏBerger€has€chronic€pain€thatððs€severe.€€He€has€a€history€of€three€low€back€surgeries.€ÏHe€does€not€have€relevant€transferable€skills.€€Heððs€fifty„three€years€of€age.€€BecauseÏof€all€these€factors€itððs€very€doubtful€that€heððll€be€able€to€obtain€and€maintainÏemployment€in€any€occupation.€.€.€.€€I€think€realistically€heððs€a€hundred€percentÏdisabled€for€work.ðð€€Moreover,€the€lay€testimony€of€the€plaintiff€and€his€wife,€whichÏwas€found€credible€by€the€trial€judge,€supports€the€award€of€permanent€totalÏdisability.ÌÔ‡X¨€XX XLAÔÓ  Óò òDenial€Of€Motion€To€Reduce€The€Judgmentó óÐ €À ÐÓ  Óà ` àThe€last€issue€ñªYñœñªYñraised€by€the€defendantñªYñ›ñªYñ€is€whether€Ô#† XLAXXX¨€1‘#Ôthe€trial€court€erred€inÐ X˜ Ðdenying€the€defendantððs€motion€to€reduce€the€judgment€by€the€amount€of€socialÏsecurity€benefits€attributable€to€employer€contributions€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„¼6„207€(4)(A).€€The€burden€of€proof€would€be€on€the€defendant€to€prove€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€amount€of€contributions€it€made€toward€theÏplaintiffððs€social€security€benefits€should€reduce€the€plaintiffððs€benefits€in€this€case.€Ô‡X¨€XX XLAÔÐ ¼!ü  ÐÔ#† XLAXXX¨€ô“#ÔBecause€there€was€no€ñªYñœñªYñproofñªYñ›ñªYñ€in€the€ñªYñœñªYñrecord€on€this€issue,ñªYñ›ñªYñ€ñªYñœñªYñthe€finding€of€the€trial€judgeÐ  #à" Ðmust€be€approved.Ô‡X¨€XX XLAÔñªYñ›ñªYñÐ €%À!$ ÐÓ  Óò òDenial€of€Discretionary€Costsó ó€€Ô#† XLAXXX¨€þ”#ÔÐ `' #& ÐÓ  Óà ` àThe€single€issue€raised€by€the€plaintiff€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failingÏto€award€discretionary€costs.€€We€find€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€inÏdenying€certain€discretionary€costs€to€the€plaintiff.Ìà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€and€the€cost€of€this€appeal€is€taxedÏto€the€defendant.€€à  àÐ ¸0ø,0 ÐÓÓñªYñœñªYñÌñªYñ›œñªYñÌñªYñ›œñªYñÌñªYñ›œñªYñÌñªYñ›œñªYñÌñªYñ›œñªYñÌñªYñ›œñªYñÌñªYñ›œñªYñÌñªYñ›œñªYñÌñªYñ›œñªYñÌñªYñ›ñªYñÐ ø;88< ÐñªYñœñªYñ‡ñªYñ›œñªYñÌñªYñ›ñªYñà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_____________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌñªYñœñªYñÌÌ________________________________ñªYñ›ñªYñÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌÌñªYñœñªYñÌÌ________________________________ñªYñ›ñªYñÌJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€ñªYñœñªYñJudgeñªYñ›ñªYñ€œñ¸YñÐ  à  Ðñ¸Yññ¹Yñ›ñ¹Yññ¹YñÒ€ÒÒÀHÒÔ‡XƆ XX XLAÔà@\ \ ÌàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌà@µµ(ÌàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌÌÌÌGLENN€M.€BERGER,à à àà 8 àà  à)à è àHAMBLEN€CHANCERYÐ À Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€96„CV„457€BelowÐ À  Ðà Ø àAppellee,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð À  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àHon.€Kindall€Lawson,Ð À  Ðv.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àJudge.Ð À  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)€à è àNo.€€03S01„9708„CV„00102Ð À  Ðñ¹Yññ½Yññ½Yññ¹Yññ¹YññÉYññ½Yñßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@E»Á` ttx$óÀð Õrßñ½YññÉYññÉYññÉYññ¹Yññ¹YññÉYñßt€*>.*jx¸ ` `€€@EpÌ` ttx$¨Àð àtßñÉYññ¹YñLEAR€SEATING€CORP.,à à àà 8 àà  à)ñ¹Yññ¼Yñ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ñ¼Yññ¹YñÐ À  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àAppellant.à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àAFFIRMED.Ð À Ðñ¹YññºYñÌñºYññºYñÌñºYññ¹YñÌÌÌñ¹Yññ»Yññ¹Yñ\ñ¹Yññ»Yññ¹Yñà@ÑÑ'ÌàòòJUDGMENT€ORDERóóˆÐ À ÐÌÓÓà Ø àà 0 àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€motion€for€review€pursuant€toÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(5)(B),€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€ofÏreferral€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel'sÏMemorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,Ïwhich€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ìà Ø àà 0 àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€review€isÏnot€well„taken€and€should€be€denied;€andÌà Ø àà 0 àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€isÏmade€the€judgment€of€the€Court.€€ò òÐ À+(( Ðó óà Ø àà 0 àCosts€on€appeal€are€assessed€to€the€appellant.Ð À-** Ðà Ø àà 0 àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€this€____€day€of€October,€1998.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àPER€CURIAMÌÌÔ#† XLAX XXƆ5š#Ôñ¹Yñ›