ÿWPCS !ˆ6lcuDSx]A é;Íži>× ÷açÖhu_SpYØgì]„è¢ÉÌ–[ìÉø)xôÒô.›Ž¹ƒ9Æ[8é5W–|® ‚÷Eß¼%¥›0õ#Y”(&x ê´m™.3@ 9Çm/G¼ÑaÄ›¾ºÕµêâBY’ë$€.Ç é³7Ïê/ciÊâ-ìÂ3žÂÇŽÔ+gß|74&òÂ/°MTï(Õî©[=}µ´ƒ,ñB$ý%Ç'%K‚q®gåÁð•æXfsUΟ8ì}¬$IJïl­ÛÞîÃúÈÿ+/¯Ué™w§ÕV‘d±l:ýt9 ,`)˜qVÖ&‘gùEøŠØ@¡t+º×j#3±«ݹÍXQ›Ê ¾…ipÅ-=¶(z½“Ê»b€¬m‚Å:}‚~´4³ŽQê"£àÚ“gJ—«:å6·µ“Îä±…ÄñÜMb2™3dõ@dÏæ{ÅB?XÉe8ö¸  Ð~DÍ\IÌ‹ãʹØHecl‘ÙÆløÄ¦ÝÑ„ÿ]B bšTÁ¢º€,÷Áˆ…±ÐÞNúeà_¿¦ $zÓö»Äkú>æo©î²8¥2J/œ=ZH'ê’ßÖâb#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 UN¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ 8™ ÆÑ Æ—Æ]Æ# 0DéN-ý/N,E.Š0UNºU@bHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH 0ëPPPP B ;; 0¤X D3ü D-/ 0K\\ AS§Æú 0¤À 0Dd A«¨˜\\IB01S02\CLERKJACÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»Äs’/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularlk.\Pê: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|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ .Ý ƒR“—$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€XÒX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔHe€had€also€been€released€by€Dr.€John€Ô_ÔBrophyÔ_Ô€on€December€15,€1999€to€return€to€work€atÐ ° Ðfull€duty€òòwithout€restrictionsóó.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5()Ã$òòÚ  Ú3Ú  Úóó óÝ ƒR“—$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€XÒX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€Chancellorððs€ruling€stated€that€the€court€had€issued€an€earlier€order€setting€out€the€factsÐ ° Ðand€the€law€that€the€court€relied€upon€in€denying€the€applicability€of€the€ð ðLast€Injurious€Injury€RuleððÐ ™é Ðto€the€facts€of€this€case.€Unfortunately,€the€earlier€order€was€not€included€in€the€record€on€appeal.€Ð ‚Ò Ð €Ý ƒR“—$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€XÒX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€The€determination€of€a€successive€òòemployeróó€is€the€threshold€inquiry.€Because€in€this€caseÐ ° Ðthere€was€no€proof€of€a€successive€employer,€it€is€not€necessary€to€determine€the€causal€connectionÐ ™é Ðbetween€the€€employment€and€the€resulting€injury€or€whether€the€successive€injury€created€a€greaterÐ ‚Ò Ðdisability€than€would€have€otherwise€been€the€case.€Of€course,€in€a€case€where€the€rule€is€applicable,€Ð k» Ðall€of€the€criteria€must€be€met.(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman - ù-(|G2“—$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€é»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€XÒX»»Ô d(|3ÿ&$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€é»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÿ&$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€é»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€é»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼é»»»ÔÑ8€ÒXXdé»»d8ÑÓ  ÓÔ‡îeFéÔà@@7 7 ìàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÐ Ó# Ðà@@ƒƒìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼é»îîeFî#ÔÐ öF ÐJUNE€2003€SessionÐ i ÐÔ‡XÒX»¼éÔÌò òÔ#†¼é»XXÒ#ÔDARRELL€Ô_ÔDWAINÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔBINKLEYÔ_Ôòòóó€v.€TENNESSEE€Ô_ÔDIECASTINGÔ_Ô„HARVARDÐ  b ÐINDUSTRIES,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XÒX»¼éÔó óÐ # s ÐÌà@@¼¼ìàò ò€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Lauderdale€CountyÐ  m Ðà@@ôôìàNo.€€10,950€€€€€Martha€Ô_ÔBrasfieldÔ_Ô,€ChancellorÐ W  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Ä` AßÐ Å  ÐÌNo.€W2002€„02188„SC„WCM„CV€„€€Mailed€August€28,€2003;€Filed€December€18,€2003Ð ¾  ÐÔ#†¼é»XXÒ #ÔÔ‡XÒX»¼éÔÌÌßA€V) °°` dE<{` AßÐ |Ì Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓThis€workersðð€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workersðð€CompensationÐ tÄ ÐAppeals€Panel€in€accordance€with€the€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Section€ðð50„6„225€(e)(3)€for€hearing€andÐ ]­ Ðreporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€The€Appellant,€employer,Ð F– Ðargues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€the€employee€sustained€a€herniated€disc€as€a€result€ofÐ / Ðhis€on€the€job€injury;€in€awarding€temporary€total€and€permanent€partial€disability€benefits€and€inÐ h Ðnot€applying€the€ð ðLast€Injurious€Injury€Ruleðð€to€dismiss€the€employeeððs€claim€against€Appellant.€TheÐ Q ÐAppellee,€employee,€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€limiting€employees€permanent€award€to€2.5Ð ê: Ðtimes€the€anatomical€rating€pursuant€to€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð50„6„241(a)(1)€because€employeeððs€return€to€workÐ Ó# Ðwas€not€ð ðmeaningfulðð.€For€the€reasons€discussed€below,€the€panel€has€concluded€that€the€judgmentÐ ¼  Ðof€the€trial€court€should€be€affirmed€in€all€respects.€€€Ð ¥õ ÐÌÓ¨ÓÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)€(1999)€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ ` ° ÐAffirmedó óÐ J!š  ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÓ  ÓARNOLD€B.€Ô_ÔGOLDINÔ_ÔÔ#†¼é»àXÒ!#ÔÔ‡XÒX.¼éÔóó,€Sp.€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòòóó€HOLDER,€J.€andÐ #m" ÐLOSERòòóó,€Sp.€J.€joined.Ð $V# ÐÌByron€K.€Ô_ÔLindbergÔ_Ô€and€Peggy€Ô_ÔTolsonÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔTolsonÔ_Ô€and€Associates,€Brentwood,€Tennessee,€for€theÐ Ø%(!% Ðappellant,€Tennessee€Ô_ÔDiecastingÔ_Ô„Harvard€Industries€and€ITT€Hartford€Insurance€GroupÐ Á&"& ÐÌD.€Michael€Ô_ÔDunavantÔ_Ô,€Ripley,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Darrell€Ô_ÔDwainÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔBinkleyÔ_ÔÐ “(ã#( ÐÌÌÌÌÐ  -p(-ýœ ÐÓ& ÓÓ  Óòòóóò òMEMORANDUM€OPINIONó óÔ#†¼é»XXÒ… #ÔÔ‡XÒX»¼éÔÐ ° ÐÌò òòòSTANDARD€OF€REVIEWóóó óÐ ƒÓ ÐÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼é»XXÒÌ#ÔÔ€XÒX»¼éÔà  àThe€review€of€the€findings€of€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,Ð V¦ Ðaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€finding,€unless€the€preponderance€of€theÐ ?  Ðevidence€is€otherwise.€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).€€òòStone€v.€City€of€Ô_ÔMcMinnvilleÔ_Ôóó,€896€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€2d€548,550Ð ( x Ð(Tenn.€1995).€€This€court€is€not€bound€by€the€trial€courtððs€findings,€but€instead€conducts€its€ownÐ  a Ðindependent€examination€of€the€record€to€determine€where€the€preponderance€lies.€òòÔ_ÔGallowayÔ_Ô€v.Ð ú J ÐMemphis€Drum€Serviceóó,€822€S.W.2d€584,€586€(Tenn.€1981).à È àÐ ã 3  ÐÌà@!ìàò òòòFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDóóó óˆÐ µ  ÐÌà  àThe€employee,€Darrell€Ô_ÔDwainÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔBinkleyÔ_Ô,€filed€his€complaint€for€workersðð€compensationÐ ˆØ  Ðbenefits€€alleging€that€he€sustained€an€injury€to€his€lower€back€on€September€29,€1997,€when€heÐ qÁ  Ðlifted€a€five€gallon€bucket€of€oil,€weighing€approximately€75€pounds,€while€at€work€for€his€employer,Ð Zª  ÐTennessee€Ô_ÔDiecastingÔ_Ô.€His€complaint€alleged€that€his€injury€was€permanent€and€that€he€was€entitledÐ C“ Ðto€benefits€for€both€temporary€total€and€permanent€partial€disability,€in€addition€to€current€and€futureÐ ,| Ðmedical€care.€Appellant€denied€the€employeeððs€claim€in€its€entirety€and€further€alleged€that€if€theÐ e Ðemployee€sustained€an€on€the€job€injury€that€the€court€should€dismiss€the€claim€against€it€based€onÐ þN Ðthe€ð ðLast€Injurious€Injury€Ruleðð.Ð ç7 ÐÌà  àFollowing€a€trial€on€May€21,€2002,€the€court€found€that€the€employee€sustained€aÐ ¹  Ðcompensable€injury€to€his€low€back€and€awarded€him€five€(5%)€per€cent€permanent€partial€disabilityÐ ¢ò Ðto€the€body€as€a€whole.€The€court€further€found€that€the€employee€was€entitled€to€benefits€for€aÐ ‹Û Ðperiod€of€temporary€total€disability€and€that€the€ð ðLast€Injurious€Injury€Ruleðð€did€not€apply€to€theÐ tÄ Ðfacts€of€this€case.€The€employer€has€appealed€from€the€entire€award.Ð ]­ ÐÌà  àThe€employee€was€42€years€old€at€the€time€of€trial.€He€had€a€varied€work€history.€He€hadÐ / Ðbeen€in€the€military,€albeit€briefly;€had€performed€seasonal€work€at€two€different€cotton€gins€overÐ h Ðseveral€years;€had€worked€as€a€laborer€at€factories€and€warehouses€and€had€been€a€maintenance€manÐ  Q Ðfor€two€adult€family€homes€in€the€State€of€Washington,€one€of€which€was€owned€by€his€former€wife.Ð ê : ÐHe€had€also€worked€as€a€laborer€and€maintenance€man€for€a€diesel€company.€While€working€for€thisÐ Ó!#  Ðemployer€in€1988,€he€slipped€and€sustained€a€herniated€disc€at€the€L5„S1€level€for€which€heÐ ¼" ! Ðunderwent€surgery.€He€received€a€workersðð€compensation€settlement€as€a€result€of€this€injury.Ð ¥#õ" ÐÌà@2 2 ìàò òòòLEGAL€AND€MEDICAL€CAUSATIONó óóóˆÐ w%Ç $ ÐÌà  àThe€employee€went€to€work€for€the€Appellant€in€1997.€His€duties€were€to€operate€a€machineÐ J'š"& Ðand€to€dispense€parts.€His€job€required€constant€lifting,€bending€and€stooping.€Part€of€his€jobÐ 3(ƒ#' Ðrequired€him€to€keep€the€machines€well€oiled€and€lubricated.€The€oil€for€the€machines€was€carriedÐ )l$( Ðin€the€plant€in€large€open€buckets.€€The€oil€would€splash€out€of€the€buckets€onto€the€floor€causingÐ *U%) Ða€slipping€hazard.€€On€the€day€of€his€injury,€he€was€preparing€to€carry€oil€to€his€machine€in€a€5€gallonÐ î*>&* Ðbucket,€weighing€approximately€75€pounds.€As€he€lifted€the€bucket,€he€felt€a€ð ðpopðð€in€his€backÐ ×+''+ ÐÔ_Ôcausing€a€shock€to€run€into€his€knees€and€toes€and€numbness,€tingling€and€pain€in€his€left€leg€andÐ ° Ðfoot.€Ð ™é ÐÌà  àHe€advised€his€plant€supervisor€that€he€had€been€injured€and€was€told€to€go€to€the€emergencyÐ k» Ðroom€at€the€local€hospital€where€he€was€treated€and€released.€He€did€not€improve.€€The€employerÐ T¤ Ðthen€authorized€treatment€by€Dr.€William€Tucker,€a€family€practice€physician€in€Ripley.€€Again,€heÐ =  Ðdid€not€improve€and€was€referred€by€Dr.€Tucker€to€Dr.€D.J.€Canale,€a€Memphis€neurosurgeon.€€Dr.Ð & v ÐCanale€ordered€an€MRI€performed.€€Dr.€Canale€read€the€MRI€as€showing€a€mild€bulging€disc,Ð  _ Ðespecially€at€the€L5€level.€€Dr.€Canale€testified€that€he€found€no€evidence€of€a€recurrent€disc€ruptureÐ ø H Ðand€returned€the€employee€to€work€full€duty€without€restrictions€and€with€no€permanent€physicalÐ á 1  Ðimpairment.€Ð Ê   ÐÌà  àThe€employee€was€not€satisfied€with€his€treatment€from€Dr.€Canale.€He€felt€that€his€pain€wasÐ œì  Ðsimilar€to€the€pain€he€had€experienced€from€his€earlier€1988€disc€injury.€€He€told€his€employer€heÐ …Õ  Ðwas€going€to€seek€treatment€at€the€V.A.€Hospital.€In€the€meantime,€the€employerððs€workersÐ n¾  Ðcompensation€carrier€referred€him€to€Dr.€John€Brophy,€another€Memphis€neurosurgeon.€€Though€Dr.Ð W§  ÐBrophy€sent€him€to€a€work€hardening/physical€therapy€program€the€employee€did€not€participate€inÐ @ Ðit€because€it€was€going€to€€require€him€to€sign€a€form€that€stated€he€would€not€seek€treatment€fromÐ )y Ðanyone€other€than€Dr.€Brophy.€Since€he€was€also€being€treated€at€the€V.A.,€he€refused€to€sign€theÐ b Ðform.€€Dr.€Brophy€then€released€him€and€returned€him€to€work€at€full€duty€without€restrictions€andÐ ûK Ðwith€no€permanent€physical€impairment.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àHe€was€offered€light€duty€work€by€his€employer€in€October,€1997,€which€he€performed€forÐ ¶ Ða€very€brief€period€of€time.€He€left€the€job€voluntarily€and€never€returned€to€full€duty€as€per€theÐ Ÿï Ðinstructions€of€Drs.€Canale€and€Brophy.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€employee€was€treated€at€the€V.A.€Hospital€in€Memphis€between€1997„1999.€He€thenÐ Zª Ðmoved€back€to€Washington€State€in€1999,€and€began€treatment€at€the€V.A.€Hospital€there€in€July,Ð C“ Ð1999,€undergoing€back€surgery€on€December€30,€1999.€€The€operative€notes€reflect€that€the€surgeonÐ ,| Ðfound€scar€tissue,€fatty€tissue,€and€òòa€large€disc€fragment€at€the€L5„S1€level.óó€€€€€€€€€Ð e ÐÌà  àFollowing€his€surgery,€the€employee€continued€to€seek€treatment€for€his€back€problem€fromÐ ç 7 Ðthe€V.A.€Hospital€rather€than€from€physicians€authorized€by€his€employer.€Dr.€Samuel€Pieper,€aÐ Ð!   Ðpsychiatrist€with€the€V.A.€Hospital€in€Murfreesboro,€who€never€examined€or€treated€him,€reviewedÐ ¹" ! Ðthe€records€of€his€treatment€at€the€V.A.€Hospitals.€€Dr.€Pieper€testified€that€the€employee€sustainedÐ ¢#ò" Ða€permanent€impairment€from€his€on€the€job€injury€of€September,€1997,€€based€primarily€on€the€factÐ ‹$Û# Ðthat€a€disc€fragment€was€found€at€the€L5„S1€level€during€surgery.€Dr.€Pieper€opined€that€theÐ t%Ä $ Ðemployee€had€sustained€a€10%€permanent€physical€impairment€from€his€1988€back€surgery€and€that,Ð ]&­!% Ðin€accordance€with€the€AMA€Guidelines,€he€should€receive€an€additional€2%€for€his€second€surgeryÐ F'–"& Ðat€the€same€level€in1999.Ð /(#' ÐÌà  àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€denied€compensability€of€this€claimÐ *Q%) Ðbecause€two€highly€respected€neurosurgeons,€Drs.€Canale€and€Brophy,€€testified€that€Mr.€BinkleyÐ ê*:&* Ðdid€not€sustain€a€permanent€impairment€from€his€injury€of€September,€1997.€€€They€also€argue€thatÐ Ó+#'+ Ðthe€credibility€of€the€V.A.€records€and€its€surgeons€is€somewhat€ð ðjaundicedðð€and€that€a€patient,€if€heÐ ° Ðlooks€long€and€hard€enough,€can€always€find€a€surgeon€who€will€perform€surgery.€Ð ™é ÐÌà  àThis€is€an€interesting€argument€which€may€be€valid€in€some€cases.€In€this€case,€however,€notÐ k» Ðonly€did€the€employee€consistently€complain€of€back€and€leg€pain€from€the€date€of€his€injury€inÐ T¤ ÐSeptember,€1997€until€his€surgery€on€December€30,€1999,€but€when€surgery€was€ultimatelyÐ =  Ðperformed€at€the€V.A.€Hospital,€òòa€large€disc€fragment€was€found€and€€removed€from€his€backóó.€Dr.Ð & v ÐPieper€opined€that€the€disc€fragment€was€the€abnormality€that€showed€up€on€the€MRI,€myleogramÐ  _ Ðand€CAT€scan€and€that€these€diagnostic€test€results€had€been€incorrectly€interpreted€by€Drs.€CanaleÐ ø H Ðand€Brophy.€It€was€his€opinion€that€the€disc€fragment€that€was€found€as€a€result€of€the€December,Ð á 1  Ð1999,€surgery€had€caused€the€employeeððs€pain€since€September€29,€1997.€Ð Ê   ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€supported€the€employeeððs€claimÐ œì  Ðthat€he€sustained€a€ruptured€disc€when€he€lifted€the€oil€bucket€on€September€29,€1997€and€we€are€notÐ …Õ  Ðpersuaded€otherwise.€€Ð n¾  Ðà  ààHàò òòòˆà@ìì*ìàˆÌà@‚ ‚ ìàTEMPORARY€TOTAL€DISABILITYó óóóˆÐ A‘ ÐÌà  àThe€employee€was€injured€on€September€27,€1997.€€He€was€off€work€until€November€7,Ð d Ð1997,€€when€he€was€returned€to€work€by€Dr.€Canale.€The€employer€provided€him€with€light€dutyÐ ýM Ðwork€at€full€pay€and€stopped€paying€him€temporary€total€disability€benefits.€His€return€to€work€lastedÐ æ6 Ðapproximately€three€(3)€hours€after€which€he€voluntarily€terminated€his€employment.€It€was€on€thisÐ Ï Ðsame€date€that€he€began€seeking€medical€treatment€at€the€V.A.€Hospital€in€Memphis.€€Ð ¸ ÐÌà  àHe€continued€to€seek€treatment€at€the€V.A.€for€his€work€injury€both€in€Memphis€andÐ ŠÚ ÐWashington€State€culminating€with€his€back€surgery€on€December€30,€1999.׃ ×Ý ƒ)ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð sà ÐÌà  àThe€post€operative€notes€from€the€V.A.€indicated€that€he€was€doing€well€following€hisÐ E• Ðsurgery€until€January€10,€2000,€when€he€ð ðpicked€up€a€bag€of€sugar,€and€his€problems€began€anewðð.Ð .~ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€employee€had€been€unable€to€work€from€the€time€he€voluntarilyÐ  P Ðleft€his€light€duty€employment€with€his€employer€and€continued€with€his€treatment€at€the€V.A.,Ð é 9 Ðincluding€his€surgery.€The€court€found€he€reached€maximum€medical€improvement€on€January€10,Ð Ò!"  Ð2000,€the€date€he€picked€up€the€bag€of€sugar.€Ð »" ! ÐÌà  àAppellant€argues€that€because€the€employee€voluntarily€left€his€employment€while€assignedÐ $Ý# Ðto€light€duty,€that€he€should€not€be€entitled€to€reinstatement€of€additional€temporary€total€disability.€Ð v%Æ $ ÐÌà  àÌà0  àAs€the€Supreme€Court€stated€in€òòCleek€v.€Wal„Mart€Stores,€Inc.óó,€19€S.W.3d€770,€776Ð 1(#' Ð(Tenn.2000):а(#(# ÐÌà0  àð ðT.C.A.€ðð50„6„207(3)(A)(i)€specifically€provides€that€the€injured€employee€shall€receiveÐ ‚Ò Ðcompensation€ððfor€the€period€of€time€during€which€[the€employee]€suffers€temporary€totalÐ k» Ðdisability€on€account€of€the€injuryðð€and€thus€the€purpose€served€by€such€benefits€is€to€allowÐ T¤ Ðfor€ððthe€healing€period€during€which€the€employee€is€totally€prevented€from€workingðð€òòGluckÐ =  ÐBros.,€Inc.v.€Coffeyóó,€222€Tenn.€6,€13„14,€431€S.W.€2d€756,€759€(1968).ðð€Ð& v(#(# ÐÌà  àAppellant€relies€upon€the€employees€return€to€work€by€Drs.€Canale€and€Brophy.€Based€onÐ ø H Ðthe€employeeððs€findings€at€surgery€and€the€opinion€of€Dr.€Pieper,€the€trial€court€obviously€found€thatÐ á 1  Ðboth€Drs.€Canale€and€Brophy€had€been€incorrect€in€their€diagnosis€at€the€time€they€returned€theÐ Ê   Ðemployee€to€work.Ð ³  ÐÌà  àMoreover,€as€the€court€stated€in€òòCleekóó,€ð ðthe€fact€that€benefits€were€terminated€by€a€nominalÐ …Õ  Ðreturn€to€work€does€not€necessarily€mean€that€temporary€total€disability€benefits€can€never€beÐ n¾  Ðrevived€under€any€set€of€circumstancesðð.€€19€S.W.€3d€at€776.Ð W§  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€employee€is€entitled€to€an€additional€period€of€temporary€totalÐ )y Ðdisability€benefits€for€the€period€November€7,€1997,€when€he€began€seeking€treatment€at€the€V.A.Ð b ÐHospital€until€January€10,€2000.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€court.Ð ûK ÐÌà@«« ìàò òòòPERMANENT€IMPAIRMENTó óóóˆÐ Í ÐÌà  àOnce€the€causation€and€permanency€of€an€injury€have€been€established€by€expert€testimony,Ð  ð Ðthe€trial€court€may€consider€many€pertinent€factors,€including€age,€job€skills,€education,€training,Ð ‰Ù Ðduration€of€disability,€and€job€opportunities€for€the€disabled,€in€addition€to€anatomic€impairment,Ð r Ðfor€the€purpose€of€evaluating€the€extent€of€a€claimantððs€permanent€disability.€€òòMcCaleb€v.€SaturnÐ [« ÐCorp.óó,€910€S.W.2d€412,€416€(Tenn.€1995).Ð D” ÐÌà  àT.C.A.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(1)€states€that€if€the€employer€returns€the€employee€to€employment€atÐ f Ða€wage€equal€to€or€greater€than€the€wage€the€employee€was€receiving€at€the€time€of€the€injury,€theÐ ÿO Ðmaximum€permanent€partial€disability€award€that€the€employee€may€receive€is€2.5€times€the€medicalÐ è 8 Ðimpairment€rating€determined€pursuant€to€the€provisions€of€the€AMA€Guides€to€the€Evaluation€ofÐ Ñ!!  ÐPermanent€Impairment.€The€case€law€has€interpreted€this€section€to€mean€that€the€return€to€workÐ º" ! Ðmust€be€a€ð ðmeaningfulðð€return€to€work.€€òòNelson€v.€Wal„Mart€Stores,€Inc.óó,€8€S.W.3d€625,630€(Tenn.Ð £#ó" Ð1999).€Ð Œ$Ü# ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€argues€that€it€returned€the€employee€to€work€at€light€duty€at€his€full€pre„injuryÐ ^&®!% Ðwage,€and€that€he€voluntary€left€their€employment,€not€because€he€was€unable€to€perform€the€lightÐ G'—"& Ðduty€work€assigned€to€him,€but€because€ð ðhe€did€not€like€going€to€work€and€being€unable€to€performÐ 0(€#' Ðhis€share€of€the€workloadðð.€€In€light€of€this,€Appellant€urges€that€if€the€employee€is€entitled€to€anÐ )i$( Ðaward€of€permanent€physical€impairment€at€all,€which€it€argues€he€is€not,€that€it€should€be€limitedÐ *R%) Ðto€2.5€times€his€anatomical€impairment€rating.Ð ë*;&* ÐÐ Ô+$'+ Ðà  àThe€employee,€on€the€other€hand,€argues€that€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„241(b)€should€apply€to€the€factsÐ ° Ðof€this€case.€€This€section€provides€that€if€the€employer€does€not€return€the€employee€to€employmentÐ ™é Ðat€a€wage€equal€or€greater€than€the€wage€the€employee€was€receiving€at€the€time€of€the€injury€or€byÐ ‚Ò Ðanalogy,€the€return€to€work€is€not€ð ðmeaningfulðð,€the€maximum€permanent€partial€disability€awardÐ k» Ðthat€the€employee€may€receive€is€six€(6)€times€the€anatomical€impairment€rating.Ð T¤ ÐÌà  àThe€employee€argues€that€he€was€only€returned€to€light€duty€work.€His€job€was€to€walk,€standÐ & v Ðand€watch€the€other€employees€work.€He€was€not€required€to€perform€the€heavy€labor€of€workingÐ  _ Ðon€one€of€the€machines.€€The€employee€testified€that€he€did€not€like€going€to€work€and€being€unableÐ ø H Ðto€perform€his€share€of€the€workload,€and€that€he€went€home€after€about€three€(3)€hours.€He€arguesÐ á 1  Ðthat€this€was,€in€essence,€ð ðmake€workðð€and€not€meaningful.€Implicit€in€the€employeeððs€argument€isÐ Ê   Ðthat€he€was€returned€to€work€before€reaching€maximum€medical€improvement€and€before€he€wasÐ ³  Ðcapable€of€attempting€a€meaningful€return€to€work.Ð œì  ÐÌà  àThis€issue€has€now€been€resolved€by€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòLay€v.€Scott€County€SheriffððsÐ n¾  ÐDepartmentóó,€E2002„01731„SC„R3„CV€(Filed:€June€19,€2003).€Ð W§  ÐÌà  à€Lay€was€injured€in€an€automobile€accident€while€working€as€a€deputy€sheriff€for€the€ScottÐ )y ÐCounty€Sheriffððs€Department€in€October,€2000.€€He€was€diagnosed€as€having€a€bulging€disc€withÐ b Ðnerve€impingement€at€the€L4„5€disc€space.€€He€continued€to€work€for€the€Sheriffððs€Department€forÐ ûK Ðfive€months€after€the€accident,€in€the€same€position€and€at€the€same€pay€as€before€the€accident.€€InÐ ä4 ÐMarch,€2001,€before€having€surgery€and€before€reaching€maximum€medical€improvement,€heÐ Í Ðvoluntarily€resigned€from€the€Sheriffððs€Department€for€a€better€paying€private€sector€job.Ð ¶ ÐSubsequently,€he€had€surgery,€and€as€a€result€of€his€post„surgery€medical€restrictions,€the€privateÐ Ÿï Ðsector€employer€refused€to€take€him€back.€€The€Sheriffððs€Department€did€rehire€him€but€at€the€bottomÐ ˆØ Ðof€the€pay€scale.Ð qÁ ÐÌà  àLay€argued€that€the€determination€of€whether€there€was€a€meaningful€return€to€work€mustÐ C“ Ðoccur€only€after€an€employee€reaches€maximum€medical€improvement€while€the€county€argued€thatÐ ,| ÐLayððs€first€return€to€work€after€the€accident€was€ð ðmeaningfulðð€under€òòNelsonóó.Ð e ЀÌà  àThe€court€stated€in€òòLayóó€that€ð ðin€determining€whether€there€has€been€a€meaningful€return€toÐ ç 7 Ðwork,€the€focus€is€upon€ððthe€reasonableness€of€the€employer€in€attempting€to€return€the€employeeÐ Ð!   Ðto€work€and€the€reasonableness€of€the€employee€in€failing€to€return€to€workðð€not€the€date€on€whichÐ ¹" ! Ðmaximum€medical€improvement€was€attained.ðð€€Slip€Op.,€p.4.Ð ¢#ò" ÐÌà  àAs€in€this€case,€the€court€in€òòLayóó€found€that€his€voluntary€resignation€ð ðwas€ððunreasonableððÐ t%Ä $ Ðbehavior,€òòóó...€as€it€was€not€related€to€his€injury.ðð€€Slip.Op.,€p.€5.Ð ]&­!% ÐÌÌÌà  àThe€court€went€on€to€state,€as€follows:Ð *Q%) ÐÌà0  àð ðFinding€that€a€court,€when€assessing€meaningful€return€to€work,€is€limited€to€only€thoseÐ Ó+#'+ Ðevents€occurring€after€an€employee€attains€maximum€medical€improvement,€regardless€ofÐ ° Ðthe€employeeððs€own€actions,€would€be€contrary€to€the€holdings€of€other€cases€and€to€theÐ ™é Ðpurposes€of€Section€50„6„241.ЂÒ(#(# Ðà  à...Ð k» Ðà0  à...an€employee€cannot€avoid€the€statutory€caps€and€thereby€augment€his€award€through€hisÐ T¤ Ðunilateral€acts€when€those€acts€are€unrelated€to€the€injury.ðð€€Slip€Op.,€p.6.Ð= (#(# ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€Appellant€fully€complied€with€the€statute€in€providing€theÐ  _ Ðemployee€with€a€job,€albeit€light€duty,€at€his€full€pre„injury€wage€but€that€the€employee€chose€notÐ ø H Ðto€perform€it,€even€though€he€was€fully€capable€of€doing€so.€€Based€on€these€facts,€the€trial€courtÐ á 1  Ðfound€that€the€caps€of€2.5€times€the€anatomical€impairment€rating€applied.€€We€agree.Ð Ê   ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€then€urges€that€the€employee€should€not€be€awarded€any€permanent€physicalÐ œì  Ðimpairment.€€It€argues€that€Drs.€Canale€and€Brophy€gave€the€employee€0%€impairment€and€that€Dr.Ð …Õ  ÐPieperððs€rating€of€2%€was€not€given€until€after€the€employeeððs€ð ðthirdðð€back€injury€in€January,€2000Ð n¾  Ðwhen€he€lifted€a€bag€of€sugar.€€Ð W§  ÐÌà  àDr.€Pieper€testified,€however,€that€his€impairment€rating€was€based€on€the€employeeððs€secondÐ )y Ðdisc€surgery€in1999.€He€testified€that€the€employee€had€a€10%€anatomical€rating€for€his€1988€surgeryÐ b Ðand€that€the€AMA€Guide€provides€an€additional€2%€for€his€1999€surgery€at€the€same€L5„S1€level.€Ð ûK ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€applied€the€2.5€caps€and€found€that€the€employee€sustained€a€5%€permanentÐ Í Ðphysical€impairment€to€the€body€as€a€whole€based€on€his€anatomical€impairment€of€2%.€€We€findÐ ¶ Ðthat€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€award.Ð Ÿï ÐÌà@ý ý ìàò òòòTHE€LAST€INJURIOUS€INJURY€RULEóóó óˆÐ qÁ ÐÌà  àFinally,€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€applying€the€ð ðLast€Injurious€InjuryÐ D” ÐRuleðð€to€the€facts€of€this€case.€×ƒ×Ý ƒ)ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð -} ÐÌà  àThe€substance€of€the€Appellantððs€argument€is€that€the€employee€sustained€a€ð ðthird€injuryððÐ ÿO Ðin€January,€2000,€when€he€picked€up€a€bag€of€sugar€and€that€this€injury€should€serve€to€shift€theÐ è 8 Ðentire€responsibility€for€his€impairment€to€the€òòperson€or€entityóó€responsible€for€his€last€or€most€recentÐ Ñ!!  Ðinjury€in€a€series€of€successive€injuries.€€Appellant€relies€on€the€Supreme€Courtððs€decision€in€òòRileyÐ º" ! Ðv.INA/Aetna€Ins.€Co.óó,€825€S.W.€2d€80€(Tenn.€1992).€€We€believe€the€Appellantððs€reliance€on€òòRileyóóÐ £#ó" Ðand€on€the€application€of€the€rule€to€the€facts€of€this€case€is€misplaced.Ð Œ$Ü# ÐÌà  àUnder€the€Last€Injurious€Injury€Rule,€an€employer€takes€the€employee€as€he€finds€him€and€Ô_ÔÐ ^&®!% Ðif€an€employee,€having€previously€sustained€an€injury€while€working€for€a€different€employer,€isÐ ° Ðinjured€on€his€new€job€and€the€new€injury€is€causally€connected€to€his€employment,€the€newÐ ™é Ðemployer€is€liable€for€the€effects€of€the€entire€injury€even€though€the€resulting€disability€is€far€greaterÐ ‚Ò Ðthan€if€the€second€injury€were€evaluated€on€its€own.€€òòBaxter€v.€Smithóó,€364€S.W.2d€936,€943€(Tenn.Ð k» Ð1962).€Ð T¤ ÐÌà  àIn€òòRileyóó,€the€employee,€a€44€year€old€truck€driver€with€an€existing€40%€disability€to€the€bodyÐ & v Ðas€a€whole,€sustained€a€work„related€back€injury.€Following€back€surgery€and€before€reachingÐ  _ Ðmaximum€medical€improvement,€the€employee€began€work€for€another€employer.€He€sustainedÐ ø H Ðanother€back€injury€while€working€for€the€new€employer.€€The€employee€brought€separate€suitsÐ á 1  Ðagainst€both€employers€for€the€injuries€sustained€while€working€for€them.€€The€court€sustained€theÐ Ê   Ðtrial€courtððs€finding€that€the€Last€Injurious€Injury€Rule€was€inapplicable€because€ð ðthere€was€anÐ ³  Ðassessment€of€€[employeeððs]€first„injury€permanent€disability€before€the€occurrence€of€the€secondÐ œì  Ðinjury.ðð€€In€fact,€the€employeeððs€physician€did€not€actually€assign€the€employee€a€permanent€physicalÐ …Õ  Ðimpairment€rating€prior€to€his€subsequent€back€injury€at€the€new€employer.€€The€physician€testifiedÐ n¾  Ðthat€ð ðif€askedðð€prior€to€the€new€injury€he€would€have€assigned€a€5%€rating€attributable€to€the€earlierÐ W§  Ðinjury.€€Based€on€this€testimony,€the€court€held€that€this€ð ðassessmentðð€of€the€employeeððs€permanentÐ @ Ðdisability€was€ð ðsufficient€to€forestall€application€of€the€last€injurious€injury€ruleðð.€€825€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€2d€80,Ð )y Ð82,€83€(Tenn.€1992).€Ð b ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€rule€is€inapplicable€for€two€reasons:€1)€There€is€no€proof€in€thisÐ ä4 Ðrecord€that€the€employee€was€employed€by€a€new€or€successive€employer€when€he€sustained€hisÐ Í Ðð ðthird€injuryðð€on€January€10,€2000.€Without€a€successive€employer,€the€rule€is€inapplicable.׃×Ý ƒ)ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€òòBaxteróóÐ ¶ Ðat€943.€2)€An€ð ðassessmentðð€was€made€by€Dr.€Ô_ÔPieperÔ_Ô€that€the€employee€should€have€an€additional€2%Ð Ÿï Ðpermanent€physical€impairment€that€was€attributable€to€his€injury€of€September€29,€1997.€€€As€inÐ ˆØ ÐòòRileyóó,€the€assessment€was€made€after€the€subsequent€injury,€but€was€specifically€attributed€to€theÐ qÁ Ðearlier€injury.Ð Zª ÐÌà@GG%ìàò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóˆÐ ,| ÐÌà  àFor€the€reasons€stated€above,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€its€entirety.€TheÐ ÿO Ðcost€of€this€appeal€is€taxed€to€the€Appellants.Ð è 8 Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð £#ó" Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÞd  Þ19€FULL€NAME€OF€JUDGE€(INÐ ú(J$( ÐALL€CAPS)ŽÞe  ÞARNOLD€B.€Ô_ÔGOLDINÔ_Ô,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÐ Œ$Ü# ÐÐ  u%Å $ Ðà@9 9 ìàà@@9 9 ìàÔ‡¼é»XXÒÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@((%ìàAT€JACKSONˆÐ À Ðà@ÓÓ"ìàJUNE€2003€SESSIONˆÐ Ð  ÐÌÓ  Óà@@ÒÒìàò òDARRELL€Ô_ÔDWAINÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔBINKLEYÔ_Ô€€v.€TENNESSEE€Ô_ÔDIECASTINGÔ_Ô„HARVARD€à@@ÖÖìàÐ ð@ ÐINDUSTRIES€AND€ITT€HARTFORD€INSURANCE€GROUPÔ#†XÒX»¼é1w#ÔÐ  Q ÐÓówÓÌÌÌà@= = ìàChancery€Court€for€Lauderdale€CountyˆÐ Ð  Ðà@%ìàNo.€€10,950ˆÐ º  Ðà@ìì*ìàˆÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` A߈Ð ŽÞ  ÐÌà@ ìàÔ‡X5@ XXXÒÔNo.€W2002„02188„SC„WCM„CVÔ#†XÒX XX5@Wz#Ô€„€Filed€December€18,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ԈР‡×  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Z` AßÐ [« ÐÔ‡X5@ XXXÒÔà@ìì*ìàˆÌà@„„(ìàORDERˆÐ T¤ ÐÌó óÌà  àà ` àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€motion€for€review€filed€by€the€appellant,Ð a ÐTennessee€Ô_ÔDiecastingÔ_Ô„Harvard€Industries€and€Ô_ÔIttÔ_Ô€Hartford€Insurance€Group,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code.Ð úJ ÐAnn.€Ô#†XÒX XX5@Y{#ÔÔ‡X5@ XXXÒÔððÔ#†XÒX XX5@}#ÔÔ‡X5@ XXXÒÔ€50„6„225(e)(5)(B)€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€of€referral€to€the€Special€WorkersððÐ ã3 ÐCompensation€Appeal€Panel,€and€the€Panelððs€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€factÐ Ì Ðand€conclusions€of€law.Ð µ ÐÌà  àà ` àIt€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€review€is€not€well„taken€and€is€thereforeÐ ‡× Ðdenied.€The€Panelððs€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€by€reference,€Ð pÀ Ðare€adopted€and€affirmed.€The€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€judgment€of€the€Court.Ð Y© ÐÌà  àà ` àCosts€are€assessed€to€Appellants,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð + { ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àPER€Ô_ÔCURIAMÔ_ÔÐ Ï## ÐÌHolder,€J.,€not€participatingÐ ¡%ñ % ÐÔ#†XÒX XX5@[}#Ô