ÿWPCX Zd„ƒaV¶-ÿ½¶`²ÿf.@*ü=¡»Új0[!˜·ûúcP#êÆj,Êyf§¬)3¶n’3°v¡ÒˆÉA©ñ¬.Òã†&~H¡‰MÈæ> 0¤[ D5ÿ D-4 0Kaa AS¬Æÿ 0¤Å 0Di A«­˜\\IB01S08T\knoxclerk4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularw¤M1  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt²p)/b014d73|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman - ù-(|G2À:$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€­»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€XIX»»Ô d(|3‡€$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€­»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡€$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€­»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€­»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼­»»»ÔÑ8€IXXdì»»d8ÑÓ  ÓÔ‡îü­Ôà@@7 7 ìàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÐ Ö& Ðà@@ƒƒìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼­»îîüî#ÔÐ üL ÐAssigned€on€Briefs,€June€11,€2004€SessionÐ "r ÐÔ‡XIX»¼­ÔÌò òÔ#†¼­»XXI,#ÔCLYDE€DOUGLAS€BISHOPòòóó€v.€Ô_ÔEARTHGRAINSÔ_Ô€BAKING€COMPANIESòòóóÔ‡XIX»¼­Ôó óÐ  p ÐÌà@@¼¼ìàò ò€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Ô_ÔMcMinnÔ_Ô€CountyÐ  p Ðà@@ôôìàNo.€L„24406€€€€€€Lawrence€Ô_ÔPuckettÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ  \ ÐÌFiled€October€13,€2004Ð ä4  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Ï` AßÐ Ð  ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€No.€E2003„02714„Ô_ÔWCÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Mailed€July€21,€2004Ð Ë  ÐÔ#†¼­»XXIÒ#ÔÔ‡XIX»¼­ÔÌÌßA€V) °°` dE<Ž` AßÐ ß Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓThis€workersðð€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workersðð€CompensationÐ ŠÚ ÐAppeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€forÐ vÆ Ðhearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€The€PlaintiffÐ b² Ðclaimed€to€have€suffered€a€compensable€back€injury.€€The€evidence€revealed€that€he€had€a€congenitalÐ Nž Ðback€conditionÔ#†¼­»XXI=#ÔÔ‡XIX»¼­Ô€which€was€not€aggravated€by€the€claimed€injury,€and€his€suit€was€dismissed.€€TheÐ :Š Ðjudgment€of€dismissal€is€affirmed.€€The€trial€judge€disallowed€discretionary€costs€because€to€allowÐ &v Ðsuch€costs€would€deter€the€filing€of€workersðð€compensation€cases.€€On€the€issue€of€discretionary€costsÐ b Ðwe€reverse€and€remand€for€a€determination€and€award€of€discretionary€costs.Ð þN ÐÓÄÓ€ò òÐ ê: ÐÓ  ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)€(1999)€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€CourtÐ Ö& ÐAffirmed€in€Part;€Reversed€in€Part€and€Remandedó óÐ Â ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ#†¼­»àXIØ#ÔÔ‡XIX.¼­ÔWilliam€H.€Ô_ÔInmanÔ_Ô,€Sr.€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòE.€Riley€Anderson,€J.,óó€andÐ šê ÐòòRoger€E.€Thayer,€Sp.€J.óó,€joined.Ð † Ö ÐÌRalph€Brown,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€attorney€for€Appellant,€Clyde€Douglas€Bishop.Ð ^"®! ÐÌJohn€David€Barry,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€attorney€for€Appellee,€Ô_ÔEarthgrainsÔ_Ô€Baking€Company.Ð 6$†# ÐÌÓ­ ÓÓ  Óò òMEMORANDUM€OPINIONó óÔ#†¼­»XXIÜ #ÔÔ‡XIX»¼­ÔÐ &^!% ÐÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼­»XXI% #ÔÔ€XIX»¼­Ôà  àThe€Plaintiff€alleged€that€he€injured€his€back€on€June€28,€2001,€while€lifting€a€tray€of€breadÐ æ'6#' Ðduring€the€performance€of€his€job€duties.€€The€Employer€answered€that€it€was€ð ðgreatly€uncertainðð€thatÐ Ò("$( Ðthe€Plaintiffððs€back€condition€arose€out€of€his€employment,€and€denied€that€the€Plaintiff€sustainedÐ ¾)%) Ðany€permanent€disability€as€alleged.€€The€trial€judge€ruled€that€Ð ª*ú%* ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àð ðthese€cases€rise€and€fall€on€the€medical€proof€as€far€as€causation€isÐ ‚,Ò', Ðconcerned€.€.€.€.€Tennessee€law€finds€compensable€injuries€where€anÐ n-¾(-ýÀ ÐÔ_Ôunderlying€pre„existing€medical€condition€is€dormant€but€has€becomeÐ ° Ðaggravated€as€a€result€of€on„the„job€activity€.€.€.€.€the€greatest€questionÐ œì Ðwould€be,€would€pain€alone€be€enough€to€„€if€thatà8@¼` x` xà€aggravation€causesÐ ˆØ Ðmore€pain€„€to€be€a€compensable€injury€.€.€.€Mr.€Bishop€has€a€historyÐ tÄ Ðof€back€problems€that€go€back€15€years€and€has€had€quite€a€bit€ofÐ `° Ðsymptomatology€throughout€the€years,€both€left€and€right€leg€pain,€butÐ L œ Ðsignificantly€heððs€had€diagnosed€multiple€bulges€in€his€spine€at€L4„5,Ð 8 ˆ Ðand€L5„S1€as€far€back€as€1994€.€.€.€.€in€October€2000.€MRIððs€showedÐ $ t Ða€bulge€in€L4„5€.€.€.€every€doctor€except€Dr.€Hague€seems€to€haveÐ  ` Ðnoted€that€.€.€.€whatever€happened€on€June€28,€2001€to€beÐ ü L  Ðcompensable€would€have€to€have€been€an€aggravation€of€that€previousÐ è 8  Ðdisc€problem€.€.€.€òòbut€nobodyððs€testified€that€it€was.ððóóÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌà  àThe€complaint€was€thereupon€dismissed€and€the€Plaintiff€appeals.€€He€presents€for€reviewÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€issue€of€whether€the€court€erred€in€finding€that€the€Plaintiff€did€not€suffer€a€compensable€injury.€Ð ˜è  ÐOur€review€is€òòde€novoóó€on€the€record€accompanied€by€the€presumption€that€the€judgment,€as€to€factualÐ „Ô  Ðmatters,€is€correct€unless€the€evidence€otherwise€preponderates.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2);Ð pÀ Ðòòò òHill€v.€Eagle€Bend€Mfg€Co.,€Inc.,€ó óóó942€S.W.2d€483€(Tenn.€1999).€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€court€is€not€bound€by€the€trial€courtððs€factual€finding,€but€rather€conducts€an€independentÐ 4„ Ðexamination€to€determine€where€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€lies.€€òòò òWalker€v.€Saturn€Corp.óóó ó,Ð  p Ð986€S.W.2d€204,€207€(Tenn.€1998).€€In€making€this€determination,€the€court€gives€considerableÐ  \ Ðdeference€to€the€trial€courtððs€findings€regarding€credibility€and€weight€of€any€oral€testimony.€€òòò òHillóóó ó,Ð øH Ð942€S.W.2d€at€487€(citing€òòò òHumphrey€v.€David€Witherspoon,€Inc.óóó ó,€734€S.W.2d€315€(Tenn.€1987).€Ð ä4 ÐHowever,€the€court€conducts€its€own€independent€assessment€of€any€evidence€presented€byÐ Ð  Ðdeposition€or€documentation,€such€as€medical€testimony.€€òòò òCooper€v.€Ins.€Co.€of€N.€Am.óóó ó,€884€S.W.2dÐ ¼  Ð446,€451€(Tenn.€1994);€òòaccord,€ò òHumphreyóóó ó,€734€S.W.2d€at€315.€€Accordingly,€any€impressions€ofÐ ¨ø Ðweight€and€credibility€to€be€attributed€to€this€evidence€are€drawn€from€the€contents€of€the€deposition.€Ð ”ä Ðòòò òOrman€v.€Williams€Sonoma,€Inc.óóó ó,€803€S.W.2d€672,€676€(Tenn.€1991);€òòaccord,€ò òHumphreyóóó ó,€734Ð €Ð ÐS.W.2d€315.€€If€the€preponderance€of€all€the€evidence€indicates€the€plaintiff€suffered€a€compensableÐ l¼ Ðwork„related€injury,€the€court€must€find€for€the€plaintiff.Ð X ¨ ÐÌòòò òÓ  ÓDiscussionóóÐ 0"€  ÐÓ´ÓÌà  àó óTwo€different€tests€for€determining€the€compensability€of€a€work„related€injury€to€a€plaintiffÐ $X" Ðwith€a€pre„existing€condition€have€been€enunciated.€€One€test€was€stated€in€òòò òSweat€v.€Superior€Indus.óóó ó,Ð ô$D # Ð966€S.W.2d€31€(Tenn.€1998):Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€general€rule€is€that€aggravation€of€a€pre„existing€condition€mayÐ ¸'#& Ðbe€compensable€under€the€workersðð€compensation€laws€of€Tennessee,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðbut€it€is€not€compensable€if€it€results€only€in€increased€pain€or€otherÐ )à$( Ðsymptoms€caused€by€the€underlying€condition.€€It€has€been€otherwiseÐ |*Ì%) Ðstated€that,€to€be€compensable,€the€pre„existing€condition€must€beÐ h+¸&* Ðð ðadvancedðð€or€there€must€be€an€ð ðanatomical€changeðð€in€the€pre„Ð ° Ðexisting€condition€or€the€employment€must€cause€ð ðan€actualÐ œì Ðprogression€.€.€.€of€the€underlying€disease.ððЈØ` x` x ÐÌò òòòId.óóó ó€at€32„3€(internal€citations€omitted).€€The€ò òòòSweató ó€óótest€in€ò òòòTobitt€v.€Bridgestone/Firestone,€Inc.ó óóó,€59Ð `° ÐS.W.3d€57€(Tenn.€2001)€was€reaffirmed.€€According€to€this€test,€the€plaintiff€cannot€recover€forÐ L œ Ðmerely€increased€pain.€€Rather,€the€plaintiff€must€prove€two€elements€to€recover:€first,€anÐ 8 ˆ Ðadvancement,€anatomical€change€or€progression€in€the€pre„existing€condition,€òòò òSweatóóó ó,€966€S.W.2dÐ $ t Ðat€32„3,€òòaccord,€ò òTobittóóó ó,€59€S.W.3d€at€62;€andò ò€ó ósecond,€the€work€injury€caused€this€change€in€the€pre„Ð  ` Ðexisting€condition,€òòò òBoling€v.€Raytheon€ó óCo.óó,€448€S.W.2d€405,€408€(Tenn.€1969),€òòaccord,€ò òCleekóóó ó€ò òòòv.Ð  P  ÐWal„Mart€Stores,€Inc.óóó ó,€19€S.W.3d€770,€777€(Tenn.€2000).Ð ì <  ÐÌà  àThe€second€test€was€enunciated€in€òòò òHill€v.€Eagle€Bend€Mfg.óóó ó,€942€S.W.2d€483€(Tenn.€1997).€Ð Ä  ÐAccording€to€òòò òHillóóó ó,€ð ð[a]n€employer€is€responsible€for€workers€compensation€benefits,€even€thoughÐ °  Ðthe€claimant€may€have€been€suffering€from€a€serious€pre„existing€condition€or€disability,€ifÐ œì  Ðemployment€causes€an€actual€progression€or€aggravation€of€the€prior€disabling€condition€or€diseaseÐ ˆØ  Ðwhich€produces€increased€pain€that€is€disabling.ðð€€The€òòò òHillóóó ó€Court€specifically€rejected€theÐ tÄ Ðrequirement€of€an€advancement,€anatomical€change€or€progression€in€the€pre„existing€condition.€€For,Ð `° Ðdespite€the€fact€the€plaintiffððs€own€medical€expert€admitted€there€was€no€ð ðsignificant€intervalÐ Lœ Ðchangeðð€in€the€pre„existing€condition€following€the€work€injury,€the€plaintiffððs€injury€was€held€to€beÐ 8ˆ Ðcompensable.€€The€argument€that€the€work€injury€was€not€compensable€because€it€only€increased€theÐ $t Ðplaintiffððs€pain€was€rejected:€ð ðThe€Second€Injury€Fund€argues€that€the€October€20€injury€is€notÐ ` Ðcompensable€because€it€produced€only€an€increase€in€Hillððs€pain.€€We€disagree.ðð€€Instead,€the€òòò òHillóóó óÐ üL Ðtest€requires€a€plaintiff€to€prove€that€the€work€injury€causes€an€aggravation€of€the€pre„existingÐ è8 Ðcondition€and€that€this€aggravation€produces€increased€pain€that€is€disabling.Ð Ô$ ÐÌà  àThe€record€reveals€that€all€of€the€medical€proof€was€documentary,€including€the€depositionÐ ¬ü Ðof€two€physicians,€Drs.€Hague€and€Johnson,€both€of€whom€testified€that€the€plaintiff€suffers€fromÐ ˜è Ðcongenital€spondylolisthesis,€for€which€he€was€treated€by€three€orthopedic€specialists€from€1994€toÐ „Ô Ð2000.€€This€disease€progresses€naturally€and€generally€worsens€with€age.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àIn€December€2000,€approximately€seven€(7)€months€before€the€injury€complained€of,€Mr.Ð H!˜ ÐBishop€underwent€surgery€directed€at€the€L5/S1€area€of€his€back.€€Dr.€Hague€performed€that€surgery.€Ð 4"„  ÐThe€Plaintiff€does€not€contend€that€the€need€for€that€surgery€was€related€to€his€employment.Ð  #p! ÐÌà  àThe€Plaintiff€returned€to€work€as€a€route€salesman€delivering€bread.€€In€May€of€2001,€heÐ ø$H # Ðreturned€to€his€family€practitioner,€Dr.€Kahn,€complaining€of€back€pain,€left€foot€pain,€numbness,€andÐ ä%4!$ Ðleft€thigh€spasms.€€A€back€brace€was€prescribed€by€Dr.€Kahn€which€the€Plaintiff€never€wore€on€theÐ Ð& "% Ðjob.Ð ¼' #& ÐÌà  àOn€June€28,€2001,€the€Plaintiff€was€carrying€a€tray€or€basket€of€bread€which€weighed€no€moreÐ ”)ä$( Ðthan€eighteen€(18)€pounds.€€He€testified€that€he€twisted€while€holding€the€bread€and€injured€himselfÐ €*Ð%) Ðfeeling€pain€in€his€back,€right€leg€and€calf.€€Following€that€incident,€he€was€able€to€finish€loading€hisÐ l+¼&* Ðtruck€with€bread€but€continued€to€work€his€route€that€day€with€help€from€another€employee.€€HeÐ ° Ðcontinued€working€his€route€for€several€weeks€after€the€claimed€injury.€€The€first€medical€attentionÐ œì Ðthat€the€Plaintiff€sought€for€the€June€28,€2001,€incident€was€from€Dr.€Kahn€on€July€18,€2001,€whoseÐ ˆØ Ðrecords€reveal€that€the€Plaintiff€reported€that€over€the€last€few€days€he€started€having€back€pain€Ô_ÔafterÐ tÄ Ðnormal€bread€delivery€and€that€he€had€a€similar€problem€ten€(10)€months€earlier€and€underwentÐ `° Ðsurgery€in€December.€€Dr.€Kahn€ordered€an€MRI€which€was€performed€on€July€28,€2001,€andÐ L œ Ðrevealed€a€Grade€I€Ô_ÔspondylolisthesisÔ_Ô€at€L5/S1,€unchanged€from€prior€examination.€€It€also€againÐ 8 ˆ Ðfound€mild€disc€bulging€at€L4„L5.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àAn€MRI€of€the€Plaintiffððs€lumbar€spine€had€been€taken€on€October€18,€2000.€€Both€Dr.€HagueÐ ü L  Ðand€Dr.€Johnson€agree€that€the€comparison€of€the€October€18,€2000,€pre„injury€MRI€to€the€July€28,Ð è 8  Ð2001,€post„injury€MRI,€demonstrated€progression€of€Mr.€Bishopððs€Ô_ÔspondylolisthesisÔ_Ô€from€Grade€IÐ Ô$  Ðto€Grade€II€at€the€L5/S1€level,€but€disagreed€as€to€whether€the€Ô_ÔMRIsÔ_Ô€concerned€show€any€anatomicalÐ À  Ðchange€of€disc€at€the€L4„L5€level.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àDr.€Johnson€testified€that€the€Plaintiffððs€claimed€injury€of€July€28,€2001,€did€not€causeÐ „Ô  Ðprogression€of€the€Ô_ÔspondylolisthesisÔ_Ô€from€Grade€I€to€Grade€II,€while€Dr.€Hague€was€uncertain€as€toÐ pÀ Ðwhether€the€Ô_ÔspondylolisthesisÔ_Ô€progressed€due€to€the€claimed€accident.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àDr.€Hague€and€Dr.€Johnson€disagreed€concerning€the€L4„L5€disc€bulge€revealed€on€the€MRIÐ 4„ Ðstudies€of€October€18,€2000,€and€July€28,€2001.€€Dr.€Hague€believes€the€L4„L5€bulge€is€a€ð ðnewððÐ  p Ðfinding€in€the€Plaintiffððs€back€which€he€testified€was€not€present€on€the€pre„injury€MRI,€and€believedÐ  \ Ðit€represented€an€anatomical€change€in€Mr.€Bishopððs€back,€which€has€caused€the€majority€of€Mr.Ð øH ÐBishopððs€pain€and€problems.€€He€relates€that€to€the€June€28,€2001€incident,€involving€the€lifting€ofÐ ä4 Ðthe€bread€tray.€€Dr.€Hague€also€disagreed€with€the€radiologistððs€interpretation€that€there€has€been€noÐ Ð  Ðchange€in€the€L4„L5€disc.€€Dr.€Johnson€testified€that€there€is€no€anatomical€change€whatsoever€at€theÐ ¼  ÐL4„L5€level,€and€that€the€only€change€òòin€the€anatomy€of€Mr.€Bishopððs€back€is€the€progression€ofÐ ¨ø ÐÔ_ÔspondylolisthesisÔ_Ôóó.€€He€further€testified€that€the€most€likely€explanation€for€the€progression€of€theÐ ”ä ÐÔ_ÔspondylolisthesisÔ_Ô€from€Grade€I€to€Grade€II€is€the€surgery€that€Dr.€Hague€did€on€Mr.€Bishopððs€backÐ €Ð Ðin€December,€2000.€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€judge€was€confronted€with€conflicting€medical€opinion€ð!ð€€not€unusual€in€a€workersððÐ D!” Ðcompensation€cases€ð!ð€and€we€cannot€say€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€his€conclusion.€Ð 0"€  ÐWhile€we€are€as€well€situated€as€the€trial€judge€to€judge€the€weight€and€worth€of€Ô_ÔdepositionalÔ_ÔÐ #l! Ðtestimony€ð!ð€as€contrasted€to€testimony€in€open€court€ð!ð€we€are€unable€to€critique€the€conclusion€ofÐ $X" Ðthe€trial€judge€that€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Johnson€was€more€credible€than€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Hague.€Ð ô$D # ÐThe€judgment€of€dismissal€is€therefore€affirmed.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€presents€for€review€the€issue€of€whether€its€motion€for€discretionary€costsÐ ¸'#& Ðshould€have€been€granted.€€Rule€54,€Tenn€R.€App.€P.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThe€trial€judge€opined€that€the€allowance€of€these€costs€would€deter€the€rightful€pursuit€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðworkersðð€compensation€benefits.€€While€the€exercise€of€discretion€is€involved,€we€do€not€believe€thatÐ h+¸&* Ðpotential€deterrence€to€seek€workersðð€compensation€benefits€is€an€appropriate€reason€to€deny€costsÐ ° Ðotherwise€proper€to€be€assessed€under€Rule€54.€€òòSee,€ò òWhite€&€White€v.€Amer.€Hosp.€Supply€Corp.óóó ó,€Ð œì Ð786€F.2d€728€(6òòthóó€Cir.€1986).€€The€case€is€remanded€for€a€determination€and€award€of€discretionaryÐ ˆØ Ðcosts.€Ð tÄ ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€H.€Ô_ÔINMANÔ_Ô,€SENIOR€JUDGEÐ $ t ÐÐ   ` ÐÔ_ÔÔ‡¼­»XXIÔÑ  ÑÑ  Ñà@™ ™ ìàÔ#†XIX»¼­úD#ÔÔ‡îüîXXIÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ Ö& ÐÔ#†XIXîîüfE#ÔÌò òÔ‡¼­»XXIÔÓ  ÓCLYDE€DOUGLAS€BISHOP€v.€EARTHGRAINS€BAKING€COMPANIESÔ#†XIX»¼­F#Ôó óÐ è8 ÐÓ6FÓÌà@''ìàò òFiled€October€13,€2004ˆÐ è 8 Ðà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Ó ` A߈Ð Ô $ ÐÌà@ìàNo.€E2003„02714„SC„WCM„CVˆÐ Ï  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¦ ` AßÐ § ÷  Ðó óÌà@±±&ìàò òJUDGMENTó óˆÐ ¢ò  ÐÌòòóóÌÌÔ‡XfZ XXXIÔà  àà ` àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€motion€for€review€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð R¢  Ððð€50„6„225(e)(5)(B),€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'Ð >Ž ÐCompensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel's€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€factÐ *z Ðand€conclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ð f Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àà ` àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€review€is€not€well„taken€andÐ î> Ðshould€be€denied€andÐ Ú* Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àà ` àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€areÐ ² Ðadopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€judgment€of€the€Court.€€ò òÐ žî Ðó óà  àà ` àÌà  àà ` àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€Clyde€Douglas€Bishop.Ð vÆ ÐÌà  àà ` àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€this€13òòTHóó€day€of€October,€2004.Ð Nž ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àPER€CURIAMÐ !b  ÐÌÌAnderson,€€J.€„€not€participating.Ð Ö#&# ÐÔ#†XIX XXfZžH#ÔÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÔ_Ô