WPCp  9# .UN9 % 0U:4 0D )/w@7 0?w 0D 0J 0TD  0^ 0h 0r^ 0| 0L 0 1ub 0d AQ; 0R 0@i B D/ B D3U>EU*U*B)DC AMC\^v~vHP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(H=$  HTR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalTX_XXX7XXdXXd7,  AZ"Arial Regularu# 3|x5($$   1  H  eӀ%&'V( )*P+Ӏ5((3e$ H=!  HTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXXXXX7eXXdd7   `   0  (%$  1  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X!"#&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3_$ H=!  HTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXXXXX7eXXdd7  ("$     d((' dxdP Pd$$$$'dxd<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Arial<  9p`(Times% Line 7 d11117Border 1dd!#2C << G  !  #d#.    H \RA'\/#d#  ""  /   YYY FILED/XJanuary26,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#.    H \RA'\/#d#   $       ݀ThedefendantwouldnotpayforanMRIorEMGbecausetheydidnotrecognizetheplaintiffsinjuryascompensable.Theplaintiffcouldnotaffordthecostofthetests.  !#d#.    H \RA'\/#d#  ""  /   YYY FILED/XJanuary26,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  PtPtHH(EG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ! . .    H \RA'\/#00Xd##00Xd#        X @ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ SPECIALWORKERS'COMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL@ ATNASHVILLE !  ӜR342A1-j|` 81 `@RߛKAYE.BLACKWOOD,JR.,  ) CLAYCIRCUIT      )  Plaintiff/Appellee   ) NO.01S019705CV00106      ) v.      ) HON.JOHNMADDUX,       ) JUDGEMASCO,INC.    )d/b/aTHEBERKLINECORPORATION,)      ) Defendant/Appellant  ) FortheAppellant:    FortheAppellee: MarkC.Travis    FrankD.FarrarWimberly,Lawson,&Seale,P.L.L.C. WilliamJosephButlerPerimeterPlaceBusinessPark  Farrar&Holliman524OldKentuckyRoad   102ScottsvilleHighwayP.O.Box655    P.O.Box280Cookeville,TN385030655  Lafayette,TN37083    MEMORANDUMOPINION MembersofPanel: JusticeAdolphoA.Birch,Jr.SeniorJudgeJohnK.ByersSpecialJudgeHamiltonV.Gayden,Jr.  %  AFFIRMED       BYERS,SeniorJudge   OPINION    Thisworkers'compensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)forhearingandreportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw. TheplaintiffinjuredhisbackonJune3,1995whileinthecourseofhisemploymentwiththedefendant.Thetrialjudgefoundtheplaintiffhadsustaineda55percentvocationalimpairmenttothebodyasawhole. Thedefendantsaysthemedicalevidencesubmittedattrialwasinsufficienttoshowtheplaintiffsustainedapermanentinjuryandfurthersaystheawardwasexcessiveeveniftheplaintiffsustainedpermanentinjury. Thejudgmentofthetrialjudgeisaffirmed. Becausethereisnocontestabouttheaccidentwhichinjuredtheplaintiff,weneednotdiscussthefactsthereof.   MEDICALEVIDENCE    TheonlymedicalevidenceinthiscasewasthetestimonyofDr.S.M.Smith,anorthopaedicsurgeon.Dr.SmithfirstsawtheplaintiffonAugust31,1995.Hetestifiedconcerninghisexaminationoftheplaintiffanddetailedspecificfindings,notnecessarytosetout,concerningtheinjury.WhenaskedhisopinionabouttheplaintiffsinjuryonthedateofAugust31,1995,Dr.Smithsaid: `  H  IfeltthatheneededanMRIofhislumbarspine,alongwithanEMGandanerveconductionstudyofbothlowerextremitiestofullyevaluatethebackproblem.IalsofeltthathemayneedacourseofphysicalactivityandpossiblesurgicalinterventionbaseduponthefindingsoftheMRI.Andatthattime,IdidntthinkIcouldgivehimanimpairmentrating,becausehisconditionhadnotbeenfullyevaluated. 5     H  Dr.SmithsawtheplaintiffonApril30,1996andagainexaminedhim.Whenaskedabouthisconditionatthattime,Dr.Smithsaid: `  H  Hecontinuestohaveproblemswithhisback.Hisexaminationwascompletelyunchanged.AndItoldhimthatsincewecannotgetanystudiesdone,thatIwouldgoaheadandratehimbasedonthephysicalfindingsthathehasnow.Andhehasenoughphysicalfindingstomakemethinkthathehasnerverootimpingementinthelumbarregion.IthinkthathedeservesanMRItohelpbetterelucidatethisproblem.IwouldnotfeelcomfortablesendinghimtoPTwithoutanMRI,becauseifhedoeshavearuptureddisc,thenthiscouldmakehisconditionworse. ItoldhimthatIwouldratehimwiththespeculationthatfurtherstudiesandsurgicalinterventionorphysicaltherapycouldpossiblydecreasetheimpairmentrating.Baseduponhisphysicalexamination,hehassignificantsignsofradiculopathy,whichplaceshiminDRELumbosacralCategoryIII,Radiculopathy,ofthe4thEditionoftheAMAGuidestotheEvaluationofPermanentImpairment.   H  Dr.Smithfoundtheplaintiffhadsufferedawholebodymedicalimpairmentof10%whichwascausedbytheinjuryofJune3,1995.Dr.Smithtestifiedthathisopinionswerebaseduponareasonabledegreeofmedicalcertainty. ThedefendantsmainclaimthatthemedicalevidenceisinsufficientisbecauseDr.SmithtestifiediftheMRIandEMGshowednodiscproblemthenphysicaltherapywoulddecreasetheimpairmentoftheplaintiff.Dr.Smithtestifieditwouldbespeculativetosayhowmuchthedisabilitywoulddecrease.Hesaidtheimpairmentmightormightnotdecreaseasaresultoffurthertreatment. ThedefendantcontendsthefindingofpermanencybyDr.Smithissofarspeculativetobeinsufficienttobaseanawardupon.ThedefendantreliesuponthecaseofSingletonv.ProconProducts,788S.W.2d809(Tenn.1990)andcasesthereininsupportoftheirargument. InSingleton,thedoctortestifiedthatitwaspossibletheplaintiffsdisabilitywaspermanent.AndafairreadingofthecasescitedinSingletonrevealsthedegreeofmedicalcertaintyofthepermanencyofinjurytotheplaintiffwasspeculativeatbest. Inthecasebeforeus,thetestimonybyDr.Smithisnotthattheplaintiffsdisabilityispossiblypermanent.Dr.Smithstestimonyisthatthedisabilityispermanent.Thespeculationonthecourseofthedisabilityiswhetheritwilllessen.Dr.Smithsaysitispossibleitwillbutgivesnomorethana50/50chancethatthedisabilitywilldecreasewithfurthertreatment. Baseduponthis,wefindthemedicalevidenceissufficienttosupportthetrialjudgesfindingthattheplaintiffhassufferedapermanentvocationaldisability.  EXTENTOFDISABILITY    Theplaintiffinthiscasewas40yearsofageatthetimeoftrial,hehadcompleted12yearsofschooland2yearsofvocationaltrainingtobeamechanic.Theplaintiffsworkhistorywasthatofaskilledworker.Theplaintifftestifiedaboutthedebilitatingeffectofhisinjuryuponhisabilitytoperformworkforwhichhewassuitedbytrainingandexperience. Dr.Smithrestrictedtheplaintifffromrepetitivebendingortwisting,fromliftingmorethan2530pounds,fromheavypushingorpulling,andfromworkinginanenvironmentwheretherewouldbeextremetemperaturechanges. Indeterminingtheextentofthevocationaldisabilityofanemployee,thetrialcourtcanconsidertheemployeesassessmentoftheextentofthedisabilityalongwiththemedicalevidence.Ormanv.WilliamsSonoma,Inc.,803S.W.2d672(Tenn.1991). Wefindtheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthefindingthattheplaintiffsuffereda55percentvocationalimpairment. Duringthependencyofthisappeal,thedefendantfiledaMotiontoConsiderPostJudgmentFacts.Thedefendantasksustoconsiderfactswhichsuggestthattheplaintiffwassufferingfromtesticularpainandnotbackpainatthetimeoftrial.Wewillnotconsidersuchpostjudgmentfacts.Thesefactsarerelatedtothemeritsoftheplaintiffsimpairment,anissuewhichthetrialjudgedecidedintheplaintiffsfavor.Postjudgmentfactsarenottobeconsideredonissueswhichwereindisputeattrial.SeeTenn.R.App.P.14,Duncanv.Duncan,672S.W.2d765(Tenn.1994).Thedefendantsmotionisoverruled. Thecostofthisappealistaxedtothedefendant.      ___________________________________      JohnK.Byers,SeniorJudgeCONCUR:________________________________AdolphoA.Birch,Justice________________________________HamiltonV.Gayden,Jr.,SpecialJudge̜    @ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLEJ36;+'b|q` - `@JKAYBLACKWOOD,   } CLAYCIRCUIT      } No.1373Below Plaintiff/Appellee   }      } Hon.JohnJ.Maddux,Jr.,vs.      } Chancellor      }MASCO,INC.,d/b/aTHEBERKLINE }CORPORATION,    } No.01S019705CV00106      } Defendant/Appellant  } AFFIRMED.@ JUDGMENTORDER  ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtupontheentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferraltotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanel'sMemorandumOpinionsettingforthitsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference.  Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthattheMemorandumOpinionofthePanelshouldbeacceptedandapproved;and  Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanel'sfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawareadoptedandaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgmentoftheCourt. ` ` X  CostswillbepaidbyDefendant/AppellantandSurety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.  ITISSOORDEREDonJanuary26,1998.       PERCURIAM̛