ÿWPC\ u”ùî.~ÔàÜ=³óŒƒŽ¸RîÁ× gÏøÞj…òZ{êï[ÑrºQ5qû+éº*.J½D¾µ»ü¼W Ýd½(ËR}a¬þŸ á›Ä…D¥­/·Í^±ôØFl±1c¿{þ…½Œz–¤>‰5ëËè«4uOUœ37è†&¥Ç,¨º€õ.Ð>¼¹ÌÖ1TÕ\ÇvZ«†%4öáÐÄý]±©>¡Ð¬’Q”ʼ.B5älõ6åc£ÅÀOÎj±ÞGhˆ’ü]cî5ÓÄŠ»¤òõ¯Ö×nà´SѽB‚•Àhë½q´…6²OkÖ‹ÑÒÄ#¥í„ !ÝW+K¨bƒ·8{ÀŒ^4¦‚(óò÷Óof nŸ¢Úá3nB¥¹Ð˜Kò4²¼W¥§cÝà´9ÉóÄé.Kû#¨'-¤Z‚E8"°vló¿Ñõý‹˜öTWE$RzB¢ì#“ù7É]¢¨u-I­¢„©ù½ŸÄ1Ü=»¿³¹Ìå@CîM"~•'>ªg EýÞ$ïÛ ÕÛ6¥Žqnæ %Úá¢ÉmƒÔ4¦Zùœ… Àô•KMëû–òn¯á‰„O~RŒÃ\@â=Ù̆,øTë·ÿ©ì¸7b#Á\ % UN# 0ˆq U1Nù ^ G wS zW ÒÑ 4£ · Æ mÈ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1 ÷NýNÿ zE{Ò}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}bOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 0ëWWWW B BB 0¤_ D5 D-8 0Kee AS°Æ 0¤É 0Dm A«±˜HP LaserJet 4Si,ü,,,,,ü0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular¼£:)â  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptKë(¢Ø+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5H˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt- ù-(|G2¤$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€º»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¢ÃX»»Ô d(|3$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€º»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€º»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€º»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼º»»»ÔÑ8€¢ÃXXdð»»d8ÑÓ  ÓÔ‡îë7ºÔà@@7 7 ìàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÐ Ü, Ðà@@ƒƒìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼º»îîë7î#ÔÐ X ÐAPRIL€2000€SessionÐ 4„ ÐÔ‡X¢ÃX»¼ºÔÌò òÔ#†¼º»XX¢Ã#ÔJOYCE€ANN€Ô_ÔBLEVINSÔ_Ôòòóó€v.€CAMEL€MANUFACTURING€COMPANY,€òòetÐ < Œ Ðalóó.Ô‡X¢ÃX»¼ºÔó óÐ T ¤ ÐÌà@@¼¼ìàò ò€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Campbell€CountyÐ \ ¬ Ðà@@ôôìàNo.€12,829€€€€€€Billy€Joe€White,€JudgeÐ Lœ  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ l  ÐÌNo.€E1999„00738„Ô_ÔWCÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Mailed€August€22,€2000Ð k  ÐÔ#†¼º»XX¢ÃÓ#ÔÔ‡X¢ÃX»¼ºÔFiled€September€27,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ  [ ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<ê` AßÐ ë; Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡X¸(XXX¢ÃÔThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€AppealsÐ ê: ÐPanel€in€accordance€with€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€toÐ Ö& Ðthe€Supreme€Court€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€The€petitioner€challenges€the€trialÐ Â Ðcourtððs€denial€of€the€petitionerððs€motion€to€re„open€or€set€aside€the€trial€courtððs€previous€judgment,Ð ®þ Ðwhere€the€petitioner€suffered€additional€injuries€as€a€result€of€her€workers'€compensation€accident.€Ð šê ÐAlso,€the€petitioner€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€that€the€petitioner€was€not€entitled€toÐ †Ö Ðreimbursement€for€her€medical€expenses€for€treatment€of€additional€injuries€under€the€future€medicalÐ r Ðexpenses€provision€of€said€judgment.€€After€a€complete€review€of€the€entire€record,€briefs€of€theÐ ^® Ðparties€and€applicable€law,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.Ô#†¼út»XX¸(°#ÔÔ#†¼º»»¼út#ÔÔ‡X¢ÃX»¼ºÔÐ Jš ÐÔ#†¼º»XX¢Ã #ÔÔ‡X¢ÃX»¼ºÔÌÓƒÓò òÓ  ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)€(1999)€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ &v Ðis€Affirmed.ó óÐ  f ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ#†¼º»àX¢Ã] #ÔÔ‡X¢ÃX.¼ºÔL.€Terry€Ô_ÔLaffertyÔ_Ô,€Sr.€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€M.€Barker,€J.,óó€andÐ ö!F  ÐòòHowell€N.€Peoples,€Sp.€J.óó,€joined.Ð æ"6! ÐÌJohn€E.€McDonald,€Oak€Ridge,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Joyce€Ann€Ô_ÔBlevinsÔ_Ô.Ð Æ$ # ÐÔ#†¼º»XX¢Ãn #ÔÔ‡X¢ÃX»¼ºÔÌÔ_ÔImogeneÔ_Ô€A.€King,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Camel€Manufacturing€Company,€et€al.Ð ¦&ö!% ÐÔ#†¼º»XX¢Ã #ÔÔ‡X¢ÃX»¼ºÔÌÌÓ? ÓÓ  Óò òMEMORANDUM€OPINIONó óÔ#†¼º»XX¢Ãå #ÔÔ‡X¢ÃX»¼ºÔÐ v)Æ$( ÐÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼º»XX¢Ã]#ÔÔ‡X¢ÃX»¼ºÔÔ‡X¸(XXX¢ÃÔà  àOn€August€1,€1994,€the€Chancery€Court€for€Campbell€County€entered€an€order€finding€thatÐ V+¦&* Ðthe€petitioner€had€suffered€an€on„the„job€injury€on€or€about€May€4,€1990,€while€employed€by€theÐ B,’'+ Ðdefendant.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€petitioner€sustained€a€permanent€impairment€in€the€amountÐ .-~(,ýj ÐÔ_Ôof€25€percent€to€scheduled€members,€that€is,€to€her€loss€of€hearing,€which€equates€to€150€weeks€asÐ ° Ða€scheduled€member,€and€awarded€the€petitioner€25€percent€permanent€partial€disability,€in€additionÐ œì Ðto€one€weekððs€temporary€total€disability,€and€payment€of€all€past,€present,€and€future€medicalÐ ˆØ Ðexpenses€casually€related€to€the€on„the„job€injury.€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àOn€June€1,€1995,€the€petitioner€filed€a€petition€to€re„open€her€workersðð€compensation€claimÐ L œ Ðof€April€1991.€€The€petitioner€alleges€that€she€was€advised€by€Dr.€Donald€E.€Chase,€D.D.S.,€that€sheÐ 8 ˆ Ðhad€suffered€unknown€injuries€at€the€time€of€the€filing€of€the€original€complaint€and€that€theseÐ $ t Ðinjuries€were€proximately€caused€by€the€on„the„job€accident€of€May€4,€1990.€€More€specifically,€theÐ  ` Ðpetitioner€learned,€subsequent€to€the€judgment,€that€she€suffered€from€temporal€mandibular€jointÐ ü L  Ðsyndrome,€commonly€known€as€TMJ.€€In€the€alternative,€the€petitioner€complains€that€her€conditionÐ è 8  Ðhas€worsened€since€the€time€of€the€judgment€and€that€her€conditions€were€unknown€at€the€time€ofÐ Ô$  Ðthe€filing€of€the€complaint,€and€therefore,€she€seeks€additional€benefits.Ð À  ÐÌà  àPursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56,€the€defendants€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€on€theÐ ˜è  Ðgrounds€that€the€petitionerððs€petition€to€re„open€is€barred€by€the€provisions€of€Tennessee€CodeÐ „Ô  ÐAnnotated€ðð€50„6„231.€€In€its€memorandum€of€law,€the€defendants€contend€that€at€the€time€of€theÐ pÀ Ðentry€of€judgment,€the€petitionerððs€benefits€had€accrued€and€said€benefits€were€paid€in€a€lump€sum.Ð \¬ ÐIn€response€to€the€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€petitioner€contends€that€the€question€of€a€lumpÐ H˜ Ðsum€payment€is€not€properly€in€evidence€before€the€trial€court.€€The€petitioner€submits€that€no€orderÐ 4„ Ðhad€been€entered€by€the€trial€court€approving€a€lump€sum€payment€or€setting€forth€the€defendantsððÐ  p Ðsatisfaction€of€the€award€making€a€lump€sum€payment.€€Likewise,€the€petitioner€asserts€that€theÐ  \ Ðpetition€to€re„open€sufficiently€alleges€a€mistake€representing€the€extent€of€the€petitionerððs€injuryÐ øH Ðexisting€at€the€time€of€her€hearing€and€award,€so€as€to€bring€her€petition€within€the€provisions€of€Ð ä4 ÐTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02.€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€the€defendantððs€reply€to€the€petitionerððs€response€to€the€motion€for€summary€judgment,€theÐ ¨ø Ðdefendants€submitted€an€affidavit€of€Elda€Wilkes,€claims€adjustor€for€the€Travelers€InsuranceÐ ”ä ÐCompany,€identifying€€check€No.€587B€15603093,€dated€August€3,€1994,€payable€to€Mike€Ritter€andÐ €Ð ÐJoyce€Blevins€for€five€thousand€four€hundred€eighty„four€dollars€and€thirty„eight€cents€($5,484.38),Ð l¼ Ðon€the€basis€that€the€petitionerððs€partial€disability€award€had€been€fully€accrued,€and€was€paid€to€theÐ X ¨ Ðpetitioner€in€the€lump€sum€of€five€thousand€four€hundred€eighty„four€dollars€and€thirty„eight€centsÔ#†X¢ÃXXX¸(à#ÔÔ‡X¸(XXX¢ÃÔÐ D!” Ð($5,484.38).€€Likewise,€the€defendants€contend€that€the€petitionerððs€petition€to€re„open€should€beÐ 0"€  Ðdismissed€due€to€the€fact€that€she€has€not€met€the€jurisdictional€prerequisite€by€failing€to€plead€withÐ #l! Ðthe€particular€grounds€that€she€claims€constitute€mistake.€€In€the€alternative,€the€defendants€assert€thatÐ $X" ÐRule€60.02(1)€can€only€provide€relief€from€the€judgment€where€the€mistake€was€ð ðone€of€factÐ ô$D # Ðconcerning€the€extent€of€the€petitionerððs€injury€and€disability€then€existing€at€the€time€of€the€originalÐ à%0!$ Ðhearing€in€the€case.ðð€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court,€after€a€review€of€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€and€attachments,€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpetitionerððs€responses€in€opposition€and€attachments,€the€defendants'€reply€thereto,€the€affidavits€ofÐ )à$( Ðthe€petitioner,€Elda€Wilkes,€and€Dr.€Donald€Chase,€granted€the€defendants'€motion€for€summaryÐ |*Ì%) Ðjudgment€on€the€basis€that€the€petition€to€re„open€is€barred€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€50„6Ô_Ô„Ð h+¸&* Ð231.€€Further,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€petitionerððs€discovery€of€Ô_ÔTMJÔ_Ô,€subsequent€to€her€trial,€didÐ ° Ðnot€constitute€a€mistake€of€fact€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02(1)Ô#†X¢ÃXXX¸(š#ÔÔ‡X¸(XXX¢ÃÔ.€€The€trial€court€further€found,€thatÐ œì Ðbecause€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€have€her€previous€judgment€set€aside€or€re„opened,€she€is€notÐ ˆØ Ðentitled€to€be€compensated€for€her€medical€expenses€related€to€her€Ô_ÔTMJÔ_Ô€condition€under€the€futureÐ tÄ Ðmedical€expense€provisions€of€said€judgment.€Ð `° ÐÌÓ  Óò òLEGAL€ANALYSISÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌó óÓ  ÓÔ% € Ôà  àòòóó€The€petitioner€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€re„open€her€claim€for€workers'Ð  ` Ðcompensation€benefits€on€the€basis€that€she€suffered€additional€injuries€as€a€result€of€her€accident.Ð ü L  ÐThe€petitioner€asserts€that€these€injuries€had€not€been€diagnosed€at€the€time€of€entry€of€the€originalÐ è 8  Ðjudgment.€€Further,€the€petitioner€asserts€that€she€is€entitled€to€re„open€her€claim€for€compensationÐ Ô$  Ðbenefits€due€to€the€fact€that€her€condition€of€Ô_ÔTMJÔ_Ô€was€unknown€to€her€at€the€time€of€the€hearing€inÐ À  ÐJuly€1994,€and€therefore,€she€was€mistaken€as€to€the€extent€of€her€then€existing€injuries.€€Likewise,Ð ¬ü  Ðthe€petitioner€insists€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€compensate€the€petitioner€for€any€and€allÐ ˜è  Ðfuture€medical€expenses€and€treatment€that€are€causally€related€to€her€workers'€compensationÐ „Ô  Ðaccident.€€In€opposition,€the€defendants€contend€that€the€trial€court€was€correct.€€The€defendantsÐ pÀ Ðassert€that€the€petitioner€was€paid€in€a€lump€sum,€and€therefore,€is€precluded€from€re„opening€herÐ \¬ Ðcase.€€Likewise,€the€defendants€contend€that€the€petitionerððs€new€injury€was€not€discovered€untilÐ H˜ Ðnearly€five€(5)€years€from€the€date€of€her€on„the„job€injury.€€Thus,€this€development€is€not€a€mistakeÐ 4„ Ðfor€grounds€to€re„open€her€workers'€compensation€claim.€€Further,€the€defendants€assert€that€the€trialÐ  p Ðcourt€properly€refused€to€authorize€payments€for€medical€expenses€and€treatment€for€the€petitionerððsÐ  \ Ðcomplaint€of€Ô_ÔTMJÔ_Ô.€Ð øH ÐÌà  àòòóóFirst,€we€elect€to€determine€if€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€finding€that€the€defendants'€motionÐ Ð  Ðfor€summary€judgment€was€correct€in€that€the€petitioner€was€barred€in€re„opening€her€workers'Ð ¼  Ðcompensation€claim€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€50„6„231.€€Therefore,€appellate€reviewÐ ¨ø Ðis€controlled€by€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.€Ô#†X¢ÃXXX¸(Y##ÔÔ‡X¸(XXX¢ÃÔ€The€pleadings€and€evidence€must€be€viewed€in€light€mostÐ ”ä Ðfavorable€to€the€opposing€party€of€motion.€€Summary€judgment€is€to€be€rendered€only€when€it€isÐ €Ð Ðshown€that€there€is€no€genuine€issue€as€to€a€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€aÐ l¼ Ðjudgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.€€òòÔ_ÔHilliardÔ_Ô€v.€Tennessee€State€Home€HealthÐ X ¨ ÐServices,€Inc.,€óó950€S.W.2d€344,€345€(Tenn.€1997);€òòByrd€v.€Hall,€óó847€S.W.2d€208,€211€(Tenn.€1993).€Ð D!” ÐRarely€are€such€motions€an€option€in€workers'€compensation€cases.€òò€Berry€v.€Consolidated€Systems,Ð 0"€  ÐInc.,€óó804€S.W.2d€445€(Tenn.€1991).€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€50„6„231€states€in€pertinent€part:Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àà8 ` àAll€amounts€paid€by€employer€and€received€by€the€employeeð8ð,€byÐ Ì&"% Ðlump€sum€payments,€shall€be€final,€but€the€amount€of€any€awardÐ ¸'#& Ðpayable€periodically€for€more€than€six€(6)€months€may€be€modifiedð8ð.Ф(ô#'` x` x ÐÌà  àIn€support,€the€defendants€cite€òòUnderwood€v.€Zurich€Ins.€Co.,€óó854€S.W.2d€94,€98„99,€(Tenn.Ð |*Ì%) Ð1993)€for€authority.€€In€òòUnderwood,€óóthe€petitioner€had€been€awarded€a€58€percent€disability€to€theÐ h+¸&* ÐÔ_Ôbody€as€a€whole€for€a€work„related€injury€and€at€his€request,€the€award€was€commuted€to€a€lump€sumÐ ° Ðjudgment.€€The€defendant€paid€the€award€in€full.€€Nine€months€later,€the€petitioner€moved€to€re„openÐ œì Ðthe€final€judgment€alleging€that€he€had€developed€post„traumatic€stress€disorder.€Ô#†X¢ÃXXX¸(-.#ÔÔ‡X¸(XXX¢ÃÔòòóó€The€Supreme€CourtÐ ˆØ Ðagreed€with€the€trial€courtððs€granting€of€a€summary€judgment€on€behalf€of€the€defendant€on€the€basisÐ tÄ Ðthat€lump€sum€awards€are€final,€in€spite€of€the€wording€of€the€final€judgment,€which€provided€thatÐ `° Ðthe€lump€sum€disability€award€covered€ð ðany€disability€resulting€or€to€result.ðð€€Again,€the€SupremeÐ L œ ÐCourt€cautioned€that€lump€sum€judgments€do€represent€a€risk€to€both€parties,€citing€òòCorby€v.Ð 8 ˆ ÐMatthews,€óó541€S.W.2d€789,€793€(Tenn.€1976).€€Also,€the€Supreme€Court€recognized€that€a€Rule€60Ð $ t Ðgrounds€may€be€used€to€set€aside€a€final€workersðð€compensation€judgment€in€narrow€circumstancesÐ  ` Ðand€trial€courts€should€consider€the€balance€in€workersðð€compensation€cases€involving€lump€sumÐ ü L  Ðawards€as€weighted€in€favor€of€finality.€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àLikewise,€the€defendants€assert€that€when€payments€are€made€in€a€lump€sum,€the€judgmentÐ À  Ðis€considered€a€lump€sum€judgment€for€the€purposes€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€50„6„231,Ð ¬ü  Ðciting€òòBritton€v.€Combustion€Engineering,€Inc.,€óóNo.€03S01„9409„CH„00080,€1995€WL€605815Ð ˜è  Ð(Tenn.€Sp.€Workers€Comp.€1995).€€The€Chancellor€awarded€the€petitioner€30€percent€disability€toÐ „Ô  Ðhis€right€arm€and€judgment€was€entered€on€August€5,€1993.€€An€order€was€entered€on€August€16,Ð pÀ Ð1993,€reciting€that€there€had€been€a€ð ðfull€and€complete€satisfaction€of€that€portion€of€the€CourtððsÐ \¬ Ðjudgment€relating€to€permanent€disability€benefits.ðð€€The€lump€sum€payment€was€made€since€allÐ H˜ Ðperiodic€payments€under€the€judgment€would€have€accrued€prior€to€the€trial€date.€€On€February€14,Ð 4„ Ð1994,€the€petitioner€filed€a€motion€to€modify€the€award,€alleging€that€he€had€an€MRI€scan€indicatingÐ  p Ðnew€facts€unknown€to€his€doctors.€€A€panel€of€this€Court€agreed€with€the€Chancellorððs€denial€of€theÐ  \ Ðmodification€of€the€award€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€50„6„231.€Ð øH ÐÌà  à€€We€agree€with€the€defendants€that€the€affidavit€of€Elda€Wilkes,€a€claims€representative€ofÐ Ð  ÐTravelers€Insurance€Co.,€and€Exhibit€ð ðA,ðð€a€check€in€the€amount€of€five€thousand€four€hundredÐ ¼  Ðeighty„four€dollars€and€thirty„eight€cents€($5,484.38),€would€constitute€a€lump€sum€payment€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðtrial€courtððs€judgment€of€August€1,€1994.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„231.€€Likewise,€the€record€reflectsÐ ”ä Ðthat€there€was€no€motion€or€petition€to€set€aside€or€amend€the€final€judgment€within€thirty€(30)€daysÐ €Ð Ðof€the€entry€of€such€judgment.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€petitioner€received€a€judgment€Ð l¼ Ðof€her€workersðð€compensation€claim€as€contemplated€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€50„6„231.€Ð X ¨ ÐHowever,€this€does€not€terminate€the€petitionerððs€right€to€seek€relief€from€this€final€judgment.€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àA€petitioner€may€seek€to€re„open€a€workers'€compensation€claim€that€has€gone€to€finalÐ #l! Ðjudgment€under€very€limited€circumstances.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02€provides:Ð $X" ÐÌà8  àRule€60.02.€Mistakesð!ðInadvertenceð!ðExcusable€Neglectð!ðFraud,€etc.,€„€On€motion€andÐ à%0!$ Ðupon€such€terms€as€are€just,€the€court€may€relieve€a€party€or€the€parties€legalÐ Ì&"% Ðrepresentative€from€a€final€judgment,€order€or€proceeding€for€the€following€reasons:Ð ¸'#& Ð(1)€mistake,€inadvertence,€surprise€or€excusable€neglect;€(2)€fraud€(whetherÐ ¤(ô#' Ðheretofore€denominated€intrinsic€or€extrinsic),€misrepresentation,€or€other€misconductÐ )à$( Ðof€an€adverse€party;€(3)€the€judgment€is€void;€(4)€the€judgment€has€been€satisfied,Ð |*Ì%) Ðreleased€or€discharged,€or€a€prior€judgment€upon€which€it€is€based€has€been€reversedÐ h+¸&* Ðor€otherwise€vacated,€or€it€is€no€longer€equitable€that€a€judgment€should€haveÐ ° Ðprospective€application;€or€(5)€any€other€reason€justifying€relief€from€the€operationÐ œì Ðof€the€judgment.€€The€motion€shall€be€made€within€a€reasonable€time,€and€for€reasonsÐ ˆØ Ð(1)€and€(2)€not€more€than€one€year€after€the€judgment,€order€or€proceeding€wasÐ tÄ Ðentered€or€taken.€Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àFirst,€we€recognize€that€Rule€60.02€is€not€meant€to€be€used€in€every€case€in€which€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðcircumstances€of€a€party€change€after€the€entry€of€a€judgment€or€an€order.€€Nor€is€the€rule€aÐ $ t Ðmechanism€for€use€by€a€party€who€is€merely€dissatisfied€with€the€result€of€a€particular€case.€€RuleÐ  ` Ð60.02€is€meant€to€be€used€only€in€those€few€cases€that€meet€one€or€more€of€the€criteria€stated.€òò€ToneyÐ ü L  Ðv.€Mueller€Co.,€óó810€S.W.2d€145,€146€(Tenn.€1991).€€Rule€60.02€acts€as€an€escape€valve€from€possibleÐ è 8  Ðinequity€that€might€otherwise€arise€from€the€unrelenting€imposition€of€the€principle€of€finalityÐ Ô$  Ðimbedded€in€our€procedural€rules.€€òòId.€€See€Thompson€v.€Firemenððs€Fund€Ins.€Co.,€óó798€S.W.2d€235,Ð À  Ð238€(Tenn.€1990).€€When€a€party€seeks€the€extraordinary€relief€permitted€by€Rule€60.02(1),€ð ðtheÐ ¬ü  Ðburden€is€upon€movant€to€set€forth€in€a€motion€or€petition,€or€in€affidavits€in€support€thereof,€factsÐ ˜è  Ðexplaining€why€movant€was€justified€in€failing€to€avoid€mistake,€inadvertence,€surprise€or€neglect.ððÐ „Ô  ÐòòId.;€Hopkins€v.€Hopkins,€óó572€S.W.2d€639,€640€(Tenn.€1978).€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àA€motion€for€relief€based€on€Rule€60.02€grounds€addresses€itself€to€the€sound€discretion€ofÐ H˜ Ðthe€trial€court.€€The€scope€of€review€of€an€appellate€court€is€to€determine€if€the€discretionÐ 4„ Ðpreponderates€against€the€evidence.€òò€Underwood€v.€Zurich€Ins€Co.,€óó854€S.W.2d€at€97;€òòBanks€v.Ð  p ÐDement€Const.€Co.€Inc.,€óó817€S.W.2d€16,€18€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€relief€sought€in€said€motion€is€to€beÐ  \ Ðinvoked€only€in€cases€of€overwhelming€importance,€or€those€involving€extraordinary€circumstancesÐ øH Ðor€extreme€hardship.€€òòId.€óóÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àòò€óóThe€petitioner€contends€that€her€petition€to€re„open€sufficiently€alleges€mistake€respectingÐ ¼  Ðthe€extent€of€the€petitionerððs€injury€existing€at€the€time€of€her€hearing€and€award,€so€as€to€bring€herÐ ¨ø Ðunder€the€provisions€of€Rule€60.02.€€Therefore,€we€must€determine€if€the€record€supports€suchÐ ”ä Ðmistake.€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€affidavit€of€Dr.€Donald€E.€Chase€states€that€the€petitioner€was€referred€to€his€care€by€herÐ X ¨ Ðtreating€physician€at€the€Knoxville€Otolaryngology€Clinic€for€continuing€facial/head€problems.€€AfterÐ D!” Ðcertain€diagnosis€studies€and€a€review€of€€the€petitionerððs€history€and€medical€records,€Dr.€ChaseÐ 0"€  Ðadvised€the€petitioner€on€March€13,€1995,€that€she€suffered€from€bilateral€temporal€mandibular€jointÐ #l! Ðsyndrome.€€It€was€Dr.€Chaseððs€opinion€that€this€bilateral€temporal€mandibular€joint€syndrome€wasÐ $X" Ðdirectly€causally€related€to€her€on„the„job€injury€on€or€about€May€4,€1990.€€Dr.€Chase€performedÐ ô$D # Ðoperative€intervention€for€treatment€of€the€petitionerððs€TMJ.€€In€opposition,€the€defendants,€in€theirÐ à%0!$ Ðreply€to€the€petitionerððs€response€in€opposition€to€the€motion€for€summary€judgment,€submittedÐ Ì&"% Ðcertain€portions€of€the€petitionerððs€deposition€and€trial€testimony€concerning€the€extent€of€herÐ ¸'#& Ðinjuries.€€In€her€deposition,€the€petitioner,€when€asked€if€other€than€her€ear€problems,€did€she€haveÐ ¤(ô#' Ðany€other€injuries,€she€responded€no.€€The€petitioner€did€state€that€she€sustained€a€scrape€on€herÐ )à$( Ðforehead€.€.€.€her€ear€problem€was€her€only€injury.€€At€trial,€the€petitioner€testified€that€the€only€injuryÐ |*Ì%) Ðon€the€job€was€to€her€ear,€except€for€a€cut€on€her€forehead.€Ð h+¸&* Їà  àIn€òòUnderwood€v.€Zurich€Ins.€Co.,€óó854€S.W.2d€at€96„97,€our€Supreme€Court€undertook€anÐ ° Ðanalysis€in€workersðð€compensation€cases,€a€motion€to€re„open€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02.€€In€òòToneyÐ œì Ðv.€Mueller€Co.,€óó810€S.W.2d€147€(Tenn.€1991),€the€Supreme€Court€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€denialÐ ˆØ Ðof€motion€to€re„open€a€workersðð€compensation€claim€pursuant€to€Rule€60.02.€€The€petitioner€filedÐ tÄ Ða€motion€to€set€aside€a€judgment€based€upon€a€mistake€regarding€the€extent€of€the€injury€andÐ `° Ðdisability.€€After€comparing€the€trial€testimony€of€two€surgeons€and€a€chiropractor€with€the€affidavitsÐ L œ Ðof€two€physicians,€the€Supreme€Court€agreed€with€the€trial€court€that€the€affidavits€were€insufficientÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€prove€the€existence€of€a€ð ðmistakeðð€within€the€meaning€of€the€Rule.€€In€òòNails€v.€Aetna€Ins.€Co.,€óó834Ð $ t ÐS.W.2d€289€(Tenn.€1992),€the€petitioner€filed€a€complaint€in€which€he€alleged€a€new€injury,€or€anÐ  ` Ðaggravation€of€his€pre„existing€condition,€or€in€the€alternative,€he€sought€to€increase€his€previousÐ ü L  Ðlump€sum€settlement€award€in€compliance€with€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€50„6„206.€€The€trialÐ è 8  Ðcourt€concluded€that€the€petitionerððs€condition€at€trial€was€the€result€of€an€unstable€back€condition,Ð Ô$  Ðresulting€from€a€second€surgery€in€1989,€and€that€he€suffered€no€additional€or€new€injury€to€his€backÐ À  Ðafter€the€lump€sum€settlement€in€June€1990.€€In€answer€to€the€petitionerððs€motion€to€re„open€underÐ ¬ü  ÐRule€60.02€(1),€the€Supreme€Court€acknowledged€Rule€60.02€provides€an€avenue€for€relief€in€aÐ ˜è  Ðworkers'€compensation€case,€provided€one€or€more€grounds€listed€in€Rule€60.02€are€satisfied.€€TheÐ „Ô  ÐSupreme€Court,€like€in€òòToney,€óódetermined€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€provide€sufficient€proof€thatÐ pÀ Ðthere€was€a€mistake€within€the€meaning€of€Rule€60.02(1).€€The€petitionerððs€back€problem€was€notÐ \¬ Ð100€percent€predictable,€and€as€a€physician€testified,€fusion€is€a€surgical€procedure€that€is€notÐ H˜ Ðperformed€in€a€majority€of€situations€like€the€petitionerððs.€€In€òòZurich,€óóthe€petitioner€was€injured€fromÐ 4„ Ðan€explosion,€throwing€him€from€a€machine€and€injuring€his€right€foot,€shoulder,€and€back.€€AfterÐ  p Ðtrial,€the€trial€court€awarded€the€petitioner€a€58€percent€permanent€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole,Ð  \ Ðwhich€was€shortly€thereafter€commuted€to€a€lump€sum€at€the€petitionerððs€request.€€ApproximatelyÐ øH Ðnine€(9)€months€later,€the€petitioner€petitioned€to€re„open€the€final€judgment,€alleging€that€he€hadÐ ä4 Ðdeveloped€post„traumatic€stress.€€The€medical€proof€indicated€that€this€post„traumatic€stress€beganÐ Ð  Ðshortly€after€his€injury.€€The€Supreme€Court€concluded€that€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€denying€theÐ ¼  Ðpetitionerððs€motion€to€re„open€under€Rule€60.02(5),€in€that€the€facts€did€not€present€a€case€ofÐ ¨ø Ðoverriding€importance,€or€extraordinary€circumstances,€or€extreme€hardship.€€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àWe€disagree€with€the€petitionerððs€position€that€a€discovery€of€an€additional€injury€due€to€aÐ l¼ Ðworkers'€compensation€accident,€which€was€unknown€at€the€time€of€the€award,€permits€a€cause€ofÐ X ¨ Ðaction€for€modifying€or€re„opening€an€award€in€and€of€itself.€€The€trial€court€had€the€benefit€of€theÐ D!” Ðpetitionerððs€trial€testimony€and€the€affidavits€alleging€an€undiscovered€injury.€€The€petitionerÐ 0"€  Ðreceived€an€award€based€upon€her€medical€proof€and€testimony€as€to€her€injuries€sustained€in€herÐ #l! Ðwork„related€accident€of€May€1990.€€We€find€that€the€affidavit€is€insufficient€to€prove€the€existenceÐ $X" Ðof€a€ð ðmistakeðð€within€the€meaning€of€Rule€60.02.€€The€record€does€not€support€the€petitionerððsÐ ô$D # Ðposition€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€denying€the€motion€to€re„open.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€asserts€that€the€trial€court,€in€its€judgment,€awarded€her€ð ðpayment€of€all€past,Ð ¸'#& Ðpresent€and€future€medical€expensesðð€causally€related€ð ðto€the€on„the„job€injury.ðð€€Likewise,€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpetitioner€contends€that€the€phrase€ð ðon€the€job€injuryðð€should€be€interpreted€as€ð ðall€past,€present€andÐ )à$( Ðfuture€medical€expenses€causally€related€to€any€injuries€from€on„the„job€accidentðð€and€not€merelyÐ |*Ì%) Ðcausally€related€to€injuries€to€the€ears€only.€€The€petitioner€cites€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„204.€€Ô_ÔTheÐ h+¸&* Ðdefendants€concede€that€the€petitioner€would€be€entitled€to€any€future€medical€expenses€related€toÐ ° Ðher€ear€injuries,€but€not€any€future€medical€expenses€for€her€claim€of€Ô_ÔTMJÔ_Ô.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€50„6„204(a)(1)€provides:€Ð tÄ ÐÌà0  àà8` (#(#àThe€employer€or€the€employerððs€agent€shall€furnish€free€of€charge€to€theÐ L œ Ðemployee€such€medical€and€surgical€treatment,€medicine,€medical€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðsurgical€supplies,€crutches,€artificial€members,€and€other€apparatus,€includingÐ $ t Ðprescription€eyeglasses€and€eye€wear,€such€nursing€services€or€psychologicalÐ  ` Ðservices€as€ordered€by€the€attending€physician€and€hospitalization,€includingÐ ü L  Ðsuch€dental€work€made€reasonably€necessary€by€accident€as€herein€defined,Ð è 8  Ðas€may€be€reasonably€required.€ÐÔ$ ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà  àWe€have€reviewed€the€authorities€cited€by€the€petitioner€and€find€that€the€facts€in€this€caseÐ ¬ü  Ðare€distinguishable.€€The€facts€in€the€cited€cases,€as€to€the€possibility€of€future€medical€expenses,Ð ˜è  Ðwere€known€at€the€time€of€trial€or€settlement.€€The€petitioner€urges€that€the€holding,€as€to€paymentÐ „Ô  Ðof€future€medical€expenses,€in€òòUnderwood€v.€Zurich,€óó854€S.W.2d€at€97€is€persuasive.€€Although€theÐ pÀ ÐSupreme€Court€upheld€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€for€payment€of€the€petitionerððs€post„traumatic€stressÐ \¬ Ðmedical€expenses,€the€real€dispute€in€that€case€was€over€a€timely€notice€of€the€petitionerððs€need€forÐ H˜ Ðmedical€treatment.€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àFrom€our€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€order€of€August€1,€1994,€the€trial€court€grantedÐ  \ Ðthe€petitioner€future€medical€expenses€related€to€her€injuries€of€the€ears,€which€was€the€onlyÐ øH Ðcompensable€injury€before€the€trial€court.€€At€trial,€there€was€no€indication€of€any€other€existingÐ ä4 Ðinjuries€between€May€1990,€and€July€1994,€before€the€trial€court.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€courtÐ Ð  Ðdid€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€denying€the€petitionerððs€request€for€payment€of€medical€expenses€forÐ ¼  Ðtreatment€of€Ô_ÔTMJÔ_Ô.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€and€the€costs€are€taxed€against€the€petitioner.€€Ô#†X¢ÃXXX¸(J5#ÔÔ#†¼º»XX¢ÃÁ#ÔÔ€X¢ÃX»¼ºÔÐ €Ð ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð <"Œ  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àL.€TERRY€Ô_ÔLAFFERTYÔ_Ô,€SENIOR€JUDGEÐ  ,#|! ÐÔ‡¼º»XX¢ÃÔà@7 7 ìàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@Í Í ìàAT€KNOXVILLE,€TENNESSEEˆÐ È ÐÌÔ#†X¢ÃX»¼º÷u#ÔÌò òÔ‡¼º»XX¢ÃÔÓ  Óà @ àJOYCE€ANN€Ô_ÔBLEVINSÔ_Ô€€V.€€CAMEL€MANUFACTURING€COMPANY,Ð è8 ÐÔ_ÔETALÔ_ÔòòóóÔ#†X¢ÃX»¼ºÆv#Ôó óÐ  P ÐÓåvÓà@Ä Ä ìàò òChancery€Court€for€Ô_ÔCambellÔ_Ô€CountyˆÐ  h Ðà@--%ìàNo.€12,829ˆÐ  X ÐÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<ç ` A߈Ð è 8  ÐÌà@’ ’ ìàNo.€E1999„00738„Ô_ÔWCÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„Filed€September€27,€2000ˆÐ ç7  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Æ` AßÐ Ç  Ðó óÌÔ‡¼º»XX¢ÃÔÔ#†X¢ÃX»¼º¶y#Ôà@°°&ìàò òJUDGMENTó óÔ‡¼º»XX¢ÃÔÔ#†X¢ÃX»¼ºz#ÔˆÐ Æ  ÐÌÌà  àà ` àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€of€referralÐ –æ Ðto€the€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panelððs€memorandum€Opinion€settingÐ †Ö Ðforth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ð vÆ Ðà  àà ` àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€memorandum€Opinion€of€the€Panel€shouldÐ f¶ Ðbe€accepted€and€approved;€andÐ V¦ Ðà  àà ` àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panelððs€findings€of€facts€and€conclusions€of€law€areÐ F– Ðadopted€and€affirmed€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€Judgement€of€the€Court.Ð 6† Ðà  àà ` àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellant,€Joyce€Ann€Ô_ÔBlevinsÔ_Ô€and€€John€E.Ð &v ÐMcDonald,€surety,€for€which€€execution€€may€issue€if€necessary.€Ð f ÐÌòòóóÔ‡¼º»XX¢ÃÔÔ#†X¢ÃX»¼ºv~#Ô09/27/00Ð öF ÐÔ‡¼º»XX¢ÃÔÔ#†X¢ÃX»¼ºÕ~#ÔÌÌ