ÿWPCà øpÈa±h“ð$µ"èŸx@r&^ :×¥Þóª»SÓ†”rŒ1ÙøâíÃJ±Î“äiKslÞôÜxMjb(G ±“Làe°3ÐY8†~|Ë<ê‘gËÁ Â*g;L°¸°/µ@Ã^©-ŠªuEå_ᘊBÆ59}µôŸ$ Á`#~£¹Åùf ôù˜æ¦byë/IÀA±â%¨s'Zñçékï'(Ê‘“”®f€´(Oeí”έЭ÷ /”³b&Z–>Ý‚’jU˜&ãÁ|þs0dFƲ’n`{:´>÷Í@±ä´¥²Žây¯A¹ Œüü+¾âàãË›#0 ¬p§ÔîŒOr§EKÎÑÆ; vd½Kí+¸c@TØ`º¨a™rŒê±¸£RW8(ɶjc"°4ó™p[>…úJ¬äø!£Üu%£+¹„€é`=ç GC¿).6ûÜ$Ì ­Ïy0aòñ‰ ÖÆ£«ƒå¨2ú¶³¹€×“ȯQáÝÂZ‰ö$Ý7”/v2§–^vT`3š@:üŽÂÌ‹¹#  UN) %w 0û} U :x4²ÆÕUFÕ !wL) 0?u 0D´ìøU:äìU:                   BDDDDDD D3aaa 0””””””””””””” D+««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««« AOÖÆ%% 0Dë D// B^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ AY{ÆÔ 0Fš˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÓH=$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XÎ_XXXÔÑ7€¾úXXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial Regularºyj&øð 3|xG><4šÛ 9Z ‹.Courier New RegularH <>D=>D>>P?>@>PA>B>PC>PD>E>DF>G>D(ï(3ky$¤¤Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XXXXÔÑ7€eXXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó âÔ€X(—XXXÔÔ€è€6èXX(—ÔÔ Ad ÔÓ  ÓFILEDÔ€èè€6ÔÐ  ÐÌò òMarch€24,€1999Ð  ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€CourtÏClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular âÔ€X(—XXXÔÔ€è€6èXX(—ÔÔ Ad ÔÓ  ÓFILEDÔ€èè€6ÔÐ  ÐÌò òMarch€24,€1999Ð  ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€CourtÏClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d$$$$'ÿÿdxd(ï3¸õ$££Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XXXXÔÑ7€eXXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ý'ÈÈÈÈdxd€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd·-¸:Müÿ << deUU…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(n$––ò ò(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)ó óÝ ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€X(—XXXÔÑ7€ÕeXXdìdÈ7ÑÝ  Ý›ÑÀ°ÑÑX°Ñò òÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÌÌó óÓÓÓ  Óà@@Ü Ü Ìàò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ˜Ø ÐSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌœßl€*6&"h 8 `€€Exqtt06°p¨çlߛ⠰°$$âKNOXVILLE,€DECEMBER€1998€SESSIONó óÐ p° ÐÓ;ÓÌÌœñ>ñÌñ>ññ>ñÌñ>ñ›ÌÌÌâ $$°°âVELMA€BRADLEYà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àœKNOXñ >ñ€CHANCERñ >ññ >ñYñ >ññ>ññ>ñ€ñ>ññ>ññ>ññ>ñCHANCERñ>ññ>ññ >ññ >ñCHANCERñ >ññ >ññ>ññ >ñYñ >ññ>ñà x àà Ð àñ>ññ>ñà ` àà ` àà ` àà ` àñ>ññ>ññ >ñ›ñ >ññ >ñ€CHANCERYñ >ññ>ñ›Ð ¦æ  Ðñ>ñ›à (# àÐ ¦æ  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àœñ>ñà  àñ>ñ)›à p àÐ ŒÌ  Ðà ` àPlaintiff/Appelleeà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ r²  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌV.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àHon.€Frederick€McDonald,à Ð àà (# àÐ >~ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àChancellorÐ $d ÐDEROYAL€INDUSTRIES,€INC.€ANDà  à)à p àÐ  J ÐLIBERTY€MUTUAL€INSURANCEà  à)à p àÐ ð0 ÐCOMPANYà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð Ö Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àDefendants/Appellantsà À àà  à)à p àNo.€03S01„9802„CH„00018Ð ¢â ÐÌòòò òÌÌÌÌFor€the€Appellants:à h àà À àà  àà p àFor€the€Appellee:Ð ^ Ðó óóóÌJames€T.€Shea€IVà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àDavid€H.€DunawayÐ ð0 ÐP.O.€Box€1708à  àà h àà À àà  àà p à100€South€Fifth€StreetÐ Ö ÐKnoxville,€Tenn.€€37901à h àà À àà  àà p àP.O.€Box€231Ð ¼ ü  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àLaFollette,€Tenn.€€37766ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÐ 'F#' ÐÌò òòòMembers€of€Panel:Ð Ø(%) ÐÌó óóóE.€Riley€Anderson,€Chief€JusticeÐ °*ð&+ ÐJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌÓh ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœñ>ñÌ›Ìñ>ñ›ÌÌÌœÌÌÌAFFIRMED.›à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àTHAYER,€Special€JudgeÐ Ž=Î9@ ЇÓÓà ` 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 ` àDefendants,€DeRoyal€Industries,€Inc.€and€Liberty€Mutual€Insurance€Company,Ïhave€appealed€from€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€that€plaintiff,€Velma€Bradley,€was€totallyÏand€permanently€disabled€as€a€result€of€her€work€activities€with€her€employer,ÏDeRoyal€Industries.€€At€the€commencement€of€the€trial,€a€nonsuit€was€taken€as€to€theÏSecond€Injury€Fund.Ìà ` àOn€appeal€there€are€two€main€issues.€€First,€defendants€insist€the€trial€courtÏwas€in€error€in€allowing€a€recovery€for€an€ð ðoccupational€diseaseðð€which€pre„dated€theÏemployment€relationship€with€DeRoyal€and€which€may€have€been€aggravated€byÏemployment€with€DeRoyal.€€In€the€second€issue,€defendants€contend€the€trial€courtÏwas€in€error€in€allowing€Dr.€C.€F.€Smith€to€testify.Ìà ` àVelma€Bradley,€age€55€years,€started€working€for€DeRoyal€during€April€1983.€ÏShe€was€initially€assigned€to€work€in€the€shrink€wrap€room€and€remained€there€untilÏsometime€in€1988€when€she€was€transferred€to€the€glue€room.€€DeRoyal€is€engagedÏin€manufacturing€soft€goods€such€as€medical€supplies.€€Her€job€in€the€glue€roomÏinvolved€gluing€the€soles€to€orthopedic€boots.€€This€work€was€done€in€a€small€roomÏwith€some€ventilation.€€She€used€a€Bostic€super„glue€which€was€stored€in€a€fiveÏgallon€container€and€about€2€ðð€gallons€of€glue€was€used€daily€in€performing€thisÏwork.€€The€record€indicates€that€while€working€the€lid€on€the€glue€container€remainedÏoff€and€there€was€a€strong€smell€of€the€glue€in€the€work€area.€€Mrs.€Bradley€testifiedÏshe€never€wore€a€mask€or€any€protective€clothing€but€did€use€rubber€gloves€or€aÏsock„like€material€to€protect€her€hands.€€Often€the€gloves€would€deteriorate€to€suchÏan€extent€that€she€would€have€to€work€without€them.€€In€addition€to€coming€intoÏcontact€with€the€glue,€she€was€required€to€use€a€ð ð615€cleanerðð€in€order€to€remove€theÏglue€from€machinery.Ìà ` àPlaintiffððs€daughter,€Deborah€Bradley,€testified€she€worked€for€DeRoyal€in€theÏshipping€department€at€one€time€and€was€aware€of€the€strong€smell€of€glue€whereÏher€mother€worked.€€She€said€that€during€the€early€part€of€1992,€she€noticed€a€greatÏchange€in€her€motherððs€mental€condition€and€that€when€she€would€come€home€fromÐ t;´7> Ðwork€she€appeared€ð ðglassy„eyedðð€and€would€look€as€if€ð ðshe€was€on€a€highðð.€€SheÏstated€her€clothing€and€hair€would€have€a€strong€smell€of€the€glue.Ìà ` àPlaintiff€left€her€employment€during€March€1992€when€her€job€was€relocated€toÏa€different€plant€and€she€has€not€worked€since.€€She€began€to€get€worse€during€fall€ofÏ1992€and€was€hospitalized€several€times€during€1992„1993.€€Another€daughter,ÏKathy€Brooks,€testified€that€during€a€1993€hospitalization€she€had€lost€her€memory€toÏsuch€an€extent€she€did€not€even€recognize€her€children.Ìà ` àJames€Bradley,€Plaintiffððs€husband,€testified€he€stopped€working€in€order€toÏtake€care€of€his€wife€and€that€she€suffered€from€asthma€and€obstructive€pulmonaryÏdisease€prior€to€working€for€DeRoyal;€that€she€had€high€blood€pressure€and€had€beenÏa€smoker€for€a€long€period€of€time€prior€to€going€to€work€at€DeRoyal.€€Ìà ` àMrs.€Bradleyððs€testimony€was€somewhat€limited€at€the€trial€below€due€to€herÏmental€condition.€€She€did€state€she€did€not€remember€being€in€the€hospital€in€1993Ïbut€did€recall€going€to€the€hospital€from€work€in€1991€because€she€could€not€stopÏcoughing.Ìà ` àThe€expert€medical€evidence€in€the€case€consists€of€the€testimony€of€sevenÏdoctors.€€Most€all€of€this€evidence€supports€the€Chancellor€in€his€finding€that€she€isÏunable€to€work€because€of€her€mental€condition€and€this€finding€by€the€Chancellor€isÏnot€an€issue.Ìà ` àA€Material€Safety€Data€Sheet,€which€was€a€warning€concerning€healthÏhazards,€from€the€manufacturer€of€the€glue€was€filed€in€evidence€and€indicated€theÏglue€contained€methyl€ethyl€ketone€and€toluene€as€hazardous€ingredients;€thatÏsymptoms€of€overexposure€were:€€irritation,€dizziness,€weakness,€headache,€nausea,Ïvomiting,€etc.€and€that€long€term€overexposure€to€toluene€has€been€associated€withÏkidney€and€liver€damage;€that€long€term€overexposure€to€methyl€ethyl€ketone€wasÏassociated€with€central€nervous€system€problems;€and€that€one€should€avoidÏprolonged€or€repeated€breathing€of€vapors€and€contact€with€the€skin.Ìà ` àDr.€C.€F.€Smith,€a€physician€specializing€in€occupational€medicine€rendered€anÏopinion€that€the€hazardous€ingredients€of€the€glue€and€cleaner€caused€permanentÏneurological€damage€to€Mrs.€Bradley€and€that€his€diagnosis€was€toxicÏencephalopathy€which€was€a€generalized€brain€dysfunction.€€He€testified€orally€beforeÏthe€trial€court.Ð t;´7> Ðà ` àDr.€James€E.€Lockey,€specializing€in€occupational€and€environmental€medicineÏand€occupational€pulmonary€disease,€testified€by€deposition€and€was€of€the€opinionÏthat€her€asthma€had€been€aggravated€by€her€working€conditions€and€that€she€hadÏimpairment€due€to€her€pulmonary€condition€caused€by€her€cigarette€smoking€and€theÏconditions€in€her€workplace.€€His€primary€diagnosis€was€neurological€problems€due€toÏprolonged€exposure€to€solvents€for€five€years€and€hypertension.à x àÐ ¼ ü  Ðà ` àDr.€Glen€R.€Baker,€a€pulmonary€disease€specialist,€first€saw€Mrs.€BradleyÏduring€her€November€1993€hospitalization€and€gave€a€diagnosis€of€(1)€chronicÏobstructive€airway€disease€and€(2)€neurological€problem.€€He€also€stated€he€oftenÏsaw€patients€with€dementia€after€having€been€exposed€to€solvents.€€He€testified€byÏdeposition.Ìà ` àDr.€Jerry€B.€Lemler,€a€psychiatrist,€testified€by€deposition€and€evaluated€her€forÏthe€extent€of€disability€purposes.€€He€opined€her€dementia€rendered€her€100%Ïimpaired.Ìà ` àD.€Randy€Trudell,€specializing€in€neurology,€testified€by€deposition€and€said€heÏfirst€saw€Mrs.€Bradley€during€the€March€1993€hospitalization€at€the€request€of€herÏtreating€doctor;€that€she€was€suffering€from€headaches€and€was€confused;€that€hisÏhistory€indicated€she€had€been€ð ðtalking€out€of€her€headðð€since€December€1992€andÏhe€observed€that€she€was€very€slow€in€talking€and€functioning.€€œHe›€performedÏextensive€testing€all€of€which€did€not€reveal€any€accurate€explanation€for€her€mentalÏstatus;€that€when€he€saw€her€again€several€months€later,€she€was€probably€worse.€ÏHe€could€not€make€a€specific€diagnosis€and€when€he€was€told€about€her€workÏconditions,€he€did€not€think€there€was€a€causal€connection€because€her€condition€didÏnot€become€worse€until€about€six€months€after€leaving€her€employment.Ìà ` àDr.€George€E.€Fillmore€was€Mrs.€Bradleyððs€family€doctor€and€he€testified€byÏdeposition.€€He€had€treated€her€since€1971€and€admitted€or€saw€her€in€the€hospitalÏnumerous€times€from€that€first€visit€up€to€the€1993€hospitalization.€€He€stated€she€hadÏacute€brochial€spasms€which€was€asthmatic;€that€she€had€been€admitted€to€theÏhospital€during€1982€for€severe€asthma€and€she€was€also€confused,€which€couldÏresult€from€her€high€blood€problem;€that€he€saw€her€in€his€office€during€August€1987Ïwhen€she€was€confused,€short€of€breath,€nausea,€dizzy€etc,;€that€again€in€1989€sheÏwas€having€frequent€headaches€and€dizziness;€the€1992€and€1993€hospital€visitsÐ t;´7> Ðwere€for€mental€confusion,€headaches,€etc.€and€that€he€never€did€determine€theÏcause€of€her€confusion.€€He€never€considered€her€work€environment€but€when€toldÏabout€her€working€conditions,€he€said€it€could€make€her€pre„existing€problems€worse.Ìà ` àDr.€John€McElligott,€an€internal€medicine€doctor,€first€saw€her€during€the€1993Ïhospitalization€and€was€asked€to€give€a€second€opinion€about€her€mental€condition.€ÏHe€felt€that€multiple€medications€she€was€taking€could€be€some€cause€of€her€problemÏbut€opined€that€fumes€from€chemical€can€ð ðscrew€up€the€brainðð.€€He€testified€byÏdeposition.Ìà ` àFrom€all€of€this€evidence€the€trial€court€found€Mrs.€Bradley€had€suffered€fromÏasthma€and€bronchitis€prior€to€her€employment€with€DeRoyal€and€that€such€pre„¼existing€conditions€were€probably€caused€and/or€aggravated€by€her€smoking€habit;Ïthat€she€also€suffered€from€hypertension€which€at€times€resulted€in€mental€confusionÏand€that€this€condition€preexisted€her€employment€with€DeRoyal;€and€that€herÏexposure€to€the€hazardous€ingredients€of€the€substances€she€used€at€work€Ïaggravated€and€accelerated€her€pre„existing€conditions€to€such€an€extent€she€wasÏtotally€disabled.€€€Ìà ` àThe€review€of€the€case€is€de€novo€on€the€record€accompanied€by€aÏpresumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact€unless€the€preponderance€ofÏthe€evidence€is€otherwise.€€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).Ìà ` àThe€argument€advanced€concerning€the€first€issue€is€that€the€claim€is€notÏcompensable€because€the€employee€was€suffering€from€an€ð ðoccupational€diseaseððÏprior€to€her€employment€with€DeRoyal€and€that€under€our€statute,€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„301,Ïthere€can€be€no€recovery€for€aggravation€of€an€occupational€disease€which€pre„¼existed€employment.Ìà ` àWe€do€not€find€any€merit€to€this€contention.€€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„301€set€out€sixÏconditions€which€must€be€met€in€order€to€qualify€as€an€ð ðoccupational€diseaseðð.€€OneÏof€the€conditions€under€subsection€(5)€states€the€disease€must€originate€from€a€riskÏconnected€with€the€employment.€€We€find€the€evidence€is€very€clear€that€Mrs.ÏBradleyððs€underlying€problems€with€asthma€and€bronchitis€and€her€hypertensionÏresulting€in€mental€confusion€were€all€non„work€related€problems€pre„existing€herÏemployment€with€DeRoyal.€€Therefore,€her€pre„existing€conditions€were€not€under€ourÏstatute€occupational€diseases.€€The€rule€of€law€which€defendants€rely€upon€applies€toÐ t;´7> Ðdifferent€factual€circumstances.€€òòSee€American€Insurance€Co.€v.€Ison,óó€519€S.W.2dÐ À Ð778€(Tenn.€1975).Ìà ` àThe€general€rule€is€that€an€employer€takes€an€employee€as€he€finds€him€or€herÏand€is€liable€under€the€Workersðð€Compensation€Act€for€disabilities€which€are€theÏresult€of€the€activation€or€aggravation€of€a€pre„existing€weakness,€condition€orÏdisease€brought€about€by€the€occupation.€€òòArnold€v.€Firestone€Tire€&€Rubber€Co.,óóÐ À  Ð686€S.W.2d€65€(Tenn.€1984).€€òòSee€also€Crossno€v.€Publix€Shirt€Factory,óó€814€S.W.2dÐ Ð  Ð730€(Tenn.€1991)€where€recovery€was€upheld€for€aggravation€of€pre„existingÏasthmatic€bronchitis€from€work„related€exposure€to€the€chemical€formaldehyde.Ìà ` àThe€other€issue€questions€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€in€allowing€Dr.€C.€F.ÏSmith€to€testify.€€It€is€argued€plaintiff€failed€to€respond€and€identify€Dr.€Smith€as€aÏwitness€when€answering€interrogatories€requesting€names€and€opinions€of€expertÏwitnesses,€and€that€defendants€were€not€furnished€enough€information€about€him€toÏprepare€for€trial.€€The€record€does€not€support€this€contention.Ìà ` àWhen€responses€to€interrogatories€were€filed€during€the€year€1994,€Dr.€SmithÏwas€not€listed€as€a€witness.€€However,€a€supplemental€response€was€filed€on€AugustÏ19,€1997,€five€months€prior€to€the€January€23,€1998€trial,€and€Dr.€Smith€was€identifiedÏas€a€witness€to€be€called€and€attached€to€the€response€was€a€copy€of€a€detailed€fourÏpage€report€from€the€doctor€concerning€history,€symptoms,€and€the€doctorððsÏdiagnosis€or€assessment.€€Defendants€apparently€chose€not€to€depose€the€witnessÏprior€to€trial.Ìà ` àThe€Chancellor€held€Dr.€Smith€could€testify€to€matters€pertaining€to€his€report.€ÏDefendants€also€state€allowing€the€witness€to€testify€was€error€because€the€report€didÏnot€specifically€say€the€doctor€was€of€the€opinion€plaintiffððs€condition€was€the€result€ofÏher€work€environment€and€that€this€was€the€key€issue€in€the€case.Ìà ` àThe€report,€Exhibit€#6,€begins€by€stating€plaintiff€was€referred€to€the€doctorÏregarding€a€work„related€chemical€exposure€that€occurred€during€her€employmentÏwith€DeRoyal;€it€contains€numerous€alleged€facts€regarding€the€operation€of€the€glueÏroom€and€the€hazardous€ingredients€of€the€substances€she€was€working€with;€herÏpast€medical€history;€findings€from€a€physical€examination;€and€the€report€concludesÏwith€a€diagnosis€or€assessment€of:€€(1)€neurotoxicity€(2)€ataxia€(3)€cognitiveÏdysfunction€and€(4)€toxic€encephalopathy.€€We€find€the€report€to€be€of€sufficientÐ €;À7> Ðnotice€to€defendants€of€the€general€scope€of€the€testimony€of€the€doctor,€and€that€itÏwas€proper€for€the€trial€court€to€consider€and€weight€this€evidence€with€all€the€otherÏmedical€evidence.Ìà ` àDefendants€also€claim€his€testimony€should€have€been€excluded€as€it€did€notÏmeet€the€standards€required€by€Rules€702€and€703,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,Ïand€citing€the€case€of€òòMcDaniel€v.€CSX€Transportation,€Inc.,óó€955€S.W.2d€257€(Tenn.Ð ¼ ü  Ð1997).€€In€this€connection,€we€note€that€the€witness€was€not€attempting€to€introduceÏany€scientific€studies€regarding€the€issues€before€the€court€and€that€his€testimony€asÏa€whole€did€not€extend€much€further€than€the€Material€Safety€Data€Sheet€(Exhibit€#1)Ïwhich€was€a€rather€strong€warning€by€the€manufacturer€of€the€glue€of€what€couldÏoccur€from€overexposure€to€their€product.Ìà ` àGenerally,€questions€regarding€the€admissibility,€qualifications,€relevancy€andÏcompetency€of€expert€testimony€are€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.Ð T” ÐBallard,óó€855€S.W.2d€557,€562€(Tenn.€1993).€€We€do€not€find€the€trial€court€abusedÐ $d Ðthat€discretion.Ìà ` àThe€judgment€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€are€taxed€to€Defendants.€€ÌÌÔ% € ÔÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌE.€Riley€Anderson,€Chief€JusticeÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€œJudgeÐ  Ò/,1 ÐÒøÒÔ‡¼ ¼XX(—ÔÓ  Óà0 @P àà @¨ àÔ#†X(—X¼¼ ´D#ÔÔ‡Šˆ¡ŠXX(—ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEE€€Ô#†X(—XŠŠˆ¡E#ÔÐ À ÐÓÓDÓÓ  Óà@@.àÌßl€*6&"h 8 `€€Ex¤tt06°ž¨ìlßâ ø°ø°ø$ø$âà @P àà @¨ àà @ àà @X àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÓ¤EÓÒøÒâ °°$$âà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H àà   àà ø àà P àà ¨ àÌÌà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H àà   àà ø àà P àà ¨ à¼à è àà @ àà ˜ àÌà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H à€€€à   àÐ  \ Ðà 8 àà à àà 8 àà  àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H àà   àà ø àÌÒ(HÒâ °°°"°"âà è àà @ àÌâ °"°"°° €€€€€€ñ>ññ>ñtñ>ññ>ññ>ñTñ>ññ>ññ>ññ>ñHELMA€E.€SEIBERñ>ññ>ññ>ñ,ñ>ññ>ñhelma€eñ>ñVELMA€BRADLEY,ñ>ñà ð àà H àà   à)à ø à€ñ>ñANDERSON€ñ>ññ>ñKNOX€CHANCERYñ>ññ>ñCIRCUITñ>ñÐ Î   Ðà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H à€€€€€€€à   à)€à ø à€No.€97ñF>ñLAñF>ññG>ñlañG>ñ0099Ð ´ ô  ÐÒ (Òà è à€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee,à H à€€€€€€à   à)à ø àà P àà ¨ àà  àÐ šÚ  ÐÓ àœX°œXÓà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð à€€€€à H à€€€€€€€à   à)à ø àà P àà ¨ àà  àà X àÐ €À  Ðà è àà @ àà ˜ à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€€€€€€€€No.€€03S01„9801„CV€„00006Ìà è àv.à @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H à€€€€€€€à   à)Ð LŒ  Ðà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H à€€€€€€€à   à)Ð 2r Ðà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H àà   à)Ì€€à è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H àà   àñ?>ñ)ñ?>ñà ø àHon.€James€B.€Scott,€Jr.€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð þ> Ðà è à€METHODIST€MEDICAL€ñ@>ñà H àñ@>ññ@>ñà   àñ@>ññ@>ñ)ñ@>ññC>ñà ø àñC>ññD>ñJudgeñD>ññE>ññC>ñjUDGEñC>ññE>ñÐ ä$ Ðà è à€CENTER€OF€OAK€RIDGEà   àñA>ñ)ñA>ñà ø àà P àà ¨ àà  àà X à€€Ð Ê  Ðà è àñB>ñà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H àà   à)ñB>ñÌà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H à€€€€€€€€à   à)€€€€à ø àÐ –Ö Ðà è à€€€€€€€Defendantñ=>ñsñ=>ñ/Appellantñ<>ñsñ<>ñ.à H àñ>>ñà   àñ>>ñ)€€€€€€€€à ø àà P àÐ |¼ ÐÌà è àà @ à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à   àÓ€Óà ø àà P àà ¨ àà  à€€€€€€Ð Hˆ Ðà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð à€€€€€JUDGMENT€ORDERÌ€€€€€€€€Ô‡ XêM XXX(—Ôà è àà @ à€This€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€€€€Ð ú: Ðà è àrecord,€including€the€order€of€referral€to€the€SpecialÏà è àWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel's€¼à è àMemorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€à X àÐ ä $# Ðà è àfact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€are€à ¨ àincorporated€Ð %"e% Ðà è àherein€by€reference;ÌÌà è à€€€€€€Whereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€¼à è àmemorandum€Opinion€of€the€Panel€should€be€accepted€€€€€Ï€€€€€and€approved;€andÌÌà è à€€€€€€€It€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€€€€€€Ï€€€€€findings€of€facts€and€conclusions€of€law€are€adopted€€€Ï€€€€€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€€€€Ï€€€€€the€Judgment€of€the€Court.ÌÌà è à€€€€€€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellants,€¼à è àDeRoyal€Industries,€Inc.€and€James€T.€Shea,€surety,forÏà è àwhich€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€à  àÐ ³3ó/A Ѐ€€€€€03/24/99Ô#†X(—X X XêM®Q#Ô›€