WPC C{TU1.;.j:e ~AH^D6GVUЦXsGRn+%Q朹5i}H fp뤿h{-Np;3mԻ*2'VՔ 4ZyO[~] 䀔S׏]Rti`!'˶Y*evG{J< m CoھK4E1Ai 4 _&*bS6hTgO "/?oM=V$ʩcuJH"KKOڇKjPàˁlHU:h"Ix {9jjѽՙ]ӐOl.أF2eTlBؓ|:nlDo>NBfRܑؖO;"QwyV*JhMkh!1R ovg EawOU:mT;xHX4yPw.9|O3)<޺aP okb#\ % U=@# 0c UN ^ 9 wE zI  4   m   ] #N 0DE"$$$$U*,,U@VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVb 0 B  0 D3J D-} 0K ASH 0 0D AHP LaserJet 4Si,,,,,,0(9 Z(Times New Roman (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularc)  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptuV)+003|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  R.$      1  X X  _XXXX ԀH XXWerealizethatinsomecasesthismaycreateaharshresultthatisincongruentwiththegeneralintentofour  workerscompensationsystem;however,thestatutorylanguageisclearonitsface,thuschangecannotbeaccomplished  byjudicialfiat.(%$  1   %2A`Arial(\Z  Z(Times New Roman - -(|G2.$ !..8ldd8         0  X X d(|3$ !..8ldd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !..8ldd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8ldd8     _l8 XXdd8  l@@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL  @@ATKNOXVILLE $ (April2000Session) 6 XX #XX#STANLEYBRIDGESv.LIBERTYINSURANCECOMPANYOF  4 HARTFORDXX   H @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforCampbellCounty  H @@No.14,372HonorableR._Vann_ԀOwens,Chancellor  4  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   No.E199901775_WC_ԄR3CVMailedAugust16,2000   _Filed:_ԀNovember3,_2000_Ԁ#XX#XX   AV) ` dE<f` A g      Thisworkers'compensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppeals b PaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTennesseeCodeAnnotated506225(e)(3)for N hearingandreportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.#XX#XXThe : chancellorruledthattheplaintiffsufferedfrompneumoconiosisandthatthetwophysicianswho &v testifiedtheplaintiffhadtheconditionweremorecrediblethanthephysicianwhotestifiedhedid b not.However,thejudgefoundtheplaintifffailedtocarrytheburdenofshowinghewastotallyand N permanentlydisabledfromthepneumoconiosis;therefore,anawardcouldnotbemadeunderthe : guidelinesasexpressedintheFederalCoalMineHealthandSafetyActof1969andadoptedbythe & TennesseeGeneralAssemblyinTennesseeCodeAnnotated506302et.seq.However,the  chancellorruledthateventhoughtheevidenceandcircumstancesdidnotsupportanawardofone  hundredpercentpermanenttotaldisabilityunderthecoalworkerspneumoconiosisprovisions,the  courtcouldstillawardpermanentpartialdisabilityunderthegeneraloccupationaldiseases  provisionsoftheTennesseeWorkersCompensationAct.Tenn.CodeAnn.506301.#XX#XX#X XXX#XXXX ԀThecourt r  thenfoundtheplaintiffsufferedfromcoalminerspneumoconiosisarisingoutofandinthecourse ^!  andscopeofhisemploymentwiththedefendantandalsofoundtheconditioncausallylinkedtothe J"! plaintiffsexposuretoconditionsandhazardsofhisemployment.Theplaintiffwasfoundtobeone 6#" hundredpercentdisabledfromacombinationofhisarthriticconditionandpneumoconiosis; "$r# however,thedisabilityattributabletopneumoconiosiswasfoundmuchlesssignificantthanthenon %^ $ compensablearthriticdisability,resultinginanawardoffifteenpercentpermanentpartialdisability %J!% tothebodyasawhole.#XX #XXWeaffirmthechancellorsfindingthattheplaintiffspneumoconiosisisnot &6"& totallydisablingbutreversetheawardofpermanentpartialdisabilitybenefits. '"#'    Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(1999)AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt )$) Affirmedinpart;ReversedinpartandDismissed  *%*     *XrXX*JohnK.Byers,Sr.J.,#Xc#XX.deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichE.RileyAnderson,andRoger n,', E.Thayer,Sp.J.,joined. Z-(- _ԇLindaJ.HamiltonMowles,Knoxville,Tennesseefortheappellant,SecurityInsuranceCompanyof  Hartford  DavidH.DunawayandFrankQ.Vettori,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,StanleyBridges t 7  MEMORANDUMOPINION #XX#XX L     r Thereviewofthefindingsoffactmadebythetrialcourtisdenovoupontherecordofthetrial $ t court,accompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthefinding,unlessthepreponderanceof  ` theevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(2);Stonev.CityofMcMinnville,896  L  S.W.2d548,550(Tenn.1995).#XX#XX  8  #XX#XX r TheapplicationofthisstandardrequiresthisCourttoweighinmoredepththefactualfindings   andconclusionsofthetrialcourtsinworkerscompensationcases.SeeCorcoranv.FosterAuto   GMC,Inc.,746S.W.2d452,456(Tenn.1988).   #XX6#XX Facts p  #X XXX #XXXX  r   Theplaintiff,fortysevenyearsofageatthetimeoftrial,hasahighschooldiploma.His H workhistoryconsistsofcoalminingandworkattheminesasanightwatchman.Hisdutiesinthese 4 positionsrequiredhimtoshovelcoaldust,pickrock,sweep,and,wheninthemines,beexposedto  p mineeffluence.Hehasalsooperatedavarietyofequipmentandloadedsuppliestotakeintothe  \ deepmine;whenworkingatstripmininghewouldshootpowderandalsoworkasadrilloperator. H Theplaintifflastworkedintheminesinthefallof1989. 4 Ѐ r In1986theplaintiffwasdiagnosedwithrheumatoidarthritis.Asaresult,theplaintiffwasoff   workforpartof1986andallof1987.Duringthattime,theplaintiffwasundermedicaltreatment  inwhichhereceivedgoldshotsandsteroids.Hereturnedtothemineasanightwatchmanbut  eventuallybecameunabletoperformthoseduties,andhehasnotbeenabletoworksinceleaving  hislastpositionwiththedefendant.Theplaintiffadmittedhequitworkingforthedefendantbecause l ofhisrheumatoidarthritis,notbecauseofhisbreathingdifficulties.#X XXX"#XXXX #XX#XXԀTheplaintiffswife,who X  testifiedattrial,alsostatedhequitworkingintheminesbecauseoftherheumatoidarthritis D! symptoms. 0"   r Theplaintifftestifiedhedoesnotcurrentlyknowofanyworkhecoulddobecauseofhis $X" breathingproblemsandhisarthritis!hegetsoutofbreathveryeasilyandcoughsandspitsupsputum $D # often;hehaspainfullyswollenjointsonhishandsandpainfulknotsonhisfeet.Hemainlywatches %0!$ television,goesforshortwalksandwashesdishessometimes.Hetestifiedthearthritisfromwhich &"% hesufferskeepshimfromdoingjustaboutanything,includingattimessucheverydaytasksas '#& holdingacoffeecup,brushinghishair,buttoninghisclothesandgettingoutofthebathtub.He (#' cannotengageinanyhobbiesoractivitiesthatinvolvereachingoverheadorbehind.#X XXX##lXX #X XlXXXX  )$(  r #X XXXz"#XXXX #XX["#XX_  h+&* MedicalEvidence   r Theplaintiffwastreatedand/orevaluatedbythreephysicians,twoofwhomfound  pneumoconiosis,andoneofwhomfoundnoevidenceofthedisease.Allofthedoctorsarecertified t Breaders.BreadersarephysicianscertifiedbytheNationalInstituteofOccupationalSafetyand ` Healthtointerpretxrayfilmforthepresenceofpneumoconiosis. L  Ѐ r Dr.GlenBakerbegantreatingtheplaintiffforbreathingproblemsinMarchof1997.Hefound $ t category_1/2_Ԁpneumoconiosiswithnormalpulmonaryfunctions.Dr.Bakerfoundtheplaintiffone  ` hundredpercentoccupationallydisabledduetopneumoconiosispursuanttoTable10,Chapter5of  L  theAmericanMedicalAssociationGuidestotheEvaluationofPermanentImpairment,Fourth  8  Edition.However,Dr.Bakerconcededtheplaintiffwouldhavenoimpairmentwhatsoeverunder $  Table8,Chapter5,whichconsiderspulmonarytesting.Dr.Bakeracknowledgedtheplaintiffcould,   fromapulmonaryperspective,performjobssuchasnightwatchmanattheminesaslongashedoes   notworkaroundlungirritants.   Ѐ#XX##XX#X XXX"#XXXX  r Regardingtheplaintiffsarthriticcondition,Dr.Bakertestifiedthatiftheplaintiffhadnot p workedsince1989duetorheumatoidarthritis,thentheplaintiffhadbeentotallydisabledsincethat \ time.Dr.Bakertestifiedtheplaintiffwouldhavedevelopedrheumatoidarthritisregardlessofhis H workinthemines. 4  r TheplaintiffwasseenbyDr.James_Lockey_Ԁforanevaluation.Dr._Lockey_sfindingswere  \ similartothoseofDr.Baker.Dr._Lockey_Ԁdiagnosedpneumoconiosisofcategory1/1.Healsofound H theplaintifftobeonehundredpercentdisabledaccordingtoTable10,butacknowledgedthatthe 4 plaintiff,fromapulmonarystandpoint,showednormalresultsundertheAMAguidesandthefederal   guidelines.Dr._Lockey_Ԁtestifiedtheplaintiffcouldperformsomeofhispreviousdutiesinthemines   ifheusedarespirator.Further,Dr._Lockey_Ԁstatedthatfromastrictlypulmonarystandpoint,the  plaintiffcouldperformanycomparableworkorcouldworkadeskjoborasaforkliftoperator.The  primaryreason,accordingtoDr._Lockey_,fortheplaintiffsinabilitytoengageingainfulworkishis  rheumatoidarthritis!theplaintiffhasazeropercentimpairmentinoccupationsoutsideofthecoal l miningindustry. X   r Dr._Dahhan_Ԁexaminedtheplaintiffandfoundnoevidenceofpneumoconiosis.Hisexamination 0"  revealedclearlungs,noabnormalsounds,no_rhonchi_,wheeze,crepitationorcrackles,clubbing, #l! edemaor_cyanosis_.Dr._Dahhan_sattemptsat_spirometry_Ԁmeasurementswereinvalidduetopoor $X" performanceontheplaintiffspart.Dr._Dahhan_Ԁfoundnoobjectivedatatoindicatetheplaintiff $D # sufferedfrompneumoconiosis.Heopinedthattheplaintiffspulmonarystatuswassuchthathe %0!$ couldperformhispreviousworkintheminesoranycomparablejob. &"% Ѐ '#&  r Theplaintiffalsowasevaluatedbyavocationaldisabilityspecialistandunderwentafunctional (#' capacityevaluation.Thefarreachingeffectoftheplaintiffsrheumatoidarthritiswasclearlyevident )$( fromthevocationaldisabilityassessments.#XX )#XX#X XXXL)#XXXX ԀTheplaintiffcouldnotcompleteportionsofthe |*%) functionalcapacityevaluationduetothelimitationsofthearthritis.Specifically,theplaintiffcould h+&* notengageinstaticstrengthtesting,weightcapacitytesting,_unweighted_Ԁoverheadreaching,  kneeling,squatting,weightcarryingovertwentyfivefeet,shouldertooverheadweightcapacity  testingandtreadmilltesting.Theevaluatorwasunabletoevaluatetheplaintiffsbreathingability  andanylimitationsthatmightstemtherefromduetothelimitationscausedbytherheumatoid t arthritis.Theevaluatorreportedthattheplaintiffwouldnottolerateanysignificantworkactivity ` primarilybecauseofhisrheumatoidarthritis. L   r Theplaintiffsvocationalexpert,Dr.Norman_Hankins_,Ph.D.,reliedheavilyonthefunctional $ t capacityevaluationinmakinghisassessmentthattheplaintiffsrheumatoidarthritispreventshim  ` fromperforminghisusualworkinthecoalmines.Hefurtheropinedthearthritiswouldpreventthe  L  plaintifffromperformingworkrequiringskillscomparabletothoseusedincoalmining.Hetestified  8  thearthritisaccountedforamajorportionoftheplaintiffsdisability.Dr._Hankins_Ԁwasunableto $  attributeaspecificportionoftheplaintiffsdisabilitytopneumoconiosisanddidnotanalyzethe   plaintiffsvocationaldisabilitysolelyaccordingtothedisabilityattributabletoit.    r Noneofthephysicianstestifiedthattheplaintiffsrheumatoidarthritiswascausedbyorinany   wayconnectedtohisworkinthemines.Noneofthephysiciansassessedanimpairmentratingfor p theplaintiffsarthriticcondition.#XX5#XX#X XXXR5#XXXX  \ Ѐ @%DISCUSSION #XX=#XX#X XXX>#XXXX @@* 4  r Whenthemedicaltestimonyispresentedbydeposition,asitwasinthiscase,thisCourtisable H tomakeitsownindependentassessmentofthemedicalprooftodeterminewherethepreponderance 4 oftheevidencelies.Cooperv._INA_,884S.W.2d446,451(Tenn.1994);Landersv.FiremansFund   Ins.Co.,775S.W.2d355,356(Tenn.1989).Ourexaminationofthemedicalproofshowsthe   evidencepreponderatesinfavorofthechancellorsfindingthattheplaintiffisnottotallydisabled  frompneumoconiosis,andweupholdthatportionoftheruling.Thephysiciansandthevocational  disabilityexperttestifiedthatfromapulmonarystandpoint,theplaintiffcouldatleastperformwork  similartoorcomparablewithhislastpositioninthemines.Theevidenceclearlyshowstheplaintiff l isnottotallydisabledasaresultofanypneumoconiosishemayhave.Themedicalevidencedoes X  not,however,supportthechancellorsawardofpermanentpartialdisabilitybenefitsunderthe D! generaloccupationaldiseasesstatute.Otherthanpneumoconiosis,themedicalproofshowedno 0"  compensableoccupationaldiseases,thusrenderingthegeneralstatuteinapplicable. #l! #XX>#XX CoalWorkersPneumoconiosis  $D # Ѐ#XXE#XX#X XXX>#XXXX  %0!$  r OccupationaldiseaseshavelongbeencoveredunderTennesseeworkerscompensationlaw, &"% andpneumoconiosishasbeenrecognizedunderthatlaw.Lawsonv.OneidaFuelandCoalCo.,529 '#& S.W.2d220(Tenn.1975).In1971,theTennesseeGeneralAssemblyadoptedTennesseeCode (#' Annotated506302et.seq.,whichspecificallygovernsclaimsarisingfromcoalworkers )$( pneumoconiosis.Thestatutoryprovisionsmakeacleardistinctionbetweengeneraloccupational |*%) diseases,includingthosethatcompromisethepulmonaryfunctionoftheemployee,fromthespecific h+&* occupationaldiseaseofcoalworkerspneumoconiosis.Thestatutealsoclearlyexpressestheintent  oftheTennesseeGeneralAssemblyto adopttheFederallawconcerningcoalworkers  pneumoconiosisasthelawinTennessee.Moorev.OldRepublicInsuranceCo.,512S.W.2d564,  567(Tenn.1974).Clearly,coalminerspneumoconiosisisanoccupationaldiseasethatisoutside t thescopeandtreatmentofother,moregeneraloccupationaldiseasesforpurposesofworkers ` compensation. L   r Theimportantdistinctionbetweenthetreatmentofgeneraloccupationaldiseasesversuscoal $ t workerspneumoconiosisisthatincasesofageneralnature,theemployeeneednotbetotally  ` disabled,whileincasesofpneumoconiosis,theworkermustbetotallydisabledinordertoreceive  L  benefits.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.506302(b);Gibsonv.ConsolidationCoalCo.,588S.W.2d290  8  (Tenn.1979);_Blankenship_Ԁv.OldRepublicIns.Co.,539S.W.2d23(Tenn.1976);20_C.F.R._Ԁ $  718.204. %  1      ׀In_Hensley_Ԁv.ConsolidationCoalCo.,658S.W.2d94(Tenn.1983),thisCourtheldthe   presumptions,criteriaandstandardscontainedinorpromulgatedbyreasonofthefederalCoalMine   HealthandSafetyActof1969(30U.S.C.901et.seq.;nowcitedastheBlackLungBenefitsAct),   willbeusedindeterminingwhetheranemployeehastheoccupationaldiseaseofcoalworkers   pneumoconiosisandistotallydisabledtherefrom.Theapplicablefederalregulationrequiresthat p forrecoveryofbenefitstooccur,theworkermustbetotallydisabledbypneumoconiosis.20_C.F.R._ \ 718.204.#X XXXE#XXXX #XXE#XXԀInthiscase,thechancellorfoundtheplaintiffwasnottotallydisableddueto H pneumoconiosis;therefore,anawardofbenefitsunderthecoalworkerspneumoconiosisprovisions 4 wasinappropriate.  p  GeneralOccupationalDiseases  H #X XXXQ##lXX Q#X Xl r XXXX Despitefindingtheplaintifflessthantotallydisabledbypneumoconiosis,thechancellorruled $ theplaintiffwasnonethelessentitledtobenefitsunderthegeneraloccupationaldiseasesstatute.  Tenn.CodeAnn.506301.However,therecordisdevoidofevidenceofanyothercompensable  occupationaldisease,besidesthepreviouslydiscussedpneumoconiosis,forwhichbenefitswould  beappropriate.Themedicalevidenceshowstheplaintiffsuffersfromrheumatoidarthritis,which  isnotanoccupationaldisease,andfrompneumoconiosis,whichisnottotallydisablingandtherefore p notcompensable.Thetrialcourtsawardoffifteenpercentpermanentpartialdisabilityisnot \  supportedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.We,therefore,reversethisportionofthejudgment H! ofthetrialcourtanddismisstheclaim. 4"   r Thecostsaretaxedtotheplaintiff.  $\" #X XXXS# r    `     h     _________________________________ &$"%  r    `     h     XXXX JOHNK.BYERS,SENIORJUDGE#X XXXY# '#& XXXX XX@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @$ATKNOXVILLE     STANLEYBRIDGES,Applicantv. 6 LIBERTYINSURANCECOMPANYOFHARTFORD,Respondents  J #XXܬY# uXXLZ   #XX u[#ChanceryCourtforCampbellCounty H  No.14,372R._Vann_ԀOwens,Chancellor 4  C[@*AV) ` dE< ` A߈  \    No.E199901775_WC_ԄWCMCVFiledNovember3,2000 W  \AV) ` dE<` A /  OENHE @& JUDGMENT  *   r ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtuponStanleyBridgessmotionforreviewpursuanttoTenn.Code  Ann.506225(e)(5)(B),theentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferraltotheSpecialWorkers'  CompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanel'sMemorandumOpinionsettingforthitsfindingsoffact  andconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference; v  r Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthatthemotionforreviewisnotwelltakenandshouldbe N DENIED;and :  r Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanel'sfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawareadoptedand b affirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgmentoftheCourt._#X XXXY#X XXX The_ԀCourtfurther N recommendsthattheSpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPanelopinionbe_published.#X XXX Ha#XXXX O#yXH]]#OHXyN#EH|]#NHE_ N  r CostswillbeassessedtoStanleyBridgesforwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. c  r    `     h   PER_CURIAM_ "  Anderson,C.J.,notparticipating $ "  O#yXHjb#N#XXyb# #X XXX(b#