WPCB R'=yY/\//UCz449P=V"YYʚ& 4p[0md0G%V>n10[-| d2^ygI`:pQE͖N$S"9)A' kO_*׶?DMV[U$=6V ArT F^N(_h' 8='.@- \]ʽNkɋG_-k ]tS2cr@%f׽.R$U?O NN  1u E 72 0cNUN 0Dg z%U@b777777777777777777777777777777777777 0???? B ** 0G D3 D- 0KKK AS 0 0DS A1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular6h0y Documents3|x 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.wptU(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5\\IB01S02\CLERKJAC,,,,03#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(#$  0  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(9 Z(Times New Roman - -(|G2$$ !.8dd8         0  XX d(|3)$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3)$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8 dd8     _ 8'XXdd8  1F @@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL # @@ATJACKSON# 1F# F September30,2004Session i X'X  # XX'#MICHAELBRITTONv.EMERSONELECTRICX'X    b @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforCrockettCounty  \ @@No.8386GeorgeR.Ellis,Chancellor  F @@*AV) ` dE<` A   No.W200400396WCR3CVMailedNovember1,2004;FiledDecember6,2004   # XX'#X'X AV) ` dE<j` A k      Thisworkers'compensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppeals c PaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)forhearingand L reportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.Inthisappeal,# XX'i#X'X Ԁthe# XX'e#X'X  5 employerinsiststheawardofpermanentpartialdisabilitybenefitsbasedon25percenttothehand n shouldbemodifiedtoonebasedon50percenttothefinger.Asdiscussedbelow,thepanelhas W concludedtheawardshouldbemodifiedtoonebasedon80percenttothethirdfinger. @    Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(2002Supp.)AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChancery  CourtAffirmedasModified       JoeC.Loser,Jr.,Sp.J.,# X'#X'X. deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJaniceM.Holder,J.,and  JohnA.Turnbull,Sp.J.,joined. h KyleC.Atkins,Humboldt,Tennessee,fortheappellant,EmersonElectric :  T.J.Emison,Jr.,Alamo,Tennessee,fortheappellee,MichaelBritton  "\!    MEMORANDUMOPINION # XX'P #X'X  $ $   # XX'# #X'X   Theemployeeorclaimant,Mr.Britton,initiatedthiscivilactiontorecoverworkers &!& compensationbenefitsforaworkrelatedinjury.Theonlyissuesubmittedfortrialwastheextent '"' oftheclaimant'spermanentdisability.Afterhearingtheevidence,thetrialcourtawardedpermanent l(#( partialdisabilitybenefitsbasedon25percenttothehand.Theemployer,EmersonElectric,has U)$) appealed. >*%*    XXXX'Appellatereviewisdenovoupontherecordofthetrialcourt,accompaniedbyapresumption ,`', ofcorrectnessofthefindingsoffact,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.#X'XX XŴ #Tenn. ,I(- CodeAnn.506225(e)(2). XXXX'ԀThereviewingcourtisrequiredtoconductanindependentexamination -2). oftherecordtodeterminewherethepreponderanceoftheevidencelies.#X'XX X# XXXX'ԀWingertv.Government  ofSumnerCounty,908S.W.2d921,922(Tenn.1995).#X'XX X# XXXX'Conclusionsoflawaresubjecttodenovo  reviewonappealwithoutanypresumptionofcorrectness.#X'XX Xő# XXXX'Hillv.WilsonSportingGoodsCo.,104  S.W.3d844(Tenn.WorkersCompPanel2002)#X'XX XN# XXXX'.Issuesofstatutoryconstructionaresolely k questionsoflaw.Id.Wherethetrialjudgehasseenandheardthewitnesses,especiallyifissuesof T credibilityandweighttobegivenoraltestimonyareinvolved,considerabledeferencemustbe =  accordedthosecircumstancesonreview,#X'XX X# XXXX'McCalebv.SaturnCorp.,910S.W.2d412,414(Tenn. & v 1995)#X'XX Xš# XXXX',becauseitisthetrialcourtwhichhadtheopportunitytoobservethewitnessesdemeanorand  _ toheartheincourttestimony.#X'XX X3# XXXX'Longv.TriConInd.,Ltd.,996S.W.2d173,178(Tenn.1999).#X'XX X# XXXX'ԀThe  H trialcourtsfindingswithrespecttocredibilityandweightoftheevidencemaygenerallybeinferred  1  fromthemannerinwhichthecourtresolvesconflictsinthetestimonyanddecidesthecase.#X'XX Xœ# XXXX'Tobitt    v.Bridgestone/Firestone,Inc.,59S.W.3d57,61(Tenn.2001).#X'XX X# XXXX'ԀTheappellatetribunal,however,is   aswellsituatedtogaugetheweight,worthandsignificanceofdepositiontestimonyasthetrial   judge.#X'XX Xm# XXXX'Walkerv.SaturnCorp.,986S.W.2d204,207(Tenn.1998)#X'XX Xj# XXXX'.Extentofvocationaldisability   isaquestionoffact.#X'XX X# XXXX'Storyv.LegionIns.Co.,3S.W.3d450,456(Tenn.1999)#X'XX X{# XXXX'.Wherethemedical n  testimonyinaworkerscompensationcaseispresentedbydeposition,thereviewingcourtmay W  makeanindependentassessmentofthemedicalprooftodeterminewherethepreponderanceofthe @ prooflies.#X'XX X# XXXX'ԀBridgesv.LibertyMutualIns.Co.ofHartford,101S.W.3d67(Tenn.WorkersComp )y Panel2000).#X'XX XW# b   Whileworkingfortheemployer,theclaimantaccidentallyamputatedaportionoftheskin 4 protectingthetipofhisleftringfinger.HewastreatedbyDr.FrederickTorstrick.Afterbeing  releasedbyDr.Torstrick,hewasexaminedandevaluatedbyDr.JosephBoals.Asstipulatedby  theparties,Dr.Torstrickestimatedhispermanentmedicalimpairmenttobe1to2percenttothe  finger.Dr.Boalsestimatedhispermanentmedicalimpairmenttobefivepercenttothefinger.Dr.  Boalsalsoopinedtherewasmorelossofmotionandstrengthinthehandthanwouldnormallybe q seenwithpartialamputationoftheringfinger.Theclaimanthasreturnedtohisregularjobwithout Z restrictionsorlimitation,butcontinuestohavesomesensitivityintheaffectedinjuredfinger,which C causespainwhenmakingafistorlifting.Bothdoctorstestifiedthattheonlyinjury,however,was ,| tothefinger. e   Theemployercontendstheawardofbenefitsbasedonapercentageofthehandisexcessive  7 becausetheonlyinjurywastothefinger.Theclaimantcontendstheawardofbenefitstothehand !   shouldbeaffirmedbecauseoflostgripstrengthinthehand. " !    XXXX'Compensabledisabilitiesaredividedintofourseparateclassifications:(1)temporarytotal $# disability,(2)temporarypartialdisability,(3)permanentpartialdisabilityand(4)permanenttotal t% $ disability.#X'XX X!#ԀTenn.CodeAnn.506207. XXXX'ԀEachclassofdisabilityisseparateanddistinctand ]&!% separatelycompensatedforbydifferentmethods.#X'XX X3## XXXX'Ԁ#X'XX X## XXXX'Whenaninjuredemployeespartialdisabilityis F'"& adjudgedtobepermanent,theemployeeisentitledtobenefitsbasedonapercentageofdisability. /(#' #X'XX X5$# XXXX'Corcoranv.FosterAutoGMC,Inc.,746S.W.2d452(Tenn.1988).#X'XX X;%# XXXX'ԀInsuchcases,benefitsare )h$( payableforthenumberofweeksestablishedbyastatutoryscheduleofvariousmembersofthe *Q%) body.#X'XX Xſ%# XXXX'Tenn.CodeAnn.506207.Theringfingerisascheduledmember.SeeTenn.CodeAnn. *:&* 506207(3)(e)(A)(d).#X'XX XŬ&# XXXX'Whereaworkersonlyinjuryistoascheduledmember,hemayreceive +#'+ onlytheamountofcompensationprovidedbythescheduleforhispermanentdisability.Such  injuriesareexclusivelycontrolledbythestatutoryschedule.#X'XX XŁ'# XXXX'ԀMcIlvainv.RussellStoverCandies,  Inc.,996S.W.2d179,185(Tenn.1999).    Theappelleecorrectlyarguesthatwhereaninjurytoascheduledmemberproducesan T unusualandextraordinaryconditionaffectingothermembersofthebody,thencompensationwould =  notnecessarilybelimitedtothelossoftheinjuredmember.SeeJeffreyMfg.Co.ofTenn.v. & v Underwood,426S.W.2d189,191(Tenn.1998).#X'XX X(#  _   Theinjuredfingerwasimmobilizedforsomeperiodoftime,possiblyresultinginsome  1  temporarylossofgripstrength,whichDr.Boalscharacterizedasunusual.However,therecord    containsconflictingmedicalproofastowhetherornottherewasanysuchloss.Thetreating   physiciantestifiedtherewasnone.Dr.Boals,relyingentirelyonaphysicaltherapyreport,testified   therewasaslightlossofgripstrength,butdidnotsaytherewasanypermanentinjurytoanypart   oftheclaimantsbodyotherthantheringfingerofthelefthand.Norestrictionswereprescribed. n   XXXX'Inordertorecoverpermanentdisabilitybenefits,exceptinobviouscases,permanencymustbe W  establishedbyexpertmedicaltestimony.#X'XX X .#ԀWadev.AetnaCas.andSur.Co.,735S.W.2d215,217 @ (Tenn.1987). )y   Therebeingnoevidenceofapermanentinjurytothehand,otherthantoonefinger,the K awardismodifiedtoonebasedon80percenttothethirdfinger,butotherwiseaffirmed.Costsare 4 taxedtotheappellee.     `     h     ___________________________________     `     h     JOEC.LOSER,JR. q   C __@9 9  XX'INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @@@SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL  @((%ATJACKSON   @September30,2004Session 0    MICHAELBRITTONv.EMERSONELECTRIC   P 2@  ChanceryCourtforCrockettCounty ! q @&No.8386 2  @*AV) ` dE<S` A߈ T  @  No.W200400396WCR3CVFiledDecember6,2004 t  AV) ` dE<` A    @tt# JUDGMENTORDER   1o     ` ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtupontheentirerecord,includingtheorder 9 ofreferraltotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanel's I MemorandumOpinionsettingforthitsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,which  Y areincorporatedhereinbyreference; i    ` Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthattheMemorandumOpinionofthe 9 Panelshouldbeacceptedandapproved;and I    ` Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanel'sfindingsoffactandconclusions i oflawareadoptedandaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgment y  oftheCourt. ! Ѐ "    ` CostsonappealaretaxedtotheAppellee,MichaelBritton,forwhich # executionmayissueifnecessary. $     ` ITISSOORDERED. &)"" #  1o,5#     `     h     PERCURIAM  *Y%% #  9##X'X 1#