ÿWPC‰ ·#  UN %k 0(q w@™ 4Ù í ü T LX L¤ 0Dð 0J4 0T~ 0^Ò 0h0 0r˜ 0|  0†† 0  1uœ 0d AQuÆÆ 0DŒ 0@Ð 0D D/T Bƒ B  D3½U>ðB).DCW AMšU*çùf ùpv~ivÓç Aº 0P9˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ‰ŠE‹ŒŽUÓ€‘V’îGSƒ$†3|x’c:\office\wpwin\template\legal\11deny.wptC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPTC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT(3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd!#,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ïÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌApril€8,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ ïÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌApril€8,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿáùEG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò#yúÿ  <<= 8ÀÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ((3/Q$««Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ d ÔÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÙ€!ÙÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€-/,A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌÌÌà@ àò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌÌœFANNIE›€CARTERà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà à€€€€Plaintiff/Appelleeà àà àà àà à)€€€MARSHALL€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€NO.€œ01S01„9704„CH„00093›Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€HON.€F.€LEE€RUSSELLÌNATIONAL€HEALTH€CAREà àà àà à)€€€CHANCELLORó óÌò òCENTER,€ET€ALà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà à€€€Defendant/Appellantà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellee:à àà àà àà àà àFor€the€Appellant:Ìóóó óRobert€Daviesà àà àà àà àà àà àBarbara€MedleyÌ150€Second€Avenue€Northà àà àà àà à520€North€œEllington›€ParkwayÌSuite€225à àà àà àà àà àà àœLewisburg›,€Tennessee€37091ÌNashville,€Tennessee€œ372l9›ò òòòÌóóó óÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONÌÌà@ àMembers€of€Panel:ÌÌà@ àó óóóJustice€œAdolpho›€A.€Birch,€Jr.Ìà@ àSenior€Judge€John€K.€ByersÌà@ àSpecial€Judge€Hamilton€V.€œGayden›,€Jr.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHamilton€œGayden›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSpecial€Judgeó óÌÌ€€€€€This€workersðð€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€ÌÌAppeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€ÌÌfor€hearing€and€reporting€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€œ€In›€this€two„sided€appeal,€the€plaintiff€ÌÌcontends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€recovery€of€incurred€€medical€expenses;€€the€ÌÌdefendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€the€plaintiff€temporary€total€benefits€and€ÌÌpermanent€partial€disability€benefits.€œ€The›€œfocus›€of€this€dispute€is€plaintiffððs€employment€ÌÌapplication€wherein,€the€defendant€contends€it€was€not€correctly€filled€out€by€the€plaintiff,€€and€ÌÌwas€materially€€misleading,€and€therefore€the€plaintiff€is€estopped€from€claiming€benefits.€ÌÌÌ€€€€€In€accordance€with€T.C.A.€ðð€506„225(e),€the€standard€of€review€in€this€case€is€de€novo€upon€ÌÌthe€record€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings.€€It€is€ÌÌthe€plaintiffððs€€burden€to€show€by€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€evidence€is€ÌÌotherwise€in€relation€to€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€medical€benefits;€likewise,€it€is€the€burden€of€ÌÌthe€defendant€to€show€that€the€court€erred€in€granting€the€Plaintiff€both€temporary€total€benefits€ÌÌand€permanent€partial€benefits.ÌÌÌ€€€€€The€panel€concludes€that€the€trial€courtððs€œjudgment›€approving€temporary€total€benefits€and€ÌÌpermanent€partial€benefits€œwas›€correct€and€should€be€affirmed.€€The€panel,€however,€reverses€the€ÌÌtrial€court€in€the€denial€of€the€medical€benefits€of€two€of€plaintiffððs€treating€physicians.Ì€€ÌÌ€€€€€€Plaintiff,€age€62€at€the€time€of€the€trial€and€a€divorced€mother€of€six€children€has€an€eighth€ÌÌgrade€education€and€vocational€training€as€a€nurseððs€aide.€€Her€first€employment€was€domestic€ÌÌwork€in€the€homes€of€the€other€people€and€later€in€commercial€pressing.€€Subsequently,€the€ÌÌplaintiff€worked€for€œGenesco›€where€she€built€and€inspected€shoes.€€During€her€employment€with€ÌÌœGenesco›,€plaintiff€injured€her€neck€and€left€her€employment€there.ÌÌÌ€€€€€As€a€result€of€this€injury€at€œGenesco›,€plaintiff€underwent€surgery€by€Dr.€Arthur€Cushman€for€a€ÌÌruptured€disc.€€At€the€trial€plaintiff€testified€that€œGenesco›€had€told€her€she€did€not€qualify€for€ÌÌworkmanððs€compensation€benefits.€Later,€however,€plaintiff€acknowledged€that€she€hired€an€ÌÌattorney€and€brought€suit€against€œGenesco›€for€workmanððs€compensation€benefits.€œ€She›€was€ÌÌsuccessful€in€obtaining€benefits.ÌÌÌœà@ à2ÌÌ›€€€€Plaintiff,€in€the€summer€of€1988,€€applied€for€work€with€the€defendant;€in€filling€out€the€œÌÌapplication›€for€employment,€plaintiff€€was€required€to€answer€questions€about€her€medical€ÌÌhistory.€€In€response€to€questions€about€her€prior€surgeries€and€prior€work€related€injuries,€she€ÌÌwrote€ð ðruptured€disðð.€€Nevertheless,€she€also€answered€that€she€had€never€collected€workmanððs€ÌÌcompensation€nor€had€she€ever€made€a€workmanððs€compensation€claim.€€Parenthetically,€she€ÌÌtestified€at€trial€that€she€did€not€understand€that€suing€and€receiving€court€ordered€benefits€were€ÌÌthe€same€thing€as€making€a€claim€or€receiving€benefits.ÌÌÌ€€€€€In€response€to€other€questions€on€the€application,€and€orally€during€an€interview,€Plaintiff€ÌÌanswered€that€she€had€no€restriction€of€any€nature.€€After€completing€the€application€process€and€ÌÌinterviewing€Paulette€œThacker›,€then€Director€of€Nurses€for€the€Defendant,€she€was€hired€by€Ms.€ÌÌœThacker›€to€feed€patients€part€time.ÌÌÌ€€€€€After€a€year€of€working€as€a€feeder,€plaintiff€completed€€nursesðð€aide€training€and€became€a€ÌÌfull€time€employee€in€the€summer€of€1989.€€In€her€capacity€as€a€nursesðð€aide,€plaintiff€testified€ÌÌthat€she€bathed€and€fed€patients,€made€beds,€took€blood€pressure,€checked€urine,€lifting€and€ÌÌcarrying€patients€and€generally€walked€all€day€in€her€job€activity.€€During€the€trial€Ms.€œThacker›€ÌÌtestified€that€a€person€with€a€previous€history€of€back€injury€would€not€have€been€promoted€to€the€ÌÌposition€of€a€certified€nurseððs€aide.€€ÌÌÌ€€€€€Subsequently,€on€December€26,€1990,€plaintiff€testified€that€she€injured€her€back,€neck,€and€ÌÌboth€arms€while€holding€a€patient€during€the€removal€of€a€bowel€impaction.€€Since€this€injury€at€ÌÌwork,€plaintiff€testified€that€she€is€unable€to€work€for€the€defendant€because€of€the€physical€ÌÌdemands€of€the€€work€and€that€œshe€is›€€limited€in€her€ability€to€do€her€own€housework,€which€she€ÌÌwas€able€to€do€before€the€injury.ÌÌÌ€€€€€Plaintiff€applied€for€Social€Security€Disability€benefits€in€1978,1980,€1986,€1989,€and€1993,€ÌÌbut€was€never€granted€benefits.€€Currently,€plaintiffððs€only€source€of€income€is€social€security€ÌÌretirement€benefits.ÌÌÌ€€€€€The€expert€testimony€at€the€trial€consisted€of€four€physicians.€ÌÌÌœÌà@ à3Ì›€€€€€Dr.€œH.€James›€œWiesman›,€Jr.,€an€orthopaedic€surgeon,€testified€that€he€had€previously€treated€œÌÌthe›€œplaintiff›€as€a€result€of€an€earlier€injury€incurred€at€œGenesco›.€€He€then€treated€her€for€the€ÌÌsubsequent€injury€which€is€the€subject€of€this€case.€€He€saw€plaintiff€on€March€21,€1991€and€ÌÌdiagnosed€her€as€having€a€back€strain,€though€he€noted€bulging€from€a€previous€œMRI›.€€Dr.€ÌÌœWiesman›€referred€the€plaintiff€to€Dr.€œEverette›€œHowell›,€Jr.,€but€saw€her€again€on€May€10,€1991€ÌÌand€July€15,1991.€œ€Dr.›€œWiesman›€did€not€opine€plaintiff€had€any€stenosis€of€the€spine€because€she€ÌÌlacked€symptoms€in€her€legs.€€On€the€July€15€visit,€Dr.€œWiesman›€determined€that€she€had€reached€ÌÌmaximum€medical€improvement€and€he,€Dr.€œWiesman›,€did€not€render€a€rating€of€permanent€ÌÌpartial€impairment.ÌÌÌ€€€€€Dr.€œHowell›,€a€neurosurgeon,€testified€that€he€saw€the€plaintiff€on€April€11,€1991€and€noted€ÌÌevidence€of€stenosis,€a€disc€bulge,€and€€degenerative€changes€based€on€the€previous€œMRI›;€and€he€ÌÌdiagnosed€her€with€a€lumbar€strain.€€On€November€13,€1991,€Dr.€œHowell›€found€that€plaintiffððs€ÌÌcondition€had€worsened€and€he€ordered€a€œMRI;›€the€œMRI›€showed€evidence€of€spinal€stenosis.€€Dr.€ÌÌœHowell›€concluded€that€the€plaintiff€had€reached€maximum€medical€improvement€on€November€ÌÌ13,€1991.€€Dr.€œHowell›€rated€the€plaintiff€as€having€a€5%€permanent€partial€impairment€and€ÌÌrestricted€her€to€light€duty€works.ÌÌÌ€€€€€Dr.€Arthur€Bond,€a€neurosurgeon,€saw€plaintiff€on€referral€on€July€13,€1992.€€Dr.€Bond€ÌÌexamined€the€plaintiff€€and€found€her€to€have€chronic€compression€secondary€to€spinal€stenosis€ÌÌand€performed€surgery€on€October€13,€1992;€œ€Dr.›€Bond€subsequently€€awarded€an€11%€œÌÌpermanent›€œpartial›€disability.€€Dr.€Bond€determined€that€the€injury€on€the€job€had€aggravated€œpre„ÌÌexisting›€œstenosis›€and€rendered€it€symptomatic.€€He€also€placed€her€on€light€restrictions.ÌÌÌ€€€€€Dr.€Rex€œArendall›,€neurosurgeon,€first€saw€the€plaintiff€on€February€2,€1994.€€On€March€3,€ÌÌ1994,€he€performed€a€decompressive€cervical€laminectomy€and€a€lateral€fusion.€He€determined€ÌÌthat€she€had€reached€maximum€medical€improvement€on€December€12,€1991€and€rated€her€as€ÌÌretaining€a€15€permanent€partial€disability€and€he€directed€her€to€avoid€repetitive€bending,€ÌÌstooping,€or€lifting€over€25€pounds.ÌÌÌ€€€€€The€œChancellor›€ruled€from€the€bench€that€the€plaintiff€did€not€willfully€and€knowingly,€falsely€ÌÌœÌà@ à4Ìmisrepresent›€facts€about€her€physical€condition€on€the€employment€application;€the€œChancellor›€ÌÌalso€ruled€€the€defendant€did€not€rely€upon€any€€misrepresentation€by€the€plaintiff.€€Later,€by€ÌÌmemorandum,€the€Chancellor€awarded€plaintiff€45%€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€ÌÌwhole€and€temporary€total€benefits€for€uncompensated€periods€following€her€two€surgeries€and€ÌÌup€to€the€two€dates€her€two€surgeons€rated€her€as€reaching€maximum€medical€improvement.€€€The€ÌÌCourt,€however,€did€not€award€plaintiff€recovery€of€medical€expenses€of€Dr.€œArendall›€€and€Dr.€ÌÌBond.ÌÌÌ€€€€€The€primary€question€before€the€court€is€whether€the€plaintiff€is€estopped€from€receiving€ÌÌbenefits€for€failure€to€disclose€her€true€physical€condition?€€While€the€record€discloses€ÌÌinconsistencies€in€the€testimony€of€the€plaintiff€as€well€as€discrepancies€in€the€evidence€produced€ÌÌby€the€defendant,€the€panel€is€of€the€opinion€the€record€supports€the€finding€of€the€Chancellor€€on€ÌÌthe€issue€on€whether€the€defendant€relied€on€the€misrepresentations€of€the€Plaintiff.ÌÌÌ€€€€In€Tennessee,€the€following€factors€must€be€present€before€a€false€statement€in€an€employment€ÌÌapplication€will€bar€benefits:€(1)€The€employee€must€have€knowingly€and€willfully€made€a€false€ÌÌrepresentation€as€to€his€physical€condition;€œ(2)€The›€employer€must€have€relied€upon€the€false€ÌÌrepresentation€and€this€reliance€must€have€been€a€substantial€factor€in€the€hiring;€œ(3)€There›€must€ÌÌhave€been€a€casual€connection€between€the€misrepresentations€€and€the€injury.€€òòBerry€v.ÌÌConsolidated€Systems,€Inc.óó,€804€S.W.2nd€445,€446€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€plaintiff€did€write€ð ðdisðð€in€ÌÌthe€margin€of€a€œquestion›€asking€about€previous€œsurgery.›€€This€alone€supports€the€finding€of€the€ÌÌChancellor€that€the€defendant€was€put€on€notice.€€Any€misrepresentation€defense€is€waived€if€the€ÌÌemployer€had€actual€knowledge€of€plaintiffððs€€prior€condition.€€òòRaines€v.€Shelby€Williams€Indusóó.,€ÌÌ814€S.W.2nd€346€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌÌ€€€€€The€panel€is€of€the€opinion€that€the€issue€of€whether€temporary€total€benefits€are€due€is€boot„ÌÌstrapped€to€the€primary€issue€of€permanent€partial€disability€and€thus€affirms€the€Chancellor.ÌÌÌ€€€€€Further,€the€record€supports€the€finding€of€45%€based€on€the€medical€proof.ÌÌÌ€€€€€There€is€a€secondary€issue€in€this€case€relating€to€continuing€medical€benefits€allowed€by€law.€ÌÌIn€as€much€as€the€panel€has€affirmed€the€Chancellor€on€the€causation€issue€and€affirmed€the€ÌÌœà@ à5Ìfinding›€of€the€trial€court€on€the€issue€of€disability€benefits,€the€Panel€also€finds€that€the€medical€ÌÌservices€of€€Dr.€Arthur€Bond€and€Dr.€Rex€Arendall€are€directly€related€to€the€injury€on€the€job€ÌÌand€awards€plaintiff€€those€medical€benefits€subject€to€a€reasonable€attorneys€fee.ÌÌÌ€€€€€The€case€is€affirmed€as€to€the€issues€of€permanent€partial€disability€and€temporary€total€ÌÌdisability.€€The€panel€reverses€the€Chancellor€on€the€denial€of€medical€benefits€inclusive€of€the€ÌÌmedical€services€œof›€œ€Dr.›€Arthur€Bond€and€œDr.€Rex›€Arendall€and€remands€the€case€to€the€trial€œÌÌcourt›€œfor›€that€purpose€and€also€for€the€purpose€of€setting€a€reasonable€attorneyððs€fee.̜̀€€€€Costs€to€be€paid€by€Defendant/Appellant.›ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœà àà à___________________________________________›Ìà àà àà àà àà àHamilton€V.€œGayden›,€Special€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌ____________________________ÌœAdolpho›€œA.€Birch,€Jr.,›€JusticeÌÌÌ____________________________ÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€Judge€€€€€œÌÑ€0ÑÇÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` Ñà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌFANNIE€BEATRICE€CARTER,à@ à)à àMARSHALL€CHANCERYÌà@ à)à àNO.€8486Ìà àPLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,à@ à)ÌßJ€-1;+'b|à<` ç `€@ÿJßà@ à)à àHON.€F.€LEE€RUSSELL,Ìv.à@ à)à àCHANCELLORÌà@ à)ÌNATIONAL€HEALTH€CARE€CENTERà@ à)ÌAND€NATIONAL€HEALTH€CAREà@ à)à àS.€CT.€NO.€01S01„9704„CH„00093ÌCORP.,€LP,à@ à)Ìà@ à)Ìà àDEFENDANT/APPELLANT.à@ à)à0 àAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òJUDGMENTó óóóà€ àÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€motion€for€review€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð50„6„225(e)(5)(B),€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'ÏCompensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel's€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€itsÏfindings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ìà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€review€is€not€well€taken€andÏshould€be€denied;€and€Ìà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€areÏadopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€judgment€of€the€Court.Ìà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€Defendant/Appellant,€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÏnecessary.Ìà àIt€is€so€ordered€this€8th€day€of€April,€1998.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌÌBIRCH,€J.€NOT€PARTICIPATING