ÿWPC: u~Šñ±𢄖$.ÝGèf)ÐñHGþÕaôæ€"}ÒHSåOÑO°Í'RÞÓêRbƒZâÚ¬”šH¨¿¯,‰è :Œ¿éƒï¤-â6uú{&MΕAI„fá u‚ú¼*P³4,j‘EÓ B¥•VŠÉ’"Ñufn!›Ö¬ ·Á›‚Ÿm³é–âOú:Ë›2Oà’¡?ù&&§8ë›j¿Y©%®Ã&†½’hÍ™©»"!Ar4uè7æ0–îÖmglj£ýr[JöG¥§·÷à.õ.¦æ ]K3-\‹L Ë#îÌgÔ©‡Ë±ðÝÃæ½’·/ѹv{î:°*Ÿ¾pÜÉUOê•ÑpÞÅ@5N—R{ÿ¦†Á£gΛBÆ64­Çh/7ù‘-¸dp ±¶^ƇãßY*@&éç#ta]¡%W&2Ø¥@tÊ›[Ç}#å‘==Ï„ÂÉÖrÙ??b¢à¯^qô©Ÿ^ëøÐÿAÎA–ôê#~,Þr?k&ºz•`ÿYWJzÑ©BÑç• b®óþíNÇ¢0H²ßºÆÆV–‡Ø‘g “ÆÅ÷@[YÊÔZË6±Í+™{S¡ (0yï)3i¾®D‹õVO×óõœ½lbU9N\ %ª 0ˆ°#Á8 Œù Ú… ^ _ zk Òå V· ¹ m» wÒ ÆÖ Æœ ÆbÆ(4îN  1u E 0D bÔ ^6” œ ¤ ¬ ´ ¼ Ä Ì Ô Ü  ä  î  ø# 72% 0cWºˆÐNXbZ zb;ÜÒUNééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééé 0ë7777 B "" 0¤? D3ã D- 0KCC ASŽÆá 0¤§ 0DK A«(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\CUSTOM~1\OPINION3.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\Custom WP Templates\opinion3.wpt¨ !)L  ˜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 ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5@Oü(L´¥¡H3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)3|x('Ã$òòÚ  Ú2Ú  Úóó?\Appellants Attorney Name & Appellant's Name.?\Appellees Attorney Name & Appellee's Name. 123456789101112 Ý ƒRi$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€X´²X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€parties€entered€into€a€joint€stipulation€of€material€facts.€€The€trial€judge€and€both€partiesÐ ° Ðagreed€that€the€issue€was€one€of€law.i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à Ñ ° Ñ ~Ý ƒRi$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€X´²X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòHudsonóó€contains€a€detailed€discussion,€without€resolution,€of€the€different€approachesÐ ° Ðrecognized€by€the€courts€and€commentators€in€determining€whether€or€not€an€injury€arises€out€of€theÐ  ð Ðemployment.€€òòHudsonóó€òòsupraóó€at€599„600.€€Perhaps€the€cryptic€label€of€"sufficient€nexus"€between€theÐ à Ðinjury€and€employment€is€an€appropriate€expression€of€the€rule€to€be€applied€on€a€case€by€case€basis.€Ð €Ð ÐòòIdóó.€at€603.€€òòóó- ù-1˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPT 1Ý ƒRi$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€X´²X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAdditional€case€law€in€a€majority€of€other€jurisdictions€support€coverage€under€likeÐ ° Ðcircumstances.€€òòSeeóó€Annotation,€òòWorkers'€Compensation:€Compensability€Of€Injuries€IncurredÐ  ð ÐTraveling€To€Or€From€Medical€Treatment€Of€Earlier€Compensable€Injuryóó,€83€A.L.R.4th€110€(1991)Ð à Ðand€82€Ô_ÔAm.JurÔ_Ô.2d,€òòWorkers'€Compensationóó€ðð292€(1992).C:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(|G2i$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€¹…»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X´²X»»Ô d(|3Á$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€¹…»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Á$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€¹…»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¹…»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼¹…»»»ÔÔ‡¼¹…»»¼¹…ÔÑ8€´²XXdð»»d8ÑÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ€+OaÑà@@7 7 ìàÔ#†¼¹…»»¼¹…ª#ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÐ È Ðà@@ƒƒìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ‡¼¹…»»¼¹…ÔÐ à0 ÐÔ#†¼¹…»»¼¹…ö#ÔÔ‡X´²X»¼¹…Ôò ò(April€2000€Session)ó óÐ øH ÐÌò òÔ#†¼¹…»XX´²M#ÔÔ‡¼¹…»»¼¹…ÔÔ% ‡ ÔÔ_ÔTATUMÔ_Ô€CARTERÔ%†áÔòòóó€v.€Ô% ‡ ÔÔ%†5ÔòòWAL„MART€€STORES,€€INCóó.Ô#†¼¹…»»¼¹…Â#ÔÔ‡X´²X»¼¹…Ôó óÐ Ø ( ÐÌà@@¼¼ìàò òÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%†àÔDirect€Appeal€from€the€Ô% ‡ ÔChancery€Court€Ô%†Ôfor€Ô% ‡ ÔRutherford€Ô%† FÔCountyÐ à 0 Ðà@@ôôìàNo.€Ô% ‡! Ô97WC„248Ô%†! Ô€Ô% ‡" Ô€€Honorable€Don€R.€Ash,€JudgeÔ%†"ÇÔÐ Ð  ÐÓ ÓÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Ÿ` AßÐ  ð  ÐÌÓ  ÓNo.€Ô% ‡# Ô€M1999„01520„Ô_ÔWCÔ_Ô„R3„CVÔ%†#¢Ô€„€Mailed€„€July€26,€2000Ð Ÿï  ÐÔ#†¼¹…»XX´²“#ÔÔ‡X´²X»¼¹…ÔFiled€„€September€1,€2000Ð ß  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<n` AßÐ o¿ Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€AppealsÐ n¾ ÐPanel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€andÐ ^® Ðreporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€As€discussed€below,€theÐ Nž Ðpanel€has€concluded€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€granting€the€appellee€summary€judgment€shouldÐ >Ž Ðbe€reversed.Ð .~ ÐÔ#†¼¹…»XX´²F#ÔÔ‡X´²X»¼¹…ÔÓúÓÌò òÔ% ‡$ ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)€(1999)€Appeal€as€of€RightÔ%†$V Ô;€Judgment€of€the€Ô% ‡% ÔChancery€CourtÐ ^ ÐReversed.Ô%†%À Ôó óÐ þN ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÓ  ÓKurtz,€Walter€C.,€Sp.€J.Ô#†¼¹…»àX´²# #ÔÔ‡X´²X.¼¹…Ôóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòÔ% ‡& ÔBirch,€J.Ô%†&Í Ô,óó€andòòÔ% ‡' Ô€loser,€Sp.€J.òòóóÔ%†'ÿ Ôóó,Ð Þ. Ðjoined.Ð Î ÐÌÔ% ‡ ÔJohn€D.€Drake,€Murfreesboro,€Tennessee,€for€€Appellant,€Tatum€CarterÔ%†g ÔÐ ®þ ÐÌÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%†ß ÔAngela€D.€Sutherland€and€Jeffrey€B.€Kopet,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€Appellee,€Wal„Mart€Stores,Ð Ž!Þ  ÐInc.Ð ~"Î! ÐÌÓ2 ÓÓ  Óò òMEMORANDUM€OPINIONó óÔ#†¼¹…»XX´²y #ÔÐ ^$®# ÐÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X´²X»¼¹…ÔÓÓà  àThis€is€an€appeal€by€the€employee€challenging€the€correctness€of€the€trial€courts€grantingÐ f&¶!% Ðsummary€judgment€for€the€employer.€€The€trial€judge€correctly€defined€the€issue€before€him€as:Ð F(–#' ÐÓÓà8  àWhether€a€claimant€is€entitled€to€workers'€compensation€benefits€for€an€injury€whichÐ &*v%) Ðoccurred€during€a€trip€to€the€doctor's€office€that€was€necessitated€by€a€previousÐ +f&* Ðcompensable€injury€and€occurred€as€the€claimant€was€crossing€the€parking€lot€to€enterÐ ,V'+ Ðthe€office.Ðö,F(,Ð Ð  ÐÐ æ-6)-ý ÐÓÓà  àThe€facts€are€undisputed.׃(×Ý ƒ'ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€employee€received€medical€treatment€for€a€compensableÐ ° Ðinjury,€but€continued€working.€€The€treating€physician€ordered€an€EMG€test€for€possible€carpalÐ à Ðtunnel€syndrome€and€referred€her€to€Dr.€Ô_ÔBradburnÔ_Ô.€€The€employer,€Wal„Mart,€made€an€appointmentÐ pÀ Ðfor€her€to€see€Dr.€Ô_ÔBradburnÔ_Ô€on€September€23,€1996€for€the€test.€€On€that€day,€the€employee€first€wentÐ P   Ðto€Wal„Mart€to€obtain€a€form€to€be€signed€upon€completion€of€the€EMG€test.€€She€then€drove€directlyÐ 0 € Ðto€Dr.€Ô_ÔBradburnÔ_Ô's€office.€€After€the€test,€she€asked€Dr.€Ô_ÔBradburnÔ_Ô€to€sign€the€form,€but€the€doctor€toldÐ `  Ðher€that€Dr.€Polk,€the€referring€doctor,€should€sign€it.€€She€then€drove€to€Dr.€Polk's€office.€€Dr.€PolkÐ ð@  Ðthought€that€Dr.€Ô_ÔBradburnÔ_Ô€should€sign€the€form.€€On€her€return€to€Dr.€Ô_ÔBradburnÔ_Ô's€office,€a€runawayÐ Ð  Ðvan€struck€her€as€she€crossed€the€street€towÔ% € ÔÔ#†¼¹…»XX´² #ÔÔ€X´²X»¼¹…Ôard€Dr.€Ô_ÔBradburnÔ_Ô's€office€from€the€parking€lot.€€She€wasÐ ° Ðinjured.€€Is€that€injury€compensable€under€the€workers'€compensation€act?€€On€motion€for€summaryÐ à Ðjudgment€the€trial€judge€answered€the€question€in€the€negative.€€Ð pÀ Ðà  àDecisions€granting€summary€judgment€are€not€entitled€to€a€presumption€of€correctness€onÐ P  Ðappeal.€€An€appellate€court€must€view€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€nonmovingÐ 0€ Ðparty€and€must€draw€all€reasonable€inferences€in€the€nonmoving€parties€favor.€€A€summary€judgmentÐ ` Ðshould€be€affirmed€only€if€the€undisputed€facts€and€the€conclusions€reasonably€drawn€thereof€supportÐ ð@ Ðthe€conclusion€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Civ.Ð Ð  ÐP.€56€and€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208€(Tenn.€1993).Ð °"  Ðà  àInjuries€"arising€out€of€and€in€the€course€of€employment"€are€covered€by€the€workers'Ð $à" Ðcompensation€law.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„102(a)(5).€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„204(a)(1)Ð p&À!$ Ðrequires€the€employer€to€furnish€to€the€employee€such€medical€and€surgical€treatment€"as€may€beÐ P( #& Ðreasonably€required"€by€the€compensable€injury.€€Thus,€the€appellant€argues,€the€injury€received€byÐ ° Ðthe€appellant,€on€a€visit€to€the€doctor€at€her€employers€direction€for€a€prior€on„the„job€injury€isÐ à Ðcompensable.Ð pÀ Ðà  àNot€so€says€the€appellee.€€This€is€not€the€kind€of€accident€that€could€have€reasonably€beenÐ P   Ðcontemplated€by€the€employer€at€the€time€of€hiring€and€therefore€this€injury€does€not€arise€out€ofÐ 0 € Ðemployment€and€is€not€compensable.€€The€appellee€correctly€states€that€the€employee€must€showÐ `  Ðboth€that€the€activity€was€"in€the€course€of€employment"€and€it€is€an€injury€"arising€out€of"Ð ð@  Ðemployment.€€The€phrase€"arising€out€of"€and€"in€the€course€of"€are€not€synonymous.€€"Arising€outÐ Ð  Ðof"€refers€to€the€origin€of€the€injury,€while€"in€the€course€of"€refers€to€the€time,€place,€andÐ ° Ðcircumstances€of€the€injury.€€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔLollarÔ_Ô€v.€Wal„Mart€Stores€Inc.óó,€767€S.W.2d€143,€144€(Tenn.€1989).Ð à Ðà  àIn€determining€the€coverage€of€the€Act€the€court€applies€the€rule€of€construction€in€Tenn.Ð pÀ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€50„6„116€that€the€Act€be€considered€remedial€and€is€to€be€constructed€liberally€in€favorÐ P  Ðof€claimants€and€that€any€reasonable€doubt€as€to€coverage€should€be€resolved€in€favor€of€claimants.€Ð 0€ ÐòòSeeóó€òòGrump€v.€B&P€Construction€Co.óó,€703€S.W.2d€140,€144€(Tenn.€1986)("we€are€required€toÐ ` Ðconstrue€the€Workers'€Compensation€Law€liberally€in€favor€of€the€employee€and€in€furtherance€ofÐ ð@ Ðthe€sound€public€policy€that€dictated€the€legislation")€and€òòKnox€v.€Ô_ÔBatsonÔ_Ôóó,€399€S.W.2d€765,€772Ð Ð  Ð(Tenn.€1966)(workers'€compensation€statutes€are€to€be€liberally€construed€and€doubt€as€to€whetherÐ °"  Ðthe€injuries€arose€out€of€or€in€the€course€of€employment€be€resolved€in€favor€of€the€employee").€Ð $à" Ðà  àThe€employer€made€the€appointment€for€the€employee€to€see€the€doctor€for€purposes€ofÐ p&À!$ Ðconducting€the€test.€€The€employee€drove€to€Wal„Mart€to€pick€up€the€form€and€then€to€the€doctor€andÐ P( #& Ðthen€was€injured€when€she€was€struck€by€a€vehicle€on€her€way€back€to€Dr.€Bradburn's€office.€€At€theÐ 0*€%( Ðtime€of€her€injury€she€was€carrying€out€her€employer's€directive€related€to€the€employer's€obligationÐ ,`'* Ðto€furnish€to€the€employee€such€medical€treatment€as€may€be€reasonably€required€by€herÐ ° Ðcompensable€injury.€€The€court€finds€that€this€injury€took€place€within€the€course€of€her€employment.€Ð à ÐòòSeeóó€òòHudson€v.€Ô_ÔThurstonÔ_Ô€Motors€Lines,€Inc.óó,€583€S.W.2d€597,€599€(Tenn.€1979).Ð pÀ Ðà  àThe€second€issue€is€whether€this€injury€arose€out€of€the€appellant's€employment.€€That,€inÐ P   Ðturn,€is€related€to€a€showing€of€(1)€a€causal€connection€between€the€employment€and€the€injury€orÐ 0 € Ð(2)€a€risk€incidental€to€or€particular€to€the€employment.€€Thus,€workers'€compensation€benefits€areÐ `  Ðdenied€those€injured€by€risk€common€to€all€members€of€the€community.€€However,€case€law€inÐ ð@  ÐTennessee€supports€the€conclusion€that€the€risk€to€which€this€appellant€was€exposed€comes€withinÐ Ð  Ðthe€so€called€"street€risk"€doctrine€and€is€the€kind€of€risk€from€which€the€workers'€compensation€lawÐ ° Ðprovides€coverage.€€òòSeeóó€òòHall€v.€Mason€Dixon€Lines,€Inc.óó,€743€S.W.2d€148,€151€(Tenn.€1987)€andÐ à ÐòòHudson€v.€Ô_ÔThurstonÔ_Ô€Motor€Lines,€Inc.óó,€òòsupraóó€at€602€(injured€in€parking€lot€adjacent€to€street).׃,×Ý ƒ'ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РpÀ ÐTennessee€has€long€held€that€if€the€employer€requires€the€employee€to€be€on€the€street,€then€an€injuryÐ P  Ðas€a€consequence€of€a€street€risk€is€one€"arising€out€of"€the€employment.Ð 0€ Ðà  àòòóóWal„Mart€argues€that€this€case€is€controlled€by€òòJones€v.€Hueyóó,€210€Tenn.€162,€357€S.W.2dÐ ` Ð47€(Tenn.€1962).€€That€case,€however,€is€clearly€distinguishable.€€In€òòHueyóó€the€employee€had€sufferedÐ ð@ Ða€employment€related€back€injury€and€was€at€home€recuperating.€€While€at€home€the€employee€wasÐ Ð  Ðkilled€in€a€tractor€accident.€€His€wife€sought€benefits€contending€that€the€use€of€the€tractor€wasÐ °"  Ðnecessitated€by€the€need€for€fire€wood€and€that€in€turn€the€employee€was€unable€to€operate€the€tractorÐ $à" Ðproperly€because€of€his€disabling€condition€from€the€prior€work€related€injury.€€The€court€in€€òòHueyóóÐ ° Ðfound€that€the€second€injury€was€simply€too€attenuated€and€remote€from€the€work€related€injury€toÐ à Ðbe€considered€arising€out€of€the€employment.€€During€the€course€of€the€decision,€the€Supreme€CourtÐ pÀ Ðcontrasted€the€facts€in€òòHueyóó€to€the€New€York€case€of€òòGoldberg€v.€954€Marcy€Corporationóó,€276€N.Y.Ð P   Ð313,€12€N.E.2d€311€(1938)€where€compensation€was€allowed€an€injured€employee€during€a€trip€toÐ 0 € Ðthe€doctor's€office€which€was€necessitated€by€a€previous€compensable€injury.€€The€courtÐ `  Ðdistinguished€the€òòGoldbergóó€situation€and€pointed€out€that€its€holding€differed€from€òòHueyóó€in€that€inÐ ð@  ÐòòGoldbergóó€"the€fall€occurred€while€the€claimant,€pursuant€to€the€directions€of€her€employer,€was€onÐ Ð  Ðher€way€to€the€doctor."€€òòHueyóó,€òòIdóó.€€210€Tenn.€at€168.€€Inferentially€òòHueyóó€lends€support€to€theÐ ° Ðappellants€position.Ð à Ðà  àSupport€for€the€appellant€is€also€found€in€the€"special€errand€rule."€€If€an€employee€is€sentÐ pÀ Ðon€an€assignment€or€mission€at€the€direction€of€the€employer€and€is€injured€during€this€errand€it€isÐ P  Ðusually€found€that€this€is€within€the€course€and€scope€of€employment.€€This€principle€is€illustratedÐ 0€ Ðin€€òòStephens€by€Stephens€v.€Maxima€Corporationóó,€774€S.W.2d€931€(Tenn.€1989).€€In€òòStephensóó€theÐ ` Ðemployee€took€the€occasion€of€her€lunch€break€to€go€home€to€pick€up€a€questionnaire€that€theÐ ð@ Ðemployer€required€her€to€complete.€€On€the€way€back€she€was€killed€in€an€automobile€accident.€€TheÐ Ð  Ðcourt€found€that€this€accident€was€not€within€the€"special€errand€rule"€because€the€questionnaireÐ °"  Ðcould€have€been€retrieved€at€any€time.€€The€court€emphasized€that€"upon€review€of€the€record€theÐ $à" Ðevidence€does€not€establish€that€her€employer€had€instructed,€directed,€required,€or€even€suggestedÐ p&À!$ Ðthat€the€employees€return€home€to€get€the€Ô_ÔPDQÔ_Ô€forms."€€òòIdóó.€at€934.€€Thus,€if€as€in€this€case,€theÐ P( #& Ðemployer€had€instructed,€directed,€or€required€that€the€employee€make€the€trip,€òòStephensóó€supportsÐ 0*€%( Ðthe€contention€that€the€accident€would€have€arisen€out€of€the€employment€relationship.€Ð ,`'* Ðà  àThe€case€of€òòSouthern€California€Rapid€Transit€District€Inc.€v.€Workers'€CompensationÐ ° ÐAppellate€Boardóó,€588€P.2d€806€(Cal.€App.€1979)€is€illustrative€of€decisions€from€other€jurisdictionsÐ à Ðwhich€support€this€conclusion.€€The€employee€suffered€a€work€related€injury.€€Five€months€laterÐ pÀ Ðwhile€still€off€work€he€was€injured€in€an€automobile€accident€during€a€trip€back€home€from€hisÐ P   Ðemployer€after€delivering€a€required€medical€release€which€he€had€just€obtained€from€his€treatingÐ 0 € Ðphysician.€€He€had€been€told€to€obtain€the€medical€release€as€a€condition€of€his€returning€to€work.€Ð `  ÐThis€second€injury€was€compensable€as€a€consequence€of€the€prior€injury.€€The€court€held€that€thereÐ ð@  Ðwas€evidence€to€sustain€a€finding€that€the€employee€was€within€the€"special€mission"€exception€toÐ Ð  Ðthe€"coming€and€going"€rule€since€he€was€on€a€business€journey€undertaken€at€the€request€of€hisÐ ° Ðemployer.Ð à Ðà  àHere,€the€facts€are€similar.€€The€appointment€with€the€doctor€was€made€by€the€employer.€€TheÐ pÀ Ðemployer€was€under€a€duty€to€provide€medical€treatment.€€The€form€to€be€filled€out€was€supplied€byÐ P  ÐWal„Mart€to€be€provided€at€the€conclusion€of€the€medical€test.Ð 0€ Ðà  àThe€California€case€cited€above€is€consistent€with€the€general€rule.Ð ` ÐÓÓà8  àWhen€an€employee€suffers€an€additional€injury€because€of€an€accident€in€the€courseÐ ð@ Ðof€a€journey€to€a€doctor's€office€occasioned€by€a€compensable€injury,€the€additionalÐ à0 Ðinjuries€are€generally€held€compensable.€€If€the€journey€takes€place€immediately€afterÐ Ð  Ðthe€first€injury€occurs,€the€chain€of€causation€is€most€readily€visible,€as€when€anÐ À! Ðemployee€was€being€rushed€to€the€hospital€following€a€compensable€injury€andÐ °"  Ðsustained€further€injury€when€the€ambulance€was€involved€in€a€collision.€€But,€quiteÐ  #ð! Ðapart€from€the€element€of€immediacy,€a€fall€or€automobile€accident€during€a€trip€toÐ $à" Ða€doctor's€office€has€usually€been€considered€sufficiently€causally€related€to€theÐ €%Ð # Ðemployment€by€the€mere€fact€that€a€work€connected€injury€was€the€cause€of€theÐ p&À!$ Ðjourney,€without€any€necessity€for€showing€that€the€first€injury€in€some€wayÐ `'°"% Ðcontributed€to€the€fall€or€accident.ÐP( #&Ð Ð  ÐÓÓÌLarson,€òòLarson's€Workers'€Compensation€Lawóó€ðð€10.07€[Accident€During€Trip€To€Doctor'sÐ  +p&) ÐOffice](CD€ROM€2000).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòÔ_ÔWoodrumÔ_Ô€v.€Premier€Auto€Glass€Co.óó,€660€N.E.2d€491€(OhioÐ ° Ð1995)€and€òòÔ_ÔImmerÔ_Ô€and€Company€v.€Ô_ÔBrosnahanÔ_Ôóó,€152€S.E.2d€254€(Va.€App.€1967).Ô_Ô׃0×Ý ƒ'ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ÔØØÐ à Ðà  àThe€appellee€cites€several€cases€from€other€jurisdictions€in€support€of€the€view€that€injuriesÐ pÀ Ðreceived€while€on€the€way€to€receive€medical€treatment€for€a€compensable€injury€are€notÐ P   Ðcompensable.€€The€most€recent€of€these€cases€is€òòBear€v.€Ô_ÔAnsonÔ_Ô€Implement€Inc.óó,€976€S.W.2d€553Ð 0 € Ð(Mo.€App.€1998).€€In€òòBearóó€the€employee€had€received€a€work€related€injury€but€had€returned€to€work.€Ð `  ÐOn€the€day€of€the€second€injury€he€was€released€from€work€early€in€order€to€keep€an€appointmentÐ ð@  Ðwith€his€authorized€physician.€€He€attended€the€appointment€and€then€drove€home.€€On€the€way€homeÐ Ð  Ðhe€was€in€an€automobile€accident.€€The€court€determined€that€the€employees'€injury€from€the€accidentÐ ° Ðwas€not€compensable.€€The€court€acknowledged€that€the€"recognizable€trend"€supports€a€finding€thatÐ à Ðthe€injury€arose€out€of€or€was€incurred€in€the€course€of€employment.€€€The€court,€however,€wasÐ pÀ Ðconcerned€about€adhering€to€the€rule€of€no€compensability€for€driving€to€and€from€work.€€The€courtÐ P  Ðacknowledged€that€an€injury€on€the€way€to€the€doctor€might€be€compensable€but€not€when€theÐ 0€ Ðemployee€stopped€for€the€appointment€on€his€way€home.€€The€court€recognized€the€general€ruleÐ ` Ðcontained€in€Larson's€Workers'€Compensation€Law:Ð ð@ ÐÓÓà8  àFurthermore,€we€have€reviewed€the€current€edition€of€Larson's€and€the€cases€cited€inÐ Ð  Ðsupport€of€its€statement€that€"when€an€employee€suffers€additional€injuries€becauseÐ À! Ðof€an€accident€in€the€course€of€a€journey€to€a€doctor's€office€occasioned€by€aÐ °"  Ðcompensable€injury,€the€additional€injuries€are€generally€held€compensable."€Ð  #ð! ÐLarson's,€Vol.€1€ðð€13.13€(1997).€€The€facts€of€the€majority€of€the€cases€cited€for€thisÐ $à" Ðproposition€are€for€injuries€incurred€while€the€employee€was€traveling€en€route€to€theÐ €%Ð # Ðappointment,€at€the€doctor's€office,€or€traveling€back€to€the€workplace€after€theÐ p&À!$ ÐÑ+OaÑâ +âѰ°Ñâ +âÑ  Ñappointment€was€over.€€Thus,€the€causal€link€between€the€second€accident€to€theÐ ° Ðemployment€was€sufficient€to€find€it€compensable€as€arising€out€of€and€in€course€ofÐ  ð Ðemployment.ÐàÐ Ð  ÐÌÓÓòòBearóó,€òòIdóó.€at€557€f4.€€òòóóThe€court€found€the€employee€in€òòBearóó€to€be€outside€the€general€rule,€however,Ð pÀ Ðbecause€€the€trip€to€the€doctor€was€on€the€way€home€and€incidental€to€the€trip€home€after€work.€€TheÐ P   Ðdecision€did€not€preclude€coverage€under€all€circumstances€as€when€the€injury€took€place€on€a€tripÐ 0 € Ðto€the€doctor.€€"A€subsequent€medical€appointment€for€treatment€of€a€prior€work„related€injury€mayÐ `  Ðfall€within€the€scope€and€course€of€employment€...€[but€not]€when€injuries€[were]€received€whileÐ ð@  Ðtraveling€home€from€a€medical€appointment."€€òòIdóó.€at€558.€€òòBearóó€does€not€support€the€broad€contentionÐ Ð  Ðargued€by€the€appellee.Ð ° Ðà  àFor€the€reasons€expressed€above€the€decision€of€the€trial€judge€is€reversed.€€This€case€isÐ à Ðremanded€to€the€Chancery€Court€of€Rutherford€County€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€thisÐ pÀ Ðdecision.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€the€appellee.Ð P  ÐÓÓÌà  àÌÌÌÌÌÌ€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ  P( #& ÐÔ‡¼¹…»XX´²ÔÑ8€´²XXdðXXdð8ÑÓ  Óà@@7 7 ìàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÐ È ÐAT€NASHVILLEÐ à0 ÐApril€2000€SessionÐ øH ÐÔ#†X´²X»¼¹…S#ÔÔ‡X´²XXX´²ÔÌò òÔ#†X´²XXX´²tT#ÔÔ‡¼¹…»XX´²ÔÔ_ÔTATUMÔ_Ô€CARTERòòóó€v.€WAL„MART€STORES,€INC.òòóóÔ#†X´²X»¼¹…ºT#ÔÔ‡X´²XXX´²Ôó óÐ  P ÐÌà@@¼¼ìàò ò€Chancery€Court€for€Rutherford€CountyÐ  X Ðà@@ôôìàNo.€97WC„248Ð ø H ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Ç` AßÐ È  ÐÌNo.€M1999„01520„Ô_ÔWCÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€„€September€1,€2000Ð Ç  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¦` AßÐ §÷  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ#†X´²XXX´²MU#ÔÔ‡¼¹…»XX´²ÔÔ#†X´²X»¼¹…qW#ÔÔ‡X´²XXX´²ÔÌÌÓBWÓÓ  Óò òJUDGMENTó óÔ#†X´²XXX´²³W#ÔÔ‡¼¹…»XX´²ÔÔ#†X´²X»¼¹…!X#ÔÔ‡X´²XXX´²ÔÐ †Ö ÐÌÓ  ÓÔ#†X´²XXX´²cX#ÔÔ‡¼¹…»XX´²ÔÔ#†X´²X»¼¹…ÇX#ÔÔ‡X´²XXX´²ÔÔ#†X´²XXX´² Y#ÔÔ‡¼¹…»XX´²ÔÔ#†X´²X»¼¹…KY#ÔÔ‡X´²XXX´²ÔÔ‡3X>| XXX´²Ôà  àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€of€referral€to€theÐ f¶ ÐSpecial€Workersðð€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panelððs€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forthÐ R¢ Ðits€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference.Ð >Ž ÐÌà  àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€Opinion€of€the€Panel€should€beÐ f Ðaccepted€and€approved;€andÐ R ÐÌà  àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panelððs€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€are€adoptedÐ Ú* Ðand€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€judgment€of€the€Court.Ð Æ ÐÌà  àCosts€will€be€paid€by€the€appellee,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð ž î ÐÌà  àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED.Ð v"Æ! ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPER€CURIAMÐ &&v!% Ðà  àÔ#†X´²X X3X>|¬Y#ÔÔ#†X´²XXX´²Y#ÔÌÌÌÌÌÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÐ Â+'+ ЇÓÓ€€Ð ° ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÐ  pÀ Ð