ÿWPCœ „qÆÉìà½:‘¯×Ì'拌ÒÁ•N'íÄéóë½!‘sžÓHx…ƀܟÎü³ì7›C£`MØ›¼8?(ÄrÅNЄÑb5èbFÆ'‰¡9¤ëyÖ‘F±.»FŒ'ìÉüˆ(¡q€'ð’sÞÖ¯ÌgP\,\Ÿ_‹ë+³j9’PQ˜ã™Q÷8”IWáWÃOf˜®Ê•õ¾ÊC~F77–xmÿäÇŠn€8ôéé$¶—¹£IuúAÒãYq†3»®Ìh–#üùM’Mºø¬<”IFÓúL¡ßðø%†)<'")¢d}1›ALó€®È&ÂsX\ysÇäbi‘/¹¡žVP@EØØÌp–po/ÿºÎî³—ÖA“`’ÕôÎ"ó-!%Z3ÎÐuµk%]MVpˆÊm(Iã8t'Áh_ê¦òcVM—“Ud‚Ãe4ï”uiÌ}GÍ"m”žVÖ–O8¦oN{&…’†µ>üÈýÍî!©&©ÑøÑ«¥ßøn»¾ ÞŽíf³úØûc™ƒá"wÿC£,PNb[•Á¡ ÑV™ÑQN Eþܧ;.°T‰4žÐaVÜŤŒ5øðb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ üÐ #ÉÌ Æ•Æ[Æ!Æç 0D­NñNó 1uõEj 72l 0cžžU@NA zCÒ½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½b 0ë———— B ‚‚ 0¤Ÿ D5C D-x 0K¥¥ ASðÆC 0¤  0D­ A«ñ»gš61Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular6hö0ê:i¢×+003|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.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ObionMaloanWCSr.J. YoesLupitaLopressorcatherizationAddingtonHolbertRosemanFoamexKrickLawrenceburgSandlinCaudleReeser SysSevierCokerKellermanMidwescoMcCaleb"catheterizationhad had˜\\IB01S02\CLERKJACÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman ˜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- ù-(|G2@®$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Á¹»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X‰oX»»Ô d(|3w!$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Á¹»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3w!$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Á¹»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ÔQ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼ÔQ»»»ÔÑ8€›ÇXXdé»»d8ÑÓ  ÓÔ‡î2vÔQÔà@@7 7 ìàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÐ Ó# Ðà@@ƒƒìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼ÔQ»îî2vî#ÔÐ öF ÐApril€6,€2004€SessionÐ i ÐÔ‡X›ÇX»¼ÔQÔÌò òÔ#†¼ÔQ»XX›Ç#ÔRHONDA€CARY€v.€THE€LOCAL€GOVERNMENT€WORKER'SÐ  b ÐCOMPENSATION€FUND,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡X›ÇX»¼ÔQÔó óÐ # s ÐÌà@@¼¼ìàò ò€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Obion€CountyÐ  m Ðà@@ôôìàNo.€22,880€€€€€€William€Michael€Maloan,€ChancellorÐ W  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Ä` AßÐ Å  ÐÌNo.€W2003„02339„WC„R3„CV€„€Mailed€August€10,€2004;€Filed€September€22,€2004Ð ¾  ÐÔ#†¼ÔQ»XX›Ç¼#ÔÔ‡X›ÇX»¼ÔQÔÌÌßA€V) °°` dE<{` AßÐ |Ì Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€AppealsÐ tÄ ÐPanel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€50„6„225(e)(3)Ð ]­ Ðfor€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€TheÐ F– Ðissues€presented€to€the€trial€court€were:€€(1)€whether€the€employee€gave€proper€notice€of€her€injuryÐ / Ðto€employer€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€50„6„201€and€202;€(2)€whether€theÐ h Ðemployee€sustained€an€injury€by€accident€arising€out€of€her€employment€with€defendant€on€May€1,Ð Q Ð2000;€(3)€whether€the€employee€retained€any€permanent€anatomical€impairment€as€a€result€of€theÐ ê: Ðalleged€work€injury.€€As€discussed€below,€we€affirm€the€trial€court.Ð Ó# ÐÓ#ÓÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)€(2000€Supp.)€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€ChanceryÐ ¥õ ÐCourt€Affirmedó óÐ ß ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÓ  ÓAllen€W.€Wallace,€Sr.J.Ô#†¼ÔQ»àX›Çœ#ÔÔ‡X›ÇX.¼ÔQÔóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJanice€M.€Holder,€J.óó€andÐ b ² ÐòòE.€Riley€Anderson,€J.óó,€joined.Ð K!›  ÐÌMichael€L.€Mansfield,€Jackson,€Tennessee€for€appellants,€The€Local€Government€Workers'Ð #m" ÐCompensation€Fund€and€The€Obion€County€Board€of€Education.Ð $V# ÐÌBruce€Moss,€Union€City,€Tennessee€for€appellee,€Rhonda€Cary.Ð Ø%(!% ÐÌÓw ÓÓ  Óò òMEMORANDUM€OPINIONó óÔ#†¼ÔQ»XX›Ç½ #ÔÔ‡X›ÇX»¼ÔQÔÐ ª'ú"' ÐÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ÔQ»XX›Çß #ÔÔ‡X›ÇX»¼ÔQÔà@¶¶(ìàòòFACTSóóˆÐ })Í$) ÐÌEmployee€filed€her€complaint€in€this€case€on€May€1,€2001,€seeking€workers'€compensation€benefitsÐ O+Ÿ&+ Ðfor€an€injury€which€she€allegedly€sustained€during€the€course€and€scope€of€her€employment€withÐ 8,ˆ', Ðemployer€Obion€County€Board€of€Education.€€Specifically,€employee€alleged€that€on€May€1,€2000,Ð !-q(-ýú Ðshe€suffered€a€heart€attack€arising€out€of€and€during€the€course€and€scope€of€her€employment€withÐ ° Ðemployer.€€Employer€in€this€case€filed€its€answer€to€plaintiff's€complaint€on€June€15,€2001,€in€whichÐ ™é Ðit€denied€that€employee€had€suffered€a€work„related€injury€within€the€meaning€of€the€TennesseeÐ ‚Ò ÐWorkers'€Compensation€Act€while€employed€by€employer.€€It€further€affirmatively€alleged€thatÐ k» Ðemployee€failed€to€give€proper€notice€of€her€claim€to€employer€and€that€if€employee€did€sustain€aÐ T¤ Ðwork„related€injury€within€the€meaning€of€the€Workers'€Compensation€Act,€she€retained€noÐ =  Ðpermanent€disability€as€a€result.Ð & v ÐÌEmployer€filed€its€notice€of€wage€statement€on€July€2,€2001,€which€showed€employee's€averageÐ ø H Ðweekly€wage€for€the€fifty„two€(52)€weeks€preceding€the€alleged€date€of€injury€to€be€$709.38,€whichÐ á 1  Ðthe€parties€stipulated€resulted€in€a€compensation€benefit€rate€of€$472.92.€€After€employer€took€theÐ Ê   Ðdiscovery€deposition€of€Dr.€Hal€Dodd€in€connection€with€this€matter€on€May€16,€2003,€employeeÐ ³  Ðfiled€a€pleading€styled€"Supplement€to€Deposition€of€Dr.€Dodd€of€May€16,€2003"€on€or€about€JulyÐ œì  Ð21,€2003.Ð …Õ  ÐÌEmployee€was€forty„three€years€old€at€the€time€of€trial.€€She€has€obtained€a€bachelor€degree€and€aÐ W§  Ðmaster€degree€in€education.€€In€addition,€she€has€taken€some€courses€toward€her€"30€over"Ð @ Ðcertification,€which€is€something€less€than€a€doctorate€degree€but€is€a€more€advanced€level€of€studyÐ )y Ðthan€a€master€degree.€€She€has€taught€school€for€23€years€and€taught€special€education€for€15€years.€Ð b ÐSpecial€education€students€were€classified€as€"resource"€children,€who€had€some€measure€ofÐ ûK Ðemotional€or€learning€disability.€€These€students€were€not€regarded€automatically€as€disciplinaryÐ ä4 Ðproblems,€but€usually€required€a€teacher€to€repeat€instructions€numerous€times.€€Employee€alsoÐ Í Ðdescribed€how€the€children€she€taught€wouldÔ#†¼ÔQ»XX›ÇC #ÔÔ€X›ÇX»¼ÔQÔ€become€more€difficult€to€manage€as€they€got€older€asÐ ¶ Ða€result€of€the€stigma€attached€to€being€classified€as€a€special€education€student.Ð Ÿï ÐÌOn€May€1,€2000,€employee€arrived€at€the€school€at€approximately€7:15€to€7:20€a.m.,€and€began€herÐ qÁ Ðteaching€duties€at€7:50.€€She€had€complained€to€Principal€Ronnie€Yoes€that€she€was€not€feeling€wellÐ Zª Ðand€had€attempted€to€obtain€a€substitute€teacher€that€morning€but€had€been€unsuccessful.€€Mr.€YoesÐ C“ Ðoffered€to€assist€employee€in€obtaining€a€substitute€and€employee€told€him€she€would€"try€to€ride€itÐ ,| Ðout"€and€went€to€her€classroom.€€Sometime€prior€to€approximately€9:50€a.m.,€she€had€to€disciplineÐ e Ða€child€who€was€being€talkative€and€disruptive.€€She€moved€him€to€three€different€locations€andÐ þN Ðeventually€placed€her€hand€on€his€shoulder€and€told€him€to€"sit€down€in€the€seat€and€behave,€youÐ ç 7 Ðknow,€act€right."€€After€doing€this€she€began€to€notice€indigestion€like€symptoms,€and€asked€Ms.Ð Ð!   ÐLupita€Berner,€her€assistant,€to€go€find€her€some€antacid.€€While€Ms.€Berner€was€attempting€to€findÐ ¹" ! Ðsome€antacid€employee€determined€it€was€something€more€serious€and€went€to€the€principal's€officeÐ ¢#ò" Ðto€lie€down.€€Employee€€then€requested€Ms.€Michelle€Bell€to€transport€her€to€the€office€of€Dr.€HalÐ ‹$Û# ÐDodd,€a€cardiologist€in€Union€City.€€When€she€arrived€at€Dr.€Dodd's€office€she€was€having€severeÐ t%Ä $ Ðchest€pains,€and€Dr.€Dodd€administered€nitroglycerin€and€aspirin.€€An€initial€EKG€was€essentiallyÐ ]&­!% Ðnormal,€but€a€repeat€EKG€approximately€15€minutes€later€showed€the€very€early€stages€of€aÐ F'–"& Ðmyocardial€infarction.€€She€was€transported€to€a€hospital€in€Martin€and€was€administered€a€"clotÐ /(#' Ðbusting"€drug;€Lopressor,€to€slow€her€heart€rate€and€heparin€to€"thin€her€blood."€€She€was€thenÐ )h$( Ðtransported€by€helicopter€to€Baptist€Hospital€in€Memphis,€where€she€underwent€cardiacÐ *Q%) Ðcatheterization€by€Dr.€Brent€Addington.€€Employee€returned€to€work€in€August€2000,€and€took€offÐ ê*:&* Ðwork€in€December€2000€until€April€2001,€to€more€fully€recover.€€During€this€time€and€in€FebruaryÐ Ó+#'+ Ð2001,€she€underwent€a€second€catheterization€procedure€which€showed€that€employee's€heartÐ ° Ðfunction€had€returned€to€normal.€€Employee€returned€to€work€full€time€on€April€4,€2001,€withoutÐ ™é Ðphysical€restrictions,€chronic€medications,€nor€dietary€restrictions.Ð ‚Ò ÐÌOn€November€27,€2000,€employee€filed€her€first€written€notice€that€she€was€claiming€the€May€1,Ð T¤ Ð2000,€incident€to€be€work€related.€€She€was€advised€to€do€so€by€Dr.€Dodd.Ð =  ÐÌThe€medical€proof€in€this€cause€consisted€of€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Holbert€B.€Dodd,€II,€the€treatingÐ  _ Ðphysician€who€testified€in€person,€and€Dr.€Hal€M.€Roseman,€who€testified€by€deposition.€€Dr.Ð ø H ÐRoseman€testified€as€an€independent€medical€evaluator€who€testified€from€a€review€of€the€medicalÐ á 1  Ðrecords€and€the€deposition€of€the€employee.Ð Ê   ÐÌDr.€Dodd€opined€that€the€event€of€May€1,€2000,€triggered€her€heart€attack.€€Dr.€Roseman€opined€theÐ œì  Ðevent€of€May€1,€2000,€was€coincidental,€that€the€cause€of€employee's€condition€was€her€social€historyÐ …Õ  Ðof€smoking,€a€family€history€of€heart€disease€and€her€high€cholesterol€level.Ð n¾  ÐÌà@ÿÿ&ìàòòANALYSISóóˆÐ @ ÐÌReview€of€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€is€de€novo€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,Ð b Ðaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€findings,€unless€the€preponderance€of€theÐ ûK Ðevidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2);€òòTucker€v.€Foamex,€L.P.óó,€31€S.W.3d€241,Ð ä4 Ð242€(Tenn.€2000).€€The€application€of€this€standard€requires€this€Court€to€weigh€in€more€depth€theÐ Í Ðfactual€findings€and€conclusions€of€the€trial€court€in€workers'€compensation€cases€to€determine€whereÐ ¶ Ðthe€preponderance€of€the€evidence€lies.€€òòVinson€v.€United€Parcel€Serviceóó,€92€S.W.3d€380,€383„4Ð Ÿï Ð(2002).€€When€issues€of€credibility€of€witnesses€and€the€weight€to€be€given€their€testimony€are€beforeÐ ˆØ Ðthe€reviewing€court,€considerable€deference€must€be€accorded€the€trial€court's€factual€findings.€€òòKrickÐ qÁ Ðv.€City€of€Lawrenceburgóó,€945€S.W.2d€709,€712€(Tenn.€1997).Ð Zª ÐÌIn€order€to€be€eligible€for€workers'€compensation€benefits,€an€employee€must€suffer€an€"injury€byÐ ,| Ðaccident€arising€out€of€and€in€the€course€of€employment€which€causes€either€disablement€or€death.Ð e Ð.€.€."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„102(12)€(2003€Supp.).€€The€statutory€requirements€that€the€injuryÐ þN Ð"arise€out€of"€and€occur€"in€the€course€of"€the€employment€are€not€synonymous.€€òòSandlin€v.€Gentryóó,Ð ç 7 Ð300€S.W.2d€897,€901€(Tenn.€1957).€€An€injury€occurs€"in€the€course€of"€employment€if€it€takes€placeÐ Ð!   Ðwhile€the€employee€was€performing€a€duty€he€or€she€was€employed€to€perform.€€òòFink€v.€Caudleóó,€856Ð ¹" ! ÐS.W.2d€952,€958€(Tenn.€1993).€€Thus,€the€course€of€employment€requirement€focuses€on€the€time,Ð ¢#ò" Ðplace,€and€circumstances€of€the€injury.€€òòHill€v.€Eagle€Bend€Mfg.€Inc.óó,€942€S.W.2d€483,€487€(Tenn.Ð ‹$Û# Ð1997).Ð t%Ä $ ÐÌIn€contrast,€"arising€out€of"€employment€refers€to€causation.€€òòId.óó;€òòReeser€v.€Yellow€Freight€Sys.,€Inc.óó,Ð F'–"& Ð938€S.W.2d€690,€692€(Tenn.€1997).€€An€injury€arises€out€of€employment€when€there€is€apparent€toÐ /(#' Ðthe€rational€mind,€upon€consideration€of€all€the€circumstances,€a€causal€connection€between€theÐ )h$( Ðconditions€under€which€the€work€is€required€to€be€performed€and€the€resulting€injury.€€òòFinkóó,€856Ð *Q%) ÐS.W.2d€at€958.€€The€mere€presence€of€the€employee€at€the€place€of€injury€because€of€the€employmentÐ ê*:&* Ðis€not€sufficient,€as€the€injury€must€result€from€a€danger€or€hazard€peculiar€to€the€work€or€be€causedÐ Ó+#'+ Ðby€a€risk€inherent€in€the€nature€of€the€work.€€òòThornton€v.€RCA€Serv.€Co.óó,€221€S.W.2d€954,€955€(Tenn.Ð ° Ð1949).€€Thus,€"an€injury€purely€coincidental,€or€contemporaneous,€or€collateral,€with€the€employmentÐ ™é Ð.€.€.€will€not€cause€the€injury€.€.€.€to€be€considered€as€arising€out€of€the€employment."€€òòJackson€v.Ð ‚Ò ÐClark€&€Fay,€Inc.óó,€270€S.W.2d€389,€390€(Tenn.€1954).€€Although€causation€in€a€workers'Ð k» Ðcompensation€case€cannot€be€based€upon€speculative€or€conjectural€proof,€absolute€certainty€is€notÐ T¤ Ðrequired€because€medical€proof€can€rarely€be€certain,€and€any€reasonable€doubt€in€this€regard€is€toÐ =  Ðbe€construed€in€favor€of€the€employee.€€òòHillóó,€942€S.W.2d€at€487.€€Our€courts€have€thus€consistentlyÐ & v Ðheld€that€an€award€of€benefits€may€properly€be€based€upon€medical€testimony€to€the€effect€that€theÐ  _ Ðemployment€could€or€might€have€been€the€cause€of€the€worker's€injury€when,€from€other€evidence,Ð ø H Ðit€can€reasonably€be€inferred€that€the€employment€was€the€cause€of€the€injury.€€òòId.óóÐ á 1  ÐÌIn€the€present€case€there€is€no€dispute€that€the€employee's€heart€attack€occurred€in€the€course€of€herÐ ³  Ðemployment.€€The€issue€of€dispute€is€whether€the€employee's€heart€attack€arose€out€of€theÐ œì  Ðemployment.€€In€resolving€this€question€we€observe€that,€when€analyzed€causally,€Tennessee's€heartÐ …Õ  Ðattack€cases€can€be€categorized€into€two€groups:€€(1)€those€that€are€precipitated€by€physical€exertionÐ n¾  Ðor€strain,€and€(2)€those€resulting€from€mental€stress,€tension,€or€some€type€of€emotional€upheaval.€Ð W§  ÐòòBacon€v.€Sevier€Countyóó,€808€S.W.2d€46,€49€(Tenn.€1991).€€If€the€heart€attack€results€from€physicalÐ @ Ðexertion€or€strain,€it€is€unnecessary€that€there€be€extraordinary€exertion€or€unusual€physical€strain.€Ð )y ÐòòId.óó€€Thus,€it€makes€no€difference€that€the€heart€attack€was€caused€by€ordinary€physical€exertion€orÐ b Ðthe€usual€physical€strain€of€the€employee's€work.€€òòId.óó€€Nor€does€it€matter€that€the€employee€sufferedÐ ûK Ðfrom€preexisting€heart€disease,€as€an€employer€takes€an€employee€as€he€finds€him,€that€is,€subjectÐ ä4 Ðto€preexisting€physical€defects€and€afflictions.€€òòId.óó;€òòColeman€v.€Cokeróó,€321€S.W.2d€540,€541€(Tenn.Ð Í Ð1959).Ð ¶ ÐÌIn€the€case€at€bar,€employee€was€confronted€by€a€disruptive€student.€€She€had€to€move€the€child€toÐ ˆØ Ða€different€location,€and€had€to€put€her€hand€on€the€student€to€sit€him€down.€€After€this€incident,€sheÐ qÁ Ðnoticed€indigestion„like€symptoms,€and€shortly€thereafter€sought€medical€treatment.€€Employee€€wasÐ Zª Ðat€that€time€suffering€from€a€myocardial€infarction.€€Employer€insists€the€credibility€of€Dr.€Dodd€isÐ C“ Ðquestionable€and€biased.€€However,€Dr.€Dodd€testified€in€person.€€When€a€trial€judge€has€seen€theÐ ,| Ðwitness,€especially€when€issues€of€credibility€and€weight€to€be€given€oral€testimony€are€involved,Ð e Ðconsiderable€deference€must€be€accorded€those€circumstances€on€review,€because€it€is€the€trial€judgeÐ þN Ðwho€had€the€opportunity€to€observe€the€witness'€demeanor€and€to€hear€in€court€testimony.€€òòLong€v.Ð ç 7 ÐTri„Con.€Ind.,€Ltd.óó,€996€S.W.2d€173,€177€(Tenn.€1999).€€It€is€further€obvious€from€all€the€medicalÐ Ð!   Ðtestimony€that€Dr.€Dodd€was€extremely€competent€and€successful€in€treating€the€employee.€€The€trialÐ ¹" ! Ðcourt€also€has€the€discretion€to€accept€one€medical€expert€over€another€medical€expert.€€òòKellermanÐ ¢#ò" Ðv.€Food€Lion,€Inc.óó,€929€S.W.2d€333€(Tenn.€1996);€òòJohnson€v.€Midwesco,€Inc.óó,€801€S.W.2d€804,€806Ð ‹$Û# Ð(Tenn.€1990).Ð t%Ä $ ÐÌEmployer€in€this€cause€insists€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€contrary€to€the€trial€courtððs€awardÐ F'–"& Ðof€25%€permanent€partial€disability.€€Dr.€Dodd€testified€that€in€his€opinion,€following€the€AMAÐ /(#' ÐGuidelines,€the€employee€had€a€29%€permanent€partial€impairment€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€He€basedÐ )h$( Ðthis€opinion€on€the€fact€that€employee€had€muscular€damage€as€evidenced€by€her€enzymes€level€notÐ *Q%) Ðbeing€normal€at€all€times.€€Even€Dr.€Roseman,€the€independent€evaluator,€testified€that€becauseÐ ê*:&* Ðemployee€had€had€a€myocardial€infarction€she€does€have€a€10%€impairment.Ð Ó+#'+ ЇWhere€medical€testimony€differs,€it€is€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€to€conclude€that€theÐ ° Ðopinion€of€certain€experts€should€be€accepted€over€that€of€other€experts.€€òòHenson€v.€Wal„Mart€Stores,Ð ™é ÐInc.óó,€654€S.W.2d€675,€676„77€(Tenn.€1983).€€Here€the€trial€judge€heard€Dr.€Dodd,€the€treatingÐ ‚Ò Ðphysician,€testify€in€court€and€evaluated€his€testimony.€€The€extent€of€vocational€disability€is€aÐ k» Ðquestion€of€fact.€€òòStory€v.€Legion€Ins.€Co.óó,€3€S.W.3rd€450,€456€(Tenn.€Workersðð€Comp.€Panel€1999).€Ð T¤ ÐHere€the€trial€courtððs€decision€is€supported€by€the€evidence€as€to€vocational€disability,€especiallyÐ =  Ðafter€giving€due€deference€accorded€to€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings,€as€we€are€required€to€so€do.Ð & v ÐÌEmployer€has€raised,€for€the€first€time,€before€this€Panel€the€issue€of€notice.€€When€the€failure€to€give€Ð ø H Ðnotice€as€required€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Section€50„6„201,€is€pleaded,€the€burden€is€on€the€employeeÐ á 1  Ðto€prove€that€the€notice€was€given,€or€that€employee€had€a€reasonable€excuse€for€not€giving€it,€or€thatÐ Ê   Ðthe€employer€had€actual€knowledge.€€òòAetna€Casualty€and€Surety€Co.€v.€Longóó,€569€S.W.2d€444€(Tenn.Ð ³  Ð1978).Ð œì  ÐÌThere€is€no€question€employer€had€knowledge€employee€had€a€heart€attack.€€Employee€only€learnedÐ n¾  Ðfrom€her€physician€the€incident€of€May€1,€2000,€caused€the€heart€attack.€€The€reasons€for€the€noticeÐ W§  Ðrequirement€are€(1)€to€give€the€employer€an€opportunity€to€make€an€investigation€while€the€facts€areÐ @ Ðaccessible,€and€(2)€to€enable€the€employer€to€provide€timely€and€proper€treatment€for€the€injuredÐ )y Ðemployee.€€òòMcCaleb€v.€Saturn€Corp.óó,€910€S.W.2d€412,€415€(Tenn.€1995).€€Employee€gave€writtenÐ b Ðnotice€when€she€learned€from€her€doctor€of€the€causal€connection€between€her€work€and€the€heartÐ ûK Ðattack;€employer€did€not€plead€lack€of€notice;€and€no€prejudice€has€been€argued€or€shown.Ð ä4 ÐÌTherefore,€on€the€basis€of€the€record€in€this€case,€we€cannot€say€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÐ ¶ Ðthe€finding€of€the€trial€court.Ð Ÿï ÐÌà@ii%ìàòòCONCLUSIONóóˆÐ qÁ ÐÌThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€The€costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellant,€TheÐ C“ ÐLocal€Government€Workersðð€Compensation€Fund,€workersðð€compensation€carrier€for€the€employer,Ð ,| Ðand€Obion€County€Board€of€Education.Ð e ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¢#ò" Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALLEN€W.€WALLACE,€SENIOR€JUDGEÐ  ‹$Û# ÐÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà@v v ìàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@ë ë ìàSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELˆÐ ™é Ðà@%ìàAT€JACKSONˆÐ ‚Ò Ðà@ÔÔ$ìàApril€6,€2004ˆÐ k» ÐÌò òÓ  ÓRHONDA€CARY€v.€THE€LOCAL€GOVERNMENT€WORKERððS€COMPENSATIONÐ =  ÐFUND,€et€al.ó óÐ ' w ÐÓQPÓÌà@ìàò ò€Chancery€Court€for€Obion€CountyˆÐ ú J Ðà@%ìàNo.€22,880€ˆÐ ä 4  ÐÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<·` A߈Ð ¸  ÐÌà@T T ìàNo.€W2003„02339„WC„R3„CV€„€Filed€September€22,€2004ˆÐ ±  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<„` AßÐ …Õ  Ðó óÌà@#ìàò òJUDGMENT€ORDERó ó€ˆÐ }Í  ÐÌòòóóÌÔ‡X{ XXX›ÇÔà  àà ` àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€of€referralÐ ;‹ Ðto€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel's€Memorandum€Opinion€settingÐ $t Ðforth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ð  ] ÐÌà  àà ` àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€Opinion€of€the€PanelÐ ß/ Ðshould€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÐ È ÐÌà  àà ` àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€areÐ šê Ðadopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€judgment€of€the€Court.Ð ƒÓ Ѐ€Ð l¼ Ðà  àà ` àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€Appellants,€The€Local€Government€WorkersððÐ U¥ ÐCompensation€Fund,€and€the€Obion€County€Board€of€Education,€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÐ >Ž Ðnecessary.Ð ' w  ÐÌà  àà ` àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED.Ð ù!I" ÐÌÔ#†X›ÇX XX{ÇR#Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPER€CURIAMÐ Ë#$ ÐÌÌ