WPC :Pyz yz lcty7'oζFS}|g {ޚa͑n-;QE_NڼLFI ݪ{:i`YWs(ř >EԱE)sנ;SM_Z4I L'bmd CZK~޷&MrR(eD~P*}/ɮF? (5M>|LOthv06w0ZR &|nQY8Q+}gy ->sqGFߖnWUդ]HŠ&o! _r4F2S0X.iO^-Ǘi2|Ct7]74ϐi%iD'96-ϟQ\S@\!2I#s.E ~^4.#*e~PVUl׳A!L@a%3Sb#\UN% %s 0:y 0 0vQ 0h 0/ 0 U>i      D+ A  @ o  F@ PoZs9N zN{^ }w4 m@ o@ `ojUNE 0 B 0V D5)) 0K^^ AS 0V 0D A\\\IB01S02\CLERKJAC,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,64 '4Heading 1XXX        .$$ ,Title    6 4Body TextXXX<>> :Body Text In  X XXX   X :$$ 8Body Text 2XXX    \  `&Times New Romana1a3a4a5a6'dxd&Draw Object <<=8C HKKKKa7 WPC i K513%)+-51d~ -a8 WPC i K513%)+-51d~ -Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5)C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTʙO/ lk.6:i+003|xU& WPC i K513%)+-51d~ -( WPC i K513%)+-51d~ -C:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(.G2%$ !USUS.,      0  XsXXX d(.3$ !USUS.,  VVVV)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(.3$ !USUS.,  ($$   1  X[&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !USUS.,  _ XsXXX   X Xs  INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE# XsX h#  \   X XsSPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL# XsX # X Xs # # XsX x# X XsATJACKSON F # XsX # X Xs(March25,2003Session) i # XsX 0# X Xs %  % BRIANKEITHCHAPMANv._BEKAERT_ԀSTEELWIRECORPORATION,  b etal.# XsX #  # s  %  % DirectAppealfromthe%  ChanceryCourt% for%  %DyerCounty  m No.%  %>Ԁ01C29%  ,%eԀJ.StevenStafford,Chancellor W  -   1X Xs k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KE K K2 -  # XsX 1# No.%  %W200200596SCWCMCVMailedAugust4,2003;FiledOctober16,_2003_    k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KEW K KW2   Theclaimantinthisworkerscompensationcasehasappealedthetrialcourtsdecisionawarding )y himpermanentpartialdisabilitybenefitsoftwentyfivepercenttothebodyasawhole.Thetrial b courtexcludedthedepositionofoneofthephysicianswhoexaminedtheclaimantbutmade K alternativefindingsifthedepositionwereimproperlyexcluded.Thepanelhasconcludedthatthe 4 evidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsexclusionofthedepositionevidence.Accordingly,  wereversethetrialcourt.Wefurtherfindthattheevidencepreponderatesinfavorofthetrial  courtsalternativefindingoffortyfivepercenttothebodyasawhole.Thetrialcourtsjudgment  ismodifiedaccordingly.  @ Tenn.CodeAnn.#XsXX Xs=#Ԁ506225(e)(1999)AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheTrialCourt Z @  AffirmedinPart,ReversedinPart  D  D.J._Alissandratos_,_Sp.J._,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJaniceM.Holder,J.and "g AllenW.Wallace,Sp.J.,joined. #P  JeffreyAllan_Garrety_,JosephRay_Taggart_,Jackson,Tennessee,forthePlaintiffAppellant,Brian $" " KeithChapman. % !# PaulC.Peel,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheDefendantsAppellee,_Bekaert_ԀSteelWireCorporation '"% andLibertyMutualInsuranceCompany. v(#&   _)$'    @! MEMORANDUMOPINION     FACTS       ThisworkerscompensationappealhasbeenreferredtothePanelinaccordancewithTenn. V CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)forhearingandreportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactand ?  conclusionsoflaw. ( x   Theemployee,BrianChapman( Chapman)hasappealedfromtheactionofthetrialcourt  J inawardinghimpermanentpartialdisabilitybenefitsof25%tothebodyasawhole.  3    Chapmanwas41yearsofageatthetimeoftrialandisahighschoolgraduate.Hehadbeen   employedwithAppellee,_Bekaert_ԀSteelWireCorp.( _Bekaert_)since1988asanoperations   technician.InOctoberandNovemberof2000,Chapmanbeganexperiencingtightnessandpainin   hisneckandshoulders. p    TheinjuryresultedinChapmanfirstseeingDr.Huff,whothenreferredhimtoDrs._Brophy_ B and_Lochemes_.Drs._Brophy_Ԁand_Lochemes_Ԁperformedsurgeryinvolvingtwolevelsofcervical +{ discs.Chapmanreturnedtoworkbutcontinuestohavedifficultydoingthingshedidbefore;such d asyardchores,activitiesrequiringpushingandpulling,andphysicalactivitywithhischildren. M   Dr._Brophy_,oneoftheparticipatingphysiciansinthesurgeryperformed,testifiedthat  Chapmansuffereda10%permanentpartialdisabilityaccordingtoAMAGuidelines,5thed.Dr.  _Brophy_ԀbasedhisimpairmentratingontheROMmethodofmeasuringimpairment.Dr._Boals_,the  onlyotherphysiciantogiveanimpairmentrating,testifiedthataccordingtothesurgeryperformed  onChapmanandthetwolevelfusion,Chapmanwouldsuffer34%permanentpartialdisabilityto s thewholebody.Dr._Boals_Ԁbasedhisimpairmentratingonthe_DRE_Ԁmethod.Intheirdepositions, \ Dr._Brophy_ԀandDr._Lochemes_ԀbothtestifiedthatundertheAMAGuidelinesDr._Boals_Ԁshouldhave E usedtheROMmethodtoevaluateChapman.ThetrialcourtexcludedDr._Boals_testimony .~  becauseofhisfailuretocomplywiththeAMAGuidelinesinevaluatingChapman. g     STANDARDOFREVIEW  9     Ourreviewisdenovoupontherecordaccompaniedbythepresumptionthatthetrialjudges " ! f_indings_Ԁoffactarecorrectunlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.CodeAnn. #" 506225(e)(2). $#      ANALYSIS  `&!%   ThisPanelwouldfirstliketocomplimentthelearnedChancelloronhishelpfulandthorough 3(#' findingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw. )l$(   ThisCourtconcludes,however,thatDr._Boals_testimonyshouldnothavebeenexcluded. *>&* EvenifDr._Boals_evaluationdeviatedfromtheAMAGuidelines,therecordstillshowsthathe +''+ reliedontheManualforOrthopedicSurgeonsinEvaluatingPermanentPhysicalImpairment.Since ,(, bothresourcesarenamedintheWorkersCompensationStatute,Dr._Boals_Ԁwasentitledtorelyon -(- eitheroneoftheminarrivingathisimpairmentrating.Therefore,thedepositionshouldnothave  beenexcludedonthebasisofDr._Boals_failuretocomplywiththeAMAGuidelinesinevaluating  Chapman.    Furthermore,thedepositionshouldnothavebeenexcludedunderTennesseesstandardfor T determiningtheadmissibilityofexpertevidence.Underthisstandard, [_t]he_Ԁtrialcourtisnot =  requiredtodeterminethattheprinciplesandmethodologyemployedaregenerallyacceptedbythe & v scientificcommunity.Thecourtneedsonlytodeterminethattheprinciplesandmethodologyare  _ scientificallyvalidandreliable._McDaniel_Ԁv._CSX_ԀTransp.,Inc.,955S.W.2d257,257(Tenn.  H 1997). [_T]he_Ԁcourtneednotweighorchoosebetweentwolegitimatebutconflictingscientific  1  views.Thecourtinsteadmustassureitselfthattheopinionsarebasedonrelevantscientific    methods,processes,anddata,andnotuponanexpertsmerespeculation.Id.at265.     Inthiscase,Dr._Boals_Ԁdidnotmerelyspeculate.Inhisdeposition,Dr._Boals_Ԁexplainedthe   scientificproceduresusedtoarriveathisresults.Whilethesescientificproceduresmaydeviate n  fromthenormalmethodofevaluatinganinjurysuchasChapmans,thereasonsforthedeviations W  areexplainedbytheexpert. @   Thepropercourseforthetrialcourt,atthispoint,wouldhavebeentoadmitthetestimony. b Dr._Boals_Ԁisentitledtobelistenedto,buthedoesnothavetobeagreedwith.Thetrialcourtthen, K shouldhavedecidedtheweighttogivetothetwolegallyadmissiblecompetingscientificviews. 4   ThetrialcourtmadeanalternativerulingbasedonDr._Boals_testimonybeingadmissible,  of45%permanentpartialdisabilitytothebodyasawhole.Aswehaveheldthatthedeposition  shouldbeadmittedintoevidence,wefindthatthechancellorsalternativefindingof45%permanent  partialdisabilityissupportedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.Wethereforeaffirmthetrialcourt q asmodified. Z   Weremandforanyfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.Thecostofthisappeal ,| isassessedagainsttheAppellees,_Bekaert_ԀSteelWireCorporationandLibertyMutualInsurance e Company. N    `     h     ____________________________________ $#    `     h     D.J._ALISSANDRATOS_,SPECIALJUDGE t% $   F'"& XXs@9 9 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @((%ATJACKSON  #XsXq,# XXs  BRIANKEITHCHAPMANv._BEKAERT_ԀSTEELWIRECORPORATION   ANDLIBERTYMUTUALINSURANCECOMPANY#XsX2-#   Q-@YY ChanceryCourtforDyerCounty   @%No.01C29   @*AV+) ` dE<k` A߈ l  @_ _ No.W200200596SCWCMCVFiledOctober16,_2003_Ԉ e  AV+) ` dE<8` A 9   __@(_ ORDER _Ԉ 1  ____  ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtuponthemotionforreviewfiledby_Bekaert_ԀSteelWire = CorporationandLibertyMutualInsuranceCompany pursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn. & 50-6-225(e)(5)(B),theentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferraltotheSpecialWorkers  CompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanelsMemorandumOpinionsettingforthitsfindingsof  factandconclusionsoflaw.    ItappearstotheCourtthatthemotionforreviewisnotwelltakenandisthereforedenied. c ThePanelsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedbyreference,are L adoptedandaffirmed.ThedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgmentoftheCourt. 5   Costsareassessedto_Bekaert_ԀSteelWireCorporationandLibertyMutualInsurance W Company,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. @ _*X, XXXs_   `     h     PER_CURIAM_ f$$ Holder,J. !'q"' NotParticipating#XsX X*X,5#