ÿWPCÈ ÅfÇë4X¬}ߊû|‡s´;“·òo2ÝîP†{‰sæV2·²dl¹,;¸Ö¸uxðc@FÍ„?ËÇ„ãV ÄÝBµ2hRÛ¤çfò¼Kœ¯ar ¦Ñ»”—‹%†eŸMg–V‡ö˜\Á ?‚1º¢ -]€ Û¥9Êꊪ¸“‡ ’xÀ´þ«ç»K¤·øUÄuA//kÒgrþÀú¿"Ž­ËÖ£a7 êž˜˜'j®,zÛ`(9žæZ+„=³2²‹#¾Ê¼•ÍQ½N/—Ô«kVÛªÞÃSœq Ö} aî±Õ­Ñ­é1-S‚!ªÄ‹% ˜Nƒ˜½ÚÆ€Œ–êµÄ¨ÈÇðR/WÑÃMßͶú§Zm¾Û½ý˜p)ù…¶rdLS ýýi^'ãërÄz!ð†‹²ß¢5ô¼×8Õé­‘Þú†d°–#îÞãË.T o _êesn wI5x¹ Ïˆæ,MëX×§Ì|j¤ÐÎõÏŽÅ#ùñ^ 'güœVóJq@ª€úÑç}Ð e9›QÆÐX¼}eù€èºÇt{‘˜HSµ¥VÁ¾gú5»sÊ.•šÆ˜Àoã{Î隢ê¿>ÚÀ#>Àût¨bÌó.¢åÔSœÂb %\U$@b 0ˆ¢U N*^ xw„4ˆ zœÒ è ÷ mù U: ÆJ Æ ÆÖ Æœ #Áb N#%V-E/N1 z3Ò­­  …  •  ¥ ­ µµµµµµµµµµµb½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½ 0ëÅÅÅÅ B °° 0¤Í D3q D-¤ 0KÑÑ ASÆo 0¤5 0DÙ A«»(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular4)â Tlœ)P @ë£.WC U© ˜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.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0 ˜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.wptH1245678- ù-(|G28$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€ u»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X[YX»»Ô d(|3¿p$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€ u»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¿p$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€ u»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ u»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼ u»»»ÔÑ8€[YXXdì»»d8ÑÓ  ÓÔ‡î uÔÔ€îîîîÔà@@7 7 ìàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÐ Ö& Ðà@@ƒƒìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼ u»îîî#ÔÐ üL ÐAUGUST€30,€2000€SessionÐ "r ÐÔ‡X[YX»¼ uÔÌò òÔ#†¼ u»XX[Y9#ÔDARLENE€MOORE€COLLINSòòóó€v.€òòóóCMH€MANUFACTURING,€INC.€(ALSOÐ  p ÐREFERRED€TO€AS€"NORRIS,€INC.")Ô‡X[YX»¼ uÔó óÐ 4 „ ÐÌà@@¼¼ìàò ò€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Grainger€CountyÐ 4 „ Ðà@@ôôìàNo.€6628€€€€€Ben€W.€Hooper,€III,€JudgeÐ  p  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<ã` AßÐ ä4  ÐÌNo.€E1999„01225„WC„R3„CV€„€Mailed€„November€14,€2000Ð ß/  ÐÔ#†¼ u»XX[Yô#ÔÔ‡X[YX»¼ uÔFiled:€December€28,€2000Ð Ë ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¢` AßÐ £ó Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€AppealsÐ žî ÐPanel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€forÐ ŠÚ Ðhearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.Ô#†¼ u»XX[Y³#ÔÔ‡X[YX»¼ uÔ€The€trial€courtÐ vÆ Ðawarded€the€plaintiff€sixty„five€percent€impairment€due€to€occupational€asthma€and€awardedÐ b² Ðprejudgment€interest€to€accrued€benefits.€€The€defendant€argues€the€trial€court's€award€was€excessiveÐ Nž Ðbecause€the€plaintiff€failed€to€adequately€prove€through€medical€testimony€the€causation€and€extentÐ :Š Ðof€her€impairment.€€The€defendant€also€appeals€the€amount€of€prejudgment€interest.€€We€affirm€theÐ &v Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court€as€to€the€impairment€award€and€remand€for€further€findings€of€facts€withÐ b Ðregard€to€the€prejudgment€interest€award.Ð þN ÐÓfÓÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)€(1999)€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€GraingerÐ Ö& ÐCounty€Circuit€Court€is€Affirmed€in€Part€and€Remanded.ó óòòÐ Â ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓJohn€K.€Byers,€Sr.€J.Ô#†¼ u»àX[YÓ#ÔÔ‡X[YX.¼ uÔóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòE.€Riley€Anderson,€C.J.óó€andÐ š!ê  ÐòòRoger€E.€Thayer,€Sp.€J.óó,€joined.Ð †"Ö! ÐÌLinda€J.€Hamilton€Mowles,€Esq.,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€CMH€Mfg.,€Inc.€(alsoÐ ^$®# Ðreferred€to€as€"Norris€Inc.")Ð J%š $ ÐÌJames€E.€Davis,€Morristown,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Darlene€Moore€Collins.Ð "'r"& ÐÌÓŒ ÓÓ  Óò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ u»XX[YÐ #ÔÔ‡X[YX»¼ uÔÐ ú(J$( Ðò òòòÌFACTSóóó óÐ Ò*"&* Ðà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ u»XX[Yé #ÔÔ€X[YX»¼ uÔà  àThe€plaintiff,€age€forty„one€at€the€time€of€trial,€does€not€have€a€high€school€diploma€but€€canÐ ª,ú', Ðread,€write,€do€math€and€handle€her€own€personal€and€financial€affairs.€€The€plaintiff€smoked€a€packÐ –-æ(-ý Ðof€cigarettes€a€day€for€some€time€and€is€still€exposed€to€secondhand€smoke€by€her€husband€regularly.€Ð ° ÐHer€work€history€includes€waiting€tables,€cashiering,€ð ðtailing€a€ripsawðð€which€involved€workingÐ œì Ðaround€sawdust,€and€temporary€work.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€€The€plaintiff€began€working€for€the€defendant,€a€mobile€home€manufacturer,€as€a€cleaner.€Ð `° ÐPerforming€her€job€duties€required€using€various€chemicals€to€clean€finished€mobile€homes.€€SheÐ L œ Ðeventually€transferred€into€the€ð ðfinal€finishðð€department€where€she€cleaned€tubs€and€trailers€usingÐ 8 ˆ Ðan€adhesive€remover€to€clean€glue€and€residue€from€the€showers€and€tubs.€€The€work€was€such€thatÐ $ t Ðshe€was€exposed€to€the€chemical€fumes.€€She€remained€in€this€position€for€four€or€five€months.€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àIn€the€fall€of€1995,€the€plaintiff€developed€cold/flu€symptoms€with€aches,€fever€and€breathingÐ è 8  Ðdifficulty.€€She€was€off€work€for€a€week,€and€when€she€returned,€she€still€had€a€cough.€€She€was€thenÐ Ô$  Ðtransferred€to€a€position€that€required€application€of€putty€and€continued€use€of€spray€chemicals.€€SheÐ À  Ðbecame€ill€again€in€September€of€1996€and,€at€that€point,€linked€her€illness€to€her€use€work„relatedÐ ¬ü  Ðuse€of€chemicals.€€She€continued€to€work,€but€was€moved€to€different€positions.€€She€eventuallyÐ ˜è  Ðobtained€a€medical€leave€due€to€breathing€difficulty€and€has€not€worked€for€the€defendant€sinceÐ „Ô  ÐOctober€21,€1996.€€She€has€been€diagnosed€and€treated€for€asthma.Ð pÀ ÐÌà@öö"ìàò òòòMedical€Evidenceó óóóˆÐ H˜ ÐÌÌà  àDr.€Ernesto€Mejia,€M.D.,€a€pulmonary€specialist,€treated€the€plaintiff€for€her€lung€problems.€Ð  \ ÐHe€first€saw€her€the€day€after€she€left€her€employment€with€the€defendant.€€He€found€decreased€breathÐ øH Ðsounds€and€wheezes.€€A€chest€x„ray€showed€some€diffuse€reticular€infiltrate€in€bases€that€could€beÐ ä4 Ðassociated€with€hypersensitivity€pneumonitis€or€exposure€to€chemicals.€€Other€tests€were€consistentÐ Ð  Ðwith€early€small€airway€diseaseð!ða€condition€associated€with€occupational€asthma.€€Dr.€MejiaÐ ¼  Ðdiagnosed€occupational€asthma€and€prescribed€medication€and€avoidance€of€chemicals€and€smoke.€Ð ¨ø ÐDr.€Mejia€opined€she€must€permanently€avoid€the€chemicals€used€in€her€work€and€if€she€did€herÐ ”ä Ðcondition€would€not€progress.€€He€provided€no€impairment€under€the€Guides€but€testified€he€wasÐ €Ð Ðunfamiliar€with€the€use€of€the€Guides€and€had€never€even€given€a€deposition€in€a€lawsuit.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àDr.€John€Kinser,€M.D.,€a€general€practitioner,€did€an€independent€medical€examination€andÐ D!” Ðrelied€on€the€testing€of€Dr.€Mejia.€€He€assessed€a€medical€impairment€of€twenty„five€percent€to€theÐ 0"€  Ðbody€as€a€whole€due€to€occupational€asthma€contracted€while€working€for€the€defendant.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àDr.€Norman€Hankins,€Ph.D.,€a€vocational€disability€expert,€reviewed€the€plaintiffððs€medicalÐ ô$D # Ðrecords€and€performed€IQ€and€aptitude€tests.€€He€felt€the€plaintiff€should€only€perform€light€work€thatÐ à%0!$ Ðdid€not€expose€her€to€chemicals,€fumes€and€cleaning€agents.€€He€found€her€to€be€in€the€normal€rangeÐ Ì&"% Ðfor€most€areas€tested€and€assessed€a€sixty€percent€vocational€disability.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àDr.€Arnold€Hudson,€M.D.,€a€pulmonary€disease€specialist,€saw€the€plaintiff€on€one€occasionÐ )à$( Ðat€the€defendantððs€request.€€He€reviewed€her€records€and€performed€some€test€of€his€own€includingÐ |*Ì%) Ða€methacholine€test€which€is€used€to€determine€whether€asthma€is€present.€€The€results€were€negative.€Ð h+¸&* ÐDr.€Hudson€testified€the€plaintiff€would€have€a€zero€percent€impairment.€€He€opined€the€plaintiff€didÐ ° Ðnot€suffer€from€occupational€asthma.Ð œì ÐÌà@))%ìàòòò òDiscussionó óóóˆÐ tÄ ÐÌÌà  àReview€of€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trialÐ 8 ˆ Ðcourt,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€finding,€unless€the€preponderance€ofÐ $ t Ðthe€evidence€is€otherwise.€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððóó€50„6„225(e)(2).€€òòStone€v.€City€of€McMinnville,€óó896Ð  ` ÐS.W.2d€548,€550€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€application€of€this€standard€requires€this€Court€to€weigh€in€moreÐ ü L  Ðdepth€the€factual€findings€and€conclusions€of€the€trial€courts€in€workersðð€compensation€cases.€€òòSeeÐ è 8  ÐCorcoran€v.€Foster€Auto€GMC,€Inc.,€óó746€S.W.2d€452,€456€(Tenn.€1988).€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌò òòòCausationóóó óÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà  àIn€order€to€be€eligible€for€workersðð€compensation€benefits,€an€employee€must€suffer€ð ðanÐ „Ô  Ðinjury€by€accident€arising€out€of€and€in€the€course€of€employment€which€causes€either€disablementÐ pÀ Ðor€death.ðð€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€50„6„102(a)(5).€€The€phrase€ð ðarising€out€ofðð€refers€to€causation.€€TheÐ \¬ Ðcausation€requirement€is€satisfied€if€the€injury€has€a€rational,€causal€connection€to€the€work.€òòóó€òòReeserÐ H˜ Ðv.€Yellow€Freight€Sys.,€Inc.,€óó938€S.W.2d€690,€692€(Tenn.€1997)€(citations€omitted);òò€Fink€v.€Caudle,Ð 4„ Ðóó856€S.W.2d€952€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€all€but€the€most€obvious€cases,€such€as€the€loss€of€a€member,Ð  p Ðexpert€testimony€is€required€to€establish€causation.€€òòThomas€v.€Aetna€Life€&€Casualty€Co.,óó€812Ð  \ ÐS.W.2d€278€(Tenn.€1991).Ð øH ÐÌà  àAlthough€causation€cannot€be€based€upon€merely€speculative€or€conjectural€proof,€absoluteÐ Ð  Ðcertainty€is€not€required.€€Any€reasonable€doubt€in€this€regard€is€to€be€construed€in€favor€of€theÐ ¼  Ðemployee.€€We€have€thus€consistently€held€that€an€award€may€properly€be€based€upon€medicalÐ ¨ø Ðtestimony€to€the€effect€that€a€given€incident€ð ðcould€beðð€the€cause€of€the€employeeððs€injury,€whenÐ ”ä Ðthere€is€also€lay€testimony€from€which€it€reasonably€may€be€inferred€that€the€incident€was€in€fact€theÐ €Ð Ðcause€of€the€injury.€€òòReeser€v.€Yellow€Freight€Sys.,€Inc.,€óó938€S.W.2d€690,€692€(Tenn.€1997)€(citationsÐ l¼ Ðomitted).€€Only€a€medical€expert€may€testify€as€to€whether€a€given€disability€is€permanent.€€òòBoltonÐ X ¨ Ðv.€CNA€Ins.€Co.óó,€821€S.W.2d€932€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€this€case,€Dr.€Mejia€diagnosed€the€plaintiff€withÐ D!” Ðoccupational€asthma€and€expressed€the€opinion€that€if€the€plaintiff€continued€in€her€work€with€theÐ 0"€  Ðdefendant,€her€condition€would€progress.€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€as€in€all€workersðð€compensation€cases,€the€claimant's€own€assessment€of€hisÐ ô$D # Ðphysical€condition€and€resulting€disabilities€is€competent€testimony€and€cannot€be€disregarded.€òòTomÐ à%0!$ ÐStill€Transfer€Co.€v.€Way,óó€482€S.W.2d€775,€777€(Tenn.€1972).€€The€plaintiff€provided€lay€testimonyÐ Ì&"% Ðas€to€the€effects€of€the€chemicals€on€her€breathing€and€general€health.€€Finally,€a€compelling€fact€forÐ ¸'#& Ðthis€Court€is€that€a€pre„employment€physical€showed€normal€breathing€functions.€€Causation€in€thisÐ ¤(ô#' Ðmatter€has€been€adequately€proven€via€expert€and€lay€testimony;€we€will€not€disturb€the€trial€judgeððsÐ )à$( Ðfindings€in€this€regard.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àIn€this€case,€the€medical€proof€was€presented€by€deposition,€and€the€trial€court€chose€to€creditÐ ° Ðthe€deposition€testimony€of€Dr.€Kinser.€€The€trial€court€has€the€discretion€to€accept€the€opinion€of€oneÐ œì Ðmedical€expert€over€another€medical€expert.€€òòKellerman€v.€Food€Lion,€Inc.,€óó929€S.W.2d€333€(Tenn.Ð ˆØ Ð1996);€€òòJohnson€v.€Midwesco,€Inc.,€óó801€S.W.2d€804,€806€(Tenn.€1990).€€Several€cases€have€indicatedÐ tÄ Ðthat€the€trial€court€should€give€more€weight€to€the€opinions€of€treating€physicians€than€those€ofÐ `° Ðevaluating€physicians,€òòSee€e.g.óó,€òòCrossno€v.€Publix€Shirt€Factoryóó,€814€S.W.2d€730€(Tenn.€1991),Ð L œ Ðhowever,€the€trial€judge€is€not€required€to€do€so.€€Moreover,€we€are€not€inclined€to€reject€the€findingÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€the€trial€judge€on€such€basis€unless€there€is€something€inherent€in€the€deposition€testimony€whichÐ $ t Ðconvinces€us€the€opinion€expressed€is€not€reliable.€€We€do€not€find€any€unreliability€present€in€theÐ  ` Ðdepositions€in€this€case,€and€we€do€not€find€the€trial€judge€abused€his€discretion€in€accepting€theÐ ü L  Ðopinion€of€Dr.€Kinser.€€This€case€is€somewhat€unique€in€that€the€treating€physician€was€unfamiliarÐ è 8  Ðwith€the€AMA€Guidelines€and€had€never€even€given€a€medical€opinion€deposition€before€this€case;Ð Ô$  Ðhe€obviously€felt€himself€unqualified€to€provide€the€court€with€a€rating.€€He€did,€however,€provideÐ À  Ðrather€substantial€restrictions€and€stated€the€plaintiff€would€be€unable€to€return€to€her€previousÐ ¬ü  Ðpositions€without€worsening€her€medical€condition.€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€ultimate€issue€in€a€workersðð€compensation€case€is€not€medical€impairment€but€ratherÐ pÀ Ðvocational€disability.€€The€extent€of€vocational€disability€is€a€question€of€fact€to€be€determined€fromÐ \¬ Ðall€of€the€evidence,€including€lay€and€expert€testimony.€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€óóðð€50„6„241(c);Ð H˜ ÐòòWorthington€v.€Modine€Mfg.€Co.,óó€798€S.W.2d€232,€234€(Tenn.€1990).€€In€making€determinations,Ð 4„ Ðthe€court€shall€consider€all€pertinent€factors,€including€lay€and€expert€testimony,€employeeððs€age,Ð  p Ðeducation,€skills€and€training,€local€job€opportunities,€and€capacity€to€work€at€types€of€employmentÐ  \ Ðavailable€in€claimantððs€disabled€condition.€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððóó€50„6„241(c);€òòRoberson€v.€LorettoÐ øH ÐCasket€Co.,€óó722€S.W.2d€380,€384€(Tenn.€1986).€€The€lay€and€expert€testimony€show€the€plaintiff€hasÐ ä4 Ðno€specialized€skills€or€job€training,€no€high€school€diploma€or€GED€and€is€unable€to€return€to€herÐ Ð  Ðpre„employment€position€because€of€her€breathing€problems.€€The€expert€testimony€placing€theÐ ¼  Ðplaintiffððs€vocational€disability€at€sixty€percent€supports€the€trial€judgeððs€finding€as€well.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌÌò òòòPre„judgment€Interestóóó óÐ l¼ ÐÌÌà  àThe€defendant€argues€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€pre„judgment€interest€in€this€caseÐ 0"€  Ðwhere€the€evidence€of€liability€was€highly€disputed€and€when€the€trial€court€did€not€render€a€decisionÐ #l! Ðfor€seventeen€months.€€The€defendant€also€notes€that€from€the€outset€there€was€no€way€of€knowingÐ $X" Ðwhat€the€plaintiff€was€owed€and€since€it€is€not€responsible€for€the€delay€in€the€rendering€of€theÐ ô$D # Ðdecision,€it€should€not€have€to€pay€the€interest.€€The€plaintiff€points€out€that€she,€unlike€theÐ à%0!$ Ðdefendant,€was€denied€the€use€of€the€money€during€the€delay€and€argues€the€interest€award€shouldÐ Ì&"% Ðstand.€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€47„14„123€provides€for€pre„judgment€interest€as€an€element€of,Ð )à$( Ðor€in€the€nature€of,€damages€in€accordance€with€the€principles€of€equity.€€The€award€must€beÐ |*Ì%) Ðequitable€under€the€circumstances€and€must€be€designed€to€compensate€the€injured€party€rather€thanÐ h+¸&* Ðpunish€the€other€party.€€òòId.óó;€òòMyint€v.€Allstateóó,€970€S.W.2d€920,€927€(Tenn.€1998).Ð ° ÐÌà  àThe€standard€of€review€regarding€an€award€of€pre„judgment€interest€is€abuse€of€discretionð!ðaÐ ˆØ Ðð ðmanifest€and€palpable€abuse€of€discretion.ðð€€òòSee€Davis€v.€Inmanóó,€974€S.W.2d€689€(Tenn.€1998).€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€issue€of€liability€in€this€case€was€strongly€and€legitimately€questioned.€€The€trial€judgeÐ L œ Ðtook€the€case€under€advisement€for€a€period€of€seventeen€month€before€entering€a€judgment.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌò òòòóóó óà  àThe€record€is€silent€with€respect€to€the€award€of€prejudgment€interest.€€When€the€record€isÐ  ` Ðsilent€as€to€the€reasons€the€trial€judge€awarded€prejudgment€interest,€we€are€unable€to€determineÐ ü L  Ðwhether€the€award€is€justified€or€whether€the€trial€judge€abused€his€discretion€in€making€the€award.€Ð è 8  ÐWe€therefore€remand€the€issue€of€the€award€of€prejudgment€interest€to€the€trial€court€for€a€statementÐ Ô$  Ðof€fact.€€Either€side€may€appeal€from€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€on€this€issue€after€the€findings€ofÐ À  Ðthe€trial€court€are€issued€on€remand.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€on€the€finding€of€compensability€and€the€amountÐ „Ô  Ðawarded€and€remand€on€the€issue€of€prejudgment€interest.€€The€cost€of€the€appeal€is€taxed€to€theÐ pÀ Ðdefendant.€Ð \¬ ÐÌÌà  àÌÔ‡ Xˆ XXX[YÔÌÔ#†X[YX X XˆœD#ÔÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à__________________________________€Ð Þ. Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOHN€K.€BYERS,€SENIOR€JUDGEÐ  Ê ÐÔ‡¼ u»XX[YÔÔ#†X[YX»¼ uðE#ÔÔ‡¼ u»XX[YÔà@7 7 ìàÔ#†X[YX»¼ u2F#ÔÔ‡¼ u»XX[YÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@° ° ìàAT€KNOXVILLE,€TENNESSEE€Ô#†X[YX»¼ u†F#ԈР Ðò òÔ‡¼ u»XX[YÔÔ#†X[YX»¼ uBG#ÔÔ‡¼ u»XX[YÔÔ% ‡ ÔÓ  ÓDARLENE€€MOORE€COLLINS€V.€Ô_ÔCMHÔ_Ô€€MANUFACTURING,€INC.Ð Ô$ Ð(ALSO€REFERRED€TO€AS€"NORRIS,€INC.Ô%†£GÔòòóóÔ% ‡ ÔÐ è8 ÐÔ%†\HÔòòóóÔ_ÔGraingerÔ_Ô€County€Circuit€CourtÔ#†X[YX»¼ u„G#ÔÔ‡¼ u»XX[YÔÔ#†X[YX»¼ uõH#Ôó óÐ üL ÐÓ°GÓà@xx&ìàò òÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%†tIÔÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%† ’IÔÔ% ‡! ÔÔ%†!°IÔÔ% ‡" ÔÔ%†"ÎIÔNo.€6628ˆÐ  ` ÐÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<ç ` A߈Ð è 8 ÐÌà@˜ ˜ ìàNo.€Ô% ‡# ÔE1999„01225„Ô_ÔWCÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€28,€2000Ô%†#‹JԈРã 3  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<º` AßÐ »  Ðó óÌÔ‡¼ u»XX[YÔÔ#†X[YX»¼ uhK#Ôà@±±&ìàò òJUDGMENTó óÔ‡¼ u»XX[YÔÔ#†X[YX»¼ uÊK#ԈР¶  ÐÌòòóóÔ‡¼ u»XX[YÔÔ#†X[YX»¼ u)L#Ô€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€This€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€of€referralÐ ŽÞ  Ðto€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel's€memorandum€Opinion€settingÐ zÊ  Ðforth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ð f¶ Ðà  àà ` àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€memorandum€Opinion€of€the€PanelÐ R¢ Ðshould€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÐ >Ž Ðà  àà ` àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€facts€and€conclusions€of€law€areÐ *z Ðadopted€and€affirmed€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€Judgment€of€the€Court.Ð f Ðà  àà ` àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€Defendant,€Ô_ÔCMHÔ_Ô€Manufacturing,€Inc.€and€Linda€J.Ð R ÐHamilton€Ô_ÔMowlesÔ_Ô,€surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð î> ÐÌ12/28/00€€Ð Æ ÐÔ‡¼ u»XX[YÔÔ% € ÔÔ#†X[YX»¼ u¬P#ÔÌÌ