ÿWPCü, ·#  UN %k 0 ûq U:l 4¦ º 0DÉ  w@ 0?[ 0DšLÞT*L~ 0Ê 0Já 0T+ 0^ 0hÝ 0rE 0|· 0†3 AQ¹Æ  0Ð 0@ç B' 0D D/Ô 1u Bx D3• 0dÈU>,U *jU*”B)¾DCç AM*Éw¥@få ¾K!v~ #vÓ‡$ AZ* 0#Ù*˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÓH=$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XÎ_XXXÔÑ7€¾úXXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular]tÁ$øð 3|x 1($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óH í0Ó€÷0ø0Vù0îú0Ó€1 11E 1 1(ï(3ø|$¤¤Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€Xè·XXXÔÑ7€¥PXXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(%Ã$òòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPTc:\office\wpwin\template\legal\11deny.wptC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT(ï3|ƒ$©©Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€Xè·XXXÔÑ7€¥PXXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ý2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô!"# &Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ï3|ƒ$¢¢Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€Xè·XXXÔÑ7€¥PXXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò d2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(('÷ÿ dxd% ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)üÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxdP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d44447Border 1dd!#5Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ¿Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€2ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€2XÔÌÌJuneÏ24,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó ›Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€2ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€There€is€no€issue€raised€concerning€the€dismissal€of€Hughes€Parker€in€thisÏcase.Ì \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ ´Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€2ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€2XÔÌÌJuneÏ24,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva Ò#yúÿ  <<= 8ÀÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ(û3²Ç$««Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€Xè·XXXÔÑ7€¥PXXdìdì7ÑÝ  ÝÔ d ÔÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€1ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€2ÔÑ#€33Xd#ÑÑ#€33Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÙ€!ÙÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÑ À ÑÑ X Ñò òßR€675A1-j|` 81 `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€Ìó óà@ àò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌHAROLD€TREG€COTTON,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà àà àà à)à àLAWRENCE€CIRCUITà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNO.€€01S01„9706„CV„00188Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌEPSCO,€INC.,à àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JIM€T.€HAMILTON,€Ìà àà àà àà à€à àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àDefendant/Appellantà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòÌFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€the€Appellee:ÌÌóóó óSteven€A.€Dixà àà àà àà àPaul€A.€BatesÌMcClellan,€Powers,€Ehmling€&à àà àChristopher€V.€SockwellÌ€€Dix,€P.C.à àà àà àà àà àBoston,€Bates,€Holt€&€SockwellÌ201€West€Main€Street,€Suite€201à àà à235€Waterloo€StreetÌMurfreesboro,€TN€€37130à àà àà àP.O.€Box€357ò òòòÌà àà àà àà àà àà àóóó óLawrenceburg,€TN€€38464ò òòòÌÌóóó óÌÌÌÓ  Óò òòòÌÌÌM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌò òòòMembers€of€Panel:ÌÌó óóóJustice€Frank€F.€Drowota,€IIIÌSenior€Judge€John€K.€ByersÌSpecial€Judge€William€S.€RussellÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÔ% € ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœAFFIRMED›€IN€œPART,›à àà àà àà àà àBYERS,€Senior€JudgeÌMODIFIED€IN€œPART,€and›ÌœREVERSED€IN€PART›ÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòò òOPINIONó óóóÌÓ  Óà àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€SpecialÏWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€withÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€CourtÏof€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€Ìà àReview€of€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€theÏrecord€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€theÏfindings,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ïðð€50„6„225(e)(2).€€òòStone€v.€City€of€McMinnville,€óó896€S.W.2d€548,€550€(Tenn.€1995).€ÌThe€application€of€this€standard€requires€this€Court€to€weigh€in€more€depth€theÏfactual€findings€and€conclusions€of€the€trial€court€in€a€workersðð€compensation€case.€ÏòòSee€Corcoran€v.€Foster€Auto€GMC,€Inc.,€óó746€S.W.2d€452,€456€(Tenn.€1988).Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€plaintiff€brought€suit€against€Epsco,€Inc.€(ð ðEpscoðð)€and€laterÏHughes€Parker€Industries,€Inc.€(ð ðHughes€Parkerðð)× ƒ8 ××  ×,€alleging€that€he€was€entitled€toÍworkersðð€compensation€benefits€as€a€result€of€developing€carpal€tunnel€syndrome€inÏthe€course€of€his€employment.Ìà àThe€trial€court€dismissed€the€suit€against€Hughes€Parker€and€found€thatÏEpsco€was€not€prejudiced€by€the€plaintiff€giving€notice€of€his€injury€on€April€3,€1996.€ÏThe€trial€court€awarded€the€plaintiff€40€percent€permanent€partial€disability€to€bothÏarms€and€seven€weeks€of€temporary€total€disability.€Ìòòà àóóEpsco€appeals€and€presents€the€following€issues:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ H ÒÓÓ1.à àThe€plaintiffððs€cause€of€action€is€barred€by€the€plaintiffððs€failure€to€giveÏà àtimely€notice.Ì2.€€à àThe€plaintiffððs€cause€of€action€is€barred€by€the€applicable€statute€ofÏà àà àlimitations.Ì3.€€à àThe€permanent€partial€impairment€award€is€excessive.Ì4.à àThere€is€no€basis€for€an€award€of€temporary€total€disability.€òòÌÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÌÓÓóóà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€that€the€plaintiff€timely€notified€andÏfiled€suit€against€Epsco,€we€modify€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€to€find€that€theÏplaintiff€can€recover€20€percent€permanent€partial€disability€to€each€upper€extremity,Ïand€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€that€the€plaintiff€is€entitled€toÏtemporary€total€disability€benefits.ÌÓ  Óò òÌÌFACTSó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€plaintiff,€34€years€of€age€at€the€time€of€trial,€graduated€from€high€school€inÏ1980€and€earned€a€full€music€scholarship€to€Tennessee€Tech.€€The€plaintiff€testifiedÏthat€he€suffers€from€a€panic€disorder€and€depression€for€which€he€receivesÏpsychiatric€treatment€and€drug€therapy€and€that€these€problems€prevented€him€fromÏattending€college€and€from€working€prior€to€1994.Ìà àIn€1994,€the€plaintiff€began€working€for€Epsco,€an€employer€which€providesÏtemporary€workers€to€local€industries,€including€Hughes€Parker.€€His€employmentÏhistory€is€as€follows:€€(1)€first€employed€by€Epsco€from€October€23,€1994€toÏNovember€27,€1994;€(2)€directly€employed€by€Hughes€Parker€from€November€28,Ï1994€to€February€20,€1995;€(3)€re„employed€by€Epsco€from€March€26,€1995€to€AprilÏ30,€1995;€and€(4)€again€re„employed€by€Epsco€from€December€3,€1995€to€March€24,Ï1996.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€operated€a€metal€stamping€press€for€Hughes€Parker.€€As€a€pressÏoperator,€the€plaintiff€put€200€metal€pieces€into€the€press€each€hour€and€therebyÏused€his€hands€for€gripping,€squeezing,€and€lifting€eight€hours€a€day.€€Within€oneÏmonth€of€working€at€Hughes€Parker,€the€plaintiff€said€he€began€to€experience€pain,Ïnumbness,€and€tingling€in€his€hands€and€arms.€€He€testified€that€he€never€hadÏproblems€with€his€hands€prior€to€operating€the€press.€€Ìà àThe€plaintiff€testified€that€he€left€Hughes€Parker€in€February€1995€because€hisÏhands€swelled€and€became€numb.€€In€March€1995,€the€plaintiff€returned€to€work€forÏEpsco€because€the€symptoms€had€eased€during€the€one€month€he€did€not€work.€ÏHowever,€the€symptoms€resumed€and€he€quit€working€for€Epsco€in€late€April€1995.€ÏDuring€the€summer€months€of€1995,€the€plaintiff€worked€as€a€janitor€and€painter€andÏsaid€he€did€not€experience€any€symptoms€in€performing€these€jobs.€€The€plaintiffÏtestified€that€he€returned€to€work€for€Epsco€in€December€1995€because€he€had€billsÏto€pay.€€However,€the€symptoms€resumed€again€and€he€quit€work€with€Epsco€inÏMarch€1996.€Ìà àThe€earliest€documentation€of€the€plaintiffððs€condition€appears€in€the€notes€ofÏDr.€Ball€and€Dr.€Panovec,€his€general€practitioners.€€Dr.€Panovec€referred€theÏplaintiff€to€Dr.€Dirr,€who€performed€an€electromyleogram€which€showed€carpalÍtunnel€syndrome€on€May€8,€1995.€€The€plaintiff€was€given€splints€and€consideredÏtaking€a€new€job€due€to€the€symptoms.€€In€January€1996,€the€plaintiff€returned€to€Dr.ÏPanovec€with€carpal€tunnel€syndrome€complaints€and€was€referred€to€Dr.€Moore,Ïwho€performed€bilateral€carpal€tunnel€release€surgery€on€April€1,€1996.à àà àà àÌà àThe€plaintiff€notified€Epsco€of€his€work€injury€by€way€of€a€letter€from€hisÏattorney€dated€April€1,€1996,€the€day€he€underwent€surgery.€€Epsco€received€theÏletter€on€April€3,€1996.€€The€plaintiff€testified€that€he€did€not€realize€the€problems€withÏhis€arms€were€permanent€until€he€had€surgery.€€The€plaintiff€testified€that€sinceÏsurgery€the€numbness€in€his€hands€has€improved€but€that€he€continues€to€haveÏproblems€with€gripping€and€holding€onto€items,€with€loss€of€strength€in€his€handsÏand€arms,€and€with€lifting€and€gripping€boxes€in€his€current€job€where€he€makesÏ$1.50€more€than€he€made€working€for€Epsco.€€ÌÓ  Óò òMEDICAL€TESTIMONYó óÌÓ  Óà àDr.€Kenneth€Moore,€a€board€certified€orthopedic€surgeon,€testified€byÏdeposition.€€Dr.€Moore€first€saw€the€plaintiff€for€complaints€of€numbness,€stiffness,Ïswelling,€tenderness,€and€weakness€in€his€hands.€€After€examining€him€andÏreviewing€a€nerve€conduction€study€and€E.M.G.,€Dr.€Moore€diagnosed€the€plaintiffððsÏcondition€as€carpal€tunnel€syndrome€on€February€29,€1996.€€At€that€time,€Dr.€MooreÏdiscussed€the€details€of€surgery€with€him.€€Dr.€Moore€treated€the€plaintiff€andÏperformed€bilateral€carpal€tunnel€release€surgery€on€April€1,€1996.€€Dr.€MooreÏtestified€that€he€was€not€able€to€give€the€plaintiff€an€anatomical€impairment€ratingÏnor€was€he€able€to€place€restrictions€on€him€because€he€never€returned€for€post„surgical€care.€€Dr.€Moore€testified€that€it€is€possible€that€the€plaintiffððs€condition€andÏresulting€surgery€were€a€result€of€his€employment€with€Epsco,€but€he€also€said€thatÏhe€never€told€the€plaintiff€that€the€condition€was€work€related.€€Dr.€Moore€testifiedÍthat€it€would€take€a€patient€six€to€eight€weeks€to€return€to€work€and€12€to€16€weeks€toÏreach€maximum€medical€improvement€after€carpal€tunnel€release€surgery.Ìòòà àóóDr.€David€W.€Gaw,€a€board€certified€orthopedic€surgeon,€also€testified€byÏdeposition.€€On€September€4,€1996,€Dr.€Gaw€performed€an€independent€medicalÏexamination€of€the€plaintiff€at€the€request€of€his€attorney.€€At€that€time,€the€plaintiffÏwas€still€complaining€of€pain€in€his€hands€but€the€numbness€had€improved.€€AfterÏreviewing€his€medical€records,€Dr.€Moore€gave€the€plaintiff€a€ten€percent€permanentÏpartial€impairment€rating€to€each€upper€extremity€and€restricted€him€permanentlyÏfrom€continuous€gripping,€squeezing,€or€constant€manipulation€with€his€fingers.€ÏRegarding€causation,€Dr.€Gaw€testified€that€ð ðbarring€any€other€significant€history,€theÏrepetitive€use€of€his€hands€for€operation€of€a€metal€press€would€be€the€most€likelyÏcause€of€his€condition.ðð€€Dr.€Gaw€stated€that€he€never€took€the€plaintiff€off€work€andÏthat€none€of€his€restrictions€would€prevent€him€from€returning€to€work€as€a€painter.€ÏDr.€Gaw€testified€that€a€patient€having€bilateral€carpal€tunnel€release€surgery€couldÏreturn€to€work€after€six€to€eight€weeks€and€that€during€this€interval€the€patient€wouldÏbe€temporarily€totally€disabled.ÌÓ  Óò òANALYSISÌÓ  Óó óòòà àóóIn€order€to€be€eligible€for€workersðð€compensation€benefits,€an€employee€mustÏsuffer€ð ðan€injury€by€accident€arising€out€of€and€in€the€course€of€employment€whichÏcauses€either€disablement€or€death.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„102(a)(5).€€TheÏphrase€ððarising€out€ofðð€refers€to€causation.€€The€causation€requirement€is€satisfied€ifÏthe€injury€has€a€rational,€causal€connection€to€the€work.€€òòReeser€v.€Yellow€FreightÏSys.,€Inc.,€óó938€S.W.2d€690,€692€(Tenn.€1997)€(citations€omitted).òòÌóóà àAlthough€causation€cannot€be€based€upon€merely€speculative€or€conjecturalÏproof,€absolute€certainty€is€not€required.€€Any€reasonable€doubt€in€this€regard€is€toÍbe€construed€in€favor€of€the€employee.€€We€have€thus€consistently€held€that€anÏaward€may€properly€be€based€upon€medical€testimony€to€the€effect€that€a€givenÏincident€ð ðcould€beðð€the€cause€of€the€employeeððs€injury,€when€there€is€also€layÏtestimony€from€which€it€may€be€reasonably€inferred€that€the€incident€was€in€fact€theÏcause€of€the€injury.€€òòId.óó€Ìà àWhere€the€trial€judge€has€made€a€determination€based€upon€the€testimony€ofÏwitnesses€whom€he€has€seen€and€heard,€great€deference€must€be€given€to€thatÏfinding€in€determining€whether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€judgeððsÏdetermination.€€òòSeeóó€òòHumphrey€v.€David€Witherspoon,€Inc.,€óó734€S.W.2d€315€(Tenn.Ï1987).€€In€this€case,€as€in€all€workersðð€compensation€cases,€the€claimant's€ownÏassessment€of€his€physical€condition€and€resulting€disabilities€is€competentÏtestimony€and€cannot€be€disregarded.€òò€Tom€Still€Transfer€Co.€v.€Way,óó€482€S.W.2dÏ775,€777€(Tenn.€1972).ÌÓ  Óò òÌÌNoticeó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€first€issue€presented€by€Epsco€is€whether€the€plaintiffððs€cause€of€action€isÏbarred€by€his€failure€to€give€timely€notice.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„201€requires€theÏemployee€to€notify€the€employer€of€a€work€injury€within€30€days€of€its€occurrenceÏunless€there€is€a€reasonable€excuse.€€Epsco€argues€that€the€record€clearly€showsÏthat€the€plaintiffððs€earliest€knowledge€that€his€job€was€causing€his€hands€and€arms€toÏhurt€was€in€November€1994,€that€the€plaintiff€also€knew€that€he€was€diagnosed€withÏcarpal€tunnel€syndrome€on€May€8,€1995,€and€that€the€plaintiff€discussed€surgeryÏwith€Dr.€Moore€on€February€29,€1996.€€Based€on€any€of€these€dates,€Epsco€says€thatÍthe€plaintiffððs€letter€of€April€1,€1996,€which€was€received€on€April€3,€1996,€was€notÏtimely€notice.€€Ìòòà àóóWe€find€that€the€plaintiff€did€give€timely€notice€of€his€injury€to€Epsco.€€BasedÏon€the€law€in€gradual€injury€cases,€the€date€of€the€accidental€injury€is€the€date€onÏwhich€the€condition€finally€prevents€the€employee€from€performing€his€work.€€òòBrownÏShoe€Co.€v.€Reed,óó€350€S.W.2d€65€(Tenn.€1961).€€The€record€shows€that€the€plaintiffÏfinally€quit€his€work€at€Epsco€on€March€24,€1996€because€of€the€severe€pain€in€hisÏarms.€€This€makes€Epscoððs€receipt€of€the€plaintiffððs€letter€on€April€3,€1996€within€theÏ30€day€statutory€requirement.€Ìà àEpsco€also€says€that€it€did€not€waive€notice€and€that€the€plaintiff€failed€toÏprove€any€reasonable€excuse€for€not€giving€timely€notice.€€Epsco€argues€that€theÏplaintiffððs€failure€to€give€timely€notice€prejudiced€Epsco€since€it€never€had€theÏopportunity€to€investigate€the€propriety€of€the€plaintiffððs€medical€treatment.€€However,Ïas€the€plaintiff€points€out,€Epsco€proved€no€prejudice€concerning€the€date€of€noticeÏbecause€a€representative€of€Epsco€testified€that€she€never€went€to€the€plant€toÏinvestigate€the€plaintiffððs€claim€even€after€being€put€on€notice€of€his€work€injury.à àÌÓ  Óò òStatute€of€Limitationsó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€second€issue€presented€by€Epsco€is€whether€the€plaintiffððs€cause€ofÏaction€is€barred€by€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„203€requires€the€employee€to€file€a€claim€for€workersðð€compensation€within€one€yearÏof€a€work€injury.€€Epsco€argues€that€the€plaintiffððs€complaint€of€April€25,€1996€wasÏfiled€one€year€and€six€months€after€he€first€developed€carpal€tunnel€syndromeÏsymptoms€and€knew€or€should€have€known€that€he€sustained€a€work€related€injuryÏin€November€1994.€Ìà àWe€find€that€the€plaintiff€filed€suit€within€the€applicable€statute€of€limitationsÏperiod.€€The€Supreme€Court€adopted€the€rule€that€ð ðin€a€carpal€tunnel€syndromeÏaction,€the€date€from€which€compensation€flows€is€the€last€date€workedòò€óóby€theÏclaimant.ðð€€òòLawson€v.€Lear€Seating€Corp.,€óó944€S.W.2d€340,€342€(Tenn.€1997)Ï(citations€omitted).€€Therefore,€the€filing€of€the€plaintiffððs€complaint€on€April€25,€1996Ïwas€within€the€one€year€statute€of€limitations€period€since€he€finally€quit€his€workÏwith€Epsco€on€March€24,€1996€because€of€the€severe€pain€in€his€arms.€òòÌÓ  Óóóò òPermanent€Partial€Impairment€Awardó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€third€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€the€plaintiffððs€award€of€40€percentÏpermanent€partial€disability€is€excessive.€€After€a€careful€review€of€the€record,€weÏfind€that€the€award€is€excessive€and€modify€the€amount€to€20€percent.Ìà àIn€making€determinations,€the€court€shall€consider€all€pertinent€factors,Ïincluding€lay€and€expert€testimony€and€the€employeeððs€age,€education,€skills,Ïtraining,€local€job€opportunities,€and€capacity€to€work€at€types€of€employmentÏavailable€in€his€disabled€condition.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(1);€òòRoberson€v.ÏLoretto€Casket€Co.,€óó722€S.W.2d€380,€384€(Tenn.€1986).Ìà àIn€reviewing€these€factors,€we€note€that€the€plaintiff€is€a€34€year€old€highÏschool€graduate€who€earned€a€full€music€scholarship€to€Tennessee€Tech€and€whoÏhas€a€panic€disorder,€yet€the€record€reveals€no€proof€that€he€suffers€from€anyÏpermanent€diminished€capacity.€€In€addition,€we€note€that€the€plaintiff€never€returnedÏto€Dr.€Moore€for€an€impairment€rating€or€restrictions€and€that€the€plaintiff€was€neverÏtaken€off€work€by€Dr.€Gaw,€who€said€that€none€of€the€plaintiffððs€restrictions€wouldÏprevent€him€from€working€as€a€painter.€€Furthermore,€the€record€reveals€that€theÏplaintiff€has€obtained€employment€since€his€injury€making€$1.50€more€per€hour€thanÏhe€made€working€for€Epsco.Ìà àBased€upon€these€facts,€we€find€that€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€40€percentÏpermanent€partial€disability€to€both€arms€is€not€supported€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence.€€Therefore,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€modified€to€provide€an€awardÏof€20€percent€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.ÌÓ  Óò òÌTemporary€Total€Disability€Awardó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€last€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€there€is€a€basis€for€an€award€ofÏtemporary€total€disability€benefits.€€We€find€that€there€is€no€basis€for€such€an€awardÏand€reverse€that€portion€of€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.Ìà àIn€order€to€recover€temporary€total€disability€benefits,€the€plaintiff€must€proveÏthat€he€was€ð ð(1)€totally€disabled€to€work€by€a€compensable€injury;€(2)€that€there€wasÏa€causal€connection€between€the€injury€and€his€inability€to€work;€and€(3)€theÏduration€of€that€period€of€disability.ðð€€òòSimpson€v.€Satterfield,óó€564€S.W.2d€953,€955Ï(Tenn.€1978).€€In€this€case,€the€plaintiff€quit€work€without€advising€the€defendant€thatÏhe€was€unable€to€work€and€before€the€defendant€had€notice€of€any€injury.€ÏÓ  Óò òCONCLUSIONó óÌÓ  Óà àWe€affirm€the€findings€that€the€plaintiff€timely€notified€and€filed€suit€againstÏEpsco,€we€modify€the€award€of€permanent€partial€disability€to€20€percent€to€eachÏupper€extremity,€and€we€reverse€the€award€of€temporary€total€disability.€€The€cost€ofÏthis€appeal€is€taxed€to€Epsco.€€à àà àÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€JusticeÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌWilliam€S.€Russell,€Special€Judge€ÌœÑ€9ÑÇÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` Ñà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÔ€2&ÔHAROLD€TREG€COTTON,à@ à)à àLAWRENCE€CIRCUIT€NO.€CC„77„96Ìà@ à)Ìà àPLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,à@ à)à àHON.€JIM€T.€HAMILTON,€JUDGEÌà@ à)Ìv.à@ à)Ìà@ à)à àS.€CT.€NO.€01S01„9706„CV„00188ÌßJ€6:;+'b|` ‚- `€@ÿJßEPSCO,€INC.,à@ à)Ìà@ à)à àAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€MODIFIED€INÌà àDEFENDANT/APPELLANT.à@ à)à0 àÔ€2XÔPART€AND€REVERSED€IN€PARTÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òJUDGMENTó óóóÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€motion€for€review€pursuant€to€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð50„6„225(e)(5)(B),€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€of€referral€toÏthe€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel'sÏMemorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,Ïwhich€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ìà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€review€is€not€wellÏtaken€and€should€be€denied;€and€Ìà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€theÏjudgment€of€the€Court.Ìà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€Defendant/Appellant,€Epsco,€Inc.,€for€which€executionÏmay€issue€if€necessary.Ìà àIt€is€so€ordered€this€24th€day€of€June,€1998.ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌÌDROWOTA,€J.€NOT€PARTICIPATING›