WPCZ qJBHx,B y%lK6'S!=I84n ~$A/8lo27eQi?́Rځ_,̷;iESE;'2E;-vPqnn)Ag"畺F?@]XRbcV &VÙr<}{+;lGE?g 3\ 7=Wgs!$7 U|)Z/f4סT2-UL*rZ죛^;lcB)}Vw;uC\++LcFœL s4.v06⁰Ro4䯍ӝzOmVBz-ρI#rXLQ 8`sg0`7Z~l;L\TQq V2JվQ-Nb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz U>   [ !NNU@E++++++ --- 55 = EEEEEEEEEEEEbMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 0UUUU B @@ 0] D5 D-6 0Kcc AS 0 0Dk AHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 5e,,,,0j')L (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular@O(C`hy 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|xU\  `&Times New RomanLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z(Times New Roman 1467- -(|G2$ !..8dd8         0  XX d(|3$ !..8dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !..8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE    SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL  @$ATNASHVILLE 0 XX #XXӆ#  DARRYLDAVISv.PIRELLIARMSTRONGTIRECORPORATIONAND 8 TRAVELERSINSURANCECOMPANYXX   P @  DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  X @ No.9612IICarolL.McCoy,Chancellor  H @*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @ No.M199900008_WC_ԄR3CVMailedApril19,2000   @FiledSeptember6,2000   AV) ` dE<` A     XXXX  ThisworkerscompensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkersCompensation  AppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)(1999)  forhearingandreportingoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.Appellatereviewoffactual  issuesinworkerscompensationcasesisdenovowithapresumptionthatthetrialcourtsfindings v arecorrect,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(2) f (1999);Hillv.EagleBendMfg.,Inc.,942_S.W._Ԁ2d483,487(Tenn.1997).Whenatrialcourthas V seenandheardwitnessesandissuesofcredibilityandweightoftestimonyareinvolved,considerable F deferenceisaffordedthetrialcourtsfindingsoffact.SeeHumphreyv.David_Witherspoon_,Inc., 6 734_S.W._Ԁ2d315,31516(Tenn.1987). &v #XXX Xӽ##XX>#XX Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed  F SamuelL.Lewis,Sp.#XӞ #XX.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichFrankF._Drowota_,III,J., & andTomE.Gray,Sp..J.joined.   SteveC.Norris,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,DarrylDavis. "! WilliamD._McCaskill_,Jr.,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellees,PirelliArmstrongTire $# CorporationandTravelersInsuranceCompany. v% $ @55' OPINION #XXc #XXԈ V'"& #XXӷ #XX XXXX  ThisworkerscompensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkersCompensation 6)$( AppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)(1999) &*v%) forhearingandreportingoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.Appellatereviewoffactual +f&* issuesinworkerscompensationcasesisdenovowithapresumptionthatthetrialcourtsfindings ,V'+ arecorrect,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(2) ,F(, (1999);Hillv.EagleBendMfg.,Inc.,942_S.W._Ԁ2d483,487(Tenn.1997).Whenatrialcourthas -6)- _seenandheardwitnessesandissuesofcredibilityandweightoftestimonyareinvolved,considerable  deferenceisaffordedthetrialcourtsfindingsoffact.SeeHumphreyv.DavidWitherspoon,Inc.,  734S.W.2d315,31516(Tenn.1987).    Inthisworkerscompensationcasetheemployee,PlaintiffDarrylDavisappealsfromthe p judgmentoftheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCountyfindingthattheemployeedidnotsustaina `  compensableinjury.Thispanelfindsthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrial P  courtsfindingsandaffirmsitsdecision. @    ThePlaintiffwhileanemployeeofPirelliArmstrongTireCorporationonSeptember21,  p  1995fellfromtheheightofapproximately10feettoaconcretefloor.Thereisnodisputethatthe `  fallandwhateverinjurieswerecausedbythefallwerecompensableundertheWorkers P  CompensationLaw.Thedisputebetweenthepartieswasovertheextentoftheinjuriescausedby @  thefall.TheDefendantspaidthemedicalexpensesandtemporarytotaldisabilitybenefitsuntilthe 0  physicianreleasedthePlaintifftoreturntowork.ThePlaintiffthereafterobtainedadditional   medicalcarewhichincludedsurgeryforherniatedlumbardiscfromanonapprovedphysician.It  istheDefendantsinsistencethattheherniatedlumbardiscwasnotcausedbythefallandthey  refusedtopayfortheadditionalmedicalcareorfortemporarytotaldisabilityafterthemedical  releasebytheCompanyauthorizedphysician.DefendantsdeniedPlaintiffwasentitledtoany  permanentpartialdisabilityasaresultoftheSeptember21,1995fall.    ThecasewasheardbeforeChancellorCarolMcCoyforDavidsonCountyonJanuary14, ` 1999.TheCourtafterconsiderationofthetestimonyofthePlaintiffandthedepositionsofDr. P VictorT.Bazzone,WilliamR.Schooley,andRobertWeissandtheentirerecord,foundthatthe @ herniatedlumbardiscwasnotcausedbythefallonSeptember21,1995.TheCourtfurtherfound 0 thatthePlaintiff failedtoshowbypreponderanceoftheevidencethattheworkrelatedfallon  p September21,1995whileemployedatPirelliArmstrongTireCorporationwasacauseofadisc ` herniationatL5S1inthelumbarareawhichrequiredsurgery.TheCourtalsofoundthat because P thePlaintifffailedtoshowbypreponderanceoftheevidencethathesustainedapermanentwork @ relatedinjuryasaresultoftheSeptember21,1995fallatPirelliandbecausetheDefendantshave 0 previouslypaidallofappropriatetemporarytotaldisabilitybenefitsandauthorizedmedical   expensesthatthePlaintiffslawsuitagainsttheDefendantsshouldbedismissed.ThePlaintiffinsist ! thattheChancellorerredinfailingtofindthatthepreponderanceoftheevidenceshowedPlaintiff "  sustainedaherniateddiscasaresultofeithertheaccidentatworkorasaresultofthephysical #! therapywhichthePlaintiffreceivedasemployerauthorizedtreatmentfortheinjuriessustainedin $" thefall.Hethereforeinsiststhatallthemedicalcarehereceivedandthepermanentdisability % # sustainedtohisbackwerecompensableundertheworkerscompensationlaw. p&!$  X `'"% Priortoherfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,theChancellorsuccinctlystatedtheissue P(#& beforeheras whetherMr.DavisfallonSeptember21,1995resultedinthestrainofhislowerback @)$' withoutpermanentimpairmentorwhethertherewasadischerniationthatoccurredasaresultofthe 0*%( accident.  +p&)  X  _ ,`'*   Followingherdetailedreviewofthemedicalevidenceandtheentirerecord,theChancellor  foundthat basedonthemedicalfindingstheCourtdoesnothaveasufficientbasisonwhichtofind  thattheherniateddiscforwhichMr.DaviswastreatedwasrelatedtotheinjuryhehadinSeptember  of1995and reluctantlyfindsthatthereisnocompensationtowhichheisentitled.    TheissueforthisCourttodetermineiswhetherthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisagainst `  thefindingsofthetrialcourt.Appellatereviewoffactualissuesinworkerscompensationcases P  isdenovowithapresumptionthatthetrialcourtfindingsarecorrectunlessthepreponderanceof @  theevidenceisotherwise._T.C.A._Ԁ506225(e)(2)(1999);Hillv.EagleBendMfg.,Inc.,942_S.W._ 0  2d483,487(Tenn.1997).Whenatrialcourthasseenandheardwitnessesandissuesofcredibility  p  andweightoftestimonyareinvolved,considerabledeferenceisaffordedtrialcourtsfindingsof `  fact.SeeHumphreyv.David_Witherspoon_,Inc.,734_S.W._Ԁ2d315,31516(Tenn.1987). P    Thispanelhasreviewedthefactualissuesdenovowithapresumptionthatthetrialcourts 0  findingsarecorrectunlessapreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.EagleBendMfg.,Inc.,id.   487.Followingourreviewwefindnothinginthisrecordthatwouldshowthatthepreponderance  oftheevidenceisotherwise.Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindings  andwethereforeaffirmthetrialcourtsdecision.    Plaintiffalsoinsistthattheherniateddiscwascausedbytreatmenthereceivedasaresultof  thefall.Wefindnomedicalevidenceintherecordonwhichsuchafindingcouldbebased.The p soleevidenceistestimonyofthePlaintiffthatthephysicaltherapyhereceivedwasthecauseofthe ` herniateddisc.Plaintiffisattemptingtosubstitutehisownopinionofmedicalconditionforthe P opinionsofthetreatingphysicians.Thishecannotdo.Thomasv.AetnaLifeandCasualty @ InsuranceCo.,812_S.W._Ԁ2d278(Tenn.1991). 0   ItthereforeresultsthatthejudgmentoftheChancellorisaffirmedwithcostofappeal ` assessedtoDefendantDarrylDavis. P #XXX X/ #  0 XXXXXX@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @$ATNASHVILLE   %    DARRYLDAVISv. H PIRELLIARMSTRONGTIRECORP.,ETAL%.  ` #XX`-#  . %    ChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  h No.9612II%.% ! %!4/% " ԀCarolMcCoy,Chancellor%"R/  X .@*AV) ` dE<` A߈ (    ӀNo.M199900008_WC_ԄR3CVFiledSeptember6,2000 '  0@*AV) ` dE<` A    @& JUDGMENT     ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtuponDarrylDavissmotionforreviewpursuanttoTenn.Code  Ann.506225(e)(5)(B),theentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferraltotheSpecialWorkers'  CompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanel'sMemorandumOpinionsettingforthitsfindingsoffact v andconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference; f   Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthatthemotionforreviewisnotwelltakenandshould F beDENIED;and 6   Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanel'sfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawareadopted f andaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgmentoftheCourt. V   CostswillbeassessedtoDarrylDavisforwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. 6    `     h     PER_CURIAM_ !  _Drowota_,J.,notparticipating #" #XXXXA-#