ÿWPC" 9UB. %pÊv 0t@ 0l´ 0Ë 0Ÿë D+Š Ƶ 0Ÿ{ 0= 0ŸW AQö 0JG ‘ nX¡ 0 „ù} 0T}wjÑ4; 0^OU:­ 0hç {rO 0rÁ 0|3 0†¯ 05 1uÅ 0d: D/ž BÍ Bê D3D;: AKu°À'pB)—DCÀU *-fG­v~ÇvÓEô\  `*Times New RomanTTô' Í' IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE 6Gordon Chadwick Aulgur60Gordon Chadwick Aulgur .   h††ÿÿ:Default ParaDefault Paragraph FontÔ€XXXÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€ôôôÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔ`††ÿÿ:footnote reffootnote referenceÔ€XXXÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€ôôôÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔ<;Tÿÿ.footerfooterÓ  ÓÓ°°ÀÐ (#ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ>4°X°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#>Ó(w2,R$©©Ý ƒ&9!ÝÔ€ô>MôôôÔÓ  ÓÔ€ðQðôô>MÔÓEÓÝ  Ý'ÈÈÈÈdxdƒ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(w2,R$££Ý ƒ&9!ÝÔ€ô>MôôôÔÓ  ÓÔ€ðQðôô>MÔÓEÓÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$””Ú  ÚÚ  Ú(w2,R$¢¢Ý ƒ&9!ÝÔ€ô>MôôôÔÓ  ÓÔ€ðQðôô>MÔÓEÓÝ  Ý Cþÿ<< cÿÿ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô3|x2«ô\  `*Times New RomanTTôôCô\  PŽ6QôPô\  `*Times New RomanTTXXPô\  PŽ6QXP(\&9$¡¡Ô€ôJÅôôôÔÓ  ÓÔ€ðJÇðôôJÅÔÓEÓ2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔDE DUH !Ó€-1V2îk`($<ÿÿ2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô,U+ºAZ‹"Arial Regular26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(Jã$¡¡Ô€ô:¦ôôôÔÔ€ô:¦ôôô:¦ÔÓ  Ó2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ'''÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd&&&&'ÿÿdxd7Border 1dd -Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ¦Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÓ  ÓÓEÓÝ  ÝÔ€XÔÓ  ÓÔ@  ÔÚ  ÚÚ  ÚÔA  Ô Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÓ  ÓÓEÓÝ  ÝÓ È ÓÓ  ÓÔ€XÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÌÙ€ ÙßL€./-;+'h| xÈ `€€LßÓ  ÓÌÔ€ôÔ% Line 7 d11117Border 2dd< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÓ  ÓÓEÓÝ  ÝÔ€3ÔÔ€3ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€3XÔÌÌò òJanuary€22,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€3ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÓ  ÓÓEÓÝ  ÝÔ€3ÔÔ€3ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€3XÔÌÌò òJanuary€22,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€3ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÓ  ÓÓEÓÝ  ÝÖ€0ÖÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔT€ÔÞ ÞÌÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€ ÙßR€.42A1-j|s` Å `€€@ÿRßà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ à(May€23,€1997€Session)ÌÌ______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌJAMES€DOLLAR,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àNO.€02S01„9608„CH„00071Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌFLORIDA€STEEL€CORPORATION,à à)à àà àMADISON€COUNTY€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àCHANCELLOR€JOE€C.€MORRISÌà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòÌFOR€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€APPELLEEóó:ÌJerry€O.€Potterà àà àà àà àà àà àRicky€L.€BorenÌW.€Timothy€Hayes,€Jr.à àà àà àà àà àJackson,€TennesseeÌMemphis,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌà@ àMEMORANDUM€OPINIONÌà@ àMailed€_______________,€1997ÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòMembers€of€Panelóó:ÌÌà@ àJanice€M.€Holder,€Associate€Justice,€Supreme€CourtÌà@ àRobert€A.€Lanier,€Special€JudgeÌà@ àDon€R.€Ash,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌò òÌÌMODIFIEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óAsh,€JudgeÌÌÑ€5ÑÇà@ àò òòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONó óóóÌÌÓŠÓà àThis€workerððs€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€WorkersððÏCompensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€€50„6„225(e)(3)€(1996€Supp.)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law.€€In€this€appeal,€the€employer,€Florida€Steel€Corporation,€contends:€€(1)€that€theÏtrial€court€improperly€awarded€the€plaintiff€additional€temporary€total€disability€benefits€fromÏDecember€27,€1994€until€October€27,€1995,€and€(2)€that€the€trial€court€€acted€improperly€inÏawarding€the€plaintiff€permanent€total€benefits€in€the€amount€of€100%€to€the€body€as€a€whole.Ìò òà@ àòòSTANDARD€OF€REVIEWó óóóà àÌà àAppellate€review€is€de€novo€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€aÏpresumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€isÏotherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2)€(1996€Supp.).€€This€tribunal€must€conduct€anÏindependent€examination€of€the€record€to€determine€where€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€lies.ÏòòWingert€v.€Government€of€Sumner€Countyóó,€908€S.W.2d€921€(Tenn.€1995).€Ìà@ àò òòòFACTSó óóóÌà àThe€claimant,€Mr.€James€Dollar,€was€sixty„four€years€old€at€the€time€of€trial€and€has€a€highÏschool€education.€€Mr.€Dollarððs€work€history€consists€mainly€of€mechanical€work,€although€he€hasÏobtained€a€single„engine€commercial€pilotððs€license.€€Mr.€Dollar€injured€his€right€shoulder€on€JuneÏ23,€1993€while€working€for€Florida€Steel€Corporation.€€Dr.€Pechacek,€of€the€Jackson€Clinic,Ïtreated€Mr.€Dollar€and€diagnosed€him€as€having€a€partial€rotator€cuff€tear.€€Next,€he€was€referred€toÏDr.€Randy€Fly€who€treated€him€conservatively.€€In€June€of€1994,€Mr.€Dollar€was€picking€up€aÏmenu€in€a€restaurant€when€his€shoulder€popped.€€He€went€back€to€see€Dr.€Fly€who€diagnosed€Mr.ÏDollar€as€having€a€massive€rotator€cuff€tear.€€Mr.€Dollar€then€came€under€the€care€of€Dr.€MarkÏHarriman€who€diagnosed€a€rotator€cuff€tear€and€biceps€tendon€rupture.€€On€August€24,€1994,€Dr.ÏHarriman€performed€surgery€to€repair€the€rotator€cuff€and€biceps€injuries.€€On€December€23,€1994,€ÍDr.€Harriman€believed€that€Mr.€Dollar€had€reached€maximum€medical€improvement.€€Further,€Dr.ÏHarriman€opined€that€Mr.€Dollar€had€a€9%€impairment€rating€to€the€body€as€a€whole€and€assignedÏtwo€limitations:€1)€no€overhead€working,€and€2)€no€lifting€more€than€10€pounds€with€his€right€arm.€ÏOn€October€27,€1995,€Dr.€Harriman€reexamined€Mr.€Dollar€and€felt€that€his€condition€hadÏdecreased.€€Dr.€Harriman€changed€Mr.€Dollarððs€original€impairment€rating€from€9%€to€the€body€asÏa€whole€to€24%€to€his€upper€extremity,€which€equated€to€14%€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€Further,€heÏfelt€that€October€27,€1995,€was€the€date€Mr.€Dollar€reached€€maximum€medical€improvement.€ÏAfter€being€released€by€Dr.€Harriman,€Florida€Steel€Corporation€offered€Mr.€Dollar€three€(3)Ïdifferent€types€of€jobs,€two€of€which€were€temporary€in€nature.Ìà àDr.€Harriman,€the€treating€physician,€stated€that€the€only€job€that€was€appropriate€for€Mr.ÏDollar€was€working€on€a€temporary€basis€in€the€storeroom.€€Further,€Dr.€Harriman€believed€thatÏMr.€Dollarððs€restrictions€would€exclude€most,€if€not€all,€manual€labor€type€employment.€ÏMoreover,€he€felt€Mr.€Dollar€had€a€very€significant€injury€that€would€greatly€impact€his€ability€toÏcompete€in€the€open€labor€market.Ìà àDr.€Barnett€concluded€that€Mr.€Dollar€is€18%€impaired€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€HeÏrecommended€several€restrictions:€1)€no€use€of€the€arm€over€waist€level;€2)€no€overhead€work;€€€3)€Ïno€pushing/pulling€or€stretching;€4)€no€use€of€his€right€arm;€5)€no€lifting€above€30€pounds€belowÏthe€waist;€and€6)€no€lifting€10„20€pounds€on€a€repetitive€basis.€€Like€Dr.€Harriman,€Dr.€BarnettÏopined€that€Mr.€Dollar€would€not€be€able€to€return€to€manual€labor€type€employment.Ìà àThe€trial€judge€found€Mr.€Dollar€to€be€100%€disabled€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.ðð€50„6„207€(1996€Supp.).€€€Further,€the€trial€judge€awarded€temporary€total€disability€benefits€fromÏDecember€27,€1994,€until€October€27,€1995.Ìà@ àò òòòAWARD€OF€TEMPORARY€TOTAL€DISABILITY€BENEFITSó óóóÌà àAppellant€contends€the€trial€court€acted€improperly€in€awarding€the€plaintiff€additionalÏtemporary€total€disability€benefits€from€December€27,€1994,€until€October€27,€1995.€€€Where€theÍinjury€suffered€by€the€employee€results€in€a€permanent€disability,€the€period€of€temporary€totalÏdisability€is€ð ðcut€offðð€when€the€employee€has€reached€his€maximum€recovery.€€òòSimpson€v.ÏSatterfiedóó,€564€S.W.2d€953,€955€(Tenn.€1978).Ìà àOn€December€23,1994,€Dr.€Harriman€felt€that€Mr.€Dollar€was€probably€not€going€to€showÏsignificant€change€over€time€and€thus€had€reached€maximum€medical€improvement.€€€Further,€Dr.ÏHarriman€testified,€in€his€deposition,€that€on€November€24,€1994,€he€had€placed€some€limitationsÏon€Mr.€Dollar€in€order€to€return€him€to€light€work€duty.€€It€was€at€this€time€that€Dr.€HarrimanÏimposed€a€ten„pound€lifting€restriction€and€advised€Mr.€Dollar€not€to€work€overhead€or€carry€moreÏthan€fifteen€pounds.€€Ìà àDr.€Harriman€defined€maximum€medical€improvement€as€the€point€in€time€where€oneÏbelieves€there€is€going€to€be€no€further€improvement€in€the€plaintiffððs€condition.€€He€testified€that,Ïas€of€December€23,€1994,€Mr.€Dollar€had€reached€maximum€medical€improvement.€€Therefore,€theÏdoctor€asserted€that€Mr.€Dollar€would€not€need€further€medical€treatment€or€therapy.€€Ìà àOn€October€27,€1995,€Dr.€Harriman€reevaluated€Mr.€Dollar.€€At€this€visit,€Dr.€HarrimanÏfound€that€Mr.€Dollarððs€condition€had€deteriorated€since€December€23,€1994.€€Dr.€Harriman€madeÏsome€recommendations€about€work€and€increased€Mr.€Dollarððs€impairment€rating€to€14%€to€theÏbody€as€a€whole.€€However,€Dr.€Harriman€did€not€change€his€opinion€regarding€the€date€Mr.ÏDollar€reached€maximum€medical€improvement.€€Ìà àThe€trial€court€erred€in€its€awarding€of€temporary€total€disability€benefits,€because€Mr.ÏDollar€reached€maximum€medical€improvement€on€December€23,€1994.€€To€begin€with,€it€is€clearÏfrom€reviewing€the€record€that€Dr.€Harriman€concluded€that€Mr.€Dollar€had€reached€maximumÏmedical€improvement€on€December€23,€1994.€€Dr.€Harriman€did€not€change€this€conclusion€evenÏafter€Mr.€Dollar's€condition€worsened€to€such€an€extent€that€Dr.€Harriman€increased€Mr.€Dollar'sÏimpairment€rating€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€The€law€in€Tennessee€is€well€settled€that€temporary€totalÏdisability€benefits€are€terminated€when€the€employee€reaches€his€maximum€medical€improvement.ÍòòSimpson€v.€Satterfiedóó,€564€S.W.2d€953,€955.€€Therefore,€Mr.€Dollar€is€Ìnot€entitled€to€temporary€total€disability€benefitsÌÓ  Óà àò òòòAMOUNT€OF€DISABILITYó óóóÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€acted€improperly€in€awarding€the€Plaintiff€permanentÏtotal€benefits€in€the€amount€of€100%€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€To€qualify€for€total€disability,€anÏemployee€€must€have€suffered€an€injury€which€ð ðtotally€incapacitates€the€employee€from€working€atÏan€occupation€which€brings€such€employeee€an€income.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„207(4)(B).€ÏThe€incapacitation€referred€to€in€this€statute€does€not€refer€to€the€ability€to€return€to€oneððs€pre„injuryÏposition,€or€even€to€a€similar€position.€€€òòProst€v.€City€of€Clarksville,€Police€Deptóó.,€688€S.W.2dÏ425€(Tenn.€1985).€€€Rather,€an€employee€must€be€totally€incapacitated€from€any€regular,€€gainfulÏemployement€before€he€meets€the€requirement€for€total€disability€set€out€in€this€statute.€€€òòId.óó€€€Ìà àWe€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€total€disability.€ÏMr.€Dollar€has€an€injury€to€his€rotator€cuff€which€prevents€him€from€raising€his€right€arm€above€90Ïdegrees,€or€in€lay€terms,€above€his€head.€€He€has€no€injury€or€restrictions€to€his€left€arm€or€to€hisÏlegs.€€Given€this,€we€cannot€find€that€Mr.€Dollar€is€totally€incapacitated€from€performing€anyÏregular€gainful€work€in€any€occupation.Ìà àThe€next€issue€becomes€whether€to€apply€the€multiplier€cap€of€2€ðð€€outlined€in€T.C.A.€ððÏ50„6„241(a)(1).€€This€cap€must€be€applied€if€the€employee€made,€or€was€afforded€the€opportunityÏto€make,€any€meaningful€return€to€work.€€Since€the€employer€offered€Mr.€Dollar€the€opportunity€toÏreturn€to€work,€the€issue€then€becomes€whether€Mr.€Dollarððs€refusal€to€accept€any€of€theseÏpositions€was€reasonable.€€In€making€this€assessment,€we€must€compare€the€reasonableness€of€theÏemployer€in€attempting€to€return€the€employee€to€work€with€the€reasonableness€of€the€employee€inÏrefusing€to€return.€òòNewton€v.€Scott€Health€Care€Centeróó,€914€S.W.2d€844€(Tenn.€1995).€€If€anÏemployeeððs€failure€to€return€was€unreasonable,€his€disability€will€be€limited€to€the€amount€of€hisÏmedical€impairment€rating€multiplied€by€2€1/2.€€€Although€Florida€Steel€offered€Mr.€dollar€threeÍpositions€to€which€he€could€return,€this€offer€was€made€only€after€the€company€had€classified€Mr.ÏDollar€as€totally€disabled€and€began€processing€him€for€retirement.€€Aetna€Insurance€CompanyÏaccepted€the€application€made€by€the€defendant,€which€identified€Mr.€Dollar€as€disabled,€and€beganÏmaking€disability€payments€to€Mr.€Dollar.€€The€company€then€attempted€a€settlement€with€him.€ÏThis€settlement€was€rejected€by€the€chancellor,€and€it€was€after€this€rejection€that€the€company€madeÏattempts€to€have€Mr.€Dollar€return€to€work.€€Ìà àTwo€of€the€three€positions€offered€Mr.€Dollar€were€temporary.€€One€of€the€positionsÏinvolved€operating€a€crane,€which€Dr.€Harrison€testified€should€only€be€done€for€an€hour€or€so€at€aÏtime.€€In€fact,€Dr.€Harrison€testified€that€of€the€three€positions€offered€Mr.€Dollar,€the€only€oneÏappropriate€for€his€functional€level€was€working€in€the€storeroom,€which€was€a€temporaryÏposition.€€In€light€of€these€facts,€we€find€that€Mr.€Dollarððs€refusal€to€return€to€work€wasÏreasonable.€€Thus,€the€multiplier€cap€of€2€1/2€does€not€apply€in€this€case.Ìà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€is€modified€to€award€the€plaintiff€56%Ïdisability,€which€is€four€times€the€impairment€rating€given€by€Dr.€Harriman.€€The€action€of€the€trialÏcourt€is€further€modified€to€disallow€an€additional€award€of€temporary€total€benefits€after€DecemberÏ27,€1994.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€equally€between€the€parties.ÌÌÓEÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDon€R.€Ash,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌ____________________________________ÌJanice€M.€Holder,€Associate€JusticeÌÌ___________________________________ÌRobert€Lanier,€Special€JudgeÇÑ ` ÑÔ€3Ôà@ àÔ€3¼ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÔ€3XÔÌÌÌÓ#` p…X LÐ X#ÓJAMES€DOLLAR,à àà àà à)à àMADISON€CHANCERYÌÓ#` p` LÐ X#Óà à)à àNO.€50672ÌÓ` p` ¸ ’XÓà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à à)à àÌÓ#` p` ¸ LÐ X#Óà àà à)à àHon.€Joe€C.€Morris,Ìvs.à àà à)à àChancellorÌà àà à)ÌFLORIDA€STEEL€CORPORATION,à à)à àNO.€02S01„9608„CH„00071ÌßR€.62A1-j|c` Å `€€@ÿRßà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à à)à àMODIFIED.ÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€3¼ÔJUDGMENT€ORDERÔ€3XÔÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌÓ` p`  ’XÓà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€the€orderÏof€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel'sÏMemorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€whichÏare€incorporated€herein€by€reference.Ìà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€Opinion€of€theÏPanel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌà 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€the€judgment€ofÏthe€Court.Ìà àCosts€will€be€paid€equally€by€both€parites,€for€which€execution€may€issueÏif€necessary.Ìà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€this€22nd€day€of€January,€1998.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌ(Holder,€J.,€not€participating)ÌÌÌÌÔ€ÔÔ€Ôœ