ÿWPCo 8#  UD+ %o 0(uw@4ÝñÆÆÎÆ”ÆZ 0J  0Tj 0^¾ 0h 0r„ 0|ö 0†r 0ø 1uˆ AQý ÆN 0D 0@X 0D˜ 0dÜ D/@ Bo BŒ D3©U *ÜB)DC/ AMr¿&ÂU6èv~vÓœ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ8§ÖhZŠ,Century-WP RegularX($¡¡ †P‡DˆP‰Ó€•˜V™ îšD›Ó€§WX$xZ3|x§Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 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  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) !"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ'''÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd&&&&'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd "1Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ùÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌò òApril€9,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€/ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌò òApril€9,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€/ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó< Œ 9p`(Courier NewPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿáùEG(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€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€/Ô›œ›Þ ÞÌÌÌÙ€ ÙœßR€231A1-j|´` Å `€€@ÿRß›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ àœSeptember›€29,€1997ÌÌÌÌÌÌALFRED€EDWARDS,€JR.,à àœà à›à àà à)€SHELBY€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)€NO.€78556€T.D.Ìà àPlaintiff,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)€Hon.€DððArmy€BaileyÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌWITCO€CHEMICAL€CORPORATIONà àœà à)NO.›€02S01„9705„CV„00047Ìand€WITCO€CORPORATION,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants.à àà àà àà àœà à)›ÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiffóó:à àà àà àà àœòòà àFor›€Defendantóó:ÌÌLouis€Chiozza,€Jr.à àà àà àà àJames€B.€SummersÌ230€Adams€Avenueà àà àà àNeely,€Green,€Fargarson,€ÌMemphis,€TN€38103à àà àà àBrooke€&€SummersÌà àà àà àà àà àà à65€Union€Ave.,€9th€FloorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€3543Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38173„2500ÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONóóÌÌà@ àÌÌÌÌà@ àòòMembers€of€Panelóó:ÌÌà@ àJANICE€M.€HOLDER,€JUSTICEÌà@ àHEWITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌà@ àCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÑ7€­|XXdðXXdð7ÑÌAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIEDà àà àà àTOMLIN,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌÓÓà àThis€workersðð€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€SpecialÏWorkersðð€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordanceÏwith€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€of€findings€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law.€€In€this€appeal,€the€employer,€Witco€Chemical€Company€andÏWitco€Corporation€(ð ðdefendantðð),€self€insured,€contends€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€eighty€percent€(80%)€vocationalÏdisability€to€plaintiff,€Alfred€Edwards,€computed€at€two€and€a€half€times€theÏanatomical€impairment€rating€of€plaintiffððs€physician€of€thirty„two€percent€(32%).ÏFor€the€reasons€set€forth€below,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€asÏmodified.Ìà àPlaintiff,€forty„nine€years€old€at€time€of€trial,€had€been€an€employee€ofÏdefendant€for€18€years.€€He€had€been€performing€the€same€job€for€defendant€forÏalmost€17€years.€€There€is€nothing€in€the€record€as€to€plaintiffððs€priorÏemployment.€€Basically,€plaintiffððs€job€at€defendantððs€plant€entailed€transferringÍhot€oil€from€one€processing€vessel€to€another.€€As€part€of€his€normal€routine,€heÏwas€required€to€open€and€close€several€valves.€€Some€valves€operated€byÏturning€a€round€handle,€others€by€pulling€on€sections€of€chain€that€would€openÏand€close€a€particular€valve.€€In€May,€1995,€while€in€the€process€of€transferringÏhot€oil€from€one€tank€to€another,€hot€oil€bubbled€up€and€splashed€onto€plaintiffððsÏbody.€€Plaintiff€received€severe€burns€on€his€arms,€back,€and€abdomen,€alongÏwith€a€small€spot€in€front€of€his€right€ear.€€He€required€skin€grafts€to€areas€of€hisÏright€arm€and€the€right€side€of€his€stomach.€€The€rest€of€his€burns€healed€withoutÏrequiring€surgery.€€Ìà àPlaintiff€was€treated€by€Dr.€William€Hickerson,€a€plastic€surgeon,€at€theÏlocal€burn€center.€€Plaintiff€was€off€work€for€approximately€seven€months.€€At€theÏtime€of€his€deposition€in€November€1996,€Dr.€Hickerson€testified€that€he€wasÏcurrently€treating€plaintiff€for€persistent€healing€problems€and€that€in€allÏlikelihood€plaintiff€would€need€to€undergo€more€plastic€surgery€in€the€future.€€AtÏthat€time,€plaintiff€was€still€required€to€wear€a€glove€on€one€hand€to€promote€theÏhealing€of€his€skin€grafts.€€The€record€reflects€that€while€the€injuries€were€moreÏpainful€in€the€early€stages,€after€returning€to€work€he€had€not€taken€any€painÏmedication€other€than€an€occasional€Tylenol.Ìà àIt€was€Dr.€Hickersonððs€opinion€that€as€of€December€19,€1995,Ïapproximately€one€month€after€returning€to€work,€plaintiff€had€reached€maximumÏrecovery.€€A€Greenleaf€Evaluation€was€performed€on€December€27,€1995,Ïwhere€it€was€determined€that€plaintiff€had€a€thirty„eight€percent€(38%)Ïimpairment€of€the€left€hand,€a€six€percent€(6%)€impairment€of€the€right€hand,€aÍtotal€of€forty„eight€percent€(48%)€impairment€of€the€left€arm€and€a€five€percentÏ(5%)€impairment€of€the€right€arm.€€This,€coupled€with€a€two€percent€(2%)Ïimpairment€for€his€skin,€prompted€Dr.€Hickerson€to€give€him€a€thirty„two€percentÏ(32%)€impairment€rating€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€Dr.€Hickerson€based€aÏconsiderable€amount€of€his€impairment€ratings€on€the€results€of€grip€strengthÏtests€conducted€on€plaintiff.€€The€results€of€the€grip€strength€tests€showed€aÏvariation€of€greater€than€twenty€percent€in€three€of€the€five€individual€tests.€ÏWhile€Dr.€Hickerson€agreed€that€variations€over€twenty€percent€(20%)€couldÏindicate€that€the€tests€were€unreliable€if€the€variations€were€due€to€plaintiffððs€sub„maximal€efforts,€Dr.€Hickerson€disagreed€that€the€tests€were€unreliable.€€Ìà àAt€the€instance€of€Dr.€Hickerson,€plaintiff€was€also€seen€professionally€byÏDr.€Walter€R.€Houston,€licensed€in€this€state€as€a€professional€counselor€and€asÏa€marital€and€family€therapist.€€Dr.€Houston€treated€plaintiff€for€symptoms€of€post„traumatic€stress€disorder€from€July,€1995€to€November,€1995,€when€he€releasedÏplaintiff€to€return€to€work.€€At€the€onset,€Dr.€Houston€found€plaintiff€nervous,Ïdepressed,€suffering€from€sleep€disturbance,€hyper€vigilant€and€sociallyÏwithdrawn.€€During€the€course€of€the€treatment€Dr.€Houston€noted€that€the€aboveÏsymptoms€dramatically€improved.€€He€was€of€the€opinion€that€the€best€therapyÏfor€plaintiff€was€to€go€back€to€work.€€During€plaintiffððs€absence,€the€company€hadÏmade€several€changes€in€the€manner€in€which€the€hot€oil€was€handled.€€Dr.ÏHouston€was€of€the€opinion€that€this€was€an€encouragement€for€plaintiff€to€returnÏto€work.€€Dr.€Houston€testified€that€he€was€by€law€not€entitled€to€give€anÏimpairment€rating€or€to€render€an€opinion€with€respect€to€the€permanency€of€aÍmedical€impairment€of€a€patient.€€He€did€voice€the€opinion€that€plaintiff€wouldÏsuffer€minor€post„traumatic€stress€disorder€systems€for€the€foreseeable€future.€€Ìà àPlaintiff€did€in€fact€return€to€work€on€modified€duty€in€early€November,Ï1995.€€Subsequently€he€resumed€his€former€job€at€a€higher€pay€rate€than€heÏreceived€prior€to€his€accident.€€He€has€continued€in€this€job€until€the€presentÏtime.€€While€plaintiff€has€no€specific€medical€limitations,€plaintiff€testified€as€toÏchanges€he€has€had€to€make€in€connection€with€his€employment.€€For€instance,Ïone€of€the€valves€that€he€must€operate€on€a€regular€basis€has€a€circular€knob€onÏit.€€Prior€to€his€injury€he€could€turn€it€with€both€hands,€but€now€he€can€only€useÏhis€right€hand.€€On€occasion€he€uses€a€bar,€like€a€crowbar,€by€sticking€it€throughÏthe€stem€of€the€valve€and€turning€it€with€his€right€hand€and€arm.€€Another€valve,Ïcalled€a€chain„link€valve,€is€opened€by€pulling€down€on€a€piece€of€chain.€€PriorÏto€the€injury€he€would€open€this€valve€using€both€hands.€€Now,€he€frequentlyÏcalls€on€a€fellow€worker€to€assist€him€in€pulling€down€on€the€chain€to€open€thisÏvalve.€€Ìà àShortly€after€the€conclusion€of€the€trial€below,€the€trial€court€announced€itsÏfindings€from€the€bench.€€The€court€opened€his€findings€with€this€statement:€ÌÓÓÌà8 àWell,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€the€plaintiff€should€recover€inÏthe€amount€of€two€and€a€half€times€the€disability€rating€of€32Ïpercent.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€judgment€of€the€court€entered€in€this€cause€expands€this€finding€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓÌà8 àThe€Court€further€finds€that€from€the€medical€proof€and€lay€proofÏoffered€in€this€case€that€the€Plaintiff€is€32%€œanatom›„œically›€disabledÏand€is€entitled€to€an€award€of€2.5€times€this€rating€which€wouldÏtotal€80%€to€the€body€as€a€whole€.€.€.€.ÌÌÌÓÓà àAppellate€review€is€òòde€novo€óóupon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,Ïaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact,€unlessÏthe€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2)Ï(Supp.€1997).€€This€tribunal€is€required€to€conduct€an€independent€examinationÏof€the€record€to€determine€where€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€lies.€ÏòòWingert€v.€Government€of€Sumner€Countyóó,€908€S.W.2d€921,€922€(Tenn.€1995).€€Ìà àInasmuch€as€there€is€no€real€dispute€as€to€the€causal€connectionÏbetween€plaintiffððs€employment€and€his€injury,€it€becomes€the€responsibility€ofÏthis€panel€to€determine€what€percentage€of€permanent€partial€disability€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€supports.€€Plaintiff€was€seen€and€treated€by€aÏfamily€therapist€over€a€period€of€seven€months,€but€he€was€prohibited€by€lawÏfrom€giving€an€opinion€as€to€any€vocational€impairment€or€disability.€€PlaintiffÏwas€examined€and€treated€by€only€one€medical€doctor,€Dr.€Hickerson.€€Dr.ÏHickerson€was€never€asked€nor€did€he€give€an€opinion€as€to€the€vocationalÏdisability,€if€any,€of€plaintiff.€€Dr.€Hickerson,€as€we€have€already€noted,€gaveÏplaintiff€a€thirty„two€percent€(32%)€anatomical€impairment€rating.€€But,€we€alsoÏnote€that€Dr.€Hickerson€stated€that€ð ðthis€is€an€impairment€rating€and€not€aÏdisability€rating,€so,€therefore,€it€does€not€reflect€his€ability€to€work.ðð€€Ìà àIn€addressing€this€very€issue€which€we€are€now€considering,€the€supremeÏcourt€in€òòOrman€v.€Williams€Sonoma,€Inc.óó,€803€S.W.2d€672,€677„78€(Tenn.€1991),Íoutlined€the€items€to€be€properly€considered€in€making€an€award€of€vocationalÏdisability€as€established€in€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(1)€Ì(Supp.€1997).€€The€òòOrmanóó€court€said:ÌÓÓà8 à[A]natomical€disability€ratings€are€but€one€factor€to€consider€inÏmeasuring€vocational€disability,€the€ultimate€issue€in€all€workersððÏcompensation€cases.€€òòNewman€v.€National€Union€Fire€Ins.€Co.,Ïóó786€S.W.2d€932,€934€(Tenn.€1990).€€The€test€is€whether€there€hasÏbeen€a€decrease€in€the€employeeððs€capacity€to€earn€wages€in€anyÏline€of€work€available€to€the€employee.€€òòCorcoran€v.€Foster€AutoÏGMC,€Inc.óó,€746€S.W.2d€452,€459€(Tenn.€1988).€€The€assessment€ofÏthis€disability€is€based€on€all€pertinent€factors,€including€lay€andÏexpert€testimony,€the€employeeððs€age,€education,€skills€andÏtraining,€local€job€opportunities,€and€capacity€to€work€at€the€typesÏof€employment€available€in€his€disabled€condition.€€òòNewmanóó,€786ÏS.W.2d€at€934;€òòCorcoranóó,€746€S.W.2d€at€458„59.€€The€claimantððsÏown€assessment€of€his€physical€condition€and€resulting€disabilitiesÏis€competent€testimony€and€cannot€be€disregarded.€€òòCorcoranóó,Ï746€S.W.2d€at€458.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òòOrmanóó,€803€S.W.2d€at€677„78.ÌÌÌÓÓà àFurthermore,€in€òòCorcoranóó,€òòsupraóó,€our€supreme€court€stated:ÌÓÓÌà8 àThat€an€injured€worker€is€re„employed€after€an€injury€is€a€relevantÏfactor€to€the€determination€of€the€extent€of€vocational€disability,Ïregardless€of€whether€the€employee€returns€to€the€sameÏemployment€or€to€some€other€work.€€Nevertheless,€this€factor€is€notÏcontrolling€and€is€only€one€of€many€that€must€be€considered.€ÏDespite€the€employeeððs€return€to€any€employ‚ment,€if€theÏemployeeððs€ability€to€earn€wages€in€any€form€of€employment€thatÏwould€have€been€available€to€him€in€an€uninjured€condition€isÏdiminished€by€an€injury,€then€that€is€what€is€meant€by€vocationalÏdisability€for€the€purposes€of€Workersðð€Compensation.€€TheÏassessment€of€the€extent€of€vocational€disability€is€based€on€allÏpertinent€factors€taken€together.€ò ò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïó óòòCorcoranóó,€746€S.W.2d€at€459.€ÌÌÌÓÓà àIt€is€the€responsibility€of€the€claimant€to€prove€each€and€every€element€ofÏhis€claim€for€workersðð€compensation€benefits.€€òòHill€v.€Eagle€Mfg.,€Inc.óó,€942ÍS.W.2d€483,€487€(Tenn.€1997).€€Aside€from€the€anatomical€disability€rating€ofÏplaintiffððs€doctor,€which€should€be€considered,€only€one€of€the€five€factorsÏroutinely€considered€by€this€court€in€assessing€vocational€disability€has€beenÏpresented€as€evidence€in€this€case,€and€that€is€the€employeeððs€age.€€There€is€noÏproof€concerning€his€skill€and€training.€€There€is€no€evidence€of€his€education.€ÏThere€is€no€proof€of€the€extent€to€which€plaintiffððs€job€opportunities€in€the€marketÏoutside€of€Witco€have€been€diminished€by€his€injury,€and€there€is€no€proof€as€toÏwhat€these€job€opportunities€in€the€area€where€plaintiff€lives€might€be.€€Ìà àThese,€as€we€have€said€before,€are€all€material€factors€to€be€consideredÏby€the€trial€court€first€and€by€the€appellate€court€thereafter,€in€measuringÏvocational€disability.€€Considering€the€lack€of€material€evidence€in€this€record,Ïupon€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€record,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€rebuts€the€presumption€of€correctness€of€theÏtrial€courtððs€finding€on€the€percentage€of€disability.€€In€our€opinion€the€award€ofÏeighty€percent€(80%)€disability€is€excessive.€€We€are€of€the€opinion€that€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€supports€a€finding€that€plaintiff€sustained€a€forty„five€percent€(45%)€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€as€modified.€€The€costs€in€thisÏcause€on€appeal€are€taxed€one„half€to€plaintiff€and€one„half€to€defendant,€forÏwhich€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àœà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________›Ìà àà àà àà àHEWITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________________ÌJANICE€M.€HOLDER,€JUSTICE€ÌÌÌÌ________________________________________ÌCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌœÇÒ  ÒÒ „ Òà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌßJ€24;+'b|½B` Å `€@ÿJßÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÌÌÌALFRED€EDWARDS,€JR.,à àà à)€à àShelby€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€78556Ìà àà àPlaintiff,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€DððArmy€Bailey,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌWITCO€CHEMICAL€CORPORATIONà à)à àNO.€02S01„9705„CV„00047Ìand€WITCO€CORPORATION,€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àDefendants.à àà àà à)à àAffirmed€as€Modified.ÌÌÔ€/&ÔÌÌÌò òà@ àòòÔ€/XÔJUDGMENT€ORDERóóó óÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€motion€for€review€pursuant€toÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(5)(B),€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€ofÏreferral€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;ÌÌà àà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€review€is€notÏwell„taken€and€should€be€denied;€andÌÌà àà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€andÍconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€madeÏthe€judgment€of€the€Court.ÌÌà àà àCosts€are€taxed€one„half€to€plaintiff€and€one„half€to€defendant€and€itsÏsurety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌà àà àIt€is€so€ordered€this€_____€day€of€April,€1998.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌÌHolder,€J.,€Not€ParticipatingÔ€5Ôà@ àÔ€/ÔÓÓÇ›