WPC |Il4>|"EmrPV_{,!G7QxlE{LlF;S݄sp@Ԥ:<bb+M{sk4Y9n92IK0(~9OV>Om uy*ծP uw}PH^n׀bSvo`k-okC:ÿ- ,sI iAanxF⺭g&WF'Z+;#2-S9 w"ۚ] 2 o_V1%$Wu+h#KYdjbK֕Ub_EϬ]nEs*DgOd)x?Ú˅06)c&'o\DX< Q>7ìsUo2f>~Vab^ߘ7pylP%b %\U*b 0UENUdNb 0U> z b ^ 4 w@ 4D X g -   N mE#Ne zgb 0 B  0 D3g D- 0K ASe 0+ 0D A%2A`Arial(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular6Xl 4Body Text?%2A`Arial?XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS\  `&Times New Roman 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.wptc^- db,\ x33|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5U HP LJ 4000/4050 PCL 5e,,,,0C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt- -(|G2?$ !..8dd8         0  X]1X d(|3?i$ !..8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?i$ !..8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _8]1XXdd8  @@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL & @@ATNASHVILLE## L June3,2002Session "r X]1X #XX]1#EXPRESSPERSONNELSERVICES,INC.v.DONNAM._BELCHER_X]1X   p @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  p @@No.002811IICarolL.McCoy,Chancellor  \ @@*AV) ` dE<` A   No.M200102033_WC_ԄR3CVMailedJuly23,2002   #XX]1#X]1XFiledOctober30,2002   AV) ` dE<` A       #XX]1#X]1XX]1XXX]1ThisworkerscompensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkersCompensation  AppealsPanelinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)forhearingandreportingof v findingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.Inthisappeal,theemployercontendsthatthetrialcourt b improperlyconsideredtheclaimantscriminalrecord,herresponsibilityforfivechildren,herlack N ofreliabletransportation,andherfinancialneedindeterminingtheclaimantsvocationaldisability : rating.Asdiscussedbelow,thepanelhasconcludedthatthejudgmentofthetrialcourtshouldbe &v affirmed.#X]1XXX]1##XX]1#X]1X b U   Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(2001Supp.)AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChancery : CourtAffirmed  &     JoeC.Loser,Jr.,Sp.J.#X]1#X]1X.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichFrankF._Drowota_,III,C.J.,  andTomE.Gray,Sp.J.,joined.  FredC._Statum_,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,ExpressPersonnelServices,Inc. r!  AndrewJ.Blackwell,III,Madison,Tennessee,fortheappellee,DonnaM._Belcher_ J#"    MEMORANDUMOPINION #XX]1& #X]1X &^!%   #XX]1~ #X]1XX]1XXX]1  Theemployeeorclaimant,_Belcher_,isthirtysevenyearsoldandahighschoolgraduate.Her '6#' workexperiencehasprimarilybeeninproduction,butshehasalsobeenacookandwaitress.She ("$( hasafelonydrugtraffickingconvictionandtwoassaultconvictions. )%) #XX]1 #X]1X#X]1XXX]1 #X]1XXX]1XX]1] ]  #  #X7 X #X]1X XX7#X]1XXX]1  /݌̌X]1XXX]1X]1XXX]1X]1XXX]1X]1XXX]1  #XX]1#X]1X#X]1XXX]1#X]1XXX]1XX]1] ]  #  #X7 X #X]1X XX7T#X]1XXX]1s    Theclaimantbeganworkingfortheappellant,ExpressPersonnelServices,Inc.,inMarch +&+ of2000atDominosPizzaNationalDistributionCenter.InJuneofthesameyear,shesuffereda ,', hyperextensioninjurytobothwristswhensheattemptedtocatch#XX]1-# afallingstackoftwentytothirty# #ԀX]1Xtrays#XX]1f#. n-(- _Thepartiesstipulatedthattheinjuryoccurredinthecourseoftheclaimants  employmentandthatnoticeoftheinjurywasproperlygiventotheemployer.Once  shebeganundergoingtreatmentforherinjury,shedidnotreturntoherjobat $ Dominos.Theclaimantunderwentphysicaltherapyandarightcarpaltunnelrelease. 6 Afterthesurgicalreleasewasperformed,theclaimantdevelopedclenchedfist H syndromeinwhichshecouldnotopenherrighthand.Withphysicaltherapy,the  Z conditionoftherighthandimproved,buttheclaimanttestifiedthatshestill  l experiencespainandnumbnessinbothhands.InApril2001,hertreatingphysician . ~ releasedheratmaximummedicalimprovement,assessingheranatomicimpairment @  atfivepercenttobothupperextremities.Theclaimantsphysicianrestrictedher R  fromrepetitiveuseorheavygrippingoftherighthand,andfrommorethan d  occasionalbilateralheavygripping.Additionally,herecommendedthatsheavoid v  repetitiveworkorotheractivitythatcausespaininherhands.Attrial,theclaimant   andtwocorroboratingwitnessestestifiedtheclaimantsufferedfrompaininherhands   andwasunabletoperformmanualtasksshehadbeenabletoperformbeforeher  injury.s݌  ЌX]1XX]1XXX]1X]1XXX]1X]1XXX]1  #X]1XXX]1o#X]1XXX]1XX]1] ]  X7 X #X]1X XX7#X]1XXX]1  ݌̌X]1XXX]1X]1XXX]1X]1XXX]1X]1XXX]1  #XX]1m#X]1X#X]1XXX]1#X]1XXX]1XX]1] ]  #  #X7 X #X]1X XX7#X]1XXX]1    Thetrialcourtawardedpermanentpartialdisabilitybenefitsbasedon60percenttoboth   arms.Thechancellorspecificallyfoundthattheclaimantwouldbeunabletoobtainemployment  thatinvolvedsecurityorcashhandlingbecauseofherpriorfelonyconviction.-݌  ЌX]1XXX]1X]1XXX]1X]1XXX]1X]1XXX]1  #XX]1#X]1X#X]1XXX]1#X]1XXX]1XX]1] ]  #  a!#X7 X #X]1X XX7!#X]1XXX]1!  !"݌̌X]1XXX]1X]1XXX]1X]1XXX]1X]1XXX]1  #XX]1|"#X]1X#X]1XXX]1"#X]1XXX]1XX]1] ]  #  ##X7 X #X]1X XX7$#X]1XXX]1!$    ThisisacaseoffirstimpressioninTennessee.Itraisesthequestionofwhetheran l employersliabilityshouldbereducedbecauseaclaimantscriminalhistoryaffectstheavailability X ofemploymenttotheclaimant.Statedinthereverse,thequestioniswhetheraclaimantscriminal D recordisapertinentfactorthatshouldbeweighedbythecourtwhendeterminingtheextentofa 0 claimantsvocationaldisability.!$<%݌ l ЌX]1XXX]1X]1XXX]1X]1XXX]1X]1XXX]1  #XX]1$#X]1X#X]1XXX]1%#X]1XXX]1XX]1] ]  #  B(#X7 X #X]1X XX7(#X]1XXX]1(  ()݌̌X]1XXX]1X]1XXX]1X]1XXX]1X]1XXX]1  #XX]1])#X]1X#X]1XXX]1)#X]1XXX]1XX]1] ]  #  *#X7 X #X]1X XX7*#X]1XXX]1+    Indeterminingtheextentofaninjuredworkersvocationaldisability,atrialcourtistoweigh D theanatomicimpairmentrating,layandexperttestimony,andpertinentfactorssuchas the  0 employeesskillsandtraining,education,age,localjobopportunitiesandhiscapacitytoworkatthe ! kindsofemploymentavailableinhisdisabledcondition.Corcoranv.FosterAutoGMC,Inc.,746 " S.W.2d452,45859(Tenn.1988)(quotingRobertsonv.LorettoCasketCo.,722S.W.2d380,384 # (Tenn.1986).Theappellantclaimsthatthepermanentpartialdisabilityawardisexcessivebecause $  thetrialcourtimproperlyconsideredfactorssuchastheclaimantscriminalrecord,herresponsibility |% ! forfivechildren,herlackofreliabletransportation,andherfinancialneed.Whiletheappellantis h&!" correctinassertingthataclaimantsfinancialneedanddomesticresponsibilitiesarenotappropriate T'"# factorstobeconsideredindeterminingvocationaldisability,thetrialcourtdidnotbaseitsdecision @(#$ thereon.Acarefulreadingofthetrialcourtsorderrevealsthatthecourtactuallybasedthe ,)|$% claimantssixtypercentpermanentpartialdisabilityupononlythefollowingfactors:theclaimants *h%& uncontrovertedmedicalimpairmentrating,hereducation,heremploymenthistory,hertestimony +T&' regardingthetasksshecannolongerperformasaresultofherinjury,andtheimpacthercriminal +@'( recordhasuponherabilitytoobtaincertainkindsofemployment.Regardingthefactorsweighed  bythetrialcourt,theappellantis,then,accurateonlyinsofarasitobservesthatthetrialcourt  consideredtheclaimantscriminalrecordindeterminingthekindofjobsthatwouldbeavailableto  herinthelocallabormarket.+,݌ t ЌX]1XXX]1X]1XXX]1X]1XXX]1X]1XXX]1  #XX]1+#X]1X#X]1XXX]1+#X]1XXX]1~4  Theappellantcontendsthetrialcourtsconsiderationoftheclaimantscriminalrecordwas L  improperandunjustbecausetheresultistantamounttoholdingtheemployerliableforany 8  vocationaldisabilitystemmingfromtheclaimantscriminalactivity.Theclaimant,ontheother $ t hand,contendsthathercriminalrecordisapertinentfactortothedeterminationofhervocational  ` disability.  L    Itisaxiomaticthatanemployertakesanemployeeashefindstheemployee,withallpre $  existingdefectsanddiseases.Rogersv.Shaw,813S.W.2d397,399(Tenn.1991)(citations   omitted).Wealsoobservethattheappellanthadnoticeoftheclaimantscriminalhistorywhenit   hiredher.Thoughtheappellantcautionsthatincludingpriorfelonyconvictionsinthecategoryof    defectsanddiseasesreferredtoinRogerswilldiscourageemployersfromhiringemployeeswith   criminalrecords,theappellantdoesconcedethatemployersmayhavetoofferhigherwagesifthey p wishtoattractemployeeswithpristinerecordstoheavymanuallaborpositions.Further,ifaprior \ felonyconvictionisnotwithintheRogersmeaningof defectsanddiseases,thenanemployeewith H animperfectpastwholoseshismeansofearningalivelihoodthroughaworkplaceinjuryis,atbest, 4 leftatthemercyofthestatetosustainhimselfandhisfamily.Ifsuchanemployeelosesaccessto  p thelabormarketbecauseofaninjuryincurredwhileperformingworkplacedutiesandifhis  \ employerisnotliableforcompensationofthatlossofaccess,thenitwillbelefttothestate,if H anyoneatall,toprovideforthatemployeethroughsocialwelfareprograms.Reducingan 4 employersliabilitybecauseanemployeesvocationaldisabilityisaffectedbyapriorcriminal   historydoesnot,then,comportwiththeoverallpurposeofworkerscompensationlaw.The   TennesseeSupremeCourthasstatedthat iftheemployeesabilitytoearnwagesinanyformof  employmentthatwouldhavebeenavailabletohiminanuninjuredconditionisdiminishedbyan  injury,thenthatiswhatismeantbyvocationaldisabilityforthepurposesofWorkers  Compensation.Corcoran,746S.W.2dat459(emphasisadded).AsLarsonsexplains, l  <( <DL!X<Theultimate socialphilosophy8behindnonfaultcompensationliabilityisthe D! desirabilityofproviding,inthemostefficient,mostdignified,andmostcertainform, 0"  financialandmedicalbenefitswhichanenlightenedcommunitywouldfeelobliged #l! toprovideinanycaseinsomelesssatisfactoryform,andofallocatingtheburdenof $X" thesepaymentstothemostappropriatesource. $D #  E+ 4 <DL!  X!E1A.Larson,LarsonsWorkersCompensationLaw1.03[2](2001).Further,Larsonscomments &"% thatemployersbeartheburdenofcompensatingemployeesforlossoflabormarketaccessresulting '#& fromworkplaceinjuriesbecausetherebythesystemultimately plac[es]thecostwhereitrightly (#' belongs,ontheconsumersoftheproductwhosemanufacturewastheoccasionfortheinjury.Id. )$(   Wehavenotedthatthisisacaseoffirstimpression;however,threeforeignjurisdictions,_the h+&* NinthCircuitandthestatesofWashingtonandArizona,havealreadyaddressedthequestionof  whetheranemployeescriminalrecordshouldbeweighedindeterminingvocationaldisability.All  threehavearrivedatthesameresult,findingtheconsiderationofanemployeescriminalrecord  proper.See_Hairston_Ԁv.ToddShipyardsCorp.,849F.2d1194,1196(9thCir.1988);_Leeper_Ԁv.Dept. t ofLaborandIndustriesofWash.,872P.2d507,51516(Wash.1994);andDunnv.Industrial ` _Commn_ԀofAriz.,773P.2d241,246(Ariz.Ct.App.1989).Thereasoningofeachcourtissimilar L  butisperhapsbestarticulatedbytheNinthCircuitCourtofAppeals: 8   ?( <DL!X!?Likealimitationofeducationorliteracy,[theemployees]criminalrecordwas  ` incurredwellbeforehisinjury,notincontemplationofit.Nomatterhowdiligently  L  hetried,[theemployee]couldhavedonenothingtoovercomethedisqualifying  8  effectofhisrecord. $   E+ 4 <DL!  X!E_Hairston_,849F.2dat1196.In_Hairston_,thecourtdeemedtheemployeesdisabilitypermanentand   totalbecausetheemployerfailedtomeethisburdenofproofthattherewassomeemploymentwithin   theemployeespostinjurylimitationsrealisticallyavailabletotheemployee.Theonlyevidencethe   employerofferedwasthefactthattheemployeehadabrieftenureinamaintenancepositionata p bankafterhisinjury.Theemployeewasfiredonlyweeksafterstartinghisjobatthebankbecause \ thebankuncoveredthefactthattheemployeehadapriorcriminalrecordforshoplifting.Id.at1195. H IndeterminingtheextentofanemployeesvocationaldisabilityunderThe_Longshore_ԀandHarbor 4 WorkersCompensationAct,33U.S.C.A.901!950,thefederalcourtshaveheldthatthe  p BenefitsReviewBoardshouldconsiderfactorssuchastheemployeestechnicalorverbalskills,age,  \ education,background,andthelikelihoodoftheemployeesbeinghiredgiventheavailabilityof H actualemploymentopportunitiesinthelocallabormarket._Hairston_,849F.2dat1196.Thatlistof 4 factorsbearsastrongresemblancetothelistofpertinentfactorssetforthinCorcoran.Thus,an   applicationof_Hairston_sreasoningtothelawandfactspresentlybeforethispanelwouldyieldthe   sameresult,afindingthatthetrialcourtwascorrectinconsidering_Belcher_scriminalrecordin  determininghervocationaldisability.WefindthereasoningoftheNinthCircuitpersuasive.  XX]1] ]  #  f5#X7 X #X]1X XX75#X]1XXX]1!S    Theappellantalsocontendsthattheawardofsixtypercentpermanentpartialdisabilitywas l excessive,evenifthetrialcourtwascorrectinconsideringtheclaimantspriorfelonyconviction. X  Wedonotfindtheappellantsargumentstothatendcompelling.Thetrialcourtwascorrectin D! weighingtheclaimantscriminalrecordinitsdeterminationofhervocationaldisabilityandthe 0"  evidencefailstopreponderateagainstthefindingofthetrialcourt.Accordingly,weaffirmthe #l! judgment.Costsaretaxedtotheappellant,ExpressPersonnelServices,Inc.!S   ITISSOORDERED.XX]1#X]1X d# !f     `     h     PER_CURIAM_ $ $ FRANKF._DROWOTA_,C.J.,NOTPARTICIPATING