WPC W]68O}oVW~0M)HO%LRH@u6W`  KKo5@L187k F޿E1nt$|Rܸe}p՜dʬt1ie2/u"*v8EW8`@0=pP"`t>Ģ/ H~ !uRጞ۟J/8;l"&Cs!2{@Lo Ìb;-O\yst32-H)GLojGwKH0\ 4=//٪!{0av0O؜)^a:qQbU N\ % 0#8   ^ g zs  V  m w  j04N    &E8:U>I b ^ 0DG               N 1u 72h 0cN zbyUNSU@ 0 B  0 D5 D- 0K AS: 0S 0D A;("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    \\IB01S02\CLERKJAC,,,,0C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\CUSTOM~1\OPINION3.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\Custom WP Templates\opinion3.wpt@iK1  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.wptULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 56h0\PH\Opinion Summary3|x\  `&Times New Roman?\Appellants Attorney Name & Appellant's Name.?\Appellees Attorney Name & Appellee's Name.(#$  0  1234567891011123#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a))i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  /C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPT- -C:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z(Times New Roman (|G2f$ !..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     _8XXdd8    r@@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL # @@ATJACKSON#r# F April5,2004##ԀSession i #G#XX #XX#%  BERNARDFALCICCHIO% v.%  GIBSONMECHANICALCONTRACTORS,  b INC.%E,etal.##XX  # s @@ %  %DirectAppealfromthe%  CircuitCourt%Mfor%  Shelby% }ԀCounty  m @@No.% ! CT00100003%!Ԁ% " GeorgeH.Brown,Jr.,Judge%" W  @@*AV) ` dE<` A     No.% # W200302078WCR3CV%#ԀMailedAugust30,2004;FiledOctober8,2004   #XX#XXAV) ` dE<{` A |  %      Thisworkers'compensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppeals t PanelinaccordancewithTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection506225(e)(3)forhearingand ] reportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.Inthisappeal,Employee F arguesthatthetrialcourterredingrantingthemotiontodismissfiledbyGibsonMechanical / Contractors,Inc.andAmerisureInsuranceCompany.Weconcludethatthetrialcourterredgranting h themotiontodismissandreversethejudgmentofthetrialcourt.% Q   % $     Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(1999)AppealasofRight%$ ;Judgmentofthe% % TrialCourt # Reversed%%[  andremanded         RobertL.Childers,Sp.J.#Xw#XX.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhich% & JaniceM.Holder,J.%& and  % ' WilliamB.Acree,Sp.J.%' ,joined. { %  MichaelP.Pfrommer,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,BernardFalcicchio.%7  M!  %  % StephenP.MillerandEvanNahmias,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellees,GibsonMechanical #o" Contractors,Inc.,andAmerisureInsuranceCompany. $X# WilliamC.Sessions,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellees,Day&Zimmermann,andZurich %*!% AmericanInsuranceCompany. &"&    MEMORANDUMOPINION (#( Xt XXXFactualBackground i*%*   0  BernardFalcicchio,("Employee")workedforGibsonMechanicalContractors,Inc.=,',(#(# ("Gibson")asapipefitterfromMarchuntilNovemberof2001.WhileworkingatGibson, &-v(- Employeebeganexperiencingpainandnumbnessinbotharms.Employeedidnotseek  treatmentatthattimebecausehedidnotthinktheproblemwasseriousorworkrelated.After  EmployeestoppedworkingforGibsoninNovember2001,henoticedhissymptomsimproved.  InJanuary2002,EmployeebeganworkingasapipefitterforDay&Zimmerman,andhenoted k thatthepainandnumbnessinhisarmsworsened.InFebruary2002,Employeesoughttreatment T fromhisprimarycarephysician,whodiagnosedbilateralcarpaltunnelsyndrome.Thephysician =  opinedthatEmployee'sinjurywascausedbyhiswork.EmployeethengavenoticetoDay& & v ZimmermanandGibsonrequestingmedicaltreatment.  _     0  Thetrialcourtgrantedamotiontodismissthecomplaintforfailuretostateaclaimupon 2 (#(# whichreliefcanbegrantedfiledbyGibsonanditsinsurer,AmerisureInsuranceCompany    ("Amerisure").      Employee'sArgument     0  Employeearguesthatthetrialcourterredingrantingthemotiontodismissfiledby[ (#(# GibsonandAmerisureonthebasisofthelastinjuriousinjuryrulewithoutfirstconsidering D medicaltestimonyregardingEmployee'sinjury.Employeecontendsthatthetrialcourtmust -} reviewmedicaltestimonyinordertodeterminewhetherworkatthesecondemployer,Day& f Zimmerman,causedanaggravationorprogressionofEmployee'scarpaltunnelsyndrome.Thus, O Employeearguesthatthetrialcourt'sfailuretoconsidermedicaltestimonypriortorulingonthe 8 applicationofthelastinjuriousinjuryrulewasreversibleerror. !   FirstEmployer'sArgument       GibsonandAmerisure,thefirstemployeranditsinsurancecarrier,arguethatthetrial v courtproperlygrantedtheirmotiontodismissonthebasisofthelastinjuriousinjuryruleinlight _ ofEmployee'scomplaint,whichpleadedidenticalsuccessivejobsresultinginthediscoveryof H carpaltunnelsyndromewhileworkingforthesecondemployer,Day&Zimmerman.Thus, 1 GibsonandAmerisurearguedthatthetrialcourtproperlyfoundthatthelastinjuriousinjuryrule j wasinapplicableasamatteroflaw.  S   SecondEmployer'sArgument !&    0  Day&ZimmermanandZurichAmericanInsuranceCompany("Zurich"),thesecond#"(#(# employeranditsinsurancecarrier,arguethatEmployee'scomplaintclearlyestablishedsufficient $# factstosupportaclaimastoGibsonandAmerisureandthat,therefore,thetrialcourterredin |% $ grantingGibsonandAmerisure'smotiontodismiss.Day&ZimmermanandZurichalsoargue e&!% thatthelastinjuriousinjuryruleshouldnothavebeenappliedtothiscasebecausethereisa N'"& genuineissueofmaterialfactregardingwhetherEmployeesustainedasubsequentinjury.They 7(#' contendthatEmployee'scomplaintmentionedonlyanincreaseinpain,notasubsequentinjury.  )p$( Furthermore,Day&ZimmermanandZurichinsistthattheonlyreasonEmployeedelayed  *Y%) treatmentforhiscarpaltunnelsymptomsuntilhisemploymentwithDay&Zimmermanwas *B&* becausehehadnohealthinsurancecoverageuntilthen.Thus,theyarguethatfinancialreasons, ++'+ notaprogressioninsymptoms,precipitatedEmployee'svisittoadoctor.    StandardofReview    0  PursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P12.02(6),DefendantsGibsonandAmerisurepresentedaV(#(# motiontodismissforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted.Suchamotion ?  challengesthelegalsufficiencyofthecomplaint,notthestrengthoftheplaintiff'sproof.Trau ( x MedofAmerica,Inc.v.AllstateIns.Co.,71S.W.2d691#XX XXtv#Xt XXX#z  XXt4 #Xt X zԀ(Tenn.2002).Whenconsideringa  a motiontodismiss,theappellatecourtshouldconstruetheallegationssetforthinacomplaint  J liberallywithallfactspresumedtobetrueandtheplaintiffgiventhebenefitofallreasonable  3  inferences.Id,at6967.Amotiontodismissforfailuretostateaclaimshouldnotbegranted    unlessitisclearlyshownthattheplaintiffcanprovenosetoffactssupportinghisclaimthat   wouldwarrantrelief.Id.Thisstandardissimilartothesummaryjudgmentstandard,whichis   almostneveranoptioninacontestedworkerscompensationaction.Barryv.Consolidated   Systems,Inc.,804S.W.2d445,446(Tenn.1991).Aswithsummaryjudgmentreview,atrial p  courtshouldnotgrantamotiontodismisswhereresolutionofthecasedependsuponan Y  interpretationorweighingoffactspresentedbyaffidavitordeposition.Id.  B   Analysis e     Thelastinjuriousinjuryruleappliestofindanemployer liablefordisabilityresulting 8 frominjuriessustainedbyanemployee8eventhoughitaggravatesapreviousconditionwith ! resultingdisabilityfargreaterthanotherwisewouldhavebeenthecase.Baxterv.Smith,364   S.W.2d936(Tenn.1962).InHentonv.State,800S.W.2d823(Tenn.1990),theTennessee  SupremeCourtstatedthatthisruleoperatestoplaceliabilityonthelastemployerifthetrierof  factisconvincedthatthedisabilitywascausedbysuccessiveworkrelatedinjuries,butis u unconvincedthatanyoneemploymentisthemorelikelycauseofthedisability.Id. Whena ^ compensableinjuryatoneemploymentcontributestoadisabilityoccurringduringalater G employmentinvolvingworkconditionscapableofcausingthedisability,butwhichdonot 0 contributetothedisability,thelastinjuriousexposureruledoesnotapply,andthefirstemployer i isliable.Id.at824.Inaccordancewiththisrule,itisforthetrieroffacttodetermine,after  R hearingallofthetestimonyofwitnessesandotherevidence,whichemployercausedand/or  ; contributedtothedisability. !$    WeagreewithEmployeesassertionthat,becausethisisaquestionoffact,allofthe #" testimonyandevidence,includingmedicalevidence,mustbeconsideredinordertodetermine $# whetherthelastinjuriousexposureruleapplies.Thomasv.AetnaLife&CasualtyCo.,812 x% $ S.W.2d278,283(Tenn.1991).Thus,weconcludethatthetrialcourtsfailuretoconsiderallof a&!% thetestimonyandotherevidenceresultedintheerroneousdismissalofGibsonandAmerisure J'"& fromthecase. 3(#'   Conclusion *U%)   0  Fromourreviewofthecomplaint,weconcludethatthetrialcourterredingrantingthe+)'+(#(# motiontodismiss.Therefore,wereversethejudgmentofthetrialcourtandremandthematterto  thetrialcourtfortrial.Costsaretaxedtotheappellants,GibsonMechanicalContractors,Inc.and  AmerisureInsuranceCompany,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.    0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#    _____________________________________= h(#h(#   0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#    ROBERTL.CHILDERS,SPECIALJUDGE& vh(#h(# #XX XXt!##XX!#   %  XX   1  _@9 9 XXINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @@@SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL  @((%ATJACKSON   @]]#April5,2004 0    BERNARDFALCICCHIOV.GIBSONMECHANICALCONTRACTORS,  P INC.,etal.   a 4@u u  CircuitCourtforShelbyCounty 2  @CC"No.CT00100003 C  @*AV) ` dE<d` A߈ e  @x x No.W200302078WCR3CVFiledOctober8,2004   AV) ` dE<` A   @tt# JUDGMENTORDER   1z    ` ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtupontheentirerecord,includingtheorder : ofreferraltotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanel's J MemorandumOpinionsettingforthitsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,which  Z areincorporatedhereinbyreference; j    ` Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthattheMemorandumOpinionofthe : Panelshouldbeacceptedandapproved;and J    ` Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanel'sfindingsoffactandconclusions j oflawareadoptedandaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgment z  oftheCourt. ! Ѐ "    ` CostsonappealaretaxedtotheAppellees,GibsonMechanical # Contractors,Inc.,andAmerisureInsuranceCompany,forwhichexecutionmayissue $  ifnecessary. %!!    ` ITISSOORDERED. ':## # 1zu6#0   `     h     PERCURIAM  *Z%% #01;##XX2#   `