ÿWPC\! 8#  UN+ %y 0ûU:z4´È×wFß 0?% 0Dd 0J¨ ò 0Tø 0^L 0hª 0r 0|„ 0† 0† 1u 0d‹ AQï Æ@ 0 0@ 0D] B¡ D/¾ Bí D3 U >=U*{U*¥B)ÏDCø AM;Óˆè[ÈCv~ vÓ‰˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÓH=$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XÎ_XXXÔÑ7€¾úXXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularWX$3|x~ iVjîk l m n o p q r sÓ€(ï(3ÃP$¤¤Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€X¸âXXXÔÑ7€XXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(%Ã$òòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  ÔH2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ !"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ï3N$¢¢Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€X¸âXXXÔÑ7€XXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó d'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd "1Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÉÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€.ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌò òMarchÏ3,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€.ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ÞÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€.ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ôÔ"Dear€Mr.€Boren:€This€patientððs€impairment€falls€between€the€DRE€Lumbosacral€Category€IIÏand€DRE€Lumbosacral€Category€III.€€The€combination€of€these€two€values€would€yield€a€whole€personÏimpairment€of€8%.€€This€can€be€found€on€page€3/102€in€the€Guides€to€the€Evaluation€of€PermanentÏImpairment,€Fourth€Edition,€American€Medical€Association.€€Sincerely,€Melvin€D.€Law,€Jr.,€M.D.ððÌ ¾Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€.ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌò òMarchÏ3,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€.ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿáùEG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€-ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€.ÔÑ#€//Xd#ÑÑ#€//Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÔ€-ÔÔ€-¼Ô›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€JACKSONó óÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌœSHANNON›€œFORREST,›à àà àà à)à àCARROLL€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà àà àà à)à àNO.€œ02S01›„9705„CV„00050Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œCREED€MCGINLEY›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌHENRY€I.€œSIEGEL›€COMPANY,€à à)ÌINC.,à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÙ€ ÙœßR€231A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRß›à àDefendant/Appellantà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌBLUE€CROSS/BLUE€SHIELD€OFà à)ÌTENNESSEE,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àIntervening€Plaintiffà àà à)ÌÌÌÌò òòòÌFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àFor€the€Appellee:ÌÌó óóóFrank€S.€œCantrell›à àà àà àà àœRicky›€L.€œBoren›ÌRobin€H.€œRasmussen›à àà àà àHill€œBoren›€P.C.ÌJackson,€Shields,€œYeiser›à àà àà à1269€N.€Highland€AvenueÌà à&€œCantrell›à àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€3539Ì262€German€Oak€Driveà àà àà àJackson,€TN€38303„3539ÌœCordova›,€TN€38018ÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òòòM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌMembers€of€Panel:ÌÌó óóóJustice€Janice€HolderÌSenior€Judge€John€K.€ByersÌSenior€Judge€William€H.€œInman›ÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌò òMODIFIED€andó óÌò òAFFIRMEDà àà àà àà àà àà àœINMAN›,€Senior€Judgeó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThisÔ€.Ô€Ô€-Ôworkers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€SpecialÏWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordanceÏwith€€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€CourtÏof€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€plaintiff€has€a€70€percent€permanentÏpartial€disability€to€her€whole€body€as€a€result€of€a€compensable€injury€sheÏsustained€in€September€1993,€and€awarded€benefits€accordingly,€together€withÏmedical€payments€and€mileage.€€The€employer€appeals,€insisting€that€theseÏfindings€are€not€supported€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.Ìà àOur€review€of€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóóÏupon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€theÏcorrectness€of€the€finding,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€isÏotherwise.€€òòT.C.A.€ðð€€óó50„6„225(e)(2).€€òòStone€v.€City€of€œMcMinnville›,€óó896ÏS.W.2d€548,€550€(Tenn.€1995).Ìà àThe€plaintiff€is€30€years€of€age€with€limited€marketable€skills.€€SheÏœcommenced›€work€for€the€defendant€in€1988€and€quit€in€September€1996.€€InÍSeptember€1993€she€operated€a€ð ðtop€press,ðð€and€pressed€upwards€of€2,000Ïpairs€of€trousers€each€day.€€She€testified€that€pain€and€a€tingling€sensationÏdeveloped€in€her€right€leg€and€hip€for€which€she€sought€medical€attention,€andÏadvised€her€supervisor€of€her€problems.€€Her€physician€was€Dr.€Lawrence,Ïwhom€she€heard€call€Jeff€Harris,€plant€manager,€to€inform€him€of€herÏcondition€and€request€lighter€duty.Ìà àShe€did€not€work€for€ð ðsix€to€eight€weeks.ðð€€Dr.€Lawrence€referred€herÏto€the€Jackson€Orthopedic€Clinic€for€examination€and€treatment,€and€she€wasÏlater€examined€and€treated€at€the€œSemmes›€œMurphey›€Clinic€in€Jackson.€€VariousÏtests€were€performed,€including€a€CAT€scan€and€œMRI›.€€She€was€eventuallyÏreferred€to€the€Tennessee€Spine€Center€in€Nashville,€by€Dr.€Law,€who,€in€theÏmeantime,€did€a€spinal€fusion€on€November€30,€1994.Ìà àShe€returned€to€work€in€January€1995.€€Her€back€and€leg€problems€againÏarose€and€she€quit€her€job.Ìà àHer€primary€physician€was€Dr.€William€H.€Lawrence,€an€osteopath,€whoÏtreated€her€on€September€9,€1993€for€pain€in€her€right€leg€and€hip.€€HeÏcontinued€to€see€her€for€the€same€complaints,€and€testified€that€he€called€herÏsupervisor€ð ðto€see€if€he€could€possibly€change€her€job,ðð€explaining€thatÏpivoting€and€turning€and€ð ðmashing€this€pedalðð€hundreds€of€times€per€day€wereÏcausing€a€disc€syndrome.Ìà àShe€was€later€seen€by€Dr.€Karl€Misulis,€a€neurologist,€on€a€referral€byÏDr.€Lawrence.€€His€diagnosis€was€S„1€œradiculopathy›€or€irritation€of€the€nerveÏroot,€unremarkable.€€Because€of€her€continuing€complaints€of€pain€andÏnumbness,€he€referred€her€to€Dr.€David€œMcCord›€of€the€Tennessee€SpineÏCenter€in€Nashville.€Dr.€Misulis€was€not€very€much€impressed€with€theÏseriousness€of€her€problems,€stating€that€it€was€a€combination€of€activities€thatÏshe€does€at€home,€smoking,€and€that€whatever€her€difficulty,€it€developed€overÏtime.Ìà àDr.€James€Thomas€Craig,€an€orthopedic€surgeon,€saw€the€plaintiff€onÏSeptember€30,€1993€on€a€referral€from€Dr.€Lawrence.€€She€complained€ofÏradiating€pain,€and€he€believed€that€she€should€continue€to€be€treatedÏconservatively.€€She€did€not€relate€to€Dr.€Craig€a€history€of€having€injuredÏherself€at€work.Ìà àDr.€Melvin€D.€Law,€Jr.,€an€orthopedic€surgeon,€performed€aÏlaminectomy€and€fusion,€on€a€referral€from€Dr.€Misulis,€on€June€17,€1994.€€HeÏis€not€board„certified.€€He€testified€that€her€disability€was€eight€percentÏaccording€to€the€€€òòAmerican€Medical€Association€Guides€to€the€Evaluation€ofÏPermanent€Impairment,€œ4th›€Ed.,€óóand€15€percent€according€to€the€òòAmericanÏAssociation€of€Orthopedic€Surgeons€Guide.óóÌà àThe€appellant€argues€that€no€proper€notice€was€given€by€the€plaintiff€ofÏher€purported€physical€problems.€€The€plant€manager,€Mr.€Harris,€deniedÍtalking€with€Dr.€Lawrence,€and€adduced€evidence€that€he€was€not€working€onÏthe€day€Dr.€Lawrence€allegedly€called€him.€€The€plaintiff€testified€that€sheÏpersonally€advised€Mr.€Harris€of€her€injury€on€September€1,€1993,€but€theÏdocumented€evidence€revealed€that€he€was€in€Louisville,€Kentucky,€on€that€day.€ÏFurther€œexacerbative›€of€the€notice€issue€insofar€as€the€plaintiff€is€concerned€isÏthe€fact€that€she€executed€Disability€Claim€forms€wherein€she€„€and€Dr.ÏLawrence€„€represented€that€her€problems€were€not€job„related.€€Moreover,Ïshe€did€not€relate€to€Drs.€Craig€and€Smith,€of€the€Jackson€Clinic,€that€herÏproblems€were€job„related,€and€she€told€Dr.€Misulis€that€her€problems€wereÏnot€job„related.€€During€an€extended€period€her€œmedical›€expenses€were€paid€byÏBlue€Cross„Blue€Shield,€which€later€intervened€in€this€action€to€recover€theÏamounts€paid€on€her€behalf.Ìà àIt€is€a€familiar€assertion€that€each€fact„based€claim€for€workersððÏcompensation€ð ðstands€on€its€own€bottom,ðð€and€the€circumstances€of€this€caseÏtend€to€excite€the€suspicion€of€a€certain€inevitability.€€But€we€cannot€substituteÏour€judgment€for€that€of€the€trial€court;€we€are€limited€by€law€to€aÏdetermination€of€where€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€lies.€€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„225(a),€and€in€doing€so,€the€issue€of€the€credibility€of€the€live€witnessesÏbecomes€crucial.€€As€stated,€we€may€gauge€the€worth€of€depositional€testimonyÏas€well€as€the€trial€judge,€and€have€done€so.€These€experts€were€not€inÏagreement,€a€not€unusual€œposture.›€€Appellant€argues€that€Dr.€Lawrence€lacksÍcredibility€and€should€be€disregarded,€because€he€twice€certified€that€theÏplaintiffððs€problems€were€not€job„related,€and€later€changed€his€mind.€€AÏthorough€critique€is€aimed€at€other€expert€testimony,€all€of€which€has€given€usÏpause€to€reflect€since€a€workersðð€compensation€case€is€to€be€proved€like€anyÏother€case,€free€of€any€emotional€basis.€€While€the€related€issues€of€notice€andÏcausation€are€close€indeed,€we€cannot€find€that€the€resolution€of€them€by€theÏtrial€judge€is€contrary€to€the€preponderance€of€all€of€the€evidence.Ìà àNext,€the€appellant€argues€that€Dr.€Law,€who€was€the€plaintiffððs€personalÏphysician,€testified€that€according€to€the€òòAMA€Guidelines,óó€the€plaintiff€had€anÏeight€percent€impairment,€which€would€limit€a€finding€of€permanent€partialÏdisability€to€a€maximum€of€48€percent.Ìà àDr.€Law€also€testified€that€under€the€òòAmerican€Academy€of€OrthopedicÏSurgeons€Guidelinesóó,€the€plaintiffððs€impairment€rating€was€15€percent,€whichÏthe€trial€court€accepted€and€found€as€the€percentage€of€impairment.€€AÏreproduction€of€Dr.€Lawððs€testimony€would€be€instructive:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àQ:à8 àOkay.€€Doctor,€at€my€request€have€you€looked€at€theÏOrthopaedics€Rating€Manual,€and€if€so,€do€you€haveÏan€opinion€based€upon€a€reasonable€degree€of€medicalÏcertainty€as€to€what€degree€of€permanent€physicalÏimpairment€she€would€have€utilizing€that€guide?ÌÌà8 àA:à8 àYes,€sheððs€„€„€utilizing€the€American€Academy€ofÏOrthopaedic€Surgeons€Guidelines,€her€impairmentÏrating€would€fall€into€15€percent€using€that€„€„€usingÏthat€guideline.ÌÌà8 àQ:à8 àAnd€I€believe€„€„€if€you€utilized€the€DRE€methodÏcontained€in€the€AMA€Guides,€what€would€be€herÏdegree€of€disability?ÌÌà8 àA:à8 àRight.€€I€asigned€her€a€degree€of€disability€at€8Ïpercent€based€on€the€DRE€method€for€the€AMAÏGuidelines.ÌÌà8 àQ:à8 àIs€there€several€different€ways€that€a€rating€can€beÏfigured€under€the€AMA€Guide?ÌÌà8 àA:à8 àYes,€thereððs€the€range€of€motion€model,€which€isÏfrom€the€Third€Edition,€and€then€the€DRE€method,Ïwhich€is€from€the€Fouth€Edition.€€The€guidelines€areÏvery€difficult€because€the€„€„€theyððre€„€„€someÏguidelines€are€based€on€range€of€motion,€some€onÏdiagnosis,€some€on€the€actual€surgical€procedure.€ÏThe€„€„€for€diagnosis„related€guidelines,€she€actuallyÏgets€a€lower€rating,€and€thatððs€the€guide€„€„€thatððs€theÏguide€œthat›€Iððve€used€in€this€case.€€For€the€surgicalÏprocedure,€which€is€a€fusion,€such€as€the€AmericanÏBoard€of€Orthopaedic€Surgeons€Guidelines,€or€usingÏthe€guidelines€of€the€Third€Edition,€which€areÏactually€part€of€the€Fourth€Edition,€the€range€ofÏmotion€model,€then€the€impairment€rating€is€higher,Ïand€it€really€depends€on€how€the€particular€physicianÏ„€„€which€guide€he€uses€to€do€that.€€I€tend€to€favor€theÏFourth€Edition€because€itððs€the€newer€version.€€ItððsÏthe€newest€way€to€do€it.€€But€„€„€and€thatððs€my€sole€„€„Ïthatððs€my€main€reason€for€going€with€that,€because€itððsÏthe€new€method.ÌÌò òà@ à.€€€€.€€€€.€€€€.€€€€.€ó óÌÌà8 àQ:à8 àWith€respect€to€the€rating€that€youððve€given,€youÏwrote€Mr.€Boren€a€letter€on€April€the€17th€of€1995,Ïand€in€that€letter€indicated€tht€under€the€AMAÏGuidelines,€which€would€be€the€„€„€using€the€FourthÏœEdition›€„€„€ÌÌà8 àA:à8 àThatððs€correct.ÌÌà8 àQ:à8 à„€„€that€she€would€have€an€8€percent€impairment€toÏthe€body€as€a€whole€following€this€surgery?ÌÌà8 àA:à8 àThatððs€correct.ÌÌà8 àQ:à8 àAnd€that€was€the€method€that€you€selected€or€that€youÏchose€and€felt€was€appropriate€in€giving€this€womanÏan€appropriate€impairment€rating?ÌÌà8 àA:à8 àYes.ÌÌà8 àQ:à8 àSo€when€Mr.€Boren€suggests€to€you€the€OrthopaedicÏSurgeon€Guidelines€which€have€a€different€result,Ïthatððs€one€that€you€did€not€elect€to€use€in€yourÏsuggestion€to€Mr.€Boren€in€your€letter€of€April€17.€ÏIs€that€a€fair€enough€statement?ÌÌà8 àA:à8 àThatððs€correct.€€Iððve€used€those€guidelines.€€Actually,Ïin€my€œspine›€fellowship€I€used€those€guidelines€quiteÏextensively,€mainly€because€theyððre€easy.ÌÌà8 àQ:à8 àThat€is€the€Orthopaedic€Guidelines?ÌÌà8 àA:à8 àYes,€the€Academy€of€œOrthopaedic›€SurgeonsÏGuidelines.€€Theyððre€easy€to€use,€and€thereððs€not€aÏwhole€lot€to€figure€out€in€using€those€guidelines.ÌÌà8 àQ:à8 àAt€the€same€time,€it€would€appear€that€you€prefer€theÏmethod€that€you€suggested€to€Mr.€Boren€in€yourÏletter€of€April€17.ÌÌà8 àA:à8 àRight.€€I€used€the€newer€method.€€It€seems€to€be€moreÏstandardized.ÌÌœÔ% € Ôà8 àQ:›à8 àAnd€weððll€make€a€copy€of€this€lettter€of€April€17th€asÏthe€next€numbered€exhibit,€whatever€that€would€be.ÌÌà@ à(Deposition€Exhibit€3€marked.)× ƒ4 ××  ×ÌÌà8 àA:à8 àòòI€also€was€not€aware€that€Tennessee€even€accepted€theÏAmerican€Academy€of€Orthopaedic€SurgeonsÏGuidelines.óóÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àIt€is€patent€from€this€testimony€that€Dr.€Law€utilized€and€relied€upon€theÏòòAMA€Guidelines.Ìóóœ›à àIn€òòBolton€v.€CNA€Ins.€Co.,€óó821€S.W.2d€932€(Tenn.€1991),the€SupremeÏCourt€held€that€only€physicians€could€assess€permanent€physical€impairment.€ÏDr.€Laws€did€so,€using€the€òòAMA€Guides.óó€€The€trial€court€impermissiblyÏassessed€the€plaintiffððs€physical€impairment.Ìà àThe€appellant€next€argues€that€the€incorrect€multiplier€was€used.€€T.C.A.Ïðð€50„6„241(a)(1)€provides:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àFor€injuries€after€August€1,€1992,€in€cases€where€an€injuredÏworker€is€entitled€to€permanent€partial€disability€benefits€to€theÏbody€as€a€whole,€and€the€pre„injury€employer€returns€theÏemployee€to€employment€at€a€wage€equal€to€or€greater€than€theÏwage€the€employee€was€receiving€at€the€time€of€the€injury,€theÏmaximum€permanent€partial€disability€award€that€the€employeeÏmay€receive€is€two€and€one„half€times€the€medical€impairmentÏrating€determined€pursuant€to€certain€guidelines.€€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(1)€(1995€Supp.).ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€plaintiff€returned€to€work€upon€her€release€from€treatment.€€SheÏworked€for€nearly€òòtwo€yearsóó€before€quitting,€because€of€her€inability€toÍperform€the€work€comfortably.€€Various€factors€are€to€be€considered€in€aÏdetermination€of€whether€a€resumption€of€work€is€meaningful,€and€we€cannotÏfind€that€this€plaintiffððs€resumption€was€meaningful.€€She€more€or€lessÏð ðœtoughed›€it€outðð€for€many€months,€but€quit€when€her€physical€conditionÏworsened.€€The€trial€judge,€by€extrapolation,€used€a€multiplier€of€4.6€in€hisÏfinding,€and€we€cannot€say€that€the€evidence€requires€a€modification€of€thisÏmultiplier.Ìà àWe€have€considered€the€issues€of€the€medical€expenses€and€mileageÏallowance.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€these€awards.Ìà àThe€evidence€preponderates€against€a€finding€of€70€percent€permanentÏpartial€disability€and€in€favor€of€a€finding€of€permanent€partial€disability€ofÏ36.8€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€As€modified,€the€judgment€is€affirmed,Ïwith€costs€assessed€equally.ÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€œInman›,€Senior€JudgeÌCONCUR:Ìœ›ÌÌ__________________________ÌJanice€Holder,€JusticeÌœ›ÌÌ__________________________ÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌœÇÑ p ÑÑ H ÑÓ` °‰Xx‘XÓÔ€.Ôà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÔ€.XÔÌÌÌÓ&` p…XÈôLÐ X&ÓSHANNON€FORREST,à àà à)à àCARROLL€CIRCUITÌÓ#` p` ȃ,Ð X#Óà à)à àNO.€3007ÌÓ` p` ¸ È“XÓà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à à)à àÌÓ#` p` ¸ ÈôÐ X#Óà àà à)à àHon.€Creed€McGinleyÌvs.à àà à)à àJudgeÌà àà à)ÌHENRY€I.€SIEGEL€COMPANY,€INC.,à à)à àNO.€02S01„9705„CV„00050Ìà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant,à à)à àMODIFIED€AND€AFFIRMED.ÌßJ€25;+'b|` O0 `€@ÿJßà àà à)à àÌvs.à àà à)Ìà àà à)ÌBLUE€CROSS/BLUE€SHIELD€OFà à)ÌTENNESSEE,à à)Ìà àà à)Ìà àIntervening€Plaintiff.à à)ÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€.¼ÔJUDGMENT€ORDERÔ€.XÔÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌÓ` p`  ’XÓà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€theÏorder€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€theÏPanel's€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference.Ìà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€Opinion€ofÏthe€Panel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€madeÏthe€judgment€of€the€Court.Ìà àCosts€will€be€paid€equally€by€Appellant€and€Appellee,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ìà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€this€3rd€day€of€March,€1998.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌ(Holder,€J.,€not€participating)ÌÌÌÌÔ€-ÔÔ€-¼Ô›