ÿWPC‚( Æ# ä U:ï %) 0û/ w@*4j~ 0? 0DÌ  0J 0T`´ 0^´ 0h zÆ€ÆFÆ ÆÒƘ 0r^ 0|Ð 0†L 0Ò 1ub 0d× B;U *X D3‚B)µDCÞ 0@! 0Ka AO¬¥ûo ov~~vÓü D+Ï& AOú& 0DI' D/' B¼' A©Ù'˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Ó­$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XXXXÔÑ7€.íXXdðXXdð7Ñ üUýÊþÿVîVîÓ€ƒ‰"ù3|x(ï(2“Ÿ$¤¤Ý ƒ­!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XÊ—XXXÔÑ7€Ê—XXdædæ7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóH2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔHLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52@ 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 d< Œ 9p`(Arial$$$$'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó-.,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ›Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌò òAprilÏ22,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€)ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó eÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý"Because€I€don't€want€to€and€because€I€never€do."Ì eÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý"Because€I€don't€want€to€and€because€I€never€do."ÌPtPtHHøHÿöÿòV,(ühhØ hd'0ÿÎÿºF ® Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  eskto Geneva ÒÒ  eskto Geneva Ò'ÈÈÈÈdxd-‚ƒCþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd-.:›&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÓ  Óò òÌIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATIONÏAPPEALS€PANELÌAT€KNOXVILLE,€FEBRUARY€1997€SESSIONÌÙ€ÙÓ  ÓßL€/0,;+'h|` à. `€€LßÌÌÌÌÌÌó óCHARLOTTE€FREEMAN,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHAMBLEN€CIRCUITÌà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à03S01„9608„Ch„00089Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌCPQ€COLORCHROME,€INC.,à àà à)à àEARL€H.ÏHENLEY,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àCHANCELLORÌà àDefendant/Appellantà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€theÏAppellee:ÌÌó óóóDavid€W.€Noblità àà àà àà àJeffrey€W.€RufoloÌLeitner,€Moffitt,€Williams,€à àà àà àSummers,ÏMcCrea€&€Wyatt,€P.C.Ì€€Dooley€&€Napolitan,€PLLCà àà à500€LindsayÏStreetÌThird€Floor,€Pioneer€Buildingà àà àChattanooga,ÏTN€37402ÌChattanooga,€TN€37402ÌÌÌÌÌò òòòÌÌÌÌóóó óÌÓ  Óò òòòM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌò òòòMembers€of€Panel:ÌÌó óóóJustice€E.€Riley€AndersonÌSenior€Judge€John€K.€ByersÌSpecial€Judge€Roger€E.€ThayerÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òÌÌÌAFFIRMEDà àà àà àà àà àà àBYERS,€Senior€JudgeÌÓÓó óà àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€SpecialÏWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€withÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€CourtÏof€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€Ìà àWhile€lifting€a€machine€at€work,€plaintiff€heard€or€felt€a€"pop"€in€her€neck€andÏexperienced€a€slight€tingling€in€her€hands.€€Because€she€felt€little€or€no€pain€at€thatÏtime,€she€did€not€immediately€suspect€that€the€"pop"€and€the€tingling€might€beÏsymptomatic€of€serious€injury.€€When€she€developed€pain€in€the€neck€a€few€daysÏlater€after€sleeping€on€the€arm,€she€sought€medical€care€and€found€that€she€hadÏherniated€two€cervical€disks.Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€the€plaintiff€had€proved€that€her€neck€injury€was€causedÏby€her€work€and€awarded€her€40€percent€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€asÏa€whole.€€The€defendant€appeals,€insisting€that€plaintiff€has€not€met€her€burden€ofÏproving€that€her€work€caused€injury.Ìà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.à àÌà àPlaintiff,€46€years€old€with€a€G.E.D.€diploma,€began€working€for€defendantððsÏpredecessor€in€1986.€€While€refinishing€photo€negatives€on€February€15,€1994,€she€Ïlifted€a€29„pound€machine€and€felt€or€heard€a€"pop"€in€her€neck€and€a€slight€tinglingÏin€her€right€arm.€€She€didn't€have€much,€if€any,€pain,€and€didn't€think€much€about€it.€€Ìà àPlaintiff€went€to€the€work€site€within€the€next€three€days€and,€in€conversationÏwith€her€supervisor€and€two€other€employees,€said€that€she€thought€her€injury€wasÏcaused€by€lifting€the€machine€at€work.€€The€supervisor,€Kathy€Quintard,€who€was€in„and„out€of€the€room€during€this€conversation,€thought€this€was€only€"chit„chat"Ïamong€friends.€€Although€she€heard€plaintiff€discuss€the€injury,€she€did€not€considerÏthis€to€be€her€official€notice€of€work„related€injury,€and€so€Ms.€Quintard€did€not€makeÏa€report€of€it.€€The€evidence€indicates€Ms.€Quintard€thought€that€unless€plaintiff€cameÏto€her€office€and€made€an€"official"€statement,€she€would€not€be€entitled€to€workersððÏcompensation€coverage.€€Ìà àOn€February€17,€1994,€plaintiff€awoke€with€arm€pain€after€having€slept€on€theÏarm.€€She€went€to€an€emergency€clinic€that€day€and€again€on€February€20,€1994,Ïcomplaining€of€pain€and€stating€that€she€had€slept€on€her€upper€right€arm.€€BecauseÏshe€thought€she€had€to€have€permission€from€the€employer€before€she€told€a€doctorÏto€file€workersðð€compensation€insurance,€she€did€not€mention€a€work„relatedÍincident€to€the€doctors.€€As€she€was€leaving€the€clinic€after€her€second€visit,€sheÏasked€the€staff€for€workersðð€compensation€forms.€They€gave€her€the€forms€and€notedÏher€request€on€her€chart.Ìà àOn€February€24,€1994,€plaintiff€went€to€her€family€physician,€Dr.€J.€MichaelÏMazzolini.€€The€usual€practice€in€Dr.€Mazzoliniððs€office€is€that€the€nurse€questionsÏthe€patient,€obtains€the€history,€writes€it€down€on€the€chart,€then€sends€the€patient€€inÏto€see€the€doctor,€who€adds€his€own€comments,€then€dictates€a€more€extensive€noteÏafter€the€patient€leaves€the€office€that€day.€€Ìà àPlaintiff€recalls€that€as€Dr.€Mazzolini€was€examining€her€and€trying€to€figureÏout€what€the€problem€was,€he€asked€her€"what€might€have€happened€€.€.€.€did€youÏmove€furniture,€did€you€lift€anything?"€€She€replied€that€she€had€"only€lifted€aÏmachine€at€work."€€Her€sonððs€girlfriend€went€with€her€to€Dr.€Mazzoliniððs€office,€was€inÏthe€examining€room,€and€recalls€the€conversation€between€doctor€and€patient.€€SheÏremembers€that€the€doctor€asked€plaintiff,€"did€you€move€furniture,€did€you€liftÏanything?"€and€that€plaintiff€replied,€"only€a€machine€at€work."€Ìà àDr.€Mazzolini€does€not€remember€a€discussion€with€plaintiff€about€moving€aÏmachine€at€work;€he€has€no€record€of€it€in€his€notes;€€and€he€thinks€that€if€theÏconversation€had€occurred,€he€would€have€written€it€down€or€dictated€it€later.€Ìà àOn€March€21,€1994,€Dr.€Mazzolini€received€a€call€from€Tom€Green,€HumanÏResources€Manager€for€defendant,€inquiring€whether€his€treatment€of€plaintiff€wasÏthe€result€of€a€claimed€work€injury.€€Mazzolini,€after€reviewing€his€records,€said€no.Ìà àWhen€plaintiff€did€not€improve€after€conservative€care,€Dr.€Mazzolini€referredÏher€to€Dr.€Megison,€neurosurgeon,€who€diagnosed€cervical€spinal€stenosisÍsecondary€to€degenerative€bone€spurs€and€some€herniated€discs,€especially€at€theÏC5„C6€and€C7€levels.€€He€€performed€double€disc€removal€on€April€15,€1994.€Ìà àDr.€Megison€was€still€treating€plaintiff€for€this€injury€when€he€was€deposedÏone€year€later€and€opined€that€she€had€not€reached€maximum€medicalÏimprovement.€€He€answered€affirmatively€when€defense€counsel€asked€whether€sheÏcould€have€had€a€spontaneous€onset€of€the€herniated€cervical€discs€and€whetherÏother€patients€had€complaints€similar€to€hers€after€sleeping€in€a€certain€position.€Ìà àWhen€Dr.€Megison€refused€to€assess€plaintiff's€permanent€disability,ÛÛÜÜ× ƒ1 ××  ׀̀the€parties€agreed€to€send€her€to€Dr.€George€E.€Seiters,€orthopedic€surgeon,€for€anÏimpairment€rating.€Ìà àDr.€Seiters€was€asked€for€an€opinion€as€to€the€cause€of€plaintiffððs€herniatedÏdisks€and€was€given€three€hypotheticals:€(1)€no€injury;€(2)€sleeping€on€her€arm;€andÏ(3)€lifting€something€at€work.€€He€opined€any€one€of€these€situations€could€haveÏcaused€the€injury,€since€degenerative€disc€disease€can€break€down€without€injury€orÏin€any€number€of€different€ways,€including€lifting€something€or€sleeping€on€her€arm.€òòÌóóà àThe€employer€insists€that€plaintiff€cannot€recover€because€she€has€not€metÏher€burden€of€proving€that€her€work€caused€her€injury.Ìà àOur€review€is€òòde€novoóó€on€the€record€accompanied€by€a€presumption€that€theÏfindings€of€fact€of€the€trial€court€are€correct€unless€the€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€sect.€50„6„225(e).Ìà àCausation€and€permanency€of€a€work„related€injury€must€be€shown€in€mostÏcases€by€expert€medical€evidence.€€òòTindall€v.€Waring€Park€Ass'n.,óó€725€S.W.2d€935Í(Tenn.€1987).Ìà àAlthough€absolute€certainty€is€not€required€for€proof€of€causation,€the€medicalÏproof€must€not€be€speculative€or€so€uncertain€regarding€the€cause€of€the€injury€thatÏattributing€it€to€the€plaintiff's€employment€would€be€an€arbitrary€determination€or€aÏmere€possibility.€€òòIbid.€óóat€937.Ìà àHowever,€in€a€workers'€compensation€case,€a€trial€judge€may€properlyÏpredicate€an€award€on€medical€testimony€to€the€effect€that€a€given€incident€"couldÏbe"€the€cause€of€the€plaintiff's€injury,€when€he€also€has€before€him€lay€testimonyÏfrom€which€it€may€reasonably€be€inferred€that€the€incident€was€in€fact€the€cause€ofÏthe€injury.€€òòClarendon€v.€Baptist€Memorial€Hospital,€óó796€S.W.2d€685€(Tenn.€1990).Ìà àÌÑ Ð Ñà àThe€only€medical€evidence€on€causation€was€given€by€Dr.€Seiters€who,€theÏtrial€judge€and€counsel€for€the€parties€agreed,€"just€calls€them€like€he€sees€them."€ÏDr.€Seiters€opined€that€plaintiff's€injury€could€have€occurred€by€lifting€the€machine,Ïby€sleeping€on€her€arm,€by€some€other€act,€or€without€any€identifiable€act€at€all.Ìà àPlaintiff€testified€she€did€not€think€she€had€an€injury€when€she€heard€or€feltÏthe€"pop"€in€her€neck.€€When€she€woke€up€from€sleeping€on€the€arm€and€felt€pain,Ïshe€told€the€doctors€exactly€that.€€When€she€began€to€put€two€and€two€together€sheÏpicked€up€workers'€compensation€papers€from€one€doctor's€office,€although€she€didÏnot€discuss€the€work€incident€with€the€doctors€because€she€thought€she€had€to€getÏpermission€from€her€employer€first.€€She€told€her€co„workers€and€supervisorÏinformally€that€she€hurt€her€neck€lifting€the€machine,€but€they€filed€no€report.Ìà àThe€employer€argues€that€plaintiff's€seemingly€contradictory€versions€of€theÏfacts€cancel€out€each€other,€òòas€a€matter€of€law,€óó€leaving€no€lay€evidence€to€supportÍDr.€Seiters'€speculative€medical€testimony€as€to€causation.€€Ìà àIt€is€a€rule€of€law€in€this€State€that€contradictory€statements€of€a€witness€inÏconnection€with€the€same€fact€have€a€result€of€cancelling€out€each€other.€€òòTibbalsÏFlooring€Company,€Inc.€v.€Stanfill,€óó410€S.W.2d€892€(Tenn.€1967);€òòTaylor€v.€NashvilleÏBanner€Pub.€Co.,€óó573€S.W.2d€476,€482€(Tenn.€App.€1978).€€This€rule€was€mostÏmemorably€explicated€in€òòJohnston€v.€Cincinnati€N.€O.€&€T.€R.€Railway€Co.,€óó240€S.W.Ï429€(Tenn.€1922):ÌÒ  ÒÒ ½ ÒÓ  ÓÓÓ"If€a€plaintiff€should€testify€with€equal€positiveness€that€defendantÏstole€his€horse€and€that€some€third€person€stole€his€horse,€no€oneÏwould€doubt€that€the€case€ought€not€to€go€to€the€jury.€€ÌÌòòId.€óóat€160.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÓÓà àDefendant€argues€that€since,€under€òòJohnstonóó€and€its€progeny,€plaintiff'sÏtestimony€must€be€disregarded€òòas€a€matter€of€law,€óóthe€question€of€credibility€isÏnever€reached.€€Plaintiff€says€that€any€inconsistencies€in€her€testimony€at€most€raiseÏan€òòissue€of€fact€óóas€to€credibility,€which€the€trial€judge€resolved€in€her€favor.Ìà àWe€think€it€instructive€to€quote€the€relevant€portions€of€òòJohnstonóó€more€fully:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ½ ÒÓ  ÓÓÓ"The€testimony€of€a€witness€as€to€a€particular€fact€may€have€value,Ïeven€though€he€has€both€affirmed€and€denied€it€if€the€contradictionÏis€explained€and€is€shown€to€have€been€the€result€ofÏmisunderstanding€or€inadvertence.€ÌÓ  Ó€.€.€.€ÌÓ  ÓÌÑ ° ÑThe€question€here€is€not€one€of€the€credibility€of€a€witness€or€of€theÏweight€of€evidence;€but€it€is€whether€there€is€any€evidence€at€all€toÏprove€the€fact.€€If€two€witnesses€contradict€each€other,€there€is€proofÏon€both€sides,€and€it€is€for€the€jury€to€say€where€the€truth€lies;€but€ifÏthe€proof€of€a€fact€lies€wholly€with€one€witness,€and€he€both€affirmsÏand€denies€it,€and€there€is€no€explanation,€it€cannot€standÏotherwise€than€unproven.€€For€his€testimony€to€prove€it€is€noÏstronger€than€his€testimony€to€disprove€it,€and€it€would€be€mereÍcaprice€in€a€jury€upon€such€evidence€to€decide€it€either€wayÌÓ  Ó€.€.€.€Ó  ÓWe€have€searched€complainantððs€testimony€for€an€explanationÏof€its€inconsistencies€that€would€entitle€it,€upon€grounds€ofÏinadvertence€or€mistake,€to€some€weight€on€the€side€of€the€juryððsÏverdict€.€.€.€but€could€find€none,€and€.€.€.€when€we€went€outside€of€hisÏtestimony€and€looked€to€his€conduct€and€correspondence€beforeÏthe€present€difference€arose,€the€impossibility€of€any€suchÏexplanation€was€only€emphasized."ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ 9 ÒÓ K ÓÓ  ÓÓÓà àWe€find€in€this€case,€as€the€court€in€òòJohnsonóó€could€not,€that€there€areÏreasonable€bases€upon€which€the€inconsistencies€in€the€testimony€of€the€plaintiffÏare€sufficiently€explained€to€create€an€issue€of€credibility€of€the€plaintiffððs€testimonyÏrather€than€leaving€a€cancellation€of€her€testimony€on€the€basis€of€contradictoryÏtestimony€on€the€same€facts.Ìà àThe€trial€judge€found€the€plaintiff€to€be€credible.Ìà àThe€workers'€compensation€law€is€"a€remedial€statute€which€shall€be€givenÏan€equitable€construction€by€the€courts€to€the€end€that€the€objects€and€purposes€ofÏthis€chapter€may€be€realized€and€attained."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„116.€€Even€inÏcases€where€the€evidence€allows€inferences€which€could€support€either€party,€weÏare€bound€by€the€strong€public€policy€of€our€Work[ers']€Compensation€Law€toÏresolve€conflicts€and€doubts€in€favor€of€the€claimant.€€òòCurtis€v.€Hamilton€Block€Co.,ÏInc.,óó€466€S.W.2d€220€(Tenn.€1971).€€Ìà àThis€legislative€mandate€applies€to€the€issue€of€causation€of€an€injury,€and€Ï"any€reasonable€doubt€as€to€whether€an€injury€arose€out€of€and€in€the€employmentÏis€to€be€resolved€in€favor€of€the€employee€or€his€dependents."€€òòWilliams€v.€PreferredÏDev.€Corp.,€óó452€S.W.2d€344€(Tenn.€1970).Ìà àWe€find€that€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€court'sÍjudgment,€which€we€affirm.€€Costs€are€assessed€to€the€appellant.ÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌÔ% € ÔCONCUR:ÌÌÌ______________________________ÌE.€Riley€Anderson,€JusticeÌÌÌ______________________________ÌRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌÇÇÇÇÒ  ÒÒ 9 Òà àà àà àÌà àà àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€à à€€€€€€€€€AT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÌÒ S ÒÒ 9 ÒCHARLOTTE€FREEMAN,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à€)€€€€€HAMBLEN€CIRCUITÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€€€NO.€94„289€€€€€€€à à€€€€€€à àÏà àà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à à€à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìvs.€€à àà àà àà àà àà à€)€€€€€€€Hon.€Earl€H.€Henley,€€à àà à€€€€€€€€Ïà àà àà àà àà àà à€)€€€€€€€€Chancellorà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€)€€€€€Ìà àà à€à àà àà àà à€)à àÌCPQ€COLORCHROME,€INC.,à àà à€)à à€Ìà à€€€€à àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àÌà àDefendant/€Appellant.à àà à€)à à03S01„9606„CH„00089ÌÔ€)îÔÌÌÓffÓà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€òòJUDGMENT€ORDERóóÌà àà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,Ïincluding€the€order€of€referral€to€the€Special€WorkerððÏCompensation€Panel,€and€the€Panelððs€Memorandum€OpinionÏsetting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€areÏincorporated€herein€by€reference;Ìà àÌà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€MemorandumÏOpinion€of€the€Panel€should€be€accepted€and€approved€;€andÌÌà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panelððs€findings€of€act€andÏconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€ofÏthe€Panel€is€made€the€Judgment€of€the€Court.ÌÌà àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€Defendant/Appellant€CPQÏColorchrome,€Inc.€and€surety,€Leitner,€Warner,€Moffitt,€Williams,ÍDooley€&€Napolitan,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€Ì€04/21/97à àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÔ€)XÔà àÇÓ  Óò òÌIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌAT€KNOXVILLE,€FEBRUARY€1997€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌó óCHARLOTTE€FREEMAN,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHAMBLEN€CIRCUITÌà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à03S01„9608„Ch„00089Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌCPQ€COLORCHROME,€INC.,à àà à)à àEARL€H.€HENLEY,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àCHANCELLORÌà àDefendant/Appellantà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€the€Appellee:ÌÌó óóóDavid€W.€Noblità àà àà àà àJeffrey€W.€RufoloÌLeitner,€Moffitt,€Williams,€à àà àà àSummers,€McCrea€&€Wyatt,€P.C.Ì€€Dooley€&€Napolitan,€PLLCà àà à500€Lindsay€StreetÌThird€Floor,€Pioneer€Buildingà àà àChattanooga,€TN€37402ÌChattanooga,€TN€37402ÌÌÌÌÌò òòòÌÌÌÌóóó óÌÓ  Óò òòòM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌò òòòMembers€of€Panel:ÌÌó óóóJustice€E.€Riley€AndersonÌSenior€Judge€John€K.€ByersÌSpecial€Judge€Roger€E.€ThayerÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òÌÌÌAFFIRMEDà àà àà àà àà àà àBYERS,€Senior€JudgeÌÓÓó óà àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€SpecialÏWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€withÍTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€CourtÏof€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€Ìà àWhile€lifting€a€machine€at€work,€plaintiff€heard€or€felt€a€"pop"€in€her€neck€andÏexperienced€a€slight€tingling€in€her€hands.€€Because€she€felt€little€or€no€pain€at€thatÏtime,€she€did€not€immediately€suspect€that€the€"pop"€and€the€tingling€might€beÏsymptomatic€of€serious€injury.€€When€she€developed€pain€in€the€neck€a€few€daysÏlater€after€sleeping€on€the€arm,€she€sought€medical€care€and€found€that€she€hadÏherniated€two€cervical€disks.Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€the€plaintiff€had€proved€that€her€neck€injury€was€causedÏby€her€work€and€awarded€her€40€percent€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€asÏa€whole.€€The€defendant€appeals,€insisting€that€plaintiff€has€not€met€her€burden€ofÏproving€that€her€work€caused€injury.Ìà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.à àÌà àPlaintiff,€46€years€old€with€a€G.E.D.€diploma,€began€working€for€defendantððsÏpredecessor€in€1986.€€While€refinishing€photo€negatives€on€February€15,€1994,€she€Ïlifted€a€29„pound€machine€and€felt€or€heard€a€"pop"€in€her€neck€and€a€slight€tinglingÏin€her€right€arm.€€She€didn't€have€much,€if€any,€pain,€and€didn't€think€much€about€it.€€Ìà àPlaintiff€went€to€the€work€site€within€the€next€three€days€and,€in€conversationÏwith€her€supervisor€and€two€other€employees,€said€that€she€thought€her€injury€wasÏcaused€by€lifting€the€machine€at€work.€€The€supervisor,€Kathy€Quintard,€who€was€in„and„out€of€the€room€during€this€conversation,€thought€this€was€only€"chit„chat"Ïamong€friends.€€Although€she€heard€plaintiff€discuss€the€injury,€she€did€not€considerÏthis€to€be€her€official€notice€of€work„related€injury,€and€so€Ms.€Quintard€did€not€makeÍa€report€of€it.€€The€evidence€indicates€Ms.€Quintard€thought€that€unless€plaintiffÏcame€to€her€office€and€made€an€"official"€statement,€she€would€not€be€entitled€toÏworkersðð€compensation€coverage.€€Ìà àOn€February€17,€1994,€plaintiff€awoke€with€arm€pain€after€having€slept€on€theÏarm.€€She€went€to€an€emergency€clinic€that€day€and€again€on€February€20,€1994,Ïcomplaining€of€pain€and€stating€that€she€had€slept€on€her€upper€right€arm.€€BecauseÏshe€thought€she€had€to€have€permission€from€the€employer€before€she€told€a€doctorÏto€file€workersðð€compensation€insurance,€she€did€not€mention€a€work„relatedÏincident€to€the€doctors.€€As€she€was€leaving€the€clinic€after€her€second€visit,€sheÏasked€the€staff€for€workersðð€compensation€forms.€They€gave€her€the€forms€andÏnoted€her€request€on€her€chart.Ìà àOn€February€24,€1994,€plaintiff€went€to€her€family€physician,€Dr.€J.€MichaelÏMazzolini.€€The€usual€practice€in€Dr.€Mazzoliniððs€office€is€that€the€nurse€questionsÏthe€patient,€obtains€the€history,€writes€it€down€on€the€chart,€then€sends€the€patient€Ïin€to€see€the€doctor,€who€adds€his€own€comments,€then€dictates€a€more€extensiveÏnote€after€the€patient€leaves€the€office€that€day.€€Ìà àPlaintiff€recalls€that€as€Dr.€Mazzolini€was€examining€her€and€trying€to€figureÏout€what€the€problem€was,€he€asked€her€"what€might€have€happened€€.€.€.€did€youÏmove€furniture,€did€you€lift€anything?"€€She€replied€that€she€had€"only€lifted€aÏmachine€at€work."€€Her€sonððs€girlfriend€went€with€her€to€Dr.€Mazzoliniððs€office,€was€inÏthe€examining€room,€and€recalls€the€conversation€between€doctor€and€patient.€€SheÏremembers€that€the€doctor€asked€plaintiff,€"did€you€move€furniture,€did€you€liftÏanything?"€and€that€plaintiff€replied,€"only€a€machine€at€work."€Ìà àDr.€Mazzolini€does€not€remember€a€discussion€with€plaintiff€about€moving€aÏmachine€at€work;€he€has€no€record€of€it€in€his€notes;€€and€he€thinks€that€if€theÏconversation€had€occurred,€he€would€have€written€it€down€or€dictated€it€later.€Ìà àOn€March€21,€1994,€Dr.€Mazzolini€received€a€call€from€Tom€Green,€HumanÏResources€Manager€for€defendant,€inquiring€whether€his€treatment€of€plaintiff€wasÏthe€result€of€a€claimed€work€injury.€€Mazzolini,€after€reviewing€his€records,€said€no.Ìà àWhen€plaintiff€did€not€improve€after€conservative€care,€Dr.€Mazzolini€referredÏher€to€Dr.€Megison,€neurosurgeon,€who€diagnosed€cervical€spinal€stenosisÏsecondary€to€degenerative€bone€spurs€and€some€herniated€discs,€especially€at€theÏC5„C6€and€C7€levels.€€He€€performed€double€disc€removal€on€April€15,€1994.€Ìà àDr.€Megison€was€still€treating€plaintiff€for€this€injury€when€he€was€deposedÏone€year€later€and€opined€that€she€had€not€reached€maximum€medicalÏimprovement.€€He€answered€affirmatively€when€defense€counsel€asked€whetherÏshe€could€have€had€a€spontaneous€onset€of€the€herniated€cervical€discs€andÏwhether€other€patients€had€complaints€similar€to€hers€after€sleeping€in€a€certainÏposition.€Ìà àWhen€Dr.€Megison€refused€to€assess€plaintiff's€permanent€disability,ÛÛÜÜ× ƒ2 ××  ׀̀the€parties€agreed€to€send€her€to€Dr.€George€E.€Seiters,€orthopedic€surgeon,€forÏan€impairment€rating.€Ìà àDr.€Seiters€was€asked€for€an€opinion€as€to€the€cause€of€plaintiffððs€herniatedÏdisks€and€was€given€three€hypotheticals:€(1)€no€injury;€(2)€sleeping€on€her€arm;€andÏ(3)€lifting€something€at€work.€€He€opined€any€one€of€these€situations€could€haveÍcaused€the€injury,€since€degenerative€disc€disease€can€break€down€without€injuryÏor€in€any€number€of€different€ways,€including€lifting€something€or€sleeping€on€herÏarm.€òòÌóóà àThe€employer€insists€that€plaintiff€cannot€recover€because€she€has€not€metÏher€burden€of€proving€that€her€work€caused€her€injury.Ìà àOur€review€is€òòde€novoóó€on€the€record€accompanied€by€a€presumption€that€theÏfindings€of€fact€of€the€trial€court€are€correct€unless€the€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€sect.€50„6„225(e).Ìà àCausation€and€permanency€of€a€work„related€injury€must€be€shown€in€mostÏcases€by€expert€medical€evidence.€€òòTindall€v.€Waring€Park€Ass'n.,óó€725€S.W.2d€935Ï(Tenn.€1987).Ìà àAlthough€absolute€certainty€is€not€required€for€proof€of€causation,€theÏmedical€proof€must€not€be€speculative€or€so€uncertain€regarding€the€cause€of€theÏinjury€that€attributing€it€to€the€plaintiff's€employment€would€be€an€arbitraryÏdetermination€or€a€mere€possibility.€€òòIbid.€óóat€937.Ìà àHowever,€in€a€workers'€compensation€case,€a€trial€judge€may€properlyÏpredicate€an€award€on€medical€testimony€to€the€effect€that€a€given€incident€"couldÏbe"€the€cause€of€the€plaintiff's€injury,€when€he€also€has€before€him€lay€testimonyÏfrom€which€it€may€reasonably€be€inferred€that€the€incident€was€in€fact€the€cause€ofÏthe€injury.€€òòClarendon€v.€Baptist€Memorial€Hospital,€óó796€S.W.2d€685€(Tenn.€1990).Ìà àÌÑ Ð Ñà àThe€only€medical€evidence€on€causation€was€given€by€Dr.€Seiters€who,€theÏtrial€judge€and€counsel€for€the€parties€agreed,€"just€calls€them€like€he€sees€them."€ÏDr.€Seiters€opined€that€plaintiff's€injury€could€have€occurred€by€lifting€the€machine,Íby€sleeping€on€her€arm,€by€some€other€act,€or€without€any€identifiable€act€at€all.Ìà àPlaintiff€testified€she€did€not€think€she€had€an€injury€when€she€heard€or€feltÏthe€"pop"€in€her€neck.€€When€she€woke€up€from€sleeping€on€the€arm€and€felt€pain,Ïshe€told€the€doctors€exactly€that.€€When€she€began€to€put€two€and€two€together€sheÏpicked€up€workers'€compensation€papers€from€one€doctor's€office,€although€she€didÏnot€discuss€the€work€incident€with€the€doctors€because€she€thought€she€had€to€getÏpermission€from€her€employer€first.€€She€told€her€co„workers€and€supervisorÏinformally€that€she€hurt€her€neck€lifting€the€machine,€but€they€filed€no€report.Ìà àThe€employer€argues€that€plaintiff's€seemingly€contradictory€versions€of€theÏfacts€cancel€out€each€other,€òòas€a€matter€of€law,€óó€leaving€no€lay€evidence€to€supportÏDr.€Seiters'€speculative€medical€testimony€as€to€causation.€€Ìà àIt€is€a€rule€of€law€in€this€State€that€contradictory€statements€of€a€witness€inÏconnection€with€the€same€fact€have€a€result€of€cancelling€out€each€other.€€òòTibbalsÏFlooring€Company,€Inc.€v.€Stanfill,€óó410€S.W.2d€892€(Tenn.€1967);€òòTaylor€v.ÏNashville€Banner€Pub.€Co.,€óó573€S.W.2d€476,€482€(Tenn.€App.€1978).€€This€rule€wasÏmost€memorably€explicated€in€òòJohnston€v.€Cincinnati€N.€O.€&€T.€R.€Railway€Co.,€óó240ÏS.W.€429€(Tenn.€1922):ÌÒ  ÒÒ ½ ÒÓ  ÓÓÓ"If€a€plaintiff€should€testify€with€equal€positiveness€that€defendantÏstole€his€horse€and€that€some€third€person€stole€his€horse,€no€oneÏwould€doubt€that€the€case€ought€not€to€go€to€the€jury.€€ÌÌòòId.€óóat€160.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÓÓà àDefendant€argues€that€since,€under€òòJohnstonóó€and€its€progeny,€plaintiff'sÏtestimony€must€be€disregarded€òòas€a€matter€of€law,€óóthe€question€of€credibility€isÏnever€reached.€€Plaintiff€says€that€any€inconsistencies€in€her€testimony€at€most€raiseÏan€òòissue€of€fact€óóas€to€credibility,€which€the€trial€judge€resolved€in€her€favor.Ìà àWe€think€it€instructive€to€quote€the€relevant€portions€of€òòJohnstonóó€more€fully:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ½ ÒÓ  ÓÓÓ"The€testimony€of€a€witness€as€to€a€particular€fact€may€have€value,Ïeven€though€he€has€both€affirmed€and€denied€it€if€the€contradictionÏis€explained€and€is€shown€to€have€been€the€result€ofÏmisunderstanding€or€inadvertence.€ÌÓ  Ó€.€.€.€ÌÓ  ÓÌÑ ° ÑThe€question€here€is€not€one€of€the€credibility€of€a€witness€or€of€theÏweight€of€evidence;€but€it€is€whether€there€is€any€evidence€at€all€toÏprove€the€fact.€€If€two€witnesses€contradict€each€other,€there€is€proofÏon€both€sides,€and€it€is€for€the€jury€to€say€where€the€truth€lies;€but€ifÏthe€proof€of€a€fact€lies€wholly€with€one€witness,€and€he€both€affirmsÏand€denies€it,€and€there€is€no€explanation,€it€cannot€standÏotherwise€than€unproven.€€For€his€testimony€to€prove€it€is€noÏstronger€than€his€testimony€to€disprove€it,€and€it€would€be€mereÏcaprice€in€a€jury€upon€such€evidence€to€decide€it€either€wayÌÓ  Ó€.€.€.€Ó  ÓWe€have€searched€complainantððs€testimony€for€an€explanationÏof€its€inconsistencies€that€would€entitle€it,€upon€grounds€ofÏinadvertence€or€mistake,€to€some€weight€on€the€side€of€the€juryððsÏverdict€.€.€.€but€could€find€none,€and€.€.€.€when€we€went€outside€of€hisÏtestimony€and€looked€to€his€conduct€and€correspondence€beforeÏthe€present€difference€arose,€the€impossibility€of€any€suchÏexplanation€was€only€emphasized."ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ 9 ÒÓ  ÓÓÓà àWe€find€in€this€case,€as€the€court€in€òòJohnsonóó€could€not,€that€there€areÏreasonable€bases€upon€which€the€inconsistencies€in€the€testimony€of€the€plaintiffÏare€sufficiently€explained€to€create€an€issue€of€credibility€of€the€plaintiffððs€testimonyÏrather€than€leaving€a€cancellation€of€her€testimony€on€the€basis€of€contradictoryÏtestimony€on€the€same€facts.Ìà àThe€trial€judge€found€the€plaintiff€to€be€credible.Ìà àThe€workers'€compensation€law€is€"a€remedial€statute€which€shall€be€givenÏan€equitable€construction€by€the€courts€to€the€end€that€the€objects€and€purposes€ofÏthis€chapter€may€be€realized€and€attained."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„116.€€Even€inÏcases€where€the€evidence€allows€inferences€which€could€support€either€party,€weÍare€bound€by€the€strong€public€policy€of€our€Work[ers']€Compensation€Law€toÏresolve€conflicts€and€doubts€in€favor€of€the€claimant.€€òòCurtis€v.€Hamilton€Block€Co.,ÏInc.,óó€466€S.W.2d€220€(Tenn.€1971).€€Ìà àThis€legislative€mandate€applies€to€the€issue€of€causation€of€an€injury,€and€Ï"any€reasonable€doubt€as€to€whether€an€injury€arose€out€of€and€in€the€employmentÏis€to€be€resolved€in€favor€of€the€employee€or€his€dependents."€€òòWilliams€v.€PreferredÏDev.€Corp.,€óó452€S.W.2d€344€(Tenn.€1970).Ìà àWe€find€that€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€court'sÏjudgment,€which€we€affirm.€€Costs€are€assessed€to€the€appellant.ÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌÔ% € ÔCONCUR:ÌÌÌ______________________________ÌE.€Riley€Anderson,€JusticeÌÌÌ______________________________ÌRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌà àà à