ÿWPC& 6# UD %S 0(Y 0”4)8wŽ@ 0JÎ 0D 0T\ 0^° 0hÆvÆ<Æ ÆÈ 0rŽ 0| 0†| 0 1u’ 0d AQk Ƽ 0D‚ 0@Æ 0D D/J By B– D3³U *æB)DC9 AM|ÉÏv~ÕvÓS˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ8§ÖhZŠ,Century-WP RegularX($¡¡(D(2´¤$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóók`($3|x ÞßDàEáDâ¿ã¿äPåPæDçVèDé‹êEëDìDíEîÓ€úVûîüÓ€   2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 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 !"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd&&&&'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd "0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ üÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌò òJanuary€15,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€.ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó üÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌò òJanuary€15,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€.ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(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 X ÒÙ€ ÙÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€.Ô›œßR€120A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ àMay€23,€1997ÌÌÌÌÌEDDIE€FREEMAN,à àœà à›à àà à)€SHELBY€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)€NO.€52212Ìà àPlaintiff,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€Hon.€Robert€A.€Lanier,€JudgeÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌKIMBERLY„CLARK€à àà àà à)€NO.€œ02S01„9612„CV„00106›ÌœCORPORATION,›à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant.à àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiffóó:à àà àà àœà à›à àòòFor€Defendantóó:ÌÌDixie€White€Isheeà àà àà àà àCarol€M.€HaydenÌHarkavy,€Shainberg,€Kostenà àà àMcDonald€KuhnÌ&€Kaplanà àà àà àà àà à80€Monroe€Ave.,€Suite€550Ì530€Oak€Court€Dr.,€Suite€350à àà àMemphis,€TN€œ38173„0160›ÌMemphis,€TN€38117à àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONóóÌÌœ›ÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòMembers€of€Panelóó:ÌÌà@ àJANICE€M.€HOLDER,€JUSTICEÌà@ àHEWITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌà@ àDON€R.€ASH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœMODIFIED›€IN€PART€ANDà àÌREVERSED€IN€œPART›à àà àà àà àà àTOMLIN,€SENIOR€œJUDGEÇÓÓ›à àThis€workersðð€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€WorkersððÏCompensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw.€€The€employer,€Kimberly„Clark,€appeals€and€contends€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings€(1)€in€ordering€the€extension€ofÏtemporary€total€disability€benefits€through€July€1996,€and€(2)€in€ordering€the€defendantÏto€pay€the€medical€expenses€and€deposition€costs€resulting€from€Plaintiffððs€treatmentÏby€and€the€deposition€of€Dr.€Berry.€€The€panel€concludes€that€the€judgment€should€beÏmodified€in€part€and€reversed€in€part.Ìà àEdward€Freeman€(ð ðPlaintiffðð)€was€employed€by€Kimberly„Clark€(ð ðDefendantðð)€forÏsome€eight€years€as€a€maintenance€insulator.€€While€lifting€a€load€of€cardboard€boxesÏduring€work€hours€he€suffered€an€injury€to€his€neck.€€His€treating€physician€determinedÏthat€Plaintiff€had€ruptured€two€discs€in€his€neck€which€required€surgery.€€FollowingÏsurgery,€due€to€undetermined€causes,€€fusion€plugs€that€had€been€inserted€intoÏPlaintiffððs€neck€during€the€first€surgery€slipped€out€of€place,€causing€him€to€have€toÏundergo€two€additional€surgeries€to€correct€the€problem.€€In€order€to€prevent€futureÏslippage€of€the€fusion€plugs,€€Plaintiff€was€fitted€with€a€halo€traction€device€following€hisÏthird€surgery€for€€immobilization€of€his€head€and€neck.€€This€device€was€secured€byÏsteel€pins€screwed€through€the€scalp€and€into€the€outer€surface€of€the€skull.€Ìà àFollowing€the€third€surgery€in€August€of€1992,€one€of€Plaintiffððs€treatingÏphysicians,€Dr.€Lindermuth,€released€Plaintiff€into€the€care€of€the€other€treatingÏphysician,€Dr.€Meredith,€who€after€treating€Plaintiff€for€slightly€over€a€year€determinedÏthat€he€had€reached€maximum€medical€improvement€as€of€September€7,€1993.€€DuringÏthis€same€period€of€time€Plaintiff€was€referred€by€his€counsel€to€Dr.€McAfee€for€painÍmanagement€and€evaluation.€€On€October€15,€1993€Dr.€McAfee€produced€a€plan€forÏPlaintiff€to€gradually€taper€off€his€therapy€and€medication€over€the€course€ofÏapproximately€one€month.€€Dr.€McAfee€testified€that€in€his€opinion€Plaintiff€hadÏachieved€maximum€medical€improvement€at€that€time.€€He€encouraged€Plaintiff€ð ðtoÏthink€positive€toward€going€back€to€work€by€the€end€of€December€of€1993.ððÌà à€Since€1989,€Plaintiff€had€been€under€the€care€of€Dr.€Harris,€a€licensedÏpsychiatrist.€€From€that€time€through€May€of€1992,€Dr.€Harris€treated€Plaintiff€forÏdepression€and€borderline€personality€disorder,€a€non„work€related€mental€disorderÏthat€had€no€significant€effect€on€his€employment€with€Defendant.€€Following€his€injuryÏand€ensuing€surgeries,€Plaintiff€developed€symptoms€of€Post„Traumatic€StressÏDisorder€(PTSD)€which€caused€him€to€relive€the€anxiety€and€fear€of€his€injury€andÏsubsequent€treatment.€€It€is€undisputed€that€PTSD€is€a€compensable€injury€under€theÏworkersðð€compensation€laws.Ìà à€€In€his€two€depositions,€given€November€11,€1993€and€April€22,€1996,€Dr.€HarrisÏtestified€that€as€part€of€his€treatment€he€had€hospitalized€Plaintiff€to€be€able€to€manageÏhis€treatment€and€medications€more€closely€and€to€develop€a€firmer€diagnosis€of€hisÏcondition.€During€this€hospitalization€period,€Dr.€Harris€asked€Dr.€Neal,€a€psychologist,Ïto€make€an€independent€evaluation€of€Plaintiff.€€Dr.€Harris€stated€that€both€he€and€Dr.ÏNeal€agreed€that€Plaintiff€should€get€back€to€work€to€improve€his€feelings€of€self„esteem€and€thus€improve€his€mental€health.€€In€the€November€1993€deposition,€Dr.ÏHarris€stated€that€as€of€that€time€he€felt€Plaintiff€had€reached€his€maximum€medicalÏimprovement€insofar€as€the€PTSD€was€concerned.€€He€further€voiced€the€opinion€thatÏPlaintiff€had€no€psychiatric€limitations€that€would€prevent€him€from€returning€to€work€atÏthat€time.Ìà àDuring€the€seven€months€that€followed€November,€1993€Plaintiff€did€not€attemptÏto€return€to€work€with€Defendant.€€By€the€same€token,€Plaintiff€sought€no€further€medicalÏtreatment€during€that€time.€€However,€in€June€of€1994,€Plaintiff€sought€treatment€fromÏanother€psychiatrist,€a€Dr.€Berry.€Plaintiff€testified€that€he€did€not€return€to€Dr.€HarrisÏbecause€Dr.€Neal€had€advised€him€that€Dr.€Harris€had€given€a€negative€depositionÏabout€his€condition.€€Plaintiff€further€testified€that€Dr.€Harris€had€released€him€into€theÏcare€of€Dr.€Neal€after€the€hospitalization.€€However,€Dr.€Harris€later€testified€that€heÏreferred€Plaintiff€to€Dr.€Neal€only€during€the€period€of€hospitalization,€and€no€more.€€Ìà àPlaintiffððs€new€psychiatrist,€Dr.€Berry,€diagnosed€Plaintiff€as€continuing€to€sufferÏfrom€PTSD,€testified€that€Plaintiff€had€ð ðdifficulty€functioning€on€a€day„to„day€basisðð€andÏwas€ð ðunable€to€work.ðð€She€estimated€that€Plaintiff€required€at€least€two€additional€yearsÏof€treatment.€Plaintiff€was€undergoing€treatment€by€Dr.€Berry€at€the€time€of€trial€below.€ÌÓÓÌÓ  Óò òI.€€Temporary€Total€Benefitsó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àIn€accordance€with€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2)€our€scope€of€review€of€findings€ofÏfact€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record,€accompanied€by€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€of€these€findings,€unless€we€find€that€the€preponderance€of€evidence€isÏotherwise.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòCorcoran€v.€Foster€Auto€GMC,€Inc.óó,€746€S.W.2d€452,€456€(Tenn.Ï1988).€€The€law€in€this€state€is€well„settled€that:€ÌÓÓ€€à0 àÌà8 àà0 àto€make€out€a€prima€facie€case€of€entitlement€to€temporary€totalÏdisability,€an€employee€must€prove€that€he€was€(1)€totally€disabledÏto€work€by€a€compensable€injury;€(2)€that€there€was€a€causalÏconnection€between€the€injury€and€his€inability€to€work;€and€(3)€theÏduration€of€that€period€of€disability.€Ìòòà0 àà0 àSimpson€v.€Satterfieldóó,€564€S.W.2d€953,€955€(Tenn.€1978).ÌÌÌÓÓOnly€the€duration€of€Plaintiffððs€period€of€psychological€disability€is€in€question.€€Ìà àIt€is€well„settled€in€that€ð ð[t]emporary€total€disability€benefits€are€terminated€eitherÏby€the€ability€to€return€to€work€or€attainment€of€maximum€recovery.ðð€òòId.óó;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòLock€v.ÏNational€Union€Fire€Ins.€Co.óó,€809€S.W.2d€483,€487€(Tenn.€1991).€€ð ðThus,€when€aÏPlaintiff€becomes€able€to€work€at€any€employment€permitted€by€the€nature€of€hisÏinjuries€or€has€attained€maximum€recovery,€his€temporary€total€disability€benefits€end.ððÏòòLockóó,€809€S.W.2d€at€487.€€Plaintiff€does€not€dispute€the€medical€testimony€to€the€effectÏthat€he€was€òòphysicallyóó€able€to€return€to€work€as€of€November€19,€1993.€€However,€heÏdoes€contend€that€he€was€not€òòmentallyóó€able€to€do€so€at€that€time€and€that€his€mentalÏcondition€had€never€been€such€that€he€could€return€to€work.€€As€noted,€PlaintiffððsÏoriginal€psychiatrist,€Dr.€Harris€considered€that€Plaintiff€had€resolved€his€PTSDÏdifficulties€as€of€November,€1993.€€In€her€deposition,€Dr.€Berry€acknowledged€that€atÏthe€time€of€Dr.€Harrisðð€evaluation€of€Plaintiff€his€mental€condition€was€such€that€it€didÏenable€him€to€return€to€work,€but€that€his€condition€had€deteriorated€significantly€duringÏthe€time€between€this€release€to€work€and€his€first€visit€with€Dr.€Berry.€€As€alreadyÏnoted,€the€record€does€not€show€any€effort€on€the€part€of€plaintiff€to€return€to€work€or€toÏseek€out€treatment€for€his€condition€during€this€seven€month€period.€€Ìà àPlaintiff€relies€upon€òòRiley€v.€Aetna€Casualty€&€Suretyóó,€729€S.W.2d€81€(Tenn.Ï1987)€as€authority€for€the€proposition€that€Plaintiff€had€failed€to€obtain€maximumÏmedical€improvement€from€his€injury€and€ensuing€conditions.€€In€our€opinion,€PlaintiffððsÏreliance€upon€òòRileyóó€is€misplaced.€In€òòRileyóó€the€court€had€the€issue€of€the€issue€ofÏmaximum€improvement€that€hinged€upon€tangible,€physical€evidence€of€an€injury€toÏthe€foot.€€In€the€case€before€us€we€have€the€matter€of€€intangible€evidence€relating€toÏthe€psyche.€€Furthermore,€in€òòRileyóó€the€Plaintiff€obtained€a€second€opinion€immediately.€ÍIn€the€case€before€us,€Plaintiff€did€nothing€to€obtain€treatment,€if€such€was€needed,Ïfollowing€the€seven€month€period€after€Dr.€Harris€released€him.€€In€our€opinion€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€finding€of€the€trial€court€that€Plaintiffððs€temporaryÏtotal€disability€benefits€should€be€paid€through€July€1996.€€We€opine€that€they€shouldÏhave€ended€as€of€€November€19,€1993.ÌÓÓÌÓ  Óò òII.€The€Fees€Relative€to€Dr.€Berryó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àIt€is€undisputed€that€Plaintiff€failed€to€seek€the€approval€of€Defendant€inÏprocuring€the€services€of€Dr.€Berry.€€While€material,€this€alone€does€not€eliminate€theÏpotential€liability€of€Defendant€for€Dr.€Berryððs€fees,€and€deposition€expenses.€€ð ðWhetherÏan€employee€is€justified€in€seeking€additional€medical€services€to€be€paid€for€by€theÏemployer€without€consulting€the€employer€depends€on€the€circumstances€of€eachÏcase.ðð€òòBazner€v.€American€States€Ins.€Co.óó,€820€S.W.2d€742,€746€(Tenn.€1991).€€TheÏproper€standard€in€regard€to€this€issue€is€the€good€faith€of€the€employee€in€seekingÏanother€physician€without€employer€approval.€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€Fidelity€&€Guaranty€v.ÏMorganóó,€795€S.W.2d€653,€655€(Tenn.€1990);ò ò€œòòó óBurlington›€Indus.€Inc.€v.€Clarkóó,€571ÏS.W.2d€816,€819€(Tenn.€1978);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòPickett€v.€Chattanooga€Convalescent€&ÏNursing€Home,€Inc.óó,€627€S.W.2d€941,€944€(Tenn.€1982).€€œThere›€is€nothing€in€this€recordÏto€the€effect€that€Plaintiff€notified€Defendant€of€his€dissatisfaction€with€Dr.€Harris€norÏsought€the€services€of€another€psychiatrist€immediately.€€Furthermore,€Plaintiffððs€delayÏin€seeking€psychiatric€help€for€seven€months€to€us€negates€Plaintiffððs€argument€thatÏnecessity€drove€him€to€seek€a€psychiatrist€on€his€own.Ìà àIn€addition,€Plaintiff€relies€upon€the€failure€of€Defendant€to€provide€the€statutorilyÏrequired€list€of€three€potential€psychiatrists€as€justification€for€his€action€in€going€to€Dr.ÍBerry€under€these€circumstances.€€In€òòPickett€v.€Chattanooga€Convalescent€&€NursingÏHome,€Inc.óó,€627€S.W.2d€941,€944€(Tenn.€1982)€the€court€held€that€the€failure€of€theÏemployer€to€provide€the€required€list€ð ðdoes€not€give€the€employee€the€right€in€everyÏcase€to€select€a€physician€without€consultation€with€the€employer,€nor€does€theÏstatutory€violation€automatically€make€the€employer€liable€for€medical€expensesÏincurred€by€the€employee€on€his€own.ðð€òòId.óó€at€944.€€In€our€opinion€it€was€error€for€the€trialÏcourt€to€award€Plaintiff€the€medical€fees€and€deposition€costs€of€Dr.€Berry.Ìà àAccordingly,€we€modify€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€insofar€as€the€period€ofÏtime€during€which€Plaintiffððs€temporary€total€disability€benefits€were€allowed,€fixing€theÏcut€off€date€as€November€19,€1993.€€The€action€of€the€trial€œcourt›€directing€Defendant€toÏpay€the€medical€bills€and€deposition€fee€of€Dr.€Berry€is€reversed.€€Costs€in€this€causeÏon€appeal€are€taxed€one„half€to€Plaintiff€and€one„half€to€Defendant,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ìœ›ÌÓÓà àà àà àà à________________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àHEWITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌJANICE€M.€HOLDER,€JUSTICE€ÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌDON€R.€ASH,€œJUDGEÇÑ ` Ñà@ àÔ€.¼ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÔ€.XÔÌÌÌÓ#` p…X LÐ X#ÓEDDIE€FREEMAN,à àà àà à)à àSHELBY€CIRCUITÌÓ#` p` LÐ X#Óà à)à àNO.€52212ÌÓ` p` ¸ ’XÓà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à à)à àÌÓ#` p` ¸ LÐ X#Óà àà à)à àHon.€Robert€A.€Lanier,Ìvs.à àà à)à àJudgeÌà àà à)ÌKIMBERLY„CLARK€CORPORATION,à à)à àNO.€02S01„9612„CV„00106Ìà àà à)ÌßJ€13;+'b|:~` Å `€@ÿJßà àDefendant/Appellee.à à)à àMODIFIED€IN€PART€ANDÏà àà à)à àREVERSED€IN€PART.ÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€.¼ÔJUDGMENT€ORDERÔ€.XÔÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌÓ` p`  ’XÓà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€the€orderÏof€referral€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.Ìà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€Opinion€of€theÏPanel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€judgment€ofÏthe€Court.Ìà àCosts€will€be€paid€equally;€one„half€by€Appellant,€and€one„half€byÏAppellee,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ìà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€this€15th€day€of€January,€1998.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌ(Holder,€J.,€not€participating)ÌÌÌÌ›