ÿWPCØ Åf>îqÝ‘L–ë­ÅîeŒò¬Š$(ªÍzƒéÿݰºÜ<± Æßjä_Ó0nËáp¼Ü@ÄéÕ™`P8å•®McôbWŸIo;#æÝÅ?>ÿjtìžÕ\ThÌç!4ÁBÂu÷¨XØÆ zâ¥S…üʱS—üvà_âËö›õ?®N«#t(îKn?_ëveÒ|ãݳçëikº¿ÆÃ¥Ý%:+ù„-w+ß%—üàÅüdþRLìͳÀ~ð’|8ª‡º™)DB‡!”‡ðÃep¾”Îblä&¾®´þFW ”3Xª¿õç"b$Wõ¡ªeV`(#ÌÒÒS*ŸfÇ B`”U‰‰y} ×ÅÑ9Ûw,ž={/žKQdˆaJŠ0y`!ЕËéSxªUþû`Ÿ@ ÝŸþõîýQ®bI¨7iêwÉsm²PFQ/…Ò ¼k}¿ db,ù‹ìmÇs$h˶Ó]«ÎgÀOyπ̾Pþ²† öÓh&ÅÒçÿ%²L7öªOà1/uè„3屑wª{©ºTg¬xy"|M -^H:\‰ôÂMšï5K„9”•ATš“ÔA. -Ñœï;(KȗߘÆk)7¹#  UN) %w 0û} U :x4²ÆîÕU:à ýw@  0?K 0DŠÎUFÎîU: B<<<<<< D3YYY 0ŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒ D+£££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ AOÎÆ 0Dã D/' BVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV AYsÆÌ 0F’˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÓH=$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XÎ_XXXÔÑ7€¾úXXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial Regularw€#%øð 3|x; äÔ€ XxÜXXXÔÔ€ èkèX XxÜÔÔ Ad ÔÓ  ÓFILEDÔ€ vÉè èkÔÐ  ÐÌò òDecember€8,€1998Ð  ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€CourtÏClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularH ê:ë:ì:eí:Ó€ø:Vù:Vú: îû:Ó€;E;E(ï(3þv$¤¤Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XxÜXXXÔÑ7€`XXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó<4šÛ 9Z ‹.Courier New Regular äÔ€XxÜXXXÔÔ€èkèXXxÜÔÔ Ad ÔÓ  ÓFILEDÔ€vÉèèkÔÐ  ÐÌò òDecember€8,€1998Ð  ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€CourtÏClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d$$$$'ÿÿdxd(ï3¶ˆ$££Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XxÜXXXÔÑ7€`XXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ý'ÈÈÈÈdxd€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd·-¸:Müÿ << deUU…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(n$––ò ò(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)ó óÝ ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XxÜXXXÔÑ7€`XXdìdÈ7ÑÝ  Ýñì:ñ›ñì:ññì:ñ›ñì:ñÑÀ°ÑÑX°Ñò òÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÌÌó óÓ#ÓÓ  Óà@@Ü Ü Ìàò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ˜Ø ÐSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌñí:ñœßl€*6&"h 8 `€€Exqtt06°p¨çlßñí:ññú:ññí:ñ›ñí:ññú:ññí:ñâ °°$$âñí:ññø:ñÐ #p°(°° #Ðñø:ñKNOXVILLE,›€SEPTEMBER€1998€SESSIONó óÐ À ÐÓPÓÌÌÌÌÌJAMIA€B.€GARDNERà h àà À àà  à)à p àANDERSON€CIRCUITÐ * j Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ  P Ðà ` àPlaintiff/Appelleeà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ ö 6 Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌV.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ    Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ ¨ è  ÐMODINE€MANUFACTURINGà À àà  à)à p àÐ ŽÎ  ÐCOMPANY,€INC.€and€SENTRYà À àà  à)à p àñì:ñœ›ñì:ñà È àÐ t´  ÐINSURANCE€CO.à  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àñì:ñœ›œñì:ñHon.€James€B.€Scott,€Jr.,ñì:ñ›ñì:ñÐ Zš  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àñì:ñœñì:ñ)à p àñì:ñ›œñì:ññè:ñCircuit€Judgeñè:ññì:ñ›ñì:ñÐ @€  Ðà ` àDefendants/Appellantsà À àà  à)à p àñì:ñœñì:ññç:ññá:ñCircuit€Judgeñá:ññç:ññì:ñ›ñì:ñÐ &f Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìandà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð ò2 Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌDINA€TOBIN,€DIRECTOR€OF€THEà  à)Ð ¾þ ÐSECOND€INJURY€FUNDà h àà À àà  à)Ð ¤ä Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àDefendant/Appelleeà À àà  à)à p àNo.€03S01„9710„CV„00127Ð p° ÐÌòòò òÌÌÌÌFor€the€Appellants:à h àà À àà  àà p àFor€the€Appellees:Ð ì, Ðó óóóÌMichael€J.€Mollenhourà h àà À àà  àà p àRoger€E.€RidenourÐ ¾þ ÐP.O.€Box€9299à  àà h àà À àà  àà p àP.O.€Box€530Ð ¤ ä  ÐKnoxville,€Tenn.€€37940à h àà À àà  àà p àClinton,€Tenn.€€37717„0530Ð Š!Ê! ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àKathleen€W.€StrattonÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€Bldg.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€Tenn.€€37243ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÐ l+¬', ÐÌò òòòMembers€of€Panel:Ð >-~). ÐÌó óóóCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ /V+0 ÐRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌJohn€S.€McLellan,€III,€Special€JudgeÌÓÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIEDà À àà  àà p àà È àTHAYER,€Special€JudgeÐ ø885; ÐAND€REMANDED.ÌÓÓà ` àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workers'ÏCompensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€CodeÐ <Ð8? ÐAnn.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€findings€ofÏfact€and€conclusions€of€law.€Ìà ` àThe€employer,€Modine€Manufacturing€Company,€Inc.,€has€appealed€from€theÏaction€of€the€trial€court€in€awarding€the€employee,€Jamia€B.€Gardner,€80%€permanentÏpartial€disability€to€each€arm.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€the€case€against€the€SecondÏInjury€Fund.Ìà ` àOn€appeal€the€employer€contends€(1)€there€was€no€evidence€of€a€permanentÏinjury€to€the€employeeððs€left€arm,€(2)€the€award€of€80%€to€each€arm€was€excessiveÏand€(3)€the€trial€court€was€in€error€in€dismissing€the€case€against€the€Second€InjuryÏFund.€€The€Second€Injury€Fund€also€contends€the€awards€of€disability€are€notÏsupported€by€the€evidence€but€insists€the€court€was€correct€in€holding€it€was€not€liableÏfor€payment€of€benefits.Ìà ` àJamia€B.€Gardner€was€51€years€of€age€at€the€time€of€the€trial€and€hadÏcompleted€the€9th€grade.€€She€dropped€out€of€school€when€she€was€15€years€oldÏtestifying€there€was€not€enough€money€to€send€all€of€the€children€in€her€family€andÏshe€thought€it€was€more€important€for€her€brother€to€finish€school€than€herself.€€SheÏdoes€not€have€any€vocational€training€but€had€worked€as€cashier,€waitress,€hospitalÏemployee€and€at€some€other€non„skilled€employment.€€She€has€worked€for€ModineÏfor€about€25€years.€€Some€years€ago€she€sustained€an€injury€to€her€shoulder€andÏreceived€an€award€of€workersðð€compensation€benefits€based€on€40%€disability€to€theÏbody€as€a€whole.Ìà ` àIn€the€present€case,€she€has€sustained€injuries€as€a€result€of€the€repetitiveÏnature€of€her€work.€€She€had€surgery€on€her€right€arm€during€August€1996€and€afterÏsome€period€of€time,€she€was€released€to€return€to€work€with€certain€restrictions.€ÏAfter€trying€to€work€at€several€different€jobs,€she€testified€she€was€terminated€fromÏworking€because€the€restrictions€prevented€her€from€doing€what€was€necessary.€ÏLater€during€her€direct€examination,€she€testified€she€was€still€officially€an€employeeÏbut€was€on€medical€leave.€€She€has€not€worked€anywhere€since€leaving€employment.€ÏAt€the€trial€below,€she€was€still€complaining€of€pain€in€both€arms;€she€said€she€hadÏdifficulty€sleeping€at€night;€that€if€she€did€anything€of€a€repetitive€nature€with€herÏarms,€swelling€occurred;€and€that€she€was€not€ñì:ñœñì:ñawarñé:ñdñé:ññì:ñ›œñì:ññê:ñeñê:ññì:ñ›ñì:ñ€of€any€job€that€she€was€nowÏable€to€do.Ð t;´7> Ðà ` àShe€came€under€the€medical€care€of€Dr.€Geron€Brown€and€Dr.€Edward€K.ÏKahn,€who€are€associated€together.€€Both€doctors€concluded€she€was€suffering€fromÏtenosynovitis€of€both€arms.€€Dr.€Kahn€testified€by€deposition€and€said€he€performedÏthe€surgery€on€her€right€wrist€and€that€the€surgery€relieved€her€of€some€of€theÏsymptoms.€€He€said€surgery€was€not€performed€on€the€left€wrist€because€there€wereÏno€objective€findings.€€He€indicated€she€was€still€complaining€of€pain€in€both€armsÏand€he€felt€her€work€activities€caused€chronic€tendonitis€of€both€wrists€and€forearms.€ÏHe€testified€this€condition€was€not€covered€by€the€A.M.A.€Guides€to€the€Evaluation€ofÏPermanent€Impairment€but€he€was€of€the€opinion€she€had€a€5%€medical€impairmentÏto€each€arm.€€Upon€releasing€her€to€return€to€work,€he€imposed€restrictions€on€herÏwork€activity€of€no€lifting€over€ten€pounds€and€no€work€which€required€repetitiveÏaction€to€her€arms.€€He€opined€there€was€no€chance€she€could€work€in€any€job€whereÏthis€type€of€repetitive€action€was€involved.Ìà ` àTwo€vocational€consultants€testified€orally€before€the€trial€court.€€WitnessÏRodney€E.€Caldwell€was€of€the€opinion€Mrs.€Gardner€was€95%€vocationally€disabled.€ÏMichael€T.€Galloway€did€not€give€a€vocational€rating€in€percentage€terms€but€testifiedÏhe€thought€she€could€do€work€as€a€salesperson€or€work€as€a€restaurant€hostess.Ìà ` àThe€case€is€to€be€reviewed€de€novo€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€theÏcorrectness€of€the€findings€of€fact€unless€ñì:ñœñì:ññë:ñwe€find€ñë:ñtheñì:ñ›ñì:ñ€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÏis€otherwise.€€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).Ìà ` àThe€first€issue€raises€a€question€as€to€whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€toÏestablish€a€permanent€injury€to€the€left€arm.€€This€dispute€arises€from€an€answer€Dr.ÏKahn€gave€while€being€cross„examined.€€The€question€and€answer€were:ÌÓÓà ` àð ðIn€your€opinion€to€within€a€reasonable€degree€of€medical€certainty€did€you€findÏà ` àany€permanent€injury€to€her€left€hand,€wrist€or€arm?€€Answer:€€No.ððÌÌÓ±!ÓOn€redirect€examination€the€doctor€was€asked€why€he€answered€ð ðnoðð€to€this€questionÏin€view€of€his€other€statements€of€disability€to€left€arm.€€He€stated€he€gave€a€ð ðnoððÏanswer€to€the€question€because€he€did€not€have€any€objective€findings€such€asÏswelling€she€had€to€the€right€arm€but€she€did€have€subjective€complaints€of€pain€toÏthe€left€arm.€€At€another€point€during€cross„examination€by€counsel€for€the€SecondÏInjury€Fund,€he€was€asked€again€about€the€same€conflicting€statements€and€heÏâ âreplied:Ð Ž:Î6= ÐÒ` ÒÓÓð ðI€think€the€question€asked€me€by€the€counsel€was€either€not€a€good€questionÏâ âor€I€did€not€answer€it€adequately.€€The€patient€did€not€have€any€objectiveÏfindings,€however,€in€the€AMA€Guidelines,€particularly€with€spine€injuries,€thereÏare€some€categories€for€subjective€complaints€of€pain€where€there€really€is€notÏmuch€in€the€way€of€objective€findings€and€I€would€put€Ms.€Gardnerððs€wrist€andÏforearm€pain€in€that€same€category.ððÌÌÒ` ª$ÒÓ¸$ÓOur€review€of€the€medical€testimony€of€Dr.€Kahn€indicates€his€5%€impairment€ratingÏto€the€left€arm€was€based€on€subjective€findings€and€we€find€this€to€be€competentÏevidence€to€support€an€award€of€permanent€disability€when€considered€with€all€of€theÏother€evidence€in€the€record.€€See€T.C.A.€ðð€24„7„114€and€òòCates€v.€Better„BiltÐ n®  ÐAluminum€Prods.€Co.,óó€607€S.W.2d€476€(Tenn.€1980).Ð >~  Ðà ` àThe€second€issue€requires€us€to€examine€the€record€and€determine€whetherÏthe€80%€award€to€each€arm€is€excessive€when€the€medical€impairment€rating€wasÏonly€5%.€€Medical€impairment€rating€and€legal€vocational€disability€awards€areÏcompletely€separate€and€distinct€issues.€€òòWilkes€v.€Resource€Authority€of€SumnerÐ r² ÐCounty,óó€932€S.W.2d€458€(Tenn.€1996).Ð B‚ Ðà ` àIn€determining€vocational€disability,€the€trial€court€is€required€to€consider€manyÏfactors€in€fixing€an€award.€€The€real€test€is€whether€there€has€been€a€decrease€in€theÏemployeeððs€capacity€to€earn€wages€in€any€line€of€work€available€to€the€employee,Ïage,€education,€skills,€training,€local€job€opportunities,€and€capacity€to€work€at€typesÏof€employment€available€in€claimantððs€disabled€condition.€€òòOrman€v.€Williams„Ð B#‚# ÐSonoma,€Inc.,óó€803€S.W.2d€672,€678€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€determining€whether€theÐ %R!% Ðemployeeððs€capacity€to€earn€wages€has€been€decreased,€this€is€to€be€examined€inÏrelation€to€the€open€labor€market€and€not€whether€the€employee€is€able€to€return€andÏperform€the€job€held€at€the€time€of€the€injury.€€òòClark€v.€National€Union€Fire€Ins.€Co.,óóÐ z*º&+ Ð774€S.W.2d€586,€588€(Tenn.€1989).Ìà ` àWe€must€also€observe€that€the€trial€court€is€in€a€better€position€to€judgeÏcredibility€and€weight€evidence€where€witnesses€have€testified€orally.€€òòLanders€v.Ð â/",1 ÐFiremanððs€Fund€Ins.€Co.,óó€775€S.W.2d€355€(Tenn.€1989).Ð ²1ò-3 Ðà ` àConsidering€the€facts€that€plaintiff€has€limited€education,€no€vocational€trainingÏand€cannot€work€in€a€job€that€requires€repetitive€motion€of€her€arms,€we€believe€herÏchances€in€the€open€labor€market€would€be€rather€small.€€The€expert€vocationalÏevidence€seems€to€support€this€conclusion.€€We€cannot€say€the€evidenceÏâ âpreponderates€against€the€awards€fixed€by€the€trial€court.Ð ²:ò6= Ðà ` àThe€last€issue€concerns€the€action€of€the€court€in€holding€the€Second€InjuryÏâ âFund€was€not€liable€for€any€part€of€the€awards.€€The€employee€contends€the€trialÏcourt€was€in€error€in€not€applying€the€provisions€of€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„208(b)€afterÏconverting€or€equating€the€scheduled€member€awards€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€InÏsupport€of€this€contention€it€is€argued€that€awards€of€80%€to€both€arms€would€convertÏto€80%€to€the€body€as€a€whole€based€on€the€number€of€weeks€benefits€would€beÏpayable€under€our€statute.€€The€employer€agrees€with€the€argument€and€says€theÏconverted€80%€to€the€body€as€a€whole€when€combined€with€the€prior€40%€award€toÏthe€body€as€a€whole€would€total€120%,€requiring€the€Fund€to€be€liable€for€20%€of€theÏlast€awards.€€Ìà ` àThe€Fund€takes€a€different€position€on€this€issue.€€It€contends€the€evidence€isÏnot€sufficient€to€convert€or€equate€the€scheduled€member€awards€to€the€body€as€aÏwhole€as€the€medical€evidence€did€not€address€this€question.Ìà ` àOur€analysis€of€the€case€of€òòHenson€v.€City€of€Lawrenceburg,óó€851€S.W.2d€809Ð \ Ð(Tenn.€1993)€requires€us€to€agree€with€the€Fundððs€position.€€In€this€case€the€SupremeÏCourt€stated€the€legislative€history€of€our€statute€(T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„208)€clearlyÏdemonstrated€that€the€overriding€purpose€of€the€statute€was€to€encourage€theÏemployment€of€persons€with€a€previous€permanent€physical€disability€by€limiting€theÏemployerððs€workersðð€compensation€liability€and€that€in€order€to€accomplish€thisÏpurpose,€it€was€necessary€to€convert€or€equate€a€scheduled€member€award€to€aÏpercentage€of€the€body€as€a€ñì:ñœñì:ñwhole€byñì:ñ›ñì:ñ€reference€to€the€AMA€Guidelines.Ìà ` àWe€find€that€subsection€(b)€of€the€statute€would€have€application€to€the€factsÏof€this€case€since€the€prior€40%€award€of€benefits€was€approved€by€a€court€and€that€ifÏupon€remand€it€is€determined€the€prior€award€and€the€converted€award€exceedÏ100%,€then€the€Fund€would€be€liable€for€any€excess€over€100%.€€A€remand€of€theÏcase€is€necessary€to€determine€the€conversion€under€the€AMA€Guidelines.Ìà ` àThe€judgment€is€modified€in€part€and€as€modified€is€affirmed€and€remanded.€ÏCosts€of€the€appeal€are€taxed€equally€to€defendants.ÌÌÌÔ% € ÔÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌÌÐ ^<ž8? ЇCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJohn€S.€McLellan,€III,€Special€Judge€œñù:ñÐ  ¼ ü  Ðñù:ññú:ñ›ñú:ññú:ñÔ‡¼± ¼XXxÜÔà ` àÔ#†XxÜX ¼¼±¤:#ÔÔ‡ŠøÉ ŠXXxÜÔà ¸ àà  àIN€THEÏS¼UPREME€COURT€OFÏTENNE¼S¼S¼EE€€Ô#†XxÜX ŠŠøÉò:#ÔÐ  Ð Ðà@ÌÌ.ÌàˆÌñú:ññû:ññû:ññú:ññú:ññû:ñßl€*6&"h 8 `€€Exo tt06°n ¨çlßâ °°$$âñû:ññú:ñà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÒÒâ °°$$âà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H àà   àà ø àà P àà ¨ à¼à è àÌà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H àà   àà ø àà P àà ¨ à¼à è àà @ àà ˜ àÌà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H à€€€à   àÐ ì,  Ðà 8 àà à àà 8 àà  àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H àà   àà ø àÌÒ(HÒâ °°°"°"âà è àà @ àÌâ °"°"°°âà è àJAMIA€B.€GARDNER,à H àà   àà ø à)€ANDERSON€€CIRCUITÐ žÞ Ðà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H àà   àà ø à)€No.€96LA0377ÌÒ (Òà è àà @ àPlaintiff„Appellee,à H àà   àà ø à)à P àà ¨ àà  àà X àÐ jª Ðà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H à€€€€à   àà ø à)à P àà ¨ àà  àà X àÐ P Ðà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à ø à)€No.€€03S01„9710„CV€„00127Ð 6v Ðà è àv.à @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H àà   àà ø à)Ð \ Ðà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H àà   àà ø à)Ìà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H àà   àà ø à)€Hon.€James€B.€Scott,€Jr.Ìà è àMODINE€MANUFACTURINGà   àà ø à)€JudgeÐ Î Ðà è àCOMPANY,€INC.€And€SENTRY€à   àà ø à)Ð ´ô Ðà è àINSURANCE€CO.à ð àà H àà   àà ø à)Ð šÚ Ѐ€à è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H àà   àà ø à)Ð €À Ðà è àà @ àDefendant„Appellant.à   àà ø àñú:ññ;ññú:ñà P àñú:ññ;ññú:ñ)à P àà ¨ àÓ€ÓÐ f¦ Ðà è àandà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H àà   àà ø à)Ð ¿ÿ Ðà è àDINA€TOBIN,€DIRECTOR€OF€THEà ø à)Ð  X  Ðà è àSECOND€INJURY€FUNDà H àà   àà ø à)Ð q!±" Ðà è àà @ àDefendant/Appelleeà   àà ø àñú:ññ;ññú:ñà P àñú:ññ;ññú:ñ)Ð Ê" $ Ðà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H à€€€€JUDGMENT€ORDERÌ€€€€€€€€Ô‡XB XXXxÜÔà è àà @ àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€Ð |%¼!( Ðà è àrecord,including€the€order€of€referral€to€the€à X àÐ ä&$#* Ðà è àSpecial€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€¼à è àPanel's€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€¼à è àof€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporatedÏà è àherein€by€reference;Ìà è àà @ àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€à X àÐ )-i)4 Ðà è àmemorandum€Opinion€of€the€Panel€should€be€accepted€andÏà è àapproved;€andÌà è àà @ àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€à X àÐ ì0,-: Ðà è àfindings€of€facts€and€conclusions€of€law€are€à X àÐ -2m.< Ðà è àadopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€isÏà è àmade€the€Judgment€of€the€Court.Ìà è àà @ àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€equally€à ¨ àto€the€à X àÐ ð502B Ðà è àdefendants,for€which€execution€may€issue€if€à  àà X àÐ 17q3D Ðà è ànecessary.€à ð àÐ r8²4F Ðà è à12/08/98à ˜ àÔ#†XxÜX XXBìF#Ôñú:ñ›