ÿWPCj 5# öUN %O 0YUw@®4î {( 0A 0DÞ {Y" AQ{U:Ì 0J 0TP 0^¤ 0h 0rj 0|Ü 0†X 0Þ 1un 0dã BG Æd 0u* 0@Ÿ 0Dß D/# BR D3o U>¢ B)à DC  AMLU *™+Ã+îv~vÓ—˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(18G$¡¡Ô€F²FXXÔÓ°øÓ ðñEòóÓ€ýþÿîÓ€  GSƒ$x3|x ($¡¡(M(3w$¤¤Ý ƒ8G!ÝÔ€FbéFXXÔÓ°øÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(1ÞÙ$¡¡Ô€SðÝSXXÔÓþÓ!"#$&Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ dƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(M34¸$¢¢Ý ƒ8G!ÝÔ€FbéFXXÔÓ°øÓÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd 'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d----7Border 1dd!#.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial !Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÓ°øÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€0XÔÌÌApril€22,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó !Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÓ°øÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€0XÔÌÌApril€22,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHØ(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€,ÔÓ°øÓÝ  Ýò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔT€ ÔÔT€ ÔÑ7€|ÌXdðdÈ7ÑÓ úÓ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌó óÌÌGEORGE€GOFF,à@ à)à àà àFRANKLIN€CHANCERYÌà@ à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà@ à)à àà àNO.€01S01„9611„CH„00232Ìà@ à)ÌÙ€!ÙœßR€/1.A1-j|œÿÙ` ¤ `€€@ÿRß›v.à@ à)à àà àHON.€JEFFREY€F.€STEWART,Ìà@ à)à àà àCHANCELLORÌà@ à)ÌCITY€OF€DECHERD,à@ à)Ìà@ à)Ìà àœDefendant/Appellant›à@ à)Ìà@ à)Ìandà@ à)Ìà@ à)ÌDINA€TOBIN,€DIRECTOR€OF€THEà@ à)ÌDIVISION€OF€WORKERSà@ à)ÌCOMPENSATION,€DEPARTMENT€OFà@ à)ÌLABOR,€SECOND€INJURY€FUND,à@ à)Ìà@ à)Ìà àThird€Party€Defendantà@ à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÒ€X€ÒòòFor€the€Appellantsóó:ÌÌTimothy€S.€PriestÌœSWAFFORD›,€PETERS€&€PRIESTÌWinchester,€TennesseeÉòòFor€the€Appellee:óóÌÌJ.€Russell€œFarrar›ÌD.€Todd€œSholar›ÌœFARRAR›€&€BATESÌNashville,€TennesseeÉÒÒÌÌÌà@ àò òMEMORANDUM€OPINIONÌÌÌÌó óà@ àMEMBERS€OF€PANELÌÌà@ àLYLE€REID,€ASSOCIATE€JUSTICE,€SUPREME€COURTÌà@ àWILLIAM€S.€RUSSELL,€RETIRED€JUDGEÌà@ àW.€MICHAEL€MALOAN,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌœAFFIRMED›€AS€MODIFIED,€AND€REMANDEDà àà àMALOAN,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÇÓAõÓà àThis€œworkersð𛀜compensation›€appeal€from€the€Franklin€County€Chancery€Court€has€beenÏreferred€to€the€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordanceÏwith€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€CourtÏof€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.Ìà àThe€defendant,€City€of€Decherd,€appeals€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€œfinding€the€plaintiff,ÏGeorge€Goff,€suffered€an€occupational€disease;€awarding›€the€œplaintiff€eighty„five›€percent€(85%)Ïpermanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€œwhole;€and€requiring€the€defendant€to€pay€certainÏmedical€expenses.›€€For€the€reasons€stated€in€this€opinion,€we€affirm€the€trial€court,€as€modified.Ìà àGeorge€Goff€was€41€at€the€time€of€this€œtrial.›€€He€dropped€out€of€high€school€in€the€ninthÏgrade€to€work€on€the€farm,€and€he€has€been€unable€to€pass€his€GED€on€three€or€four€attempts.€€HisÏwork€history€is€composed€of€manual€labor.€€The€City€of€Decherd€hired€him€as€a€laborer€in€1984Ïand€made€him€a€crew€foreman€in€1987.€€On€May€11,€1990,€œduring€the€course€of€his€employmentÏhe›€was€exposed€to€chlorine€gas€and€missed€approximately€one€week€of€work.€€He€was€treated€byÏhis€family€physician,€Dr.€Dewey€Hood,€for€œcomplaints€of€shortness€of€breath,€coughing€andÏfatigue›€on€11€or€12€occasions€through€September,€œ1993.€€Dr.€Hood€referred€plaintiff›€to€Dr.€EricÏDyer,€a€pulmonologist,€who€first€treated€œplaintiff€on€May€18,›€1993.€€œDr.€Dyer€told€plaintiff€heÏbecame€asthmatic€due€to€the€1990€chlorine€exposure€and€advised€him€to€avoid€asthma€triggers,Ïsuch€as€chemicals,€humidity,€and€temperature€extremes.€€He€continued€to€work€for€the€City€ofÏDecherd€without€significant€problems€until€January€28,€1994,€when€he€was€exposed€to€paint€fumesÏand€his€condition€deteriorated.€€After€the€1994€exposure,€Dr.€Dyer€added€paint€fumes€to€his€list€ofÏasthma€triggers€to€avoid.€€Dr.›€Dyer€assessed€his€permanent€impairment€at€forty€percent€(40%)€toÏthe€body€as€a€œwhole,›€described€his€prognosis€as€œpoor,€and€advised€the€plaintiff€he€should€notÏreturn€to€work€for€the€City€of€Decherd.›€€Dr.€Hood€stated€ð ðhe€is€somewhat€limited€with€hisÏeducation€and€things€he€can€do,€and€it€may€be€that€he€just€could€not€find€a€job„„a€sedentary€job€or€aÏlight€working€condition€that€he€could€return€to.ðð€€Plaintiff€€has€not€worked€since€January€28,€1994.Ìà àBetty€Morris,€a€vocational€œexpert€for€the€plaintiff,›€testified€plaintiff€had€œa€ninety„six›€percentÍ(96%)€loss€of€access€to€jobs€and€should€be€limited€to€sedentary€work.€€The€defendant€presentedÏCharles€Randolph€Thomas,€also€a€vocational€expert,€who€testified€plaintiff€suffered€a€sixty„twoÏand€one€half€percent€(62.5%)€loss€of€access€to€jobs€due€to€the€1990€and€1994€chemical€exposures,Ïbut€only€a€one€and€one€half€percent€(1.5%)€loss€of€access€due€to€the€January€28,€1994,€paint€fumesÇexposure.€€Mr.€Thomas€was€of€the€opinion€the€plaintiff€could€do€sedentary,€light€and€medium€jobsÏas€long€as€they€did€not€violate€his€environmental€restrictions.Ìà àOn€May€21,€1996,€the€plaintiff€and€defendant€requested€the€trial€court€to€determine€whetherÏplaintiffððs€claim€should€be€treated€as€an€occupational€disease€or€an€injury€by€accident.€€AfterÏhearing,€the€trial€court€determined€the€claim€should€be€treated€as€an€occupational€disease€inÏaccordance€with€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð50„6„301.Ìà àAfter€trial€on€July€12,€1996,€the€trial€court€found€the€plaintiff€to€have€sustained€an€eighty„five€percent€(85%)€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€The€trial€court€also€orderedÏthe€defendant€to€pay€the€medical€expenses€of€Dr.€Dyer€in€the€amount€of€$3,260€for€medicalÏtreatment€before€and€after€the€January28,€1994,€exposure€to€paint€fumes.€€€€The€defendant€SecondÏInjury€Fund€was€dismissed.€€Ìà àOn€appeal,€the€defendant€City€of€Decherd€raises€the€following€issues€for€review:ÌÓ úÓà8 àI.€€œThe€trial€court€was€incorrect€in€finding€that€the€plaintiff€suffered€from€anÏoccupational€disease€which€disabled€the€appellee€on€January€28,€1994,€and€forÏwhich€a€claim€was€timely€filed.ÌÌà0 àII.€€Whether›€the€trial€court€erred€by€considering€restrictions€placed€on€the€plaintiff€prior€toÏthe€January€28,€1994,€incident€because€said€restrictions€were€the€result€of€an€earlier€on„the„job€injury€that€was€not€timely€pursued€by€the€plaintiff€and€is€now€barred€by€the€statute€ofÏlimitations?ÌÌà8 àœIII.›€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€the€plaintiff€to€be€eighty„five€percentÏ(85%)€disabled€as€a€result€of€the€alleged€incidents?ÌÌà8 àœIV.›€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€finding€that€the€defendant€is€liable€for€medicalÏexpenses€incurred€by€the€plaintiff€prior€to€the€January€28,€1994,€incident?ÌÌà8 àAdditionally,€the€plaintiff€raises€the€issues€of€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€notÏfinding€the€plaintiff€permanently€and€totally€disabled€and€for€penalties€and€sanctionsÏfor€frivolous€appeal.ÌÌÓAõÓà àThe€scope€of€review€of€issues€of€fact€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,Ïaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings,€unless€the€preponderance€ofÏevidence€is€otherwise.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).€€òòLollar€v.€Wal„Mart€Stores,ÏInc.óó,€767€S.W.2d€143€(Tenn.€1989).€€When€a€trial€court€has€seen€and€heard€witnesses,€especiallyÏwhere€issues€of€credibility€and€weight€of€oral€testimony€are€involved,€considerable€deference€mustÍbe€accorded€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings.€€òòHumphrey€v.€David€Witherspoon,€Inc.óó,€734€S.W.2dÏ315€(Tenn.€1987).€€However,€where€the€issues€involve€expert€medical€testimony€which€isÏcontained€in€the€record€by€deposition,€as€it€is€in€this€case,€then€all€impressions€of€weight€andÏcredibility€must€be€drawn€from€the€contents€of€the€depositions,€and€the€reviewing€court€may€drawÇ€its€own€impression€as€to€weight€and€credibility€from€the€contents€of€the€depositions.€€òòOverman€v.ÏWilliams€Sonoma,€Inc.óó,€803€S.W.2d€672,€676„77€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌœà@ àI.Ìà àThe€defendant€first€submits€the€trial€court€should€have€found€the€plaintiff€suffered€anÏaggravation€of€a€pre„existing€condition€not€related€to€his€employment€rather€than€an€occupationalÏdisease,€as€different€criteria€are€used€to€determine€when€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations€has€runÏfor€an€injury€by€accident,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð50„6„203,€and€for€an€occupational€disease,ÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð50„6„306(a).Ìà àAn€occupational€disease€is,€by€statute,€an€injury€by€accident.€€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏðð50„6„102(a)(5).€€A€disease€may€be€deemed€to€arise€out€of€employment€only€if€the€diseaseÏoriginated€from€a€risk€connected€with€the€employment€and€flowed€from€that€source€as€a€naturalÏconsequence,€among€other€requirements.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð50„6„301.€€Moreover,€itÏhas€long€been€the€rule€in€Tennessee€that€there€can€be€no€recovery€for€the€aggravation€of€anÏoccupational€disease€which€pre„existed€the€current€employment.€€òòGregg€v€J.€H.€Kellman€Co.,€Inc.óó,Ï642€S.W.2d€715€(Tenn.€1982).€€In€order€to€establish€that€the€disease€had€its€origin€in€a€riskÏconnected€with€the€employment€and€flowed€from€that€source€as€a€natural€consequence,€suitableÏexpert€testimony€is€required.€€òòKnoxville€Poultry€and€Egg€Company,€Inc.€v€Robinsonóó,€451€S.W.2dÏ675€(Tenn.€1970).Ìà àIn€the€present€case,€there€is€some€testimony€the€plaintiff€or€his€mother€gave€Dr.€Dyer€aÏhistory€of€childhood€asthma,€but€ð ðthat€apparently€left€him.ðð€€The€family€physician,€Dr.€Hood,Ïtestified€he€was€unaware€of€childhood€asthma€and€never€treated€the€plaintiff€for€asthma€beforeÏ1990.€€The€plaintiff€testified€he€was€unaware€he€ever€had€asthma€before€being€diagnosed€byÏDr.Dyer€in€May,€1993.€€€Dr.€Dyer€and€Dr.€Hood€testified€that€even€if€the€plaintiff€had€childhoodÏasthma,€it€was€ð ðlatent.ðð€€Dr.€Dyer€testified€the€cause€of€the€plaintiffððs€asthma€was€the€1990Ïexposure€to€chlorine€and€his€condition€significantly€deteriorated€after€the€1994€paint€fumesÍexposure.€€There€is€no€medical€evidence€in€the€record€of€the€plaintiff€having€or€ever€being€treatedÏfor€asthma€before€1990.€€Based€on€this€equivocal€evidence€of€asthma€pre„existing€his€employmentÏwith€the€defendant,€City€of€Decherd,€and€Dr.€Dyerððs€unequivocal€testimony€as€to€the€1990Ïexposure€to€be€the€cause€of€the€plaintiffððs€asthma,€this€panel€is€not€persuaded€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€the€plaintiff€suffered€an€occupational€disease.Ç›à@ àœII.›Ìà àThe€defendant€œnext›€submits€the€trial€court€erred€in€considering€the€plaintiffððs€restrictions€Ïdue€to€the€1990€chlorine€exposure€because€no€claim€was€filed€until€June€30,€1994,€and,€therefore,Ïthe€1990€incident€and€its€resulting€restrictions€were€time€barred.Ìà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð50„6„306(a)€provides:ÌÓ úÓà8 àThe€right€to€compensation€for€occupational€disease€shall€be€forever€barred€unlessÏsuit€therefor€is€commenced€within€one€(1)€year€after€the€beginning€of€the€incapacityÏfor€work€resulting€from€an€occupational€disease.ÌÌÓAõÓà àThe€ð ðbeginning€of€the€incapacity€for€workðð€is€the€date€when€the€employee€knows,€or€in€theÏexercise€of€reasonable€care,€should€know,€that€he€has€an€occupational€disease€that€it€has€injuriouslyÏaffected€his€capacity€to€work€to€a€degree€amounting€to€a€compensable€disability.€€òòIngram€v€œAetna›ÏCasualty€&€Surety€Co.óó,€876€S.W.€2d€91,€95€(Tenn.€1994).Ìà àOn€May€18,€1993,€Dr.€Dyer€told€plaintiff€he€had€asthma€and€he€became€asthmatic€after€theÏ1990€exposure€to€chlorine.€€It€was€not€until€he€was€exposed€to€paint€fumes€on€January€28,€1994,Ïthat€plaintiff€became€incapacitated€for€work.€€The€1990€exposure€only€caused€plaintiff€to€miss€aÏshort€time€from€work€and€did€not€affect€his€capacity€to€work€to€a€significant€degree.€€PlaintiffÏcontinued€to€work€and€perform€his€job€duties€with€the€City€of€Decherd€until€œ1994.€€The›€evidenceÏdoes€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding.Ìà@ àœIII.›Ìà àThe€defendant€and€plaintiff€both€take€issue€with€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€eighty„fiveÏpercent€(85%)€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.Ìà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð50„6„241(a)(1)€requires€the€trial€court€to€consider€all€pertinentÏfactors,€including€lay€and€expert€testimony,€employeeððs€age,€education,€skills€and€training,€localÏjob€opportunities,€and€capacity€to€work€at€types€of€employment€available€in€claimantððs€disabledÏcondition€in€determining€the€extent€of€an€injured€workerððs€permanent€disability.€€From€a€thoroughÏreview€of€all€these€factors,€we€are€not€œpersuaded›€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððsÏaward€of€eighty„five€percent€(85%)€to€the€body€as€a€whole.̜Ǜà@ àœIV.›Ìà àThe€defendant€submits€the€trial€court€was€in€error€in€requiring€the€payment€of€Dr.€œDyerððs›Ïmedical€bills€prior€to€January€28,€1994.Ìà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð50„6„204(b)€states:ÌÓ úÓà8 àWhere€the€nature€of€the€injury€or€occupational€disease...€is€such€that€is€does€notÏdisable€the€employee€but€reasonably€requires€medical,€surgical,€or€dental€treatmentÏor€care,€medicene,€surgical€supplies,€crutches,€artificial€members,€and€otherÏapparatus€should€be€furnished€by€the€employer.ÌÌÓAõÓà àBefore€the€employer€is€liable€for€medical€treatment,€the€employee€is€ð ðto€do€no€less€than€toÏconsult€his€employer€before€incurring€expenses€called€for€by€the€statutue€(50„6„204)€if€theÏemployee€expects€the€employer€to€pay€for€them.ðð€€òòœDorris›€v€INA€Ins.€Co.óó,€764€S.W.2d€538€(Tenn.Ïœ1989).›€€In€the€present€case,€plaintiff€became€aware€he€had€work„related€asthma€on€May€18,€œ1993;›Ïhowever,€no€request€for€medical€treatment€was€made€to€his€employer€prior€to€the€January€28,Ï1994,€exposure€which€disabled€him.€€There€is€no€proof€in€the€record€excusing€plaintiffððs€failure€toÏconsult€with€his€employer€about€payment€of€Dr.€Dyerððs€medical€bills€prior€to€January€28,€1994.Ìà àThe€proof€preponderates€œagainst€the›€trial€courtððs€award€of€medical€treatment€prior€toÏJanuary€28,€1994.€€This€cause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€to€recalculate€the€amount€of€Dr.€DyerððsÏmedical€expenses€œand€to€deduct€the€cost€of€medical€treatment€before›€January€28,€1994.Ìà@ àœV.›Ìà àThe€plaintiff€has€filed€a€motion€in€this€court€for€penalties€and€sanctions€for€a€frivolousÏappeal€in€accordance€with€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðððð27„1„122€and€œ50„6„225(i).›€€The€motion€isÏœdenied.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€as€modified.€€The€costs€of€this€cause€are€taxed€toÏthe€Defendant/Appellant.›ÌÓ úÓà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________à àà àà àà àà àà àà àW.€Michael€Maloan,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌConcur:ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________________ÌLyle€Reid,€JusticeÌÌÌ______________________________________ÌWilliam€S.€Russell,€Senior€œJudgeÌÇÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€0Ôà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌßJ€/2;+'b|` ¤ `€@ÿJßà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌGEORGE€GOFF,€à àà àà àà à)€à àFranklin€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€14154Ìà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌCITY€OF€DECHERD,€à àà àà à)à àHon.€Jeffrey€F.€Stewart,€ChancellorÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant„Appellant,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìandà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNO.€01S01„9611„CH„00232Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌDINA€TOBIN,€DIRECTOR€OF€THE€à à)ÌDIVISION€OF€WORKERS€€€€€€€€€€à àà à)ÌCOMPENSATION,€DEPARTMENT€OFà à)ÌLABOR,€SECOND€INJURY€FUND,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAffirmed€as€Modified,€andÏRemanded.Ìà àThird€Party€Defendant.à àà à)ÌÌÔ€0&ÔÌò òà@ àòòÔ€0XÔJUDGMENT€ORDERóóó óÌÓ€ÓÌÓ  Óà àà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€motion€for€review€pursuant€toÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(5)(B),€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€ofÏreferral€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;ÌÌà àà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€review€is€notÏwell„taken€and€should€be€denied;€andÌÌà àà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€andÍconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€madeÏthe€judgment€of€the€Court.ÌÌà àà àCosts€are€taxed€to€the€defendant„appellant€and€its€surety,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌà àà àIt€is€so€ordered€this€22nd€day€of€April,€1998.ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌÌÌReid,€J.,€Not€ParticipatingÌÓÖÓÇÓÓÔ€ÔÔ€Ôœ›