ÿWPC& …# VUNa %¯ 0ûµU:° 4ê þ   w@ 0?[ 0Dš 0JÞ 0T( 0^| 0hÚ 0rB 0|´ 0†0 0¶ 1uF 0d»U> B]U *zU*¤B)ÎDC÷ AM: D3‡ºº/t 0@£ãîý¯ëv~švÓ AOë$Æ:% 0D& D/D& Bs&˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÓH=$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XÎ_XXXÔÑ7€¾úXXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularƒL$Y3|x¼)H ¨)©)Dª)«)D¬)D­)P®)Ó€º)V»)V¼)î(ï(3 r$¤¤Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XªXXXÔÑ7€5 XXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó()Ã$òòÚ  Ú3Ú  Úóó2 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< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ$$$$'ÿÿdxd °Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€%ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òAprilÏ30,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó %Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€%ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€trial€judge€dismissed€the€Second€Injury€Fund€from€this€case€and€weÏfind€the€dismissal€was€proper.€€By€reason€of€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðððð€50„6„208(a)€andÏ(b),€the€Second€Injury€Fund€is€not€liable€to€the€plaintiff.€Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€%ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€During€this€nine€year€period,€the€defendant€underwent€corporate€changesÏand€operated€under€three€different€names.€€For€purposes€of€this€opinion,€theÏplaintiffððs€employer€remained€the€defendant.€Ì äÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€%ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Dr.€McNeeleyððs€letter€was€dated€January€16,€1994,€but€the€trial€court€foundÏconvincing€evidence€that€the€letter€was€actually€written€January€16,€1995.Ì ¥Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€%ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òAprilÏ30,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€%ÔÑ#€&&Xd#ÑÑ#€&&Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÑ À ÑÑ X Ñò ò›Þ ÞÌÌó óà@ àò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌÙ€€ÙœßR€)+(A1-j|` 81 `€€@ÿRß›à@ àAT€KNOXVILLEó óÌÓ  Óœà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à›ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌGERALD€GRAVES,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà àà àà à)à àKNOX€CHANCERYà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNO.€€03S01„9706„CH„00074Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌLIBERTY€MUTUAL€œINSURANCE›à à)à àHON.€FREDERICK€D.€McDONALD,ÌCOMPANY€and€SUPERIORà àà à)à àCHANCELLORÌSTEEL,€INC.,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellantsà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòÌFor€the€Appellants:à àà àà àFor€the€Appellee:ÌÌóóó óJames€T.€Shea,€IVà àà àà àà àRalph€BrownÌBaker,€McReynolds,€Byrne,à àà àClint€J.€WoodfinÌ€OððKane,€Shea€&€Townsendà àà àRalph€Brown€&€AssociatesÌ607€Market€Street,€Eleventh€Floorà à412€Executive€Tower€DriveÌP.O.€Box€1708à àà àà àà àExecutive€Tower€II,€Suite€304ÌKnoxville,€TN€37901„1708à àà àà àKnoxville,€TN€37923ò òòòÌÌÌóóó óÌÌÌÓ  Óò òòòÌÌM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌò òòòMembers€of€Panel:ÌÌó óóóChief€Justice€E.€Riley€AndersonÌSenior€Judge€John€K.€ByersÌSpecial€Judge€Roger€E.€ThayerÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÔ% € ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€à àà àà àà àà àà àà àBYERS,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòò òOPINIONó óóóÌÓ  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 àIn€March€1995,€the€plaintiff€in€this€case€brought€suit€against€Superior€Steel,ÏInc.€and€Liberty€Mutual€Insurance€Company€(ð ðthe€defendantsðð)€and€the€SecondÏInjury€Fund× ƒ, ××  ×€claiming€that€he€was€entitled€to€recover€workersðð€compensationÏbenefits€for€two€work€related€injuries:€€a€knee€injury€and€an€occupational€disease.€ÏFirst,€the€trial€judge€found€that€the€plaintiff€had€sustained€a€ten€percent€permanentÏpartial€disability€to€his€right€leg.€€Second,€the€trial€judge€found€that€the€plaintiff€wasÏ100€percent€permanently€and€totally€disabled€as€a€result€of€a€chronic€obstructiveÏpulmonary€disorder€which€he€classified€as€an€occupational€disease€because€theÍplaintiffððs€condition€was€exacerbated€by€breathing€diesel€fumes€during€hisÏemployment€with€the€defendant.€€The€trial€judge€merged€the€two€injuries€andÏthereby€awarded€the€plaintiff€100€percent€disability€benefits.Ìà àThe€defendants€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€findings€regarding€the€plaintiffððsÏoccupational€disease,€contending€that€the€trial€judge€erred€(1)€in€ruling€that€theÏstatute€of€limitations€had€not€expired,€(2)€in€ruling€that€notice€had€been€properlyÏgiven,€and€(3)€in€finding€that€the€plaintiffððs€condition€was€an€occupational€diseaseÏwhich€arose€out€of€and€in€the€course€of€his€employment€with€the€defendant.€€TheÏdefendants€do€not€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€disability€to€the€plaintiffððs€leg,Ïbut€a€brief€reference€to€the€knee€injury€is€necessary€for€a€proper€discussion€of€theÏfacts.€€€€à àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÓ  Óò òBACKGROUNDó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€plaintiff,€48€years€of€age,€worked€as€an€oiler€and€crane€operator€for€mostÏof€his€working€life€„„€approximately€28€years.€€For€almost€32€years€of€his€life,€theÏplaintiff€smoked€two€packs€of€cigarettes€per€day.€€The€plaintiff€quit€smoking€in€JuneÏ1992.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€first€worked€as€an€oiler€and€later€as€a€crane€operator€for€PowellÏErection€Company,€a€job€he€held€for€18€years.€€The€plaintiff€began€working€for€theÏdefendant€as€a€crane€operator€in€1986€and€left€employment€in€January€1995.× ƒ. ××  ×€€TheÏonly€break€in€the€plaintiffððs€employment€with€the€defendant€occurred€in€April€1989Ïwhen€he€resigned€to€go€work€for€another€company.€€However,€after€discussing€hisÍunion€related€reasons€for€leaving€with€the€defendantððs€president,€William€MarkÏMonday,€the€plaintiff€returned€to€work€for€the€defendant€after€one€or€two€weeks.€€Ìà àIn€his€capacity€as€a€crane€operator,€the€plaintiff€was€exposed€to€and€workedÏin€close€proximity€to€diesel€fumes€emitted€from€the€crane.€€The€plaintiff€testified€thatÏð ðthe€exhaust€system€came€out€from€underneath€the€craneðð€and€that€ð ð90%€of€theÏwork,€or€70%,€was€just€sitting€and€letting€[the€crane]€idle€.€.€.€[and]€the€fumes€wouldÏjust€kind€of€roll€up€around€[him],€and€[he]€just€set€and€breathe€in€the€fumes€all€dayÏlong.ððÌà àAs€a€result€of€his€extensive€smoking,€the€plaintiff€testified€that€over€time€heÏdeveloped€a€smokerððs€cough€and€had€difficulty€breathing.€€The€plaintiff€also€testifiedÏthat€being€around€diesel€fumes€at€work€made€breathing€even€more€difficult.€€ByÏJune€1990,€the€plaintiff€was€experiencing€physical€difficulty€in€his€daily€and€workÏactivities€€as€a€result€of€his€breathing€problems.€€For€example,€the€plaintiff€testifiedÏthat€climbing€a€few€stairs€made€him€lose€his€breath.Ìà àMr.€Monday,€the€defendantððs€president,€testified€that€in€1986€he€becameÏaware€of€the€plaintiffððs€breathing€problems,€including€his€heavy€coughing.€€Mr.ÏMonday€also€testified€that€he€certainly€knew€about€the€plaintiffððs€condition€when€heÏrehired€the€plaintiff€after€the€brief€resignation€in€April€1989.€€€Ìà àFurthermore,€the€plaintiff€testified€that€his€breathing€problems€brieflyÏimproved€in€June€1992€after€he€quit€smoking.€€Also,€in€September€1994,€the€plaintiffÏinjured€his€knee€while€working€for€the€defendant.€€As€a€result€of€this€injury,€theÏplaintiff€underwent€surgery€and€did€not€work€for€two€months€while€recovering.€€TheÏplaintiff€testified€that€when€he€returned€to€work€for€the€defendant€after€being€off€fromÏwork€for€two€months€he€had€severe€trouble€breathing€around€the€diesel€fumes.Ìà àIn€January€1995,€the€plaintiff€was€informed€by€a€letter€from€Dr.€McNeeley€thatÏhe€should€not€work.€€The€plaintiff€presented€this€letter€to€the€defendant€and€resignedÏat€that€time.€€Between€1987€and€1995,€the€plaintiff€testified€that€he€was€never€unableÏto€perform€his€job€duties€because€of€his€lung€disease.€ÌÓ  Óò òMEDICAL€EVIDENCEó óÌÓ  Óà àIn€January€1987,€the€plaintiff€sought€medical€treatment€for€his€breathingÏdifficulty€from€Dr.€Howard€B.€McNeeley,€a€board€certified€doctor€in€family€medicineÏwho€testified€by€deposition.€€Dr.€McNeeley€diagnosed€the€plaintiff€with€a€chronicÏobstructive€pulmonary€disorder€and€testified€that€this€condition€includesÏemphysema€and€bronchitis.€€Dr.€McNeeley€opined€that€the€actual€cause€of€theÏplaintiffððs€disease€was€his€lifelong€smoking€and€that€the€plaintiffððs€exposure€to€dieselÏfumes€at€work€caused€a€temporary€exacerbation€of€his€breathing€problems.€€InÏJanuary€1995,€Dr.€McNeeley€determined€that€the€plaintiff€could€not€perform€normalÏwork€activities€and€wrote€the€plaintiff€a€letter€recommending€that€he€should€not€work.€ÏDr.€McNeeley€did€not€assign€the€plaintiff€a€permanent€physical€impairment€ratingÏbased€on€his€lung€disease.€€€Ìòòà àóóIn€October€1996,€the€plaintiff€saw€Dr.€James€E.€Lockey,€a€board€certifiedÏphysician€specializing€in€occupational€pulmonary€disease€who€also€testified€byÏdeposition.€€Dr.€Lockey€took€a€detailed€medical€and€employment€history€of€theÏplaintiff€and€performed€a€physical€examination€of€him.€€Dr.€Lockey€opined€that€theÏplaintiff€suffered€from€a€fixed€and€partial€reversible€airway€obstruction€causedÏprimarily€by€32€years€of€smoking€and€by€25€years€of€breathing€diesel€fumes€at€work.€ÏBased€on€the€òòAMA€Guides,óó€Dr.€Lockey€issued€the€plaintiff€a€70%€impairment€ratingÏto€the€body€as€a€whole,€finding€that€50%€was€secondary€to€smoking€and€20%€wasÏsecondary€to€the€occupational€exposure€to€diesel€fumes.€€Dr.€Lockey€testified€thatÍthe€plaintiff€is€limited€to€sedentary€lifestyles€and€has€a€life€expectancy€of€five€to€tenÏyears.òòò òÌÓ  ÓóóANALYSISó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€defendants€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€findings€regarding€the€plaintiffððsÏoccupational€disease,€contending€that€the€trial€judge€erred€(1)€in€ruling€that€theÏstatute€of€limitations€had€not€expired,€(2)€in€ruling€that€notice€had€been€properlyÏgiven,€and€(3)€in€finding€that€the€plaintiffððs€condition€was€an€occupational€diseaseÏwhich€arose€out€of€and€in€the€course€of€his€employment€with€the€defendant.€€€Ìà àOur€review€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€theÏcorrectness€of€the€findings€of€fact€of€the€trial€court,€unless€the€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).€€We€have€reviewed€theÏevidence€in€this€case,€including€the€transcript€of€the€proceedings€and€the€medicalÏdepositions,€and€we€cannot€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trialÏcourtððs€findings€and€award€of€100%€permanent€and€total€disability€to€the€plaintiffððsÏbody€as€a€whole.ÌÓ  Óò òStatute€of€LimitationsÌÓ  Óó óà àRegarding€the€first€issue€on€appeal,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„306(a)€providesÏthat€ð ðthe€right€to€compensation€for€occupational€disease€shall€be€forever€barredÏunless€suit€therefor€is€commenced€within€one€(1)€year€after€the€beginning€of€theÏincapacity€for€work€resulting€from€an€occupational€disease.€.€.€.€ð ð€€This€statutoryÏlanguage€has€been€held€to€mean€that€ð ðthe€statute€of€limitations€begins€to€run€on€aÏdisability€claim€when€the€employee€has€knowledge,€actual€or€constructive,€that€heÏhas€an€occupational€disease€which€injuriously€affects€his€capacity€to€work€to€aÏdegree€amounting€to€a€compensable€disability.ðð€€òòIngram€v.€Aetna€Casualty€and€Sur.ÏCo.,óó€876€S.W.2d€91€(Tenn.€1994).€€Ìà àThe€defendants€contend€that€the€plaintiffððs€filing€of€this€suit€in€March€1995Ïwas€not€timely€because€the€plaintiff€had€actual€and/or€constructive€knowledge€thatÏhis€lung€disease€was€related€to€breathing€diesel€fumes€at€work€as€early€as€1987Ïwhen€he€was€diagnosed€with€a€chronic€obstructive€pulmonary€disease,€or€at€leastÏby€June€1990€when€the€plaintiff€experienced€physical€difficulties€with€work.€€InÏresponse,€the€plaintiff€says€the€defendantsðð€argument€that€the€statute€of€limitationsÏbegan€to€run€in€1987€or€1990€is€flawed€because€the€proof€shows€that€the€plaintiffÏwas€never€unable€to€perform€his€job€duties€because€of€his€lung€disease€prior€toÏJanuary€1995.Ìà àWe€find€that€the€record€is€clear€that€the€plaintiff€became€incapable€ofÏperforming€his€normal€work€activities€in€January€1995€when€he€was€informed€by€Dr.ÏMcNeeley€that€his€lung€disease€was€exacerbated€by€his€exposure€to€diesel€fumes€atÏwork€and€that€he€should€no€longer€work.€€Thus,€we€hold€that€the€plaintiffððs€filing€ofÏhis€suit€against€the€defendants€in€March€1995€was€well€within€the€applicable€oneÏyear€statute€of€limitations.€ÌÓ  Óò òNoticeó óÌÓ  Óà àRegarding€the€second€issue€on€appeal,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„305(a)Ïprovides€that€ð ðwithin€thirty€(30)€days€after€the€first€distinct€manifestation€of€anÏoccupational€disease,€the€employee,€or€someone€in€the€employeeððs€behalf,€shallÏgive€written€notice€thereof€to€the€employer€in€the€same€manner€as€is€provided€in€theÏcase€of€a€compensable€accidental€injury.ððÌà àThe€defendants€contend€that€the€plaintiff€failed€to€give€notice€of€his€workÏrelated€injury€as€required€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„305(a)€and€therefore€argueÏthat€his€claim€should€have€been€dismissed.€€The€plaintiff€says€that€he€gave€notice€ofÏhis€injury€to€the€defendants€in€January€1995€when€he€provided€them€with€a€copy€ofÍDr.€McNeeleyððs€letter€which€indicated€that€the€diesel€fumes€at€work€wereÏexacerbating€his€lung€disease.€Ìà àWe€find€that€the€plaintiff€met€the€notice€requirements€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€€€€€€ððÏ50„6„305(a)€when€he€presented€a€copy€of€Dr.€McNeeleyððs€letter€to€the€defendants€inÏJanuary€1995.€€The€plaintiffððs€receipt€of€Dr.€McNeeleyððs€letter€in€January€1995× ƒ/ ××  ×€wasÏthe€first€time€the€plaintiff€knew€that€his€lung€disease€amounted€to€an€occupationalÏdisease.€€Such€a€letter€constitutes€proper€notice.€€òòSee€Allen€v.€ConsolidatedÏAluminum€Corp.,€óó688€S.W.2d€64€(Tenn.€1985);€òòStratton„Warren€Hardware€v.€Parker,óóÏ557€S.W.2d€494€(Tenn.€1977).ÌÓ  Óò òOccupational€Diseaseó óÌÓ  Óà àIn€regard€to€the€third€and€final€issue€on€appeal,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„301(6)€sets€forth€that€ð ðdiseases€of€the€heart,€lung,€and€hypertension€arising€out€ofÏand€in€the€course€of€any€type€of€employment€shall€be€deemed€to€be€occupationalÏdiseases.ðð€€In€addition,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„304€states€that€ð ðwhen€an€employeeÏhas€an€occupational€disease,€the€employer€in€whose€employment€such€employeeÏwas€last€injuriously€exposed€to€the€hazards€of€the€disease,€and€the€employerððsÏinsurance€carrier,€if€any,€at€the€time€of€the€exposure,€shall€alone€be€liableÌtherefor.€.€.€.ððÌà àIn€contending€that€the€plaintiff€failed€to€demonstrate€that€his€lung€diseaseÏarose€out€of€and€in€the€course€of€his€employment,€the€defendants€argue€that€theÏpreponderance€of€the€lay€and€medical€evidence€proves€that€the€plaintiffððs€lungÏdisease€resulted€from€his€lifelong€habit€of€smoking€two€packs€of€cigarettes€per€dayÏand€not€from€his€work€environment.€Ìà àWhere€the€trial€judge€has€made€a€determination€based€upon€the€testimony€ofÏwitnesses€whom€he€has€seen€and€heard€testify,€great€deference€must€be€given€toÏthat€finding€in€determining€whether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trialÏjudgeððs€determination.€€òòHumphrey€v.€œDavid€Witherspoon,›€Inc.,óó€734€S.W.2d€315Ï(Tenn.€1987).€€However,€when€the€medical€testimony€is€presented€by€deposition,€asÏit€was€in€this€case,€this€Court€is€able€to€make€its€own€independent€assessment€of€theÏmedical€proof€to€determine€where€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€lies.òò€€CooperÏv.€Insurance€Co.€of€œN.›€œAm.,›€óó884€S.W.2d€446€(Tenn.€1994);€òòLanders€v.€FiremanððsÏFund€Ins.€Co,óó€775€S.W.2d€355€(Tenn.€1989).Ìà àWe€find€that€the€plaintiff€presented€competent€and€credible€lay€and€medicalÏtestimony€which€shows€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€he€suffers€from€anÏoccupational€disease.€€We€recognize,€just€as€the€plaintiff€and€the€medicalÏprofessionals€admit,€that€his€lifelong€smoking€no€doubt€significantly€contributed€toÏhis€respiratory€problems.€€However,€the€plaintiff€presented€the€medical€depositionsÏof€two€doctors€whose€testimony€that€a€portion€of€the€plaintiffððs€lung€disease€wasÏcaused€by€his€exposure€to€diesel€fumes€at€work€went€unchallenged€by€theÏdefendants.€€Dr.€McNeeley€testified€that€the€plaintiffððs€exposure€to€diesel€fumes€atÏwork€exacerbated€his€lung€disease€and€recommended€that€the€plaintiff€no€longerÏwork.€€And,€Dr.€Lockey,€a€specialist€in€occupational€pulmonary€disease,€testified€thatÏa€significant€portion€of€the€plaintiffððs€lung€disease€was€caused€by€his€occupationalÏexposure€to€diesel€fumes.Ìà àThe€defendants€also€contend€that€the€plaintiff€cannot€recover€for€aggravationÏof€an€occupational€disease€which€pre„existed€the€plaintiffððs€employment€with€theÏdefendant.€€òòSee€Gregg€v.€J.€H.€Kellman€Co.,€Inc.,óó€642€S.W.2d€715€(Tenn.€1982).€€InÏsupport€of€this€contention,€the€defendants€say€that€the€plaintiff€knew€about€his€lungÍdisease€in€1987€and€that€Dr.€McNeeley€believed€that€the€plaintiffððs€lung€diseaseÏexisted€for€a€long€period€of€time€before€1987.€€Ìà àWe€disagree€with€the€defendantsðð€contention€because€the€plaintiff€was€notÏdiagnosed€with€an€occupational€disease€until€January€1995,€and€thereafter€he€noÏlonger€worked€for€the€defendant.ÌÓ  Óò òÌÌÌCONCLUSIONó óÌÓ  Óà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€theÏdefendants.€€The€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€interest€on€the€judgment€from€the€date€theÏjudgment€was€entered€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(h)(1).€ÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌE.€Riley€Anderson,€Chief€JusticeÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€Judge€ÌÌÌÌòòò òÌÌóóó óÌœÇÇÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ ` Ñà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÓ  ÓAT€KNOXVILLEÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌGERALD€GRAVES€€€€€€€€€€à àà à€€€€à à)€Knox€Chancery€No.€125358„1Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee€à àà à€€€€€)€Hon.€Frederick€D.€McDonald,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€)€€€ChancellorÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€)€Supreme€Court€No.ÌßJ€)0;+'b|èÿÉ` ‚- `€@ÿJßLIBERTY€MUTUAL€INSURANCE€COMPANY€€à à)€€€03„S„01„9706„CH„00074Ìand€SUPERIOR€STEEL,€INC.à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€)€AffirmedÌà àDefendants/Appellantsà à€€€€€)ÌÌÌÌà àÌà@ àòòJUDGMENT€ORDERóóÌÓ€ÓÌÌà àà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€motion€for€review€pursuant€to€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(5)(B),€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€of€referral€to€theÏSpecial€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel's€MemorandumÏOpinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporatedÏherein€by€reference;ÌÌà àà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€review€is€not€well„taken€and€should€be€denied;€andÌÌà àà 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.ÌÌà àà àCosts€of€this€appeal€will€be€paid€by€the€appellants€for€which€executionÏmay€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÌà àà àIt€is€so€ordered€this€30th€day€of€April,€1998.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌÌÌAnderson,€C.J.,€not€participatingÌ›