WPC% {C-l$)l]6lCXPsH߹{`oo!1|]V 8M TjG Jsl@Cґ ۟a;#7DϩϿx"k^[OV}O~L9d`hAZIMwYfq Y1qٕ݊h/Ł&zF]OٕKOuR_۪ZlptUyȨMY0b/fl2{H(8婆A& KJ߯n&R %Oev ˝{QA^)ckRm%2)Q<NP1c E E(]9@$ 5dQӏ0!g?ty_gsMI*;6>" Q뚸-M(s %n"y/'}uoK6hAil}0…yb %\^ b 0nUINwD4H\ zk m U'N #   s9NN 1u E n 728 0cj 0DN zUN_ U@ b 0 B !! 0! D5" D-" 0K## ASN## 0g$ 0D % AO%:1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular6h0 t3|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptU(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular\\IB01S02\CLERKJAC,,,,0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) RZ$$      1  XX  _8 `  XX(a)(1)Ifanemployeehaspreviouslysustainedapermanentphysicaldisability  fromanycauseororiginandbecomespermanentlyandtotallydisabledthrougha  subsequentinjury,suchemployeeshallbeentitledtocompensationfromthe Z employee'semployerortheemployer'sinsurancecompanyonlyforthedisability k thatwouldhaveresultedfromthesubsequentinjury,andsuchpreviousinjuryshall , notbeconsideredinestimatingthecompensationtowhichsuchemployeemaybe  entitledunderthischapterfromtheemployerortheemployer'sinsurancecompany; ^  provided,thatinadditiontosuchcompensationforasubsequentinjury,andafter  o completionofthepaymentstherefor,thensuchemployeeshallbepaidthe  0 remainderofthecompensationthatwouldbedueforthepermanenttotaldisability    outofaspecialfundtobeknownasthe"secondinjuryfund"thereincreated.b  ` x` x 8  8`    ` x` x 8  8`   (2)Toreceivebenefitsfromthesecondinjuryfund,theinjuredemployeemustbe  4  theemployeeofanemployerwhohasproperlyinsuredsuchemployer'sworkers'   compensationliabilityorhasqualifiedtooperateundertheWorkers'Compensation f  Lawasaself-insurer,andtheemployermustestablishthattheemployerhadactual 'w  knowledgeofthepermanentandpreexistingdisabilityatthetimethattheemployee 8  washiredoratthetimethattheemployeewasretainedinemploymentafterthe   employeracquiredsuchknowledge,butinallcasespriortothesubsequentinjury. j   ` x` x 8  8`   (3)Indeterminingthepercentageofdisabilityforwhichthesecondinjuryfund < shallbeliable,nopreviousphysicalimpairmentshallbeconsideredunlesssuch  impairmentwaswithintheknowledgeoftheemployerasprescribedabove.n` x` x 8  8`   (4)Nothinginthissectionshallbeconstruedtolimittheemployer'sliabilityas @ providedbylawforaggravationofpreexistingconditionsordisabilitiesincases  whererecoveryagainstthesecondinjuryfundisnotapplicable.#XX ԋ#  RZ$$      2  XX  _Ԁ XXXX * X XSubsection(b)ofsection506208isapplicableifthesumoftwoormoreawardsforpermanentdisability  tothebodyasawholeequalsorexceeds100percentpermanentdisability.#   *#Hensonv.Cityof_Lawrenceburg_,851  S.W.2d809,812(Tenn.1993).Subsection(b)isinapplicableinthiscasebecausetheclaimanthasnoprior_awards.#XX Ԟ#_i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (#$  0  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z(Times New Roman - -(|G2Z$$ !.8idd8         0  XX d(|3w$ !.8idd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3w$ !.8idd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8idd8     _i8XXdd8  "^i@@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL # @@ATJACKSON#i"^# F July1,2004Session i XXi #iXX#MICHAELRAYHAILEYv.E.W.JAMES&SONS,etal.XXi   b @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforObionCounty  \ @@No.23,719WilliamMichaelMaloan,Chancellor  F @@*AV) ` dE<` A   No.W200302499WCR3CVMailedJuly29,2004;FiledSeptember21,2004   #iXX#XXiAV) ` dE<j` A k      Thisworkers'compensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppeals c PaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection506225(e)(3) L forhearingandreportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.Inthis 5 appeal,#iXXu#XXiԀthe#iXX#XXiԀSecondInjuryFundinsiststhetrialcourterredinitsapportionmentofpermanenttotal n disabilitybenefits35percenttotheemployerand65percenttotheSecondInjuryFund.As W discussedbelow,thepanelhasconcludedthejudgmentofthetrialcourtshouldbemodifiedby @ apportioning100percentofthedisabilitybenefitstotheemployerandnonetotheSecondInjury ) Fund.     Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(Supp.2002)AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChancery  CourtAffirmedasModified  ~     JoeC.Loser,Jr.,Sp.J.#iX#XX.i,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJaniceM.Holder,J.,and Q JamesF.Butler,Sp.J.,joined. :  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,andDianneStameyDycus,DeputyAttorney  "\! General,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,SueAnnHead,Director,WorkersCompensation "E" Division,TennesseeDepartmentofLaborandWorkforceDevelopment,SecondInjuryFund. #.# AlexC.Elder,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellees,E.W.James&SonsandRoyaland %!% SunAllianceInsuranceCompany. &!& JeffreyA.Garrety,Jackson,Tennessee,fortheappellee,MichaelRayHailey. k(#(    MEMORANDUMOPINION #iXX #XXi =*%*   #iXX[ #XXi  Theemployeeorclaimant,Mr.Hailey,initiatedthiscivilactiontorecoverworkers ,`', compensationbenefitsforaworkrelatedleginjuryfromtheemployer,E.W.James&Sons,and ,I(- itsinsurer.TheSecondInjuryFundwasaddedbyamendmentafteritdevelopedthattheclaimant -2). waspermanentlyandtotallydisabled.Afteratrialonthemerits,thetrialcourtawardedpermanent  totaldisabilitybenefitsandapportionedthosebenefits35percenttotheemployerand65percent  totheFund.TheFundhasappealed.Theonlyissueonappealiswhethertheapportionmentis  properunderthecircumstances. k    XXXXTheextentofvocationaldisabilityisaquestionoffact.#XXX X# XXXXStoryv.LegionIns.Co.,3S.W.3d =  450,456(Tenn.1999)#XXX Xi# XXXX.#XXX X# XXXXԀAppellatereviewoffactualquestionsisdenovoupontherecordofthetrial & v court,accompaniedbyapresumptionofcorrectnessofthefindingsoffact,unlessthepreponderance  _ oftheevidenceisotherwise.#XXX X=#Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(2)(Supp.2002). XXXXԀThereviewingcourt  H isrequiredtoconductanindependentexaminationoftherecordtodeterminewherethe  1  preponderanceoftheevidencelies.#XXX X# XXXXԀWingertv.GovernmentofSumnerCounty,908S.W.2d921,    922(Tenn.1995).#XXX X# XXXXConclusionsoflawaresubjecttodenovoreviewonappealwithoutany   presumptionofcorrectness.#XXX XO# XXXXHillv.WilsonSportingGoodsCo.,104S.W.3d844,846(Tenn.   WorkersComp.Panel2002)#XXX X # XXXX.Issuesofstatutoryconstructionaresolelyquestionsoflaw.Id.   Wherethetrialjudgehasseenandheardthewitnesses,thetrialcourtsdeterminationofissuesof n  credibilityandtheweighttobegivenoraltestimonymustbeaccorded#XXX X# XXXXԀconsiderabledeferenceon W  review,#XXX X%# XXXXMcCalebv.SaturnCorp.,910S.W.2d412,415(Tenn.1995)#XXX X# XXXX,becauseitisthetrialcourt @ whichhadtheopportunitytoobservethewitnessesdemeanorandtoheartheincourttestimony, )y #XXX X# XXXXLongv.TriConInd.,Ltd.,996S.W.2d173,178(Tenn.1999).#XXX X# XXXXԀThetrialcourtsfindingswith b respecttocredibilityandweightoftheevidencemaygenerallybeinferredfromthemannerinwhich K thecourtresolvesconflictsinthetestimonyanddecidesthecase.#XXX X# XXXXTobittv.Bridgestone/Firestone, 4 Inc.,59S.W.3d57,61(Tenn.2001).#XXX X# XXXXԀTheappellatetribunal,however,isaswellsituatedtogauge  theweight,worthandsignificanceofdepositiontestimonyasthetrialjudge.#XXX Xl# XXXXWalkerv.Saturn  Corp.,986S.W.2d204,207(Tenn.1998)#XXX XU#.Wherethemedicaltestimonyinaworkers  compensationcaseispresentedbydeposition,thereviewingcourtmaymakeanindependent  assessmentofthemedicalprooftodeterminewherethepreponderanceoftheprooflies. XXXXԀBridges q v.LibertyIns.Co.ofHartford,101S.W.3d64,67(Tenn.WorkersComp.Panel2000).#XXX X# XXXX Z    `     h      p   #XXX X# XXXXWhenaninjury,nototherwisespecificallyprovidedforintheWorkersCompensationLaw, ,| totallyincapacitatesacoveredemployeefromworkingatanoccupationwhichproducesanincome, e suchemployeeisconsideredtotallydisabled.#XXX Xq # XXXXԀTenn.CodeAnn.506207(4)(B)(Supp.2002).It N isundisputedthatthepreponderanceoftheevidencesupportsthetrialcourtsfindingthatthe  7 claimantispermanentlyandtotallydisabledandentitledtothebenefitsprovidedbylawforhis !   permanenttotaldisability.TheSecondInjuryFundcontends,however,thattheevidence " ! preponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsfindingthattheFundshouldpay65percentofhispermanent #" totaldisabilitybenefits.Weagree. $#   #XXX X!# XXXXAnemployeewhohaspreviouslybecomephysicallydisabledfromanycauseandwho,as ]&!% aresultofalatercompensableinjury,becomespermanentlyandtotallydisabled,mayreceive F'"& disabilitybenefitsfromhisemployeroritsinsurancecompanyonlyforthedisabilitythatwould /(#' haveresultedfromthesubsequentinjury.#XXX Xr$# XXXXԀHowever,suchemployeemaybeentitledtorecoverthe )h$( remainderofthebenefitsallowableforpermanenttotaldisabilityfromtheSecondInjuryFund.#XXX X.&# XXXXԀ#XXX X'# XXXXSee *Q%)  Tenn.CodeAnn.506208#XXX X_'# XXXXԀ(Supp.2002).#XXX X'# XXXXԀ#XXX X6(# XXXXUndersubsection(a)ofTennesseeCodeAnnotated *:&* section506208, #  1      ׀theprerequisitesforimposingliabilityontheSecondInjuryFundareaprior   injury,eithercompensableornoncompensable,whichcausedpermanentdisabilityandasubsequent  compensableinjurywhichrenderedtheemployeepermanentlyandtotallydisabled.#XXX Xz(# XXXXPerryv.Sentry  Ins.Co.,938S.W.2d404,407(Tenn.1996);Sweetenv.TradeEnvelopes,Inc.,938S.W.2d383, k 385(Tenn.1996).#XXX X*# XXXXԀUnderthissubsection,apermanentlyandtotallydisabledemployeeisentitled T torecoverfromtheSecondInjuryFundtheamountwherebyanawardforpermanenttotaldisability =  exceedstheawardforthesubsequentinjury.#XXX X+#ԀAllenv.CityofGatlinburg,36S.W.3d73,77(Tenn. & v 2001).Consequently,insuchacase,itisimportantforthetrialjudgetomakeanexplicitfinding  _ offactregardingtheextentofvocationaldisabilityattributabletothesubsequentorlastinjury,  H withoutconsiderationofanypriorinjuries,becausetheemployerisresponsibleonlyforthe  1  disabilitythatwouldhaveresultedfromthesubsequentinjury,hadtheearlierinjurynotexisted,and    theFundisliablefortheremainderoftheaward.Id.     Inthiscase, XXXXthetrialcourtfoundthattheclaimantsdisabilityresultingfromthesubsequent   injurywaslimitedto70percenttotheleg,ascheduledmember.Wehold,however,thatthe n  evidencepreponderatesagainstthisfinding.#XXX Xx/#Ԁ XXXXWemustthereforedeterminetheextentofthe W  employersliability.#XXX X0# @   Theclaimantisafortynineyearoldhighschoolgraduatewiththreeyearsofcollegeand b experienceinthefoodindustry.HemostrecentlyworkedasthemanagerofarestaurantforE.W. K James&Sons.Priortohisemployment,hehadbacksurgerytoremoveacyst.Inaddition,he  suffersfromdiabetesandhypertension,bothofwhichpreexistedhisemploymentwiththe  employer.Beforethepresentinjuryoccurred,however,hisdiabetesandhypertensionwere  controlledbymedication,andhewasabletoworkwithfewrestrictionsorlimitations.Hehasnot k receivedanypriorworkerscompensationawards. T   OnJune22,2001,theclaimantslippedandfellatwork,strikinghisleftkneeonthecorner & v ofatable,injuringtheknee.Followingcorrectivekneesurgery,andasacomplicationofit,he  _ developedbloodclotsandwasdiagnosedwithdeepveinthrombosis.Hecontinuestosufferfrom  H painandswellinginthekneeforwhichheusesacaneandwearssupportstockings.  1    AccordingtoDr.JohnCummings,theclaimantstreatingphysician,theclaimanthassome   neuropathyinthelegbecauseoftheswelling.Thetreatingphysiciantestifiedbydepositionthatthe   claimantwouldretaina70percentpermanentimpairmenttotheinjuredleg.Healsotestifiedthat   theclaimanthadanadditional10percentpermanentimpairmenttothebodyasawholebecauseof n  hischronicveininsufficiency.ThisconditionnecessitatesCoumadintherapy,whichaffectsparts W  ofthebodyotherthantheleg.Thedoctoralsoestimatedtheclaimantspermanentclinical @ impairmentfromthediabetestobe11to20percentandtheimpairmentfromthehypertensionto )y be29percent.Hetestified,however,thatneitherthediabetesnorthehypertensionwouldprevent b himfromworking.Ontheotherhand,Dr.Cummingstestifiedthattheclaimantisnotcapableof K workingbecauseoftheworkrelatedinjuryandthecomplicationsthatdevelopedfollowingsurgery. 4 ItisclearfromthetestimonyofDr.Cummingsthattheclaimantspreexistingdiabetesand  hypertensiondidnotadverselyaffecthisabilitytoworkbutthatheisnowunabletoworkbecause  oftheworkrelatedinjuryandcomplicationsfromthetreatmentofthisinjury.    Dr.JosephBoals,anorthopedist,conductedanindependentmedicalevaluationforthe q claimant.Heopinedthattheclaimantsmedicalproblemswerecausedbytheworkrelatedinjury. Z Dr.Boalsestimatedtheclaimantspermanentanatomicalimpairmentfromtheworkrelatedinjury C tobe30percenttothebodyasawhole,superimposedonanestimated40percentimpairmentfrom ,| preexistingconditions.Dr.Boalsconceded,however,thathedidnotevaluatetheclaimantforhis e preexistingconditions. N   Dr.RobertKennon,avocationalexpert,testifiedtheclaimantis practically100percent !   disabledsincetheworkrelatedinjuryandthat,exceptforthatinjury,hecouldreturntohisjob.The " ! claimantsowntestimonyisthathecannotworkbecauseoftheworkrelatedinjury. #"  XXXX  #XXX X6@# XXXXԀ#XXX X@#Fromourindependentexaminationoftherecord,weagreewiththeSecondInjuryFunds t% $ argumentthatthepreponderanceoftheevidencesupportstheconclusionthattheclaimants ]&!% disabilitywascausedsolelybyhismostrecentworkrelatedinjury.Asacomplicationofsurgery, F'"& theclaimantdevelopedbloodclotsandwasdiagnosedwithdeepveinthrombosis.Theclaimants /(#' venousdisorder,andthesideeffectsofthenecessarytreatmentthereof,affectpartsofthebodyother )h$( thanhisinjuredleg.Itiswellestablishedthatdisabilityresultingfrommedicaltreatmentfora *Q%) compensableinjuryiscompensableundertheTennesseeWorkersCompensationLaw.Rogersv. *:&* Shaw,813S.W.2d397,399400(Tenn.1991).Moreover,eveniftheclaimantspreexisting +#'+ conditionscontributedtohisvenousdisorder,anemployertakesanemployeewithallpreexisting  conditions,andcannotescapeliabilitywhentheemployee,uponsufferingaworkrelatedinjury,  incursdisabilityfargreaterthaniftheemployeehadnothadthepreexistingconditions. XXXXKellerman  v.FoodLion,Inc.,929S.W.2d333,335(Tenn.1996).#XXX XE# XXXXԀFurthermore,allofthemedicalexpert k testimonyandthelaytestimonysupporttheconclusionthattheclaimantis100percentvocationally T disabledduetohisworkrelatedinjury.#XXX X^F# XXXXԀSincetheemployerisresponsibleforthedisabilitythat =  resultedfromthesubsequentinjuryandinthiscasethatdisabilitytotals100percent,theFundisnot & v liabletotheclaimantinanyamountunderTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection506208. #  2        _ #XXX X}G#  Fortheabovereasons,weconcludetheemployerisliablefor100percentoftheclaimants  1  permanenttotaldisabilitybenefits.TheSecondInjuryFundisdismissedfromthecivilaction.The    judgmentismodifiedaccordinglyand,asmodified,affirmed.CostsaretaxedtoE.W.James&   Sonsanditsinsurer.      `     h     ___________________________________ W     `     h     JOEC.LOSER,JR, @   b _@9 9 iXXINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @@@SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL  @((%ATJACKSON   @$July1,2004 0    MICHAELRAYHAILEYv.E.W.JAMES&SONS,etal.   P 6M@  ChanceryCourtforObionCounty ! q @%No.23,719 2  @*AV) ` dE<S` A߈ T  @No.W200302499WCR3CVFiledSeptember21,2004 t  AV) ` dE<` A    @tt# JUDGMENTORDER    4 i   ` ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtupontheentirerecord,includingtheorder 9 ofreferraltotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanel's I MemorandumOpinionsettingforthitsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,which  Y areincorporatedhereinbyreference; i    ` Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthattheMemorandumOpinionofthe 9 Panelshouldbeacceptedandapproved;and I    ` Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanel'sfindingsoffactandconclusions i oflawareadoptedandaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgment y  oftheCourt. ! Ѐ "    ` CostsonappealaretaxedtotheAppellees,E.W.James&Sonsand # RoyalandSunAllianceInsuranceCompany,forwhichexecutionmayissueif $  necessary. %!!    ` ITISSOORDERED. '9## #i  4~O#ii   `     h     PERCURIAM +i&& #ii3T##XXi L#