ÿWPCY <# XULc %¯ 0(µ4ÝñU:: 0lB 0D® 0Jò 0T<wšÆ*ÆðƶÆ| 0^B 0h  0r 0|z AQö ÆG 0D 0@Q 0D‘ 0†Õ D/[ 0Š B D37 Bj 1u‡ 0düU *`B)ŠDC³ AMöCfF&¬U6Òv~vÓ†˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ.@FÐ Z‹4GeoSlab703 Lt BT LightX($¡¡WX$3|xó("Arial Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÄ(Å(Æ(Ç(HÈ(É(Ê(Ë(Ì(EÍ(Î(EÏ(Ð(ÅÑ(«Ò(Ó(ÆÔ(EÕ(DÖ(•×(Ó€ã(å(Væ( îç(Ó€ó(Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô !"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô'''÷ÿ dxd2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔüÿP Pd))))'ÿÿdxd d$& ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d33337Border 1dd "4Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ùÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÔ€2ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€2XÔÌÌò òMarch€5,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€2ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÔ€2ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€2XÔÌÌò òMarch€5,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€2ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó< Œ 9p`(Courier NewPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿáùEG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 ° ÒÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€2Ôò ò›œ›Ñ7€üÅXXdðdÈ7Ñœ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€ ÙœßR€564A1-j|Ë"` Å `€€@ÿRß›à@ àSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌó óÌÌÌò òPATRICIA€DIANE€HAYES,à àà à)à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à)à àGIBSON€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€GEORGE€R.€ELLISÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€€CHANCELLORÌWAL„MART€STORES,€INC.à à€à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02„S„01„9705„CH„00048Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€APPELLANTóó:òòà àà àà àà àFOR€APPELLEEóó:€€ÌWesley€R.€Kliner,€Jr.à àà àà àDavid€HardeeÌJeffrey€P.€Boydà àà àà àà àHARDEE,€MARTIN€&€JAYNESÌALLEN€&€KLINER,€PLLCà àà àà à213€E.€LafayetteÌPost€Office€Box€2385à à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àJackson,€TN€38301€€€ÌJackson,€TN€38302Ì(Appeal)ÌÌC.€Mark€DonahoeÌSPRAGINS,€BARNETT,€COBB€&€BUTLERÌP.€O.€Box€2004ÌJackson,€TN€38302„2004Ì(Trial)ÌÌÌà@ àòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONóóÌÌÌÌÌà@ àMEMBERS€OF€PANEL:ÌÌà@ àJANICE€M.€HOLDER,€JUSTICEÌà@ àHEWLITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌà@ àCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌREVERSEDà àà àà à€€€€à àà àà àà àCLARK,ÏSPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÓÓó óà àThis€workerððs€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€specialÏworkerððs€Ñ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ7€üÅXXdðXXdð7Ñcompensation€appeals€panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€withÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€SupremeÏCourt€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€Defendant€raises€two€issues€onÏappeal:€(1)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€plaintiff€suffered€a€thirty„five€(35%)Ïpercent€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole;€and€(2)€that€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€awarding€plaintiff€reimbursement€for€chiropractor€œRonald›ÏTeddletonððs€outstanding€bill€of€$9,061.90.€€For€the€reasons€set€forth€below,€weÏreverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àPlaintiff€was€forty„one€years€old€at€the€time€of€trial.€€She€was€five€feet,€fourÍinches€tall€and€weighed€about€195€pounds.€€She€completed€the€eighth€gradeÏand€later€received€a€G.E.D.€€Her€prior€work€history€consisted€primarily€ofÏunskilled€factory€jobs.€€All€required€lifting,€moving€and€bending.€€She€wasÏinitially€employed€by€defendant€(ð ðWal„Martðð)€in€March€1992€as€a€sales€floorÏassociate.ÌÌà àOn€July€22,€1994,€plaintiff€was€employed€at€Wal„Mart€on€the€stockingÏcrew.€€This€job€involved€significant€lifting€to€put€merchandise€on€shelves.€€WhileÏlifting€a€box€off€a€pallet€she€felt€a€pulling€sensation€and€extreme€pain€in€her€lowÏback.€€Proper€notice€of€the€injury€was€given€to€her€employer.€€Defendant€doesÏnot€contest€the€fact€that€a€compensable€injury€has€occurred.ÌÌà àPlaintiff€was€initially€approved€to€see€Ronald€Teddleton,€D.C.,€who€hadÏtreated€her€previously€for€unrelated€problems.€€He€saw€her€over€sixty€times€fromÏJuly25,€œ1994,›€through€November€1,€1994.€€She€continued€to€work€during€thisÏtime,€but€missed€work€frequently€because€of€pain.€€In€œOctober,›€œ1994,›€Wal„MartÏrequested€that€plaintiff€transfer€her€care€and€treatment€to€Dr.€R.€Louis€Murphy.€ÏPlaintiff€did€not€object€to€this€transfer.€€Dr.€Murphy€immediately€referred€her€to€Dr.ÏJoseph€Rowland.€€During€the€next€fifteen€months,€plaintiff€also€was€treated€byÏDr.€Cunningham,€Dr.€Ñ ° ÑRoderick€C.€Webb,€Jr.€and€Dr.€R.€Riley€Jones.€€PlaintiffÏneither€requested€nor€sought€further€treatment€from€Dr.€Teddleton,€and€œshe›€wasÏnot€referred€back€to€him€by€any€authorized€treating€physician.ÌÌà àDr.€Riley€Jones€diagnosed€plaintiff€as€having€facet€syndrome€andÏlumbosacral€strain.€€A€CT€scan€revealed€a€disc€bulge€at€L„3.€€An€MRI€showedÏannular€tears€posteriorly€at€L„3„4,€L„4„5,€a€central€disc€protrusion,€and€mildÏcanal€stenosis€at€L„3„4.€€Dr.€Jones€opined€by€C„32€form€that€plaintiff€retained€aÏfive€(5%)€percent€permanent€impairment€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€She€wasÏadvised€to€exercise€and€lose€weight,€since€her€weight€contributed€to€her€backÏproblems.€€However,€none€of€plaintiffððs€authorized€treating€physicians€everÏstated€that€she€would€require€additional€medical€or€chiropractic€treatment€afterÏshe€was€released€from€their€care.€ÌÌà àOn€September€25,€1995,€plaintiff€was€seen€by€Dr.€Robert€J.€Barnett€for€anÏindependent€medical€evaluation.€€Dr.€Barnett€testified€by€deposition.€€HeÏreviewed€tests€performed€on€plaintiff€by€other€doctors€and€concurred€generallyÏin€the€diagnosis€given€by€those€physicians.€€Dr.€Barnett€believed€she€hadÏaggravated€degenerative€disc€disease€in€her€lower€back.€€He€rated€herÏpermanent€disability€at€ten€(10%)€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole,€basedÏprimarily€on€his€finding€of€unoperated€herniated€nucleus€pulposus€orÏdegenerative€changes€and€her€marked€loss€of€motion.€€Dr.€Barnett€alsoÏinstructed€that€she€should€avoid€all€lifting,€long€standing,€long€sitting,€andÏclimbing.€€He€did€not€voice€an€opinion€on€whether€further€treatment€wasÏreasonable€or€necessary.€€Dr.€Barnett€did€agree€that€losing€weight€wouldÍimprove€plaintiffððs€back€problems.ÌÌÌà àIn€February€1996,€Dr.€Teddleton€contacted€plaintiff€to€inform€her€that€heÏhad€installed€new€therapeutic€equipment€that€might€be€beneficial€to€her.€ÏPlaintiff€Ñ ° Ñaccepted€his€solicitation€and€returned€to€him€for€treatment€from€FebruaryÏ23,€1996,€to€April€24,€1996.€€At€no€time€did€either€Dr.€Teddleton€or€plaintiff€informÏWal„Mart€of€his€resumption€of€treatment.€€As€far€as€defendant€knew,€plaintiff€hadÏreached€maximum€medical€improvement€in€1995€and€had€been€released€toÏreturn€to€work€by€her€treating€physician.ÌÌà àOn€March€20,€1996,€Teddleton€billed€Wal„Mart€for€the€treatments€heÏperformed€from€February€23€to€March€20,€1996.€€On€about€April€10,€1996,€Dr.ÏTeddleton€received€a€letter€from€Wal„Mart€stating€that€he€was€not€authorized€toÏtreat€plaintiff.€€However,€he€continued€to€do€so.ÌÌà àPlaintiff€remained€employed€by€Wal„Mart€for€almost€two€years€after€herÏinjury.€€Her€supervisor€changed€her€job€duties€to€accommodate€her€limitations.€ÏShe€received€a€raise€during€that€period.€€In€œMay,›€œ1996,›€she€quit€voluntarily.€ÏThereafter€plaintiff€went€to€work€for€Southern€Source,€packaging€small€parts€forÏMaytag.€€She€continues€to€be€able€to€complete€a€forty„hour€shift€at€her€presentÏposition€with€Southern€Source.ÌÌà àIn€œOctober,›€œ1996,›€plaintiff€was€seen€by€Robert€W.€Kennon,€Ph.D.,€aÏpsychologist€who€performs€vocational€disability€evaluations€for€injured€workers.€ÏDr.€Kennon€testified€by€deposition€that€plaintiff€had€no€cognitive€impairments€orÏrestrictions€and€that€she€suffered€no€vocational€disability€separate€from€herÏphysical€limitations.€€He€did€acknowledge€that€her€pre„existing€mental€andÏphysical€€limitations€created€significant€restrictions€to€her€employability.ÌÌÌà àAppellate€review€is€de€novo€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,Ïaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact,€unlessÏthe€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50„6„225(e)(2).€€This€tribunal€is€required€to€conduct€an€independent€examination€ofÏthe€record€to€determine€where€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€lies.€€òòWingertÏv.€Government€of€Sumner€Countyóó,€908€S.W.2d€921€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà@ àI.Ìà àWal„Mart€does€not€contest€that€plaintiff€has€suffered€a€compensableÏinjury.€€The€first€issue€in€this€appeal€is€whether€the€trial€courtððs€finding€of€thirty„five€(35%)€percent€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€whole€body€is€excessiveÏbecause€(1)€plaintiffððs€recovery€is€limited€by€the€provisions€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð50„6„241(a)(1)€and€(2)€the€impairment€ratings€established€by€Drs.€TeddletonÏand€Barnett€should€not€have€been€considered.€€Wal„Mart€contends€that€Dr.ÏJonesðð€five€(5%)€percent€assessment€is€the€only€valid€rating€in€this€case,€andÍthat€plaintiffððs€maximum€recovery€is€limited€to€twelve€and€one„half€(12„1/2%)Ïpercent€impairment€to€the€body€as€a€whole.ÌÌà àWhen€an€injured€employee€is€adjudged€to€be€permanently€disabled,€sheÏis€entitled€to€benefits€based€on€a€percentage€of€disability.€€òòCorcoran€v.€FosterÏAuto€GMC,€Inc.óó,€746€S.W.2d€452€(Tenn.€1988).€€For€injuries€occurring€on€or€afterÏAugust1,€1992,€where€an€injured€worker€is€entitled€to€permanent€partialÏdisability€benefits€to€the€body€as€a€whole€and€the€pre„injury€employer€returnsÏthe€employee€to€employment€at€a€wage€equal€to€or€greater€than€the€wage€theÏemployee€was€receiving€at€the€time€of€the€injury,€the€maximum€permanentÏpartial€disability€award€the€employee€may€receive€is€two€and€one„half€times€theÏmedical€impairment€rating.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50„6„241(a)(1).€€ÌÌÌÌà àIf€the€offer€of€the€employer€is€not€reasonable€in€light€of€the€circumstancesÏof€the€employeeððs€physical€ability€to€perform€the€offered€employment,€then€theÏoffer€of€employment€is€not€meaningful€and€the€injured€employee€may€receiveÏbenefits€up€to€six€times€the€medical€impairment.€€òòNewton€v.€Scott€Health€CareÏCenteróó,€914S.W.2d€884€(Tenn.€1995).€€On€the€other€hand,€an€employee€will€beÏlimited€to€disability€benefits€of€not€more€than€two€and€one„half€times€the€medicalÏimpairment€if€his€refusal€to€return€to€work€is€unreasonable.€€òòId.óó€€The€resolution€ofÏwhat€is€reasonable€must€rest€on€the€facts€of€each€case.€€òòId.óó€ÌÌà àIn€this€case€plaintiff€was€initially€off€work€for€about€thirty€(30)€days€on€theÏadvice€of€Dr.€Teddleton.€€After€her€return€to€work€she€missed€occasional€daysÏbecause€of€pain.€€However,€she€was€placed€on€lighter€duty€work€and€continuedÏworking€for€Wal„Mart€for€over€two€years.€€Employer€representatives€consideredÏher€a€good€worker€and€never€made€any€complaints€about€her€disability.€€Her€jobÏwas€never€in€jeopardy.€€She€continued€to€make€the€same€œwage€and›€receivedÏone€raise€during€the€two„year€period.€€Plaintiff€herself€voluntarily€chose€to€quitÏher€employment€and€seek€another€position.€€On€the€facts€of€this€case,€plaintiffððsÏreturn€to€work€by€Wal„Mart€was€ð ðmeaningfulðð€and€her€recovery€is€limited€to€twoÏand€one„half€times€the€medical€impairment€rating€rendered€by€the€expert(s)€inÏthis€case.€€ÌÌà àDefendant€argues€that€the€assessments€of€impairment€made€by€both€Dr.ÏTeddleton€and€Dr.€Barnett€may€not€be€considered€by€the€panel€because€they€doÏnot€comply€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50„6„204(d)(3),€which€€provides€in€pertinentÏpart€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àTo€provide€uniformity€and€fairness€for€all€parties,€anyÏmedical€report€prepared€by€a€physician€furnishing€medicalÏtreatment€to€a€claimant€shall€use€the€American€MedicalÏAssociation€Guides€to€the€Evaluation€of€Permanent€ImpairmentÏ(American€Medical€Association)€or€the€Manual€for€OrthopedicÏSurgeons€in€Evaluating€Permanent€Physical€ImpairmentÏ(American€Academy€of€Orthopedic€Surgeons).€€A€physician€shallÏutilize€the€most€recent€edition€of€either€publication€in€determiningÏthe€degree€of€anatomical€impairment.€€A€practitioner€shall€beÍrequired€to€give€an€impairment€rating€based€on€one€(1)€of€the€twoÏ(2)€publications€noted€above.ÌÌÌÌÌÓÓThis€panel€agrees€that€Dr.€Teddleton€did€not€correctly€interpret€the€AMA€GuidesÏin€assigning€a€permanent€impairment€of€twenty„eight€(28%)€percent.€€InÏparticular,€he€did€not€use€Table€75,€page€113,€of€the€AMA€Guidelines,€becauseÏhe€wanted€to€take€into€consideration€range€of€motion,€sensory€motor€weakness,Ïand€ligamentous€injuries.€€In€order€to€reach€his€stated€rating,€Dr.€Teddleton€usedÏTables€20€and€21,€page€151,€from€the€ð ðnervous€systemðð€section€of€the€AMAÏGuides.€€He€did€not€use€the€injury€model€or€the€range€of€motion€model€used€byÏDr.€Jones€and€Dr.€Barnett€in€assessing€spine€disorders.€€Therefore,€hisÏassessment€must€be€disregarded€altogether.ÌÌà àOur€determination€about€Dr.€Barnettððs€assessment€is€a€closer€one.€€Dr.ÏBarnett€saw€plaintiff€only€once,€but€he€reviewed€all€her€prior€medical€records.€ÏHe€agreed€with€Dr.€Jones€that€the€proper€reference€in€the€AMA€Guides€wasÏTable€75,€page€113.€€Wal„Mart€takes€issue€with€Dr.€Barnettððs€assessment€of€theÏexistence€of€a€herniated€disc.€€In€his€testimony,€however,€Dr.€Barnett€pointed€outÏthat€the€distinction€between€a€disc€that€is€bulging€and€one€that€is€herniated€isÏminor.€€He€referenced€a€portion€of€Dr.€Jonesðð€C„32€form€indicating€that€the€MRIÏshowed€ð ðannular€tears€posteriorly€at€L3„4,€œL4„5."›€€Dr.€Barnett€thereforeÏconcluded€that€it€was€appropriate€to€refer€to€the€disc€as€herniated€and€to€assessÏa€higher€impairment€rating.€€We€cannot€conclude€that€his€opinion€is€erroneous.€€ÌÌà àIn€determining€the€extent€of€vocational€disability,€the€trial€court€mustÏconsider€many€pertinent€factors,€in€addition€to€anatomical€disability,€includingÏage,€job€skills,€education,€training,€duration€of€disability,€job€opportunities€in€theÏlocal€area,€and€the€capacity€to€work€at€those€jobs€that€are€available.€ÏòòWorthington€v.€Modine€Manufacturing€Companyóó,€798€S.W.2d€232,€234€(Tenn.Ï1990).€€The€court€may€base€its€finding€of€extent€of€disability€on€both€expert€andÏnon„expert€opinions.€€òòEmployers€Insurance€Company€of€Alabama€v.€Heathóó,€536ÏS.W.2d€341,€342„43€(Tenn.€1976).€€When,€as€here,€the€medical€testimony€isÏpresented€by€deposition€and€C„32€form,€this€panel€is€able€to€make€its€ownÏindependent€assessment€of€the€medical€proof€to€determine€where€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€lies.€€òòCooper€v.€Insurance€Company€of€NorthÏAmericaóó,€884€S.W.2d€446,€451€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà àAfter€a€careful€review€of€the€record,€this€panel€finds€that€the€properÏunderlying€permanent€partial€disability€impairment€rating€is€ten€(10%)€percent€toÏthe€body€as€a€whole.€€Based€on€all€the€other€factors€required€to€be€considered,Ïthe€panel€awards€plaintiff€the€maximum€impairment€rating€to€which€she€isÏentitled€on€the€facts€of€this€case€„€two€and€one„half€times€the€underlying€rating,Ïor€twenty„five€(25%)€percent€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€ÌÌà@ àII.Ìà àThe€second€issue€raised€by€Wal„Mart€is€whether€it€should€be€required€toÍreimburse€plaintiff€for€unauthorized€medical€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð50„6„204(a)(4)€provides€that€an€employee€is€required€to€accept€medicalÏbenefits€afforded€by€the€employer,€provided€the€employer€designates€a€group€ofÏthree€or€more€reputable€physicians€or€surgeons€from€which€the€injuredÏemployee€may€choose.€€An€employee€who€is€dissatisfied€with€the€medical€careÏprovided€by€an€employer€is€under€a€duty€to€notify€the€employer€before€incurringÏalternative€medical€assistance.€€òòBuchanan€v.€Mission€Insurance€Companyóó,€713ÏS.W.2d€654€(Tenn.€1986).€€This€requirement€is€relaxed€only€if€an€employee€canÏshows€that€he€had€a€reasonable€excuse€for€not€consulting€with€the€employerÏbefore€incurring€the€expenses.€€òòHarris€v.€Kroger€Company,€Inc.óó,€567€S.W.2d€161Ï(Tenn.€1978).ÌÌÌÌà àIn€this€case€the€panel€finds€that€plaintiff€has€not€articulated€a€sufficientÏreason€for€returning€to€Dr.€Teddletonððs€care€without€notice.€€Over€sixteen€monthsÏelapsed€between€plaintiffððs€last€treatment€in€1994€and€her€return€in€œFebruary,›Ï1996.€€In€the€interim€she€had€reached€maximum€medical€improvement€and€hadÏbeen€released€from€all€further€care€and€treatment€by€her€authorized€treatingÏphysicians.€€Dr.€Teddleton€initiated€the€1996€contact€and€solicited€plaintiffððsÏreturn€by€suggesting€he€had€obtained€new€equipment€that€might€be€beneficial€toÏher€treatment.€€Plaintiff€was€aware€that€œWal„Mart›€disapproved€of€Dr.€TeddletonððsÏtreatment,€because€she€had€agreed€to€transfer€her€care€away€from€him€monthsÍearlier.€€At€no€time€did€she€contact€œdefendant›€or€seek€authorization€to€reinstituteÏtreatment€with€a€provider€who€€previously€œhad€been›€replaced.€€Therefore,Ïdefendant€is€not€responsible€for€paying€the€Teddleton€bill€in€the€amount€ofÏ$9,061.90.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed.€€The€case€is€remanded€to€theÏtrial€court€for€any€further€proceedings€necessary€to€effectuate€the€judgment€ofÏthis€panel.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€the€plaintiff„appellee.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€SPECIALÏJUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ______________________________________ÌJANICE€M.€HOLDER,€JUSTICEÌÌÌÌ______________________________________ÌHEWLITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌ̜р7ÑÇÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ X Ñà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÌPATRICIA€DIANE€HAYES,€à àà à)€à àGibson€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€H„3451Ìà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€George€R.€Ellis,€ChancellorÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌßJ€58;+'b|H´` Å `€@ÿJßà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌWAL„MART€STORES,€INC.,€à àà à)à àNO.€02S01„9705„CH„00048Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant„Appellant.à àà à)à àReversedÌÌÔ€2&ÔÌÌÌà@ àòòÔ€2XÔò òJUDGMENT€ORDERóóó óÌÌÓÓà 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€andÏconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€madeÏthe€judgment€of€the€Court.ÌÌà àà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€the€plaintiff„appellee.ÌÌà àà àIt€is€so€ordered€this€_____€day€of€_____________,€1998.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌÌHolder€and€Reid,€JJ.,€not€participatingÔ€9Ôà@ àÔ€2ÔÓÓÌ›