ÿWPCJ 5U:ö %06n­F 04ó''Æ'ÆíƳÆyw4?4s 0J‡ 0TÑ 0^% 0hƒ 0rë 0|] 0†Ù 0_ 1uï 0dd AQÈ Æ 0Pß 0@/ 0Do D/³ Bâ Bÿ D3U6OB)…DC® AMñU*>hfl'Òv~ùvÓw<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiX#|x«<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiXÂxþ6X@É“8õ X@( ¤U$¡¡Ó  ÓLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Ó€  î DDDÓ€]tÁ$(2 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!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5((3Þ¸$¢¢Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d,,,,7Border 1dd!#-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial úÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌJuly€30,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌJuly€30,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ Ð ÒÙ€!ÙÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€.0-A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌÌVICKIE€SUE€HEIDEL,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€Ì€€€€€€€€Plaintiff/Appellee€€€€€€)€€PUTNAM€COUNTY€CIRCUIT€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï)€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìv.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€No.€01S01„9709„CV„00195€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï)€ÌBARNES€&€NOBLE€BOOKSTORES,€INC.€)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìand€ROYAL€INSURANCE€COMPANY,€€€€)€€HON.€JOHN€MADDUX,€JR.,€JUDGE€Ì€€€€€€€€Defendants/Appellants€€€)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTSóó:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌRANDOLPH€A.€VEAZEY€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€SONYA€W.€HENDERSON€€€€ÌCONNIE€JONES€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€218€West€Main€StreetÌGLASCOW€&€VEAZEY€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Suite€1€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌWashington€Square€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Murfreesboro,€Tennessee€37130Ì222€Second€Ave.,€North€ÌSuite€312ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201„1649€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONóóÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àMEMBERS€OF€PANELÌÌà@ àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA,€III,€ASSOCIATE€JUSTICEÌà@ àJOHN€K.€BYERS,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌà@ àWILLIAM€S.€RUSSELL,€RETIRED€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED,€AS€MODIFIED€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€RUSSELL,€SP.€J.ÌÌÌÓÓÑ7€.XXdÈXXdÈ7Ñà àThis€appeal€in€a€workers'€compensation€case€has€beenÏreferred€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€ofÏthe€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏSection€50„6„225€(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€SupremeÏCourt€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.ÌÌà àThe€plaintiff/appellee€employee,€Vicki€Sue€Heidel,€wasÏworking€as€a€janitor€for€the€State€of€Tennessee€at€TennesseeÏTechnological€University€when€she€sustained€a€low€back€sprain€orÏstrain€while€lifting€a€waste€basket€on€January€31,€1992.€€HerÏworkers'€compensation€claim€against€the€State€of€Tennessee€wasÏresolved€upon€an€adjudication€of€a€resultant€6%€permanent€partialÏdisability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.ÌÌà àOn€January€13,€1993,€while€working€as€a€cashier€in€theÏbookstore€at€that€same€university€she€again€injured€her€back€byÍlifting€a€heavy€sack€of€books€at€the€check„out€counter.€€ThisÏinjury€was€diagnosed€as€a€ruptured€lumbar€disc€at€L5„S1.€€AÏlaminectomy€was€performed€in€April€of€1993€by€Dr.€BennettÏBlumenkopf,€M.D.,€a€neurological€surgeon.€€Plaintiff€retained€aÏ10%€permanent€partial€anatomical€impairment€to€the€body€as€aÏwhole,€and€concluded€this€workers'€compensation€claim€byÏreceiving€an€award€before€the€Claims€Commission€of€TennesseeÏbased€upon€25%€permanent€partial€vocational€disability€to€theÏbody€as€a€whole.ÌÌà àDr.€Blumenkopf€restricted€her€from€lifting€over€20€pounds;Ïand€advised€against€stooping,€bending,€lifting,€or€prolongedÏsitting€or€standing.€€She€was€unable€to€work€from€the€injury€dateÏof€January€13,€1993€through€June€16,€1993.€€Thereafter,€she€hadÏto€build€up€to€full€time€work€over€a€protracted€period.€€In€timeÏthe€bookstore€operation€was€taken€over€by€theÏdefendant/appellant,€Barnes€&€Noble€Bookstores,€Inc.,€and€sheÏbecame€their€employee.€€She€was€allowed€accommodations€such€as€aÏchair€with€padded€seat€and€back,€was€permitted€to€alternately€sitÏand€stand€and€did€not€have€to€vacuum,€clean€or€lift.€€SheÏtestified€that€there€were€days€when€she€would€have€nerve€spasmsÏin€her€leg€or€from€her€back€to€her€legs,€and€"she€missed€a€lot€ofÏwork".€€She€had€ongoing€medical€treatment€for€her€chronic€backÏpain€through€May€of€1994,€immediately€preceding€a€new€back€injuryÏsuffered€on€or€about€July€15,€1994.ÌÌà àDr.€Blumenkopf€diagnosed€a€recurrent€disc€herniation€at€L5„S1,€and€again€treated€it€surgically.€€He€opined€that€as€a€resultÏof€this€injury€and€resultant€surgery€that€the€plaintiff€retainedÏan€additional€2%€permanent€partial€impairment€to€the€body€as€aÏwhole€in€addition€to€the€10%€which€resulted€from€the€firstÏsurgery.€€He€testified€that€she€reached€maximum€medicalÏimprovement€in€February€of€1995.€€She€was€released€to€return€ifÏthe€need€arose.€€She€returned€in€August,€1995,€complaining€ofÏpain€in€the€right€leg.€€Another€M.R.I.€at€that€time€showedÏscarring,€but€nothing€requiring€surgery.€€Physical€therapy€wasÏprescribed,€as€well€as€medicines.€€Reiterating€the€restrictionÏthat€she€should€not€lift€over€20€pounds,€he€testified€that€thereÏwas€no€reason€that€she€could€not€work.ÌÌà àThe€plaintiff,€along€with€four€other€employees,€wasÏterminated€on€August€8,€1994.€€She€was€given€12€weeks€ofÏseverance€pay.€€Her€supervisor,€Judy€Vandever,€testified€byÏdeposition€that€she€knew€nothing€of€the€alleged€new€back€injuryÏof€July€1994€that€brought€on€the€second€surgery.€€She€said€thatÏshe€never€asked€the€plaintiff€to€do€anything€other€than€operateÏthe€cash€register.€€ÌAfter€leaving€this€job,€plaintiff€worked€for€a€brief€period€on€aÏproduction€line€making€rubber€stamps.€€She€has€applied€for€otherÏjobs€within€her€capabilities.ÌÌà àPlaintiff's€counsel€had€Dr.€David€Gaw,€M.D.,€to€perform€anÍevaluation€examination€of€the€plaintiff,€and€a€review€of€herÏmedical€records.€€He€concurred€with€the€opinion€of€Dr.ÏBlumenkopf,€that€Ms.€Heidel€sustains€a€10%€permanent€partialÏimpairment€from€her€1993€disc€herniation€and€surgery,€and€anÏadditional€2%€permanent€partial€impairment€rating€resulting€fromÏthe€second€lumbar€disc€surgery.€€However,€he€assigned€anÏadditional€11%€impairment€for€loss€of€range€of€motion.€€He€wasÏunable€to€say€how€much€disability€she€retained€from€loss€of€rangeÏof€motion€following€the€1993€surgery.ÌÌà àThe€trial€of€this€case€was€unique.€€The€parties€stipulatedÏthat€the€plaintiff€has€a€50%€vocational€disability€to€the€body€asÏa€whole.€€The€problem€is€that€counsel€for€the€defendant€perceivedÏthis€to€be€the€aggregate€sum€of€her€disabilities€from€all€threeÏof€her€back€injuries,€while€plaintiff's€counsel€deemed€theÏstipulation€to€be€that€Ms.€Heidel€sustained€a€50%€anatomical€andÏvocational€disability€form€the€third€back€injury.€€With€theÏstipulation,€the€parties€asked€the€court€to€determine:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWhether€defendants€are€liable€for€theÏtotality€of€plaintiff's€present€50%€permanentÏpartial€disability€to€which€the€partiesÏstipulated.ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€trial€court€found,€as€a€matter€of€law,€that€theÏdefendants€are€liable€for€the€entire€stipulated€50%€permanentÏpartial€disability.ÌÌà àIt€is€the€position€of€the€defendants€that€they€should€beÏcredited€with€the€prior€31%€paid€for€the€first€two€injuries,Ïleaving€them€liable€for€19%.ÌÌà àWhen,€during€the€course€of€the€initial€hearing€and€twoÏsubsequent€telephonic€hearings,€the€absence€of€mutual€agreementÏas€to€the€meaning€of€the€stipulation€became€apparent,€the€trialÏcourt€offered€the€parties€a€trial€on€the€facts€without€theÏstipulation.€€This€was€declined.€€Under€the€circumstances,€theÏtrial€court€proceeded€to€judgment.€€Since€50%€permanent€partialÏvocational€disability€was€found,€it€is€fair€to€assume€that€theÏtrial€court€felt€bound€by€the€stipulation.ÌÌà àUnder€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€we€are€of€theÏopinion€that€there€was€no€binding€stipulation.€€If€the€50%Ïrepresented€nothing€but€disability€resulting€from€the€thirdÏinjury,€as€the€plaintiff€contends€and€had€consistently€contended,Ïthen€the€issue€submitted€to€the€court€was€meaningless,€asÏcertainly€the€plaintiff€would€have€been€entitled€to€fully€recoverÏfor€the€disability€generated€alone€by€the€third€injury.€€It€isÏequally€obvious€that€the€defendants€would€not€have€stipulated€toÏa€recovery€for€50%,€without€hope€of€credit.ÌÌà àThe€result€was€that€the€trial€judge€was€misled€into€anÏacceptance€at€face€value€of€a€stipulation€that€was€never€agreedÍto.€€We,€therefore,€review€the€result€with€a€view€to€determine€ifÏin€fact€and€law€the€judgment€should€be€affirmed€or€modified.€€WeÏhave€before€us€the€deposition€evidence€of€the€necessary€witnessesÏto€the€relevant€facts.ÌÌà àOur€review€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,Ïaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findingsÏbelow,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€ÏT.C.A.€Sec.€50„6„225€(3)(2)(1991).€€This€standard€of€reviewÏrequires€this€court€to€weigh€in€depth€the€factual€findings€andÏconclusions€of€the€trial€court.€€òòHumphrey€v.€David€Witherspoon,ÏInc.óó,€734€S.W.€2d€315€(Tenn.€1987).ÌÌà àThe€extent€of€vocational€disability€is€a€question€of€fact€toÏbe€determined€from€all€of€the€evidence,€including€lay€and€expertÏtestimony.€€òòWorthington€v.€Modine€Mfg.€Co.óó,€798€S.W.€2d€232,€234Ï(Teen€1990).ÌÌà àA€medical€expert's€rating€of€anatomical€disability€is€one€ofÏthe€relevant€factors,€but€the€vocational€disability€is€notÏrestricted€to€the€precise€estimate€of€anatomical€disability€madeÏby€a€medical€witness.€€òòCorcoran€v.€Foster€Auto€GMC,€Inc.óó,€746ÏS.W.€2d€452,€458€(Tenn.€1988).ÌÌà àWhen€the€medical€testimony€is€presented€by€deposition,€as€itÏwas€in€this€case,€this€court€is€able€to€make€its€own€independentÍassessment€of€the€medical€proof€to€determine€where€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€lies.€€òòLanders€v.€Fireman's€FundÏIns.€Co.óó,€775€S.W.€2d€355,€356€(Tenn.€1987);€òòHenson€v.€City€ofÏLawrenceburgóó,€851€S.W.€2d€809,€812€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€Ms.€Heidel€never€recovered€from€her€initialÏlaminectomy,€for€which€she€was€adjudged€to€be€25%€permanentlyÏpartially€disabled.€€She€was€restricted€in€what€she€could€do€andÏhad€chronic€back€pain.€€A€substantial€part€of€her€presentÏdisability€has€its€genesis€in€the€first€disc€rupture.€€HerÏrestrictions€now€are€substantially€the€same,€but€with€newÏappreciation€of€the€necessity€to€abide€by€them.ÌÌà àIt€is€our€judgment€that€the€recurrent€disc€herniation€thatÏis€the€basis€for€this€lawsuit€has€resulted€in€a€25%€newÏvocational€disability€to€the€plaintiff.€€We€reduce€the€50%€foundÏby€the€trial€court€to€25%€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€AsÏso€modified,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.€€ÌÌà àWe€overrule€the€contention€that€the€trial€judge€should€notÏhave€awarded€discretionary€costs,€and€affirm€that€award.ÌÌ€€€€Costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€to€the€appellants.Ìà àÌÓÓÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÍWILLIAM€S.€RUSSELL,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóFRANK€F.€DROWOTA,€III,€ÌASSOCIATE€JUSTICE€Ì€ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóJOHN€K.€BYERS,€SENIOR€JUDGE€€Ì€ÌÒ  ÒÒ £ ÒòòÑ€1ÑÇßJ€.2;+'b|*$` ç `€@ÿJßà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌVICKIE€SUE€HEIDEL,à àà àà à}à àPUTNAM€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à}à àNo.€NJ„6122€BelowÌà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà àà à}Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à}à àHon.€John€J.€Maddux,€Jr.Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à}à àJudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à}ÌBARNES€&€NOBLE€BOOKSTORES,à à}ÌINC.€and€ROYAL€INSURANCE€CO.,à à}à àNo.€01S01„9709„CV„00195Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à}Ìà àDefendants/Appellantsà à}à àAFFIRMED,€AS€MODIFIED.ÌÌÌà@ àJUDGMENT€ORDERÌÌÌÓ€Óà àà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,Ïincluding€the€order€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'ÏCompensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel's€Memorandum€OpinionÏsetting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€whichÏare€incorporated€herein€by€reference.Ìà àà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€MemorandumÏOpinion€of€the€Panel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌà àà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€ofÏfact€and€conclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€theÏdecision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€judgment€of€the€Court.ÌÓ ` ` šXÓà àà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€Barnes€&€Noble€Bookstores,€Inc.Ïand€Royal€Insurance€Company,€Principals,€and€Glasgow€&€Veazey,ÏSurety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÓÓà àà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€on€July€30,€1998.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌóóÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ