WPC= x^^lɰĕ=+(#qrO+RVJc1r!Ά82f K g}1ɬĞWF>bp\_': JCW!l }Gfs*,xdZ)0.,LhVQWp akWlmi(|Z44ЅC`.nqKZ %i O"_d`-f&IY0 afCVE%<GU]*y! ;GhEqvl532aao2qj%xt\5fu\%yl[6k?casw52~=+A,cUg_\b,͈:mQ¢é`aFֻfOh/7Al58o?%⭄?Ob %\U @b 0U!N*x^ w z 4   m    j #0 N ANE zUNb000000000000000000000000000000000000 08888 B ## 0@ D5 D- 0KFF AS 0 0DN A(9 Z(Times New Roman (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular U-s  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt$w%-@3|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5\\IB27S11T\stats1,,,,0X[Z I&mage <=8C HKKKKC:\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(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular- -(|G2Y$ !.8dd8         0  XWX d(|3r$ !.8dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3r$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _8@XXdd8  @@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL & @@ATKNOXVILLE## L May23,2002Session "r X@X #XX@#DANIELM.JOHNSONv._SCHLEGEL_ԀTENNESSEE,INC.a/k/a/_BTR_  p SEALINGSYSTEMSNORTHAMERICAOPERATIONSd/b/a_BTR_,INC. 4  and_CIGNA_ԀPROPERTY&CASUALTYX@X  H   DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtfor_Loudon_ԀCounty H  No.9705FrankV.Williams,Chancellor 4  FiledOctober18,2002  \  AV) ` dE<` A 4 No.E200101570_WC_ԄR3CV / #XX@#AV) ` dE<` A /      ThisworkerscompensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkers P CompensationAppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.Code b Ann.506225(e)(3)forhearingandreportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsof $t factandconclusionsoflaw.Thedefendantappealsthetrialjudge'sdecisionthatthe 6 plaintiffhasapermanentdisabilitytothementalfacultieswhichwascausedby H exposuretochemicalsintheworkplace.Weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. Z    Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(1999)AppealasofRight;Judgmentofthe ~ ChanceryCourtisAffirmed       Byers,_Sr.J._X@X.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAnderson,J.,andThayer,_Sp.J._, ! joined. " F.R.Evans,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellants,_Schlegel_ԀTennessee,Inc.a/k/a_BTR_ԀSealing $! Systems,NorthAmericaOperationsd/b/a_BTR_,Inc.and_Cigna_ԀProperty&Casualty. % " RexA.Dale,_Lenoir_ԀCity,Tennessee,fortheappellee,DanielM.Johnson. f'"$    MEMORANDUMOPINION #XX@N #X@X >)$&   #XX@Q #X@XX@XXX@  Reviewofthefindingsoffactmadebythetrialcourtisdenovoupontherecordofthetrial +f&( court,accompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthefinding,unlessthepreponderanceof ,R') theevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.CodeAnn.#XX@ #X@X#X@XXX@ #X@XXX@506225(e)(2).Stonev.Cityof_McMinnville_,896 ,>(* S.W.2d548,550(Tenn.1995).#X@XXX@##XX@C#X@XԀX@XXX@TheapplicationofthisstandardrequiresthisCourttoweighinmore -*)+ _depththefactualfindingsandconclusionsofthetrialcourtsinworkerscompensationcases.See  Corcoranv.FosterAutoGMC,Inc.,746S.W.2d452,456(Tenn.1988).#X@XXX@##XX@#X@X_     Facts  t   Theplaintiffwasthirtyyearsofageatthetimeofthistrial.Hehadatwelfthgradeeducation L  withnocollege,butwastrainedvocationallyintheArmyasaheavyweldmechanic.Hebegan 8  workingforthedefendantsinMay,1991,asamoldoperatorproducingautomotiveseals.In1997 $ t hebeganworkingasa_coater_Ԁoperator,thepositionheheldatthetimeofthechemicalexposures  ` allegedinthiscauseofaction.  L    Theplaintiffsdutiesas_coater_Ԁoperatorrequiredhimtomixandpourtoxicchemical $  coatings,prime,coat,andbakepartsforautomotiveseals.Duringthisprocess,thevarious   chemicalsthathemixedwerefedintoareciprocatingdiskthatspunthechemicalsathighspeedinto   anaerosoltocoattheautomotivesealswhichmovedthroughthe_coater_Ԁonaproductionline.     Theplaintiffallegesthatfumesfromthisprocessweresupposedtobeventedoutbyan p exhaustfanthatdidnotwork.Whenhetoldhissupervisorthatthefandidnotwork,thesupervisor \ toldhimthatithadnotworkedinquiteawhile.Asaresult,theplaintiffalleges,oversprayfrom H thespinningreciprocatingdisklandedoutsidetheareaofthecoatingoperationandallaroundthe 4 floorintheareawhereheworked.  p   TheplaintiffallegesthatonMarch1,1998,hestartedhavingallergicreactionstothe H chemicalstowhichhewasbeingexposedatwork.Theeffectsofthesereactionsincludedrashes, 4 chemicalburnsonhisface,weltsalloverhisbody,discoloredskin,andlossofmotivation.He   reportedtheseproblemstohissupervisorandwenttotheemergencyroomfortreatmentofthe   symptoms.Overapproximatelythenexteighteenmonths,astheplaintiffcontinuedworking,the  symptomsappearedrepeatedlyandhecontinuedtobetreatedforthem.Duringthistimethe  defendantspaidsometemporarytotaldisabilitybenefitswhentheplaintiffneededtreatmentandwas  unabletowork. l   Inadditiontohisphysicalsymptoms,theplaintiffallegesthatmentalsymptomsbeganto D! appearfromhisexposuretothechemicalsatwork.Severalwitnessestestifiedattrialthatthe 0"  plaintiffwasemotionallyupset,hadlostweight,andwasnervousanddepressedfollowinghis #l! exposuretothechemicals.Witnessesalsodescribedtheplaintiffaspanicky,anxious,andparanoid. $X" Theplaintifftestifiedthathenowhasmemoryandmotivationproblemsaswellastroublesleeping $D # duetoanxiety. %0!$   Theplaintiffsawseveraldifferentpsychiatristsandpsychologistsfordiagnosisandtreatment '#& ofhismentalproblemsthatheallegeswerecausedbyhischemicalexposureintheworkplace.The (#' reportsofthesephysiciansledtothetrialcourtsfindingthattheplaintiffsuffersapsychological )$( problemthatwastriggeredbyaninitialallergicortoxicreactionthatledtosubsequentpsychological |*%) _eventswhichresultedinamajordepressiveepisode. h+&* Ї   MedicalEvidence   R   Themedicalevidenceforthepurposeoftheissueraisedinthisappealwaspresentedattrial  bythedepositionofDr.DavidSnow,M.D.,theplaintiffstreatingpsychiatristin_Maryville_, t Tennessee.Thetrialcourtalsoreceivedintoevidencethereportsofseveralothermedicaland ` psychiatricdoctorswhohadexaminedandtreatedtheplaintiff. L    Dr.SnowtestifiedthathebeganseeingtheplaintiffonOctober15,1998.Hisfinaldiagnosis $ t wasthattheplaintiffsufferedfrommajordepressivesyndrome.Hetestifiedthatitwashisopinion  ` thattheplaintiffsmentalconditionwascausedbyhisworkrelatedallergicortoxicreactions.Dr.  L  Snowtestifiedthattheplaintiffhadasteadyworkhistoryupuntiltheallergicreactionswhichforced  8  himoutofworkandcausedtheonsetofhisdepressionandanxiety,whichinturncausedhimtolose $  hisparttimejobs,creatingsignificantproblemsinhisfamilyandsociallife.Dr.Snowassignedthe   plaintiffwithaworkrelated,classIV,markedmentalimpairmentundertheFourthEditionofthe   AmericanMedicalAssociationGuides,whichheequatedtoafiftyfivetoseventyfivepercent   impairmenttothebodyasawholeundertheSecondEditionoftheAMAGuides.     Thereportsofotherphysicianstreatingtheplaintiffthatwerereceivedintoevidencebythe \ trialcourtvariedintheirdegreeofagreementwiththetestimonyofDr.Snowastocausationand H impairment.However,thetestimonyofDr.Snowwastheonlyexperttestimonyofferedbyeither 4 sideinthiscase.  p    Discussion  4 G(  Althoughwearerequiredtoweightheevidenceinacaseindepthtodeterminewherethe   preponderanceoftheevidencelies,wearerequiredtomakesuchevaluationwithintheconfinesof  establishedrulesinevaluatingtheproprietyofthetrialcourt.    X@XXX@Inordertobeeligibleforworkerscompensationbenefits,anemployeemustsuffer an l injurybyaccidentarisingoutofandinthecourseofemploymentwhichcauseseitherdisablement X  ordeath.Tenn.CodeAnn.506102(a)(5).Thephrase arisingoutofreferstocausation.The D! causationrequirementissatisfiediftheinjuryhasarational,causalconnectiontothework._Reeser_ 0"  v.YellowFreight_Sys_.,Inc.,938S.W.2d690,692(Tenn.1997)(citationsomitted);Finkv._Caudle_, #l! 856S.W.2d952(Tenn.1993).#X@XXX@)# $X"   Amentalinjurybyaccidentoroccupationaldiseasearisesoutofemploymentifcausedby %0!$ anidentifiable,stressfulworkrelatedeventproducingsuddenmentalstimulussuchasfright,shock, &"% orexcessiveunexpectedanxiety,andnotbygradualemploymentstressbuildingoveraperiodof '#& time._X@XXX@Andersonv.SaveALotLtd.,989S.W.2d277(Tenn.1999);Batsonv.CignaPropertyand (#' Cas.Co.,874S.W.2d566(Tenn.1994);Gatlinv.CityofKnoxville,822S.W.2d587(Tenn.1991); )$( Henleyv.RoadwayExpress,699S.W.2d150(Tenn.1985);Clevengerv.Plexco,etal,614S.W.2d |*%) 356(Tenn.1981);Josev.Equifax,Inc.,556S.W.2d82(Tenn.1977).Ifmentalillness_naturally h+&* flowsfromanotherwisecompensablephysicalinjury,thendisabilityresultingtherefromhasbeen  heldcompensableeventhoughthephysicalinjuryitselfmaynothavebeendisabling.Hillv.Eagle  BendMfg.,Inc.,942S.W.2d483(Tenn.1997);_Gluck_ԀBrothers,Inc.v.Pollard,221Tenn.383,426  S.W.2d763(1968);Buck&SimmonsAuto&ElectricSupplyCo.v._Kesterson_,194Tenn.115,250 t S.W.2d39(1952).#X@XXX@.# `   Thedefendantsarguethattheplaintiffhasnotmethisburdenofproofthatthepermanent 8  disabilitytothementalfacultieswascausedbytheexposuretochemicalsintheworkplace.In $ t supportofthiscontention,thedefendantsarguethatthereisnoevidencethatthechemicalsinthe  ` plaintiffsworkplaceinfactcausedtheinjuriesthatledtohismentalproblems.Thedefendantsalso  L  questiontheplaintiffscredibilityandarguethathewasnotentirelytruthfulwithDr.Snow,skewing  8  Dr.Snowsdiagnosissothatitwasinaccurate. $    X@XXX@Althoughcausationcannotbebaseduponmerelyspeculativeorconjecturalproof,absolute   certaintyisnotrequired.Anyreasonabledoubtinthisregardistobeconstruedinfavorofthe   employee.Wehavethusconsistentlyheldthatanawardmayproperlybebaseduponmedical   testimonytotheeffectthatagivenincident couldbethecauseoftheemployeesinjury,when p thereisalsolaytestimonyfromwhichitreasonablymaybeinferredthattheincidentwasinfactthe \ causeoftheinjury._Reeser_Ԁv.YellowFreight_Sys_.,Inc.,938S.W.2d690,692(Tenn.1997)(citations H omitted).Here,thetrialcourtinitsdiscretionacceptedthetestimonyofDr.Snow.Thetrialcourt 4 alsoheardthelivetestimonyoftheplaintiff.Wherethetrialjudgehasmadeadeterminationbased  p uponthetestimonyofwitnesseswhomhehasseenandheard,greatdeferencemustbegiventothat  \ findingindeterminingwhethertheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialjudgesdetermination. H SeeHumphreyv.David_Witherspoon_,Inc.,734S.W.2d315(Tenn.1987).#X@XXX@5#X@XXX@ 4   Afterhearingthepartiesevidenceinthiscase,thetrialcourtfoundthattheplaintiffhadmet   #X@XXX@;#hisburdenofproof.Thisdecisiontookintoaccountthetestimonyoftheonemedicalexpertinthis  case,aswellasthelivewitnessesattrial.Thetrialcourtmadethisdeterminationproperlywithin  itsdiscretionandwedonotdisturbthatdecisionastheevidenceintherecorddoesnotpreponderate  againstthetrialcourtsdecision.Thecostofthisappealistaxedtothedefendant. l    `     h     ___________________________________ $X"    `     h     JOHNK.BYERS,SENIORJUDGE  $D # XX@@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @$ATKNOXVILLE     DANIELM.JOHNSONv._SCHLEGEL_ԀTENNESSEE,INC.,ETAL.  6 ?@  ChanceryCourtfor_Loudon_ԀCounty  \ @77&No.9705  p @~~FiledOctober18,2002 H  @*AV) ` dE<[` A߈ \  @ No.E200101570SCWCMCV   AV) ` dE<` A    @GG( ORDER     ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtuponthemotionforreviewfiledby_BTR_ԀSealing P SystemsNorthAmericaTennesseeOperationsandACEUSAf/k/a_CIGNA_ԀProperty b &Casualty pursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.50-6-225(e)(5)(B),theentirerecord, $t includingtheorderofreferraltotheSpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPanel, 6 andthePanelsMemorandumOpinionsettingforthitsfindingsoffactand H conclusionsoflaw. Z   ItappearstotheCourtthatthemotionforreviewisnotwelltakenandis ~ thereforedenied.ThePanelsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichare  incorporatedbyreference,areadoptedandaffirmed.ThedecisionofthePanelis  madethejudgmentoftheCourt.     Costsareassessedtothedefendants/appellants,_Schlegel_ԀTennessee,Inc.,etal., "( forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. #: #B#   `     h     PER_CURIAM_ V*%%