ÿWPCµ# …# VUNa %¯ 0ûµU:° 4ê þ    w@# 0?c 0D¢ Ææ ƬÆrÆ8 0Jþ 0TH 0^œ 0hú 0rb 0|Ô 0†P 0Ö 1uf 0dÛ B? D3\U> 0@ÍU * U*7B)aDCŠ AMͽU6ײ v~¿vÓ= AO"Æ_" 0D%# D/i# B˜#˜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 RegularœZ;$3|xH vwz{|}~D€D(ï(3óø$¤¤Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XHþXXXÔÑ7€uOXXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 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 d$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd€-1Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ³Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€.ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌò òFebruaryÏ18,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€.ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó< Œ 9p`(Courier New ¨Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€.ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌò òFebruaryÏ18,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€.ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿáùEG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””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 ÞÌÌÌÙ€€Ùó óœßR€231A1-j|tM` 81 `€€@ÿRß›à@ àò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌWORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌKNOXVILLE,€SEPTEMBER€1997€SESSIONó óÌÓ  ÓÌœà àà àà àà àà àà àà à›ÌÌÌÌÌSHARON€GAIL€JONESà àà àà à)à àANDERSON€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€James€B.€Scott,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àCircuit€JudgeÌMODINE€MANUFACTURINGà àà à)ÌCOMPANY€and€SENTRYà àà àà à)ÌINSURANCE€COMPANYà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellantsà àà à)à àNO.€03S01„9703„CV„00028ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€the€Appellants:à àà àà àà àFor€the€Appellee:Ìó óóóÌGeorge€H.€Buxton€IIIà àà àà àà àRoger€L.€RidenourÌ31€East€Tennessee€Ave.à àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€530ÌOak€Ridge,€Tenn.€37830à àà àà àà à108€S.€Main€St.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àClinton,€Tenn.€€37717„0530ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òòòM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌò òòòMembers€of€Panel:ÌÌó óóóE.€Riley€Anderson,€Chief€JusticeÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED.à àà àà àà àà àà àTHAYER,€Special€JudgeÌÌÓÓà 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 àThe€appeal€has€been€perfected€by€defendants,€Modine€ManufacturingÏCompany€and€Sentry€Insurance€Company,€from€a€decision€of€the€trial€courtÏawarding€plaintiff,€Sharon€Gail€Jones,€45%€permanent€partial€disability€to€her€rightÏarm.Ìà àTwo€issues€are€being€raised€by€the€employer€and€insurance€company.€€First,Ïit€is€argued€the€award€is€excessive.€€Second,€it€is€insisted€the€trial€court€was€in€errorÏin€holding€defendants€liable€for€charges€and€expenses€of€Dr.€Paul€T.€Naylor,€anÏorthopedic€surgeon.Ìà àPlaintiff€is€42€years€of€age€and€a€high€school€graduate.€€During€SeptemberÏ1995€she€began€to€have€problems€with€her€hand€and€arm€tingling€and€beingÏpainful.€€She€reported€the€problem€to€her€employer€and€was€sent€to€see€Dr.€R.€AlanÍRice,€a€family€practitioner.€€Dr.€Rice€eventually€referred€her€to€Dr.€Joseph€C.ÏDeFiore,€an€orthopedic€surgeon.Ìà àDr.€DeFiore€saw€her€three€times.€€One€visit€was€during€November€1995€andÏthe€other€two€visits€were€during€December€of€the€same€year.€€Plaintiff€testified€thatÏall€he€did€was€to€give€her€a€cortisone€shot€and€advised€her€to€return€to€light€dutyÏwork.€€She€returned€to€work€but€still€had€the€same€problems.€€At€her€last€visit,€sheÏsaid€he€advised€her€to€change€jobs€and€released€her.€€The€doctor€testified€she€hadÏa€carpal€tunnel€syndrome€injury€and€was€of€the€opinion€she€had€no€medicalÏimpairment.€€He€admitted€releasing€her€and€recommending€that€she€should€not€doÏrepetitive€work€as€she€had€performed€in€the€past.Ìà àPlaintiff€testified€she€was€laid„off€about€January€1996€and€was€never€calledÏback€to€work.€€During€this€month,€counsel€filed€a€motion€requesting€her€employer€toÏdesignate€a€panel€of€three€orthopedic€surgeons€for€treatment.Ìà àPlaintiff€continued€to€have€problems€with€her€injury€while€off€from€work€andÏsought€treatment€from€Dr.€Paul€T.€Naylor,€another€orthopedic€surgeon.€€Dr.€NaylorÏsaw€her€three€times€also:€April€18,€1996,€September€19,€1996€and€October€14,Ï1996.€€He€also€found€she€was€suffering€from€a€carpal€tunnel€syndrome€injury€andÏtold€plaintiff€that€surgery€was€necessary€to€relieve€some€of€her€problems.€€TheÏdoctor€was€of€the€opinion€she€had€a€10%€medical€impairment€to€her€right€arm€andÏshe€should€avoid€repetitive€assembly„line€work€where€grasping€and€lifting€wasÏinvolved.Ìà àThe€motion€filed€in€January€1996€came€on€to€be€heard€on€October€14,€1996,Ïthe€same€day€of€her€last€visit€to€Dr.€Naylor.€€Although€the€motion€requested€theÏdesignation€of€three€physicians,€the€order€overruling€the€motion€merely€stated€theÏcourt€was€denying€the€request€for€treatment€by€Dr.€Naylor€but€if€it€later€appeared€thatÍadditional€treatment€by€Dr.€Naylor€was€necessary,€the€court€would€reexamine€theÏrequest.Ìà àThe€case€came€on€to€be€finally€heard€on€November€25,€1996,€when€the€courtÏfound€the€claim€compensable;€fixed€the€award€and€found€the€treatment€rendered€byÏDr.€Naylor€to€be€necessary€and€ordered€plaintiff€to€be€reimbursed€for€this€medicalÏexpense.€€Sometime€after€entry€of€the€final€judgment,€plaintiff€filed€a€motionÏrequesting€authorization€for€surgery€by€Dr.€Naylor€and€the€court€granted€the€reliefÏrequested.Ìà àDr.€Craig€Colvin,€a€vocational€rehabilitation€counselor,€testified€plaintiff€wasÏabout€65„70%€vocationally€disabled.€€Dr.€James€Calvin€Roberson,€also€a€vocationalÏconsultant,€found€the€disability€to€be€in€the€range€of€15„20%.Ìà àThe€review€of€the€case€is€de€novo€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€theÏcorrectness€of€the€findings€of€fact€unless€we€find€from€our€review€the€preponderanceÏof€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).Ìà àThe€first€issue€claims€the€award€of€45%€disability€to€the€right€arm€isÏexcessive.€€Plaintiff€testified€that€she€was€still€having€difficulty€with€her€hand€and€armÏeven€though€she€was€not€working.€€She€stated€she€did€not€have€any€strength€in€herÏright€hand€to€grip;€that€her€arm€felt€heavy€at€time€and€she€was€not€able€to€doÏhousework.Ìà àIn€considering€her€age,€education,€prior€work€experience,€medicalÏimpairment€and€all€other€factors€one€must€take€into€consideration,€we€cannot€sayÏthe€evidence€preponderates€against€the€amount€of€the€award.Ìà àThe€second€issue€challenges€the€holding€of€the€trial€court€in€requiringÏdefendants€to€be€liable€for€expenses€of€Dr.€Naylor,€pre„trial€and€post„trial.€€We€doÏnot€find€any€merit€to€this€argument.€€When€the€employee€reported€the€injury€to€herÍemployer,€plaintiff€testified€she€was€not€advised€of€a€panel€of€three€physicians€fromÏwhich€a€choice€could€be€made.€€She€was€merely€referred€to€Dr.€Rice.€€DefendantsÏdid€not€introduce€any€conflicting€evidence€on€this€point.€€During€argument€at€the€trialÏcourt,€counsel€for€defendants€stated€a€list€of€three€physicians€was€furnished€a€fewÏdays€after€Dr.€Naylorððs€deposition€was€taken€on€October€25,€1996.€€We€find€thisÏwould€have€been€after€the€three€visits€to€Dr.€Naylor€and€about€one€month€before€theÏtrial.€€However,€statements€of€counsel€in€the€argument€stage€of€a€trial€do€notÏconstitute€evidence€and€we€must€conclude€there€is€no€admissible€evidenceÏindicating€compliance€with€the€provisions€of€our€statute,€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„204(a)(4).Ìà àThis€subsection€of€the€statute€provides:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ H ÒÓÓð ðThe€injured€employee€shall€accept€the€medical€benefits€afforded€hereunder;Ïprovided,€that€the€employer€shall€designate€a€group€of€three€(3)€or€moreÏreputable€physicians€or€surgeons€not€associated€together€in€practice,€ifÏavailable€in€that€community,€from€which€the€injured€employee€shall€have€theÏprivilege€of€selecting€the€operating€surgeon€or€the€attending€physician;€.€.€.€.ððÌÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÌÓÓà àSince€we€must€conclude€a€list€of€three€physicians€was€not€furnished€toÏplaintiff,€the€question€arises€as€to€whether€she€acted€in€good€faith€in€seeking€aÏphysician€of€her€choice.€€We€think€she€was€justified€in€seeking€treatment€from€Dr.ÏNaylor.€€Our€review€of€the€record€indicates€the€employee€was€led€to€believe€Dr.ÏDeFiore€could€not€help€her€further€and€the€discharge€of€the€patient€seems€to€beÏevidence€supporting€this€belief.Ìà àIn€the€case€of€òòForest€Products€v.€Collins,óó€534€S.W.2d€306€(Tenn.€1976),€theÏemployee€was€not€furnished€a€list€or€panel€of€three€physicians€but€was€referred€to€aÏsingle€ð ðcompany€doctorðð€who€after€examination,€dismissed€her€and€directed€sheÏreturn€to€work.€€The€court€held€the€employee€acted€reasonably€in€seeking€medicalÏtreatment€of€her€choice€and€the€employer€was€liable€for€such€treatment.€€òòSee€alsoÍEmployers€Insurance€of€Wausau€v.€Carter,óó€522€S.W.2d€174,€176€(Tenn.€1975)€for€aÏsimilar€ruling.Ìà àTherefore,€we€hold€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€findingsÏof€the€trial€court.€€The€judgment€is€affirmed€in€all€respects.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€areÏtaxed€to€defendants.€ÌÌœÌÌ›ÌÌÓÓÔ% € Ôà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRoger€E.€Thayer,€Special€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌE.€Riley€Anderson,€Chief€JusticeÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€Judge€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœÇÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€4ÔÔ€4&ÔßJ€25;+'b|þÿ` # `€@ÿJß›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌœ›à@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌSHARON€GAIL€JONES,à àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ì€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee,à àà à(€€Anderson€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€No.€95LA0502Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€Hon.€James€B.€Scott,ÌÒ € ÒÒ h Òv.à àà àà àà àà àà à(€€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€S.€Ct.€No.€03S01„9703„CV„00028€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(ÌÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒMODINE€MANUFACTURING€COMPANYà à(ÌAND€SENTRY€INSURANCE€COMPANY,à à(ÌÒ € ÒÒ X Òà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€ÌÒ € ÒÒ 8 Ò€€€€€Defendants„Appellants.à à(€€AFFIRMED.ÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à€€€€€€€òòà8 ààH.ààH.ààHŽŽ'àò òJUDGMENT€ORDERóóó óÌÓÓà àÌà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€motion€for€reviewÏpursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(5)(B),€the€entireÏrecord,€including€the€order€of€referral€to€the€SpecialÏWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel'sÏMemorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€byÏreference;Ìà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€forÏreview€is€not€well€taken€and€should€be€denied;€andÌà 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.€€Ìà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€the€defendants„appellants,€forÏwhich€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ìà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€this€œ18th›€day€of€œFebruary,€1998.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌAnderson,€C.J.€„€Not€participating.ÌÔ€.ÔÔ€.XÔ›