ÿWPC œV"È;½%°"DýCªM,˘\r±zʱ×çzæÕÌ&o*E©.ú*ç š½q_½\2“bÐSUOR¬º55}@PFYfUÈr· \qíëíJóxŸë®þÐŒÄsªÒGÌÎ7®V fÉõEWCfZxÀ,G@%Np-t˜Yàbwý¹fnúb†6 Ö~E ²–Lx‚;„ew»â¡P7z\ÿ|X?&¸üÑ…š×†eXÝKEƒïQE÷7]6Ü ²“³02Ø:Æ ýùÙ æ‡Èhc;¤t;Ê«wáwºXú™«ÝÓs€m{O_±~¸ y¸'C‘¾õ?8¸Wub³p#Â@Xœ®üG¥“,“~$_]tðv˰ªò}ø`d¶~S$SÙbe"Þ9µÂ>°µ2—KÚš  —g`¨¤ô±Ì§jvÖooªÜ zåÍ*U´øÂœ„ƒ)FÊpX¢Ì?œËfYnO⢿,£Ãféœ0¥í×ÕjÈñ²8çŒcM;'éPï9ø?îÕc鲤¹Ëcóۈݰ ‹JedÈâDcúþ´kxtÄàÃé¸èöÀ’)œWe›AÛmNH>§Rž´«xÌÜøú€#zÄ4vÀ«Mb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ U.N· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë N±N³Nµ z·E1Ò33333333333333333333333b 0ë     B øø 0¤ D3¹ D-ì 0K ASdÆ· 0¤} 0D! A«e˜HP LaserJet 4Si,ü,,,,,ü0»«¢[)â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÛuV) œ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt- ù-(|G2µ+$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€¾¤»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X°ãX»»Ô d(|3*$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€¾¤»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3*$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€¾¤»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¾¤»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼¾¤»»»ÔÑ8€°ãXXdð»»d8ÑÓ  ÓÐ  °ý  Ðà@@7 7 ìàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÐ È Ðà@@ƒƒìàAT€KNOXVILLEÐ à0 Ð(April€27,€2000€Session)Ð øH ÐÔ‡X°ãX»¼¾¤ÔÌò òÔ#†¼¾¤»XX°ãò#ÔWILLIAM€ALLEN€JONESòòóó€v.€TRAVELERS€CASUALTY&€SURETYÐ  P ÐCOMPANYòòóóÔ‡X°ãX»¼¾¤Ôó óÐ  h ÐÌà@@¼¼ìàò ò€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÐ  p Ðà@@ôôìàNo.€98„0157€€€€€€W.€Frank€Brown€III,€ChancellorÐ `  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<ß` AßÐ à0  ÐÌNo.€E1999„01548„Ô_ÔWCÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Mailed€Ð ß/  ÐDecided€Ô#†¼¾¤»XX°ã‘#ÔÔ‡X°ãX»¼¾¤ÔÐ Ï ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<®` AßÐ ¯ÿ Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓThis€workersðð€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workersðð€CompensationÐ ®þ ÐAppeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ò òððó óÔ#†¼¾¤»XX°ãp#ÔÔ‡X°ãX»¼¾¤Ô€50„6„225(e)(3)€forÐ žî Ðhearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€Ô#†¼¾¤»XX°ãý#ÔÔ‡X°ãX»¼¾¤ÔTheÐ ŽÞ Ðappellant„employee€appealed€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€that€his€injury€was€of€a€temporary€nature€andÐ ~Î Ðthat€appellee€was€only€liable€for€medical€expenses€to€the€date€of€the€trial.€€Appellant€argues€the€onlyÐ n¾ Ðexpert€medical€evidence€established€his€injury€was€of€a€permanent€nature.€€Judgment€of€the€trialÐ ^® Ðcourt€is€reversed€to€fix€permanent€disability€at€20%€to€the€body€as€a€whole€and€case€is€remanded€toÐ Nž Ðenforce€other€alternative€findings.Ð >Ž ÐÓ Óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)€(1999)€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ n ÐReversed€and€case€Remanded.ó óÐ ^ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÓ  ÓThayer,€Sp.€J.Ô#†¼¾¤»àX°ã¿#ÔÔ‡X°ãX.¼¾¤Ôóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòAnderson,€€C.€J.,óó€and€òòByers,€Sr.€J.óó,Ð î > Ðjoined.Ð Þ!.  ÐÌHarry€Weill,€of€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€William€Allen€Jones.Ð ¾#" ÐÌGary€A.€Cooper,€of€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee,€Travelers€Casualty€&€SuretyÐ ž%î $ ÐCompany.Ð Ž&Þ!% ÐÌÓO ÓÓ  Óò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼¾¤»XX°ãŒ #ÔÔ‡X°ãX»¼¾¤ÔòòÐ n(¾#' ÐÓ  ÓóóÔ#†¼¾¤»XX°ã{ #ÔÔ‡X°ãX»¼¾¤ÔÓ  Óòòò òÌFactsó óóóÐ N*ž%) ÐÓ ÓÌà  àThe€employee,€William€Allen€Jones,€has€appealed€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€that€his€injury€was€Ð .,~'+ Ðof€a€temporary€nature€and€that€defendant€insurance€carrier€was€only€liable€for€medical€expensesÐ ° Ðincurred€to€the€date€of€the€trial.Ð  ð ÐÌà  àPlaintiff€was€employed€as€a€millwright€during€February€1997€upon€the€premises€of€W.€R.Ð €Ð ÐGrace€and€Company€when€nitric€oxide€fumes€escaped€from€the€plant€and€overcame€several€workersÐ pÀ Ðincluding€plaintiff.Ð ` ° ÐÌà  àPlaintiff€testified€the€fumes€were€strong€enough€ð ðto€take€your€breath€awayðð€and€that€he€andÐ @  Ðanother€worker€went€outside€the€building€in€order€to€improve€their€breathing;€that€he€continued€toÐ 0 € Ðwork€but€became€nauseated€that€night,€coughed€a€lot€and€felt€like€he€had€the€flu;€upon€his€return€toÐ  p  Ðwork€on€a€Monday,€he€was€sent€to€see€the€company€doctor€along€with€other€workers.€€The€companyÐ `  Ðdoctor€treated€him€for€a€period€of€approximately€nine€months€and€then€referred€him€to€a€specialist.€Ð P  ÐHe€continued€to€work€for€his€employer,€S.€&€H.€Erectors,€Inc.,€until€December€1998€when€he€foundÐ ð@  Ðanother€job€in€a€better€work€environment€where€there€was€no€dust€or€welding€duties.Ð à0  ÐÌà  àHe€testified€his€condition€had€improved;€that€he€had€stopped€smoking€but€was€still€short€ofÐ À Ðbreath€and€could€not€work€in€an€area€where€there€was€dust€or€welding€fumes.€€His€mother,€Jewel€D.Ð ° ÐJones,€also€testified€as€to€his€being€sick€several€days€after€the€exposure€to€the€fumes.Ð  ð ÐÌà  àDr.€Joel€F.€Ginsberg,€a€Ô_ÔpulmonologistÔ_Ô,€testified€by€deposition€and€was€the€only€expertÐ €Ð Ðmedical€witness€before€the€court€except€for€the€notes€of€the€company€doctor€which€were€offered€intoÐ pÀ Ðevidence€for€the€limited€purpose€of€showing€or€establishing€the€date€of€the€incident€as€it€had€becomeÐ `° Ðsomewhat€disputed€whether€it€occurred€on€a€Friday€or€a€Saturday.Ð P  ÐÌà  àDr.€Ginsberg€stated€his€diagnosis€was€chronic€obstructive€pulmonary€disease€and€chronicÐ 0€ Ðasthmatic€bronchitis€by€history.€€He€opined€the€employee€had€improved€during€the€course€of€hisÐ  p Ðtreatment€and€that€the€improvement€was€from€the€moderate€to€mild€category.€€He€was€of€the€opinionÐ ` Ðhe€had€suffered€an€injury€from€inhaling€the€industrial€fumes€at€work€and€that€it€aggravated€his€priorÐ P Ðcondition.€€He€found€that€he€had€an€impairment€rating€of€0€„€25%€and€fixed€it€more€specifically€atÐ ð@ Ð12.5%€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€He€admitted€part€of€the€impairment€rating€would€likely€be€due€to€hisÐ à0 Ðhistory€of€smoking€but€he€could€not€separate€that€impairment€from€the€impairment€that€resulted€dueÐ Ð  Ðto€his€exposure€to€industrial€fumes€at€work.€€He€said€he€would€require€treatment€in€the€future€and€thatÐ À! Ðhis€work€environment€should€be€limited€in€order€to€avoid€exposure€to€an€irritating€environment.Ð °"  ÐÌà  àCo„worker,€Don€Moses,€testified€he€was€working€with€employee€Jones€when€the€incidentÐ $à" Ðoccurred€and€that€he€had€a€hard€time€breathing;€his€throat€was€raw€but€he€did€not€become€sick€asÐ €%Ð # Ðemployee€Jones€had€indicated.€€Another€employee,€Virgil€Lewis,€was€working€in€the€general€areaÐ p&À!$ Ðof€the€plant€and€suffered€a€headache€and€had€some€breathing€problems.€€He€said€that€later€he€usedÐ `'°"% Ða€part€of€a€bottle€of€oxygen€to€help€his€breathing.€€From€all€of€the€record,€it€appears€that€employeeÐ P( #& ÐJones€was€affected€more€by€the€fumes€than€the€other€workers.Ð @)$' ÐÌà  àDefense€witness€Roger€Mathews,€a€health€physicist€technician€for€the€employer,€testified€thatÐ  +p&) Ðprior€to€the€incident€in€question,€he€had€observed€plaintiff€coughing€and€wheezing.Ð ,`'* Їà  àIn€reaching€a€decision€on€the€issues,€the€trial€court€stated€he€was€not€convinced€from€theÐ ° Ðproof€that€permanent€disability€could€result€from€a€single€industrial€exposure€to€gas€fumes.€€TheÐ  ð Ðcourt€was€also€of€the€opinion€employee€Jones€had€fully€recovered€from€his€temporary€injury€and€cutÐ à Ðoff€any€future€medical€benefits€as€of€the€date€of€the€trial.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àAfter€judgment€was€entered,€the€employee€filed€a€motion€to€alter€or€amend€the€judgment€andÐ ` ° Ðupon€hearing€same,€the€court€made€an€alternative€ruling€that€if€the€claim€was€determined€to€be€of€aÐ P   Ðpermanent€nature,€the€award€of€benefits€would€be€fixed€at€20%€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole€asÐ @  Ðthe€employee€had€made€a€meaningful€return€to€work;€that€his€compensation€benefit€rate€was€$453.14Ð 0 € Ðand€certain€other€provisions€for€the€allowance€of€fees€and€costs.Ð  p  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àÌÓ  Óòòò òIssues€on€Appealó óóóÐ P  ÐÓ#"ÓÌà  àThe€sole€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€finding€of€the€trialÐ à0  Ðcourt€that€the€work„related€injury€was€of€a€temporary€nature.Ð Ð  ÐÓ  Óòòò òÌStandard€of€Reviewó óóóÐ ° ÐÓC#ÓÌà  àThe€review€of€the€issue€on€appeal€is€òòde€novoóó€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€theÐ à Ðcorrectness€of€the€findings€of€the€trial€court€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€Ð €Ð ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).€€The€general€rule€is€that€causation€and€permanency€of€an€injuryÐ pÀ Ðmust€be€shown€in€most€cases€by€expert€medical€evidence.€€òòÔ_ÔTindallÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔWaringÔ_Ô€Park€Ô_ÔAssððn.Ô_Ôóó,€725Ð `° ÐS.W.2d€935€(Tenn.€1987);€òòÔ_ÔSeayÔ_Ô€v.€Town€of€Ô_ÔGreenevilleÔ_Ôóó,€587€S.W.2d€381€(Tenn.€1979).€€AlthoughÐ P  Ðabsolute€certainty€is€not€required,€the€medical€proof€must€not€be€speculative€or€uncertain€withÐ @ Ðreference€to€cause€or€permanency.€€òòPatterson€v.€Tucker€Steel€Co.óó,€584€S.W.2d€792€(Tenn.€1979).Ð 0€ ÐÌà  àAn€employer€takes€an€employee€as€he€finds€him€or€her€and€is€liable€under€the€WorkersððÐ ` ÐCompensation€Act€for€disabilities€which€are€the€result€of€the€activation€or€aggravation€of€a€pre„Ð P Ðexisting€weakness,€condition€or€disease€brought€about€by€the€occupation.€€òòArnold€v.€Firestone€TireÐ ð@ Ð&€Rubber€Co.óó,€686€S.W.2d€65€(Tenn.€1984).€€See€alsoòò€Ô_ÔCrossnoÔ_Ô€v.€Public€Shirt€Factoryóó,€814€S.W.2dÐ à0 Ð730€(Tenn.€1991)€where€recovery€was€upheld€for€aggravation€of€pre„existing€asthmatic€bronchitisÐ Ð  Ðfrom€work„related€exposure€to€the€chemical€formaldehyde.Ð À! ÐÌà  àGenerally,€where€the€trial€court€has€seen€and€heard€witnesses€and€issues€of€credibility€andÐ  #ð! Ðthe€weight€of€oral€testimony€are€involved,€the€trial€court€is€usually€in€a€better€position€to€judgeÐ $à" Ðcredibility€and€weigh€evidence€but€where€evidence€is€introduced€by€deposition,€the€appellate€courtÐ €%Ð # Ðis€in€as€good€a€position€as€the€trial€court€in€reviewing€and€weighing€testimony.€€òòLanders€v.€FiremanððsÐ p&À!$ ÐFund,€Inc.óó,€775€S.W.2d€355,€356€(Tenn.€1989).Ð `'°"% Ðòòò òÓ  ÓÌConclusionó óóóÐ @)$' ÐÓ|,ÓÌà  àWe€are€of€the€opinion€the€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€the€finding€that€the€employeeÐ  +p&) Ðsustained€a€work„related€injury€of€a€permanent€nature€as€a€result€of€an€aggravation€of€his€pre„existingÐ ,`'* Ðcondition.Ð ° ÐÌà  àThis€question€must€be€determined€by€expert€medical€evidence€as€a€lay€person€or€the€trier„of„Ð à Ðfact€would€not€have€competent€knowledge€upon€which€to€make€this€determination.€€The€only€expertÐ €Ð Ðmedical€evidence€with€regard€to€causation€and€permanency€of€the€employeeððs€injury€was€theÐ pÀ Ðdeposition€testimony€of€Dr.€Joel€F.€Ginsberg,€who€was€a€specialist€in€the€practice€of€medicine€andÐ ` ° Ðwas€the€author€of€numerous€publications€regarding€respiratory€problems.€€Our€reading€of€hisÐ P   Ðtestimony€does€not€raise€any€question€in€our€mind€regarding€a€lack€of€credibility€of€his€testimony.€Ð @  ÐHe€was€clearly€of€the€opinion€that€the€employeeððs€breathing€of€industrial€fumes€caused€permanentÐ 0 € Ðinjury€to€the€employee€and€defendant€insurance€carrier€did€not€offer€any€evidence€that€would€conflictÐ  p  Ðwith€this€conclusion.€Ð `  ÐÌà  àIn€ruling€the€injury€to€be€of€a€temporary€nature€and€also€that€the€temporary€injury€hadÐ ð@  Ðcompletely€healed,€the€trial€judge€was€substituting€his€judgment€for€that€of€the€doctor€on€a€questionÐ à0  Ðor€issue€peculiarly€within€the€field€of€medicine.€€This€the€trial€court€cannot€do.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àWe€find€the€record€supports€the€conclusion€of€the€trial€court€in€his€alternative€ruling€that€theÐ ° Ðemployee€is€entitled€to€an€award€of€20%€permanent€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole€and€otherÐ  ð Ðfindings€with€regard€to€workersðð€compensation€benefit€rate,€fees,€etc.€and€that€the€case€should€beÐ à Ðremanded€for€entry€and€enforcement€of€the€alternative€ruling.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€action€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed€and€the€case€is€remanded.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€areÐ `° Ðtaxed€to€defendant€insurance€carrier.Ð P  ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð P Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àROGER€E.€THAYER,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÔ#†¼¾¤»XX°ãä #ÔÔ‡X°ãX»¼¾¤ÔÐ  ð@ ÐÔ#†¼¾¤»XX°ã­6#ÔÑ  ÑÑ  Ñà@™ ™ ìàÔ‡îâW ¾¤ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ Ü, ÐÔ#†¼¾¤» îîâW.7#ÔÔ‡X°ãX»¼¾¤ÔÌò òÔ#†¼¾¤»XX°ãÛ7#ÔÓ  ÓWILLIAM€ALLEN€JONES€òòóóv.€TRAVELERS€CASUALTY€&€SURETY€CO.Ô‡X°ãX»¼¾¤Ôó óÐ øH ÐÓ!8ÓÌà@ìì*ìàò òˆÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<ï ` A߈Ð ð @ ÐÌà@>>ìàNo.€E1999„01548„WCM„CVˆÐ ï ? Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àFiled:€October€27,€2000Ð ß /  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<Î ` AßÐ Ï   Ðó óÌÔ#†¼¾¤»XX°ãi8#ÔÔ‡X°ãX»¼¾¤Ôà@°°&ìàò òJUDGMENTó óÔ#†¼¾¤»XX°ãU:#ÔÔ‡X°ãX»¼¾¤ÔˆÐ Î  ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼¾¤»XX°ã·:#ÔÔ‡X°ãX»¼¾¤ÔÌÔ#†¼¾¤»XX°ã;#ÔÔ‡X°ãX»¼¾¤Ôà  àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€Travelers€Casualty€&€Surety€Co.ððs€motion€for€reviewÐ žî  Ðpursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50-6-225(e)(5)(B),€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€of€referralÐ ŽÞ  Ðto€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel's€Memorandum€Opinion€settingÐ ~Î Ðforth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ð n¾ ÐÌà  àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€review€is€not€well€taken€and€shouldÐ Nž Ðbe€denied;€and€Ð >Ž ÐÌà  àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€are€adoptedÐ n Ðand€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€judgment€of€the€Court.Ð ^ ÐÌà  àCosts€will€be€paid€by€Travelers€Casualty€&€Surety€Co.,€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÐ î> Ðnecessary.Ð Þ. ÐÌà  àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED.Ô#†¼¾¤»XX°ãY;#ÔÔ‡X°ãX»¼¾¤ÔÐ ¾ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àPER€Ô_ÔCURIAMÔ_ÔÐ ~"Î! ÐÌÌÌANDERSON,€C.J.,€NOT€PARTICIPATINGÔ#†¼¾¤»XX°ã¯?#ÔÔ‡X°ãX»¼¾¤ÔÐ >&Ž!% Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌÌà  àÔ#†¼¾¤»XX°ãÌ@#ÔÔ€X°ãX»¼¾¤Ô