WPC xPE؂0.S0q+5/وyӝgƆt$OO} ^&kp%SDs_#[xQFOP R* FpDVP\z%(= k!Q]f]Ab“AJlzvDs PŎ&OOf8ѬSݯQ:/=SgGya3]pWoE2$|*尰BNA% _985`IyQ-\ :&W'ĹmkQ,ϋUҡ)l-m?11󬞞7E5>0?4 V к9;لb̯iLx2 ӦUlpy7Q#r:iD$9 )4-!l;?qy! w&q;IUBKCT u\ըt4Bn~TkGvLckb#\ % w# 0' U$N 4  z  ^ l x mz N  Y   zN% 0D'kE==?[Nb 0 B  0 D3M D- 0K ASK 0 0D AHP LJ 4000/4050 PCL 5e,,,,0(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regulardb,x|Q3|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptX{, ULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPT()$  3  C:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt  Rs$      1  %   _ԀThetrialcourtfurtherstated thecourtfindsthatshesgottheworkrelatedinjurythatoccurredandshesgot  permanentdisabilityonthat.Ontopofthatshesgotpsychologicalinjuriesthathavebeenbroughtaboutbythework t _injury._ 8   Apsychologicalinjurywasnotallegedineither_complaint,_Ԁandthereisnoproofof,orreferenceto, L psychologicalinjuryintherecordorthebriefs.Wenotethatthetrialjudgereferredtothe workinjury[inthesingular]  withoutfurtherelucidationastowhichextremity,orshoulder,wasaffected,althoughhethereafterstated bythetime  youlookatbothshoulders....XYX % Q Rs$      2  %   _Ԁ__Eachphysiciantestifiedbydeposition._ԀTherefore,thetrialcourtsevaluationoftheexperttestimonyisnot  _afforded_Ԁdeferenceasincaseswhereexperttestimonyisofferedinthepresenceofthetrialcourt.See, _Elmore_Ԁv. t Traveler ,824S.W.2d541(Tenn.1992).XYX % Rs$      3  %   _ԀTheoriginoftheextraonehalfpercentisnotrevealedintherecord.XYX %- -(|G2s$ !..8Vdd8         0  %  d(|3$ !..8Vdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !..8Vdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Vdd8     _    I@@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL & @@ATNASHVILLE#VI#VV L October18,2001Session "r #VV# VVHEATHERLYNNKEYv.AMERICANINSURANCECOMPANY#VV#  F  XYXV@@ DirectAppealfromtheCriminalCourtforMaconCounty l  @@No.99104&99147J.O.Bond,Judge X  @@*AV) ` dE<` A l  No.M200100980_WC_ԄR3CVMailedJanuary15,2002 g  FiledMay29,2002 S  AV) ` dE<` A +      ThisworkerscompensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkersCompensation & AppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)for  hearingandreportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.Thetrial  courtfoundtheplaintifftobe22percentanatomicallyimpaired,andappliedamultiplierof2  timesinawardingbenefitsbasedupona56.25vocationalpercentimpairment.Theevidence  preponderatesagainstafindingof22percentanatomicalimpairment. r    Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(1999)AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourt J AffirmedasModified  6     WilliamH._Inman_,Sr.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAdolphoA.Birch,Jr.,J. ^ andHowellN.Peoples,Sp.J.,joined. J WilliamR._Pigue_ԀandA.AllenSmith,III,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,American  " InsuranceCompany. !  WilliamJosephButlerandE.Guy_Holliman_,Lafayette,Tennessee,fortheappellee,HeatherLynn #" Key. $# R  MEMORANDUMOPINION  Z&!%      Background  2(#'    OnMarch18,1999,theplaintifffiledacomplaintforworkerscompensationbenefits  *Z%) resultingfromallegedinjuriestoherrightshoulder,armandneck. *F&*   OnMay19,1999,shefiledanothercomplaintforworkerscompensationbenefitsresulting ,(,  - )- fromallegedinjuriestoherleftshoulderandarm.    Thedefendantrespondedthattheplaintiffcontinuedtowork,thatherinjurieswereminimal,  andthatshesufferednosignificantanatomicalimpairmentorvocationaldisability. t   Thecaseswereconsolidatedfortrial.Thetrialcourtfoundthattheplaintiffsustaineda22 L  percentanatomicalimpairmentresultingina56.25percentvocationalimpairmentandawarded 8  benefitsaccordingly. $ t   Thedefendantappeals,insistingthattheawardisexcessivebecausethefindingsarenot  L  supportedbycredibleproof.Ourreviewisdenovoontherecordwiththepresumptionthatthe  8  judgmentiscorrectunlesstheevidenceotherwisepreponderates.Rule13(d)_T.R.A.P._ $     TheEvidence      Theplaintiffisa29yearoldmotheroftwochildren,agessevenandnine.Sheisahigh   schoolgraduatewithsomecollegeworkandvocationalcoursesincomputerscienceandvarious p hobbies.ShebeganworkingforBoschBrakingSystemsinApril1995,doingassemblywork.She \ resignedherjobonMarch7,2000because IdidntfeelIwasgettingbetter. H   Itissignificantthatshemissednotimefromwork,andshetestifiedthatatthetimeoftrial  p ninemonthsaftersheleftworkherconditionhadimproved.Shewasthenundernomedical  \ treatment,andshe hadnointerestinworking. H   Shetestifiedthatshehaddifficultyinperforminghouseholdchores,drivinghercarandother   activitieswhichrequiredphysicalexertion.Herhusbandcorroboratedhertestimonyconcerningher   imposedworklimitations.    PlaintifftestifiedthatshefirstbeganhavingdifficultiesinOctoberof1998whenshebegan  experiencingdiscomfortinherrightshoulderandarm.ShewastreatedbyDr.Michael_Bernui_, l whosenotesindicatethatheinitiallytreatedherleftshoulderandarm.Atafollowupvisit,she X  complainedofdiscomfortinherrightshoulderandarm,andDr._Bernui_Ԁtreatedherconservatively. D! ShenextsawDr._Bernui_Ԁseveralmonthslater,shortlybeforefilingsuit,complainingofpersistent 0"  paininherrightarmandshoulder.Hecontinuedtoprescribephysicaltherapyandtheuseofanti #l! inflammatorydrugs,butdeterminedthatanerveconductionstudywouldbeusefulinevaluatingthe $X" plaintiffscondition.Hereferredhertoaneurologist,Dr.Alan_Bachrach_,foracomplete_EMG_ $D # study.Thestudywasperformedoftherightupperextremityandrevealednoevidenceof %0!$ abnormality. &"%   Dr._Bernui_Ԁcontinuedtotreattheplaintiffonaweeklybasis.Withnoobjectiveevidenceof (#' physicaldysfunction,heorderedanxrayofherrightshoulderwhichrevealednoabnormality.He )$( thereuponreferredtheplaintifftoanorthopedicspecialist,Dr.Thomas_Gautsch_. |*%)  h+&*   Dr._Gautsch_Ԁsawtheplaintiffontwooccasionsfortreatmentofherrightarmandshoulder  complaints.HeorderedanMRI tolookforanypathologythatmightshowuponMRIscanthat  wasnotapparentonasetofregularxrays.Afterconcludingthathecouldfindnothingabnormal  uponexaminationorthroughtesting,Dr._Gautsch_Ԁsuggestedshereturntoherregularworkwithout t restrictions.ShecontinuedtoworkatBoschBrakingSystemsCorporationdoingherregularjob ` throughtheremainderof1999upuntilherresignationonMarch6,2000.Asstated,duringthe L  entiretyofthisperiod,theplaintiffdidnotseekmedicaltreatment. 8    ShefiledsuitonMarch19,1999and,withtheexceptionofonevisittoDr._Gautsch_ԀinMay  ` ofthatyear,soughtnoadditionalmedicaltreatmentthereafterwhilecontinuingtoperformallofher  L  regularjobfunctions.Shewas,however, evaluatedby3additionalphysicians:Dr.Robert  8  _Landsberg_,Dr.S.M.Smith,andDr.David_Gaw_. $     `     h      p     Dr._Landsberg_ԀevaluatedtheplaintiffforthefirstandonlytimeonAugust26,1999atthe   requestofplaintiffscounselandopinedthatshemighthaveaminimal2percentimpairmenttoeach   upperextremity.     PlaintiffsattorneythenreferredhertoDr.S.M.Smithforthesolepurposesofevaluation. \ Heacknowledgedthatthe_EMG_,MRIandXrayswereall normal;however,buttestifiedthatthe H plaintiffretaineda34percentpermanentpartialanatomicaldisabilityratingtothebodyasawhole. 4   TheplaintiffwasthenexaminedbyDr.David_Gaw_Ԁattherequestofthedefendant.He  \ testified,ineffect,thattheplaintiffwasmalingering,butthat Ithinkthisladyhasgotwhatscalled H achronicpainsyndrome.Notingalackofobjectivemedicalevidenceofimpairment,Dr._Gaw_Ԁthen 4 concludedthattheplaintiffwasanatomicallyimpairedby5percenttothebodyasawhole.     Novocationalexperttestified.     Analysis   &  Thedefendantcorrectlyarguesthattheinitialinjuryconcernstheextent,ifany,ofthe X  anatomicalimpairmentsufferedbytheplaintiff,andsecondarily,thedegreetowhichsuch D! impairmentrenderedtheplaintiffvocationallydisabled. Corcoranv.FosterAuto_GMC_ ,746 0"  S.W.2d452(Tenn.1988). #l!   Itiswellestablishedthatatrialcourthasdiscretiontoaccepttheopinionofonemedical $D # expertoverthatofanother,subjecttocertainstandards. Ormanv.Williams_Sonoma_,Inc. ,803 %0!$ S.W.2d672,676(Tenn.1991),and Johnsonv._Midwesco_,Inc. ,801S.W.2d804(Tenn.1990).The &"% decisionshavetendedtogivegreaterdeferencetotreatingphysicians,because [_i]t_Ԁseemsreasonable '#& thatthephysicianshavinggreatercontactwiththePlaintiffwouldhavetheadvantageand (#' opportunitytoprovideamoreindepthopinion,ifnotamoreaccurateone. Orman ,supra. )$(   OnlytwoofthefivetestifyingphysiciansactuallytreatedtheplaintiffDrs._Bernui_Ԁand h+&* _Gautsch_.Drs._Landsberg_,Smithand_Gaw_Ԁevaluatedtheplaintiffforthepurposesofthislitigation.    Dr._Bernui_streatmentoftheplaintiffbeganinOctoberof1998,whentheplaintiff  complainedofleftshoulderandarmdiscomfort,althoughshetestifiedthatthediscomfortinitially t aroseinherrightshoulderandarm.Theplaintiffcomplainedaboutherrightshoulderandarmon ` hersecondvisit,approximatelyaweeklater.Dr._Bernui_Ԁprescribedaconservativecourseof L  treatment,includingphysicaltherapyandantiinflammatorydrugs. 8    Throughoutthecourseofhertreatmentandupuntilthetimeofhervoluntaryresignationin  ` Marchof2000,shecontinuedtoperformallofherregularjobfunctions.ShedidnotreturntoDr.  L  _Bernui_Ԁorseektreatmentelsewhereuntilshefiledthecomplaint.  8    Themedicaldiagnosesandevaluationsarereiterated:   8  Dr._Bernui_Ԁdidnotopineastotheplaintiffsanatomicalimpairmentutilizingthe   AMAGuidelines.Histestimonythattheplaintiffsufferedfromnopermanent   impairmentofconsequenceisbolsteredbythefactthattheplaintiffcontinuedto p performherregularjobfunctionuptothedayshevoluntarilyresigned.\   8  Theothertreatingphysician,Dr._Gautsch_,corroboratestheopinionofDr._Bernui_. 4 Inevaluatingthexrays,MRIandafterhispersonalassessmentoftheplaintiff,Dr.  p _Gautsch_Ԁtestifiedthattherewasnoanatomicalbasisuponwhichhecouldassigna  \ permanentrestrictionorlimitationofactivities.H   8  Dr._Landsberg_,whoevaluatedtheplaintiffatherrequest,notedtheabsenceof   objectivemedicalproofofimpairmentandopinedthatshehadaminimalimpairment   of2percenttoeacharm,andrecommendedcertainrestrictionssubjecttochange.     TheplaintiffthereuponcontractedwithDr.S.W.Smithtoexamineandevaluateher.  Utilizingrangeofmotionmethodology,heopinedthattheplaintiffretaineda34percentpermanent l partialimpairmentratingtoherwholebody. X    ThedefendantthereuponcontractedwithDr.David_Gaw_,aprominentorthopedicsurgeon, 0"  toexamineandevaluatetheplaintiff.Hetestifiedtheplaintiffdemonstrated inappropriate #l! response/symptommagnification,andthatsinceshemightsufferfromchronicpainsyndromeshe $X" retained5percentanatomicalimpairment. $D #   Itseemsobviousthattheevidencestronglypreponderatesagainstthefindingofthetrial &"% court,whopreludedhisfindingswiththisstatement: '#& 8  8`   Whetheritsfive(5)orfifteen(15)percentanatomicalratingora )$( thirtyfour(34)percentanatomical,thatreallydoesntmakeawhole |*%) lotofdifferenceunderthecomplawnow...Itshardtocomeup h+&* withanumberinacaselikethis.Itreallyisitseemslike.Ithinkthe  anatomicalratingshouldprobablybe,probably,seventeen(17)  percentbythetimeyoulookatbothshouldersandneckfromallIcan  readandthatspullingoneoutofthewood.(Emphasisadded). )  1      t` x` x   Aswehaveobserved,atrialcourthasdiscretiontoaccepttheopinionofonemedicalexpert L  overthatofanotherbutstandardshavebeenestablishedastohowthatdiscretionshouldbeexercised 8  andwhatfactorsareappropriatelyconsidered. )  2      ׀See, _Elmore_Ԁv.TravelersIns.Co. ,824S.W.2d541 $ t (Tenn.1990),citing, Ormanv.Williams_Sonoma_,Inc. ,803S.W.2d672,676(Tenn.1991);  `  Johnsonv._Midwesco_,Inc. ,801S.W.2d804(Tenn.1990).Thesefactorsincludenotonlythe  L  qualificationsoftheexperts,butalsothecircumstancesoftheirexamination,theinformation  8  availabletothemduringtheirexamination,andtheevaluationoftheimportanceofthatinformation $  byotherexperts. _Elmore_, infra.,citing, Orman ,infra.     Neitherthetrieroffactnorareviewingbodycanignorethe_uncontroverted_Ԁproofthat(1)the   plaintiffdidnotmissworkthroughoutheremployment,(2)shesoughtnoadditionalmedical   treatmentbeyondthatprovidedbyDrs._Bernui_Ԁand_Gautsch_,(3)theobjectivemedicalevidence p revealedbydiagnosticstudiesindicatednoabnormalities,and(4)shevoluntarilyquitherjoband \ hassincemadenoefforttoobtainemploymentofanykind. H   Superimposedisthecommentofthetrialjudge,heretoforequoted,thatafindingof17  p percentanatomicalratingis pullingoneoutofthewood.  \   Thetrialcourtaddedanadditional5percentimpairmentfortheplaintiffs ChronicPain 4 Syndrome.Thisexchangeexplains:   8  8`   Mr._Holliman_Ԁ(Appellee):0` x` xIdidntunderstandwhetheritsthe  vocationaldisabilityduetothe  chronicpainsyndrome.Isthat  includedinthattwoandahalftimes?lxx 8  8`   TheCourt:0` x` x0hxx0hxhxNo,itsnot.D!xx Ї8  8`   Mr._Pigue_Ԁ(Appellant):0` x` xIthoughtwejustresolvedthatatthe  endofthetrial,Judge,abouttrying  anythingtoday.txx 8  8`   TheCourt:0` x` x0hxx0hxhxIcanaddthatinthere.L xx 8  8`   Mr._Pigue_Ԁ(Appellant):0` x` xIknow,butIthoughtthatswhat $ t weredoing.Thatswhatweall  ` agreedtodo. L xx 8  8`   TheCourt:0` x` x0hxx0hxhxWell,Idaddanotherfive(5)percent $  justforthatorderandthatwillbringit   uptotwentytwo(22)andahalf()   percent.... xx   Dr.Smith,onwhosetestimonythetrialcourtrelied,madenomentionofchronicpain p syndrome.ItwastheopinionofDr._Gaw_Ԁthattheplaintiffretaineda5percentimpairmentsolely \ onaccountofchronicpainsyndrome. H   Wefindtheevidencepreponderatesagainstthefindingofanatomicalimpairmentoftwenty  p twoandonehalfpercent. )  3      ׀Wefindtheevidencepreponderatesinfavorofananatomicalimpairment  \ of5percentwithavocationaldisabilityoftwoandonehalftimestheanatomicalrating,or12 H percent.Thejudgmentwillbemodifiedaccordingly. 4   Theappelleepresentsforreviewtheissueofwhetherthetrialcourterredinapplying too   lowamultiplier.Shearguesthather chronicpainsyndromeisaconditionwhichseverely  disablesherandpreventsherfromperformingmostjobsintheopenlabormarket.Novocational  experttestified,andwefindnoevidenceintherecordtosupportthesestatements.    Theappelleearguesthatalthoughshereturnedtoworkforaperiodofninemonthswithout X  medicalrestrictionsandwithoutseekingadditionalmedicaltreatmentuntilhervoluntaryresignation D! onMarch6,2000,that judicialeconomydemandstheinvocationofthemaximummultiplier 0"  availableundertheTennesseeWorkersCompensationLaw.Wedonotagree. #l!   Itisnotdisputedthattheappelleemadeameaningfulreturntowork.Tenn.CodeAnn.50 $D # 6241(a)(1)whichreads,inpertinentpart: %0!$ 8  8`   (when)thepreinjuryemployerreturnstheemployeetoemployment '#& atawageequaltoorgreaterthanthewagetheemployedwas (#' receivingatthetimeoftheinjury,themaximumpermanentpartial )$( disabilityawardthattheemployeemayreceiveistwoandonehalf(2  )timesthemedicalimpairmentrating...` x` x Theappelleeoffersnosufficientjustificationwhythetrialcourtshouldhavedeviatedfromthis t standard. `   Thetrialcourt,afteraconsiderationofalltheproofofferedattrialfoundthatthetwoand 8  onehalfmultiplierwouldbeapplicable,stating: ...shevoluntarilyquit.Therewasntanyproof $ t onthatasfaraswhetherornotsheaskedthemtomoveher,orwhetherornottheytried,orwhether  ` theyhadajob.(Emphasisadded).  L    Appelleecitestherecentopinionof _Niziol_Ԁv.LockheedMartinEnergySystems,Inc, ,8 $  S.W.3d622(Tenn.1999)insupportofhercontentionthattheprovisionsofthereconsideration   statute,Tenn.CodeAnn.506241(a)(2)(b),donotrequirethataplaintiffprovethattheinjurywas   relatedtothelossofemployment. _Niziol_ isinapplicablehere. _Niziol_ involvedarequesttoreopen   under241(a)(2)forreconsiderationoftheinitialassessmentofindustrialdisability.Thiscase,   however,involvesaninitialdeterminationofvocationaldisabilityunderTenn.CodeAnn.506 p 241(a)(1). \   Thetrialcourtcorrectlyruledthattheappelleesvoluntaryresignationlimitedherrecovery 4 totwoandonehalftimesanappropriateanatomicalimpairmentrating.Theissuepresentedbythe  p appelleeisnotwelltaken.  \   Asmodified,thejudgmentisaffirmed,withcostsassessedequallytotheparties.Thecase 4 isremandedforallappropriatepurposes.      `     h      p PER_CURIAM_   __  VXXY@ #XYXVV^#VXXY#XYXV^#IXXYINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#XYXI^#VXXY#XYXV_#VXXYԈ & @44October18,2001Session L #XYXV_#VXXY #XYXV]`#VXXY  HEATHERLYNNKEYv.AMERICANINSURANCECOMPANY#XYXV`#VXXY   p `#XYXV%a#@"" CriminalCourtforMaconCounty F  @66 No.99104and99147 2  @*AV) ` dE<` A߈ F  @ No.M200100980_Ԅ__SCWCM_CVFiledMay29,2002 A  AV) ` dE<` A    @& JUDGMENT     ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtuponthemotionforreviewfiledbyHeatherLynnKeypursuant  toTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(5)(B),theentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferraltothe t SpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanelsmemorandumopinionsettingforth ` itsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw; L   ItappearstotheCourtthatthemotionforreviewisnotwelltakenandisthereforedenied. $t ThePanelsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,asmodifiedandattachedhereto,are ` incorporatedbyreference,adopted,andaffirmed.ThedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgment L oftheCourt. 8   CostsareassessedtoHeatherLynnKey,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.