WPC  jpl|c*@čbj1 yvw;\wR&3qrZ]f0Ӛ "sT9q"k@;qX̹&լV/y;="mGxt` mpTs,R/Zh{SzG|%81Q}\c.P"H3m-˝ U@3mᾃ$ͷ0`;f>t P@v'DΖ,Ҏ9̀wi 'L^+^3ɺ< mB,m3|iDj{ZUA#_P#kľʃ\]V KWMLMd:{އEc1\.Xn%^ lyB!,=d̙:)džH{)` _N-71IME$W#U N % 0:b : bS [ br z b  b  b  ^ w 4  ! m# b: B U@Y E U* B HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,[2] 0#Xd#  [3]   [4]   [5]   [6]   [7]   ѱv;) e+)]rtyBarpi3|x U[8]   (9 Z(Times New Roman %2A`Arial d !USUS.,  _aXX  6Y  INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL  ATNASHVILLE  JUNE2000SESSION *  BARRYKINGv.CITYOFBELLEMEADE,and  F _TML_ԀRISKMANAGEMENTPOOL,INC.   T  DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  p No.982173I,Hon.IrvinH._Kilcrease_,Jr.,Chancellor  .~   _______________________  J   No . M199901432_WC_ԄR3CVMailedJuly17,2000 f  \@FiledSeptember27,2000 t   _______________________     ThisworkerscompensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkers  CompensationAppealsPanelinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)  forhearingandreportingoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.Inthiscase,the   employeecontendsthetrialcourterredinfailingtoawardworkerscompensation  disabilityand/ormedicalbenefitstotheemployeebaseduponhisworkrelated & hypertensionandheartdisease.Asdiscussedbelow,thepanelhasconcludedthetrial 4 courtsdismissaloftheemployeesworkerscompensationclaimsshouldbeaffirmed. B  Tenn.CodeAnn.  506225(e)(3)AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChancery ^ CourtAffirmed   l _Turnbull_,Sp.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhich_Drowota_,J.,andLoser, F# Sp.J.,joined. T$ DanielCarltonTodd,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,BarryKing. p&!  Teresa_Reall_ԀRicks,Farrar&Bates,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellees,Cityof (#" BelleMeadeand_TML_ԀRiskManagementPool,Inc.,Appellees. )$#     -")' 6Y 8эXXdd8   MEMORANDUMOPINION     Theemployee,BarryKing( King),wasemployedasapoliceofficerfortheCityof * BelleMeadefromJanuary1988toSeptember1997.TheCityofBelleMeadeis 8 insuredby_TML_ԀRiskManagementPool,Inc.OnJanuary6,1988,priortohis  F employmentasapoliceofficerfortheCityofBelleMeade,Kingunderwenta  T physicalexaminationwhichfailedtorevealanypresenceofhypertensionorheart  b disease.  p OnAugust12,1995,Kingwasdiagnosedwithanirregularheartbeatandhigh <  cholesterol.Thefollowingday,hewashospitalizedwithchestpains.Kingcontinued J  hisdutiesasapoliceofficerfortheCityofBelleMeadeafterhisreleasefromthe X  hospital.UpontheadviceofKingscardiologistnearlytwoyearslater,Kingwas f  referredtoandtreatedbyDr.MarcusC.Houston,M.D.,forhighbloodpressure,high t cholesterol,coronaryheartdisease,carotidarteryobstruction,andahistoryof  transientischemicattackssinceJune30,1997.  OnSeptember4,1997,Dr.HoustonsuggestedtoKingthathenolongercontinueto  workasapoliceofficerbecausethestressrelatedtoKingsjobasapoliceofficer   constitutedadangertoKingshealth.OnSeptember5,1997,Kingterminatedhis  employmentasapoliceofficerandsubmittedhisFirstReportofWorkInjury.King & claimsworkerscompensationdisabilityand/ormedicalbenefitsbaseduponhiswork 4 relatedhypertensionandheartdisease.Hearguesthatjobstresscausedhighblood B pressurewhichinturncausedhisheartdisease.Theemployeeinsistshesuffersan P occupationaldiseaseunderTenn.CodeAnn.section506301[6]. ^ SubsequenttoKingsfilingforworkerscompensation,anindependenthealth *!z examinationwasconductedbyDr.HalM._Roseman_,M.D.,whoevaluatedKings 8" medicalrecords,checkedthecalibrationofKingsbloodpressuremonitor,performed F# aphysicalexaminationofKing,andhadapsychologicaltestofKingperformed.Dr. T$ _Roseman_ԀconcludedtoareasonabledegreeofmedicalcertaintythatKingsmedical b%  conditionwasnotproximatelycausedbyhisemploymentasapoliceofficer.Neither p&!  Dr._Roseman_ԀnorDr.Houstoncanbecharacterizedasaprofessionalwitnesswho ~'"! commonlytestifyinworkerscompensationcases. (#" CharlesVincentPerry,Jr.,theChiefofPoliceforBelleMeade,testifiedthatKings *%$ dutiesasapoliceofficerfortheCityofBelleMeadeconsistedofgeneralpatrolduties, +'%     specificallyasa_DUI_Ԁenforcementofficer.Kingdoesnotspecificallyclaimthatany  particularincidentoreventinperforminghisdutiesasapoliceofficerprecipitatedhis  hypertensionorcoronaryheartdisease.   Fromtheabovesummarizedevidence,thetrialjudgefoundthatsufficientmedical 8 evidencerebuttedthepresumption,suppliedbyTenn.CodeAnn.751201(a)(1),that  F Kingshypertensionandheartdiseasewere accidental_injur[ies_]sufferedinthe  T courseofemployment.Thetrialcourtheldthattheemployeefailedtocitetoa  b specificeventoroccurrencethatprecipitatedhishypertensionandheartdisease.  p    `     h   ISSUES <  .Didthetrialcourtproperlyfindandconcludethattheemployeesheartdiseaseisnot X  compensable? f  Didthetrialcourtproperlyfindandconcludethattheemployeeshypertensionwasnot  compensableasanoccupationaldisease?    STANDARDOFREVIEW  Inaworkerscompensationcase,appellatereviewoffactualissuesisdenovowitha  presumptionthatthetrialcourtsfindingsarecorrect,unlessthepreponderanceofthe & evidenceisotherwise.Tenn.CodeAnn.section506225(e)(2)(Supp.1998);Hill 4 v.EagleBendMfg.,Inc.,942S.W.2d483,487(Tenn.1997).Whenatrialcourthas B seenandheardwitnesses,andissuesofcredibilityandweightoftestimonyare P involved,considerabledeferenceisaffordedthetrialcourtsfindingoffact.Hill,942 ^ _S.W._Ԁ2d,at487.However,wheretheissuesinvolveexpertmedicaltestimony,and  l allthemedicalproofiscontainedintherecordbydeposition,asitisinthiscase,then *!z theappellatecourtmaydrawitsownconclusionsabouttheweightandcredibilityof 8" thattestimony,sinceweareinthesamepositionasthetrialjudge._McIlvain_Ԁv. F# Russell_Stover_ԀCandies,Inc.,996S.W.2d179,183(Tenn.1999)Thatmedicalproof T$ bydepositionmust,ofcourse,bereviewedinfulllightofandconjunctionwithany b%  credibilityfindingsofthetrialcourtwithreferencetohistoryorsubjectivesymptoms. p&!  Suchfactualfindingsonissuesofcredibilityoflivewitnessesbythetrialcourtare ~'"! entitledtoconsiderabledeference.Longv.TriConIndustries,_LTD_,996S.W.2d173 (#" (Tenn.1999) )$#   COMPENSABILITYOFHEARTDISEASE +'%         #Section751201(a)(1)ofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedprovides:  0  [_T]here_Ԁshallbeandthereisherebyestablishedapresumptionthatany * impairmentofhealthofsuchlawenforcementofficerscausedby 8 hypertensionorheartdiseaseresultinginhospitalization,medical  F treatmentoranydisability,shallbepresumed(unlessthecontraryis  T shownbycompetentmedicalevidence)tohaveoccurredortobedueto  b accidentalinjurysufferedinthecourseofemployment....Suchlaw  p enforcementofficershallhavesuccessfullypassedaphysical .~  examinationpriortosuchclaimeddisability,oruponentering <  governmentalemploymentandsuchexaminationfailstorevealany J  evidenceoftheconditionofhypertensionorheartdisease.X    $ThepresumptionofTenn.CodeAnn.751201(a)(1)isrebuttedwhenthereexists t  affirmativeevidencethatthereisnotasubstantialcausalconnectionbetweenthe  workoftheemployeesosituatedandtheoccurrenceuponwhichtheclaimforbenefits  isbased._Krick_Ԁv.Cityof_Lawrenceburg_,954S.W.2d709,712(Tenn.1997).  Competentmedicalevidenceexistswhenthereis amedicalopinionprovidedbya  competentmedicalexpert.Bentonv.CityofSpringfield,973S.W.2d936,937   (Tenn.1998).KingassertsthatDr._Roseman_sclassificationofKingsconditionas  oneofa hotreactor,treatablewithvariousformsofpsychologicalcounseling,isnot & sufficienttorebutthestatutorypresumption.Thetrialcourt,however,consideringDr. 4 _Roseman_smedicalcredentials,properlyheldthatDr._Roseman_sanalysisofKings B emotionaldispositiontostressfulevents,alongwithKingspriorsmokingandfamily P historyofheartdisease,wascompetentmedicalevidencesufficienttorebutthe ^ presumptionunderTenn.CodeAnn.751201(a)(1).  l Oncecompetentmedicalevidenceisshowntorebutthestatutorypresumption,thelaw 8" enforcementemployee mustprove,byapreponderanceoftheevidence,thathis F# conditionresultedfromaninjurybyaccidentarisingoutofandinthecourseof T$ employment._Krick_,945S.W.2dat713. InjuryisdefinedunderTenn.CodeAnn. b%  506102(12)as aninjurybyaccidentarisingoutofandinthecourseof p&!  employmentwhichcauseseitherdisablementordeathoftheemployeeandshall ~'"! includeoccupationaldiseasesarisingoutofandinthecourseofemploymentwhich (#" causeeitherdisablementordeathoftheemployee.Tenn.CodeAnn.section506 )$# 301isthestatuteunderwhichaclaimantmustthenshowthathis occupational *%$ diseasearoseoutofandinthecourseofemployment.Tenn.CodeAnn.section506 +'%         301(6)includesasanoccupationaldisease: Diseasesoftheheart,lung,and  hypertensionarisingoutofandinthecourseofanytypeofemployment.  AlthoughKingsconditionneverprecipitatedaheartattack,casesdealingwithheart * attacksspurredonbyworkrelatedstressmaybehelpfulinfashioningadecisionin 8 thiscase.Baconv._Sevier_ԀCounty,808S.W.2d46(Tenn.1991),categorizedheart  F attackdisabilitiesunderworkerscompensationas thosethatareprecipitatedby  T physicalexertionorstrainandthoseresultingfromstress,tension,orsometypeof  b emotionalupheaval.Id.at49.Disabilityresultingfromphysicalexertionrequires  p noshowingthatthephysicalexertionorstraininvolvedinthedutiesunder .~  employmentwereunusualtotheemployment.Id.at5051.Heartattackdisability <  resultingfrommentaloremotionalstress,however,requiressuchashowing.The J  Baconcourtheldthat absentphysicalexertionorsomeacute,suddenorunexpected X  emotionalstressdirectlyattributabletoemployment,anindustrialaccidentshouldnot f  bedeemedtohaveoccurred,eventhoughworry,anxietyoremotionalstressofa t generalnaturemayhaveprecededtheonsetofthe[heartattack].Id.at51(quoting  AlliedChemicalCorp.v.Wells,578S.W.2d369,372(Tenn.1979)).  Ѐ_Gatlin_Ԁv.CityofKnoxville,822S.W.2d587(Tenn.1991),followsa thresholdtest  thatthementalstimuluscausingamentalorphysicalinjurymustbefright,shock,or   anacutesuddenorunexpectedemotionalstress....Wehavelimitedtheinterpretation  of[_T.C.A._Ԁ506102(4),now_T.C.A._Ԁ506102(12)(1999ReplacementEdition)], & holdingthatworry,anxietyoremotionalstressofausualnatureinaparticular 4 occupationarenotsufficienttoestablishinjurybyaccident.Id.at590._Gatlin_is B applicableinthiscasebecauseitspeakstophysicalinjuriesingeneral,notjustheart P attacks,causedbymentaloremotionalstimuli. ^ WealsonotethattheSupremeCourtheldrecentlyin_Ivey_Ԁv.TransGlobalGasand *!z Oil,3_S.W._Ԁ3rd(Tenn.1999)thatas previouslydiscussedin_Gatlin_,injuriesthatare 8" completelymentalinnaturearecompensableunderworkerscompensationwhenthey F# arecausedbyanidentifiablestressful,workrelatedeventthatproducesasudden T$ mentalstimulussuchasfright,shock,orexcessiveunexpectedanxiety.Id.at447. b%  In_Ivey_,thecourtwasfacedwithmentalinjurycausedbytheemotionalshockand ~'"! frightoftheemployeeclerkbeingrobbedatgunpoint.#XэXa=#aXXэ (#" Theemployerargues,however,evenabsentasuddenoracuteepisodeofemotional *%$ stress,hisclaimisviablesinceitisbasedonhissufferinganoccupationaldisease +'%      (heartdiseaseandhypertension)whichheclaimsmeetsthecriteriaofTenn.Code  Ann.section506301.  AnoccupationaldiseaseisdefinedinTenn.CodeAnn.section506301as * ` ` alldiseasesarisingoutofandinthecourseofemployment.  F Adiseaseshallbedeemedtoariseoutoftheemployment  T onlyif:  b (1)Itcanbedeterminedtohavefollowedasanatural .~  incidentoftheworkasaresultoftheexposureoccasioned <  bythenatureoftheemployment; J  (2)Itcanbefairlytracedtotheemploymentasaproximate f  cause; t (3)Ithasnotoriginatedfromahazardtowhichworkers  wouldhavebeenequallyexposedoutsideofthe  employment;  (4)Itisincidentaltothecharacteroftheemploymentand  notindependentoftherelationofemployerandemployee; & (5)Itoriginatedfromariskconnectedwiththeemployment B andflowedfromthatsourceasanaturalconsequence, P thoughitneednothavebeenforeseenorexpectedpriorto ^ itscontraction;and  l (6)Thereisadirectcausalconnectionbetweenthe 8" conditionsunderwhichtheworkisperformedandthe F# occupationaldisease.Diseasesoftheheart,lung,and T$ hypertensionarisingoutofandinthecourseofanytypeof b%  employmentshallbedeemedtobeoccupationaldiseases p&!  (emphasisadded). h      p  ~'"! ` `  Thetrialcourtcarefullyanalyzedthemedicalevidenceandconcludedthattheopinion (#" ofDr._Roseman_Ԁwasmostpersuasive thatthereisnotsubstantialconnectionbetween )$# theplaintiffsworkandhismedicalcondition,and themedicalevidenceinthe *%$ recordpreponderatesagainstafindingthatplaintiffsmedicalconditionislinkedto +'%      hisemployment.  Inmakingaseparatereviewofthedepositionmedicaltestimony,wecannotdisagree.  Dr.Houston,aninternalmedicinespecialist,isexpertandwidelypublishedinthearea * ofthetreatmentofhighbloodpressureanditssequella.Dr._Roseman_,acardiologist, 8 hasspecialexpertiseonstressasacauseofhighbloodpressureandwrotehis  F dissertationonthesubject.Inaddition,Dr._Roseman_Ԁhadmoreinformationavailable  T tohiminreachinghisconclusionthatgeneralizedjobstressasapolicemandidnot  b causeKingsheartdisease.Hesoughtandreviewedanexaminationandreportof  p psychologicaltests,hereviewedrecordsfromallphysicianswhohadseenortreated .~  employeescondition,hereadalldiscoverydepositionsandDr.Houstonsmedical <  testimony.Dr._Roseman_ԀalsodiscoveredthatKingshomebloodpressuremonitor J  wasinaccurateandthatDr.Houstonsdiagnosisofmalignantandaccelerated X  hypertensionwasbasedonthosemachinereadings,selfperformedbyKing,rather f  thanthereadingstakenDr.Houstonsofficewhichrecordednoincidenceofhigh t bloodpressure.ItthereforeappearsinthisinstanceDr._Roseman_sopinionisentitled  togreaterweight.  Weconcludethatevenifundertheoccupationaldiseaselawnosudden,unexpected,  acuteinstanceofstressisrequired,theemployeehasfailedtoprovethathisdisease    canbefairlytracedtotheemploymentasaproximatecauseTenn.CodeAnn.  section506301[2]orthatit originatedfromariskconnectedwiththeemployment & andflowedfromthatsourceasanaturalconsequenceTenn.Code.Ann.section506 4 301[5].Inaddition,theemployeehasfailedtoshowbyapreponderance thereisa B directcausalconnectionbetweentheconditionsunderwhichtheworkisperformed P andtheoccupationaldisease.Tenn.CodeAnn.section506301[6]. ^   HYPERTENSIONASASEPARATEOCCUPATIONALDISEASE@(#(#K(# *!z UWehavefoundnocaseconstruingTenn.CodeAnn.section506301asitrelates F# solelytohypertension.Inparticular,thequestionofwhetherhypertension,tobe T$ compensableasanoccupationaldisease,mustbetheresultofanidentifiablestressful, b%  workrelatedeventthatproducesasuddenmentalstimulussuchasfright,shock,or p&!  excessiveunexpectedanxietyhasnotbeenaddressedbytheTennesseeSupreme ~'"! Court.Thetestimonyinthiscaserevealsthereisawidedivergenceinmedical (#" opinionastowhetherstressisaproximatecauseofhypertensionasadisease.We )$# choosetoawaitanappropriatecasetoexpressanopinionontheissuesince,as *%$ discussedabove,themedicalproofinthiscasepreponderatesinfavorofafindingof +'%     lackofcausation.  Weaffirmthetrialcourtindismissingtheemployeesclaimforworkers  compensationbenefitswhetherarisingfrominjuryoroccupationaldisease.Costson * appealareassessedtotheappellant,BarryKing. p      x   8    ` #XэXaA#aXXэ#XэXa[#   T XэXXXэaXXэ@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @$ATNASHVILLE     BARRYKING,_Movant_v.CITYOFBELLEMEADE,TENNESSEEand * TENNESSEEMUNICIPALLEAGUE,Respondents  8 #XэXa4\# kXXэ\   #XэX k]#ChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty ( x No.982173IIrvinH._Kilcrease_,Jr.,Chancellor  ^ ]@*AV) ` dE< ` A߈  *    No.M199901432_WC_ԄWCMCVFiledSeptember27,2000   E_@*AV) ` dE<` A   Ov No  v @& JUDGMENT      ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtuponBarryKingsmotionforreviewpursuanttoTenn.Code \ Ann.506225(e)(5)(B),theentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferraltotheSpecialWorkers' B CompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanel'sMemorandumOpinionsettingforthitsfindingsoffact (x andconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference; ^   Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthatthemotionforreviewisnotwelltakenandshould * beDENIED;and    Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanel'sfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawareadopted  andaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgmentoftheCourt. r   CostswillbeassessedtoBarryKingforwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. >    `     h     PERCURIAM @ Drowota,J.,notparticipating ! !  O#' X o8`#N#X X'W`# #XэXXXэ\#