WPCr @QhiTRk12$%v+`@'d/ |<[ k7{?,wAdߕBkD8ۣ?:[Yd6)3π(S*kϻB|Ci4j^PܳvO7,d\l=%VQ0^cz f(%BGddR,M,G qљR {&1``2e> 63z4-[c^j %Ea^ }= 9N R@,tRus)'2=@7+耲SK78c9i3@wpJ] r!<&Ol1kw$H%D<,`;(03T`$ӐWA|^,cyX8|* 0|ɡŞ: 9`ae3NV"Rb %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m #   _ %  NN zEEGGUNbgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg 0oooo B ZZ 0w D3 D-N 0K{{ AS 0 0D A`!)L (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular@O(x"3|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.wptUHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 60 Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  0C:\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 Z 6Times New Roman Regular- -(|G2$ !..88dd8         0  XfX d(|3g$ !..88dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3g$ !..88dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.88dd8     _88fXXdd8  @@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL  @@ATNASHVILLE  (June2000Session) *  THEKROGERCOMPANY,etal.v.SARACOOPERXfX8   F @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty  : @@No.98C1035WalterC.Kurtz,Judge   @@*AV) ` dE<` A   No.M199901120_WC_ԄR3CVMailedJuly26,2000 w  #8XXf #XfX8FiledSeptember1,2000 ]  AV) ` dE<(` A )y      #8XXf#XfX8Theemployerhasappealedcontendingthetrialcourt'sawardofpermanentpartialdisabilitybenefits n basedonthirtyfivepercenttothelegforatornmeniscusisexcessive. T    Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(1999)AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuit Court   Affirmed.       loser,sp.j.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhich_drowota_,j.joined.#8Xf#u.8_TURNBULL_,_SP.J._,#8u8#XfX.8not  participating. h CliffordWilson,_Gracey_,Ruth,Howard,Tate&_Sowell_,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellants, 4 TheKrogerCompanyandCNAInsuranceCompany. j JamesP.Smith,Jr.,Bean&Smith,_Crossville_,Tennessee,fortheappellee,SaraCooper. 6   MEMORANDUMOPINION       XThisworkers'compensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkers'Compensation ~"" AppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTennCodeAnn.506225(e)(3)for d## hearingandreportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.Asdiscussed J$$ below,thepanelhasconcludedthejudgmentofthetrialcourtshouldbeaffirmed. 0% %  &f!& Theemployeeorclaimant,Cooper,isfiftyoneyearsoldandhasworkedforKrogerfor &L"' thirtyyears.OnSeptember11,1997,shetrippedoveracustomer'swalkingcane,twistingherleft '2#( kneeandankle.Shewasreferredtoanorthopedicspecialist,Dr.JonSimpson. ($)  )$* Dr.Simpsonordereddiagnostictests,whichrevealedagradeIItearoftheleftlateral *%+ meniscus,whichherepairedsurgicallyonNovember17,1997.Followingsurgery,thedoctor z+&, recommendedthattheclaimantreturntoworkonDecember8,1997,butwithoutstandingorsitting `,'- morethanfourhours.OnJanuary28,1998,thedoctorremovedthoserestrictionsandassesseda F-(. permanentimpairmentratingoftwopercenttotheleg.Theclaimantcontinuedtohaveswellingand  painintheknee,forwhichthedoctorprescribedantiinflammatorymedicationonApril22,1998.  TheclaimanthasnotworkedforKrogersinceJanuary12,1998,becauseofherdisability.Shehas | ahistoryofchronicpainandotherhealthproblems,whichpreexistedherinjuryatKroger. b  H Theclaimanthasbeenalicensedrealestateagentforeighteenyears.Shetestifiedthather . ~ abilitytoworkinthatfieldisimpairedalsobecauseofherinjury.Shecannotwalkboundarylines  d andhasdifficultyclimbingstairsanddriving.Shealsohasdifficultydoinghousework,cooking,  J workingintheyardandtakingcareofherhorsessincetheworkrelatedaccident.Fromtheabove  0 evidence,thetrialjudge,findingtheclaimanttobeacrediblewitness,awardedpermanentpartial    disabilitybenefitsbasedonthirtyfivepercenttotheleg.       Appellatereviewoffindingsoffactbythetrialcourtisdenovoupontherecordofthetrial x  court,accompaniedbyapresumptionofcorrectnessofthosefindings,unlessthepreponderanceof ^  theevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(2).Thisstandardrequiresthepanelto D  examineindepthatrialcourtsfactualfindingsandconclusions.Thereviewingtribunalisnot *z  boundbyatrialcourtsfactualfindingsbutinsteadconductsanindependentexaminationofthe ` recordtodeterminewherethepreponderancelies._Galloway_Ԁv.MemphisDrumServ.,822S.W.2d F 584(Tenn.1991).However,wherethetrialjudgehasseenandheardthewitnesses,especiallyif , issuesofcredibilityandweighttobegivenoraltestimonyareinvolved,considerabledeferencemust  beaccordedthosecircumstancesonreview,Presleyv.Bennett,860S.W.2d857(Tenn.1993),  becauseitisthetrialcourtwhichhadtheopportunitytoobservethewitnesssdemeanorandhear  theincourttestimony.Longv.TriConInd.,Ltd.,996S.W.2d173(Tenn.1999).Theextentofan t injuredemployeesdisabilityisaquestionoffact.Humphreyv.David_Witherspoon_,Inc.,734 Z S.W.2d315(Tenn.1987). @  &v Theemployerarguesthattheawardisexcessiveinlightoftherelativelylowmedical  \ impairmentrating.Theopinionofaqualifiedexpertwithrespecttoaclaimantsclinicalorphysical B impairmentisafactortobeconsideredalongwithallotherrelevantcircumstances,butitisforthe ( courttodeterminethepercentageoftheclaimantsindustrialdisability._Worthington_Ԁv._Modine_  Mfg.Co.,798S.W.2d232(Tenn.1990).Aninjuredemployeeiscompetenttotestifyastoherown  assessmentofherphysicalconditionandsuchtestimonyshouldnotbedisregarded._McIlvain_Ԁv.   Russell_Stover_ԀCandies,Inc.,996S.W.2d179(Tenn.1999).Additionally,theemployertakesthe p!  employeewithallpreexistingconditionsandcannotescapeliabilitywhentheemployee,upon V"! sufferingaworkrelatedinjury,incursdisabilityfargreaterthanifshehadnothadthepreexisting <#" conditions._Kellerman_Ԁv.FoodLion,Inc.,929S.W.2d333(Tenn.1996). "$r#  %X $ Giventheemployeesageandtheeffectthatherworkrelatedinjuryhashadonherability %>!% toworkandearnanincome,andforalloftheabovereasons,thepanelfindsthattheevidencefails &$"& topreponderateagainstthefindingsofthetrialcourt.Thejudgmentisaffirmed.Costsonappeal ' #' aretaxedtotheappellants. (#(  )$)   l*%* 8XXf  @@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL  ATNASHVILLE  June2000Session * #XfX8!# 8  8XXfTHEKROGERCOMPANY,etal.v.SARACOOPER#XfX8="#      , @@ CircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty   @@No.98C1035        t  @@*AV) ` dE<Y` A Z   i  No.M199901120_WC_ԄR3CVFiledSeptember1,2000 O   5  AV) ` dE<` A k    *z       F $  JUDGMENT 8XXf#XfX8J%# ,     XfXXXf ` ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtupontheentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferral  totheSpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanelsMemorandumOpinionsetting  forthitsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference. t  Z  ` Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthattheMemorandumOpinionofthePanel @ shouldbeacceptedandapproved;and &v   \  ` Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanelsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaware B adoptedandaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgmentoftheCourt. (    ` Costswillbepaidbytheappellants,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.       ` ITISSOORDERED. p!!  V""  <##  "$r$  `     h      p PERCURIAM %X %  ` #XfXXXf%#