ÿWPC 1U:¾ %øþn­ 04»ïï 0Jï 0T9w@4Í 0^á 0h? 0r§ 0| 0†• 0 1u« 0d U6„B)º AQãÆ4 0Dú 0@> 0D~ DC D/ B4 BQ D3n AM¡ U*î  f +† v~±vÓ/<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiX#|x«<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiXÂxþ6X@É“8õ X@( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Ó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô îÓ€ÀDPDÓ€•{:$(Ôô2, 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< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó7Border 1dd(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd!#%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial þÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌFebruary€24,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ !Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌFebruary€24,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿáùEG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ Ð ÒÙ€!ÙÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€*,%A1-j|9$` ç `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌÌJOSEPH€D.€LEWIS,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€Plaintiff/Appellant€€€)€€No.€01S01„9702„CV„00036€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï)€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìv.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€CIRCUIT€COURT,€RUTHERFORD€COUNTY€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌINSURANCE€COMPANY€OF€€€€€€€€€€)€€HON.€DON€R.€ASH,€JUDGE€€€€€€€€ÌPENNSYLVANIA€and€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌBRIDGESTONE€(USA),€INC.€€€€€€€)Ìòò€€€€€€€€Defendants/Appellees.€óó)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€APPELLANTóó:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òòFOR€APPELLEEóó:Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌDONALD€J.€RAY€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€KENT€E.€KRAUSE€€€€€€€€ÌRAY,€VAN€CLEAVE€&€JACKSON€€€€€€MARY€SULLIVAN€MOORE€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÏP.O.€Box€1027€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€BREWER,€KRAUSE,€BROOKS€&€MILLS€ÌTullahoma,€TN€37388€€€€€€€€€€€€P.O.€Box€23890€€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Nashville,€TN€37202„3890Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONóóÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àMEMBERS€OF€PANEL:ÌÌà@ àLYLE€REID,€ASSOCIATE€JUSTICE,€SUPREME€COURTÌà@ à€JOSEPH€C.€LOSER,€JR.,€RETIRED€JUDGE€€€€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€WILLIAM€S.€RUSSELL,€RETIRED€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌMODIFIED€AND€REMANDED€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€RUSSELL,€SP.€J.ÌÌÓÓÑ7€’'XXdÈXXdÈ7Ñà àThis€appeal€in€a€workers'€compensation€case€has€beenÏreferred€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€ofÏthe€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏSection€50„6„225€(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€SupremeÏCourt€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.Ìà@ àÌà àThis€case€involves€an€employee's€affliction€with€contactÏdermatitis€from€handling€chemicals€present€in€vehicle€tireÏcomponents€being€manufactured€by€the€employer.ÌÌà àNo€question€exists€as€to€the€injury€being€work€related.€€TheÏsymptoms€waxed€and€waned€for€more€than€ten€years.€€At€variousÏtimes€the€employer€furnished€the€employee€medical€treatment€byÏcompany€nurses€and€three€different€physicians.ÌÌà àThe€employee,€Joseph€D.€Lewis,€never€missed€a€day€from€work.€ÍWhen€the€dermatitis€flared€up€he€worked€in€pain€until€medicationÏand€time€partially€alleviated€his€symptoms.ÌÌà àThe€precise€chemical€or€chemicals€causing€the€reaction€areÏnot€identified€in€the€record.€€The€skin€on€his€fingers,€hands€andÏon€one€occasion€his€arm€would€become€inflamed,€crack€and€peel,Ïresulting€in€a€very€painful€experience.ÌÌà àBecause€his€system€became€chemically€sensitized€over€time,Ïhis€off„work€activities€were€impacted.€€He€could€no€longer€beÏexposed€to€paint,€or€refinishing€liquids,€or€the€oils€and€greasesÏencountered€in€mechanic€work;€hence,€these€hobbies€could€noÏlonger€be€pursued.ÌÌà àThis€suit€was€filed€on€March€25,€1993.€€In€early€1993€theÏplaintiff€chose€to€use€his€company€seniority€rights€and€transferÏto€a€different€department€where€he€would€not€be€required€toÏconstantly€handle€the€offending€rubber€compound.€€He€continues€toÏwork€in€this€new€department€for€the€same€employer€at€a€veryÏslightly€reduced€rate€of€pay.€€Since€changing€jobs,€Mr.€LewisÏstill€has€contact€dermititis€problems€if€he€touches€the€offendingÏcompound€or€participates€in€his€hobbies€of€restoring€automobiles,Ïmechanic€work,€painting€or€refinishing€furniture.ÌÌà àTwo€of€the€attending€physicians,€Drs.€Alvin€Meyer€andÏWilliam€Freeman,€opined€that€Mr.€Lewis'€impairment€belonged€underÍTable€II,€Class€2,€"Impairment€Classes€and€Percents€for€SkinÏDisorders",€òòAMA€Physicians€Guide€to€the€Evaluation€of€PermanentÏImpairmentóó,€which€carries€a€10%€„€24%€impairment€rating.€€Dr.ÏMeyer€testified€that€his€opinion€was€that€Mr.€Lewis€had€a€12%„15%Ïpermanent€partial€impairment€to€the€body€as€a€whole.ÌÌà àThe€defendants€relied€upon€the€statute€of€limitation.€ÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€50„6„306€(a)€provides:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àThe€right€to€compensation€for€any€otherÏoccupational€disease€is€barred€unless€suit€isÏfiled€within€one€(1)€year€after€the€beginningÏof€the€incapacity€for€work€resultingÏtherefrom€*€*€*.ÌÌÌÌà àòòAdams€v.€American€Zinc€Co.óó,€326€S.W.€2d€425€(Tenn€1959),€ÌÌdefines€the€incapacity€to€work:ÌÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€beginning€of€incapacity€to€work€occursÏwhen€an€employee€has€knowledge,€or€in€theÏexercise€of€reasonable€caution€should€haveÏknowledge,€that€he€has€an€occupationalÏdisease€and€that€it€has€progressed€to€theÏpoint€that€it€injuriously€affects€hisÏcapacity€to€work€to€a€degree€amounting€to€aÏcompensable€injury.ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€suit€was€barred€by€the€oneÏyear€statute€of€limitation;€but€expressed€a€degree€ofÏuncertainty,€and€offered€a€judgment€based€upon€a€20%€vocationalÏdisability€should€this€court€find€that€the€suit€was€not€timeÏbarred.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€running€of€the€statuteÍwas€triggered€on€October€21,€1991,€"when€the€plaintiff€becameÏincapacitated".€€The€court€stated€from€the€bench:€€"I€am€going€toÏspecifically€find€ÌÌthat€it€applied€in€1991,€when€he€made€that€last€visit€to€theÏdoctor".ÌÌà àThe€record€shows€that€Mr.€Lewis€saw€Dr.€Meyer€on€October€22,Ï1991;€October€29,€1991;€and€November€12,€1991.€€On€his€OctoberÏ22,€1991,€visit€to€Dr.€Meyer€Lewis€was€directed€by€the€doctor€toÏ"continue€regular€work€at€this€time"€and€he€did€so.ÌÌà àApparently€the€plaintiff€did€not€consider€himselfÏincapacitated€until€he€applied€for€a€transfer€to€his€present€job.€ÏHis€complaint€alleges:€"In€an€effort€to€avoid€the€offendingÏagent,€in€early€1993€plaintiff€was€forced€to€change€jobs,€all€ofÏwhich€has€caused€a€loss€of€income€and€an€òòindustrial€disabilityóó."ÌÌà àBecause€the€statute€is€tolled€by€the€payment€of€medicalÏbills€by€the€employer€during€the€initial€year,€and€extended€for€aÏyear€after€the€last€medical€payment€made€during€the€period€inÏwhich€the€case€is€not€time€barred,€it€would€have€been€relevant€toÏknow€when€the€company€chosen€doctors€were€paid.€€Presumably€theyÏwere,€because€the€employee€testified€that€he€did€not€pay€them.€ÏHowever,€the€employer's€representative€at€the€trial€testifiedÏthat€he€did€not€have€that€information.€€The€burden€of€proving€anÍaffirmative€defense€is€upon€the€defendant.ÌÌà àWe€find€no€evidence€that€the€plaintiff€knew€or€should€haveÏknown€that€he€had€an€occupational€disease€that€injuriouslyÏaffected€his€capacity€to€work€to€a€degree€amounting€to€aÏcompensable€disability€prior€to€early€1993,€when€he€changed€jobs;Ïand€this€suit€was€brought€within€a€few€days€thereafter.€€Mr.ÏLewis€did€his€regular€job,€sometimes€in€pain,€until€his€conditionÏforced€him€to€seek€a€transfer.€€The€evidence€supports€that€beingÏthe€time€that€the€statute€began€to€run.€€Hence,€this€suit€is€notÏtime€barred.ÌÌÌà àIt€was€the€opinion€of€the€trial€judge€that€Mr.€LewisÏsustained€a€20%€whole€body€disability,€and€that€he€should€haveÏlifetime€medical€treatment€and€discretionary€costs.€€AppellantÏcontends€for€a€greater€disability€award.€€We€hold€that€the€trialÏjudge's€alternative€judgment€should€be€the€judgment€of€the€court,Ïand€we€remand€the€case€for€the€entry€and€enforcement€of€same.ÏCosts€on€appeal€are€assessed€to€the€appellees.ÌÌà àÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÓÓóó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÏWILLIAM€S.€RUSSELL,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóLYLE€REID,€ASSOCIATE€JUSTICE€Ì€ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóJOE€C.€LOSER,€JR.,€SPECIAL€JUDGE€€Ì€Ìà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÑ€-ÑÇÒ  ÒÒ £ Òòòà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌßJ€*.;+'b|MÙ` ç `€@ÿJßà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌJOSEPH€D.€LEWIS,à àà àà à}à àRUTHERFORD€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à}à àNo.€31664€BelowÌà àPlaintiff/Appellantà àà à}Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à}à àHon.€Don€R.€Ash,Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à}à àJudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à}ÌINSURANCE€COMPANY€OF€à àà à}ÌPENNSYLVANIA€and€BRIDGESTONEà à}Ì(USA),€INC.,à àà àà àà à}à àNo.€01S01„9702„CV„00036Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à}Ìà àDefendants/Appelleesà à}à àMODIFIED€AND€REMANDED.ÌÌÌà@ àJUDGMENT€ORDERÌÌÌÓ€Óà àà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,Ïincluding€the€order€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'ÏCompensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel's€Memorandum€OpinionÏsetting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€whichÏare€incorporated€herein€by€reference.Ìà àà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€MemorandumÏOpinion€of€the€Panel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌà àà 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.ÌÓ ` ` šXÓà àà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€Insurance€Company€of€PennsylvaniaÏand€Bridgestone€(USA),€Inc.,€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÏnecessary.ÌÓÓà àà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€on€February€24,€1998.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌóóÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ