ÿWPCÿ( Æ# ä UNï %= 0ûC U:>4xŒÆ›Æa '-w@5 0?u 0D´ÆøƾÆ„ 0DJ 0JŽ 0TØ 0^, 0hŠ 0rò 0|d 0†à 0f 1uö 0dk BÏ D3ìU>U *] 0@‡ 0KÇU*B)<DCe AO¨¸÷­¯v~\vÓÚ D+­& AOØ& 0D'' D/k' Bš' AY·' 0F( A©V(˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÓH=$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XÎ_XXXÔÑ7€¾úXXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular­M³$3|xkNLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5H WNEXNYNZN[N\N]N^NP_NE`NÓ€(ï(3ö$¤¤Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XxÖXXXÔÑ7€EJXXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, 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 d$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd-.1Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ®Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€,ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€,XÔÌÌò òJulyÏ8,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€,ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó £Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€,ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€,XÔÌÌò òJulyÏ8,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€,ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò'ÈÈÈÈdxd-‚ƒCþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd-¸:Müÿ << deUU(n$––ò ò(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)ó ó-.:›&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€+ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€,ÔÑ#€//Xd#ÑÑ#€//Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÑ À ÑÑ X Ñò ò›Þ ÞÌ€Ìó óà@ àò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌÙ€ÙœßR€231A1-j|` 81 `€€@ÿRß›à@ àAT€KNOXVILLEó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌPEGGY€S.€MALLICOAT,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àPlaintiff/Appellantà àà àà à)à àKNOX€CHANCERYà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNO.€€03S01„9708„CH„00100Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌC.R.€DANIELS,€INC.,€andà àà àà à)à àHON.€FREDERICK€D.€McDONALD,ÌNORTHBROOK€NATIONALà àà à)à àCHANCELLORÌINSURANCE€COMPANY,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà à€à àà à)à àÌà àDefendants/Appelleesà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòÌÌFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€the€Appellees:ÌÌóóó óJames€L.€Milligan,€Jr.à àà àà àPaul€D.€HoganÌLaw€Offices€of€James€L.€Milligan,€Jr.à àHogan€&€HoganÌ€€and€Associatesà àà àà àà à620€West€Hill€AvenueÌ607€Market€Street,€10th€Floorà àà àKnoxville,€TN€€37902ÌKnoxville,€TN€€37902ò òòòÌóóó óÌÌÌÓ  Óò òòòÌÌÌÌM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌò òòòMembers€of€Panel:ÌÌó óóóSpecial€Judge€Charles€D.€Susano,€Jr.ÌSenior€Judge€John€K.€ByersÌSpecial€Judge€Joe€C.€Loser,€Jr.ÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÔ% € ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBYERS,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòò òOPINIONó óóóÌÓ  Óà àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€SpecialÏWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€withÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€CourtÏof€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€Ìà àReview€of€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€theÏrecord€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€theÏfindings,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ïðð€50„6„225(e)(2);€òòStone€v.€City€of€McMinnville,€óó896€S.W.2d€548,€550€(Tenn.€1995).€ÌThe€application€of€this€standard€requires€this€Court€to€weigh€in€more€depth€theÏfactual€findings€and€conclusions€of€the€trial€court€in€a€workersðð€compensation€case.€ÏòòSee€Corcoran€v.€Foster€Auto€GMC,€Inc.,€óó746€S.W.2d€452,€456€(Tenn.€1988).Ìà àThe€plaintiff€filed€a€complaint€seeking€reconsideration€of€her€industrialÏdisability€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(2).€€She€had€previously€enteredÏinto€a€court„approved€settlement€agreement€that€awarded€her€25€percentÏpermanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€After€a€hearing,€the€trial€courtÍdismissed€the€plaintiffððs€complaint€because€she€failed€to€prove€any€increase€in€herÏdisability.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€appeals€and€raises€the€following€issue:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ H ÒÓÓð ðDid€the€trial€court€err€in€its€refusal€to€reopen€and€reexamine€the€vocationalÏdisability€of€the€Plaintiff/Appellant€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„421€[sic]€when€itsÏrefusal€was€based€solely€on€the€fact€that€there€was€no€additional€medicalÏtestimony€in€support€of€such€claim€of€further€disability.ðð€ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÓÓà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÓ  Óò òBACKGROUNDó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€plaintiff,€age€46€at€the€time€of€trial,€left€high€school€in€the€twelfth€gradeÏand€had€no€vocational€training.€€Her€employment€history€includes€working€inÏfurniture€factories,€working€as€a€cook€and€waitress€in€restaurants,€and€working€on€aÏfarm.€€In€February€1993,€the€plaintiff€began€working€for€the€defendant€in€theÏstenciling€department.€€In€a€short€time,€she€was€transferred€to€working€on€an€uprightÏsewing€machine,€which€required€her€to€stand€on€one€foot€while€pressing€a€pedalÏwith€the€other€foot€during€the€length€of€her€eight€hour€shift.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€testified€that€she€injured€her€back€while€working€for€theÏdefendant€on€September€1,€1993.€€She€said€she€bent€over€to€pick€up€a€hamper,Ïwhich€weighed€15€to€20€pounds,€felt€and€heard€a€ð ðpopðð€in€her€back,€and€could€notÏstraighten€up.€€The€plaintiff€tried€to€continue€operating€her€sewing€machine,€but€sheÏwas€unable€to€work€because€of€the€pain€in€her€back.€€She€sought€immediateÏmedical€attention€from€the€company€doctor.€€The€plaintiff€testified€that€sheÏdeveloped€pain€in€her€left€leg€a€few€days€after€this€work€injury.Ìà àThereafter,€the€plaintiff€saw€a€series€of€doctors€and€underwent€severalÏmethods€of€conservative€treatment,€including€rehabilitation€which€she€said€causedÏher€more€pain.€€Eventually,€the€plaintiff€was€referred€to€a€neurosurgeon€named€Dr.ÍRobert€S.€Davis,€whom€she€saw€for€the€first€time€on€February€22,€1994.€€At€that€time,Ïshe€complained€of€lower€back€pain,€bilateral€hip€pain,€thigh€pain,€and€calf€pain,€withÏthe€leg€pain€being€worse€on€the€left€side.€€Dr.€Davis€testified€by€deposition€that€theÏplaintiff€related€this€pain€to€her€work€injury€on€September€1,€1993.Ìà àDr.€Davis€reviewed€a€lumbar€M.R.I.,€which€had€been€done€on€October€8,Ï1993,€and€determined€she€had€degenerative€disc€disease€at€L4„L5€and€L5„S1€withÏsome€bulging€in€both€discs.€€He€also€reviewed€x„rays€which€revealed€that€she€hadÏthoracolumbar€scoliosis€convex€to€the€right.€€Dr.€Davis€ordered€a€second€lumbarÏM.R.I.€on€February€24,€1994€and€found€she€had€no€significant€changes€from€the€firstÏone.€€He€proceeded€to€treat€her€conservatively.Ìà àOn€June€28,€1994,€Dr.€Davis€opined€that€the€plaintiff€had€a€ten€percentÏimpairment€to€the€body€as€a€whole€based€upon€the€òòAMA€Guides.óó€€At€this€time,€heÏalso€determined€she€should€return€to€work€with€some€restrictions,€such€as€limitedÏbending€and€stooping€and€not€lifting€more€than€30€pounds.€€Ìà àWith€the€assistance€of€former€counsel,€the€plaintiff€and€the€defendantsÏentered€into€a€settlement€agreement€that€awarded€her€25€percent€permanent€partialÏdisability€to€the€body€as€a€whole,€which€was€based€upon€a€cap€of€2.5€times€theÏmedical€impairment€rating.€€The€settlement€agreement€was€approved€by€way€of€aÏcourt€order€on€February€2,€1995.€€The€order€made€no€mention€of€whether€theÏplaintiff€was€able€to€return€to€work€at€that€time.Ìà àœThe›€plaintiff€did€return€to€work€doing€various€jobs€within€her€restrictions.€ÏœHowever,›€the€plaintiff€testified€that€she€experienced€an€increase€in€her€leg€and€backÏpain€which€caused€her€to€be€unable€to€perform€her€restricted€duties€and€to€miss€aÏgreat€deal€of€work.€€The€plaintiff€explained€that€performing€her€work€while€sitting€orÏstanding€for€hours€at€a€time€made€her€pain€unbearable.€€Two€supervisors€œofÌ›€the€defendant€testified€that€the€plaintiff€was€given€jobs€within€her€restrictions€andÏthat€she€performed€them€to€the€best€of€her€ability,€despite€her€complaints€of€pain.€ÏDue€to€these€problems,€the€plaintiff€stopped€working€for€the€defendant€on€AugustÏ24,€1995€and€eventually€resigned€on€December€1,€1995.Ìà àPrior€to€and€during€this€interim,€the€plaintiff€returned€to€Dr.€Davis€withÏcomplaints€of€increased€leg€and€back€pain.€€Dr.€Davis€ordered€a€third€lumbar€M.R.I.Ïin€October€1995€and€determined€she€was€a€candidate€for€surgery.€€Until€the€thirdÏM.R.I.€was€performed,€he€had€encouraged€the€plaintiff€to€return€to€work€on€severalÏoccasions.€€On€February€19,€1996,€Dr.€Davis€performed€surgery€on€the€plaintiff€toÏrelieve€pressure€on€a€nerve€root.€€He€explained€that€this€surgery€was€intended€onlyÏto€help€the€pain€in€her€left€leg€and€that€ð ðit€really€should€not€significantly€affect€theÏback€pain€and€may€not€necessarily€change€any€numbness€or€tingling€or€anyÏweakness.ðð€€The€plaintiff€testified€that€the€surgery€alleviated€some€of€her€symptoms,Ïsuch€as€numbness€and€cramps€in€her€left€leg,€but€that€she€continues€to€experienceÏsignificant€pain€in€her€back.€€Ìà àOn€March€11,€1996,€Dr.€Davis€found€postoperative€improvement€based€uponÏfurther€examination€and€the€plaintiffððs€statement€that€the€numbness€had€resolved€inÏher€left€leg.€€On€April€12,€1996,€he€determined€her€impairment€would€remain€at€tenÏpercent€and€she€could€work€under€the€same€restrictions.€€He€found€the€plaintiffÏreached€maximum€medical€improvement€on€August€5,€1996,€approximately€sixÏmonths€after€surgery.€€Dr.€Davis€further€testified€that€the€condition€he€corrected€byÏsurgery€was€due€to€a€change€over€time€and€not€a€result€of€the€plaintiffððs€liftingÏincident€at€work€on€September€1,€1993.Ìà àAfter€the€surgery,€a€supervisor€contacted€the€plaintiff€about€jobs€availableÏwithin€her€restrictions,€but€she€never€contacted€the€defendant€about€returning€toÍwork.€€The€plaintiff€testified€that€she€enjoyed€working€and€would€work€if€she€wereÏable€but€that€she€is€in€too€much€pain€to€work€since€the€surgery.€Ìà àThe€plaintiff€further€testified€that€she€cannot€do€her€own€housework€and€thatÏher€daughter€has€to€do€it€for€her.€€She€said€she€has€tried€to€do€housework€but€sheÏalways€ends€up€having€more€pain€after€doing€so.€€The€plaintiff€said€she€had€neverÏexperienced€problems€with€her€back€prior€to€the€injury€at€work.Ìà àOn€December€22,€1995,€the€plaintiff,€with€new€counsel,€filed€a€complaint€forÏreconsideration€of€her€industrial€disability€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(2).€ÏThe€trial€was€held€on€July€11,€1997.€€At€the€end€of€hearing€the€evidence€andÏconsidering€the€deposition€testimony€of€Dr.€Davis,€the€trial€judge€dismissed€theÏplaintiffððs€complaint€because€she€failed€to€prove€any€increase€in€her€disability.€€TheÏtrial€courtððs€order€dismissing€the€complaint€was€filed€on€July€14,€1997.€€€à àÌÓ  Óò òDISCUSSIONÌÓ  Óà àó óUnder€the€provisions€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(2),€an€injuredÏemployee€can€file€a€new€cause€of€action€seeking€reconsideration€of€the€issue€ofÏindustrial€disability.€€The€statute€explains€that€ð ðsuch€reconsideration€shall€examineÏall€pertinent€factors,€including€lay€and€expert€testimony,€employeeððs€age,€education,Ïskills€and€training,€local€job€opportunities,€and€capacity€to€work€at€types€ofÏemployment€available€in€claimantððs€disabled€condition.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(2).Ìà àFurther,€the€extent€of€vocational€disability€is€a€question€of€fact€to€beÏdetermined€from€all€of€the€evidence,€including€lay€and€expert€testimony.€ÏòòWorthington€v.€Modine€Mfg.€Co.,óó€798€S.W.2d€232,€234€(Tenn.€1990).€€In€determiningÏwhether€the€plaintiff€had€an€increase€in€her€disability,€the€trial€court€heard€theÍtestimony€of€the€plaintiff€and€two€supervisors€and€considered€the€depositionÏtestimony€of€Dr.€Davis.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€testified€that€she€experienced€an€increase€in€her€leg€and€backÏpain€which€prevented€her€from€performing€her€restricted€duties€and€caused€her€toÏmiss€a€great€deal€of€work.€€She€explained€that€performing€her€work€while€sitting€orÏstanding€for€hours€at€a€time€made€her€pain€unbearable.€€The€plaintiff€also€testifiedÏthat€she€enjoyed€working€and€would€work€if€she€were€able€but€that€she€is€in€tooÏmuch€pain€to€work€since€the€surgery.€€Further€lay€testimony€by€two€supervisors€ofÏthe€defendant€showed€that€the€plaintiff€was€given€jobs€within€her€restrictions€andÏthat€she€performed€them€to€the€best€of€her€ability,€despite€her€complaints€of€pain.Ìà àIn€this€case,€as€in€all€workersðð€compensation€cases,€the€claimant's€ownÏassessment€of€her€physical€condition€and€resulting€disabilities€is€competentÏtestimony€and€cannot€be€disregarded.€òò€Tom€Still€Transfer€Co.€v.€Way,óó€482€S.W.2dÏ775,€777€(Tenn.€1972).€€However,€where€the€trial€judge€has€made€a€determinationÏbased€upon€the€testimony€of€witnesses€whom€he€has€seen€and€heard,€greatÏdeference€must€be€given€to€that€finding€in€determining€whether€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€trial€judgeððs€determination.€€òòSeeóó€òòHumphrey€v.€DavidÏWitherspoon,€Inc.,€óó734€S.W.2d€315€(Tenn.€1987).Ìà àThe€expert€testimony€of€Dr.€Davis€revealed€that€the€plaintiffððs€impairmentÏwould€remain€at€ten€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole€and€that€she€could€work€underÏthe€same€restrictions€he€had€previously€issued€€„„€limited€bending€and€stooping€andÏnot€lifting€more€than€30€pounds.€€Dr.€Davis€further€testified€that€the€condition€heÏcorrected€by€surgery€was€due€to€a€change€over€time€and€not€a€result€of€the€plaintiffððsÏlifting€incident€at€work€on€September€1,€1993.Ìà àWhen€the€medical€testimony€is€presented€by€deposition,€as€it€was€in€thisÏcase,€this€Court€is€able€to€make€its€own€independent€assessment€of€the€medicalÏproof€to€determine€where€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€lies.€€òòCooper€v.€INA,Ïóó884€S.W.2d€446,€451€(Tenn.€1994);€òòLanders€v.€Firemanððs€Fund€Ins.€Co.,€óó775€S.W.2dÏ355,€356€(Tenn.€1989).Ìà àAfter€a€careful€review€of€the€lay€testimony€in€this€case,€we€find€the€evidenceÏdoes€not€preponderate€against€the€decision€of€the€trial€judge€to€dismiss€theÏplaintiffððs€complaint.€€In€reviewing€the€expert€testimony,€we€have€determined€that€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€lies€in€favor€of€the€defendant€that€(1)€the€plaintiff€hadÏno€increase€in€impairment€according€to€Dr.€Davis,€(2)€she€was€able€to€return€to€workÏwith€restricted€duties€according€to€Dr.€Davis,€and€(3)€the€condition€Dr.€DavisÏcorrected€by€surgery€was€due€to€a€change€over€time€and€not€a€result€of€the€plaintiffððsÏlifting€incident€at€work€on€September€1,€1993.€Ìà àIn€arguing€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€increase€her€award€ofÏdisability,€the€plaintiff€says€the€trial€judge€ð ðshould€have€made€a€determination€ofÏwhether€[her]€return€to€work€in€January€1995,€was€meaningful,€basing€hisÏdetermination€on€all€of€the€testimony€presented€rather€than€foregoing€a€review€ofÏher€vocational€disability€because€she€lacked€an€additional€medical€impairment€fromÏa€medical€expert.ðð€€Because€we€find,€as€the€trial€judge€did,€that€the€plaintiff€failed€toÏprove€an€increase€in€her€disability,€we€do€not€reach€the€issue€of€whether€her€returnÏto€work€was€meaningful€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(1).€Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€and€the€cost€of€this€appeal€is€taxedÏto€the€plaintiff.€€à àÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€Judge€œÇÇÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÌà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€IN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌßJ€24;+'b|` ‚- `€@ÿJßà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àÒ S ÒÒ H Òà àà àPEGGY€S.€MALLICOATà àà àà à)€€€€KNOX€CHANCERYà à€ÌEDUCATIONà àà àà àà à)à àà àà à€€€€à à€à àà à€€€Ïà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)€€€€€No.€128743„1Ì€€€à à€€€à à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€à àà àà àà à€à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€ÏHon.€Frederick€D.€McDonaldà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€ChancellorÌC.€R.€DANIELS,€INC.,€andà àà àà à)ÌNORTHBROOK€NATIONALà àà à)€€€€€No.€03S01„9708„CH„00100ÌINSURANCE€COMPANY.à àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appelleeà àà à)ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà à€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€Ìà àà àà àà à€€€€à àJUDGMENT€ORDERÌà àà àà àÌà à€€€€€€€€€€€ÓfæÓÓ ø ÓÓ` Ü…X ì–XÓThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€theÏorder€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€Panel,€and€the€PanelððsÏMemorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€whichÏare€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ìà àà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€Opinion€of€theÏPanel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌà àà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panelððs€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€JudgmentÏof€the€Court.€€à àà àÌÒ  ÒÒ H Òà à€€€€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€plaintifft/appellant,€Peggy€S.€MallicoatÏand€James€L.€Milligan,€Jr.,€surety€€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌ07/08/98Ì€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àÌÌÌÌà à›