WPC # 4켴̱'$w۸8Č^r}/ݝWyv7 *BD56I8Q( )ŀF AoQڰ_Z`~I(BI@ɡs䓸=!\[S*a|U~E\Sc(^ N\Z& ʛ;Q }԰i@fC.V> P*txSnC8cV]HÃƧ7:  |bG$Ɍ)xa~ᢂi,U[-ij>0oDsFX+̔jT,sA[tAS=R2 eִjȰ!?|:~pW9YfU^D 6z=o?_$nw>VIay2pUd/*wEm3A̱;VbU)>\ 0D 0< 0= 0@b 0+ 0 0VO 0 0:* 0d& 0U>UJ  h  r |         D+ A@ o   ! 3@ EoO (       ( B-@ Bm 0#PUN %_Me(iN^ w4 m\"NN z,,UNELU@NNNNNNNNNNNNN 0 0 D3y y 0K AS 0J! 0D" A`"\  `&Times New Roman' Martin v Blount County &Clerk & Master&0Clerk & Master .   6E 54Heading 1  XXX         XXX<:Default Para.// ,Title        XXX6 4Body Text        :'' 8Body Text 2     XXX <00 :Body Text In  X        X : 8Body Text 3     0> .Footer !>44 <DL!>:8Page Number0> .Header !>44 <DL!>  ;c)..      +X5XX+XX5XX+X5  __! !X!   ѨXX5X5XѨX5XXX5 $ !!$  ,   b     X5XXX5(2;c$ )V!..      +X3AXX+XX3AXX+X3A  \  `&Times New RomankIA`2WP TypographicSymbolsa1a3Text5a4a5a6a7'dxd&Draw Object <<=8C HKKKK WPC i K513%)+-51d~ -a8Text24Text12  WPC i K513%)+-51d~ -a_Opinion_Summarya10a11a12QuickMark)Hairline d  d#|x(V$..      +X=1XX+XX=1XX+X=1HP LaserJet 40500(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular+X`+ yG*::i+00ULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5AC:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z(Times New Roman (G2Y$ )V!..      +X3AXX+XX3AXX+X3A   4   0  XX3A(3$$ )V!..      +X3AXX+XX3AXX+X3A  '''''dxd( $ Figure  1  7_X`YE<<C(3$$ )V!..      +X3AXX+XX3AXX+X3A  ($$   1  5X[&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK )V!..      +X5XX+XX5XX+X5  _       XX85XXdd8   @MXX5    T   @MINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEET݌  Ќ    X5X      XX5SPECIAL_WORKERS   _  ԀCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL 2 ATKNOXVILLE  f @M(December14,2000Session) H X5X@M@MXX5       %  %XRONMARTINv._BLOUNT_ԀCOUNTY,TENNESSEEX5X@M9݌ :  Ќ  X5XXX5  %  %F%  -  Ԁ-  %dԀDirectAppealfromthe%  CircuitCourt%for%  %_Blount_ԀCounty , | No.%  %LԀ%  E16724W.DaleYoung,CircuitCourt%lԀJudge  b -  k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KE K K2 -  No.%  %E200001138_WC_ԄR3CVMailedAugust27,2001%  -  Ԁ-  %   FILED:DECEMBER3,2001%  -  Ԁ-  %   -  k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KEk K Kk2 -     X         % ! This_workers_ԀcompensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkers ` CompensationAppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTennesseeCode F Annotated506225(e)(3)forhearingandreportingoffindingsoffactandconclusions ,| oflaw.Theemployerappealsandcontendsthetrialcourterredinfindingtheemployee b tobe100percentdisabledbecausenoexpertmedicalproofestablishedpermanencyof H thedisability.Wesustainthecontentionoftheemployerandreversetheawardof . permanentdisability. ( ݌  Ќ     X          x   x ݌̌               R݌̌               ݌̌            I  Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(1999)AppealasofRight;Judgmentofthe%!G % " %"_Blount_ \ CountyCircuitCourtReversed. Is݌ B Ќ         _HowellN.Peoples,Sp._ԀJ.,_delivered_Ԁtheopinionofthecourt,inwhich% # %#kWilliamM.  D  Barker,Jr.,Justice,andJohnK.Byers,Sr.J.,% $ %$Ԁ_joined_. !*! MichaelK.Atkins,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheAppellant_Blount_ԀCounty,Tennessee ## KevinShepherd,_Maryville_,Tennessee,fortheAppelleeRonMartin $$    4    < MEMORANDUMOPINION >'"' Ё́  X5XXX5     &    ݀BackgroundFacts   Ԍ )@%* Ќ    X5XXX5           4 ')݌̌           X  Plaintiff,RonMartin(Martin)wasemployedbythe_Blount_ԀCountySheriffs + ', DepartmentasacriminalinvestigatoronJune16,1993.Thatday,Martin,inthecourse ,'- andscopeofhisemployment,investigatedafiresceneatPopesPlantFarm.Thereisno -(. _indicationthatMartinhadanyhealthproblemspriortothistime.Whileinvestigatingthe  firescene,Martinbecameill.HealsofoundevidencethatMalathionandother  pesticideswerepresentinthebuildingatthetimeofthefire.݌ | Ќ             ݌ b Ќ           w  Martinreturnedtoworkthenextdaybutwenthomeafterbecomingsickatwork. H Martinfirstsoughttreatmentfromhisfamilyphysician,Dr.KimCline.Later,Martin . ~ wasseenbyDr.Marek_Pienkowski_,animmunologist.Inthecourseofhistreatment,  d MartinwasalsoseenbyDrs._Hargrove_,PorterandWarwick,thoughnoproofwas  J submittedregardingeitherthetreatmentprovidedortheopinionsformedbythese  0 physicians.AnindependentmedicalexaminationwasperformedbyDr.ArnoldHudson,    Jr.,a_pulmonologist_w݌    Ќ             /݌   Ќ             OnNovember8,1993,accordingtoDr._Pienkowski_,Martinreachedmaximum x  medicalimprovement.Martinreturnedtoworkwiththeonlyrestrictionbeingthat itis ^  absolutelyessentialthatheavoidallchemicalexposure.ThispreventedMartinfrom D  resuminghisdutiesasanarsoninvestigator.Forapproximatelyoneyear,Martin *z  remainedwiththe_Blount_ԀCountySheriffsdepartmentprimarilyperformingclerical ` duties.FromJanuary1995throughJuly1997,Martinworkedinvariouspositionswith F the_Blount_ԀCountyCourtClerksoffice.Martinwasemployedby_Blount_ԀCountyfor , almostfouryearsafterhereachedmaximummedicalimprovementbeforehewasplaced  ondisabilityretirement.݌  Ќ           -"  -"`"݌  Ќ           "  Fromthedateofexposure,Martincomplainedofjointpain,lethargy,andfatigue. t ThesesymptomscausedMartintobeunabletoperformthelightclericaldutieshewas Z assigneduponhisreturntotheSheriffsDepartmentandresultedinhimbeingplacedin @ theCourtClerksoffice.Despitebeingmovedtoanotherposition,Martinremained &v unabletoperformthetasksassignedtohim." #݌  \ Ќ           \%  \%%݌ B Ќ           &  ThepartiesstipulatedtheJune16,1993injurywascompensableandagreedupon ( theappropriatecompensationrate.Nooutstandingmedicalbillswereleftunpaid,nor  werethereanyissuesregardingthepaymentornonpaymentoftemporarytotaldisability  benefits.TheonlyissueattrialwaswhetherMartinsuffersfromapermanentvocational   disability.Asproofonthisissue,thedepositionsofthreephysicians,Drs.Cline, p!  _Pienkowski_,andHudson,andtwovocationalexperts,Drs._Nadolsky_ԀandCaldwell,were V"! submitted,andthetestimonyofMartinandDale_Gorley_,chiefofdetectivesofthe_Blount_ <#" CountySheriffsDepartmentwasheard.&8&݌ "$r# Ќ           B*  B*u*݌ %X $ Ќ           *  ThetrialcourtfoundthatMartinsuffersfroma100%totalvocationaldisability. %>!% _Blount_ԀCountyappealsthisfinding.*+݌ &$"& Ќ           ?,  ?,r,݌ ' #' Ќ           ,  ,-݌ (#( Ќ     _   X5XXX5     X&  -  StandardofReview- .  -Ԍ )$) Ќ    X5XXX5  X'). l*%*   Theextentofvocationaldisabilityisaquestionoffacttobedeterminedfromall R+&+ oftheevidence,includinglayandexperttestimony.Nelsonv.WalMartStores,Inc.,8 8,', S.W.3d625,628(Tenn.1999);_Worthington_Ԁv._Modine_ԀMfg._Co.,798S.W.2d232,234 -n(- (Tenn.1990).Ourreviewofthetrialcourt'sfindinginthiscaseisdenovouponthe  record,"accompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthefinding,unlessthe  preponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise."Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(2)(1999). | Weareobligedtoreviewtherecordonourowntodeterminewherethepreponderanceof b theevidencelies._Ivey_Ԁv.TransGlobalGas&Oil,3S.W.3d441,446(Tenn.1999); H Corcoran_v._ԀFosterAuto_GMC_,Inc.,746S.W.2d452,456(Tenn.1988).Although . ~ deferencestillmustbegiventothetrialjudgewhenissuesofcredibilityandweightof  d oraltestimonyareinvolved,Seals_v._ԀEngland/CorsairUpholsteryMfg.Co.,984S.W.2d  J 912,915(Tenn.1999);Jonesv.HartfordAccident&_Indem_.Co.,811S.W.2d516,521  0 (Tenn.1991),thisCourtisabletomakeitsownindependentassessmentofthemedical    proofwhenthemedicaltestimonyispresentedbydeposition.Landers_v._ԀFireman'sFund    Ins.Co.,775S.W.2d355,356(Tenn.1989);Hensonv.Cityof_Lawrenceburg_,851   S.W.2d809,812(Tenn.1993). x   X  % % %%6  X5XXX5       &  7  Discussion77  f7Ԍ *z  Ќ    X5XXX5  ݁'*7 `    4 Thedeterminationofwhetherapersonsuffersfromavocationaldisabilityis F baseduponnumerousfactors,includingtheemployeesskills,training,education,age, , localjobopportunities,hisorhercapacitytowork_atthekinds_Ԁofemploymentavailable,  theratingofanatomicaldisabilitybyamedicalexpert,theemployeesownassessment  ofhisorherphysicalconditionandresultingdisability,andemploymentaftertheinjury.  _Cleek_Ԁv.WalMartStores,Inc.,19S.W.3d770,7745(Tenn.2000). Exceptwhere t permanentdisabilityisobvioustoalayman,afindingofpermanencymustbebasedon Z competentmedicalevidencethatthereisamedicalprobabilityofpermanencyorthat @ permanencyisreasonablycertaintobepermanent._Kellerman_Ԁv.FoodLion,Inc.,929 &v S.W.2d333,3356)(citingSingletonv._Procon_ԀProducts,788S.W.2d809(Tenn.1990));  \ Henley_v._ԀRoadwayExp.,699S.W.2d150(Tenn.1985).Theplaintiffina_workers_ B compensationcasehastheburdenofprovingeveryelementoftheclaim._Tindall_Ԁv. ( _Waring_ԀPark_Assn_,725S.W.2d935(Tenn.1987).Iftheclaimisforpermanent  disabilitybenefits,permanencymustbeproved.Thomas_v._ԀAetnaLifeandCasualty  InsuranceCompany,812S.W.2d278(Tenn.1991).Anyexpertmedicalwitness   presentedmustgivetestimonythatpreponderatesinfavorofpermanencytoqualifyas p!  havingprobativevalueonthatissue.Johnsonv._Midwesco_,Inc.,801S.W.2d804(Tenn. V"! 1990);OwensIllinois,Inc._v._ԀLane,576S.W.2d348(Tenn.1978). <#"         A   4 Inthiscase,Martinofferedthetestimonyoftwophysicians.Dr.ArnoldHudson, %X $ Jr.,whosepracticeislimitedtopulmonaryandoccupationalmedicine,sawMartinone %>!% timeonNovember8,1993,andtestifiedthathe(1)wasunabletoidentifyanyspecific &$"& limitationsinMartinsfutureworkenvironment,(2)couldnotstatewithinareasonable ' #' degreeofmedicalcertaintywhethertheconditionhewasevaluatingwaspermanentin (#( nature,and(3)placednorestrictionsonMartin.MarekM._Pienkowski_,M.D.,Ph.D., )$) testifiedhehadbeenanimmunologyspecialistfortwelveyears.Hebegantreating l*%* MartinonJuly29,1993andsawhimonAugust10,August24,September21,October R+&+ 19,_November161993_,andFebruary15andApril5,1994.Dr._Pienkowski_Ԁdidnotstate 8,', thatMartinhadaworkrelatedpercentageofpermanentimpairment.Hetestifiedthat -n(- MartincouldreturntoworkonSeptember15,1994withthelimitationthathe_avoid_  chemicalexposure.Hewasnotaskedwhetherthatlimitationwaspermanent.Healso  testified:AA݌ | Ќ       Ӂ X  <( $ <DLX< $ Ialways,whenIadvisepatientthereissomequestionable,questionof H  XE(4 44 <DL$ XEhypersensitivityreaction,toavoidchemicalexposure.Becausethats . ~ goingtopotentiallyprecipitant(sic)moreproblemsinthefuture.And,  d youknowRonsclinicalsettinghere,clinicalsituationonmy,asIsaw  J himonlastvisitwasessentially,hewasinremission.  0  X  E+4 44 <DL!444XEӁ      X  J  JulianM._Nadolsky_,_Ed.D._,avocationalexpert,testifiedthatheinterviewedandtested    MartinandreviewedhismedicalrecordsandopinedthatMartinis100percentdisabled   forworkandwillbeunabletoengageinemploymentinthefuture.Dr._Nadolsky_Ԁisnota x  medicaldoctor,thus,heisnotqualifiedtogiveanopinionastopermanentdisability.JK݌ ^  Ќ               M   4 TheemployerofferedthetestimonyofDr.KimCline,boardcertifiedininternal *z  medicine,whosawMartinonetimeandtestifiedthatshefoundnoassociationbetween ` thechemicalexposureandhiscondition.RodneyE.Caldwell,Ph.D.,testified,forthe F employerasavocationalexpert,thathefoundnomedicaltestimonyestablishing , permanentimpairmentorlimitationsrelatedtoMartinschemicalexposure.Martins  attorneyaskedDr.Caldwellto assumethatwehaveareportfromadoctor,suchasDr.  _Pienkowski_,whichleavessomeunansweredquestions.Verybroadlytalksabout  hypersensitivity.Dr.Caldwellultimatelyresponded: Frankly,itsunfortunate t questionswerenotaskedofDr._Pienkowski_Ԁwhichwouldclarifythis.MM݌ Z Ќ       ́  X5XXX5        &  -R  -RR  zRԌ̌    X5XXX5    X5XXX5        >S  Conclusion>SS  SԌ B Ќ    X5XXX5  ' R        xT   4 BecauseMartinfailedtoproducemedicalevidencethathehasapermanent  impairmentorpermanentlimitationsthatareworkrelated,hisclaimforpermanent  disabilitymustbedenied.Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtawarding_Martin_Ԁpermanent   totaldisabilitybenefitsisreversed.CostsoftheappealaretaxedagainsttheAppellee.xTT݌ p!  Ќ      V"! Ё́́́ 4    <     ______________________________ &$"& ЀHowellN.Peoples,SpecialJudge  ' #' @MXX58C5CXXdXXd8  @ #X5X@MW#XX5INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @RR$ATKNOXVILLE  #X5XX# @MXX5  RONMARTINv._BLOUNT_ԀCOUNTY,TENNESSEE#X5X@MHY#  $ gY@* @*A'D) ` dE< ` A߈   @No.E200001138SCWCMCV   A'D) ` dE<h ` A i    @( ORDER  Z  @%%FiledDecember3,2001 @  EX5XXX5 4  ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtuponmotionforreviewpursuanttoTenn. B  CodeAnn.506225(e)(5)(B),theentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferraltothe ( SpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanel'sMemorandumOpinion  settingforthitsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinby  reference;   4  Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthatthemotionforreviewisnotwell p takenandshouldbedeniedand V  4  Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanel'sfindingsoffactandconclusionsof < lawareadoptedandaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgmentofthe "r Court.  X   4  CostsonappealaretaxedtotheAPPELLEE. >  4  ITISSOORDEREDthis____dayof______,2001.    4    <     PER_CURIAM_  Barker,J.Notparticipating. l #X5XXEX5[#CX5XXX5 4    <      D #X5XXCX5`#  "n"