ÿWPC' Æ# ä UNï %= 0ûC U:>4xŒ ›Æ¡Æg-w@5 0?u 0D´ÆøƾÆ„ 0JJ 0T” 0^è 0hF 0r® 0|  0†œ 0" 1u² 0d' B‹U>¨ D3æU*U*C 0@m 0K­B)øDC! AOd¼³v~ovÓí D+À$ AOë$ 0D:% D/~% B­% AYÊ% 0F#& A©i&˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÓH=$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XÎ_XXXÔÑ7€¾úXXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularÚƒç"3|xyHLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 eDfghDijklmnÓ€(ï(3Àz$¤¤Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€X¸¿XXXÔÑ7€…TXXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 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< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd-.0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ²Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€+ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òOctoberÏ21,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò'ÈÈÈÈdxd-‚ƒCþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””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 À ÑÑ X ÑÑ  ÑÙ€ÙÓ  ÓßR€120A1-j|` 81 `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌEMILY€MILLS,à àà àà àà à)à àKNOX€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àPlaintiff/Appellantà àà àà à)à àNO.€œ03S01„9611„CV„00110›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€DALE€C.€WORKMAN,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌBAPTIST€HOSPITAL€OF€EAST€à àà à)ÌTENNESSEE,€INC.,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appelleeà àà à)ÌÌòòò òÌÌóóó óÌÌÌò òòòFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€the€Appellee:ÌÌó óóóJames€M.€Mooreà àà àà àà àBarry€K.€MaxwellÌMOORE€&€SMITH,€P.C.à àà àà àReuben€N.€œPelot›,€IVÌ706€Walnut€Street,€Suite€600à àà àœEGERTON,›€œMcAFEE›,€œARMISTEAD›ÌKnoxville,€TN€37902òòò òà àà àà àà àó óóó&€DAVIS,€P.C.Ìòòò òà àà àà àà àà àà àóóó ó500€First€American€CenterÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€2047Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TN€37901ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòÌÌÌÓ  ÓM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌÌÌMembers€of€Panel:ÌÌó óóóJustice€Adolpho€A.€Birch,€Jr.ÌSenior€Judge€John€K.€ByersÌSpecial€Judge€Irvin€H.€œKilcrease›,€Jr.ÌÌÓ  ÓÌÔ% € ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœAFFIRMED€as€MODIFIED.›à àà àà àà àà àBYERS,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÓÓà 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 àThe€trial€court€found€the€plaintiff€had€sustained€a€œ10›€percent€vocationalÏimpairment€to€her€left€lower€extremity€as€a€result€of€an€injury€to€her€knee€onÏSeptember€25,€1991.€€The€trial€court€further€found€the€plaintiff€reached€maximumÏmedical€improvement€on€March€3,€1993.€€Additionally,€the€trial€court€found€theÏdefendant€was€not€liable€for€medical€bills€œincurred›€by€the€plaintiff€after€March€3,Ï1993.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€appeals€and€claims€the€trial€court€erred€in€limiting€the€recovery€toÏten€percent,€that€the€period€of€temporary€total€disability€should€have€extended€untilÏApril€15,€1995,€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€holding€the€defendant€was€not€liableÏfor€medical€bills€after€March€3,€1993.Ìà àThe€defendant€raises€as€an€issue€the€claim€that€the€plaintiff€has€failed€toÏshow€she€sustained€any€disability€as€a€result€of€her€injury.Ìà àWe€find€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€should€be€affirmed€in€all€things€exceptÏfor€the€award€of€ten€percent€permanent€vocational€disability€to€the€lower€extremity.€ÏWe€find€from€the€record€the€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€recover€at€the€rate€of€25€percent€forÏthe€injury€to€her€left€lower€extremity.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€was€age€51€at€the€time€of€the€trial;€she€had€a€high€school€diplomaÏand€was€a€certified€nursing€assistant.€€On€September€25,€1991,€she€fell€whileÏworking€for€the€defendant.Ìà àThe€medical€evidence€in€this€case€was€given€by€Dr.€William€M.€Hovis,€anÏorthopedic€surgeon.€€Dr.€Hovis€found€the€plaintiff€had€a€pre„existing€arthriticÏcondition€in€both€knees.€€Dr.€Hovis€testified€this€can€be€œexacerbated›€or€acceleratedÏby€trauma.€€Dr.€Hovis€treated€the€plaintiff€for€the€injury€to€her€knee€by€various€means.€ÏHe€testified€she€had€reached€maximum€medical€recovery€on€March€3,€1993.€€Dr.ÏHovis€was€of€the€opinion€the€plaintiff€had€a€15€percent€impairment€to€her€left€leg,Ïwith€five€percent€of€this€caused€by€the€fall€and€the€remainder€œby›€the€arthriticÏcondition.€€Whether€Dr.€Hovis€placed€restrictions€on€the€plaintiff€because€of€herÏinjury€when€she€returned€to€work€is€less€than€clear.€€He€testified€she€should€refrainÏfrom€climbing,€squatting€and€kneeling.€€Dr.€Hovis€testified€the€restrictions€wereÏbased€on€her€overall€condition.Ìà àDr.€Hovis€testified€he€did€total€knee€arthroplasty€on€the€plaintiff€on€DecemberÏ8,€1994.€€Dr.€Hovis€testified€in€a€previous€deposition€that€the€plaintiff€would€requireÏknee€surgery€in€the€future€because€of€her€arthritis.€€He€testified€he€tried€to€dissuadeÏthe€plaintiff€from€having€the€surgery€in€1994€because€he€did€not€think€it€wasÏappropriate€at€that€time.€€However,€he€gave€in€to€her€request.€€Dr.€Hovis€testified€theÏsurgery€eliminated€the€previous€15€percent€medical€impairment€rating€and€that€theÏplaintiff€now€œhas›€a€37€percent€impairment€as€a€result€of€the€surgery.Ìà àWe€review€the€action€of€the€trial€court€with€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€ofÏthe€courtððs€œfindings€of€fact,›€and€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÏœfindings›€of€the€trial€judge,€we€œmust›€affirm€the€œjudgment.€€òòTenn.€Code€Annóó.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).€›€We€are€required€to€examine€the€record€in€depth€to€determine€where€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€lies.€€œòòStone›€v.€City€of€œMcMinnville›,€óó896€S.W.2d€584Ï(Tenn.€1991).€Ìà àThe€plaintiff€and€defendant€agree€that€the€plaintiff€had€an€accident€at€work.€ÏThe€defendant€claims€œthat€the›€plaintiff€failed€to€show€any€injury€other€than€anÏincrease€in€pain€as€a€result€of€the€aggravation€of€a€pre„existing€condition,€and€thatÏunder€the€holding€in€òòœTalley›€v.€Virginia€œIns›.€Reciprocal,€óó775€S.W.2d€587€(Tenn.Ï1989),€increase€in€pain€only€is€not€compensable.€€The€defendant€says€the€plaintiffÏhas€failed€to€show€the€injury€caused€any€compensable€injury€as€a€result€of€the€fall.€€Ìà àWe€find,€contrary€to€defendantððs€assertion,€that€the€plaintiff€did€show€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that€she€suffered€a€compensable€injury€and€that€sheÏsuffered€a€permanent€vocational€impairment€as€a€result€thereof.€€The€record€showsÏthe€plaintiff€was€pain€free€prior€to€this€injury.€€An€aggravation€of€a€pre„existingÏcondition€as€a€result€of€a€work€injury€is€compensable.€€òòWhite€v.€œWerthen›€Industries,Ïóó824€S.W.2d€158€(Tenn.€1992).Ìà àWe€find€the€division€of€the€medical€impairment€rating€by€Dr.€Hovis€in€his€AprilÏ8,€1994€deposition€œat›€five€percent€as€a€result€of€the€fall€and€ten€percent€as€a€result€ofÏthe€previously€existing€arthritis€to€be,€in€the€application€of€the€WorkersððÏCompensation€Law,€a€15€percent€medical€impairment.€€If€the€liability€for€aggravationÏof€a€pre„existing€condition€has€any€validity,€it€must€encompass€the€total€disabilityÏtriggered€by€the€injury.Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€evidence€shows€a€15€percent€medical€impairment€to€the€leftÏleg.€€We€find,€based€upon€the€medical€evidence,€including€the€restrictions€placedÏupon€the€plaintiff,€that€œshe›€has€sustained€a€30€percent€permanent€vocationalÏimpairment€to€œher›€left€leg€and€we€so€modify€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ìà àWe€do€not€find€the€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€recover€an€award€based€upon€theÏsurgery€done€upon€œher›€knee€in€œDecember›€1995.€€The€medical€evidence€shows€theÏsurgery€was€inevitable€in€the€future€because€of€her€arthritic€condition.€€The€surgeryÏwas€done€sooner€than€the€doctor€thought€it€should€be€and€the€doctor€was€not€of€theÏopinion€the€fall€caused€the€surgery€to€be€necessary.€€It€results€therefore€that€theÏmedical€expenses€incurred€by€the€plaintiff€after€March€3,€1993€are€not€theÏresponsibility€of€the€defendant,€and€we€affirm€œthat›€portion€of€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt.Ìà àDr.€Hovis€testified€the€plaintiff€reached€maximum€medical€recovery€on€MarchÏ3,€1993€and€returned€her€to€work.€€The€plaintiff€has€failed€to€show€the€period€ofÏtemporary€total€disability€should€extend€beyond€that€time.€Therefore€we€affirm€theÏtrial€courtððs€finding€on€œthat›€issue.Ìà àAs€modified,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€remand€this€case€toÏthe€trial€court€for€entry€of€any€orders€necessary€to€carry€out€this€judgment.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌAdolpho€A.€Birch,€Jr.,€JusticeÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌœIrvin›€H.€œKilcrease›,€Jr.,€Special€œJudgeò òòò›ÌÌœó óóó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÇÒ  ÒÒ H Òà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€IN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€à à€€€€€€€€€€€€€AT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÒ Ê ÒÒ H ÒÌÒ S ÒÒ H ÒEMILY€MILLS,€à àà àà àà à)€€€€KNOX€CIRCUITÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€No.€€1„719„93Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€à àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà à)à à€à àÌvs.€€à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€Hon.€Dale€C.€Workman€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àà à)€€€€€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌBAPTIST€HOSPITAL€OF€EASTà à€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌTENNESSEE,€INC.,à àà àà à)Ì€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€03S01„9611„CV„00110Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€Defendant/Appellee.à àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌà àà àà àà 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€defendant/appellee,€Baptist€Hospital€ofÏEast€Tennessee,€Inc.,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ì10/21/97ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÙ€ÙÙ€Ù<<€Conversion€error€>>à àà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€motion€forÏreview€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann€.ðð€50„6„225€(e)€(5)€(B),€the€entire€record,Ïincluding€the€order€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€AppealsÏPanel,€and€the€Panelððs€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€factÏand€conclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ìà àà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€review€is€notÏwell€taken€and€should€be€denied;€andÌà àà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panelððs€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€isÏmade€the€judgment€of€the€Court.Ìà àà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€the€plaintiff„appellant€and€sureties,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ìà àà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€this€____€day€of€June,€1997.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌÌAnderson,€J.€„€Not€ParticipatingÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌal€to€the€Special€Workerðð€Compensation€Panel,€and€the€Panelððs€MemorandumÏOpinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€areÏincorporated€herein€by€reference;Ìà àÌà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€Opinion€of€theÏPanel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌÌà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panelððs€findings€of€act€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€theÏJudgment€of€the€Court.ÌÌà àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€€to€the€plaintiff„appellant,€Vernon€Harris€andÌGilbert€and€Faulkner.€surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€ÌÌ06/03//97à àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌà à›