ÿWPCa  A# žUL© %õ 0 (û4#7U:F€ 0lˆ 0DôU<8 0Jt AQ¾Æ 0DÕw@ 0TYÆ­Æs Æ9 Æÿ 0^Å 0@# 0Dc B§ D/Ä 0hó D3[ BŽ 0r« 0| 0†™ 0 1u¯ 0d$U *ˆB)²DCÛ AMk}o­ìP™'év~vÓŽ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ.@FÐ Z‹4GeoSlab703 Lt BT LightX($¡¡WX$3|x%"Arial Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó()Ã$òòÚ  Ú3Ú  Úóó.èB' Z‹$Arrus BT Roman2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý j%Ek%l%m%En%o% Ó€q%Vr%îs%Ó€%2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óüÿP Pd$$'÷ÿ dxd26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô))))'ÿÿdxd d2@ 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`(Arial% Line 7 d77777Border 1dd"8Cþÿ << Gÿÿ úÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€6ÔÔ€6ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€6XÔÌÌò òMarch€30,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€6ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó sÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÔ€6Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€transcript€reflects€that€the€trial€judge€found€that€plaintiff€suffered€aÏseventy€(70%)€percent€permanent€partial€disability€to€each€arm.€€The€finalÏjudgment€signed€by€the€judge€refers€to€seventy€(70%)€percent€permanent€partialÏdisability€to€each€upper€extremity.€€However,€the€judgment€calculation€found€inÏthe€order€is€based€on€disability€to€each€arm.€€Plaintiff€has€argued€for€affirmanceÏbased€on€a€finding€of€impairment€to€each€upper€extremity.Ì £Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€6ÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóA€finding€of€seventy€(70%)€percent€impairment€to€each€upper€extremityÏrepresents€a€total€of€ninety„one€(91%)€percent€impairment€to€the€upperÏextremity.€€This€calculates€to€a€fifty„five€(55%)€percent€permanent€disability€to€theÏbody€as€a€whole.Ì FÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€6ÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóOur€own€calculations€using€Table€3€and€the€Combined€Values€ChartÏsuggest€that€the€combined€impairment€is€twenty„two€(22%)€percent€to€the€wholeÏperson.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€6ÔÔ€6ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€6XÔÌÌò òMarch€30,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€6ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó 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€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€6Ôò ò›Ñ7€ìXXdðdÈ7ќـÙßR€9:8A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌó óÌÌÌò òDANNY€MITCHELL,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à)à àHENRY€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JULIAN€P.€GUINN,ÏJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€€ÌAETNA€LIFE€&€CASUALTY€€€€€€€€€€à à)ÌINSURANCE€COMPANY€andà àà à)ÌDINA€TOBIN,€DIRECTOR€OF€à àà à)à àNo.€02S01„9706„CV„00053ÌDIVISION€OF€WORKERSððà àà à)ÌCOMPENSATION,€TENNESSEEà à)ÌDEPARTMENT€OF€LABOR,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellants.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€APPELLANTóó:òòà àà àà àà àFOR€APPELLEEóó:€€ÌP.€Allen€Phillipsà àà àà àà àKyle€E.€CroweÌGregory€A.€Petrinjakà àà àà àPost€Office€Box€500ÌWaldrop€&€Hall,€P.A.à àà àà à298€BroadwayÌ106€South€Liberty€Streetà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àMartin,€TN€38237ÌPost€Office€Box€726ÌJackson,€TN€38301ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONóóÌÌÌÌÌà@ àMEMBERS€OF€PANEL:ÌÌà@ àJANICE€M.€HOLDER,€JUSTICEÌà@ àHEWLITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌà@ àCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIEDà àà àà àà àCLARK,€SPECIALÏJUDGEÌÓÓó óà àThis€workerððs€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€specialÏworkerððs€Ñ7€ìXXdðXXdð7Ñcompensation€appeals€panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€withÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€SupremeÏCourt€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.ÌÌà àDefendant€Aetna€Life€&€Casualty€Insurance€Company€appeals€from€anÏaward€of€the€trial€court€based€on€a€finding€of€seventy€(70%)€percent€permanentÏpartial€disability€to€each€arm.× ƒ; ××  ×€€Defendant€contends€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding.€€For€the€reasons€set€forth€below,Ïwe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€as€modified.ÌÌà àPlaintiff€began€working€at€Atlantic€Homes€in€1994€as€a€bat€molder,€whichÏrequired€him€to€use€an€air€gun€and€cut€with€a€molding€cutter.€€Plaintiff,€who€wasÏthirty„one€years€old€at€trial,€completed€the€ninth€grade,€is€married,€has€twoÏchildren,€and€has€a€prior€vocational€history€which€includes€driving€a€dump€truck,Ïrunning€a€tar€patching€machine€for€the€highway€department,€forming€hoses€atÏPlumley€Rubber€Company,€operating€a€saw€at€a€sawmill,€drilling€holes€in€tableÏtops€at€Emerson€Electric€Company,€and€operating€a€hydraulic€machine€atÏSanders,€Inc.ÌÌà àIn€September€1995€plaintiff€began€experiencing€severe€pain€in€both€armsÏfrom€the€tips€of€his€fingers€to€his€armpits,€swelling,€and€numbness.€€He€wasÏinitially€seen€by€Dr.€Terry€Harrison,€his€family€doctor,€and€thereafter€was€seen€byÏDr.€Eugene€Gulish,€Dr.€Sid€Ray,€Dr.€Keith€Nord,€and€Dr.€Ronald€C.€Bingham.€€Dr.ÏNord€diagnosed€plaintiffððs€condition€as€bilateral€carpal€tunnel€syndrome€andÏperformed€surgery€on€each€of€plaintiffððs€hands€in€late€1995.€€Ìà àDr.€Nord€assigned€a€twenty€(20%)€percent€permanent€disability€rating€toÏeach€upper€extremity,€for€a€combined€impairment€of€twenty„four€(24%)€percentÏto€the€whole€person.€€He€determined€that€maximum€medical€improvement€hadÏbeen€reached€on€January24,€1996,€and€released€plaintiff€to€return€to€work€withÏpermanent€restrictions€of€no€lifting€greater€than€twenty€(20)€pounds€with€the€rightÏhand,€no€lifting€greater€than€ten€(10)€pounds€with€the€left€hand,€and€no€repetitiveÏgripping€or€twisting€with€either€hand.ÌÌà àPlaintiff€returned€to€work€on€light€duty.€€He€continued€to€suffer€elbow€pain,Ïmuscle€spasms€in€his€forearms,€loss€of€strength€in€his€hands,€and€swelling.€€ForÏtwo€to€three€works€he€cleaned€the€cafeteria.€€Later€he€was€assigned€to€cleanÏmobile€homes€that€were€under€construction.€€This€involved€sweeping€out€theÏtrailers€and€moving€broken€pieces€of€sheetrock.€€However,€he€specifically€wasÏinstructed€not€to€lift€anything€that€exceeded€his€lifting€restrictions.€ÌÌà àOn€the€first€day€that€plaintiff€was€assigned€to€the€mobile€home€cleaningÏassignment,€he€advised€his€supervisor€that€he€was€having€problems€moving€theÏsheetrock.€€He€complained€again€the€second€day.€€His€employers€attempted€toÏfind€another€suitable€job.€€Plaintiff€stated,€ð ðYou€donððt€have€anything€I€want€to€do.ðð€ÏHe€contended€that€the€mobile€home€cleaning€job€exceeded€his€weightÏrestrictions€and€that€he€could€not€perform€any€other€task.€€He€was€thenÏterminated.ÌÌà àAt€the€time€of€trial€plaintiff€had€not€successfully€been€reemployed.€€He€hadÏchecked€periodically€with€the€unemployment€office€but€had€made€application€forÏwork€only€at€two€grocery€stores.€€He€did€not€apply€anywhere€else€because,Ïbased€on€his€understanding€of€all€factory€work,€he€did€not€believe€he€couldÏperform€the€job€requirements.€€He€continued€to€experience€pain,€weakness,Ïswelling,€and€numbness.ÌÌà àOur€analysis€has€been€made€very€difficult€by€the€confusion€surroundingÏthe€actual€finding€of€disability.€€We€begin€by€noting€the€discrepancy€between€theÏtrial€courtððs€oral€finding€that€plaintiff€suffered€a€seventy€(70%)€percent€permanentÏpartial€disability€to€each€arm,€and€the€language€of€the€final€judgment€awardingÏseventy€(70%)€percent€to€each€upper€extremity.× ƒ< ××  ×€€The€parties€have€compoundedÏthis€confusion€by€arguing€different€positions.€€Plaintiffððs€brief€refers€to€the€upperÏextremities.€€Defendantððs€brief€refers€to€the€arms.€€As€noted€in€òòPamela€AdeliciaÏCorbin€v.€I.T.T.€Hartfordóó,€No.€02S01„9408„CH„00055€(Tenn.€Work.Comp.€App.,ÏMay€17,€1995):ÌÓÓà@ à.€.€.€ÌÌà8 à[W]e€would€like€to€call€attention€to€the€fact€that€both€the€legalÏprofession€and€the€medical€profession€seem€to€be€drifting€into€theÏhabit€of€using€the€terms€ð ðupper€extremityðð€and€ð ðarmðð€and€ð ðlowerÏextremityðð€and€ð ðlegðð€interchangeably.€€This€presents€seriousÏconfusion€from€a€legal€standpoint€because€ð ðarmðð€(Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð50„6„207(3)(A)(m)€)€and€ð ðlegðð€(Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50„6„207(3)(A)(O)€are€both€scheduled€members,€and€the€statuteÏprovides€for€ð ðsixty„six€and€two„thirds€percent€(66„2/3%)€of€theÏaverage€weekly€wages€during€two€hundred€(200)€weeks,ððÏwhereas€neither€ð ðextremityðð€is€a€scheduled€member,€ò òWells€v.ÏSentry€Ins.€Co.€and€Modine€Mfg.€Co.,ó ó€834€S.W.2d€935Ï(Tenn.€1992),€but€come€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50„6„207(3)(F)Ïwhich€provides:€ð ðAll€other€cases€of€permanent€partial€disability€notÏabove€enumerated€shall€be€apportioned€to€the€body€as€a€wholeÏwhich€shall€have€a€value€of€four€hundred€(400)€weeks,€.€.€.€ð ð€TheÏdistinction€between€a€scheduled€member€and€a€non„scheduledÏmember€becomes€readily€apparent€and€this€is€even€moreÏtroublesome€when€a€reading€of€the€record€leads€to€a€feeling€thatÏthe€doctor€and/or€the€attorney€or€judge€are€just€not€properlyÍdesignating,€from€a€legal€perspective,€the€parts€of€the€anatomyÏthey€really€mean.€€In€any€case,€we€must€take€the€record€as€we€findÏit.ÌÌÌÌÓÓThe€actual€medical€records€from€Dr.€Nord€reflect€the€following€determination:ÌÌÓÓà8 àHe€has€reached€maximum€medical€improvement€and€hisÏpermanent€physical€impairment€according€to€the€Guides€to€theÏEvaluation€of€Permanent€Impairment€from€the€AMA,€using€table€16,Ïupper€extremity€impairment€due€to€entrapment€neuropathy€of€theÏmedian€nerve€at€the€wrist€with€moderate€residual€symptoms,€thisÏtranslates€into€20%€upper€extremity€impairment€of€the€right€upperÏextremity€and€20%€for€the€left€upper€extremity.€€This€converts€to€aÏ12%€whole€person€impairment€using€table€#3€on€page€20€of€theÏGuides€for€combined€percent€impairment€of€20%€impairment€forÏthe€whole€person.× ƒ= ××  ×ÌÌÌÌÓÓClose€review€of€the€judgment€order€reveals,€however,€that€the€calculation€madeÏthere€is€actually€based€on€a€finding€of€disability€to€each€arm€(70%€x€200€weeksÏ=€140€weeks€for€each€arm,€or€a€total€award€of€280€weeks).€€This€equates€to€aÏfinding€of€seventy€(70%)€percent€disability€to€the€whole€person.ÌÌà àAppellate€review€is€de€novo€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,Ïaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact,€unlessÏthe€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50„6„225(e)(2).€€This€tribunal€is€required€to€conduct€an€independent€examination€ofÍthe€record€to€determine€where€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€lies.€€òòWingertÏv.€Government€of€Sumner€Countyóó,€908€S.W.2d€921€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà àThe€extent€of€vocational€disability€is€a€question€of€fact€for€the€trial€courtÏthat€does€not€definitively€depend€on€the€medical€proof€regarding€the€percentageÏof€anatomical€disability.€€òòCorcoran€v.€Foster€Auto€GMC,€Inc.óó,€746€S.W.2d€452,Ï457€(Tenn.€1988).€€The€trial€court€may€determine€the€extent€of€vocationalÏdisability€from€all€the€evidence,€including€lay€and€expert€testimony.€€òòWorthingtonÏv.€Modine€Manufacturing€Companyóó,€798€S.W.2d€232,€234€(Tenn.€1990).€€InÏdetermining€vocational€disability,€the€question€is€not€whether€the€employee€canÏreturn€to€the€work€performed€prior€to€the€injury,€but€whether€the€employeeððsÏearning€capacity€has€been€diminished€in€the€open€labor€market.€€òòClark€v.ÏNational€Union€Fire€Insurance€Companyóó,€774€S.W.2d€586,€588€(Tenn.€1989).€€ÌÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that€plaintiff€was€thirty„one€(31)€years€old€at€trial,€hadÏa€ninth€grade€education,€and€had€worked€most€of€his€life€in€manual€labor€jobs.€ÏThe€trial€court€also€found€that€plaintiff€had€obvious€intellectual€limitations€andÏcould€not€perform€any€jobs€requiring€contact€with€the€public.€€He€was€unable€toÏperform€his€regular€production€work€after€surgery€because€of€continuedÏproblems€with€his€arms.€€Defendant€contends€that€plaintiff€has€made€no€realÏeffort€to€secure€new€employment.€€However,€the€trial€court,€after€carefullyÏconsidering€plaintiffððs€credibility,€found€that€plaintiff€had€no€reasonablyÍtransferable€job€skills€and€no€reasonable€local€employment€opportunities.€ÏWhile€the€court€expressed€some€concern€about€plaintiffððs€motivation,€the€courtÏalso€found€his€case€of€carpel€tunnel€syndrome€to€be€very€severe.€€ÌÌà àœThe›€evidence€œin€this€case€supports›€a€finding€of€seventy€(70%)€percentÏœimpairment€to›€each€upper€extremity,€or€fifty„five€(55%)€percent€permanent€partialÏdisability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€The€judgment€is€modified€accordingly€andÏaffirmed€as€modified.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€defendants/appellants.€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€SPECIALÏJUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ______________________________________ÌJANICE€M.€HOLDER,€JUSTICEÌÌÌ______________________________________ÌHEWLITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌœÇÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€Ôà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÌDANNY€MITCHELL,à àà àà à)à àHENRY€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€524€BelowÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Julian€P.€Guinn,Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJudge.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€à àNo.€€02S01„9706„CV„00053ÌßJ€9>;+'b|õ)` Å `€@ÿJßAETNA€LIFE€&€CASUALTY€INS.à à)ÌCO.,€et€al.,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà àà à)à àAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIED.ÌÌÌà@ àòòJUDGMENT€ORDERóóÌÌÓÓà àà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€motion€for€review€pursuantÏto€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(5)(B),€the€entire€record,€including€theÏorder€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€andÏthe€Panel's€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ìà àà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€reviewÏis€not€well„taken€and€should€be€denied;€andÌà àà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€isÏmade€the€judgment€of€the€Court.€€ò òÌó óà àà àCosts€on€appeal€are€assessed€to€the€appellants.Ìà àà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€this€____€day€of€March,€1998.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌÌHolder,€J.€€„€Not€participating.Ô€6Ô›