WPCH L[2dGLB^e#PAc"VD)^SUHߥUO$\AÛ{J1ac"NzXEO&P6:I7PRI8jy)<%]Zdba U݊ @;,?1hJ.8 5D8^\|J?PKa; 8i5g=5 8u\!73bm^b]vE\ %C[@uM_Te/ItcC͸QMW937@}5pk)k4<ӥ\T47 aՌ(wY|Xy J ZHCX{̪ "ȔGCt΀wH~ˢAg|vcBe 1\j$g19Ӎ oaddE>B҄cLb#\ %% ^ + 07 U&N w 4 z%  q  m   g -VNN zE9;;          # + 33333333333b;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; 0CCCC B .. 0K D5 D-$ 0KQQ AS 0 0DY A\\IB01S08T\knoxclerk4,,,,0٢r/ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularp)/:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptH45678- -(|G2G$ !..8dd8         0  X[X d(|3n$ !..8dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3n$ !..8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _8[XXdd8  ,@@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL & @@ATKNOXVILLE#,# L September19,2003Session "r X[X #XX[#CHARLESR.NEWMANv.THECITYOFKNOXVILLE,etal.X[X   p @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforKnoxCounty  p @@No.1498243SharonBell,Chancellor  \ FiledNovember18,_2003_ 4  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   No.E200300841_WC_ԄR3CV   #XX[#X[XAV) ` dE<` A       ThisworkerscompensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkersCompensation  AppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)for v hearingandreportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.Inthis b appeal,theemployeeinsiststhetrialcourterredingrantingsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthe N employer.Asdiscussedbelow,thepanelhasconcludedthetrialcourterredingrantingtheemployer : summaryjudgment. &v 7   Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(1999)AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt N Reversed  :     #X[#X[X.JohnK.Byers,Sr.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichE.RileyAnderson,J.,and  Rogere.Thayer,Sp.J.joined.  J.AnthonyFarmer,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,CharlesR.Newman r!  JamesT.SheaIV,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,theCityofKnoxville J#" PaulSummers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,E.Blaine_Sprouse_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,for "%r $ theappellee,SueAnnHead,Administrator,WorkersCompensationDivision,Tennessee &^!% DepartmentofLabor,SecondInjuryFund. &J"&   MEMORANDUMOPINION #XX[#X[X ("$(     Ordinarily,thestandardofreviewinaworkerscompensationcaseisdenovouponthe *%* recordofthetrialcourt,accompaniedbyapresumptionofcorrectnessoffindingsoffact,unless +&+ thepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(2).However, ,', whensummaryjudgmenthasbeengrantedinworkerscompensationcases,reviewisgoverned n-(- _byTenn.R.Civ.P.56,whichrequiresthecourttoreviewtherecordwithoutapresumptionof  correctnesstodeterminewhethertheabsenceofgenuineissuesofmaterialfactentitlesthe  movanttojudgmentasmatteroflaw.Thestandardgoverningtheassessmentofevidenceinthe  summaryjudgmentcontextiswellestablished.Courtsmustviewtheevidenceinthelightmost t favorabletothenonmovingpartyandmustalsodrawallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthe ` nonmovingparty.Summaryjudgmentshouldbegrantedonlywhenboththefactsandthe L  inferencestobedrawnfromthefactspermitareasonablepersontoreachonlyoneconclusion. 8  Goodloev.State,36S.W.3d62,65(Tenn.2001).Summaryjudgmentisalmostneveranoption $ t inworkerscompensationcases.Berryv.ConsolidatedSystems,Inc.,804S.W.2d445(Tenn.  ` 1991).  L    Thetrialcourtinthiscasefoundthattheplaintiffsworkerscompensationclaimhad $  alreadybeensettledthroughanAgreedOrdertheplaintiffenteredintowiththeCityofKnoxville   followinganinjurysufferedinthescopeandcourseofplaintiffsemployment.Thetrialjudge   thereforegrantedthedefendantssummaryjudgmentanddismissedtheclaim.Theplaintiff   arguesthatthiscaseisnotappropriateforsummaryjudgment,andweagree.     Facts  \     Theplaintiff,CharlesNewman,isa58yearoldpoliceofficerwho,atallmaterialtimes, 4 wasemployedbethedefendant,theCityofKnoxville.OnJune8,1989,whileonthejob,the  p plaintiffsufferedacardiacepisodediagnosedasamyocardialinfarction.Theplaintifffileda  \ workerscompensationclaim,andin1990theplaintiffandthedefendantsettledtheclaim H throughanAgreedOrder,providingtheplaintiffwithalumpsumpayment,weeklyworkers 4 compensationbenefitsfortimeoutofwork,andapromisetopayallrelatedmedicalbills.The   AgreedOrderprovides,inpertinentpart:   0  [T]hecourtfindsthat[employee]hassustainedahypertensiveconditionasaresultofhis  employmentwiththeKnoxvillePoliceDepartment,andthatthishypertensivecondition  hascontributedtoaslightmyocardialinfarctionoccurringonJune8,1989,whichrequire l hospitalizationandrelatedmedicalcare,andthatthepartieshaveagreedtocompromise X  andsettle[employees]claimforworkrelatedbenefitsonthebasisof20percent D! permanentpartialdisabilitytothebodyasawhole.0" (#(#   *** $X"   0  [T[heCityofKnoxvilleshallbeandstandforeverdischarged,exceptastofuturemedical %0!$ expensesashereinabovesetforth,undertheCompensationActofTennesseeand &"% ordinancesalltheCityofKnoxvilleonaccountofthehypertensivecondition.....'#&(#(#   TheplaintiffsubsequentlyreturnedtoworkwiththeCityofKnoxville.Onorabout )$( March21,2000,theplaintiffreportedthathesustainedan accidentalinjuryoraninjuryfrom |*%) an occupationaldiseasewhileperforminghisdutiesasapoliceofficer.Thisinjurythe_plaintiff h+&* reportedishypertensionandcoronaryarterydisease.Theseinjurieshavedisabledtheplaintiffto  theextentthathewillmostlikelyneverworkagain.    MedicalEvidence  t     Themedicalevidenceinthiscasecomesfromtheplaintiffsphysician,Dr.Charles L  _Bozeman_.Dr._Bozeman_Ԁtestifiedthatthestressoftheplaintiffsjobincreasedplaintiffsblood 8  pressurecausingprogressive endothelialdamagetoplaintiffsarteries.Dr._Bozeman_Ԁtestified $ t thatthecoronaryarterydiseasethattheplaintiffsuffersfromisrelatedtothehypertensionthat  ` theplaintiffhassufferedforalongtime.However,Dr._Bozeman_Ԁalsotestifiedthatthisdisabling  L  hypertensionandheartdiseasedevelopedsubsequenttotheeventsthatoccurredin1989.  8  Further,Dr._Bozeman_Ԁtestifiedthatiftheplaintiffdidnothavehypertension,hewouldstill $  probablyhavedevelopedcoronaryarterydiseaseatsometime,butthatthehypertensioncaused   thecoronaryarterydiseasetodevelopsooner.      Discussion        Becauseworkerscompensationcasesnecessarilyrequireproofofcausationbyexpert \ medicalevidenceintheformofopiniontestimony,summaryjudgmentmotionsshouldbe H enteredintowithcaution._Downen_Ԁv.AllstateIns.Co.,811S.W.2d523(Tenn.1991).Summary 4 judgmentisinappropriatewherethereisadisputeastothefacts,orwherethereisuncertaintyas  p towhethertheremaybesuchadispute,whichiswhysummaryjudgmentisalmostneveran  \ optioninworkerscompensationcases.Again,courtsmustviewtheevidenceinthelightmost H favorabletothenonmovingpartyandmustalsodrawallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthe 4 nonmovingparty.     Inthepresentcase,thereisadisputeastowhatexactlythe1990AgreedOrder  encompassed.Thatis,whethertheAgreedOrdercoveredthemyocardialinfarctionorthe  plaintiffshypertension,orboth.#XX[ #X[XԀThereisalsoadisputeastotherelationshipbetweenthe  plaintiffsinjuryin1989andthehypertensionandcoronaryarterydiseasethattheplaintiff l presentlysuffersfrom.ThetestimonyofDr._Bozeman_Ԁisnotsufficienttosupportsummary X  judgment,andtheplaintiffshouldbeaffordedtheopportunitytopresentevidencethatthereisa D! differencebetweenthemyocardialinfarctionhesufferedandthecoronaryarterydiseasehe 0"  currentlysuffersfrom. #l!   Fortheabovereasons,thegrantingofsummaryjudgmentbythetrialjudgeisreversed $D # andthecaseisremandedforproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.Costsaretaxedequallyto %0!$ theappellees.  &"%    `     h      p ______________________________ |*%)    `     h      p JOHNK.BYERS,SENIORJUDGE  h+&*        #XX['#X[X   __#XX[,#@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @ ATKNOXVILLE,TENNESSEEX[XԈ   #XX[-#  CHARLESR.NEWMANV.THECITYOFKNOXVILLE,ETAL.   KnoxCountyChanceryCourtX[X    .@$ %  %.%  % /% ! %!#/% " %"A/No.1498243   @"November18,2003    AV) ` dE<o` A p  @No.% # E200300841WCR3CV%#)0Ԉ k  AV) ` dE<B` A C   #XX[.#X[X@& JUDGMENT #XX[0#X[XԈ > #XX[R1#X[XԀThiscaseisbeforetheCourtupontheentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferral f totheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanel'smemorandumOpinionsetting R forthitsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference; >    ` Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthatthememorandumOpinionofthePanel  shouldbeacceptedandapproved;and     ` Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanel'sfindingsoffactsandconclusionsoflaware  adoptedandaffirmedandthedecisionofthePanelismadetheJudgmentoftheCourt. v    ` Thecostsonappealaretaxedtotheappellees,TheCityofKnoxville,forwhich N executionmayissueifnecessary. : ̀#XX[1#%  X[X   ` #XX[5#X[X