ÿWPC: ë_F ôÊÇL}²šN´ ŸUœó¡GË僽ȵ há-‚ÉbàWügj3ë„îYzÈPZ7IS s|HâÏŽ,†H¾Çg/ÛתM¯­ÍøÔ |T«€®W}÷>˜K×F•»? ßÖÒlÚëÌ"û\mèQ(‘Í|²:0NV çétxLÁü£ŽGd¼©¢OŒ75í<öɈßÈðÇxzΕ¿ öóêÚW3À¦'Ž®‹Å¢È†¸L+MüÞÀký>2:29±PN)†?¡ˆÎ³ù¦,Õch¼ÄîG¹9¥”P <Ìóü'ö4¼~S()oÏøOƒ!^Þ‘å¯ÇŒL.Ígö#”öª@c$-X-Ýq5‡Ûi½WóÉÚ*Npÿ—Dþb.*‰ñ„ˆŒœOWÌ1þN`ÔqÌÏÃǪrþÁ$1åG¶mƶG–™å'NUˆšV=NKì¶§7¦ i¹X7.–íM}åûH¥ä+>V,8ìÊ{x’×ê~ÛÌôºw~ Ëkô3{pçwËZ}Ïc–ÅJs:£Í¬TDÞœí‚D¥žëúÏqI×i}…ùëL ¤YÜrÒ"VJúî7¨Ë.;;öaͲ8úM‹±¦Ý”/‚‰ÂÅ) Ø‘|»Y®Â¬¼b %\#Áb 0ˆ# UN« 0Dù ^ = wI zM ÒÇ 4™ ­ ¼ m¾ ÆÕ Æ› Æa Æ'UNíN;=NEEG 1uI 72¾ 0cðUNSN¡ z£ÒU@ïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïb//////////////////////////////////// 0ë7777 B "" 0¤? D3ã D- 0KCC ASŽÆá 0¤§ 0DK A«»˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÌ­†+s  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÝ^p+LàË  œ''Ø'3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular 3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular˜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.wpt(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman - ù-(|G2µª$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ t»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€Xz4X»»Ô d(|3…ë$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ t»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3…ë$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ t»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ô»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼¼x»»»ÔÑ8€{tXXdê»»d 8ÑÓ  ÓÔ‡î¹é¼xÔà@@7 7 ìàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÐ Ö& Ðà@@ƒƒìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼¼x»îî¹éî#ÔÐ üL ÐAugust€20,€2001€SessionÐ "r ÐÔ‡XàTX»¼¼xÔÌò òÔ#†¼¼x»XXàT#ÔÔ_ÔDWAINÔ_Ô€PARKSòòóó€v.€ROYAL€INSURANCE€COMPANY€OF€AMERICAòòóóÔ‡XàTX»¼¼xÔó óÐ  p ÐÌà@@¼¼ìàò ò€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€€Court€for€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ô€CountyÐ  p Ðà@@ôôìàNo.€17,312€€€€€€Martha€B.€Ô_ÔBrasfieldÔ_Ô,€ChancellorÐ  \ ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Ï` AßÐ Ð  ÐÌNo.€W2000„02778„Ô_ÔWCÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Mailed€October€25,€2001;€Filed€December€4,€2001Ð Ë  ÐÔ#†¼¼x»XXàT»#ÔÔ‡XàTX»¼¼xÔÌÌßA€V) °°` dE<Ž` AßÐ ß Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€AppealsÐ ŠÚ ÐPanel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€andÐ vÆ Ðreporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.Ô#†¼¼x»XXàTù#ÔÔ‡XàTX»¼¼xÔ€€Ô#†¼¼x»XXàTä#ÔÔ‡XàTX»¼¼xÔIn€this€appeal,€theÐ b² Ðemployer's€insurance€carrier€contends€(1)€the€award€of€permanent€partial€disability€benefits€basedÐ Nž Ðon€50€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole€is€excessive€because€the€trial€judge€considered€aggravation€ofÐ :Š Ða€pre„existing€mental€condition€in€addition€to€carpal€tunnel€syndrome,€(2)€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ &v Ðawarding€any€permanent€vocational€disability€benefits,€(3)€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€aÐ b Ðpsychologist's€witness€fee€as€discretionary€costs,€and€(4)€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€a€medicalÐ þN Ðexaminer's€fee€as€discretionary€costs.Ô#†¼¼x»XXàT(#ÔÔ‡XàTX»¼¼xÔ€€The€employee€insists€the€award€of€permanent€partial€disabilityÐ ê: Ðbenefits€is€inadequate.€€As€discussed€below,€the€panel€has€concluded€the€judgment€should€beÐ Ö& Ðmodified€with€respect€to€discretionary€costs,€but€otherwise€affirmed.Ð Â ÐÓ€ÓÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)€(2000)€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ šê ÐAffirmed€as€Modifiedó óÐ † Ö ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÓ  ÓJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Sp.€J.Ô#†¼¼x»àXàT #ÔÔ‡XàTX.¼¼xÔóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJanice€M.€Holder,€J.,óó€and€òòW.Ð ^"®! ÐMichael€Ô_ÔMaloanÔ_Ô,€Sp.€j.óó,€joined.Ð J#š" ÐÌRobin€H.€Ô_ÔRasmussenÔ_Ô,€Cordova,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Royal€Insurance€Company€of€America€Ð "%r $ ÐÌMichael€W.€Whitaker,€Covington,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Ô_ÔDwainÔ_Ô€ParksÐ ú&J"& ÐÌÓ ÓÓ  Óò òMEMORANDUM€OPINIONó óÔ#†¼¼x»XXàT^ #ÔÔ‡XàTX»¼¼xÔÐ Ò("$( ÐÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼¼x»XXàTª#ÔÔ‡XàTX»¼¼xÔà  àThe€employee€or€claimant,€Parks,€is€a€52€year„old€high€school€graduate.€€He€began€workingÐ ª*ú%* Ðfor€Ring€Can€in€1989.€€He€gradually€developed€bilateral€carpal€tunnel€syndrome€from€repetitive€useÐ –+æ&+ Ðof€the€hands€at€work.€€The€date€of€injury€is€June€or€July€of€1997.Ð ‚,Ò', ÐÐ n-¾(-ý Ðà  àWhen€conservative€care€failed,€the€treating€physician€performed€carpal€tunnel€releases€andÐ ° Ðestimated€the€claimantððs€permanent€impairment€at€2€percent€to€each.€€The€claimant€returned€to€workÐ œì Ðfor€the€employer€on€October€15,€1997,€but€again€developed€symptoms€of€carpal€tunnel€syndrome.€Ð ˆØ ÐHe€worked€regularly€until€the€death€of€his€father.€€An€independent€medical€examiner,€Dr.€Ô_ÔJanovichÔ_Ô,€Ð tÄ Ðestimated€his€permanent€impairment€at€9€percent€on€the€right€and€13€percent€on€the€left,€consideringÐ `° Ðhis€post„operative€symptoms.€€A€psychiatrist€testified€that€anxiety€from€the€injury€permanentlyÐ L œ Ðaggravated€his€pre„existing€depression.Ô#†¼¼x»XXàT#ÔÔ€XàTX»¼¼xÔ€€The€psychiatrist€characterized€the€claimantððs€depression€asÐ 8 ˆ Ðserious€and€established€the€required€causal€connection€to€the€claimantððs€carpal€tunnel€syndrome.€€TheÐ $ t Ðclaimantððs€testimony,€accredited€by€the€trial€court,€is€that€he€is€significantly€limited€in€his€ability€toÐ  ` Ðwork.€€A€psychologist€testified€regarding€the€claimantððs€limitations,€based€on€personal€observations.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àUpon€the€above€summarized€evidence,€the€trial€court€awarded€permanent€partial€disabilityÐ Ô$  Ðbenefits€based€on€50€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€Appellate€review€of€findings€of€€fact€is€de€novoÐ À  Ðupon€the€record€of€the€trial€court€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings,€unlessÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).€€The€extent€ofÐ ˜è  Ðan€injured€workerððs€permanent€vocational€disability€is€a€question€of€fact.€€òòCollins€v.€Ô_ÔHowmetÔ_Ô€Corp.óó,Ð „Ô  Ð970€S.W.2d€941,€943€(Tenn.€1998).Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThis€tribunal€is€not€bound€by€the€trial€court's€findings€but€instead€conducts€an€independentÐ H˜ Ðexamination€of€the€record€to€determine€where€the€preponderance€lies.€€òòÔ_ÔGallowayÔ_Ô€v.€Memphis€DrumÐ 4„ ÐServ.óó,€822€S.W.2d€584,€586€(Tenn.€1991).€€Where€the€trial€judge€has€seen€and€heard€the€witnesses,Ð  p Ðespecially€if€issues€of€credibility€and€weight€to€be€given€oral€testimony€are€involved,€considerableÐ  \ Ðdeference€must€be€accorded€those€circumstances€on€review,€because€it€is€the€trial€court€that€had€theÐ øH Ðopportunity€to€observe€the€witnessesðð€demeanor€and€to€hear€the€in„court€testimony.€€òòLong€v.€Tri„ConÐ ä4 ÐInd.,€Ltd.óó,€996€S.W.2d€173,€178€(Tenn.€1999).Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€insists€the€claim,€to€the€extent€it€is€based€on€aggravation€of€a€preexisting€mentalÐ ¨ø Ðcondition,€should€be€dismissed€for€lack€of€notice.€€Immediately€upon€the€occurrence€of€an€injury,€orÐ ”ä Ðas€soon€thereafter€as€is€reasonable€and€practicable,€an€injured€employee€must,€unless€the€employerÐ €Ð Ðhas€actual€knowledge€of€the€accident,€give€written€notice€of€the€injury€to€his€employer.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ l¼ ÐAnn.€ðð€50„6„201€(2000).€€Benefits€are€not€recoverable€from€the€date€of€the€accident€to€the€giving€ofÐ X ¨ Ðsuch€notice,€and€no€benefits€are€recoverable€unless€such€written€notice€is€given€within€30€days€afterÐ D!” Ðthe€injurious€occurrence,€unless€the€injured€worker€has€a€reasonable€excuse€for€the€failure€to€give€theÐ 0"€  Ðrequired€notice.€€òòIdóó.€€Whether€or€not€the€excuse€offered€by€an€injured€worker€for€failure€to€give€timelyÐ #l! Ðwritten€notice€is€sufficient€depends€on€the€particular€facts€and€circumstances€of€each€case.€€òòA.€C.Ð $X" ÐLawrence€Co.€v.€Brittóó,€220€Tenn.€444,€454,€€€414€S.W.2d€830,€834€(1967).€€The€presence€or€absenceÐ ô$D # Ðof€prejudice€to€the€employer€is€a€proper€consideration.€€òòÔ_ÔMcCalebÔ_Ô€v.€Saturn€Corp.óó,€910€S.W.2d€412,Ð à%0!$ Ð415€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€reasons€for€the€30€day€statutory€notice€requirement€are€(1)€to€give€theÐ Ì&"% Ðemployer€an€opportunity€to€make€an€investigation€while€the€facts€are€accessible,€and€(2)€to€enableÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€employer€to€provide€timely€and€proper€treatment€for€the€injured€employee.€€òòIdóó.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àIn€determining€whether€an€employee€has€shown€a€reasonable€excuse€for€failure€to€give€suchÐ |*Ì%) Ðnotice,€courts€will€consider€the€following€criteria€in€light€of€the€above€reasons€for€the€rule:€(1)€theÐ h+¸&* Ðemployerððs€actual€knowledge€of€the€employeeððs€injury,€(2)€lack€of€prejudice€to€the€employer€by€anÐ ° ÐÔ_ÔexcusalÔ_Ô€of€the€notice€requirement,€and€(3)€the€excuse€or€inability€of€the€employee€to€timely€notifyÐ œì Ðthe€employer.€€òòIdóó.€€Delay€in€asserting€the€compensable€claim€is€reasonable€and€justified€if€theÐ ˆØ Ðemployee€has€limited€understanding€of€his€condition€and€his€rights€and€duties€under€the€workersððÐ tÄ Ðcompensation€law.€€òòIdóó.òòóóÐ `° ÐÌà  àIt€is€significant€that€written€notice€is€unnecessary€in€those€situations€where€the€employer€hasÐ 8 ˆ Ðactual€knowledge€of€the€injury.€€òòGeorge€v.€Building€Materials€Corp.óó,€44€S.W.3d€481,€485€n.€1€(Tenn.Ð $ t Ð2001)€€The€employer€had€actual€knowledge€of€the€claimantððs€underlying€injury€and€was€notÐ  ` Ðprejudiced€by€the€claimantððs€failure€to€give€formal€written€notice€of€his€mental€injury.€€As€theÐ ü L  Ðclaimant€argues,€there€is€no€requirement€that€an€injured€worker€give€notice€of€every€condition€whichÐ è 8  Ðmay€develop€from€a€work„related€accident.€€òòQuaker€Oats€v.€Smithóó,€574€S.W.2d€45,€48€(Tenn.€1978).€Ð Ô$  ÐMoreover,€we€cannot€say€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€theÐ À  Ðclaimant€had€a€reasonable€excuse€for€failure€to€give€timely€written€notice.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€next€argues€the€claim€for€benefits€based€on€a€mental€injury€should€fail€for€lackÐ „Ô  Ðof€expert€medical€proof€of€causation.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔGoldinÔ_Ô,€the€psychiatrist,€testified€the€injury€aggravated€aÐ pÀ Ðpre„existing€depressive€condition.€€The€aggravation€of€a€pre„existing€nervous€condition€brought€onÐ \¬ Ðby€a€physical€injury€is€compensable.€€òòHill€v.€Eagle€Bend€Mfg.,€Inc.óó,€942€S.W.2d€483,€488€(Tenn.Ð H˜ Ð1997).€€Accordingly,€the€first€issue€is€resolved€in€favor€of€the€claimant.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€next€insists€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€any€permanent€vocationalÐ  \ Ðdisability€because€it€should€have€accepted€the€treating€physicianððs€testimony.€€Dr.€Tabor€estimatedÐ øH Ðthe€claimantððs€permanent€medical€impairment€to€be€2€percent€to€each€arm.€€Trial€courts€are€notÐ ä4 Ðrequired€to€accept€the€opinion€of€a€treating€physician€over€any€other€conflicting€expert€medicalÐ Ð  Ðtestimony,€but€may€do€so.€€When€the€medical€testimony€differs,€the€trial€judge€must€choose€whichÐ ¼  Ðview€to€believe.€€In€doing€so,€he€is€allowed,€among€other€things,€to€consider€the€qualifications€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðexperts,€the€circumstances€of€their€examination,€the€information€available€to€them,€and€the€evaluationÐ ”ä Ðof€the€importance€of€that€information€by€other€experts.€€òòOrman€v.€Williams€Ô_ÔSonomaÔ_Ô,€Inc.óó,€803Ð €Ð ÐS.W.2d€672,€676€(Tenn.€1991).€€Moreover,€it€is€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge€to€concludeÐ l¼ Ðthat€the€opinion€of€one€expert€should€be€accepted€over€that€of€another€expert€and€that€it€contains€theÐ X ¨ Ðmore€probable€explanation.€€òòHinson€v.€Wal„Mart€Stores,€Inc.óó,€654€S.W.2d€675,€676„7€(Tenn.€1983).€Ð D!” ÐThe€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€rejecting€the€testimony€of€the€treating€physician.€€TheÐ 0"€  Ðsecond€issue€is€resolved€in€favor€of€the€claimant.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àNext,€the€appellant€insists€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing,€as€discretionary€costs,€the€witnessÐ ô$D # Ðfee€of€John€Ô_ÔCioccaÔ_Ô,€a€psychologist,€who€testified€concerning€his€observations€of€the€manifestationsÐ à%0!$ Ðof€the€claimantððs€mental€injury.€€The€witness€charged€a€fee€of€$400.00.€€By€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€54.04(2),Ð Ì&"% Ðreasonable€and€necessary€court€reporter€expenses€for€depositions€or€trials,€reasonable€and€necessaryÐ ¸'#& Ðexpert€witness€fees€for€depositions€or€trials,€and€guardian€ad€litem€fees€are€recoverable€asÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdiscretionary€costs.€€òòMiles€v.€Voss€Health€Care€Centeróó,€896€S.W.2d€773,€776€(Tenn.€1995).€€BecauseÐ )à$( ÐDr.€Ô_ÔCioccaÔ_Ô€testified€as€a€fact€witness,€rather€than€an€expert€witness,€his€fee€is€not€recoverable€asÐ |*Ì%) Ðcosts.€€The€award€of€costs€is€reduced€by€the€amount€of€his€fee.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àThe€appellant€finally€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€Dr.€Ô_ÔJanovichÔ_Ôððs€fees€as€costs.€Ð ° ÐThe€claimant€was€referred€to€Dr.€Ô_ÔJanovichÔ_Ô€by€his€attorney€for€the€purpose€of€evaluation.€€FeesÐ œì Ðcharged€to€a€claimant€by€the€treating€physician€or€a€specialist€to€whom€the€employee€was€referredÐ ˆØ Ðfor€giving€testimony€by€oral€deposition€relative€to€the€claim,€shall,€unless€the€interests€of€justiceÐ tÄ Ðrequire€otherwise,€be€considered€a€part€of€the€costs€of€the€case,€to€be€charged€against€the€employer,Ð `° Ðwhen€the€employee€is€the€prevailing€party.€€The€claimant€is€entitled€to€recover,€as€costs,€Dr.Ð L œ ÐÔ_ÔJanovichÔ_Ôððs€fee€for€testifying,€but€not€his€fee€for€examining€the€claimant.€€The€trial€court€found,€ð ðthatÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€bill€of€Dr.€Ô_ÔJanovichÔ_Ô€should€also€be€paid€by€Defendant.ðð€€The€judgment€is€further€modified€byÐ $ t Ðomitting€from€the€award,€ð ðthe€bill€of€Dr.€Ô_ÔJanovichÔ_Ô.ðð€€òòIdóó€at€776.òòóóÐ  ` ÐÌà  àThe€appellee€insists€the€award€is€inadequate.€€In€making€determinations€as€to€the€extent€ofÐ è 8  Ðan€injured€workerððs€permanent€disability,€the€trial€courts€are€to€consider€all€pertinent€factors,Ð Ô$  Ðincluding€lay€and€expert€testimony,€the€employeeððs€age,€education,€skills€and€training,€local€jobÐ À  Ðopportunities€for€the€disabled,€and€capacity€to€work€at€types€of€employment€available€in€theÐ ¬ü  Ðclaimantððs€disabled€condition.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(1).€€From€our€independentÐ ˜è  Ðexamination€of€the€record,€we€are€not€persuaded€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððsÐ „Ô  Ðaward.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àFor€the€above€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court,€as€modified€herein,€is€affirmed.€€CostsÐ H˜ Ðare€taxed€to€the€appellant.Ð 4„ ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð øH Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOE€C.€LOSER,€JR.Ð ä4 ÐÌÐ  ¼  Ðà@7 7 ìàÔ‡¼¼x»XXàTÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@??ìàSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELˆÐ  Ðà@''%ìàAT€JACKSONˆÐ Ô$ Ðà@¥¥"ìàAugust€20,€€2001€ˆÐ æ6 ÐÌò òÓ  ÓÔ_ÔDWAINÔ_Ô€PARKS€v.€ROYAL€INSURANCE€COMPANY€OF€AMERICAó óÐ  Z ÐÓ@ÓÌà@ì ì ìàò ò€Chancery€Court€for€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ô€CountyˆÐ 0 € Ðà@ÂÂ%ìàNo.€€17,312ˆÐ D ” ÐÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<k` A߈Ð l¼  ÐÌà@ ìàNo.€W2000„02778„Ô_ÔWCÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€4,€2001ˆÐ ß  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¶` AßÐ · Ðó óÌà@PP&ìàò òJUDGMENTó óˆÐ Ø( ÐÌòòóóÌÔ‡¼¼x»»¼¼xÔà  àà ` àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€the€orderÐ ` Ðof€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel'sÐ "r ÐMemorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€whichÐ 4„ Ðare€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ð F– ÐÌà  àà ` àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€Opinion€of€theÐ jº ÐPanel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÐ |Ì ÐÌà  àà ` àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€and€conclusionsÐ  ð Ðof€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€judgmentÐ ²  Ðof€the€Court.Ð Ä! Ѐ€Ð Ö"& Ðà  àà ` àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€Appellant,€Royal€Insurance€CompanyÐ è#8 Ðof€America€,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð ú$J  ÐÌà  àà ` àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED.Ð 'n"" ÐÌÔ#†¼¼x»»¼¼x1C#ÔÔ‡¼Ô»»¼¼xÔÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPER€Ô_ÔCURIAMÔ_ÔÐ N*ž%% ÐÔ#†¼¼x»»¼Ô¸G#ÔÔ#†XàTX»¼¼xt?#Ô