WPC~ TcG\לm2fX7R\[[*!CMO6cW U𿯉k~W$A[65y appellantinsurancefundappealedthetrialcourtsawardof35%disabilitytothebodyasawhole *z under_T.C.A._Ԁ506241(a)(2)afterareconsiderationhearing.Onappeal,appellantarguesthe f awardwasimproperbecauseitwasnotestablishedthatthelossofemploymentwascausallyrelated R tohisinjuryandthattheincreasedawardwasexcessive.Judgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedas > recentrulingin_Niziol_Ԁv.LockheedMartinEnergySystems,Inc.bytheSupremeCourtcontrolsthe * reconsiderationissueandawardwasreasonableandnotexcessive.     Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(1999)AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt  Affirmed       THAYER,SP.J.#H2X3#XX.H2,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichANDERSON,C.J.,andBYERS,Sr. b!  J.,joined. N"! JeffB._Kopet_,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellant,AssociatedGeneralContractorsSelf &$v# InsuredWorkersCompensationTrust. %b $ HerbertThornbury,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellee,Fred_Petitt_. &:"&    OPINION #H2XX[ #XXH2 ($(   #H2XX #XXH2#H2XX#XXH2   Background  *%* t  Thisactionwasinstitutedbytheemployee,Fred_Petitt_,requestingthecourttoreconsidera r,', 14%awardofpermanentpartialdisabilitypursuanttotheprovisionsof_T.C.A._Ԁ506241(a)(2). ^-(-6 _TheemployeehadsustainedaworkrelatedbackinjuryonFebruary15,1996,whilemovingcertain  equipmentwhenheslippedandfellonaslicksurfacewherekerosenehadspilled.Anactionfor  workerscompensationbenefitswasfiledandlatersettledandwascourtapprovedwhereinthe  awardwascappedunderT.C.A.506241(a)whichimposesamaximumawardoftwoandone t halftimesthemedicalimpairment.Afterbeingoffforaboutsixweeks,theemployeereturnedto ` workandcontinuedtoworkuntilJanuary1998,whenhewaslaidoffbyhisemployer,GrantNeal L  Electric. 8    Uponreconsideringtheawardofthesettlement,thetrialcourtenlargedtheawardby  ` increasingsameto35%disabilitytothebodyasawhole.  L     IssuesonAppeal  $    Theappellantinsurancefundarguesthetrialcourtwasinerrorinenlargingtheawardunder   subsection(a)(2)ofthestatutebecausetheemployeeslossofemploymentwasnotcausallyrelated   tohisinjuryandalsothattheawardofdisabilitywasexcessiveundertheproofsubmitted.The   employeecontendstheawardshouldhavebeenfixedatthemaximumsixtimesthemedicalrating. p    ReconsiderationIssue  H   T.C.A.506241(a)(2)generallyprovidesthatthecourtsmayreconsideranawardof  p industrialdisabilitywhen(1)theemployeeisnolongeremployedbythepreinjuryemployer,(2)  \ theapplicationforreconsiderationoftheawardismadetotheappropriatecourtwithinoneyearof H theemployeeslossofemployment,and(3)thelossofemploymentiswithin400weeksoftheday 4 theemployeereturnedtowork.     TheinsurancefundcitesandreliesontwodecisionsoftheSpecialWorkersCompensation  AppealsPaneltosupportitsargumentthatanawardcannotbeincreasedatareconsiderationhearing  unlessitisestablishedthelossofemploymentwascausallyrelatedtotheinjurysustainedbythe  employee.ThesePaneldecisionsareMathenyv.InsuranceCompanyofNorthAmerica,NO.02S01 l 9604CH00034,filedJanuary27,1997atJacksonandHowellv.Murray,Inc.,NO.01S019609 X  CH00176,filedSeptember12,1997,atNashville. D!   IntheMathenycase,theemployeereturnedtoworkatawageequaltoorgreaterthanthe #l! wagehewasreceivingatthetimeoftheinjuryandtheawardofdisabilitywascappedattwoand $X" onehalftimesthemedicalimpairment.Sometimelaterhesufferedanewanddistinctinjuryand $D # wasfoundtobetotallydisabled.Inhisattempttohavethefirstawardenlarged,thePanelaffirmed %0!$ thetrialcourtindecliningtoenlargetheawardindicatinginthedecisionthatthelossofemployment &"% hadtobecasuallyrelatedtotheinjury.  #  1       '#& Ї  IntheHowellcase,thetrialcourtawardedtheemployee60%disabilitytothebodyasa  wholeaftertheemployeehadreturnedtoworkatawageequaltoorgreaterthanthewagerateshe  wasreceivingatthetimeoftheinjury.Themedicalevidenceindicatedimpairmentratingsof15%  and11%.ThePanelfoundshelatereitherresignedorwaslaidoffbecauseofpaininherhands(not t relatedtoherneckinjury).Theawardwasreducedto37.5%underargumenttheawardwas ` excessiveandalsonotingthatthelossofemploymentwasunrelatedtoherneckinjury. L    TheemployeecitestherulingofaPaneldecisioninthecaseofBradenv.ModineMfg. $ t Company,Inc.,et.al.,NO.03S019702CV00123,filedJanuary20,1999,atKnoxvilleandarecent  ` caseofNiziolv.LockheedMartinEnergySystems,Inc.,8S.W.3d622(Tenn.1999)whichwas  L  decidedbytheSupremeCourt.  8    InBraden  thePanelheldthatanawardcappedundersubsection(a)(1)ofthestatutecould   beincreasedandthatitwasnotnecessaryunderthestatutorylanguagetoshowthelossof   employmentwascasuallyrelatedtotheinjurywhentheemploymentrelationshipwasterminatedby   theemployer.Inaccordwiththisconclusion,seealsothePaneldecisioninHarrisv.SabhMorFlo   Industries,NO.03S019712CH00142,filedMarch24,1999atKnoxville. p   WhilethesePaneldecisionsdidappeartobeinconflictconcerningthereasonfortheloss H ofemployment,wefindtheconflicthasbeenresolvedbythedecisionoftheSupremeCourtinthe 4 caseofNiziolv.LockheedMartinEnergySystems,Inc.,supra.  p   InNizioltheemployeesawardofdisabilityof27.99%wasincreasedto50%disabilityafter H areconsiderationhearing.Theevidenceindicatedthattheworkerwaslaterlaidoffbytheemployer 4 andtheterminationfromemploymentwasunrelatedtohisinjury.TheSupremeCourtheldthata   petitiontoreconsideranawardcouldbefiledwheretheawardwasreconsideringacourtapproved   settlementandfurtherthatthestatutorylanguagedidnotrequireaworkertoprovethattheinjury  wasrelatedtothelossofemployment.    Therefore,wefindthisissuehasbeenresolvedandthatthetrialcourtwascorrectin l reconsideringtheawardundersubsection(a)(2)ofthestatute. X     ExcessiveAward  0"  5)  Theinsurancefundcontendstheincreasedawardof35%disabilityisexcessive.Inthis $X" connection,wefindtheemployeewas33yearsofageandwasahighschoolgraduate.Hehadalso $D # completedanapprenticeprogramoveraperiodofseveralyearswherehequalifiedasaninside %0!$ journeymanwiremanorelectrician.Histreatingdoctorfoundhehadsustainedalumbarstrainwith &"% a710%medicalimpairment.Avocationalconsultantfoundhisvocationaldisabilitytobeinthe '#& rangeof6365%evenwithnewtraining. (#'  )$(   Hetestifiedhecouldnotperformtheusualtasksofhisoccupation.Hesaidhecouldnot  climbladders,couldnotdigditches,couldnotworkonlargewirepulls,couldnotdoheavylifting  andcouldnotcrouchformorethanafewminutes.Healsosaidhewasstillhavingseverepainin  hislowbackwhenhedidanyphysicalactivityandthathewasworkingwitharehabilitation t specialisttoattempttoqualifyforadifferenttypejob.Thedefendantinsurancefunddidnotoffer ` anyevidencethatconflictedwiththeemployeestestimonyortheevidenceofthedoctororrehab L  consultant. 8    Thereviewofthisissueisdenovoaccompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthe  ` findingsoffactunlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.T.C.A.506225(e)(2).  L  Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainsttheincreasedawardofthetrialcourt.  8     InadequateAward    v0  Theemployeecontendstheincreasedawardshouldhavebeenthemaximumsixtimesthe   medicalimpairmentratherthanfivetimesimpairment.Thedeterminationofanawardisprimarily   thefunctionofthetrialcourtandthisdeterminationisnottobeoverturnedunlesstheevidenceis p ofsuchqualitytojustifyadifferentconclusion.Wefindthiscontentiontobewithoutmeritalso. \    Conclusion  4 2  ThebasicfactsofthiscaseareidenticaltothefactsoftheNiziolcaseandtheNizioldecision  \ controlsthereconsiderationissueinthepresentaction.Issuesrelatingtoexcessiveorinadequate H awardarewithoutmerit.Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsoftheappealaretaxed 4 tothedefendantinsurancefund.    H2XX@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @ ATKNOXVILLE,TENNESSEE  #XXH24# H2XX  @ FREDPETITTv0 @ .0 @ ASSOCIATEDGENERALCONTRACTORSSELF " INSUREDWORKERS#XXH2s5# COMPENSATIONTRUST   6 5@  ChanceryCourtforHamiltonCounty  J @%No.980291  6 @*AV) ` dE< ` A߈    @- - No.E199900367WCR3CVFiledAugust11,2000   AV) ` dE<` A    @& JUDGMENT       ` ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtupontheentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferral P totheSpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanelsmemorandumOpinionsetting < forthitsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference; (x    ` Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthatthememorandumOpinionofthePanel d shouldbeacceptedandapproved;and P    ` Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanelsfindingsoffactsandconclusionsoflaware < adoptedandaffirmedandthedecisionofthePanelismadetheJudgementoftheCourt. (    ` Costsonappealaretaxedtothedefendant,AssociatedGeneralContractorsSelf  InsuredWorkersCompensationTrustandsurety,JeffB.Kopet,forwhichexecutionmayissueif  necessary.  08/11/00 t ̀   `     h      p