ÿWPCZ* A# žUN© %÷ 0 ûýU:ø42FUw@] 0? 0DÜ  0D& 0Jj ´ 0T´ 0^ 0hf 0rÎ AQ@ Æ‘ 0W 0@n B® 0|Ë D/G 0†v Bü D3 0L 1uÜ 0dQU >µU*óU*B)GDCp AM³Ç«ÇBr)´pݼM!v~ #vÓ‡$˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÓH=$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XÎ_XXXÔÑ7€¾úXXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular­cœ$øð 3|xÙ ÆÇEÈÉDÊÓ€ËÍVÎîÏÓ€Ù(ï(3¸x$¤¤Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XXŽXXXÔÑ7€eqXXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(+Ã$òòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóH($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô!"#&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ï3¸B$¢¢Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XXŽXXXÔÑ7€eqXXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò d2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(('÷ÿ dxd2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔüÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxd2^ 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`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d66667Border 1dd!#7Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ½Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€4ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€4ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€4XÔÌÌMayÏ8,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó ¡Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€4ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€4ôÔThe€opinion€of€Dr.€McInnis€appears€on€Form€C„32€prescribed€by€the€Depððt›.€Of€Labor,€asÏauthorized€by€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„235(c)€which€provides€that€ð ða€written€medical€report€of€a€treating€orÏexamining€physician€shall€be€admissible€at€any€stage€of€a€workersðð€compensation€claim€in€lieu€of€aÏdeposition€.€.€.€ð ð€Often€these€Forms€contain€but€scant€information€and€thus€do€not€fare€well€whenÏcontrasted€to€a€deposition.€€However,€Form€C„32€in€this€case€is€rendered€more€worthy€by€the€inclusionÏof€recitative€findings€by€Dr.€McInnis,€and€thus€on€a€par,€or€nearly€so,€with€a€deposition.€€We€do€notÏdenigrate€the€use€of€the€Form,€because€its€purpose€is€a€salutary€one:€the€reduction€of€costs.€€But€theÏbare„bones€type€is€frequently€of€minimal€value,€and€care€should€be€taken€to€insure€that€pertinent€andÏpithy€information€is€recited.Ì 8Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€4ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€4ôÔThe€multipliers,€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(1),€do€not€apply€in€cases€involving€injuries€to€scheduledÏmembers,€but€only€to€injuries€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€òòAtchley€v.€Life€Care€Center,€óó906€S.W.2d€428Ï(Tenn.€1995).€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€4ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€4ôÔIn€this€connection,€we€note€that€the€plaintiff€nevertheless€continued€his€side„line€employmentÏas€a€lawn€mower€repairman,€known€to€require€considerable€lifting,€pulling,€pushing,€and€endurance.Ì fÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€4ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€4ôÔDr.€McInnis€saw€saw€the€plaintiff€three€times.€€Dr.€Landsberg,€one€time.€€The€plaintiff€òòwas€neverÏtreatedóó€by€any€physician,€as€that€term€is€generally€understood.€The€anomaly€of€the€absence€ofÏtreatment€vis„a„vis€a€finding€of€66€percent€disability€is€evident.Ì ²Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€4ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€4ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€4XÔÌÌMayÏ8,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€3ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€4ÔÑ#€55Xd#ÑÑ#€55Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÙ€!ÙÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÔ€3ÔÔ€3¼ÔßR€897A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEó óÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌœANDY›€PHILLIPS,à àà àà à)à àWILSON€CRIMINALÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà àà àà à)à àNO.€œ01S01„9710„CC„00213›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€J.€O.€BOND,ÌANTHONY€HALLà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌCONSTRUCTION,€à àà àà à)ÌœLUMBERMENS›€MUTUALà àà à)ÌCASUALTY€COMPANY,à àà à)Ìandà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌDEPARTMENT€OF€LABOR,à àà à)ÌWORKERSðð€COMPENSATIONà à)ÌDIVISION,€SECOND€INJURYà à)ÌFUND,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellantsà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àFor€the€Appellee:ÌÌó óóóBryan€œEssary›à àà àà àà àWilliam€Joseph€ButlerÌShirley€A.€Irwinà àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€280ÌœNationsBank›€Plaza,€Suite€1900à àà àLafayette,€TN€37083ÌNashville,€TN€37219„1782ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òòòM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌMembers€of€Panel:ÌÌó óóóJustice€Janice€M.€HolderÌSenior€Judge€William€H.€InmanÌSpecial€Judge€William€S.€RussellÌÓ  ÓÌÌMODIFIEDà àà àà àà àà àà àINMAN,€Senior€JudgeÌÓÓà àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€SpecialÏWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordanceÏwith€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€theÏSupreme€Court€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.Ìà àThis€case€involves€a€weighty€issue€of€whether€the€judgment€is€supportedÏby€the€preponderance€of€all€the€evidence.€€òòRule€13óó(d),€òòT.€R.€A.€P.óó€€Review€ofÏthe€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€theÏtrial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€finding,Ïunless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððóóÏ50„6„225(e)(2).€€òòStone€v.€City€of€œMcMinnville›,€óó896€S.W.2d€548,€550€(Tenn.Ï1995).Ô€4ÔÔ€4XÔ€€€Ô€3ÔÔ€3¼ÔAdjunctive€is€the€established€rule€that€we€are€as€well€positioned€as€theÏtrial€judge€to€gauge€the€worth€of€the€depositional€testimony,€and€we€have€doneÏso,€in€accordance€with€our€prerogative€and€responsibility.€€òòCooper€v.€œINA›,€óó884ÏS.W.2d€446,€451€(Tenn.€1994);€òòLanders€v.€Firemanððs€Fund€œIns›.€Co.,€óó775ÏS.W.2d€355,€356€(Tenn.€1989).Ìà àThe€plaintiff€is€39€years€old.€€He€completed€eleven€years€of€schoolingÏand€apparently€has€no€marketable€job€skills.€€On€December€21,€1995,€whileÍworking€on€a€barn,€he€chose€to€descend€from€the€roof€by€sliding€down€a€braceÏrather€than€using€a€ladder€as€instructed.€€He€fell€against€another€brace€andÏinjured€his€left€arm€and€back.Ìà àHe€continued€to€work€but€developed€problems€the€following€day€and€wasÏgiven€his€choice€of€physicians.€€He€selected€Dr.€Wayne€Wells,€who€passed€himÏon€to€Dr.€Michael€Moore,€who€released€him€to€return€to€work€on€January€15,Ï1996€with€temporary€restrictions€against€overhead€lifting€and€lifting€more€thanÏ25€pounds€with€his€left€arm.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€returned€to€work€on€January€17,€1996.€€His€employer,€whoÏwas€constructing€a€residence€in€another€county,€assigned€him€to€sweep€andÏotherwise€clear€the€floors,€but€the€plaintiff€left€the€job€the€following€day.€€HeÏreturned€to€the€job€on€January€22€and€was€told€by€his€employer€to€ð ðdoÏwhatever€he€felt€he€could€do,ðð€but€the€plaintiff€declined€to€work.Ìà àTwo€months€later,€the€plaintiff€informed€his€employer€that€he€did€notÏintend€to€return€to€the€job,€and€he€thereafter€made€no€effort€to€secureÏemployment€other€than€self„employment€as€a€repairman€of€lawn€equipment.Ìò òòòà@ àThe€MedicalÌó óóóà àHe€was€seen€by€òòDr.€John€McInnisó󀄀after€his€brief€stint€with€Drs.€WellsÏand€Moore€„€on€May€16,€1996.€€Dr.€McInnis€is€an€orthopedic€specialist€whoÏpractices€in€Nashville.€He€did€an€MRI€which€was€normal.€€He€had€a€mildÏbulging€at€L4„5€and€L3„4€with€no€evidence€of€disc€herniation.€€On€June€17,Í1996€he€again€saw€and€treated€the€plaintiff€and€found€ð ðpretty€well€full€motionÏof€his€lumbar€spineðð€in€flexion,€extension,€right€and€left€lateral€bending.€€HeÏreported€thatÌÓ  ÓÓÓà0 àð ðWe€have€been€unable€to€substantiate€a€serious€injury€to€his€back.ððÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓDr.€McInnis€found€no€disability.œ× ƒ: ××  ×›Ìà àThe€plaintiff€thereupon€contracted€with€òòDr.€Robert€P.€Landsbergóó€for€anÏexamination€and€evaluation.€€Dr.€Landsberg€is€an€orthopedic€specialist€whoÏpractices€in€œGoodlettsville›.€€He€examined€the€plaintiff€on€November€19,€1996.Ìà àHe€diagnosed€a€lumbar€strain€with€mild€disc€protrusion€and€òòmechanicalÏlow€back€painóó€in€the€lumbar€spine,€with€no€radiculopathy,€but€some€limitationÏof€motion.€€He€testified€that,€as€he€interpreted€the€òòGuidelines,€óóand€using€aÏdevice€called€an€inclinometer,€the€plaintiff€had€a€seven€percent€impairmentÏrating,€ð ðwith€another€four€percent€for€flexion€and€five€percent€for€extension,Ïtwo€percent€each€for€lateral€flexion€to€the€right€and€left,€therefore€13€percentÏfor€decreased€range€of€motion€combined€with€seven€percent€from€Table€75Ïwould€give€a€19€percent€permanent€impairment€rating€to€the€whole€person.ððÌà àPrior€to€his€examination€by€Dr.€Landsberg,€the€plaintiff€was€treated€byÏDr.€Willard€West,€an€orthopedic€specialist€in€Lebanon,€who€performed€aÏmyelogram.€€The€plaintiff€did€not€return€to€Dr.€West€for€a€follow„up;€ratherÏhe€was€referred€to€Dr.€Landsberg€by€his€attorney.€€Ìò òòòà0 àà àà@ àThe€PleadingsÌó óóóà àThe€complaint€was€filed€September€20,€1996€in€the€Criminal€Court€ofÏWilson€County.€€The€plaintiff€alleged€that€he€suffered€an€injury€to€his€left€armÏand€back€while€on€the€job€and€sought€benefits€for€disability€ð ðboth€to€the€bodyÏas€a€whole€and€to€each€and€every€member€of€plaintiffððs€body€.€.€.€affected€byÏsaid€injury.ðð€The€defendants€filed€a€general,€òòpro€formaóó€answer,€essentiallyÏdenying€the€allegation€of€injury,€and€relied€upon€an€alleged€violation€of€T.C.A.Ïðð€50„6„110(a)€which€provides€that€no€compensation€shall€be€allowed€for€anyÏinjury€caused€by€the€employeeððs€wilful€refusal€or€failure€to€use€a€safetyÏappliance,€in€this€case,€a€ladder.Ìò òòòà@ àThe€JudgmentÌó óóóà àThe€trial€court€found,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€the€plaintiff€€ð ðis€66€percentÏvocationally€disabled€.€.€.ðð€and€that€œð ðDr.›€Robert€Landsbergððs€medicalÏdeposition€should€be€given€more€weight€than€the€testimony€of€Dr.€John€C.ÏMcInnis.ðð€€The€trial€court€further€found€that€the€plaintiff€made€an€unsuccessfulÏattempt€to€return€to€work,€which€was€not€a€meaningful€return€to€work€andÏhence€not€subject€to€a€limitation€of€œ2.5›€times€the€medical€impairment€ratingÍunder€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„110(a)(1).€œ€No›€violation€of€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„110(a)€wasÏfound.Ìò òòòà@ àThe€IssuesÌÓ  ÓÓÓó óóó1.à8 àWhether€the€finding€of€the€trial€court€that€the€plaintiff€was€notÏguilty€of€misconduct€within€the€purview€of€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„110(a)Ïis€supported€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.ÌÌ2.à8 àWhether€the€court€erred€in€failing€to€apply€the€multiplier€of€2.5Ïtimes€the€impairment€as€prescribed€by€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(1).ÌÌ3.à8 àWhether€the€court€erred€in€finding€that€the€depositional€testimonyÏof€Dr.€Landsberg€should€be€given€more€weight€than€the€testimonyÏof€Dr.€McInnis.ÌÌ4.à8 àWhether€the€award€of€66€percent€is€excessive.ÌÌò òòòà@ àAnalysisÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓó óIssue€No.1.óó€€There€is€no€evidence€of€perversity€or€horseplay€by€the€plaintiff,Ïwho€was€merely€rash€or€careless.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€againstÏthe€finding€that€the€plaintiff€was€not€guilty€of€misconduct€which€would€bar€aÏrecovery.€€òòSee,€Rogers€v.€œKroger›€Co.,€óó832€S.W.2d€538€(Tenn.€1992).ÏMoreover,€the€plaintiff€had€already€begun€his€descent€when€he€was€instructedÏto€use€a€ladder.ÌòòIssue€No.€2.óó€€If€an€employee€unreasonably€refuses€to€return€to€work,€an€awardÏof€disability€is€limited€to€2.5€times€the€impairment€rating.€€òòNewton€v.€ScottÏHealth€Care€Center,€óó914€S.W.2d€885€(Tenn.€1995).€€We€are€uncertain€of€theÍtrial€courtððs€reason(s)€for€refusing€to€apply€the€2.5€multiplier,€and€reproduceÏhis€comments:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àð ðWell,€the€question€is:€Is€it€two„and„a„half€times€or€is€it€top€of€theÏlist€as€far€as€his€course?€€And€then€if€it€gets€up€past€a€certainÏamount,€you€add€24€percent€from€the€Second€Injury€Fund.ÌÌà8 àI€believe€the€employee€had€some€fault€about€whether€or€not€he€stillÏhad€his€job€or€not.€€I€think€that€still€rests€„€some€of€it€rests€with€theÏemployee.€€I€think€part€of€it€rests€with€the€employer.ÌÌà8 àOf€course,€when€we€multiply€by€3.5,€thatððs€going€to€give€a€ratingÏof€about€66€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole,€which€means€a€total€ofÏ90€percent€if€you€added€24.€€So€itððs€not€a€Second€Injury€FundÏinjury.€€It€will€be€66€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole.ððÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àAs€nearly€as€may€be€ascertained€from€this€record,€the€trial€court€reliedÏon€the€subjective€determination€by€the€plaintiff€that€he€could€not€return€toÏwork,€although€the€record€is€unrefuted€that€work€was€available€and€theÏplaintiff€was€invited€to€return€to€ð ðdo€whatever€he€felt€like.ðð€€These€are€headyÏwords,€not€often€found€in€the€employer„employee€context.€€Moreover,€Dr.ÏMcInnis€squarely€testified€that€the€plaintiff€had€no€serious€problems€and€evenÏDr.€Landsberg€stopped€short€of€stating€that€the€plaintiff€could€not€return€toÏwork€without€restrictions.€€In€light€of€the€unequivocal€testimony€of€the€òòtreatingóóÏphysician€„€who€testified€that€the€òòplaintiff€had€no€impairment€óó„€in€combinationÏwith€the€absence€of€any€expert€œtestimony›€of€the€plaintiffððs€inability€to€work,€itÏwould€be€insupportably€anomalous€to€hold€that€the€plaintiffððs€subjectiveÏdetermination€was€sufficient€evidence€of€his€œinability›€to€work.€€We€thereforeÍfind€that€the€refusal€of€the€trial€judge€to€apply€the€2.5€multiplier€is€notÏsupported€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.× ƒ; ××  ×€The€refusal€of€the€plaintiff€toÏreturn€to€work€was€not€reasonable.× ƒ< ××  ×€òòSee,€œNewton,€supra.óó›ÌÌ€€òòIssue€No.€3.óó€€The€appellant€takes€issue€with€the€finding€of€the€trial€judge€thatÏDr.€Landsbergððs€deposition€should€be€given€more€weight€than€the€testimony€ofÏDr.€McInnis.€In€this€connection,€we€œreproduce›€the€comments€of€the€trial€judge,Ïin€light€of€his€rather€singular€disregard€of€the€opinion€and€findings€of€theÏœtreating›€physician€for€those€of€an€IME€hired€for€the€purpose:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àð ðLooking€at€Dr.€Landsbergððs€deposition,€a€bulging€disk€has€beenÏtalked€about€here.€€I€think€most€of€us€who€have€been€around€thisÏvery€long€and€you€look€at€the€sheets€that€they€give€us€on€òòAMAÏGuidelines,óó€a€bulging€disk€does€have€a€place€within€the€œòòGuidelinesóó›Ïand€it€does€have€a€disability€rating€resulting€from€that.€€ThatððsÏwhere€we€swear€that€what€weððll€do€is€follow€these€òòGuidelines.ÌÌà8 àóóAnd€I€donððt€know€what€Dr.€McInnis€did€on€his€test.€€It€doesnððtÏsound€like€he€did€that€type€of€evaluation€from€reading€what€IððmÏreading€here.€€He€just€said€he€didnððt€find€anything€really€wrong.ÌÌà8 àThen€I€noticed€on€his€last€„€he€says:€On€exam€today,€on€6„17„96,Ïhe€said€he€was€pretty€well€full€motion,€which€means€he€didnððt€haveÏfull€motion.€€Then€he€questioned€in€his€flexion€and€extension,Ïright€and€left€lateral€bending.€€He€said:€He€complains€of€pain€inÍextremes€of€the€motions.€€So€evidently€he€wasnððt€100€percentÏthere.ÌÌà8 àThen€doctors€use€words€like€serious€injury.€€Well,€to€some€doctorsÏserious€means€one€thing,€to€another€doctor€it€means€somethingÏelse.€€I€really€donððt€know€what€he€means€when€he€says€seriousÏinjury.€€To€substantiate€a€serious€injury.ÌÌà8 àI€get€a€lot€more€out€of€Dr.€Landsbergððs€deposition.€€He€did,Ïwithout€question,€use€the€correct€tools€in€his€evalution€process€ofÏmeasurements.€€He€comes€up€with€a€19€percent€anatomical€rating.ððÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àWe€have€carefully€considered€the€testimony€of€each€of€these€orthopedicÏsurgeons.€€œThe›€anatomical€impairment€rating€assessed€by€Dr.€Landsberg€„Ïwhose€œtestimony›€we€have€reproduced€„€was€somewhat€œconfusing,Ô% € Ô€and›€we€canÏfind€no€œreason›€whatever€to€disregard€the€findings€and€opinion€of€Dr.€McInnis.€ÏWe€agree€with€the€appellant€that€the€testimony€of€Dr.€McInnis€is€entitled€toÏserious€consideration€in€light€of€his€status€as€the€treating€physician,Ïsuperimposed€upon€his€unequivocal€opinion€that€the€plaintiff€œhas›€noÏimpairment.€€òòSee,€Crossno€œv.€Publix›€Shirt€Factory,€óó814€S.W.2d€730€(Tenn.Ï1991);€òòOrman€v.€Williams€Sonoma,€Inc.,€óó803€S.W.2d€672€(Tenn.€1991).ÌòòIssue€No.€4.ó󀀜The€appellant›€next€insists€that€a€finding€of€66€percent€vocationalÏdisability€is€excessive.€€We€agree.€In€light€of€the€singular€fact€that€the€treatingÏphysicianœ× ƒ= ××  ×›€found€œòòno€impairment,óó›€and€the€somewhat€confusing€assessments€ofÏthe€IME,€we€find€the€award€of€66€percent€is€not€supported€by€a€preponderanceÍof€all€the€evidence.€€We€find€from€all€of€the€œevidence›€that€the€plaintiff€has€a€35Ïpercent€permanent€partial€disability€to€his€whole€body€and€is€entitled€toÏbenefits€accordingly.€€Costs€are€assessed€to€the€parties€evenly€and€the€case€isÏremanded.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌJanice€M.€Holder,€JusticeÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌWilliam€S.€Russell,€Special€Judgeà àà àà àÌœÇÒ  ÒÒ £ Òòòà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌßJ€8>;+'b|/` 0* `€@ÿJßÌÌÌANDY€PHILLIPS,à àà àà àà à}à àWILSON€CRIMINALÌà àà àà àà àà àà à}à àNo.€96„1737€BelowÌà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà àà àà à}Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à}à àHon.€J.€O.€Bond,Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à}à àJudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à}ÌANTHONY€HALL€CONSTRUCTION,à à}ÌLUMBERMENS€MUTUAL€CASUALTY}Ìand€DEPT.€OF€LABOR,€WORKERSððà à}à àNo.€01S01„9710„CC„00213ÌCOMPENSATION€DIVISION,€à àà à}ÌSECOND€INJURY€FUND,à àà à}Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à}Ìà àDefendants/Appellantsà àà à}à àMODIFIED.ÌÌÌà@ àJUDGMENT€ORDERÌÌÌÓ€Óà àà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€theÏorder€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€theÏPanel's€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusionsÏof€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference.Ìà àà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€OpinionÏof€the€Panel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€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.ÌÓ ` ` šXÓà àà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€the€parties€evenly;€one„half€byÏPlaintiff/Appellee,€Andy€Phillips,€and€one„half€by€Defendants/Appellants,ÍAnthony€Hall€Construction€&€Lumbermenððs€Mutual€Casualty€Company€andÏSurety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÓÓà àà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€on€May€8,€1998.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌóóÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ›