ÿWPCI ßw-lÎBrád¾j ²N-s¹êBËNœb»ð:¢äÃRkéoƤ5k±„²ô‰ò–ÝçÖQ†)¿©ò Âë¦î˜^;¡êQéoíd3¸Þg\ƒ– i*Óh‘Eï)ZÌø8d˜CeOöué~´¥^b»³¡¶NlZ5i¡ËŸçCsFÁa€ÝÇ“‡;~À'èLlæÕ~ro)ÚGìÅ'ðoùñai{õèszt9“`ÂaÝ?«B=øjŸóT•×%ÃBìy‡Ñÿ[–^g9ëXª+\…—& ˜}ÐXÙ¢b %\U@b 0ˆ¢U;N*^ xw„4ˆ zœÒ è ÷ mù #Á ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ#UNéN7V9 0D;E9ºN zÄÒ>>    & . 66666666666b>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0ëFFFF B 11 0¤N D3ò D-% 0KRR ASÆð 0¤¶ 0DZ A«ž»(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularœ•‹+â yG*€" ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(%Ã$òòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó /Ý ƒR…%$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€XPyX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô€ô°= òXXPyÔÔ€ô°= ò òô°=ÔDr.€Anchor€testified€that€the€plaintiffððs€Global€Assessment€Functioning€score€was€46,€which€is€consideredÐ ° Ðseriously€impairedð!ðmost€employers€will€not€employ€someone€whose€Ô_ÔGAFÔ_Ô€score€is€below€70.€€According€to€Dr.€Anchor,Ð œì ¡ Ða€score€of€46€is€below€an€acceptable€level€for€employers€everywhere. ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptH45678- ù-(|G2…%$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€U»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€XPyX»»Ô d(|3j$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€U»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3j$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€U»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€U»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼U»»»ÔÑ8€PyXXdì»»d8ÑÓ  ÓÔ‡îäUÔà@@7 7 ìàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÐ Ö& Ðà@@ƒƒìàAT€KNOXVILLEà0 @ àÔ#†¼U»îîäî#ÔÐ üL ÐSeptember€26,€2001€SessionÐ "r ÐÔ‡XPyX»¼UÔÌò òÔ#†¼U»XXPy'#ÔDAVID€PRATERòòóó€v.€Ô_ÔMAYFIELDÔ_Ô€DAIRY€FARMS,€INC.òòóóÔ‡XPyX»¼UÔó óÐ  p ÐÌà@@¼¼ìàò ò€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Ô_ÔMcMinnÔ_Ô€CountyÐ  p Ðà@@ôôìàNo.€19939€€€€€€Ô_ÔJerriÔ_Ô€S.€Bryant,€ChancellorÐ  \ ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Ï` AßÐ Ð  ÐÌNo.€E2000„03030„Ô_ÔWCÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Mailed€„€November€6,€2001Ð Ë  ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔFILED:Ô_Ô€DECEMBER€11,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÐ ·  ÐÔ#†¼U»XXPyÃ#ÔÔ‡XPyX»¼UÔÌÌßA€V) °°` dE<z` AßÐ {Ë Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡XPyXXXPyÔThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€AppealsÐ vÆ ÐPanel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€forÐ b² Ðhearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€The€trialÐ Nž Ðcourt€found€the€plaintiff€90€percent€vocationally€disabled.€€Ô#†XPyXXXPy#ÔÔ#†¼U»XXPyr#ÔÔ‡XPyX»¼UÔWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÐ :Š Ðbut€find€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€indicates€the€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€a€award€of€permanentÐ &v Ðtotal€disability.€€We€modify€the€judgment€accordingly.Ô#†¼U»XXPy#ÔÔ‡XPyX»¼UÔÐ b ÐÓùÓÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)€(1999)€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ ê: ÐAffirmed€as€Modifiedó óÐ Ö& ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÓ  ÓJohn€K.€Byers,€Sr.€J.Ô#†¼U»àXPy6 #ÔÔ‡XPyX.¼UÔóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòE.€Riley€Anderson,€J.óó€andÐ ®þ ÐòòRoger€E.€Thayer,€Sp.€J.óó,€joined.Ð šê ÐÌBert€Bates,€Cleveland,€Tennessee€for€the€appellant,€David€Prater.Ð r!  ÐÌKent€T.€Jones,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee€for€the€appellee,€Ô_ÔMayfieldÔ_Ô€Dairy€Farms,€Inc.Ð J#š" ÐÌÓ5 ÓÓ  Óò òMEMORANDUM€OPINIONó óÔ#†¼U»XXPyy #ÔÔ‡XPyX»¼UÔÐ "%r $ ÐÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼U»XXPyp #ÔÔ€XPyX»¼UÔÔ‡XPyXXXPyÔà  àReview€of€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trialÐ ú&J"& Ðcourt,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€findings,€unless€the€preponderanceÐ æ'6#' Ðof€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððóó€50„6„225(e)(2);€òòStone€v.€City€of€Ô_ÔMcMinnvilleÔ_Ô,€óó896Ð Ò("$( ÐS.W.2d€548,€550€(Tenn.€1995).€€Ô#†XPyXXXPyó #ÔÔ‡XPyXXXPyÔThe€application€of€this€standard€requires€this€Court€to€weigh€in€moreÐ ¾)%) Ðdepth€the€factual€findings€and€conclusions€of€the€trial€court€in€workersðð€compensation€cases.€€òòSeeÐ ª*ú%* ÐCorcoran€v.€Foster€Auto€GMC,€Inc.,€óó746€S.W.2d€452,€456€(Tenn.€1988).Ô#†XPyXXXPyô#ÔÐ –+æ&+ Ðà@ìì*ìàˆÌà  àThe€plaintiff,€age€forty€at€the€time€of€trial,€is€married€with€two€minor€children.€€He€has€a€highÐ n-¾(-ý  Ðschool€education€and€graduated€from€a€two„year€vocational€program€in€auto€mechanics.€€His€workÐ ° ÐÔ_Ôhistory€consists€of€work€in€a€service€station,€in€a€machine€shop,€as€a€local€delivery€truck€driver€andÐ œì Ðin€a€factory.€€The€plaintiff€began€working€for€the€defendant€sometime€in€October€of€1995.€€WhileÐ ˆØ Ðemployed€with€the€defendant,€the€plaintiff€also€worked€as€a€part„time€police€officer€for€the€City€ofÐ tÄ ÐÔ_ÔNiotaÔ_Ô€and€as€a€reserve€officer€for€the€Ô_ÔMcMinnÔ_Ô€County€Sheriff's€Department.Ð `° ÐÌà  àOn€December€1,€1998,€the€plaintiff€was€nearing€the€end€of€his€shift€and€was€performing€trashÐ 8 ˆ Ðdetail€duties€when€he€injured€his€back.€€The€plaintiff€was€lifting€20€to€50€pounds€of€cardboard€boxesÐ $ t Ðat€a€time€and€placing€them€in€a€Ô_ÔbalerÔ_Ô.€€He€bent€over€to€lift€some€boxes€into€the€Ô_ÔbalerÔ_Ô,€experiencedÐ  ` Ð"excruciating€pain"€and€blacked€out.€€He€was€taken€to€the€hospital€by€ambulance€and€kept€overnightÐ ü L  Ðfor€treatment.€€An€MRI€revealed€a€ruptured€disc,€which€was€subsequently€treated€with€surgery.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àAfter€surgery,€the€plaintiff€continued€to€experience€disabling€pain€in€his€back€and€leg.€Ð À  ÐDespite€extensive€treatment€for€his€work„related€injury,€the€plaintiff€has€not€been€able€to€return€toÐ ¬ü  Ðwork.€€A€post„surgical€MRI€revealed€inoperable€scarring€at€the€surgical€site.€€A€Functional€CapacityÐ ˜è  ÐEvaluation€was€performed€on€February€23,€1999;€it€showed€the€plaintiff€capable€of€performingÐ „Ô  Ðsedentary€work.€€A€later€Functional€Capacity€Evaluation€performed€by€the€same€examiner€showedÐ pÀ Ðthe€plaintiff€incapable€of€even€sedentary€work€as€defined€by€the€United€States€Department€of€Labor.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€the€plaintiff€suffered€a€work„related€injury€resulting€in€a€medicalÐ 4„ Ðimpairment€of€25€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole€and€further€found€the€plaintiff€€sustained€a€90Ð  p Ðpercent€permanent€partial€disability.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€but€find€theÐ  \ Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€indicates€the€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€a€award€of€permanent€totalÐ øH Ðdisability.€€We€modify€the€judgment€accordingly.Ð ä4 ÐÌà@öö"ìàò òòòMedical€Evidenceóóó óˆÐ ¼  ÐÌà  àDr.€Robert€E.€Ô_ÔFinelliÔ_Ô€first€saw€the€plaintiff€on€December€7,€1998,€on€referral€from€theÐ ”ä Ðphysician€who€treated€the€plaintiff's€work„related€injury€at€the€hospital.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔFinelliÔ_Ô€reviewed€theÐ €Ð Ðplaintiff's€MRI,€which€showed€a€very€large€extruded€disc€at€the€L„5,€S„1€level€on€the€left€side.€€Dr.Ð l¼ ÐÔ_ÔFinelliÔ_Ô€also€noted€the€plaintiff€had€weakness€and€a€positive€straight€leg€raise.€Surgery€wasÐ X ¨ Ðrecommended,€and€Dr.€Ô_ÔFinelliÔ_Ô€advised€the€plaintiff€about€the€risk€of€pain€syndrome€as€a€post„surgicalÐ D!” Ðcomplication€whenever€weakness€is€present€pre„operatively.€€On€December€21,€1998,€Dr.€Ô_ÔFinelliÔ_ÔÐ 0"€  Ðperformed€a€Ô_ÔlaminectomyÔ_Ô€and€removed€a€large€free€fragment€of€disc€material€that€was€compressingÐ #l! Ðthe€nerve€root€on€the€plaintiff's€left€Ô_Ôside.Ô_Ô€When€the€plaintiff's€condition€failed€to€improve€afterÐ $X" Ðsurgery,€Dr.€Ô_ÔFinelliÔ_Ô€referred€the€plaintiff€to€a€pain€management€specialist.€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àDr.€Ô_ÔFinelliÔ_Ô€referred€the€plaintiff€for€the€February€23,€1999,€Functional€Capacity€Evaluation,Ð Ì&"% Ðwhich€showed€the€plaintiff€capable€of€sedentary€work;€he€then€assigned€the€plaintiff€a€12€percentÐ ¸'#& Ðwhole€body€impairment€rating.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔFinelliÔ_Ô€stated€in€his€deposition€testimony€that€he€traditionallyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðadopts€the€findings€of€the€Functional€Capacity€Evaluation.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔFinelliÔ_Ô€last€saw€the€plaintiff€in€MarchÐ )à$( Ðof€1999.€€He€was€no€longer€treating€the€plaintiff€when€the€second€Functional€Capacity€Evaluation,Ð |*Ì%) Ðwhich€showed€the€plaintiff€incapable€of€even€sedentary€work,€was€performed.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔFinelliÔ_Ô€was€madeÐ h+¸&* Ðaware€of€the€pain€management€specialistsðð€opinions€that€the€plaintiff€was€fully€and€permanentlyÐ ° Ðdisabled;€he€responded€that€ð ðyou€have€to€defer€to€their€[the€pain€specialistsðð]€evaluation€as€to€whatÐ œì Ðthey€feel€is€a€reasonable€impairment€rating.ðð€Ð ˆØ Ѐ€Ð tÄ Ðà  àDr.€Stephen€Lucas,€a€pain€management€specialist,€diagnosed€the€plaintiff€with€severe€post„Ð `° Ðlaminectomy€syndrome€and€began€conservative€treatment€with€pain€medication€in€hopes€that€healingÐ L œ Ðwould€occur.€€When€conservative€treatment€failed,€Dr.€Lucas€instituted€more€aggressive€treatmentÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€ranged€from€injections€to€surgical€implantation€of€a€spinal€cord€stimulator,€stopping€short€of€aÐ $ t Ðnarcotic€infusion€pump€only€because€the€plaintiff€declined€such€a€measure.€€The€plaintiff€did€notÐ  ` Ðobtain€any€pain€relief€from€the€treatment€and€began€to€suffer€from€depression.€€Dr.€Lucas€opined€thatÐ ü L  Ðthe€plaintiff's€depression€stemmed€from€his€work„related€injury.€€As€to€the€plaintiffððs€ability€to€returnÐ è 8  Ðto€gainful€employment,€Dr.€Lucas€stated:€ð ðI€do€not€believe€that€he€can€return€to€any€kind€of€gainfulÐ Ô$  Ðemployment.ððÐ À  ÐÌà  àDr.€Ô_ÔBrowderÔ_Ô,€a€specialist€in€pain€management€who€also€has€training€in€evaluating€patientsÐ ˜è  Ðaccording€to€the€AMA€Guidelines,€performed€an€independent€medical€examination€of€the€plaintiff.€Ð „Ô  ÐHe€found€the€plaintiff€suffered€a€37€percent€whole€body€impairment:€10€percent€as€a€result€of€theÐ pÀ Ðherniated€disc,€15€percent€as€a€result€of€gait€disturbance,€8€percent€resulting€from€depression,€and€9Ð \¬ Ðpercent€as€a€result€of€sexual€dysfunction.€€As€to€the€plaintiffððs€ability€to€return€to€work,€Dr.€Ô_ÔBrowderÔ_ÔÐ H˜ Ðstated:€ð ðwithin€a€reasonable€degree€of€medical€certainty€I€donððt€think€he€will€ever€be€able€to€workÐ 4„ Ðagain.ððÐ  p ÐÌà  àDr.€Thomas€M.€Koenig,€an€orthopedic€surgeon,€performed€an€independent€medical€evaluationÐ øH Ðof€the€plaintiff.€€Dr.€Koenig€found€the€plaintiff€suffered€a€25€percent€whole€body€impairment:€10Ð ä4 Ðpercent€as€a€result€of€the€herniated€disc€and€15€percent€as€a€result€of€gait€disturbance.€€He€indicatedÐ Ð  Ðthat€his€testing€suggested€possible€symptom€magnification€or€malingering.€€Dr.€Koenig€declined€toÐ ¼  Ðassess€an€impairment€for€depression€or€sexual€dysfunction,€stating€such€ratings€would€require€aÐ ¨ø Ðpsychiatrist€and€a€urologist.€€Dr.€Koenig€made€no€statement€regarding€the€plaintiffððs€ability€to€work.€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àDr.€Kenneth€Anchor,€Ph.D.,€a€licensed€clinical€psychologist€and€a€vocational€disabilityÐ l¼ Ðexpert,€conducted€a€vocational€and€psychological€evaluation€of€the€plaintiff.€Initially,€Dr.€AnchorÐ X ¨ Ðreported€the€plaintiff€75€to€80€percent€vocationally€disabled€from€the€entire€United€States€laborÐ D!” Ðmarket€including€major€metropolitan€areas.€€After€receiving€and€reviewing€reports€from€Drs.Ð 0"€  ÐÔ_ÔBrowderÔ_Ô€and€Lucas,€Dr.€Anchor€found€the€plaintiff€to€be€100€percent€vocationally€disabled€from€theÐ #l! ÐÔ_ÔMcMinnÔ_Ô€County€labor€market.€€He€also€noted€that€the€plaintiff€would€not€be€very€competitive€onÐ $X" Ðtodayððs€labor€market€and€stated€that€ð ðunless€he€were€to€find€a€very€easy€type€of€part„time€job€in€NewÐ ô$D # ÐYork€City€or€Chicago€or€a€[similar]€large€city€.€.€.€there€[would€not]€be€much€likelihood€for€[theÐ à%0!$ Ðplaintiff]€to€succeed.ðð€€Dr.€Anchor€stated€that€in€situations€involving€chronic€intractable€pain€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðdoes€not€respond€to€treatment,€it€is€not€reasonable€for€the€individual€to€hold€down€full„time€gainfulÐ ¸'#& Ðemployment.׃×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Finally,€Dr.€Anchor€reported€test€results€that€were€indicative€of€a€mood€disorderÐ ¤(ô#' Ð(major€depression€recurrent€without€psychotic€features).€€Dr.€Anchor€ruled€out€malingering,€symptomÐ ° Ðmagnification,€secondary€gain,€and€other€manifestations€of€obstructiveness€on€the€part€of€theÐ œì Ðplaintiff.Ð ˆØ ÐÔ_Ôà@))%ìàò òòòDiscussionóóó óˆÐ tÄ ÐòòÌóóà  àÔ‡XPyXXXPyÔWhen€the€medical€testimony€is€presented€by€deposition,€as€is€the€case€here,€this€Court€is€ableÐ L œ Ðto€make€its€own€independent€assessment€of€the€medical€proof€to€determine€where€the€preponderanceÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€the€evidence€lies.€òòCooper€v.€INA,€óó884€S.W.2d€446,€451€(Tenn.€1994);€òòLanders€v.€Firemanððs€FundÐ $ t ÐIns.€Co.,€óó775€S.W.2d€355,€356€(Tenn.€1989).Ô#†XPyXXXPy46#Ô€The€uncontroverted€medical€testimony€indicates€theÐ  ` Ðplaintiffððs€medical€impairment€rating€for€his€back€injury€is€25€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€TheÐ ü L  Ðplaintiff,€however,€argues€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€consider€the€8€percent€rating€attributableÐ è 8  Ðto€his€depression.€€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌòòóóà  àÔ‡XPyXXXPyÔThis€Court€has€recognized€two€factual€situations€in€which€employees€may€recover€workersððÐ ¬ü  Ðcompensation€benefits€for€mental€disorders.€€First,€recovery€is€appropriate€for€a€mental€injury€byÐ ˜è  Ðaccident€or€occupational€disease,€standing€alone,€if€the€mental€disorder€is€ð ðcaused€by€an€identifiable,Ð „Ô  Ðstressful,€work„related€event€producing€a€sudden€mental€stimulus€such€as€fright,€shock€or€excessiveÐ pÀ Ðunexpected€anxiety.ðð€€òòHill€v.€Eagle€Bend€Mfg.,€Inc.,€óó942€S.W.2d€483€(Tenn.€1997);€€òòBatson€v.€CignaÐ \¬ ÐProperty€&€Casualty€Companies,óó€874€S.W.2d€566,€570€(Tenn.€1994).€€Second,€compensation€forÐ H˜ Ðpsychological€disorders€has€been€allowed€when€an€employee€sustains€a€compensable€work„relatedÐ 4„ Ðinjury€by€accident€and€thereafter€experiences€a€mental€disorder€which€is€causedÔ#†XPyXXXPyŒ9#Ô€Ô‡XPyXXXPyÔby€the€originalÐ  p Ðcompensable€work„related€injury.€€òòBatson,€óó874€S.W.2d€at€570.Ô#†XPyXXXPyc=#ԀР \ ÐÌà  àMental€injuries€are€to€be€compensated€as€scheduled€injuries.€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€50„6„Ð ä4 Ð207(3)(A)(ii)(ff);€òòIvey€v.€Trans€Global€Gas€&€Oilóó,€3€S.W.3d€441€(Tenn.€1999).€€However,€where€theÐ Ð  Ðinjury€involves€more€than€one€member€of€the€body,€one€of€which€is€scheduled€and€the€other€of€whichÐ ¼  Ðis€not€scheduled,€benefits€are€allowable€on€the€basis€of€a€percentage€of€disability€to€the€body€as€aÐ ¨ø Ðwhole.€€òòKellerman€v.€Food€Lion,€Inc.óó,€929€S.W.2d€333€(Tenn.€1996;€òòContinental€Ins.€Co.€v.€Pruittóó,Ð ”ä Ð541€S.W.2d€594,€596€(Tenn.€1976).€€Such€is€the€case€here.€€€€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€preponderance€of€the€expert€testimony€in€this€case€shows€the€plaintiff€suffers€fromÐ X ¨ Ðdepression€stemming€from€his€work€related€injury.€€Dr.€Lucas,€stated€the€plaintiff€suffers€fromÐ D!” Ðdepression.€€Dr.€Browder€also€opined€the€plaintiff€suffers€from€depression€and€assessed€an€8€percentÐ 0"€  Ðwhole€body€impairment€rating€specifically€for€depression.€€Dr.€Anchor,€a€clinical€psychologist,€statedÐ #l! Ðthe€plaintiff€suffers€from€depression€as€a€result€of€the€work„related€back€injury.€€We€therefore€findÐ $X" Ðthe€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€a€medical€impairment€of€33€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiff€next€argues€that€the€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€permanent€totalÐ Ì&"% Ðdisability.€€Any€award€of€permanent€total€disability€must€be€in€compliance€with€the€statutoryÐ ¸'#& Ðdefinition€of€total€disability€contained€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€50„6„207(4).€€TheÐ ¤(ô#' Ðstatute€defines€permanent€total€disability€as€follows:Ð )à$( ÐÔ_ÔÓÌÌÓÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÌÌÓWhen€an€injury€not€specifically€provided€for€in€this€chapter€as€amended,€totallyÐ l¼ Ðincapacitates€the€employee€from€working€at€an€occupation€which€brings€him€anÐ X¨ Ðincome,€such€Ô_ÔemployeeÔ_Ô€shall€be€considered€ð ðtotally€disabled,ðð€and€for€such€disabilityÐ D” Ðcompensation€shall€be€paid€as€provided€in€subdivision€(4)(A)€.€.€.€.Ð 0€ ÐÓÌÌ™EÓÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒòòTenn.€Code€Ann.€óóðð€50„6„207(4)(B)€(Supp.€1999)òò.óó€€Ô‡&Nú %XXPyÔÐ Ø ( ÐÔ#†XPyX %&NúÌG#ÔÓÌÌÓÌà  àAs€the€statute€and€case€law€make€clear,€the€legal€definition€of€permanent€total€disability€doesÐ € Ð Ðnot€correlate€directly€with€the€meaning€of€permanent€and€total€medical€disability.€€€òòÔ_ÔCleekÔ_Ô€v.€Wal„MartÐ l ¼  ÐStores,€Inc.óó,€19€S.W.3d€770,€774€(Tenn.€2000).€€The€inquiry€must€ð ðfocus€on€the€employeeððs€abilityÐ X ¨  Ðto€return€to€gainful€employment.ðð€€òòDavis€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€Reaganóó,€951€S.W.2d€766,767€(Tenn.€1997).€Ð D”  ÐAccordingly,€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€assessment€of€permanent€total€disability€is€based€upon€numerous€factors,Ð 0€  Ðincluding€the€employeeððs€skills€and€training,€education,€age,€local€job€opportunities,€and€his€capacityÐ l  Ðto€work€at€the€kinds€of€employment€available€in€his€disabled€condition.ðð€€òòRobertson€v.€Ô_ÔLorettoÔ_ÔÐ X  ÐCasket€Co.óó,€722€S.W.2d€380,€384€(Tenn.€1986).€€Although€a€rating€of€anatomical€disability€by€aÐ ôD  Ðmedical€expert€is€also€one€of€the€relevant€factors,€ð ðthe€vocational€disability€is€not€restricted€to€theÐ à0 Ðprecise€estimate€of€anatomical€disability€made€by€a€medical€witness.ðð€€òòHenson€v.€City€ofÐ Ì ÐÔ_ÔLawrenceburgÔ_Ôóó,€851€S.W.2d€809,€812€(Tenn.€1993)(citation€omitted).€€òòóóÔ‡XPyXXXPyÔIn€this€case,€as€in€all€workersððÐ ¸ Ðcompensation€cases,€the€claimant's€own€assessment€of€his€physical€condition€and€resultingÐ ¤ô Ðdisabilities€is€competent€testimony€and€cannot€be€disregarded.€òòTom€Still€Transfer€Co.€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€Way,óó€482Ð à ÐS.W.2d€775,€777€(Tenn.€1972).Ô#†XPyXXXPyæM#ÔÐ |Ì ÐÌà  àThe€preponderance€of€the€lay€and€expert€testimony€establishes€that€the€plaintiff€in€this€caseÐ T¤ Ðis€unable€to€work€at€an€occupation€that€generates€income.€€The€plaintiff,€who€was€40€years€of€age€atÐ @ Ðthe€time€of€trial,€has€a€high€school€education€and€training€as€an€auto€mechanic.€The€vocationalÐ ,| Ðexpert,€€Dr.€Anchor,€testified€the€plaintiff€is€100€percent€disabled€in€the€local€job€market.€€TheÐ h Ðplaintiff€testified€he€knows€of€no€job€he€could€perform€in€his€disabled€condition.€The€medical€andÐ T Ðvocational€testimony€indicates€the€plaintiff€is€not€qualified€to€return€to€even€sedentary€work.€€We€findÐ ð@ Ðthe€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€permanent€total€disability.Ð Ü, ÐÌà  àBenefits€for€permanent€total€disability€are€to€be€paid€by€the€defendant€until€the€plaintiffÐ ´  Ðreaches€the€age€of€sixty„five.€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€óóðð€50„6„207(4)(A)€(Supp.€1999).€€€€Ð  !ð  ÐÌà  àThe€costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€defendant.Ð x#È" Ðà  à€€€€€€Ð d$´# ÐÌà  àÔ‡XPyXXXPyÔÔ‡¼U»XXPyÔÌÔ#†¼U»»¼UAT#ÔÔ#†XPyX»¼U`T#ÔÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð :(Š#' Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOHN€K.€BYERS,€SENIOR€JUDGEÐ  &)v$( ÐÔ‡¼U»XXPyÔÔ#†XPyX»¼UØU#ÔÔ‡¼U»XXPyÔà@7 7 ìàÔ#†XPyX»¼UV#ÔÔ‡¼U»XXPyÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@° ° ìàAT€KNOXVILLE,€TENNESSEE€Ô#†XPyX»¼UnV#ԈР ÐÌÌÌò òÔ‡¼U»XXPyÔÔ#†XPyX»¼U-W#ÔÔ‡¼U»XXPyÔÓ  Ó€DAVID€€PRATER€€V.€€MAYFIELD€DAIRY€FARMS,€INC.Ð ˜ è ÐMcMinn€County€Chancery€CourtÔ#†XPyX»¼UoW#ÔÔ‡¼U»XXPyÔÔ#†XPyX»¼UX#Ôó óÐ ¬ ü ÐÓŽWÓà@--%ìàò òÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%†›XÔÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%† ¹XÔÔ% ‡! ÔÔ%†!×XÔÔ% ‡" ÔÔ%†"õXÔNo.€€19939ßA€V) °°` d€÷E<p ` A߈Ð À  ÐÌà@^ ^ ìàNo.€Ô% ‡# ÔE2000„03030„WC„R3„CV€„€Filed:€December€11,€€2001Ô%†#‹YԈР˜ è  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<o` AßÐ pÀ  Ðó óÌÔ‡¼U»XXPyÔÔ#†XPyX»¼UJZ#Ôà@±±&ìàò òJUDGMENTó óÔ‡¼U»XXPyÔÔ#†XPyX»¼U¬Z#ԈРk»  ÐÌòòóóÔ‡¼U»XXPyÔÔ#†XPyX»¼U [#Ô€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€This€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€of€referralÐ C“  Ðto€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel's€memorandum€Opinion€settingÐ / Ðforth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ð k Ðà  àà ` àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€memorandum€Opinion€of€the€PanelÐ W Ðshould€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÐ óC Ðà  àà ` àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€facts€and€conclusions€of€law€areÐ ß/ Ðadopted€and€affirmed€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€Judgment€of€the€Court.Ð Ë Ðà  àà ` àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€defendant,€Mayfield€Dairy€Farms,€Inc.,€for€whichÐ · Ðexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.€Ð £ó ÐÌ12/11/01€€Ð {Ë ÐÔ‡¼U»XXPyÔÔ% € ÔÔ#†XPyX»¼U-_#ÔÌà  àà ` àÌ