ÿWPCÝ 5# öUL %M 0(S4{U:žØ 0là 0DL D3 0Jà 0T w@a 0^¡ 0hÿ 0rg 0|Ù 0†U 0Û 1uk 0dà AQD Æ• 0D[ 0@Ÿ 0Dß D/# BR Bo B)Œ DCµ U*ø AM" ýo  lv~ŒvÓ ˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLHÎ.@FÐ Z‹4GeoSlab703 Lt BT LightX($¡¡§ƒt!r‰3|x¶"Arial Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó))))'ÿÿdxd2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ¤¥D¦U§D¨©PªÓ€´DµV¶î2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd d% Line 7 d----7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial!#.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ óÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌNovember€25,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌNovember€25,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtfHHÚ(ÿáÿáùE1À˜ýHHŽxЀxh'dHStyl{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  inion Geneva ÒÒ  inion Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\Ñò òœÙ€!ÙÙ€!ÙÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€/ÔßR€01.A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›à@ àÞ ÞÌIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌó óÌÌÌò òPHILLIP€L.€PYRDUM,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à)à àMARSHALL€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€TYRUS€H.€COBBÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àCHANCELLORÌTELEDYNE€SYSTEMS€COMPANY,à à)ÌINC.,€TELEDYNE€LEWISBURGà àà à)à àNo.€01S01„9601„CH„00009Ì(Assumed€Name),à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellants.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€APPELLANTSóó:òòà àà àà àœFOR›€APPELLEEóó:€€ÌWilliam€M.€Billipsà àà àà àà àBarbara€G.€MedleyÌOrtale,€Kelley,€Herbert€&€Crawfordà àBussart€&€MedleyÌ200€Fourth€Avenue,€Northà àà à101€West€CommerceÌThird€Floor€„€Noel€Placeà àà àà àSuite€306ÌPost€Office€Box€198985à àà àà àLewisburg,€TN€37091ÌNashville,€TN€37219„8985ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONóóÌÌÌÌÌà@ àMEMBERS€OF€PANEL:ÌÌà@ àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA,€III,€JUSTICEÌà@ àJOE€C.€LOSER,€JR.,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌà@ àCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœREVERSED€€€›à àà àœà àà àà à›à àCLARK,€SPECIALÏJUDGEÌó óÑ7€,…XXdðXXdð7ÑÓÓÌà àThis€workerððs€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€specialÏworkerððs€compensation€appeals€panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€withÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€SupremeÏCourt€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€ÌÌà àIn€this€appeal,€the€employer€contends€that€the€chancellor€erred€in€findingÏa€causal€connection€between€plaintiffððs€heart€condition€œand›€any€employment„related€accident€or€injury.€€This€panel€concludes€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÏawarding€benefits€should€be€reversed€and€the€case€dismissed,€for€the€reasonsÏstated€below.ÌÌà àPlaintiff€Phillip€Pyrdum€was€fifty€(50)€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€accident.€ÏHe€attended€school€to€the€12th€grade€and€has€obtained€his€G.E.D.€diploma.€€HeÏhad€been€employed€by€the€Defendant€Teledyne€Systems€Company,€Inc.€for€10Íyears.ÌÌà àOn€December€8,€1992,€while€performing€his€job€as€receiving€clerkÏPlaintiff€€received€a€small€box€from€G.E.€Medicals€containing€glass€vials€ofÏchemicals,€two€of€which€œapparently€were›€copper€sulfate€and€nickel€chloride.€€HeÏopened€the€box€not€knowing€the€contents€because€there€were€no€labels€orÏwarnings€with€the€box.€€There€were€no€fumes€or€smells€coming€from€the€box.€ÏWhen€he€reached€inside€the€box€to€pull€the€styrofoam€out€he€noticed€that€it€wasÏwet€and€the€glass€vials€were€broken.€€He€got€his€fingers€wet€up€to€the€secondÏknuckles.€€œPlaintiff€took›€the€package€to€receiving€for€inspection€and€returned€toÏhis€station.€€He€washed€his€hands€30€or€35€minutes€after€the€episode,€when€heÏtook€a€break€or€went€to€œlunch.€€He€was€not€concerned€at€that€time.›ÌÌà àAbout€one€week€later€Plaintiff€began€to€feel€sick€and€thought€he€wasÏtaking€the€flu€or€pneumonia.€€He€had€difficulty€breathing.€€He€began€to€take€coldÏœmedicine,€but€he€did€not€improve.›€€About€the€17th€or€18th€of€December€heÏobtained€the€explanation€sheets€for€the€chemicals€that€he€had€œapparently€been›Ïexposed€to€and€learned€the€names€of€the€œchemicals›€and€the€possible€œeffects›€ofÏcontact€with€œskin.›€€On€Dec.€21,€1992,€he€presented€himself€to€Dr.€RichardÏThomasson,€who€placed€him€in€the€hospital.€€œHe›€was€diagnosed€then€withÏsevere€high€blood€pressure€and€atrial€fibrillation.€€His€final€diagnosis€isÏhypertensive€cardiomyopathy,€or€damaged€heart€because€of€high€bloodÏpressure.ÌÌà àAppellate€review€is€de€novo€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,Ïaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact,€unlessÏthe€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50„6„225(e)(2).€€This€tribunal€is€required€to€conduct€an€independent€examination€ofÏthe€record€to€determine€where€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€lies.€ÏòòGalloway€v.€Memphis€Drum€Serviceóó,€822€S.W.2d€584,€586€(Tenn.€1991);ÏòòCorcoran€v.€Foster€Auto€GMC,€Inc.óó,€746€S.W.2d€452,€456€(Tenn.€1988).€€We€alsoÏmake€an€independent€assessment€of€the€medical€proof€when€medical€testimonyÏis€in€the€form€of€depositions.€€òòLanders€v.€Firemenððs€Fund€Insurance€Companyóó,Ï775€S.W.2d€355,€356€(Tenn.€1989).ÌÌà àAn€employee€has€the€burden€of€proving€every€element€of€the€workerððsÏcompensation€case€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòTindall€v.€WearingÏPark€Associationóó,€725€S.W.2d€935,€937€(Tenn.€1987).€€Causation€andÏpermanency€must€be€shown€by€expert€medical€evidence€except€in€the€mostÏobvious€cases.ÌÌà àThe€court€in€this€case€was€faced€with€conflicting€medical€testimony.€€œTheÏcourt€received€medical€evidence€consisting€of€the€depositions€of€Dr.ÏThomasson,€a€family€practice€physician,€and€Dr.€Lawrence€Grossman,€aÏcardiologist.€€The›€chancellor€chose€to€rely€primarily€on€Dr.€Thomasson,€plaintiffððsÏtreating€physician,€citing€specifically€his€statement€that€ð ðI€honestly€feel€thatÍexposure€[to€the€chemicals]€was€a€contributing€factor.ðð€€He€did€not€accept€Dr.ÏGrossmanððs€testimony€because€Dr.€Grossman€did€not€see,€examine,€or€treatÏplaintiff,€and€because€he€believed€Dr.€Grossman€was€confused€about€theÏchronology€of€certain€testing.€€Our€own€review€of€the€record,€however,€convincesÏus€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.ÌÌà àIn€June€1992,€plaintiff€underwent€a€wellness€examination€performed€byÏBlue€Shield,€and€he€became€extremely€alarmed€when€told€during€the€exam€thatÏhis€blood€pressure€was€very€high€and€that€he€should€immediately€see€aÏphysician.€€As€a€result€of€this€information€plaintiff€first€went€to€see€Dr.€RichardÏThomasson.€€At€that€time€he€complained€of€shortness€of€breath,€left€arm€pain,Ïand€irregular€heart€beat.€€All€test€results€were€normal.€€Dr.€Thomassonððs€JuneÏ1992€records€indicate€that€plaintiff€had€complained€of€these€symptoms€for€oneÏand€one„half€years€at€that€time.€€Plaintiff€gave€Dr.€Thomasson€a€family€historyÏwhich€included€heart€problems€experienced€by€his€father.€€œPlaintiff€also›€hadÏbeen€a€smoker€for€twenty„nine€years.€€Dr.€Thomasson€instructed€plaintiff€to€keepÏa€diary€of€his€blood€pressure.ÌÌà àIn€fact,€June€1992€was€the€third€time€plaintiff€had€been€treated€prior€to€hisÏinjury€for€a€hypertensive€condition.€€In€November€1991,€before€undergoing€eyeÏsurgery,€plaintiff€experienced€his€first€incident€with€high€blood€pressure.€€At€thatÏtime€his€physician,€Dr.€œBoone,›€prescribed€Lopressor,€which€plaintiff€took€for€onlyÏa€couple€of€days€before€voluntarily€stopping.€€In€December€1991,€during€aÍnational€guard€physical,€it€was€determined€that€plaintiff€had€high€bloodÏpressure.€€He€was€required€to€see€Dr.€Fowler,€the€brigade€doctor.ÌÌà àDr.€Thomassonððs€testimony€reveals€that€plaintiffððs€symptoms€of€shortnessÏof€breath,€left€arm€pain,€and€irregular€heart€beat€after€his€exposure€to€chemicalsÏin€December€1992€are€the€same€symptoms€about€which€he€complained€in€hisÏJune€1992€physical.€€Dr.€Thomasson€candidly€admitted€that€he€was€not€familiarÏwith€the€chemicals€to€which€plaintiff€was€exposed€and€that€he€did€not€actuallyÏknow€whether€the€chemicals€caused€plaintiffððs€December€1992€heart€condition.€ÏHis€most€affirmative€response€was€that€the€symptoms€he€experienced€wereÏð ðconsistent€withðð€possible€side€effects€listed€in€the€medical€literature€for€theÏchemicals€to€which€plaintiff€was€briefly€exposed.€€He€believes€ð ðsomethingÏcatastrophicðð€happened€that€corresponds€to€exposure€to€drugs.€€He€testified€heÏhad€ð ðto€assumeðð€there€was€a€relationship.€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àDr.€Laurence€Grossman€was€the€only€cardiologist€who€testified€in€thisÏcase.€€He€stated€unequivocally€that€in€his€forty„seven€years€as€a€cardiologist€heÏhas€never€seen€either€of€the€chemicals€in€question€cause€any€type€of€heartÏdisease€or€contribute€in€any€way€to€heart€disease.€€He€stated€that€the€chemicalsÏin€question€could€not€in€any€manner€have€aggravated€any€pre„existing€heartÏcondition.€€In€his€opinion,€plaintiffððs€family€history€of€coronary€heart€disease,€hisÏown€hypertension,€and€his€long€habit€of€smoking€were€much€more€likely€to€haveÏcaused€the€heart€disease€diagnosed€in€December€1992.€€He€did€err€in€his€initialÍstatement€about€the€date€of€the€EKG.€€That€error€was€brought€to€his€attentionÏduring€the€deposition.€€However,€he€testified€unequivocally€that€his€opinionÏabout€causation€did€not€change.ÌÌà àWe€have€carefully€reviewed€the€medical€evidence€in€this€case€andÏconclude€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€a€finding€that€the€cause€ofÏplaintiffððs€heart€disease€arises€out€of€the€exposure€to€chemicals€as€a€part€of€hisÏemployment€on€December€8,€1992.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÏaccordingly€reversed€and€the€case€dismissed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€toÏplaintiff„appellee.ÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€SPECIALÏJUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ______________________________________ÌFRANK€F.€DROWOTA,€III,€JUSTICEÌÌÌ______________________________________ÌJOE€C.€LOSER,€JR.,€SPECIAL€JUDGEœÌÇÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà0 àà àà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌßJ€02;+'b|kO` ç `€@ÿJßà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌÌPHILLIP€L.€PYRDUM,à àà àà à)à àMarshall€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€8861Ìà àà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Tyrus€H.€Cobb,€ChancellorÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌTELEDYNE€SYSTEMS€COMPANY,à à)à àNo.€€01„S„01„9601„CH„00009ÌINC.,€TELEDYNE€LEWISBURGà àà à)Ì(Assumed€Name),à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àDefendants/Appellants.à à)à àReversed.ÌÌÌÌò òòòà@ àJUDGMENT€ORDERó óóóÌÌÓÓà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€a€motion€for€review€pursuant€to€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(5)(B),€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€of€referralÏto€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel'sÏMemorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,Ïwhich€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ìà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€review€is€not€well„taken€and€should€be€denied;€andÌà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€theÏjudgment€of€the€Court.Ìà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€the€plaintiff/appellee,€Phillip€L.€Pyrdum,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ìà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€this€25th€day€of€November,€1996.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌÓÓÌDrowota,€J.,€Not€Participating›