WPCT G?_M8 $xfc'b 7jئ 8de)y8u6aZW ]^&{0Pν~ޠYi>|^K8{v[]"=MR1.QyS?׺ Ṽz*Oq(Ds_mlH$ xpEy\GP+-c5vބWހ⩰O1qr9|UӜ-@Ak!cXQߴ֣IV9xd P;O|$R RĢ"B"'֞|!¶aK Ч2e2:WXe54a7kT;/z#dɷo/΅:WaD+)-u*3< έP=ϥzsфgm7[݇z:BmM K#?`Yb._UbdDV,b %\UNb 0U!N8^ w4 z$   m #   k 1NN zuEGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGbIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0QQQQ B << 0Y D3 D-0 0K]] AS 0 0De A(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular)L @O(+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xUHP LaserJet 4 Plus,,,,,,0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt- -(|G2$ !..8dd8         0  XX d(|3y9$ !..8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3y9$ !..8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _8XXdd8  @@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL  XX #XXz#JAMESDAVIDRAMSEY,JR.v._CROCKETT_ԄPHILLIPS 8 CONSTRUCTION,etal.XX   P @@ CriminalCourtforSmithCounty  X @@No.4060  H @@*AV) ` dE<` A   No.M199901008_WC_ԄR3CVFiledAugust14,2000   AV) ` dE<` A        #XXA#XX*  JUDGMENT #XXY#XX    #XX#XXXeHXXX  ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtupontheentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferraltothe f SpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanelsMemorandumOpinionsettingforth R itsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference. >   Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthattheMemorandumOpinionofthePanelshouldbe f acceptedandapproved;and R   Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanelsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawareadopted * andaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgmentoftheCourt.    Costswillbepaidbytheappellants,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.     ITISSOORDERED. v"!    `     h     PERCURIAM &&v!%   #XXXXeHJ#  'b"&~ XX  @@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL  @@ATNASHVILLE 0 June2000Session H #XX # XXJAMESDAVIDRAMSEY,JR.v._CROCKETT_ԄPHILLIPS  P CONSTRUCTION,etal.#XX #   h @@ DirectAppealfromtheCriminalCourtforSmithCounty  p @@No.4060J.O.Bond,Judge `  @@*AV) ` dE<` A @  No.M199901008_WC_ԄR3CVMailedJuly12,2000 ?  XX#XXB #FiledAugust14,2000 /  AV) ` dE<` A       Theemployeranditsinsurerhaveappealed,contendingthetrialcourt'sawardofpermanent  disabilitybenefitsbasedonthefunctionalequivalentofonehundredpercenttobothlegsis  excessive.     Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(1999)AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourt ~ Affirmed.  n     loser,sp.j.X#XX.#,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDrowota,j.,and_turnbull_,sp.j.,joined. N DeannaB.Johnson,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellants,_Crockett_ԄPhillipsConstruction,Inc., .~ Bob_Crockett_,d/b/a_Crockett_ԀConstruction,Inc.andTheTravelers. n HughGreen,Lebanon,Tennessee,fortheappellee,JamesDavidRamsey,Jr. N   MEMORANDUMOPINION XX#XX# !.    XX#XX #XX#XXL# XThisworkers'compensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkers'Compensation #" AppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)for $# hearingandreportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.Asdiscussed % $ below,thepanelhasconcludedthejudgmentshouldbeaffirmed. &!%  ~'"& Theemployeeorclaimant,Ramsey,age60atthetime,wasworkingfortheappellantonor n(#' aboutAugust12,1996,whenthePTOshaftonapieceofconstructionequipmentbrokeandstruck ^)$( hisrightleg,injuringitsoseverelythattheleghadtobeamputatedbelowtheknee.Subsequently, N*%) becauseofthenecessaryoveruseofhisleftleg,theclaimantaggravatedapreexistingconditionof >+&* hisleftankle. .,~'+ ЇTheleftankleinjuryoccurredin1986andwastreatedbyDr.Stephen_Neeley_.Fromthetime  hewasreleasedbythedoctorin1986untilitbegantoswellfollowingamputationoftherightleg,  _theclaimantneversoughtmedicaltreatmentforitandwasneverrestrictedorlimitedinhiswork  becauseofit.Hewasasymptomaticuntilaftertheinjurytotherightleg.   p Theclaimant'soperatingsurgeonfortheamputationwasDr.HoraceEugeneWatson,who `  alsoundertooktotreattheleftlegforsymptomsthatfollowedtheamputation.Hisemployerand P  coworkerswerenotevenawareofhispreexistingconditionuntilafterthe1996accident. @   0  Dr.Watson,usingappropriateguidelines,opinedatthetrialthattheclaimantwouldretain  p  apermanentmedicalimpairmentofseventypercenttotherightleg.Histestimonywithrespectto `  theleftleg,fairlysummarized,wasthatthenecessarilyincreaseddemandsontheleftlegfor"weeks P  andevenafewmonths,"becauseoftheamputationoftherightleg,notonlyincreasedpain,but @  aggravatedandadvancedtheseverityofthepreexistingconditionoftheleftleg.Dr.Watson's 0  estimateoftheclaimant'spermanentimpairmenttotheleftleg,alsousingappropriateguidelines,   wasseventyfivepercent.Wefindintherecordnocountervailingevidence.    Fromtheabovesummarizedevidence,thetrialjudgeawardedpermanentpartialdisability  benefitsbasedonthefunctionalequivalentofonehundredpercenttobothlegs.Theextentofan  injuredworker'svocationaldisabilityisaquestionoffact.Storyv.LegionIns.Co.,3S.W.3d450  (Tenn.1999).Reviewofafindingoffactbythetrialcourtisdenovoupontherecordofthetrial p court,accompaniedbyapresumptionofcorrectnessofthefinding,unlessthepreponderanceofthe ` evidenceisotherwise.Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(2).Thisstandardrequiresthepanelto P examineindepthatrialcourt'sfactualfindingsandconclusions.Thereviewingtribunalisnot @ boundbyatrialcourt'sfactualfindingsbutinsteadconductsanindependentexaminationto 0 determinewherethepreponderanceoftheevidencelies.Gallowayv.MemphisDrumServ.,822  p S.W.2d584(Tenn.1991). `  P Theappellantcontendsitisnotliableforanypartofthedisabilityresultingfromthe @ claimant'sleftleginjurybecauseitresultedinpartfromapreexistingcondition.Thepanel 0 respectfullyrejectsthatargumentandthefurtherargumentthattheawardshouldbereducedbecause   ofthepreexistingcondition.Aninjuryiscompensable,eventhoughtheemployeemayhavebeen ! sufferingfromaseriouspreexistingcondition,ifaworkconnectedaccidentcanbefairlysaidtobe "  acontributingcauseofsuchinjury.Anemployertakesanemployeeasheisandassumestherisk #! ofhavingaweakenedconditionaggravatedbyaninjurywhichmightnotaffectanormalperson. $" Finkv.Caudle,856S.W.2d952(Tenn.1993). % #  p&!$ Oncethecausationandpermanencyofaninjuryhavebeenestablishedbyexperttestimony, `'"% thetrialjudgemayconsidermanypertinentfactors,includingage,jobskills,education,training, P(#& durationofdisabilityandjobopportunitiesforthedisabled,inadditiontomedicalimpairment,for @)$' thepurposeofdeterminingtheextentofaninjuredworkers'vocationaldisability.McCalebv. 0*%( SaturnCorp.,910S.W.2d412(Tenn.1995).Inthiscase,theemployeeisoversixtyyearsoldwith  +p&) aneighthgradeeducationandexperienceinfarmingandconstructionwork.Wecannotsaythe ,`'* evidencepreponderatesagainstthefindingsofthetrialjudge.    Accordingly,thetrialcourt'sawardofbenefitsbasedononehundredpercentpermanent  disabilitytobothlegsisaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellants.