ÿWPC\ ÊŒü0–Uä`^'Ó|J¡àøx¡V·Yb,Z»f¶{å8Ð-É’¥`ÏuýG‚ÞCohÊ /JÓÇäó \(ô5žý¯HZôŽÕ y‰ûf཮sÚCóO¢ëÃîü(xkÚy»‘1Ø8¨ƒokÀ]üÅÛzºšá ‘×Ièù}¯®d 㬶qŠ—|³°8IZÀy¼¶­êÑD•§¼¼óTû61Ö8,F%î<«q¯[*C\¹ÿÅÍf#U©ÑÌ x¿ÊFˆ³´±Ð…2VàÁ˜¶Eªëø]Xɲî>Èî~ÉMX_~6) .±¡qÈ$pjòZXΧ39ãódgsŠèpÁ‚n'½­b#Á\ % UN# 0ˆq U4Nù ^ G wS zW ÒÑ 4£ · Æ mÈ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1 ÷NýNÿ zE{Ò}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}bOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 0ëWWWW B BB 0¤_ D5 D-8 0Kee AS°Æ 0¤É 0Dm A«±˜HP LaserJet 4Si,ü,,,,,ü0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular8†,)â  ˜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.wptKë(¢Ø+003|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5H˜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.wpt- ù-(|G2¢û$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€­´»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X°cX»»Ô d(|3Á'$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€­´»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Á'$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€­´»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€­´»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼­´»»»ÔÑ8€°cXXdð»»d8ÑÓ  ÓÔ‡îò·î»¼­´Ôà@@7 7 ìàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÐ Ü, Ðà@@ƒƒìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼­´»îîò·î#ÔÐ X ÐApril€2000€SessionÐ 4„ ÐÔ‡X°cX»¼­´ÔÌò òÔ#†¼­´»XX°c#ÔMERVIN€REEDòòóó€v.€Ô_ÔABBÔ_Ô€COMBUSTION€ENGINEERING,€INC.òòóóÔ‡X°cX»¼­´Ôó óÐ < Œ ÐÌà@@¼¼ìàò ò€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÐ D ” Ðà@@ôôìàNo.€98€0453€€€€€€W.€Frank€Brown,€III,€ChancellorÐ 4 „ ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ T  ÐÌNo.€E1999„00589„Ô_ÔWCÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Mailed€Ð S  ÐÔ_ÔÔ#†¼­´»XX°c¶#ÔÔ‡X°cX»¼­´ÔFiled:Ô_Ô€September€12,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ óC  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Ò` AßÐ Ó# Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡X²XXX°cÔThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€AppealsÐ Ò" ÐPanel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€50„6„225€(e)(3)€forÐ ¾ Ðhearing€and€reporting€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€In€this€appeal,€theÐ ªú Ðplaintiff/appellant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€basing€plaintiffððs€award€of€permanent€disabilityÐ –æ Ðbenefits€on€a€percentage€of€impairment€other€than€that€supported€by€the€medical€evidence€at€trial.Ð ‚Ò ÐAfter€a€complete€review€of€the€entire€record,€briefs€of€the€parties€and€applicable€law,€we€affirm€theÐ n¾ Ðtrial€courtððs€judgment.Ô#†¼åœ»XX²ž#ÔÔ#†¼­´»»¼圎#ÔÔ‡X°cX»¼­´ÔÐ Zª ÐÔ#†¼­´»XX°cÔ#ÔÔ‡X°cX»¼­´ÔÌÓ‚Óò òÓ  ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)€(1999)€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ 6† Ðis€Affirmed.ó óÐ &v ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ#†¼­´»àX°c+ #ÔÔ‡X°cX.¼­´ÔL.€Terry€Ô_ÔLaffertyÔ_Ô,€Sr.€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€M.€Barker,€J.,óó€andÐ V ÐòòJohn€K.€Byers,€Sr.€J.óó,€joined.Ð öF ÐÌThomas€L.€Wyatt,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Mervin€Reed.Ð Ö!&  ÐÔ#†¼­´»XX°c< #ÔÔ‡X°cX»¼­´ÔÌJeffrey€L.€Ô_ÔClearyÔ_Ô€and€Michael€A.€Kent,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Ô_ÔABBÔ_Ô€CombustionÐ ¶#" ÐEngineering,€Inc.Ô#†¼­´»XX°cµ #ÔÔ‡X°cX»¼­´ÔÐ ¦$ö# ÐÌÓ ÓÓ  Óò òMEMORANDUM€OPINIONó óÔ#†¼­´»XX°c½ #ÔÔ‡X°cX»¼­´ÔÐ †&Ö!% ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†¼­´»XX°cI #ÔÔ‡X°cX»¼­´ÔÌòòóóÔ#†¼­´»XX°c¬ #Ôò òÔ‡¼åœ»»¼­´Ôó óà  àÔ‡X²X»¼åœÔThe€plaintiff,€age€fifty„four€(54),€testified€that€he€went€to€work€at€the€defendantððs€plant€twoÐ f(¶#' Ðweeks€after€graduating€from€high€school.€€Except€for€a€two€(2)€year€enlistment€in€the€United€StatesÐ R)¢$( ÐArmy,€the€plaintiff€has€been€continuously€employed€by€the€defendant.€€The€plaintiff€testified€that€heÐ >*Ž%) Ðis€a€panel€straightener/joint€welder.€€Ô_ÔABBÔ_Ô€Combustion€Engineering,€Inc.,€manufactures€large€pipeÐ *+z&* Ðsystems,€called€super€heaters.€€These€panels€are€often€sixty€(60)€feet€long€and€are€welded€togetherÐ ,f'+ Ðto€construct€panels€up€to€twelve€(12)€feet€wide.€€The€panels€must€be€welded€tightly€enough€to€passÐ -R(, Ðan€x„ray€test€and€must€be€straightened€to€within€an€eighth€(1/8)€of€an€inch€variance.€€On€SeptemberÐ î->)-ý} ÐÔ_Ô15,€1995,€the€plaintiff€stated€that€with€his€hands,Ô#†¼åœ»XX²&#ÔÔ‡X²X»¼åœÔÔ#†X°cXXX²ø #ÔÔ‡X²XXX°cÔ€he€was€holding€onto€a€panel€that€was€being€hoistedÐ ° Ðby€a€crane.€€The€panel€ð ðwhippedðð€and€pinned€the€plaintiff€against€his€work€station.€The€plaintiff€feltÐ œì Ðan€onset€of€neck€pain€immediately.€€The€next€day€the€plaintiff€reported€his€neck€pain€to€theÐ ˆØ Ðdefendant.€€The€plaintiff€complained€of€increasing€pain€in€his€neck,€numbness€in€the€back€of€his€leftÐ tÄ Ðbiceps€and€tingling€in€his€left€hand.€€The€plaintiff€had€not€experienced€any€such€symptoms€before€thisÐ `° Ðinjury.€€ABB€Combustion,€Inc.€referred€the€plaintiff€to€Dr.€George€Seiters€for€treatment.€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiff€testified€that€Dr.€Seiters€had€him€undergo€physical€therapy€and€prescribed€anti„Ð $ t Ðinflammatories€and€muscle€relaxants.€€The€symptoms€did€not€improve,€so€Dr.€Seiters€ordered€an€MRIÐ  ` Ðfor€the€plaintiff.€€Afterwards,€Dr.€Seiters€referred€the€plaintiff€to€Dr.€Megison,€who€providedÐ ü L  Ðadditional€therapy€and€medicine.€€The€plaintiff€testified€that€he€continued€to€work€daily€during€theseÐ è 8  Ðtreatment€sessions.€€Prior€to€his€injury,€the€plaintiff€stated€that€he€straightened€panels€50€percent€ofÐ Ô$  Ðthe€time€and€did€joint€welding€the€other€50€percent.€€The€plaintiff€had€taken€a€welding€test€for€theÐ À  ÐJ1€position€which€entitled€the€plaintiff€to€earn€50€cents€more€an€hour€than€a€panel€straightener.€€AfterÐ ¬ü  Ðhis€injury,€the€plaintiff€believed€that€he€was€unable€to€physically€do€joint€welding€because€he€mustÐ ˜è  Ðkeep€his€neck€in€a€bent€€positionÔ#†X°cXXX²V#ÔÔ‡X²XXX°cÔÔ#†¼åœ»XX²#ÔÔ‡X²X»¼åœÔ.€€In€the€course€of€an€eight„hour€day€working€a€joint€welding€job,Ð „Ô  Ðapproximately€five€and€one„half€(5ðð)€to€six€(6)€hours€a€day€would€be€spent€actually€welding.€€PriorÐ pÀ Ðto€his€injury,€the€plaintiff€was€making€$14.95€an€hour,€which€had€increased€by€the€time€of€trial.€€Also,Ð \¬ Ðthe€plaintiff€stated€that€he€would€work€overtime€if€he€did€not€get€bumped€by€other€welders.€€TheÐ H˜ Ðplaintiff€stated€that€he€still€suffers€from€pain€in€the€left€side€of€his€neck€with€some€numbness€to€theÐ 4„ Ðback€of€his€left€biceps.€Ð  p ÐÌà  àÔ% € ÔIn€cross„examination,€the€plaintiff€testified€that€he€could€pass€the€test€for€a€J1€welder,€but€heÐ øH Ðdoes€not€believe€he€can€do€the€work.€€He€also€stated€that€it€was€his€decision€not€to€take€the€test€forÐ ä4 Ða€J1€welder.€€The€plaintiff€testified€that€he€did€not€lose€a€single€day€from€work,€although€both€doctorsÐ Ð  Ðoffered€him€some€time€off.€€The€plaintiff€stated€that€he€was€under€no€permanent€medical€restrictionsÐ ¼  Ðin€his€work€assignments.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌÓ  Óò òMEDICAL€TESTIMONYÐ €Ð ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  à€Dr.€George€Seiters,€an€orthopedic€surgeon,€testified€that€he€saw€the€plaintiff€on€a€couple€ofÐ X ¨ Ðoccasions.€€First,€in€1988,€for€a€lumbar€strain€and€again€in€1994,€for€Epicondylitis€of€the€right€elbow.Ð D!” ÐDr.€Seiters€stated€that€he€saw€the€plaintiff€on€September€27,€1995,€with€a€complaint€of€a€jerking€typeÐ 0"€  Ðinjury€to€his€left€shoulder€and€neck.€€The€pain€increasedÔ#†¼åœ»XX²j#ÔÔ‡X²X»¼åœÔÔ#†X°cXXX²(#ÔÔ‡X²XXX°cÔ€over€several€days€and€radiated€out€into€theÐ #l! Ðshoulder€to€about€the€deltoid€insertion.€€Dr.€Seiters€testified€that€the€plaintiff€continued€regular€workÐ $X" Ðactivity€and€was€using€heat€and€Ibuprofen€for€some€relief.€€Dr.€Seitersðð€physical€examinationÐ ô$D # Ðestablished€that€cervical€motion€was€normal,€and€that€the€left€shoulder€motion€was€normal€withÐ à%0!$ Ðtenderness€over€the€left€paravertebral€muscles€and€the€left€trapezius€muscle.€€Neurologic€and€motorÐ Ì&"% Ðfunctions€were€normal€and€there€was€negative€impingement€testing.€€Dr.€Seiters€believed€that€theÐ ¸'#& Ðplaintiff€had€a€cervical€strain.€€Dr.€Seiters€permitted€the€plaintiff€to€continue€working€and€prescribedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðanti„inflammatories€and€muscle€relaxants.€€On€October€4,€1995,€Dr.€Seiters€saw€the€plaintiff€whoseÐ )à$( Ðpain€had€not€improved.€€Dr.€Seiters€did€AP€and€lateral€spine€films€which€showed€some€degenerativeÐ |*Ì%) Ðchange€at€C5„6€and€6„7.€€Also€there€was€some€degenerative€change€in€the€glenohumeral€joint€of€theÐ h+¸&* Ðleft€shoulder.€The€plaintiff€continued€to€work€and€was€to€continue€physical€therapy€for€his€neck€andÐ ° Ðshoulder.€€On€October€18,€1995,€the€plaintiff€complained€of€some€tingling€sensation€from€his€neckÐ œì Ðdown€to€his€left€hand.€€An€MRI€revealed€the€plaintiff€had€a€left€paracentral€disc€herniation€of€C5„6Ð ˆØ Ðwith€inferior€extrusion€of€the€disc€material.€€Dr.€Seiters€testified€that€the€nerves€that€proceed€throughÐ tÄ ÐC5„6€go€down€the€left€arm€and€serve€the€muscle€function€in€the€biceps.€Ð `° ÐÌà  àDr.€Seiters€diagnosed€the€plaintiff€with€a€cervical€disc€protrusion€that€was€irritating€a€nerve,Ð 8 ˆ Ðand€recommended€a€neurosurgical€consult€with€Dr.€Megison.€€On€July€14,€1998,€Dr.€Seiters€saw€theÐ $ t Ðplaintiff€for€a€final€assessment.€€According€to€Dr.€Megisonððs€medical€records,€the€plaintiff€was€lastÐ  ` Ðseen€in€April€of€1997.€€Dr.€Seitersðð€examination€revealed€that€the€plaintiff€had€some€tenderness€atÐ ü L  Ðthe€base€of€the€cervical€spine€and€the€left€paravertebral€muscles€and€left€trapezius€muscle.€€TheÐ è 8  Ðplaintiff€had€some€restriction€in€his€flexion€and€extension€rotation€at€55€degrees.€€Upper€extremityÐ Ô$  Ðneurological€testing€had€normal€motor€function€with€circumferential€upper€arm€measurementÐ À  Ðshowing€three€quarters€of€an€inch€smaller€left€arm€than€the€right€at€the€level€of€the€deltoid€insertion.Ð ¬ü  ÐAlso,€a€slight€diminution€in€the€left€biceps€jerk.€€As€to€his€expert€opinion€on€medical€impairment,Ð ˜è  ÐDr.€Seiters€testified,€ð ðthis€rating€was€difficult€to€determine€due€to€the€plaintiffððs€mixed€findings,Ð „Ô  Ðmaking€a€differentiation€between€a€Category€II€and€Category€III€level€difficult.€€I€felt€that€with€allÐ pÀ Ðthings€considered€he€more€likely€had€a€Category€III€impairment€of€15€percent€of€the€body€as€a€wholeÐ \¬ Ðrelated€to€his€cervical€discð8ð€as€well€as€the€physical€examination€showing€borderline€atrophy€andÐ H˜ Ðdiminished€biceps€jerk.ðð€€Dr.€Seiters€stated€that€the€plaintiff€required€no€work€restrictions.€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àIn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Seiters€testified€that€a€Category€II€impairment€is€a€5€percentÐ  \ Ðimpairment.€€According€to€Dr.€Seiters,€the€factors€involved€in€moving€the€plaintiff€from€CategoryÐ øH ÐII€to€Category€III€were,€a€positive€MRI€scan€for€a€soft€tissue€disc€protrusion,€the€diminution€leftÐ ä4 Ðbiceps€jerk€and€the€three€quarters€of€an€inch€atrophy€of€the€upper€and€lower€arm.€€Dr.€Seiters€statedÐ Ð  Ðthat€it€is€common€to€find€that€right„handed€individuals€who€perform€physical€labor,€to€have€a€slightlyÐ ¼  Ðlarger€dominant€arm.€€In€summation,€Dr.€Seiters€testified,€ð ðWell,€thereððs€evidence€that€supports€bothÐ ¨ø Ðcategories€of€impairment.€€Obviously€I€came€down€more€along€the€lines€of€a€Category€IIIÐ ”ä Ðimpairment,€but€it€is€a€problematic€rating.ððÐ €Ð ÐÌà  àDr.€Donald€P.€Megison,€a€neurosurgeon,€testified€that€he€examined€the€plaintiff€on€NovemberÐ X ¨ Ð1,€1995,€at€the€request€of€Dr.€Seiters.€€The€plaintiff€developed€pain€in€the€neck€and€left€arm€from€aÐ D!” Ðwork„related€injury.€€The€plaintiffððs€physical€examination€did€not€reveal€any€evidence€of€weakness,Ð 0"€  Ðbut€there€was€an€absent€biceps€reflex€on€the€left€as€compared€to€the€right.€€Dr.€Megison€stated€thatÐ #l! Ðthe€MRI€scan€did€show€an€abnormality€at€the€C5„6€disc€level€which€would€fit€with€his€exam.€€TheÐ $X" Ðproblem€was€either€a€disc€or€bone€spur.€€About€November€28,€1995,€Dr.€Megison€saw€the€plaintiffÐ ô$D # Ðwho€was€much€better.€€Dr.€Megison€saw€the€plaintiff€again€in€March€of€1996,€when€the€plaintiff€hadÐ à%0!$ Ðre„injured€himself€with€complaints€of€neck€stiffness,€but€no€arm€pain.€€Dr.€Megison€released€theÐ Ì&"% Ðplaintiff€in€April€1997,€with€no€further€arm€pain.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àDr.€Megison€testified€that€the€plaintiffððs€work„related€injury€certainly€could€be€responsibleÐ )à$( Ðfor€his€neck€pain€and€his€findings€on€the€MRI€scan.€€Dr.€Megison€could€not€give€the€plaintiff€anÐ |*Ì%) Ðanatomical€impairment€rating,€since€his€office€does€not€have€the€equipment€to€meet€the€standards€Ô_ÔofÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€AMA€Guidelines.€€In€cross„examination,€Dr.€Ô_ÔMegisonÔ_Ô€testified€that€he€did€not€find€any€atrophyÐ ° Ðin€the€plaintiffððs€arms.€€On€the€plaintiffððs€subsequent€visits,€Dr.€Ô_ÔMegisonÔ_Ô€did€not€find€anyÐ œì Ðneurological€deficits.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔMegisonÔ_Ô€stated€that€he€assumed€that€when€ratings€were€done€by€otherÐ ˆØ Ðdoctors€they€were€done€correctly€and€would€not€quarrel€with€their€findings.€Ð tÄ ÐÌÓ  Óò òLEGAL€ANALYSISÐ L œ ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àThe€plaintiff€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€permanent€vocational€disability€on€aÐ $ t Ðpercentage€of€anatomical€impairment€other€than€that€supported€by€the€medical€evidence€at€trial.€€TheÐ  ` Ðdefendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€was€justified€in€applying€an€anatomical€rating€of€10€percentÐ ü L  Ðpermanent€impairment€to€the€plaintiff,€in€lieu€of€15€percent,€€resulting€in€a€vocational€disability€ratingÐ è 8  Ðof€18€percent.€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àOur€review€of€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novo€óóupon€the€record€of€theÐ ¬ü  Ðtrial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€finding,€unless€the€preponderanceÐ ˜è  Ðof€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2);€òòStone€v.€City€of€Ô_ÔMcMinnvilleÔ_Ô,€óó896Ð „Ô  ÐS.W.2d€548€(Tenn.€1995).€€Whereas€in€this€case,€the€medical€testimony€is€presented€by€deposition,Ð pÀ Ðthis€Court€is€able€to€make€its€own€independent€assessment€of€the€medical€proof€€to€determine€whereÐ \¬ Ðthe€preponderance€of€evidence€lies.€€òòCooper€v.€Ô_ÔINAÔ_Ô,€óó884€S.W.2d€446€(Tenn.€1994).€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àIn€its€findings€of€fact,€the€trial€court€rejected€the€15€percent€impairment€rating€given€by€Dr.Ð  p ÐÔ_ÔSeitersÔ_Ô€for€several€reasons:Ð  \ ÐÌà8  àNumber€one,€the€plaintiff€had€been€returned€to€work€with€no€restrictions.€€There€wereÐ ä4 Ðno€present€neurological€deficits€that€were€noted€by€any€of€the€physicians.€€Indeed,€theÐ Ð  Ðmost€recent€medical€procedure€was€performed€on€December€15,€1998€by€theÐ ¼  ÐChattanooga€Outpatient€Center€in€which€Ô_ÔEMGÔ_Ô€test€showed€that€the€plaintiffððs€leftÐ ¨ø Ðarm€muscles€were€within€normal€limits,€or€at€least€the€Ô_ÔEMGÔ_Ô€studies€of€the€left€armÐ ”ä Ðmuscles€were€within€normal€limits.€€There€was€no€evidence€of€any€active€ongoingÐ €Ð ÐÔ_ÔdenervationÔ_Ô€regarding€the€cervical€spine€nerve€roots.€€The€decreased€biceps€jerk,Ð l¼ Ðwhich€is€a€neurological€finding,€was€found€only€in€1995,€shortly€after€the€injury.ÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àThe€Court€is€not€a€doctor.€€And€I€wish€Dr.€Ô_ÔSeitersÔ_Ô€would€have€done€as€I€have€seen€Dr.Ð 0"€  ÐÔ_ÔSpitalnyÔ_Ô€do€sometimes€and€say,€ð ðWell,€Iððve€practiced€medicine€for€a€long€time.€€IððveÐ #l! Ðtreated€a€lot€of€people.€€You€canððt€learn€everything€from€the€Guidelines.€They€say€youÐ $X" Ðcanððt.€€Now€and€then€you€have€to€use€judgment€and€common€sense,€and€this€guyððs€gotÐ ô$D # Ða€10€percent€injury.ðð€€He€didnððt,€so€I€did.€€Because€I€think€he€has€some€parts€of€both,Ð à%0!$ Ðand€Dr.€Ô_ÔSeitersÔ_Ô€said€it€was€problematic.ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  ÐÌà@$$(ìà*€*€*ˆÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà  àUsing€this€physical€impairment€rating€and€the€plaintiffððs€continued€history€of€pain€and€limitedÐ )à$( Ðwork€ability,€the€trial€court€determined€that€the€plaintiffððs€vocational€disability€was€18€percent.€€TheÐ |*Ì%) Ðplaintiff€requests€that€this€Court€overrule€the€trial€courtððs€award€and€modify€the€award€by€orderingÐ h+¸&* ÐÔ_Ôthat€he€be€paid€permanent€disability€based€on€a€27€percent€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€(ThisÐ ° Ðaward€is€based€on€an€anatomical€impairment€rating€of€15€percent,€multiplied€by€1.8,€the€multiplierÐ œì Ðused€by€the€trial€court.)Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€50„6„241(a)(1),€in€pertinent€part€states:Ð `° ÐÌà  àà8 ` àFor€injuries€arising€on€or€after€August€1,€1992,€in€cases€where€anÐ 8 ˆ Ðinjured€employee€is€eligible€to€receive€any€permanent€partialÐ $ t Ðdisability€benefits,€pursuant€to€ðð€50ð!ð6„207(3)(A)(i)€and€(F),€and€theÐ  ` Ðpre„injury€employer€returns€the€employee€to€employment€at€a€wageÐ ü L  Ðequal€to€or€greater€than€the€wage€the€employee€was€receiving€at€theÐ è 8  Ðtime€of€injury,€the€maximum€permanent€partial€disability€award€thatÐ Ô$  Ðthe€employee€may€receive€is€two€and€one„half€(2€ðð)€times€the€medicalÐ À  Ðimpairment€rating€determined€pursuant€to€the€provisions€of€theÐ ¬ü  ÐAmerican€Medical€Association€Guides€to€the€Evaluation€ofÐ ˜è  ÐPermanent€Impairmentð8ð,€the€Manual€for€Orthopedic€Surgeons€inÐ „Ô  ÐEvaluating€Permanent€Physical€Impairmentð8ð,€or€in€cases€not€coveredÐ pÀ Ðby€either€of€these,€an€impairment€rating€by€any€appropriate€methodÐ \¬ Ðused€and€accepted€by€the€medical€community.ÐH˜` x` x ÐÌà  àBetween€the€two€doctors€that€examined€and€treated€the€plaintiff,€only€Dr.€Seiters€found€anÐ  p Ðanatomical€impairment€rating.€€Dr.€Seiters€testified€that€the€rating€was€difficult€to€determine,€but€heÐ  \ Ðfelt€that€all€things€considered,€the€plaintiff€more€likely€had€a€Category€III€impairment€of€15€percentÐ øH Ðof€the€body€as€a€whole.€€However,€Dr.€Seiters€testified€that€the€evidence€supports€both€CategoriesÐ ä4 Ðof€II€and€III€impairments.€€Dr.€Seiters€came€down€on€more€along€the€lines€of€a€Category€IIIÐ Ð  Ðimpairment,€but€it€was€a€problematic€rating.€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiff€insists€that€medical€impairment€ratings€must€be€determined€in€accordance€withÐ ”ä Ðspecific€guides€on€manuals,€or€if€not€covered€by€those,€by€any€ð ðappropriate€method€used€andÐ €Ð Ðaccepted€by€the€medical€community.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241;€òòBrown€v.€Campbell€County€Bd.Ð l¼ Ðof€Educ.,€óó915€S.W.2d€407,€411€(Tenn.€1995).€€Also€citing€several€unpublished€opinions€of€the€Panel;Ð X ¨ ÐòòKayser„Roth€Hosiery,€Inc.€v.€Johnson,óó€No.€03S01„9212„CH„00109,€1994€WL€901454Ô#†¼åœ»XX²? #ÔÔ‡X²X»¼åœÔÔ#†X°cXXX² #ÔÔ‡X²XXX°cÔ€(Tenn.€Sp.Ð D!” ÐWorkers€Comp.€Apr.€5,€1994);€òòShultz€v.€Baneberry€Golf€Course€&€U.S.F.€&€G.,óó€No.€03S01„9707„Ð 0"€  ÐCV„00133,€1998€WL€667839Ô#†X°cXXX²àR#ÔÔ‡X²XXX°cÔÔ#†¼åœ»XX²žR#ÔÔ‡X²X»¼åœÔ€(Tenn.€Sp.€Workers€Comp.€Sept.€23,€1998);€and€òòHale€v.€ABBÐ #l! ÐCombustion€Engineering,óó€No.€03S01„9506„CH„00062,€1996€WL€99298Ô#†¼åœ»XX²T#ÔÔ‡X²X»¼åœÔÔ#†X°cXXX²ÐS#ÔÔ‡X²XXX°cÔ€(Tenn.€Sp.€Workers€Comp.Ð $X" ÐMar.€7,€1996).€€We€do€not€disagree€with€the€holdings€of€those€authorities,€but€the€facts€surroundingÐ ô$D # Ðmedical€impairment€are€distinctly€different€from€the€present€case.€€In€essence,€the€plaintiff€wouldÐ à%0!$ Ðurge€us€to€hold€that€a€trial€court€has€no€discretion,€or€little€discretion,€in€determining€a€properÐ Ì&"% Ðanatomical€medical€impairment,€where€the€medical€expert€may€be€equivocal€in€his€opinion€as€to€theÐ ¸'#& Ðproper€anatomical€medical€impairment€rating.€€We€agree€with€the€defendant€that€a€trial€court€is€notÐ ¤(ô#' Ðobligated€to€accept€the€medical€opinion€of€one€physician€over€another.€€ð ðWhile€a€treating€doctorððsÐ )à$( Ðtestimony€is€entitled€to€considerable€weight,€the€trial€court€is€not€bound€by€the€testimony€of€anyÐ |*Ì%) Ðexpert€witness.ðð€€òòOrman€v.€Williams€Sonoma,€Inc.,€óó803€S.W.2d€672,€676€(Tenn.€1991);€òòJohnson€Ô_Ôv.Ð h+¸&* ÐÔ_ÔMidwescoÔ_Ô,€Inc.,€óó801€S.W.2d€804,€806€(Tenn.€1990).€Ð ° ÐÌà  àIn€support€of€its€position,€the€defendant€cites€a€similar€factual€case;€òòWilliamson€v.€ClarksvilleÐ ˆØ ÐMemorial€Hospital,óó€No.€01S01„9703„CV„00066,€1997€WL€691535Ô#†X°cXXX²)U#ÔÔ‡X²XXX°cÔÔ#†¼åœ»XX²çT#ÔÔ‡X²X»¼åœÔ€(Tenn.€Sp.€Workers€Comp.€Nov.Ð tÄ Ð7,€1997).€€In€òòWilliamson,€óóthe€employer€contended€that€an€anatomical€impairment€rating€of€15€percentÐ `° Ðgiven€by€Dr.€Ô_ÔFishbeinÔ_Ô€should€not€have€been€considered€by€the€trial€court.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔFishbeinÔ_Ôððs€opinion€wasÐ L œ Ðbased€on€an€erroneous€reading€of€another€physicianððs€medical€records,€that€the€plaintiff€had€sustainedÐ 8 ˆ Ðan€acute€Ô_ÔherniationÔ_Ô€of€a€cervical€disc,€which€did€not€happen.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔFishbeinÔ_Ô€testified€that€the€plaintiffÐ $ t Ðhad€some€loss€of€reflex€and€some€loss€of€normal€curvature€of€her€neck.€€Dr.€G.€B.€Ô_ÔLanfordÔ_Ô,€aÐ  ` Ðneurosurgeon,€testified€that€the€plaintiff€had€some€disc€bulging€and€Ô_ÔspondylosisÔ_Ô,€but€no€operativeÐ ü L  Ðproblems.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔLanfordÔ_Ô€assessed€the€plaintiffððs€anatomical€impairment€rating€at€5€percent.€€A€panelÐ è 8  Ðof€this€Court€found€that€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€10€percent€anatomical€impairment€was€not€contraryÐ Ô$  Ðto€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€Ð À  ÐÌà  à€The€Supreme€Court€in€òòCorcoran€v.€Foster€Auto€Ô_ÔGMCÔ_Ôóó,€òòInc.,€óó746€S.W.2d€452,€457€(Tenn.Ð ˜è  Ð1988),€addressed€the€trial€courtððs€determination€of€vocational€disability€where€the€record€failed€toÐ „Ô  Ðdisclose€any€medical€testimony€to€attribute€a€percentage€of€anatomical€disability.€€When€the€medicalÐ pÀ Ðevidence€established€permanency,€the€failure€of€medical€expert€to€attribute€a€percentage€ofÐ \¬ Ðanatomical€disability€cannot€justify€a€denial€of€compensation€if€the€other€evidence€demonstrates€thatÐ H˜ Ðan€award€of€benefits€is€appropriate;€otherwise,€the€remedial€purpose€of€the€Workers'€CompensationÐ 4„ ÐAct€could€be€easily€frustrated.€€òòId.€€óóWhile€an€anatomical€disability€rating€given€by€a€medical€expertÐ  p Ðis€preferable€and€ordinarily€part€of€the€proof€offered€by€the€parties,€the€ultimate€issue€is€not€the€extentÐ  \ Ðof€anatomical€disability,€but€that€of€vocational€disability,€the€percentage€of€which€does€notÐ øH Ðdefinitively€depend€upon€the€medical€proof€regarding€a€percentage€of€anatomical€disability.€òò€Id.€€óóTheÐ ä4 Ðmedical€expertððs€rating€of€anatomical€disability€is€merely€one€of€a€number€of€relevant€factors€usedÐ Ð  Ðto€make€the€determination€of€vocational€disability.€€òòIdóó€at€458.€€Vocational€disability€is€a€question€ofÐ ¼  Ðfact€for€the€trial€court€to€determine€from€all€the€evidence,€including€lay€testimony€and€expertÐ ¨ø Ðtestimony.€òò€Id.€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àóóIt€is€obvious€from€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€that€the€trial€court€was€concerned€as€to€a€moreÐ l¼ Ðreasonable€anatomical€impairment€rating€given€by€Dr.€Ô_ÔSeitersÔ_Ô€in€determining€the€plaintiffððsÐ X ¨ Ðvocational€disability.€€It€is€the€trial€courtððs€responsibility€to€determine€vocational€disability,€and€theÐ D!” Ðtrial€court€may€consider€an€anatomical€impairment€rating€given€by€a€medical€expert,€and€the€recordÐ 0"€  Ðsupports€this.€€We€find€that€the€attempt€by€the€trial€court€to€determine€an€anatomical€rating€in€thisÐ #l! Ðcase€is€harmless.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔSeitersÔ_Ô€found€this€case€difficult.€€Although,€Dr.€Ô_ÔSeitersÔ_Ô€found€that€the€plaintiffððsÐ $X" Ðanatomical€impairment€rating€was€at€15€percent€in€Category€III,€this€rating€was€problematic€as€to€theÐ ô$D # Ðfactors€that€support€a€5€percent€impairment€rating€in€Category€II.€€Therefore,€we€find€that€the€trialÐ à%0!$ Ðcourtððs€award€of€10€percent,€when€considered€as€a€determination€of€vocational€disability,€is€clearlyÐ Ì&"% Ðwithin€the€higher€parameters€of€the€medical€evidence€and€is€supported€by€all€of€the€evidence€in€thisÐ ¸'#& Ðcase.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThe€trial€courtððs€judgment€is€affirmed€and€the€costs€are€taxed€against€the€plaintiff.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€Ô#†¼åœ»XX²âZ#ÔÔ#†¼­´»»¼圠Z#ÔÔ€X°cX»¼­´ÔÐ ° ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð l¼ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àL.€TERRY€Ô_ÔLAFFERTYÔ_Ô,€SENIOR€JUDGEÐ  \ ¬ ÐÔ‡¼­´»XX°cÔà@7 7 ìàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@Í Í ìàAT€KNOXVILLE,€TENNESSEEˆÐ È ÐÌÔ#†X°cX»¼­´Žn#ÔÌò òÔ‡¼­´»XX°cÔÓ  Óà @ àMERVIN€REED€€và0 @ à.à0 @ à€€Ô_ÔABBÔ_Ô€COMBUSTION€ENGINEERING,€INC.€òòóóÔ#†X°cX»¼­´]o#Ôó óÐ è8 ÐÓ|oÓà@— — ìàò òChancery€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyˆÐ  P Ðà@óó%ìàNo.€98„0453ˆÐ ð @ ÐÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Ï ` A߈Ð Ð  ÐÌà@’ ’ ìàNo.€E1999„00589„Ô_ÔWCÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„Filed€September€12,€2000ˆÐ Ï   ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<®` AßÐ ¯ÿ  Ðó óÌÔ‡¼­´»XX°cÔÔ#†X°cX»¼­´ r#Ôà@°°&ìàò òJUDGMENTó óÔ‡¼­´»XX°cÔÔ#†X°cX»¼­´kr#ԈР®þ  ÐÌÌà  àà ` àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€of€referralÐ ~Î Ðto€the€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panelððs€memorandum€Opinion€settingÐ n¾ Ðforth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ð ^® Ðà  àà ` àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€memorandum€Opinion€of€the€Panel€shouldÐ Nž Ðbe€accepted€and€approved;€andÐ >Ž Ðà  àà ` àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panelððs€findings€of€facts€and€conclusions€of€law€areÐ .~ Ðadopted€and€affirmed€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€Judgement€of€the€Court.Ð n Ðà  àà ` àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellant,€Mervin€Reed€and€€Thomas€L.€Wyatt,Ð ^ Ðsurety,€for€which€execution€€may€issue€if€necessary.€Ð þN ÐÌòòóóÔ‡¼­´»XX°cÔÔ#†X°cX»¼­´¡v#Ô09/12/00Ð Þ. ÐÔ‡¼­´»XX°cÔÔ#†X°cX»¼­´w#ÔÌÌÐ  ®þ ÐÐ  ° Ð