ÿWPC6 9# .UN9 %‡ 0(U:µ 0cïU:R 0‹ŒU:4Qetw@|¼ 0J¼ 0T 0^Z 0h¸ 0r  0|’ 0† 0” 1u$ 0d™ AQý ÆN 0D 0@X 0D˜ D/Ü B B( D3E U>x U *¶ B)à DC  AML+™ Äeäv~åvÓc˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡@"Arial Regular(" „$Ô€XTXXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(;(2‹Å$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ XžßXXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular§ƒt!½¬Ú0Ú  3|xW  E (eF G DH I J Ó€T U VV îW D2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d11117Border 1dd!#2Cþÿ << Gÿÿ !Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€0XÔÌÌNovember€25,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€0XÔÌÌNovember€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  ÝÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ò‘XXdðdÈ7ÑÓ  ÓÔ€0Ôò òÑ ý ÑÙ€!ÙßR€342A1-j|ì` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÓ  ÓÌÌALVA€MARIE€REYNOLDS,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)à àCOFFEE€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€John€W.€Rollins,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌWAL„MART€STORES,€INC.,€à àà àà à)à àNo.€01S01„9509„CH„00172Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà àà à)ÌÌòòÌÌFor€Appellant:à àà àà àà àà àà àFor€Appellee:ÌóóÌJoseph€M.€Daltonà àà àà àà àà àà àG.€David€Allen,€Jr.ÌNashville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àà àLeitner,€Warner,€Moffitt,Ïà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliams,€Dooley,ÏCarpenter€&€à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNapolitanó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òChattanooga,€TN€€37402ÌÌà@ àòòM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌà@ àòòó óMembers€of€Panel:ÌÌà@ àóóœAdolph€A.€Birch,€Jr.,€Chief€JusticeÌà@ àJerry€L.€Smith,€Special€JudgeÌà@ àJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òCLARKó ó,€Special€JudgeÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€0„ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€0XÔÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workers'ÏCompensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€Section€50„6„225€(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law€to€the€Supreme€Court.€€Alva€Marie€Reynolds,€the€plaintiff„employee,Ïappeals€the€decision€of€the€Coffee€County€Chancery€Court€denying€her€relief€on€herÏworkerððs€compensation€claim.€€On€appeal,€the€sole€issue€is€whether€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€finding€that€the€plaintiff€failed€to€carry€the€burden€of€proving€that€she€sustainedÏan€injury€arising€out€of€her€employment.€€The€trial€court€found€plaintiffððs€injury€was€theÏresult€of€a€pre„existing€idiopathic€condition.ÌÌà àOn€January€5,€1993,€the€plaintiff,€who€was€at€that€time€sixty„two€years€old,Ïsustained€an€injury€to€her€ankle€when€she€fell€at€her€place€of€employment,€Wal„Mart.€ÏThe€plaintiff€had€worked€at€Wal„Mart€in€diverse€capacities€for€eleven€years€before€herÏaccident,€and€at€the€time€of€her€injury,€she€had€been€working€in€the€fitting€room€area€forÏa€couple€of€years.€€In€addition€to€monitoring€the€clothing€which€was€brought€in€and€outÏof€the€fitting€room,€she€answered€Wal„Martððs€incoming€calls,€made€announcements,Ïand€paged€employees€within€the€store.€€Regarding€her€fall,€the€plaintiff€testified€that,Ïafter€being€told€to€take€a€hurried€break,€she€rushed€out€of€the€fitting€room€and€fell€at€theÍpoint€that€the€floor€changed€from€carpet€to€tile.€€She€testified€that€she€had€notÏpreviously€experienced€numbness€in€her€legs€nor€had€she€ever€fallen€at€work€or€homeÏbefore€this€incident.€€The€plaintiff€worked€the€remainder€of€the€day€and€did€not€see€aÏdoctor€until€the€next€day€when€her€ankle€was€diagnosed€as€being€broken.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€the€plaintiff€acknowledged€that€in€two€depositions€takenÏafter€the€accident,€she€did€not€mention€that€she€was€in€a€hurry€at€the€time€that€she€fell.ÏShe€explained€that€she€did€not€remember€this€until€later.€€However,€in€a€depositionÏtaken€one€year€and€nine€months€following€the€accident,€the€plaintiff€said€that€she€justÏwalked€across€the€floor€and€fell.€€Ìà àÌà àThe€testimony€of€Dr.€Gary€Stevens€was€entered€into€evidence€by€deposition.€€Dr.ÏStevens€first€saw€the€plaintiff€on€January€7,€1993€„„€two€days€after€her€fall.€€He€recalledÏthat€she€had€told€him€that€her€ankle€or€her€knee€gave,€and€that€she€did€not€mention€thatÏshe€had€fallen€at€a€place€where€carpet€bordered€tile.€€Dr.€Stevens€also€rememberedÏthat€the€plaintiff€had€told€him€that€she€had€been€diagnosed€as€having€degenerativeÏjoint€disease€„„€a€pre„existing€condition€which€develops€over€time€and€is€notÏnecessarily€related€to€trauma.€€He€stated€that€degenerative€joint€disease€might€cause€aÏperson,€as€he€or€she€is€walking,€to€experience€pain€and€fall.€€He€referred€her€to€aÏneurologist€after€her€EMG€indicated€that€there€was€some€nerve€involvement€in€certainÍnerve€roots.€€ÌÌà àThe€medical€records€of€Dr.€Lawrence€Pass€were€entered€into€evidence€byÏstipulation.€€It€was€his€impression,€upon€the€examination€of€the€plaintiff€in€June€of€1993,Ïthat€she€had€bilateral€hip€and€thigh€claudication€or€Lericheððs€syndrome.€€Claudication,Ïas€defined€by€Dr.€Stevens,€is€a€vascular€problem€in€which€the€blood€vessel€gives€onlyÏintermittent€blood€supply.ÌÌà àDr.€David€Gaw€did€not€see€the€plaintiff€until€June€of€1994.€€It€was€his€opinion,€asÏexpressed€during€a€deposition€which€was€entered€into€evidence,€that€the€plaintiff€hadÏdegenerative€lumbar€disc€disease€which€pre„dated€but€was€aggravated€by€her€fall.€ÏAlthough€Dr.€Gaw€was€unaware€that€the€plaintiff€had€been€diagnosed€as€havingÏLericheððs€syndrome€,€he€was€not€surprised.€€He€testified€that€he€would€expect€her€toÏhave€some€kind€of€obstructive€vascular€disease€as€she€had€no€pulses€in€her€feet.€ÏDuring€the€depositions€of€both€Dr.€Gaw€and€Dr.€Stevens,€each€doctor€gave€his€opinionÏthat,€as€Lericheððs€syndrome€affects€the€blood€supply€to€the€legs,€a€person€with€thisÏdisease€might€experience€tingling,€pain,€or€numbness€in€his€or€her€lower€extremitiesÏwhich€might€cause€him€or€her€to€fall.ÌÌà àBruce€Calloway€and€Jeff€Preston€were€assistant€managers€of€Wal„Mart€at€theÍtime€of€the€plaintiffððs€accident.€€They€both€approached€the€plaintiff€while€she€was€still€onÏthe€floor€where€she€had€fallen.€€They€testified€that€she€was€on€a€completely€tiled€areaÏof€the€floor€approximately€six€feet€from€the€carpeted€area.€€€Mr.€Calloway€stated€that€theÏplaintiff€told€him€that€her€leg€gave€out€because€she€had€arthritis.€€She€stated€she€hadÏexperienced€similar€problems€at€home.€€He€said€that€she€did€not€indicate€that€she€fellÏas€a€result€of€walking€from€carpet€to€tile.€€Mr.€Preston€also€testified€that€the€plaintiff€toldÏhim€that€her€legs€had€become€numb,€that€she€had€fallen,€and€that€this€had€happenedÏbefore.ÌÌà àBob€Pleasant€and€Rena€Anderson,€two€of€the€plaintiffððs€co„workers,€testified€thatÏthey€had€a€conversation€with€the€plaintiff€in€the€Wal„Mart€employee€lounge€on€JanuaryÏ5€soon€after€her€fall.€€According€to€both€witnesses,€the€plaintiff€explained€that€she€didÏnot€fall€over€any€object,€but€instead€stated,€that€she€had€arthritis€in€her€legs€whichÏwould€cause€her€legs€to€go€numb€resulting€in€her€occasionally€falling.€€Mr.€PleasantÏrecalled€that€the€area€where€the€plaintiff€fell€was€tiled€but€that€carpeted€floor€was€near.€ÏMs.€Anderson€reported€that€the€plaintiff€stated€her€legs€often€become€numb.€€Ms.ÏAnderson€also€recounted€that€she€had€been€aware€that€the€plaintiff€had€leg€problemsÏdue€to€the€plaintiffððs€behavior€at€work.€€€€Another€Wal„Mart€co„worker,€Kathy€Sherrill,Ïtestified€that€she€too€spoke€with€the€plaintiff€in€the€lounge.€€She€reported€that€theÏplaintiff€ð ðsaid€in€the€break€room€that€her€legs€gave€way€with€her€and€they€do€thatÍsometimes.ðð€ÌÌà àOn€rebuttal,€the€plaintiff€called€Margaret€Rogers,€a€woman€who€describedÏherself€as€having€been€a€very€good€friend€of€the€plaintiffs€for€the€past€eight€years.€€SheÏtestified€that€she€had€no€knowledge€that€the€plaintiff€possessed€any€physical€limitationsÏor€conditions.€€She€had€never€talked€with€the€plaintiff€regarding€problems€with€herÏback,€legs,€hips€or€ankles.€€Lastly,€Ms.€Rogers€was€unaware€that€the€plaintiff€was€underÏthe€care€of€a€doctor€for€any€of€these€conditions.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€ruled€against€the€plaintiff€finding€that€she€had€ð ðfailed€to€carry€herÏburden€of€proving€that€she€sustained€an€injury€arising€out€of€and€in€the€course€andÏscope€of€her€employment€and€that€the€condition€for€which€she€claims€benefits€didÏindeed€occur€as€a€result€of€a€pre„existing€idiopathic€condition€and€not€as€a€result€of€anyÏhazard€incident€to€the€employment.ðð€ÌÌà àOur€ð ð[r]eview€of€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€shall€be€de€novo€upon€theÏrecord€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€theÏfinding,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ððÏ50„6„225(e)(2)€(Supp.€1995);€òòHenson€v.€City€of€Lawrenceburgóó,€851€S.W.2d€809,€812Ï(Tenn.€1993).€This€standard€of€review€requires€the€Court€to€examine€in€depth€a€trialÍcourt's€factual€findings€and€conclusions.€€òòGalloway€v.€Memphis€Drum€Serv.óó,€822ÏS.W.2d€584,€586€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€Court€is€not€bound€by€these€findings€but€insteadÏcan€conduct€an€independent€examination€to€determine€where€the€preponderance€ofÏthe€evidence€lies.€€òòCorcoran€v.€Foster€Auto€GMC,€Inc.óó,€746€S.W.2d€452,€456€(Tenn.Ï1988).€€ÌÌà à€The€Workerððs€Compensation€statute€covers€ð ðinjury€by€accident€arising€out€ofÏand€in€the€course€of€employment.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€56„6„102(5)€(Supp.€1995).€ÏTennessee€courts€have€addressed€the€question€of€whether€an€injury€arises€out€ofÏemployment€when€it€is€the€result€of€a€fall€occasioned€by€an€idiopathic€condition€„„€aÏcondition€which€arises€out€of€a€disease€of€unknown€origin.€€òòSeeóó€òòStedmanððs€MedicalÏDictionaryóó€690€(5th€ed.€1982)€(defining€idiopathic).€€Addressing€the€issue€of€ð ðwhetherÏthe€effects€of€an€idiopathic€fall€to€the€level€ground€or€bare€floor€should€be€deemed€toÏarise€out€of€employment,ðð€this€Court€in€òòSudduth€v.€Williamsóó,€517€S.W.2d€520,€522„23Ï(Tenn.€1974),€cited€Larson,€Workmenððs€Compensation€Law,€ðð€12.14€(1972):ÌÌÓÓà8 àð ðInevitably€there€arrive€cases€in€which€the€employee€suffers€an€idiopathicÏfall€while€standing€on€a€level€surface,€and€in€the€course€of€his€fall,€hits€noÏmachinery,€bookcases,€or€tables.€€At€this€point€there€is€an€obviousÏtemptation€to€say€that€there€is€no€way€of€distinguishing€between€a€fallÏonto€a€table€and€a€fall€onto€a€floor,€since€in€either€case€the€hazardÏencountered€in€the€fall€was€not€conspicuously€different€from€what€it€mightÏhave€been€at€home.€€A€distinct€majority€of€jurisdictions,€however,€haveÏresisted€this€temptation€and€have€denied€compensation€in€level„fallÍcases.€€The€reason€is€that€the€basic€cause€of€the€harm€is€personal,€andÏthat€the€employment€does€not€significantly€add€to€the€risk.ððÌÓÓÌà àDistinguishing€between€cases€involving€idiopathic€injuries€and€falls€occurring€inÏthe€course€of€employment€which€are€totally€unexplained,€the€Court€stated€that€ð ð[i]n€theÏlatter€instance,€compensation€is€usually€allowed€but,€while€there€is€some€division€ofÏauthority€on€the€point,€benefits€have€generally€not€been€allowed€where€the€cause€ofÏthe€fall€has€been€found€to€be€due€to€some€diseased€or€other€idiopathic€conditionÏpersonal€to€the€employee,€absent€some€'special€hazard'€of€the€employment.ðð€€òòSudduthóóÏ517€S.W.2d€at€523.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòGreeson€v.€American€Lava€Corp.óó,€392€S.W.2d€931,€934Ï(Tenn.€1965).€€ÌÌà àMore€recently,€the€Court€cited€the€rule€of€òòSudduthóó€to€deny€recovery€to€a€plaintiffÏwho€fell€as€result€of€an€idiopathic€condition€under€circumstances€in€which€ð ðthere€wasÏno€condition€of€employment€that€presented€a€peculiar€or€additional€hazard€to€theÏplaintiff.ðð€€òòMcClain€v.€Allied„Bendix,€Inc.óó,€No.€03S01„9211„CH„00100,€1994€WLÏ902486,€at€*3€(Tenn.€April€5,€1994).€€In€òòMcClainóó,€as€the€plaintiff€ð ðwalked€in€a€normalÏmanner€around€a€corner€the€building€[at€his€place€of€employment],€his€knee€just€ððwentÏout.ðð€ðð€òòId.óó€at€*1.€€The€plaintiff€had€injured€his€knee€some€six€years€before,€and€medicalÏtestimony€was€presented€to€the€effect€that€his€old€injury€was€a€preexisting€conditionÏwhich€predisposed€him€to€have€the€new€injury.€€òòId.óó€at€*2.ÌÌà àWe€find€that€the€circumstances€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€are€very€similar€to€those€inÏÑ ( ÑòòMcClainóó.€€At€least€one€doctor€diagnosed€the€plaintiff€as€having,€at€the€time€of€her€fall,ÏLericheððs€syndrome.€€Another€doctor€agreed€that€this€diagnosis€was€consistent€with€herÏsymptoms.€€Doctors€Gaw€and€Stevens€agreed€that€Lericheððs€syndrome€might€bringÏabout€pain€or€numbness€of€the€legs€which€could€cause€a€person€to€fall.€€Five€ofÏAppellantððs€co„workers€testified€that€she€told€them€that€her€knees€and€legs€had€givenÏway€on€previous€occasions€as€was€the€case€in€this€instance.€€Though€there€wasÏconflicting€testimony€on€this€point,€such€as€that€offered€by€the€plaintiff€and€her€friend,Ïthis€Court€neither€re„weighs€the€evidence€nor€determines€the€credibility€of€witnesses.€€ÏThose€issues€are€to€be€resolved€by€the€trial€judge.€€òòJohnson€v.€Midwesco,€Inc.óó,€801ÏS.W.2d€804,€806€(Tenn.€1990);€€òòCarr€v.€Klopman€Millsóó,€665€S.W.2d€719,€721Ï(Tenn.1984).€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€plaintiff€failed€to€carry€her€burden€of€proofÏthat€her€injuries€arose€out€of€and€in€the€course€and€scope€of€her€employment.€€TheÏevidence€in€the€record€preponderates€in€favor€of€the€finding€that€the€plaintiffððs€fall€wasÏoccasioned€by€a€pre„existing€idiopathic€condition.€€Tennessee€law€does€not€allowÏworker€compensation€under€these€circumstances.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌADOLPH€A.€BIRCH,€JR.,€CHIEF€JUSTICEÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJOE€C.€LOSER,€JR.,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àÇÒ  ÒÒ £ ÒòòÔ€0¼Ôà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌßJ€35;+'b|g` ç `€@ÿJßÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌALVA€MARIE€REYNOLDS,à àà à}à àCOFFEE€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à}à àNo.€94„57€BelowÌà àPlaintiff/Appellantà àà à}Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à}à àHon.€John€W.€Rollins,Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à}à àJudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à}ÌWAL„MART€STORES,€INC.,à àà à}à àNo.€01S01„9509„CH„00172Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à}Ìà àDefendant/Appelleeà àà à}à àAFFIRMED.ÌÌÌà@ àJUDGMENT€ORDERÌÌÌÓ€Óà àà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€includingÏthe€order€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,Ïand€the€Panel's€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference.Ìà àà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€MemorandumÏOpinion€of€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€PanelÏis€made€the€judgment€of€the€Court.ÌÓ ` ` šXÓà àà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€plaintiff€and€surety,€for€which€executionÏmay€issue€if€necessary.ÌÓÓà àà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€on€Ô"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ6 ÔÔ!  Ô.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌóóÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ€0XÔ