ÿWPCq 5# öUN %O 0ûUU:P4Šž­w@µ 0?õ 0D4 0Jx 0T 0^ 0ht Ü 0râ 0|T 0†Ð 0V 1uæ 0d[ AQ¿ Æ 0DÖ 0@ 0DZ Bž D/» Bê D3U>:U *xU*¢B)ÌDCõ AM8Ó…ÈXv~ vÓž˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÓH=$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XÎ_XXXÔÑ7€¾úXXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularWX$3|xª+ –+î—+ ˜+ ™+ š+ ›+ œ+ + ž+PŸ+Ó€(ï(3Sü$¤¤Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XXÒXXXÔÑ7€¥\XXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔH2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ !"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó d'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd "/Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÉÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€,ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€,XÔÌÌò òMarchÏ3,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€,ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ¾Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€,ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€,XÔÌÌò òMarchÏ3,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€,ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿáùEG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{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  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€+ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€,ÔÑ#€--Xd#ÑÑ#€--Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÑ À ÑÑ X Ñò ò›œ›Þ ÞÌÌó óà@ àò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€ ÙœßR€01/A1-j|<M` 81 `€€@ÿRß›à@ àSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€JACKSONó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌBEVERLY€RIDDLE,à àà àà à)€à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àMADISON€CHANCERYÌà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNO.€02S01„9706„CH„00058Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JOE€C.€MORRIS,ÌMURRAY€OUTDOOR€PRODUCTS,à à)à àCHANCELLORÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àDefendant/Appellantà àà à)à àÌÌÌò òòòÌÌÌÌÌFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€the€Appellee:ÌÌóóó óJ.€Arthur€Crews,€IIà àà àà àà àT.€J.€Emison,€Jr.ÌSteven€W.€Maroneyà àà àà àEmison€&€Emison,€P.C.ÌWaldrop€&€Hall,€P.A.à àà àà àP.O.€Box€13Ì106€S.€Libertyà àà àà àà àAlamo,€TN€€38001ÌJackson,€TN€€38301ò òòòÌÌÌóóó óÌÌÌò òòòÌÌÓ  ÓM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌò òòòMembers€of€Panel:ÌÌó óóóJustice€Janice€HolderÌSenior€Judge€John€K.€ByersÌSenior€Judge€William€H.€InmanÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ% € ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓAFFIRMED€à àà àà àà àà àà àà àBYERS,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòò òOPINIONó óóóÌÓ  Óà àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€SpecialÏWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€withÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€CourtÏof€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.Ìà àThe€trial€judge€awarded€the€plaintiff€58€percent€permanent€partial€disability€toÏeach€arm€as€a€result€of€carpal€tunnel€syndrome.Ìà àThe€defendant€raises€the€following€issues€on€appeal:ò òòòÌÒ ` ÒÒ H ÒÓÓóóó óI.à àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€the€plaintiff€had€properlyÏsatisfied€notice€and€statute€of€limitations€requirements€for€her€alleged€leftÏupper€extremity€injury.ÌII.à àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€the€plaintiff€58€percentÏimpairment€to€each€arm.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÓÓà àWe€affirm€the€judgment.ÌÓ  Óò òFACTSó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€plaintiff,€age€48€at€the€time€of€trial,€graduated€from€high€school,€attendedÏone€year€of€nursing€school€at€Union€University,€and€attended€Jackson€StateÏCommunity€College.€€Her€work€experience€is€varied:€waitress€at€Dairy€Queen;Íreceptionist€and€later€dental€assistant€at€an€orthodontistððs€office;€quality€controlÏworker€at€Proctor€&€Gamble;€cook€at€Woolworthððs;€stocker€and€later€pharmacistððsÏassistant€at€K„Mart;€receptionist€and€later€ad€salesperson€and€later€mail€roomÏworker€at€òòThe€Jackson€Sunóó;€worker€at€Photo€Mart;€order€filler€at€Bendix;€and,€stockerÏat€Wal„Mart.Ìà àBeginning€January€18,€1993,€the€plaintiff€worked€for€the€defendant€doingÏassembly€line€work€which€required€her€to€use€air€powered€hand€tools€and€whichÏdemanded€repetitive€use€of€her€hands€and€arms.€€The€plaintiff€testified€that€she€firstÏfelt€soreness€in€her€hands,€especially€her€right€hand,€in€December€1994.€€TheÏplaintiff€saw€a€Dr.€Schwartz€for€this€complaint,€and€she€testified€that€he€said€herÏproblem€was€job€related.€€After€this€doctor€visit,€the€plaintiff€informed€the€defendantððsÏpersonnel€director€about€her€problem.€€Later,€the€plaintiff€saw€Dr.€Joseph€C.€Boals,ÏIII€upon€a€referral€by€her€attorney,€and€then€she€saw€Dr.€Mark€Harriman€at€theÏrequest€of€the€defendantððs€attorney.Ìà àAs€a€result€of€the€problems€with€her€hands,€the€plaintiff€testified€that€she€hasÏlost€at€least€half€the€function€of€her€hands€and€arms;€she€experiences€pain,Ïnumbness,€and€tingling€in€her€hands€and€arms€at€work€every€day€and€thus€wearsÏbraces€on€her€wrists;€she€awakes€at€night€with€no€feeling€in€her€hands;€she€takesÏlonger€to€do€housework;€and,€she€cannot€sew,€grip€or€open€objects,€write,€type,Ïdrive,€or€hold€the€telephone,€all€because€her€fingers€and€hands€lose€feeling.€€TheÏplaintiff€testified€that€she€did€not€miss€any€work€due€to€the€problems€with€her€handsÏand€arms.€€At€the€time€of€trial,€the€plaintiff€was€still€working€for€the€defendant,€but€atÏher€request€she€was€taken€off€the€assembly€line€and€instead€was€given€work€thatÏdid€not€require€the€use€of€air€powered€tools.€Ìà àPrior€to€working€for€the€defendant,€the€plaintiff€testified€that€she€did€not€haveÏproblems€with€her€hands€or€arms.€€The€plaintiff€testified€that€today€she€could€stillÏperform€her€previous€work€as€a€quality€control€worker€at€Proctor€&€Gamble,€an€adÏsalesperson€at€òòThe€Jackson€Sunóó,€or€a€stocker€at€Wal„Mart.ÌÓ  Óò òEXPERT€TESTIMONYó ó€€€€€€ÌÓ  Óòòà àóóDr.€Joseph€C.€Boals,€III,€a€board€certified€orthopedic€surgeon,€testified€byÏdeposition.€€Dr.€Boals€examined€the€plaintiff€and€diagnosed€her€with€suspectÏbilateral€carpal€tunnel€syndrome,€advising€her€to€obtain€a€nerve€conduction€study€toÏconfirm€the€diagnosis.€€NCS€and€EMG€tests€were€performed€on€the€plaintiff€by€Dr.ÏBingham,€who€found€that€her€motor€conduction€for€both€wrists€was€in€the€ð ðhighÏnormalðð€range.€€The€results€of€these€tests€were€reviewed€by€Dr.€Boals,€and€heÏassessed€a€20€percent€permanent€physical€impairment€to€each€of€the€plaintiffððsÏupper€extremities€based€upon€the€AMA€Guides.€€Dr.€Boals€recommended€that€theÏplaintiff€have€surgery.€€He€also€testified€that€the€plaintiff€should€not€work€in€jobs€thatÏrequire€repetitive€use€of€both€hands€and€arms€in€assembly€tasks€or€repetitive€use€ofÏhand€tools,€pliers,€cutters,€scissors,€hammers,€screwdrivers,€wrenches,€sewingÏmachines,€or€keyboards.Ìòòà àóóDr.€Mark€Harriman,€a€board€certified€orthopedic€surgeon,€also€testified€byÏdeposition.€€Dr.€Harriman€examined€the€plaintiff€and€determined€that€she€had€goodÏgrip€strength€which€was€mildly€weak,€an€excellent€pulse,€no€muscle€atrophy,€andÏnormal€muscle€testing.€€Dr.€Harriman€agreed€with€Dr.€Boalsðð€finding€of€work€relatedÏbilateral€carpal€tunnel€syndrome,€his€recommendation€of€surgery,€and€his€workÏrestrictions.€€Dr.€Harriman€estimated€permanent€physical€impairment€of€ten€percentÏto€each€of€the€plaintiffððs€arms.€Ìòòà àóóDr.€William€M.€Jenkins,€a€director€of€rehabilitation€counseling,€testified€byÏdeposition.€€Dr.€Jenkins€administered€several€tests€to€the€plaintiff€in€order€toÏmeasure€her€reading€and€writing€skills.€€Dr.€Jenkins€testified€that€the€plaintiffððsÏvocational€disability€was€75€percent,€reaching€this€conclusion€based€upon€theÏplaintiffððs€medical€diagnosis€and€percentage€of€impairment.€€Ìòòà àóóBrenda€C.€Dailey,€a€vocational€rehabilitation€counselor,€also€testified€byÏdeposition.€€Ms.€Dailey€took€a€social€and€work€history€from€the€plaintiff,€performedÏan€analysis€of€the€plaintiffððs€prior€work,€and€also€performed€vocational€testing€on€theÏplaintiff.€€Ms.€Dailey€testified€that€the€plaintiffððs€vocational€disability€was€35€percentÏor€45€percent,€stating€that€while€the€plaintiff€had€limitations€in€the€factory€setting€dueÏto€her€medical€restrictions€there€were€still€a€number€of€jobs€which€were€medicallyÏappropriate€for€the€plaintiff.€ÌÓ  Óò òANALYSISó óÌÓ  Óòòà àóóReview€of€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€theÏrecord€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€theÏfinding,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ50„6„225(e)(2).€€òòStone€v.€City€of€McMinnville,€óó896€S.W.2d€548,€550€(Tenn.€1995).€ÏThe€application€of€this€standard€requires€this€Court€to€weigh€in€more€depth€theÏfactual€findings€and€conclusions€of€the€trial€court€in€a€workersðð€compensation€case.€ÏòòSee€Corcoran€v.€Foster€Auto€GMC,€Inc.,€óó746€S.W.2d€452,€456€(Tenn.€1988).Ìà àWhere€the€trial€judge€has€made€a€determination€based€upon€the€testimony€ofÏwitnesses€whom€he€has€seen€and€heard€testify,€great€deference€must€be€given€toÏthat€finding€in€determining€whether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trialÏjudgeððs€determination.€€òòSeeóó€òòHumphrey€v.€David€Witherspoon,€Inc.,€óó734€S.W.2d€315Ï(Tenn.€1987).€€The€trial€court€has€the€discretion€to€accept€the€opinion€of€one€medicalÍexpert€over€another€medical€expert.€€òòJohnson€v.€Midwesco,€Inc.,€óó801€S.W.2d€804,Ï806€(Tenn.€1990).Ìòòà àóóIn€this€case,€as€in€all€workersðð€compensation€cases,€the€claimant's€ownÏassessment€of€his€physical€condition€and€resulting€disabilities€is€competentÏtestimony€and€cannot€be€disregarded.€òò€Tom€Still€Transfer€Co.€v.€Way,óó€482€S.W.2dÏ775,€777€(Tenn.€1972).€€The€extent€of€vocational€disability€is€a€question€of€fact€to€beÏdetermined€from€all€of€the€evidence,€including€lay€and€expert€testimony.€ÏòòWorthington€v.€Modine€Mfg.€Co.,óó€798€S.W.2d€232,€234€(Tenn.€1990).òòÌÓ  Óóóò òNotice€and€Statute€of€Limitationsó óÌÓ  Óà àThis€case€involves€carpal€tunnel€syndrome,€a€gradual€injury.€€The€defendantÏargues€that€the€plaintiffððs€claim€with€regard€to€her€left€upper€extremity€should€beÏdismissed€because€notice€was€not€timely€given.€€The€plaintiff€notified€the€defendantÏthat€she€was€having€problems€with€her€left€arm€on€February€10,€1996.€€TheÏdefendant€points€out€that€the€plaintiff€gave€conflicting€testimony€about€when€she€firstÏnoticed€problems€with€her€left€arm,€for€she€made€three€different€statements€aboutÏwhen€she€first€noted€a€problem,€the€latest€date€being€June€1995.€€Ìà àThe€defendant€acknowledges€that€in€a€gradual€injury€case€the€court€looks€toÏthe€date€the€plaintiff€was€unable€to€work€for€purposes€of€determining€notice€andÏstatute€of€limitations€requirements.€€òòSee€Barker€v.€Home„Crest€Corp.,óó€805€S.W.2dÏ373€(Tenn.€1991);€òòBrown€Shoe€Co.€v.€Reed,óó€350€S.W.2d€65€(Tenn.€1961).€€TheÏdefendant€urges€this€Court€not€to€apply€this€rule€because€the€plaintiffððs€case€isÏunique€in€that€she€did€not€reach€a€date€whereupon€she€was€unable€to€continueÏworking.€€The€defendant€submits€that€the€plaintiff€knew€or€reasonably€should€haveÏknown€that€she€sustained€a€work€related€injury€to€the€left€arm€on€December€13,Ï1994;€June€1995;€or€December€19,€1995.€€The€defendant€argues€that€no€matterÍwhich€of€these€three€dates€this€Court€selects€as€a€starting€point€the€plaintiff€failed€toÏgive€timely€notice€and€failed€to€timely€file€suit.€€The€defendant€also€argues€that€this€isÏnot€a€case€where€notice€could€be€excused€because€the€plaintiff,€regardless€of€herÏsophistication,€had€actual€knowledge€that€her€injury€was€work€related€based€uponÏdiscussions€with€Dr.€Boals€and€her€attorney.Ìà àAlthough€the€application€of€the€last€day€worked€rule€in€this€case€wouldÏperhaps€be€unique,€as€the€defendant€says,€because€the€plaintiff€never€left€work,€weÏare€not€inclined€to€attempt€to€carve€out€an€exception€to€the€rule€and€relate€the€timeÏfor€which€notice€must€be€given€and€the€statute€of€limitations€begins€to€run€in€gradualÏinjury€cases€on€the€basis€that€the€employee€never€stopped€work.€€To€do€so€wouldÏinject€unnecessary€confusion€into€determining€the€triggering€date€for€the€notice€andÏlimitations€period€to€begin.€€We€cannot€find€that€this€rule€would€create€any€undueÏprejudice€to€employers€in€these€types€of€cases,€which€would€require€an€alteration€toÏthe€general€rule€on€notice€and€limitations€guidelines€in€gradual€injury€cases.Ìà àWe€find€therefore€that€timely€notice€of€the€injury€was€given€and€suit€was€timelyÏfiled.€€ÌÓ  Óò òVocational€Disabilityó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€defendant€emphasizes€the€following€facts€in€support€of€its€argument€thatÏthe€extent€of€the€plaintiffððs€vocational€disability€does€not€approach€58€percentÏpermanent€partial€disability€to€each€upper€extremity:€(1)€the€plaintiff€has€had€noÏmedical€treatment€for€bilateral€carpal€tunnel€syndrome;€(2)€the€plaintiff€has€notÏundergone€any€surgical€procedure€for€her€condition;€(3)€the€plaintiff€has€not€beenÏtaken€off€work€for€even€one€day€by€any€physician€because€of€her€condition;€(4)€atÏthe€time€of€trial,€the€plaintiff€continued€to€work€for€the€defendant;€and€(5)€the€plaintiffÍhas€a€diverse€employment€background€which€extends€far€beyond€mundane€manualÏlabor.Ìà àThe€extent€of€vocational€disability€is€a€factual€question€which€the€trial€courtÏdecides€based€upon€numerous€factors.€€The€plaintiff€argues€that€the€trial€courtððsÏaward€of€58€percent€permanent€partial€disability€to€each€of€the€plaintiffððs€upperÏextremities€is€supported€by€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€and€by€the€lay,Ïmedical,€and€vocational€testimony.€€The€plaintiff€also€points€out€that€the€trial€courtÏhad€the€benefit€of€observing€the€plaintiff€testify€in€person€and€that€its€decision€aboutÏher€credibility€should€not€be€disturbed€unless€the€record€contains€clear,€concrete,Ïand€convincing€evidence€which€contradicts€the€finding.Ìà àBased€upon€the€above,€we€find€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€againstÏthe€findings€of€the€trial€court€and€we€affirm€the€judgment.Ìà àThe€cost€of€this€appeal€is€taxed€to€the€defendant.ÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJanice€Holder,€JusticeÌÌÌ________________________________ÌWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€Judge€œÇÑ ` Ñà@ àÔ€,¼ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÔ€,XÔÌÌÌÓ#` p…XÈôÐ X#ÓBEVERLY€RIDDLE,à àà à)à àMADISON€CHANCERYÌÓ#` p` ÈôÐ X#Óà à)à àNO.€51254ÌÓ ` p` ¸ Èx‘X Óà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à à)à àÌÓ#` p` ¸ ÈôÐ X#Óà àà à)à àHon.€Joe€C.€Morris,Ìvs.à àà à)à àChancellorÌà àà à)ÌMURRAY€OUTDOOR€PRODUCTS,à à)à àNO.€02S01„9706„CH„00058Ìà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à à)à àAFFIRMED.ÌÌßJ€02;+'b|` ‚- `€@ÿJßà àà àà àà àÌÌà@ àÔ€,¼ÔJUDGMENT€ORDERÔ€,XÔÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌÓ` p`  ’XÓà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€theÏorder€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€theÏPanel's€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference.Ìà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€Opinion€ofÏthe€Panel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€madeÏthe€judgment€of€the€Court.Ìà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€Appellant,€and€surety,€for€which€execution€mayÏissue€if€necessary.Ìà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€this€3rd€day€of€March,€1998.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌ(Holder,€J.,€not€participating)ÌÌÌÌ›