ÿWPCÁ CXÓF!/­š Z©GV3§š Z‡?M_ΫJóCEZsž¾öÔ§Ó¼—ù°Ày%ÝG7Asv~˜|Ƚ:¼T¸|ò‹3£-ÚÁŒs¶ƒÎ²lüÐæ¥ÍÆt Fy*u*ßdT(/UOì_ ´=F9:*·œO¯†hTÛþUäh’Ô†š%1j&›« LyŸ¯­UÛåCPÆ+EÞ.ä¿gXôΉ†]@Ãý«b»i…‚ûˆ+X ,ø0ëìjž½šzÛ9;Xý®Ê6‡Hg`þh7Ta6½!K{×¥Ø v*´±µ™¸ÔqÚÂJ[ê¶¥r-÷•â ý[H¥¿á{4a72.BÊJš:>¢ }Ù* ×ÇŸ|ÆL— [u7O ›4gí‡GF^D$mBU~®Ô/åŠO©~܇ +øVº¹&5#î¼:UféOÙð$ßE(OÐË™+áf0»,¶©©«)à« äy£Eê™eÉ®QìǾ!ï‚•"1dÝ­tqJaL3m­Æ¬ÁEî³oe\MⱿ}Þ§¯ƒÆ  ùçäÒ¢£óåÐ0@{Ç¿ã<»˜ªÂò0Î* z?&=µiJƒ¤Ý%)—!Î?¼ÐIf»‘Yá!1ùÊ™øæ,b %\U Nb 0ˆ°U.N8^ †w’4– zªÒ$ ö  m  Æ& Æì Ʋ Æx #É> Nz  AŸƒE"N$ z&Ò   0Drrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrb¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶ 0ë¾¾¾¾ B ©© 0¤Æ D3j D- 0KÊÊ ASÆh 0¤. 0DÒ A«»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÔ…/Ï X2/P ,Xž ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6ÒV,,,,ÒV0 pÝ ƒRUÎ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€X•ÇX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôò òXX•ÇÔ€€Since€the€judgment€affirming€the€trial€courtððs€award€is€ready€for€release,€the€motion€for€partial€lifting€of€theÐ ° Ðtrial€courtððs€stay€order€is€denied.Ô#†X•ÇX òôò~#ÔX[Z‘ I&mage <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK˜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(%Ã$òòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2UÎ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€ËÉ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X‰oX»»Ô d(|3·+$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€ËÉ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3·+$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€ËÉ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ô¹»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼Ô¹»»»ÔÑ8€•ÇXXdé»»d8ÑÓ  ÓÔ‡î0¦î»¼Ô¹Ôà@@7 7 ìàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÐ Ó# Ðà@@ƒƒìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Ô¹»îî0¦î#ÔÐ öF ÐJuly€31,€2003€SessionÐ i ÐÔ‡X•ÇX»¼Ô¹ÔÌò òÔ#†¼Ô¹»XX•Ç#ÔVICTOR€SALAZARòòóó€v.€CONCRETE€FORM€ERECTORS,€INC.,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡X•ÇX»¼Ô¹Ôó óÐ  b ÐÌà@@¼¼ìàò ò€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ  \ Ðà@@ôôìàNo.€01„2541„1€€€€€€Irvin€H.€Ô_ÔKilcreaseÔ_Ô,€ChancellorÐ ö F ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<³` AßÐ ´  ÐÌNo.€M2002„03040„Ô_ÔWCÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Mailed€„€September€30,€2003Ð ­ý  ÐÔ#†¼Ô¹»XX•Ç #ÔÔ‡X•ÇX»¼Ô¹ÔFiled€„€December€15,€2003Ð —ç  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<j` AßÐ k» Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€AppealsÐ c³ ÐPanel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€andÐ Lœ Ðreporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€In€this€appeal,Ô#†¼Ô¹»XX•Ç­#ÔÔ‡X•ÇX»¼Ô¹Ô€theÔ#†¼Ô¹»XX•ÇÖ#ÔÔ‡X•ÇX»¼Ô¹ÔÐ 5… ÐemployerÔ#†¼Ô¹»XX•Ç#ÔÔ‡X•ÇX»¼Ô¹Ô€insists€the€trial€court€erred€in€(1)€finding€that€the€claim€is€not€barred€by€the€employee'sÐ n Ðwillful€and€intentional€failure€to€follow€established€policy€requiring€the€use€of€a€safety€appliance,Ð W Ð(2)€finding€that€the€employee€has€a€39€percent€medical€impairment€and€awarding€permanent€partialÐ ð@ Ðdisability€benefits€based€on€78€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€As€discussed€below,€the€panel€hasÐ Ù) Ðconcluded€the€evidence€fails€to€preponderate€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€court.Ð Â ÐÓaÓÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)€(2002€Supp.)€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€ChanceryÐ ”ä ÐCourtó ó€ò òAffirmedó óÐ ~Î ÐòòÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Ô¹»àX•Ç{#ÔÔ‡X•ÇX.¼Ô¹ÔJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Sp.€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€Jòòanice€M.€Holder,€J.,óó€andÐ jº ÐòòJames€L.€Ô_ÔWeatherfordÔ_Ô,€Sr.€J.óó,€joined.Ð S£ ÐÌNicholas€S.€Ô_ÔAkinsÔ_Ô,€Allen,€Ô_ÔKopetÔ_Ô€&€Associates,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€ConcreteÐ %!u  ÐForm€Erectors,€Inc.Ð "^! ÐÌBrian€Ô_ÔDuniganÔ_Ô,€Michael€D.€Ô_ÔPonceÔ_Ô€&€Associates,€Ô_ÔGoodlettesvilleÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€VictorÐ à#0# ÐSalazarÐ É$ $ ÐÌÓ¥ ÓÓ  Óò òMEMORANDUM€OPINIONó óÔ#†¼Ô¹»XX•ÇÔ #ÔÔ‡X•ÇX»¼Ô¹ÔÐ ›&ë!& ÐÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Ô¹»XX•Çû #ÔÔ‡X•ÇX»¼Ô¹Ôà  àThe€employee€or€claimant,€Mr.€Salazar,€initiated€this€civil€action€to€recover€workers'Ð n(¾#( Ðcompensation€benefits€for€a€work€related€injury.€€The€employer,€Concrete€Form€Erectors,€and€itsÐ W)§$) Ðinsurer,€denied€liability.€€After€a€trial€on€the€merits,€the€trial€court€resolved€the€issues€in€favor€of€theÐ @*%* Ðclaimant€and€awarded,€among€other€things,€permanent€partial€disability€benefits€based€on€78€percentÐ )+y&+ Ðto€the€body€as€a€whole.€€The€employer€has€appealed.Ð ,b', ÐÌà  àÐ ä-4).ý ÐÔ_Ôà  àAppellate€review€is€de€novo€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumptionÐ ° Ðof€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.Ð ™é ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2).€€This€tribunal€is€not€bound€by€the€trial€court's€findings€but€insteadÐ ‚Ò Ðconducts€an€independent€examination€of€the€record€to€determine€where€the€preponderance€lies.€Ð k» ÐòòGalloway€v.€Memphis€Drum€Serv.óó,€822€S.W.2d€584,€586€(Tenn.€1991).€€Ô‡X–XXX•ÇÔWhere€the€trial€judge€hasÐ T¤ Ðseen€and€heard€the€witnesses,€especially€if€issues€of€credibility€and€weight€to€be€given€oral€testimonyÐ =  Ðare€involved,€considerable€deference€must€be€accorded€those€circumstances€on€review,€because€itÐ & v Ðis€the€trial€court€which€had€the€opportunity€to€observe€the€witnessesðð€demeanor€and€to€hear€the€in„Ð  _ Ðcourt€testimony.€€òòÔ#†X•ÇXXX– #ÔLong€v.€Tri„Con€Ind.,€Ltd.óó,€996€S.W.2d€173,€178€(Tenn.€1999).Ô‡X–XXX•ÇÔ€€The€appellateÐ ø H Ðtribunal,€however,€is€as€well€situated€to€gauge€the€weight,€worth€and€significance€of€depositionÐ á 1  Ðtestimony€as€the€trial€judge.€€òòÔ#†X•ÇXXX–;#ÔWalker€v.€Saturn€Corp.óó,€986€S.W.2d€204,€207€(Tenn.€1998).€€Ð Ê   ÐÔ‡X–XXX•ÇÔConclusions€of€law€are€subject€to€de€novo€review€on€appeal€without€any€presumption€of€correctness.Ô#†X•ÇXXX–‹#ԀР³  ÐòòNutt€v.€Champion€Intern.€Corp.óó,€980€S.W.2d€365,€367€(Tenn.€1998).Ô#†¼Ô¹»XX•Ç_#ÔÔ€X•ÇX»¼Ô¹ÔÐ œì  ÐÌà  àThe€claimant€worked€for€the€employer€as€a€construction€worker€making€$13.50€per€hour.€Ð n¾  ÐOn€November€1,€1999,€he€fell€sixteen€to€twenty€feet€from€a€scaffold€at€a€Murfreesboro€constructionÐ W§  Ðsite,€injuring€his€head€and€arm.€€A€week€later,€he€experienced€a€severe€epileptic€seizure€and€lostÐ @ Ðconsciousness.€€He€was€initially€treated€by€Dr.€Bradley€Rudge,€who€referred€him€to€Dr.€W.€GarrisonÐ )y ÐStrickland,€a€neurologist.€€Dr.€Strickland€determined€that€the€claimant€had€suffered€a€ð ðgeneralizedÐ b Ðtonic„clonic€seizureðð€and€prescribed€Dilantin€to€control€his€seizures.€€The€doctor€imposed€permanentÐ ûK Ðrestrictions€of€no€driving,€no€heights€and€no€hazardous€activities.€€Dr.€Strickland,€who€treated€himÐ ä4 Ðfor€over€two€years,€released€the€claimant€for€work€with€a€5€percent€impairment€rating.€€Ð Í ÐÌà  àThe€claimant€sought€an€independent€medical€evaluation€from€Dr.€Grafton€Thurman€on€JulyÐ Ÿï Ð3,€2001.€€After€examining€the€claimant€and€reviewing€his€medical€records,€Dr.€Thurman€assignedÐ ˆØ Ða€permanent€impairment€rating€of€25€percent€to€the€whole€person.€€On€September€20,€2002,€Dr.Ð qÁ ÐThurman€saw€the€claimant€again€and€increased€the€rating€to€39€percent,€based€on€his€own€initialÐ Zª Ðrating€and€an€18€percent€rating€provided€by€Dr.€Michael€Tramontana,€a€neuropsychologist.€€Dr.Ð C“ ÐThurman€also€prescribed€permanent€restrictions€of€no€driving,€no€heights€and€no€operatingÐ ,| Ðdangerous€equipment.Ð e ÐÌà  àThe€claimant€continued€working€for€the€employer€for€over€a€year€and€one„half€after€hisÐ ç 7 Ðinjury,€doing€less€demanding€tasks€around€the€construction€site€and€receiving€the€same€hourly€wageÐ Ð!   Ðas€before€the€accident.€€He€was€fired€when€the€employer€learned€from€his€discovery€deposition€thatÐ ¹" ! Ðhe€had€presented€false€documentation€of€employment€eligibility€when€he€was€hired.€€The€claimantÐ ¢#ò" Ðthen€found€a€job€picking€up€trash€for€$7.50€per€hour.€€At€the€time€of€the€trial,€he€was€assemblingÐ ‹$Û# Ðboxes€for€Dell€and€receiving€$8.50€per€hour.Ð t%Ä $ ÐÌà  àAt€the€time€of€the€injury,€the€claimant€was€not€wearing€a€harness€because,€as€the€claimantÐ F'–"& Ðtestified€and€the€trial€court€found,€there€was€no€place€to€attach€a€harness.€€The€employer€contendsÐ /(#' Ðthe€claim€should€be€disallowed€because€of€the€claimantððs€willful€failure€to€properly€use€a€safetyÐ )h$( Ðdevice.€€The€trial€court€found€the€claimantððs€failure€under€the€circumstances€to€be€not€willful.Ð *Q%) ÐÌà  àÔ‡X–XXX•ÇÔAn€employer€may€refuse€to€pay€compensation€benefits€for€an€injury€or€death€due€to€theÐ Ó+#'+ Ðemployeeððs€willful€misconduct€or€intentional€self„inflicted€injury,€or€due€to€intoxication€or€willfulÐ ° Ðfailure€or€refusal€to€use€a€safety€appliance€or€perform€a€duty€required€by€law.Ô#†X•ÇXXX–ú"#Ô€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ ™é Ð50„6„110(a).€€Ô‡X–XXX•ÇÔIn€order€to€establish€willful€failure€or€refusal€to€use€a€safety€appliance€as€a€defense,€theÐ ‚Ò Ðemployer€must€prove€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€(1)€at€the€time€of€the€injury,€theÐ k» Ðemployer€had€in€effect€a€policy€requiring€employees€to€use€a€particular€safety€appliance;€(2)€theÐ T¤ Ðemployer€carried€out€strict,€continuous€and€bona€fide€enforcement€of€the€policy;€(3)€the€injuredÐ =  Ðemployee€had€actual€knowledge€of€the€policy,€including€knowledge€of€the€danger€involved€in€itsÐ & v Ðviolation,€through€training€provided€by€the€employer;€and€(4)€the€employee€willfully€andÐ  _ Ðintentionally€failed€or€refused€to€follow€established€policy€requiring€use€of€the€safety€appliance.€Ð ø H ÐMere€negligence€or€voluntary€failure€to€use€a€safety€appliance€will€not€bar€a€claim€for€workersððÐ á 1  Ðcompensation€benefits.Ô#†X•ÇXXX–«$#Ô€€òòNance€v.€State€Ind.,€Inc.óó,€33€S.W.3d€222,€226€(Tenn.€2000).€€The€evidenceÐ Ê   Ðfails€to€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€those€elements€were€not€established€by€theÐ ³  Ðproof.Ð œì  ÐÌà  àThe€employer€next€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€rejecting€the€opinion€of€Dr.€StricklandÐ n¾  Ðwith€respect€to€the€claimantððs€medical€impairment.€€Ô‡X–XXX•ÇÔWhen€the€medical€testimony€differs,€the€trialÐ W§  Ðcourt€must€choose€which€view€to€believe.€€In€doing€so,€the€court€is€allowed,€among€other€things,€toÐ @ Ðconsider€the€qualifications€of€the€experts,€the€circumstances€of€their€examination,€the€informationÐ )y Ðavailable€to€them,€and€the€evaluation€of€the€importance€of€that€information€by€other€experts.€€òòÔ#†X•ÇXXX–W*#ÔOrmanÐ b Ðv.€Williams€Sonoma,€Inc.óó,€803€S.W.2d€672,€676€(Tenn.€1991).Ô‡X–XXX•ÇÔ€€Moreover,€it€is€within€the€discretionÐ ûK Ðof€the€trial€court€to€conclude€that€the€opinion€of€certain€experts€should€be€accepted€over€that€of€otherÐ ä4 Ðexperts€and€that€it€contains€the€more€probable€explanation.Ô#†X•ÇXXX–…,#Ô€€òòStory€v.€Legion€Ins.€Co.óó,€3€S.W.3d€450,€Ð Í Ð(Tenn.€1999).€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€accepting€Dr.€Thurmanððs€opinion.Ð ¶ ÐÌà  àThe€employer€finally€contends€the€award€of€permanent€partial€disability€benefits€based€onÐ ˆØ Ð78€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole€is€excessive.€€Ô‡X–XXX•ÇÔWhere€an€injured€worker€is€entitled€to€permanentÐ qÁ Ðpartial€disability€benefits€to€the€body€as€a€whole€and€the€pre„injury€employer€returns€the€employeeÐ Zª Ðto€employment€at€a€wage€equal€to€or€greater€than€the€wage€the€employee€was€receiving€at€the€timeÐ C“ Ðof€the€injury,€the€maximum€permanent€partial€disability€award€that€the€employee€may€receive€is€twoÐ ,| Ðand€one„half€times€the€medical€impairment€rating€pursuant€to€the€provisions€of€the€òòAmericanÐ e ÐMedical€Association€Guides€to€the€Evaluation€of€Permanent€Impairmentóó€or€the€òòManual€forÐ þN ÐOrthopedic€Surgeons€in€Evaluating€Permanent€Physical€Impairmentóó.€€Ô#†X•ÇXXX–#/#ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„Ð ç 7 Ð241(a)(1).Ô‡X–XXX•ÇÔ€€In€making€determinations,€the€trial€courts€are€to€consider€all€pertinent€factors,€includingÐ Ð!   Ðlay€and€expert€testimony,€the€employeeððs€age,€education,€skills€and€training,€local€job€opportunitiesÐ ¹" ! Ðfor€the€disabled,€and€capacity€to€work€at€types€of€employment€available€in€the€claimantððs€disabledÐ ¢#ò" Ðcondition.Ô#†X•ÇXXX–p2#Ô€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(1).Ð ‹$Û# ÐÌà  àThe€trial€courtððs€award€is€less€than€the€statutory€maximum.€€Moreover,€from€a€considerationÐ ]&­!% Ðof€the€relevant€factors,€to€the€extent€they€are€reflected€by€the€record,€the€evidence€fails€toÐ F'–"& Ðpreponderate€against€the€award.Ð /(#' Ðâ âÐ )h$( Ðà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€therefore€affirmed.׃×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Costs€are€taxed€to€the€appellant.Ð ° Ðâ âÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð T¤ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOE€C.€LOSER,€Ô_ÔJR.Ð  =  ÐÔ‡¼Ô¹»XX•ÇÔà@9 9 ìàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@§§$ìàAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ À ÐÔ#†X•ÇX»¼Ô¹—7#ÔÌò òÔ‡¼Ô¹»XX•ÇÔÓ  ÓVICTOR€SALAZAR€€v.€€CONCRETE€FORM€ERECTORS,€INC.,€Ô#†X•ÇX»¼Ô¹Z8#ÔET€AL.ó óÐ ¹  ÐÓy8ÓÌà@œ œ ìàò òChancery€Court€for€Davidson€CountyˆÐ ³  Ðà@ŸŸ$ìàNo.€01„2541„1ˆÐ  í ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Z ` A߈Ð [ «  ÐÌà@× × ìàNo.€M2002„03040„SC„WCM„CV€„€Filed€„€December€15,€2003ˆÐ T¤  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<'` AßÐ (x  Ðó óÌà@„„(ìàò òORDERó óˆÐ  p  ÐÌòòóóÌà  àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€motion€for€review€filed€by€Lumbermenððs€UnderwritingÐ Ü, ÐAlliance€and€Concrete€Form€Erectors,€Inc.,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50-6-225(e)(5)(B),€theÐ Å Ðentire€record,€including€the€order€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,Ð ®þ Ðand€the€Panelððs€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€Ð —ç ÐÌà  àIt€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€review€is€not€well„taken€and€is€therefore€denied.€Ð i¹ ÐThe€Panelððs€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€by€reference,€areÐ R¢ Ðadopted€and€affirmed.€€The€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€judgment€of€the€Court.Ð ;‹ ÐÌà  àCosts€are€assessed€to€Lumbermenððs€Underwriting€Alliance€and€Concrete€Form€Erectors,€Inc.,Ð  ] Ðfor€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð öF ÐÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPER€Ô_ÔCURIAMÔ_ÔÐ l"¼" Ð