WPC O}dªbs2:7q Tfu 6m{@2Xc`eTV#\)i/ˇrDKRpb %\U Nb 0U2N8^ w4 z$   m  &   x #> NN  z EUNYY 0Db 0 B  0 D3 D- 0K ASJ 0c 0D AK(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regulardt/ X2/bk2 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6V,,,,V0C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular(#$  0  - -(|G2'$ !.8 dd8         0  XX d(|37$ !.8 dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|37$ !.8 dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8ydd8     _y8XXdd8  0y@@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL # @@ATNASHVILLE#y0# F July31,2003Session i XXy #yXX#JOSESANTIAGOv.THEHARTFORD,etal.XXy   b @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforWarrenCounty  \ @@Nos.801and802LarryB.Stanley,Chancellor  F @@*AV) ` dE<` A   No.M200203036WCR3CVMailedOctober17,2003   #yXX#XXyFiledNovember17,2003   AV) ` dE<j` A k      Thisworkers'compensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppeals c PaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)forhearingand L reportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.Inthisappeal,#yXXY#XXyԀthe 5 employer,Powermatic,anditsinsurerinsistthetrialcourterred(1)#yXX#XXyԀinfindingthattheemployees n injurydidnotprogressduringhistenureathislastplaceofemploymentand(2)indeterminingthe W extentoftheemployee'svocationaldisability.Asdiscussedbelow,thepanelhasconcludedthe @ evidencefailstopreponderateagainstthefindingsofthetrialcourt. )     Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(2002Supp.)AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChancery  CourtAffirmed       #yX##XX.yJoeC.Loser,Jr.,Sp.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJaniceM.Holder,J.,and h JamesL.Weatherford,Sr.J.,joined. Q BlakelyD.MatthewsandNicoleR.Paulk,Cornelius&Collins,Nashville,Tennessee,forthe #!s  appellants,TheHartford,PowermaticCorporation,PowermaticandDevliegBullard,Inc.  "\! MichaelGigandet,Ortale,Kelley,Herbert&Crawford,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellees, #.# AnesthesiologistProfessionalAssuranceCo.andAdvancedMachineTechnology $ $ BarryH.Medley,Farrar,Holliman&Medley,McMinnville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,Jose &!& Santiago '"'    MEMORANDUMOPINION #yXX #XXy T)$)   #yXX< #XXy  Theemployeeorclaimant,Mr.Santiago,initiatedseparatecivilactions,againstapastand '+w&+ presentemployer,torecoverworkers'compensationbenefitsforworkrelatedcarpaltunnel ,`', syndrome,Theformeremployer,Powermatic,anditsinsurer,andthepresentemployer,Advanced ,I(-  -2). MachineTechnologydeniedliability.Thecaseswereconsolidatedfortrial.Bothsetsofdefendants  arguedtheinjuryoccurredwhiletheclaimantwasworkingfortheother.Afteratrialonthemerits,  thetrialcourtresolvedtheissuesinfavoroftheclaimantandagainstPowermaticanditsinsurer,  awarding,amongotherthings,permanentpartialdisabilitybenefitsbasedon40percenttoboth k arms.Powermaticanditsinsurerhaveappealed. T   Appellatereviewisdenovoupontherecordofthetrialcourt,accompaniedbyapresumption & v ofcorrectnessofthefindingsoffact,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.  _ CodeAnn.506225(e)(2).Thistribunalisnotboundbythetrialcourt'sfindingsbutinstead  H conductsanindependentexaminationoftherecordtodeterminewherethepreponderancelies.  1  Gallowayv.MemphisDrumServ.,822S.W.2d584,586(Tenn.1991).XiXXXWherethetrialjudgehas    seenandheardthewitnesses,especiallyifissuesofcredibilityandweighttobegivenoraltestimony   areinvolved,considerabledeferencemustbeaccordedthosecircumstancesonreview,becauseit   isthetrialcourtwhichhadtheopportunitytoobservethewitnessesdemeanorandtohearthein   courttestimony.#XXXXi#Longv.TriConInd.,Ltd.,996S.W.2d173,178(Tenn.1999).XiXXXԀTheappellate n  tribunal,however,isaswellsituatedtogaugetheweight,worthandsignificanceofdeposition W  testimonyasthetrialjudge.#XXXXi#Walkerv.SaturnCorp.,986S.W.2d204,207(Tenn.1998. @ XiXXXConclusionsoflawaresubjecttodenovoreviewonappealwithoutanypresumptionofcorrectness.#XXXXi #Ԁ )y Nuttv.ChampionIntern.Corp.,980S.W.2d365,367(Tenn.1998).#yXX #XXy b   TheclaimantworkedforPowermaticCorp.asamachineoperatorfrom1986until2001, 4 performingjobswhichrequiredrepetitiveuseofthehands.Hegraduallydevelopedcarpal  syndromebutcontinuedworking.OnNovember9,2000,hewasofferedcorrectivesurgery,which  herefused.HecontinuedworkingforPowermaticuntilApril2000,whenthecompanywassold  anditsemployees,includingtheclaimant,laidoff.    Twodayslater,hebeganworkingforAdvancedMachineTechnology(AMT)asa Z productionforeman.Hereceiveda15percentraiseandincreasedmanagerialresponsibilities. C DutiesrequiringrepetitiveuseofthehandsrequiredonlyacoupleofhoursperdayatAMT,butthe ,| claimantcontinuedhavingthesamepainandnumbnessasbefore.HislawyerreferredhimtoDr. e RobertLandsbergforexaminationandevaluation. N   Dr.Landsbergassignedapermanentimpairmentratingof5percenttoeacharmandopined !   theconditionhadnotprogressedduringtheclaimantsemploymentwithAMT.Thedoctoradvised " ! theclaimanttoavoidrepetitiveuseofthehandsandtheuseofvibratingandpneumatictools. #"   PowermaticfirstcontendsthetrialcourterredinnotplacingliabilityonAMTbyinvoking t% $ the lastinjuriousinjuryrule.XiXXXWhereanemployeeispermanentlydisabledasaresultofa ]&!% combinationoftwoormoreaccidentsoccurringatdifferenttimesandwhiletheemployeewas F'"& workingfordifferentemployers,theemployerforwhomtheemployeewasworkingatthetimeof /(#' themostrecentaccidentisgenerallyliableforpermanentdisabilitybenefits.#XXXXi#ԀMcCormickv.Snappy )h$( CarRentals,Inc.,806S.W.2d527(Tenn.1991).Thetrialcourt,however,relyinglargelyonthe *Q%) claimantsowntestimonyandthatofDr.Landsberg,foundthattheseverityoftheclaimants *:&* conditionwasnotadvancedbyhisworkwithAMT._ +#'+ Ї  XiXXXTheemployertakestheemployeewithallpreexistingconditions,andcannotescapeliability  whentheemployee,uponsufferingaworkrelatedinjury,incursdisabilityfargreaterthanifthe  employeehadnothadthepreexistingconditions#XXXXi!#XiXXX,butifworkaggravatesapreexistingcondition#XXXXi4##  XiXXXmerelybyincreasingpain,thereisnoinjurybyaccident.#XXXXi##_Kellerman_Ԁv.FoodLion,Inc.,929S.W.2d k 333(Tenn.1996)XiXXX.Tobecompensable,thepreexistingconditionmustbeadvanced,theremust T anatomicchangeinthepreexistingcondition,ortheemploymentmustcauseanactualprogression =  oftheunderlyingdisease.#XXXXi$#ԀSweatv.SuperiorIndustries,Inc.,966S.W.2d31,32(Tenn.1998).On & v thoseauthorities,theclaimantdidnotsufferacompensableinjurybyaccidentwhileworkingfor  _ AMT.  H   Theappellantnextcontendstheawardofpermanentpartialdisabilitybenefitsbasedon40    percenttobotharmsisexcessivebecausetheclaimantisabletoworkatahigherrateofpaythan   hewasearningbeforetheinjury.Thefactofemploymentafteraninjuryisarelevantfactorin   determiningtheextentofvocationaldisabilitybutitisnotacontrollingfactor.Corcoranv.Foster   Auto_GMC_,Inc.,746_S.W._Ԁ2d452,458(Tenn.1988).Instead,theassessmentisbasedonthe n  workersabilitytocompeteintheopenmarket.Id.AXiXXXtrialcourtmayconsidermanypertinent W  factors,includingage,jobskills,education,training,durationofdisability,andjobopportunitiesfor @ thedisabled,inadditiontoanatomicimpairment,forthepurposeofevaluatingtheextentofa )y claimantspermanentdisability.#XXXXi)#Ԁ_McCaleb_Ԁv.SaturnCorp.,910S.W.2d412,416(Tenn.1995).Mr. b Santiagoisapproximatelyfiftyeightyearsoldwithasixthgradeeducation,limitedreadingand K writingskillsandexperienceasamachineoperator. 4   Fromourindependentexaminationoftherecord,givingduedeferencetothefindingsofthe  trialcourt,wecannotsaytheevidencepreponderatesagainstthefindingsofthetrialcourtonany  issueraisedbytheappellant.Thejudgmentisaffirmed.Costsaretaxedto_Powermatic_.     `     h     ___________________________________ C    `     h     JoeC.Loser,Jr.  ,| __yXX  @@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL  #XXy//# yXXJOSESANTIAGOv.THEHARTFORD,etal.#XXy 0#   @@ ChanceryCourtforWarrenCounty   @@No.801and802   @@*AV) ` dE<j` A k  No.M200203036WCR3CVFiledNovember17,2003 d  AV) ` dE<7` A 8       yXX#XXyA2#52  JUDGMENT yXX#XXy2# R   yXX#XXy3#yXX#XXyU3#XiXXX  ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtupontheentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferraltothe % SpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanelsMemorandumOpinionsettingforth  itsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference.    Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthattheMemorandumOpinionofthePanelshouldbe y acceptedandapproved;and b   Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanelsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawareadopted 4 andaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgmentoftheCourt. m   CostswillbepaidbytheAppellants,Powermatic,forwhichexecutionmayissueif ? necessary. (   ITISSOORDERED. !!    `     h     PERCURIAM N% %   #XXXXi3#