WPC N"7==Z ڰ{'H] \#ʷTё=?A= *.G+r '*? n#=v'(Jͷ,ֺl MZyŀ<-i\Nif5w+ ҋw~vݲ~5vTs}P;Lȹk)9(as- 'Y<ᐼF!]wO>, os#9;yt=%oh|b#\UN %k 0(q ^ w 4   m b z g 9    UNQNUNEb 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K ASP 0i 0D  AQHP LJ 4000/4050 PCL 5e,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($B+ Ai*.bk13|xU- - C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular- -(|G2*$ !.8Ldd8         0  XpX d(|3v$ !.8Ldd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3v$ !.8Ldd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !  _  }XX 8XXdd8    INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL & ATNASHVILLE#XX}7# L XXJune1,2001Session#XXs# "r  XX_DONNIE_Ԁ_SARTAIN_Ԁv._ELDECO_,INC.,ETAL#XX#.  p AppealfromtheChanceryCourtofFranklinCounty  p No.14,932JeffreyF.Stewart,Chancellor   \ __________________________ 4   No.M200002634_WC_ԄR3CVMailedJuly17,2001   FiledAugust20,2001    __________________________     ThisworkerscompensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkersCompensation l AppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)for X hearingandreportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.Inthiscase, D theemployercontendsthetrialcourterredinawardingpermanentpartialdisabilityintheamount 0 of75%tothebodyasawholeandinallowingvocationalexperttestimonyamountingtoalegal l conclusion.Asdiscussedherein,thepanelhasconcludedthatthejudgmentofthetrialcourtshould X beaffirmed. D  @$$Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)AppealasofRight;Judgmentofthe  @ChanceryCourtAffirmed   BenH.Cantrell,Sp.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichFrankF._Drowota_,III,J.,  andFrankG.Clement,Jr.,Sp.J.,joined. | JohnW._Barringer_,Jr.,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellants,_Eldeco_,Inc.andContinental T! InsuranceCompany. @" JosephE.Ford,Winchester,Tennessee,fortheappellee,_Donnie_Ԁ_Sartain_. $h!   MEMORANDUMOPINION  %@!# s   _Donnie_Ԁ_Sartain_Ԁ( _Sartain_),theplaintiff/appellee,was48yearsoldatthetimeoftrial.He '#% hasan8thgradeeducation.Priortoworkingfor_Eldeco_,Inc.( _Eldeco_),_Sartain_Ԁworkedinavariety ($& ofunskilled,manuallaborjobs.Throughoutthistime,_Sartain_Ԁworkedparttimedoingyardand )$' maintenancework.Allofhispreviousjobsrequiredstandingorwalkingmosttoallofthedayand *%( lifting35to150pounds. x+&)   d,'*7   _Sartain_Ԁworkedfor_Eldeco_ԀuntilSeptember16,1995,whenhesustainedanelectricalshock   of277volts._Sartain_Ԁreportedhisinjurytohissupervisorandwasreferredtoadoctorwho  performedadrugscanandprescribedmedications.Thisdoctorsaw_Sartain_Ԁthreetimes,during  whichtime_Sartain_streatmentwasunchanged._Sartain_Ԁwasreferredtoaphysicianspecializingin t otolaryngology.Thisphysiciantreated_Sartain_Ԁfortheringinginhisearsandconductedhearingtests, ` findingthat_Sartain_sabilitytohearandunderstandinnoisysituationswasseverelycompromised. L  Theotolaryngologistconcludedthat_Sartain_shearinglossandimbalanceweremorelikelythannot 8  causedbytheelectricalinjury._Sartain_Ԁwasthenreferredtoanotologist/neurologistatthehearing $ t centeratVanderbiltUniversityMedicalCenter.Thisdoctorassessedabinauralhearingimpairment  ` of34.4%.Thedoctoralsoconcludedthatitismorelikelythannotthatthehearinglosswas  L  exacerbatedbytheelectricalinjuryandthattheimbalancewascausedbytheelectricalinjury.  8  _Sartain_Ԁthensawanotherneurologistwhodeterminedthat_Sartain_Ԁhadacombinationofperipheral $  nerveand/orspinalcordinjurieswheretheelectricalinjuryaffectedhisnervoussystem,resulting   inbalanceproblemsandsensoryloss.Thissecondneurologistdiagnosedsomehearingloss,placed   certainrestrictionson_Sartain_sworkcapabilities,andthoughtthat_Sartain_Ԁmightbeabletoperform   lightwork.Anotherexpertinotolaryngologyconcludedthatthehearinglosswasmostlikelydue   toageandoccupationalnoiseexposurebutnottotheelectricalinjury.Thisdoctorassesseda p binauralhearingimpairmentof26.6%andconcludedthat_Sartain_shearinglosswasadvancedfor \ hisage. H   _Sartain_Ԁsawavocationalrehabilitationconsultantwhodeterminedthat_Sartain_Ԁwaslimited  p toentrylevel,unskilledworkonaparttimebasisonly.Thevocationalexpertconcludedthat  \ _Sartain_Ԁhadaccessto15.1%oftheTennesseelabormarketbeforetheinjuryandhadaccessto1% H oftheTennesseelabormarketaftertheinjury.Theexpertmaintainedthatapreviouscriminal 4 convictionwouldnotaffect_Sartain_semploymentasafarmer,electricianshelper,orhandyman.   _Sartain_Ԁeventuallyreturnedtoworkasahandymanonaparttimebasis.      Thestandardofreviewinaworkerscompensationcaseisdenovoontherecord.Thetrial  courtsfindingoffactispresumedtobecorrectunlessthepreponderanceofevidenceisotherwise.  Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(2).SeealsoStonev.Cityof_McMinnville_,896S.W.2d548,550 l (Tenn.1995).Considerabledeferencemustbegiventothetrialcourtsfindingoffact,especially X  whereissuesofcredibilityareinvolved.Collinsv._Howmet_,970S.W.2d941,943(Tenn.1998). D! Ifthereisconflictingmedicaltestimonyoncausationandpermanencyofinjury,thetrialjudgehas 0"  discretiontoaccepttheopinionofoneexpertoverthatofanother.Thomasv.AetnaLifeandGas, #l! Co.,812S.W.2d278,283(Tenn.1991). $X"   Forworkerscompensationpurposes,vocationaldisabilityhasbeendefinedasthe %0!$ employeesdiminishedabilitytoearnwagesinanyformofemploymentthatwouldhavebeen &"% availabletohiminanuninjuredcondition.Corcoranv.FosterAuto_GMC_,Inc.,746S.W.2d452, '#& 459(Tenn.1988).Todeterminethedegreeofvocationaldisability,acourtmustconsiderall (#' pertinentfactorsincludingtheemployeesage,education,skillsandtraining,localjobopportunities )$( andtheemployeescapacitytoworkatthekindsofemploymentavailabletohiminadisabled |*%) condition.Id.;Tenn.CodeAnn.506241(a)(1).Thetrialcourtshoulddeterminetheextentof h+&* thevocationaldisabilityfromalltheevidence,includinglayandexperttestimony.SeeCorcoran  at458.    _Sartain_sdailyactivitiesarenowlimited.Hecannolongerclimb,hecannothearsomeone t yellingathiminconstructionareas,hecannotstandorwalkformostoftheday,hecannottolerate ` workingoutsideinsummerheat,andhecannotpickupandhandlesmallobjects.Theselimitations L  leave_Sartain_Ԁunabletoperformthetasksrequiredinhispreviousjobs.Thefactorspresentinthis 8  casedonotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindingof75%permanentpartialdisability. $ t   _Eldeco_Ԁquestionstheweighttobegiventothetestimonyofthevocationalexpert.Attrial,  L  theexpertwasaskedifemployeesarerequiredtotellprospectiveemployersaboutfelony  8  convictions._Eldeco_Ԁobjectedtotheexpertstestifyingastoalegalconclusion.Reachingthelegal $  conclusionstobedrawnfromfactsisajudicialfunctionandshouldbeleftonlytothecourts.Coffey   v.CityofKnoxville,866S.W.2d516,518(Tenn.1993).InChapmanv.Evans,expertwitness   testimonyamountingtoalegalconclusionwasconsideredmerelyopinionandalegalconclusionnot   bindingonthetrialcourtortheappellatecourt.261S.W.2d132,137(Tenn.Ct.App.1953).But,   appellatecourtswillordinarilynotreverseatrialcourtforanerrorthattheappellatecourt p characterizesasharmless.Cohen,Paine,&_Sheppard_,TennesseeLawofEvidence,8(3ded.1995). \ Anerrormaynotbepredicateduponarulingwhichadmitsorexcludesevidenceunlessasubstantial H rightofapartyisaffected.Tenn.R._Evid_.103(a)(1).Thiserrordoesnotwarrantreversalbecause 4 ampleevidenceintherecordexiststosupporttheexpertsfindingthat_Sartain_semployment  p opportunitiesaremarkedlydiminished.Therefore,thiserrorisharmless._Eldeco_Ԁhasnotsatisfied  \ itsburdenofproofasithasnotshownhowthiserrorsubstantiallyaffectedthetrial. H    Afterreviewofthetrialcourtsfindings,thebriefsandoralargumentsubmittedbythe   parties,wefindthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.    Therefore,thejudgmentbelowshouldbeaffirmed.Taxthecostsonappealtotheappellants,  _Eldeco_,Inc.andContinentalInsuranceCompany.     `     h     __________________________________ 0"     `     h     BENH.CANTRELL,SPECIALJUDGE #l!   &"% XX8XXdXXd8  @@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL  #XX0# XX_DONNIE_Ԁ_SARTAIN_v._ELDECO_,INC.,etal.#XX2#  " @@ ChanceryCourtforFranklinCounty  " @@No.14,932   @@*AV) ` dE<` A   No.M200002634_WC_ԄR3CVFiledAugust20,2001 }  AV) ` dE<T` A U       XX#XX̳4#4  JUDGMENT XX#XX!5# (x   XX#XX̅5#XX#XX5#XXXX  ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtupontheentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferraltothe P SpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanelsMemorandumOpinionsettingforth < itsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference. (   Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthattheMemorandumOpinionofthePanelshouldbe  acceptedandapproved;and    Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanelsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawareadopted t andaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgmentoftheCourt. `   Costswillbepaidbytheappellant,_Eldeco_,Inc.andContinentalInsuranceCompany,for 8 whichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. $ t   ITISSOORDERED. !L!    `     h     PERCURIAM % %   #XXXX 6#