ÿWPC¶# 8U"B  %bÊh 0t2 0l¦ 0 D+Ÿ ÆÊ 0 0= 0Z AQç 0J8 ‚ n’ 0 r•wš4¡ 0Tµ 0^ ÆgÆ-Æóƹ 0h 0rç 0|Y 0†Õ 0[ 1uë 0d` BÄ D3áD; AKO¢š<B)SDC|U *¿ éfô Zv~evÓãô\  `*Times New RomanTTô' Í+ 6Gordon Chadwick Aulgur60Gordon Chadwick Aulgur .   h††ÿÿ:Default ParaDefault Paragraph FontÔ€XXXÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€ôôôÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔ`††ÿÿ:footnote reffootnote referenceÔ€XXXÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€ôôôÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔ(e2µa$©©Ý ƒùä!ÝÔ€ô>vôôôÔÔ€ô>vôôô>vÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý'ÈÈÈÈdxdƒ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(e2µa$££Ý ƒùä!ÝÔ€ô>vôôôÔÔ€ô>vôôô>vÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$””Ú  ÚÚ  Ú(e2µa$¢¢Ý ƒùä!ÝÔ€ô>vôôôÔÔ€ô>vôôô>vÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý Cþÿ<< cÿÿ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô3|x,«ô\  `*Times New RomanTTôôCô\  PŽ6QôPô\  `*Times New RomanTTXXPô\  PŽ6QXPô\  `*Times New RomanTT&&Jô\  PŽ6Q&P(Jùä$¡¡Ô€ô*òôôôÔÔ€ô*òôôô*òÔÓ  ÓþEÿDDDD D  D D D•EÓ€Vî Ó€,Ft‹#¬ Level2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 526 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ! ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d&&&&'ÿÿdxd7Border 1dd ,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ˜Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€XÔÓ  ÓÔ@  ÔÚ  ÚÚ  ÚÔA  Ô Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÓ È ÓÓ  ÓÔ€XÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÙ€ ÙßL€-.,;+'h| xÈ `€€LßÓ  ÓÔ€ôÔ% Line 7 d00007Border 2dd< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÔ€2ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€2XÔÌÌò òJanuary€7,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€2ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÔ€2ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€2XÔÌÌò òJanuary€7,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€2ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€ÔÔ€ôÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÖ€/ÖÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÙ€ ÙÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÔ€XÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€-31A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ à(May€23,€1997€Session)ÌÌ______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌHERCHEL€SEAGRAVES,ÌÌà àPlaintiff/Appellee/Ìà àCross€Appellant,ÌÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNO.€02S01„9612„CH„00104ÌÌPLAZA€MACHINE€AND€TOOL,à àà àà àà àGIBSON€COUNTY€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCHANCELLOR€Ìà àDefendant/Appellant/à àà àà àà àà àGEORGE€R.€ELLISÌà àCross€Appellee.Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌÌÌòòÌÌFOR€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€APPELLEEóó:ÌS.€Newton€Andersonà àà àà àà àà àà àClayton€MayoÌMemphis,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àà àà àJackson,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌà@ àMEMORANDUM€OPINIONÌà@ àMailed€November€_____,€1997ÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòMembers€of€Panelóó:ÌÌà@ àJanice€M.€Holder,€Associate€Justice,€Supreme€CourtÌà@ àRobert€A.€Lanier,€Special€JudgeÌà@ àDon€R.€Ash,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌò òÌÌAFFIRMEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óAsh,€Special€JudgeÌÌÇà@ àòòò òMEMORANDUM€OPINIONó óóóÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€workerððs€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€WorkersððÏCompensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€€50„6„225(e)(3)€(1996€Supp.)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law.€€In€this€appeal,€the€employer€Plaza€Machine€and€Tool,€contends:€€(1)€that€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€plaintiff€suffered€a€permanent€partialÏdisability€from€his€work€related€injury;€(2)€that€the€award€of€permanent€partial€disability€benefitsÏbased€on€47€%€to€the€body€as€a€whole€is€excessive;€and€(3)€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€notÏpermitting€Plaza€Machine€and€Tool€to€introduce€into€evidence€the€testimony€of€its€privateÏinvestigator,€his€written€report,€and€his€video€tape€of€Mr.€Seagraves.€€The€employee,€in€his€cross„appeal,€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€found€that€Mr.€Seagraves€suffered€100%€disabilityÏto€the€body€as€a€whole.€€The€panel€finds€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€should€be€affirmed.Ìò òà@ àòòSTANDARD€OF€REVIEWó óóóà àÌà àAppellate€review€is€de€novo€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€aÏpresumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€isÏotherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2)€(1996€Supp.).€€This€tribunal€is€required€to€conductÏan€independent€examination€of€the€record€to€determine€where€the€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÏlies.€€òòWingert€v.€Government€of€Sumner€Countyóó,€908€S.W.2d€921€(Tenn.€1995).€Ìà@ àò òòòFACTSó óóóÌà àThe€claimant,€Herchel€Seagraves,€was€sixty„one€at€the€time€of€trial€and€has€an€eleventhÏgrade€education.€€Mr.€Seagraves€worked€as€a€machinist€for€the€majority€of€his€career.€€He€hadÏworked€for€Plaza€Machine€and€Tool€since€November€1980.€€On€April€6,€1992,€Mr.€SeagravesÏsuffered€an€injury€while€working€at€Plaza€Machine€&€Tool€to€his€right€arm,€neck€and€shoulder.€ÏMr.€Seagraves€was€referred€to€Dr.€Robert€Hornsby€for€an€examination€of€his€injury.€€Dr.ÏHornsby,€the€treating€physician,€treated€Mr.€Seagraves€conservatively€for€over€one€and€a€halfÏyears.€€Dr.€Hornsby€opined€by€deposition€that€Mr.€Seagraves€had€a€possible€ridiculopathy€or€nerveÍinjury€to€the€right€upper€extremity.€€Further,€he€opined€that€after€Mr.€Seagraves€received€treatmentÏhe€would€have€flare„ups€from€time€to€time€and€need€occasional€intermittent€treatment€to€his€neckÏand€shoulder.€€Also,€Dr.€Hornsby€opined€that€Mr.€Seagraves€retained€a€20%€permanent€partialÏdisability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€Mr.€Seagraves,€at€the€request€of€defendant,€went€to€Dr.€RonaldÏBingham€for€an€independent€medical€examination.€€Dr.€Bingham€conducted€an€EMG€and€a€NerveÏConduction€Study€test€on€plaintiffððs€right€upper€extremity,€which€revealed€normal€results.€€€Dr.ÏBingham€opined€by€deposition€that€as€a€result€of€Mr.€Seagraves€accident,€he€had€0%€permanentÏpartial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole€and€no€work€restrictions.€€At€the€time€of€trial€plaintiff€wasÏunemployed.Ìò òà@ àòòFINDING€OF€DISABILITYó óóóÌà àAppellant€contends€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððsÏfinding€that€the€plaintiff€suffered€a€permanent€partial€disability€from€his€work€related€injury.€€€WhenÏfaced€with€conflicting€medical€testimony,€the€trial€judge€has€discretion€to€accept€the€opinion€ofÏcertain€experts€over€that€of€others.€€òòThomas€v.€Aetna€Life€&€Casualty€Co.óó€(Tenn.€1991).€ÏMoreover,€while€causation€and€permanency€of€an€injury€must€be€proved€by€expert€medicalÏtestimony,€such€testimony€must€be€considered€in€conjunction€with€the€lay€testimony€of€theÏemployee€as€to€how€the€injury€occurred€and€the€employeeððs€subsequent€condition.€€òòSmith€v.ÏEmpire€Pencil€Co.óó,€781€S.W.2d€833,€835€(Tenn.€1989).€€It€is€within€the€discretion€of€the€trialÏjudge€to€conclude€that€the€opinion€of€certain€experts€should€be€accepted€over€that€of€other€experts.€ÏòòHinsonóó,€654€S.W.2d€at€677.€€A€trial€judge€may€even€predicate€an€award€on€medical€testimony€toÏthe€effect€that€the€accident€and€subsequent€injuries€ð ðcould€beðð€the€cause€of€plaintiffððs€injury.€€òòIdóó.€atÏ677.€€Ô€&ÔAlthough€causation€cannot€be€based€upon€speculative€or€conjectural€proof,€reasonable€doubt€isÏto€be€construed€in€favor€of€the€employee.€€òòWhite€v.€Werthan€Industriesóó,€824€S.W.2d€158,€159€(Tenn.Ï1992).Ô€XÔÌà àÔ€&Ô€In€the€instant€case,€there€is€conflicting€testimony€between€Dr.€Bingham€who€opined€that€Mr.ÏSeagraves€suffers€no€permanent€partial€impairment€and€Dr.€Hornsby€who€opined€that€Mr.€SeagravesÏsuffers€a€20%€permanent€partial€impairment.€€Dr.€Hornsby€was€plaintiffððs€treating€physician€for€hisÍwork€related€injury.€€As€such€he€is€entitled€to€greater€weight€in€his€opinion€of€whether€plaintiffððsÏinjury€was€caused€by€his€work.€€See€òòCrossno€v.€Publix€Shirt€Factoryóó,€814€S.W.2d€730,€732€(Tenn.Ï1991)€(treating€physicianððs€opinion€entitled€to€greater€weight).€€Moreover,€Dr.€Bingham€did€notÏcomment€on€plaintiffððs€impairment€until€after€he€had€received€various€treatments€for€his€injuries.€ÏFurther,€Dr.€Binghamððs€finding€of€0%€permanent€partial€impairment€appears€extreme€considering€theÏmedical€records,€depositions,€and€testimony€of€the€plaintiff.€€Therefore,€based€upon€the€doctorsððÏopinions,€€the€lay€testimony€of€the€plaintiff,€and€the€evidence€in€the€record,€the€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€plaintiff€did€sustain€a€compensable€injury.€€€€Ô€XÔÌà@ àò òòòPERMANENT€PARTIAL€DISABILITY€IMPAIRMENT€RATINGó óóóÌà àAppellant€further€contends€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€preponderates€against€the€trialÏcourtððs€award€of€47%€permanent€partial€disability€to€plaintiffððs€body€as€a€whole€as€a€result€ofÏplaintiffððs€work€related€injury.€€Ô€&ÔThe€trial€court€is€justified€in€the€consideration€of€other€factors€suchÏÔ€XÔas€age,€job€skills,€education,€training,€and€the€like,€in€addition€to€anatomical€impairment.ÏòòWorthington€v.€Modine€Mfg.€Co.óó,€798€S.W.2d€232€(Tenn.€1990).€€The€factors€this€panel€is€toÏconsider€in€determining€the€amount€of€disability€are€the€claimantððs€age€(òòJackson€v.€GreyhoundÏLines,€Inc.óó,€734€S.W.2d€617,€621€(Tenn.€1987));€his€job€skills,€education,€training,€and€length€ofÏdisability€(òòEmployers€Ins.€v.€Heathóó,€536€S.W.2d€341€(Tenn.€1977));€job€opportunities€in€theÏmarketplace€(òòHinson€v.€Walmartóó,€654€S.W.2d€675,€677€(Tenn.€1983));€whether€the€claimant€hasÏreturned€to€work€(òòCorcoran€v.€Foster€Auto€GMCóó,€746€S.W.2d€452,€459€(Tenn.€1987));€theÏclaimantððs€own€assessment€of€his€or€her€physical€condition€and€resulting€disability€(òòCorcoranóó,€746ÏS.W.2d€at€458);€and€whether€despite€returning€to€work,€whether€the€claimantððs€ability€to€earnÏwages€in€any€form€of€employment€(that€would€have€been€available€to€him€in€an€uninjuredÏcondition)€is€diminished€by€an€injury€(òòProst€v.€City€of€Clarksvilleóó,€668€S.W.2d€425€(Tenn.Ï1984)).Ìà àIn€the€instant€case,€Mr.€Seagraves€is€a€61„year„old€man€with€an€eleventh€grade€education.€ÏHe€has€worked€as€a€common€laborer€most€of€his€life€with€no€specialized€or€formal€training.€€Mr.ÏSeagravesðð€age€decreases€the€chances€of€finding€employers€willing€to€hire€a€nearing€retirementÍmachinist.€€Furthermore,€Dr.€Hornsby€opined€that€Mr.€Seagraves'€injury€will€cause€him€futureÏproblems€because€of€the€strong€possibility€of€flare„ups€from€time€to€time.€€Mr.€Seagraves'€ability€toÏfind€employment€in€the€open€labor€market,€in€view€of€his€age,€education,€physical€condition,€andÏskills,€is€impaired€by€his€injury.Ìà àBased€on€the€proof,€this€panel€holds€that€Mr.€Seagraves€is€entitled€to€a€permanent€partial€Ïimpairment€rating€of€47%€to€the€body€as€a€whole,€as€well€as€any€future€medical€treatment€requiredÏfor€his€work€related€injury€provided€by€his€employer.€€Therefore,€the€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€plaintiff€is€47%€disabled.Ìà@ àò òòòDISCOVERY€VIOLATIONó óóóÌà àFinally,€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€permitting€Plaza€Machine€andÏTool€to€introduce€into€evidence€the€testimony€of€Anthony€Crone€and€trial€exhibits€number€7€andÏnumber€8€for€identification€showing€surveillance€on€Mr.€Seagraves.€€Appellantððs€reliance€on€theÏtrial€court's€local€rules€to€justify€his€refusal€to€disclose€the€identity€of€his€private€investigator€andÏvideo€tape€is€misplaced€for€two€reasons.€€First,€it€confuses€his€obligation€to€comply€withÏappropriate€discovery€requests€with€his€duty€to€identify€the€witnesses€he€intended€to€call€at€trial.ÏSecond,€it€places€the€trial€court's€local€rule€in€direct€conflict€with€the€discovery€rules€in€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€Ìà àThe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€embody€a€broad€policy€favoring€the€discovery€ofÏany€relevant,€non„privileged€information.€€òòWright€v.€United€Servs.€Auto€Ass'nóó,€789€S.W.2d€911,Ï915€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990);€òòDuncan€v.€Duncanóó,€789€S.W.2d€557,€560€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990).ÏTheir€purpose€is€to€do€away€with€trial€by€ambush,€òòIngram€v.€Phillipsóó,€684€S.W.2d€954,€958Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984),€and€to€rid€trials€of€the€element€of€surprise€that€often€leads€to€results€basedÏnot€upon€the€merits€but€upon€unexpected€legal€maneuvering.€€òòHood€v.€Roadtec,€Inc.óó,€785€S.W.2dÏ359,€362€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989);€òòStrickland€v.€Stricklandóó,€618€S.W.2d€496,€501€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1981).€Ìà àTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€26.02(1)€permits€parties€to€discover€the€identity€of€all€persons€havingÏrelevant€knowledge€of€any€discoverable€matter,€including€the€facts€relevant€to€any€claim€or€defenseÏinvolved€in€the€litigation.€However,€parties€are€not€entitled€to€discover€the€identities€of€the€personsÏtheir€adversary€intends€to€call€as€witnesses€at€trial€in€the€absence€of€a€local€rule€or€a€court€order.€ÏòòStrickland€v.€Stricklandóó,€618€S.W.2d€at€499;€òòReed€v.€Allenóó,€522€S.W.2d€339,€341€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1974).€Ìà àThe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€govern€practice€and€procedure€in€all€state€trialÏcourts.€€See€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€1.€€However,€trial€courts€may€adopt€local€practice€rules€as€long€asÏthe€rules€do€not€conflict€with€other€applicable€statutes€or€rules€promulgated€by€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court.€€òòHackman€v.€Harrisóó,€225€Tenn.€645,€651,€475€S.W.2d€175,€177€(1972);€òòRichieÏv.€Liberty€Cash€Grocers,€Inc.óó,€63€Tenn.€App.€311,€320„21,€471€S.W.2d€559,€563€(1971);€Tenn.ÏS.€Ct.€R.€18;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„3„407€(1994€Repl.).€Ìà àPlaintiffððs€interrogatory€#3€sought€any€photos,€videos,€motion€pictures,€or€other€pictorial€orÏother€representations€taken€of€the€plaintiff€at€any€time€whatsoever,€and€the€person€responsible€forÏmaking€these€pictures€or€videos.€€The€substance€of€the€interrogatory€soughtò ò€òòó óunprivilegedóó,òò€relevantóóÏinformation€and€was€consistent€with€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€26.02(1)€because€the€employerððs€privateÏinvestigator€had€a€video€tape€of€facts€relevant€to€the€claims€or€defenses€involved€in€the€case.€ÏDefendant€had€no€legally€defensible€reason€for€declining€to€accede€to€the€employeeððs€pretrialÏrequest€to€reveal€the€identity€of€the€employerððs€private€investigator€and€to€disclose€the€video€tape.€ÏPlaza€Machine€and€Tool€objected€to€this€request,€alleging€that€it€was€outside€the€scope€of€discoveryÏand€that€the€materials€requested€were€attorney„work€product,€and€further€stating€that€it€did€not€haveÏany€of€the€materials€inquired€about.€€The€employer€then€supplemented€its€response€to€plaintiffððsÏinterrogatory€#3€by€stating€that€it€would€not€respond€any€further€to€this€question€without€a€formalÏmotion€submitted€by€plaintiffððs€attorney.€€The€private€investigator's€testimony,€video€tape€andÏreport€show€the€plaintiff€raising€his€arms€above€his€head€at€times€while€washing€his€vehicle€andÏanother€at€a€self„service€car€wash€and€then€drying€them€at€his€residence.€€The€purpose€of€thisÍtestimony€was€to€undermine€plaintiffððs€claim€that€the€accident€he€sustained€left€him€with€difficultyÏraising€his€arms€above€chest€level€and€lessened€his€ability€to€perform€domestic€activities.€ÏTherefore,€defendant€should€have€disclosed€these€sought€after€items€when€the€plaintiff€requestedÏthe€information€on€April€19,€1994.€€Ìà àThe€employerððs€failure€to€respond€to€his€adversary's€discovery€request€did€not,€however,Ïautomatically€render€his€private€investigator's€testimony€and€his€video€tape€inadmissible.€€TrialÏcourts€have€broad€discretion€to€fashion€sanctions€for€discovery€abuses€that€are€commensurate€withÏthe€parties'€conduct.€€òòLyle€v.€Exxon€Corp.óó,€746€S.W.2d€694,€699€(Tenn.€1988);€òòAirline€Constr.,ÏInc.€v.€Barróó,€807€S.W.2d€247,€263€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990).€€They€may€permit€a€witness€to€testifyÏeven€if€withholding€the€witness'€identity€was€contrary€to€the€rules€of€discovery.€€òòDoochin€v.ÏUnited€States€Fidelity€&€Guaranty€Co.óó,€854€S.W.2d€109,€114€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€The€natureÏof€the€sanction€depends€upon:€€(1)€the€party's€reasons€for€failing€to€provide€the€requestedÏdiscovery;€(2)€the€importance€of€the€information€sought€to€be€discovered;€and€(3)€the€time€neededÏto€respond€effectively€to€the€information.€€òòStrickland€v.€Stricklandóó,€618€S.W.2d€at€501.€Ìà àThe€plaintiff€had€ample€opportunity€to€file€an€appropriate€motion€forcing€the€defendant€toÏproduce€the€video€tape.€€Based€upon€the€record,€this€is€an€appropriate€case€for€sanctions€in€regardÏto€the€failure€to€disclose.€€The€trial€court€erred€in€not€allowing€either€the€introduction€of€thisÏevidence€or€this€matter€being€continued€until€the€issues€of€sanctions€and€discovery€could€beÏcompleted.€€When€a€witnessðð€name€is€not€revealed€during€discovery,€the€trial€court€has€discretionÏabout€how€to€proceed.€€òòPettus€v.€Hurstóó,€882€S.W.2d€783,€787€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993)€perm.€app.Ïdenied€(1994).€€A€judge€may€permit€the€testimony,€or€may€exclude€the€testimony,€or€may€grant€aÏcontinuance€to€allow€preparation.€€òòAirline€Construction,€Inc.€v.€Barróó,€807€S.W.2d€247,€263Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€1990)€perm.€app.€denied€(1991).Ìà àReversal€of€a€judgment€is€required€only€when€the€error€involves€a€substantive€right€andÏmore€probably€than€not€affected€the€trial's€outcome.€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€The€panel€has€hadÏan€opportunity€to€review€the€video€tape€in€question.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€not€reviewing€theÍvideo€tape€and€not€admitting€the€private€investigatorððs€testimony€and€his€written€report€was,€atÏmost,€harmless€error.€Ìà àDefendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€found€that€plaintiff€suffered€100%Ïdisability€to€the€body€as€a€whole€as€a€result€of€plaintiffððs€work€related€injury.€€Appellee€relies€on€theÏfact€that€since€Mr.€Seagraves€is€considered€disabled€by€the€Social€Security€Administration,€thisÏCourt€should€find€him€100%€disabled.€€Awards€or€findings€of€the€Social€Security€AdministrationÏare€not€admissible€in€the€courts€of€Tennessee€in€workersðð€compensation€cases€for€the€purpose€ofÏshowing€the€existence€or€the€extent€of€an€employee's€permanent€disability.€òòBingham€v.€DyersburgÏFabrics€Co.,€Inc.óó,€567€S.W.2d€169,€171€(Tenn.€1978).€€Among€the€many€reasons€are:€1)Ïemployer€is€not€a€party€to€proceedings€before€the€social€security€administration;€and€has€noÏopportunity€to€cross„examine€or€to€rebut€employee's€proof;€and€2)€the€criterion€for€determining€theÏexistence€or€extent€of€permanent€disability,€temporary€or€total,€under€Tennessee€workersððÏcompensation€statutes€and€case€law€differs€widely€from€the€definitions€of€disability€applicable€forÏsocial€security€purposes.€€See€42€U.S.C.€ðð€416(i)(1)€(1992)€and€42€U.S.C.€ðð€423(d)€(1992).€€òòId.óó€ÏTherefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€€Ìà àWhere€the€trial€judge€has€seen€and€heard€the€witnesses,€especially€if€issues€of€credibilityÏand€weight€to€be€given€oral€testimony€are€involved,€considerable€deference€must€be€accorded€thoseÏcircumstances€on€review.€òòHumphrey€v.€David€Witherspoon,€Inc.óó,€734€S.W.2d€315€(Tenn.€1987).ÏTherefore,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€accordingly€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€theÏdefendant„appellant.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDon€R.€Ash,€Special€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:à àÌÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌRobert€Lanier,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌJanice€M.€Holder,€Associate€JusticeÌÌÑ€4ÑÇÑ ` ÑÔ€2Ôà@ àÔ€2¼ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÔ€2XÔÌÌÌÓ#` p…X LÐ X#ÓHERCHEL€SEAGRAVES,à àà à)à àGIBSON€CHANCERYÌÓ#` p` LÐ X#Óà à)à àNO.€10894ÌÓ` p` ¸ ’XÓà àPlaintiff/Appellee/Cross€Appellant,à à)à àÌÓ#` p` ¸ LÐ X#Óà àà à)à àHon.€George€R.€Ellis,Ìvs.à àà à)à àChancellorÌà àà à)ÌPLAZA€MACHINE€AND€TOOL,à à)à àNO.€02S01„9612„CH„00104ÌßR€-51A1-j|­m` Å `€€@ÿRßà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant/Cross€Appellee.à à)à àAFFIRMED.ÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€2¼ÔJUDGMENT€ORDERÔ€2XÔÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌÓ` p`  ’XÓà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€the€orderÏof€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel'sÏMemorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€whichÏare€incorporated€herein€by€reference.Ìà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€Opinion€of€theÏPanel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€judgment€ofÏthe€Court.Ìà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€Appellant,€and€surety,€for€which€execution€mayÏissue€if€necessary.Ìà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€this€7th€day€of€January,€1998.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌ(Holder,€J.,€not€participating)ÌÌÌÌÔ€Ô