ÿWPC+ ·U)B %T U.Z rˆ 0ú 0C‡ Ê n¯Ú 0 r‰û 0Jûw@E4… 0T™ 0^í 0hKT³LLS 0rŸ 0| 0† 0 1u£ 0d AQ|ÆÍ 0Ž“ 0@! 0Da D/¥ BÔ Bñ D3AB)[DC„ AMÇ:¦Nfô =Z!v~—"vÓ$ Aè) 0šg*ô\  `*Times New RomanTTô"ÝÆÿA€ArialTT'    0 .   (e2ÎÆ$©©Ý ƒ P‘!ÝÔ€X¿ÑXôôÔÔ€X¸XXX¿ÑÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó3|x*«ô\  `*Times New RomanTTôôCô\  PŽ6QôP"ÝÆÿA€ArialTTomanTTXXaÝÆÿptQXpô\  `*Times New RomanTT¼¼^ô\  PŽ6Q¼Pô\  `*Times New RomanTT,,)ô\  PŽ6Q,Pô\  `*Times New RomanTTXXPô\  PŽ6QXPô\  `*Times New RomanTT6ô\  PŽ6QPô\  `*Times New RomanTTRAnô\  PŽ6QRP(JP‘$¡¡Ô€XÿÿXôôÔÔ€X8!XXXÿÿÔÓ  Ó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô DDDV îÀÓ€)*•{:$vÔô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôc:\office\wpwin\template\legal\11deny.wptC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPTC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT2@ 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!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(f3K¡$¢¢Ý ƒ P‘!ÝÔ€X¿ÑXôôÔÔ€X¸XXX¿ÑÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ !ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ 8 ÒÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ@  ÔÚ  ÚÚ  ÚÔA  ÔÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓÌ% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd!#1Cþÿ << Gÿÿ 0Ý ƒ !ÝÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌMarch€13,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó œÝ ƒ !ÝÓ ÓÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ 8 ÒÓ ` ŒXÓÓ  ÓÔ€RÔÔ€Ôòòò…òÚ  ÚÚ  Úó…óóóÔ€XÔ€€ò ò50„6„304.€€Last€employer€liable.€„„„€€ó óWhen€an€employee€has€an€occupationalÏdisease,€the€employer€in€whose€employment€such€employee€was€last€injuriously€exposed€toÏthe€hazards€of€the€disease,€and€the€employer's€insurance€carrier,€if€any,€at€the€time€of€theÏexposure,€shall€alone€be€liable€therefor,€without€right€to€contribution€from€any€priorÏemployer€or€insurance€carrier.Ì \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ 3Ý ƒ !ÝÓ ÓÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌMarch€13,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿáùEG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò#yúÿ  <<= 8ÀÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ(r3H»$««Ý ƒ P‘!ÝÔ€X¿ÑXôôÔÔ€X¸XXX¿ÑÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ d ÔÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ 8 ÒÖ€/ÖÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÙ€!ÙÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ&  ÔÔ€¼ÔÔ€ÔßR€231A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌ(September€25,€1997€Session)ÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓJIMMY€DALE€SHELTON,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€ôÔ€€€Ô€¼Ô€€€€)€€€€€GILES€CIRCUITÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€,Ô€€Ô€¼Ô€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee,€€€€€Ô€ôÔ€Ô€¼Ô€€€€€)€€€€€Hon.€Jim€T.€Hamilton,Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€XÔ€€Ô€¼Ô)€€€€€Judge.Ìv.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€XÔ€Ô€¼Ô€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€,Ô€Ô€¼Ô€€€€)€€€€€No.€01S01„9704„CV„00092ÌTHE€TORRINGTON€COMPANY€d/b/a/€)ÌINGERSOLL€RAND,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€Ô€Ô€¼Ô€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellant.€€€€Ô€XÔ€Ô€¼Ô€€€€€)ÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òòFor€Appellee:óóÌÌJ.€Michael€Morgan€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Tracy€W.€MooreÌOrtale,€Kelley,€Herbert€&€Crawford€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Moore€&€PedenÌNashville,€Tennessee€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Columbia,€TennesseeòòÌóóÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓòòM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌÌÌòòMembers€of€Panelóó:ÌÌLyle€Reid,€Associate€Justice,€Supreme€CourtÌÔ'  ÔWilliam€S.€Russell,€Special€JudgeÌJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓÌÓ  ÓREVERSED€and€DISMISSED€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Loser,ÏJudgeÓ ¹ ÓÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONóóÓ rAÓÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓà àà àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€theÏSpecial€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€inÏaccordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€andÏreporting€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€The€employer€contendsÏthe€evidence€preponderates€against€any€award€of€benefits€for€a€claimedÏoccupational€disease€because€(1)€the€claim€is€barred€by€the€applicable€statuteÏof€limitations,€(2)€the€claimant€failed€to€give€timely€written€notice€of€hisÏclaim,€(3)€the€disease€did€not€arise€out€and€in€the€course€of€employment,€(4)Ïthe€claimant€is€not€permanently€disabled€or,€if€he€is,€the€award€of€permanentÏdisability€benefits€is€excessive,€and€(5)€the€defendant€is€not€the€employer€forÏwhich€the€claimant€was€working€at€the€time€of€the€last€injurious€exposure.€ÏAs€discussed€below,€the€panel€has€concluded€the€judgment€should€beÏreversed€and€the€case€dismissed.Ìà àà àThe€employee€or€claimant,€Shelton,€is€thirty„eight€years€oldÏwith€a€high€school€diploma,€twenty„seven€credit€hours€toward€an€AssociateÏof€Arts€degree€and€a€certificate€in€automotive€technology.€€He€worked€in€theÏemployer's€ball€bearing€manufacturing€plant€from€April€14,€1980€untilÏSeptember€28,€1990,€when€he€quit€because€something€in€the€plant€madeÏbreathing€difficult€for€him.€€He€did€not€tell€anyone€at€Torrington€the€reasonÏfor€his€quitting.Ìà àà àDuring€his€employment€at€Torrington's€ball€bearing€plant,€heÏheld€positions€in€different€areas€of€the€plant,€including€the€steel€yard,€theÏcast€iron€department,€the€screw€machine€department€and€the€shippingÏdepartment.€€He€testified€that€breathing€was€difficult€for€him€in€all€thoseÏareas.€€Before€becoming€employed€by€Torrington,€he€worked€for€otherÏemployers€and€had€no€breathing€problems.€€In€the€spring€of€1989,€there€wasÏa€fire€in€the€plant.€€The€claimant€was€exposed€to€smoke€for€about€fiveÏminutes.€€In€the€spring€of€1990,€he€was€briefly€exposed€to€steam€from€anÏoverheated€battery.Ìà àà àHe€first€received€medical€treatment€for€chest€pain€and€tightnessÏon€May€25,€1989€and€for€shortness€of€breath€on€May€22,€1990.€€TwoÏpulmonary€specialists,€Dr.€A.€Clyde€Heflin€and€Dr.€Alan€H.€Arrington,Ïtestified€at€the€trial€by€deposition€as€to€the€claimant's€physical€condition.€€AtÏthe€time€of€the€trial€on€October€1,€1996,€the€claimant€was€employed€byÏAdvance€Auto€Parts€as€an€assistant€manager€and€had€been€so€employed€forÏalmost€two€years.Ìà àà àThe€trial€judge€found€the€claimant€first€knew€he€had€anÏoccupational€disease€on€September€22,€1993,€when€Dr.€Arrington€sent€aÏletter€to€the€claimant's€attorney,€and€that€the€claimant€had€a€compensableÏpermanent€partial€disability€of€thirty„five€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole,Ïwhich€the€trial€judge€commuted€to€a€lump€sum€judgment€of€$36,360.20,Ïusing€the€agreed€upon€compensation€rate.€€Appellate€review€is€de€novo€uponÏthe€record€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctnessÏof€the€findings€of€fact,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€isÏotherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€50„6„225(e)(2).ÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓ(1)€Statute€of€Limitations.ÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓà àà àBy€statute,€the€right€to€compensation€for€any€occupationalÏdisease€other€than€coal€worker's€pneumoconiosis€is€barred€unless€suit€is€filedÏwithin€one€year€after€the€beginning€of€the€incapacity€for€work€resultingÍtherefrom.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€50„6„306(a).€€The€beginning€ofÏincapacity€to€work€occurs€when€an€employee€has€knowledge,€or€in€theÏexercise€of€reasonable€caution€should€have€knowledge,€that€he€has€anÏoccupational€disease€and€that€it€has€progressed€to€the€point€that€it€injuriouslyÏaffects€his€capacity€to€work€to€a€degree€amounting€to€a€compensable€injury.€ÏòòAdams€v.€American€Zinc€Co.óó€205€€Tenn.€189,€326€€S.W.2d€€425€(1959).Ìà àà àThe€claimant€began€working€for€the€employer€on€or€aboutÏApril€14,€1980€in€the€steelyard,€where€he€was€responsible€for€moving€steelÏto€floor€locations€and€screw€machines.€€He€worked€there€about€a€year€andÏhad€no€adverse€reactions.€€In€May€of€1981,€he€was€moved€to€the€position€ofÏchucking€machine€operator,€where€he€spent€four€years€and€€was€not€exposedÏto€chemicals,€but€developed€shortness€of€breath€infrequently,€for€which€heÏreceived€treatment€a€few€times.Ìà àà àIn€June€of€1985,€the€claimant€applied€for€a€transfer€to€theÏshipping€department€because,€he€said,€the€air€was€cleaner€and€workingÏconditions€better.€€The€application€was€granted.€€Then,€for€two€yearsÏbeginning€in€1987,€he€worked€as€a€screw€machine€operator,€where€he€wasÏbothered€by€dust€from€the€floor„dry,€a€substance€used€to€absorb€oil€spills.€ÏHe€worked€briefly€as€a€serviceman€in€1989,€but€was€returned€to€his€machineÏoperating€duties€and€the€accompanying€dust.Ìà àà àFollowing€a€fire€in€the€plant,€he€returned€to€work€in€theÏshipping€department,€but€had€all€day€problems€breathing€while€at€work€andÏafter€leaving€work.€€On€another€occasion,€he€was€exposed€to€fumes€from€aÏbattery€which€had€spilled€over.€€There€was€"pretty€much€constant€irritation"Ïfollowing€those€two€events€until€the€claimant€voluntarily€resigned€inÏSeptember€of€1990.€€Asked€why€he€resigned,€the€claimant€responded,Ï"because€of€the€condition,€my€medical€condition,"€a€reference€to€breathingÏdifficulties.€€By€that€time,€he€had€been€treated€or€examined€by€three€otherÏdoctors.Ìà àà àThis€action€for€workers'€compensation€benefits€was€commencedÏmore€than€three€years€later€on€January€12,€1994.€€Accepting€the€claimant'sÏown€testimony,€the€panel€is€persuaded€that€he€knew,€or€in€the€exercise€ofÏreasonable€caution€should€have€known,€no€later€than€September€30,€1990,Ïthat€he€had€an€occupational€disease€that€injuriously€affected€his€ability€toÏwork€to€the€point€that€he€was€incapacitated.€€His€claim€is€consequentlyÏbarred€by€the€statute€of€limitation.ÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓ(2)€Notice.ÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓà àà àImmediately€upon€the€occurrence€of€an€injury,€or€as€soonÏthereafter€as€is€reasonable€and€practicable,€an€injured€employee€must,€unlessÏthe€employer€has€actual€knowledge€of€the€accident,€give€written€notice€of€theÏinjury€to€his€employer.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€50„6„201.€€Benefits€are€notÏrecoverable€from€the€date€of€the€accident€to€the€giving€of€such€notice€and€noÏbenefits€are€recoverable€unless€such€written€notice€is€given€within€thirtyÏdays€after€the€injurious€occurrence€unless€the€injured€worker€has€aÏreasonable€excuse€for€the€failure€to€give€the€required€notice.€€Id.Ìà àà àWhether€or€not€the€excuse€offered€by€an€injured€worker€forÏfailure€to€give€timely€written€notice€is€sufficient€depends€on€the€particularÏfacts€and€circumstances€of€each€case.€€òòA.€C.€Lawrence€Leather€Co.€v.€Brittóó,Ï220€€Tenn.€€444,€€414€€S.W.2d€€830€(1967).€€The€presence€or€absence€ofÏprejudice€to€the€employer€is€a€proper€consideration.€€òòMcCaleb€v.€SaturnÏCorp.óó,€910€€S.W.2d€€412€(Tenn.€1995).Ìà àà àGenerally€the€beginning€date€for€computing€notice€is€the€date€onÏwhich€the€effects€of€the€injury€manifest€themselves€to€the€employee€or€couldÏhave€been€discovered€by€the€employee€in€the€exercise€of€reasonable€care€andÏdiligence.€€òòHawkins€v.€Consolidated€Aluminum€Corp.óó,€742€€S.W.2d€€253Ï(Tenn.€1987).€€For€a€claimed€occupational€disease,€the€required€writtenÏnotice€must€be€given€within€thirty€days€after€the€first€distinct€manifestationÏof€the€occupational€disease.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€50„6„305(a).€€TheÍreasons€for€the€thirty€day€statutory€notice€requirement€are€(1)€to€give€theÏemployer€an€opportunity€to€make€an€investigation€while€the€facts€areÏaccessible,€and€(2)€to€enable€the€employer€to€provide€timely€and€properÏtreatment€for€the€injured€employee.€€òòMcCaleb€v.€Saturn€Corp.óó,€supra.Ìà àà àWhere,€as€here,€the€employer€denies€that€the€employee€hasÏgiven€the€required€written€notice,€the€employee€has€the€burden€of€showingÏthat€the€employer€had€actual€notice,€or€that€the€employee€has€either€compliedÏwith€the€requirement€or€has€a€reasonable€excuse€for€his€failure€to€do€so,€forÏnotice€is€an€essential€element€of€the€claim.€€òòMasters€v.€Industrial€GarmentsÏMfg.€Co.óó,€595€€S.W.2d€€811€(Tenn.€1980).Ìà àà àThe€trial€judge€found€that€the€first€knowledge€by€the€claimantÏthat€he€had€a€work„related€occupational€disease€was€on€September€22,€1993,Ïwhen€Dr.€Arrington€sent€a€letter€to€his€attorney,€and€that€timely€notice€wasÏgiven.€€There€is€evidence€of€a€letter€from€the€claimant's€attorney€to€theÏemployer€on€October€19,€1993,€but€the€letter€itself€is€not€found€in€theÏrecord.€€Apparently€it€was€nothing€more€than€notice€that€the€claimant€hadÏretained€an€attorney.Ìà àà àBefore€voluntarily€terminating€on€September€28,€1990,€theÏclaimant€had€seen€at€least€three€physicians€regarding€his€breathingÏdifficulties€at€work.€€Moreover,€the€claimant€testified€his€supervisor€hadÏactual€knowledge€in€May€of€1990,€and€€when€asked€why€he€did€not€tell€theÏemployer€why€he€was€quitting€when€he€did,€he€replied€that€Dr.€Heflin€hadÏadvised€him€not€to€give€the€reason€that€he€had€asthma€because€to€do€so€wouldÏmake€it€difficult€for€him€to€obtain€other€employment.Ìà àà àThe€evidence€accordingly€preponderates€against€the€trial€judge'sÏfinding€that€timely€written€notice€was€given.€€The€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€also€fails€to€establish€that€the€employer€had€actual€notice€or€that€theÏemployee€had€a€reasonable€excuse€for€failure€to€give€the€required€writtenÏnotice.ÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓ(3)€Causation.ÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓà àà àUnder€the€Tennessee€Workers'€Compensation€Law,€an€injury€byÏaccident€arising€out€of€and€in€the€course€of€employment€which€causesÏdisablement€of€the€employee,€or€an€occupational€disease€arising€out€of€and€inÏthe€course€of€employment€which€causes€disablement,€is€compensable.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€section€50„6„101€et€seq.€€An€occupational€disease€arises€out€of€theÏemployment€only€if€the€disease€can€be€determined€to€have€followed€as€aÏnatural€incident€of€the€work€as€a€result€of€the€exposure€occasioned€by€theÏnature€of€the€employment,€the€disease€can€be€fairly€traced€to€theÏemployment€as€a€proximate€cause,€the€disease€has€not€originated€from€aÏhazard€to€which€the€worker€would€have€been€equally€exposed€outside€of€theÏemployment,€the€disease€is€incidental€to€the€character€of€the€employment€andÏnot€independent€of€the€relation€of€employer€and€employee,€the€diseaseÏoriginated€from€a€risk€connected€with€the€employment€and€flowed€from€thatÏsource€as€a€natural€consequence,€though€it€need€not€have€been€foreseen€orÏexpected€prior€to€its€contraction,€and€there€is€a€direct€causal€connectionÏbetween€the€disease€and€the€conditions€under€which€the€work€is€performed.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€section€50„6„301.Ìà àà àExcept€in€the€most€obvious€cases,€causation€may€only€be€provedÏby€expert€medical€testimony.€€òòThomas€v.€Aetna€Life€and€Casualty€Ins.€Co.óó,Ï812€€S.W.2d€€278€(Tenn.€1991).€€An€award€may€not€be€based€on€conjectureÏor€speculation.€€òòReeser€v.€Yellow€Freight€Systems,€Inc.óó,€938€€S.W.2d€€690Ï(Tenn.€1997).€€The€record€contains€the€testimony€of€two€medical€experts.Ìà àà àDr.€Alan€H€Arrington€specializes€in€pulmonary€diseases€andÏinternal€medicine€in€Huntsville,€Alabama.€€He€testified€by€deposition€that€heÏexamined€the€claimant€on€July€31,€1992€and€found€no€evidence€ofÏobstructive€lung€disease.€€Nevertheless,€based€entirely€on€the€historyÏprovided€by€the€claimant,€he€opined€the€claimant€had€"asthma€induced€byÏexposures€to€benzene€solvents€as€part€of€his€employment."€€Taken€as€aÏwhole,€the€doctor's€testimony€as€to€causation€was€equivocal€and€conjecturalÏconcerning€whether€the€claimant's€asthma€had€its€origin€in€a€risk€connectedÍwith€his€employment€by€the€employer.€€Additionally,€we€find€no€evidence€inÏthe€record€to€support€the€doctor's€finding€of€exposure€to€benzene€solvents.Ìà àà àDr.€Asa€Clyde€Heflin,€Jr.€testified€also€by€deposition.€€HeÏspecializes€in€internal€medicine€and€pulmonary€diseases€and€is€the€medicalÏdirector€for€primary€care€at€St.€Thomas€Hospital€in€Nashville€and€anÏassistant€professor€at€the€Vanderbilt€University€Medical€School.€€He€first€sawÏthe€claimant€on€August€16,€1990€and€found€his€examination€to€be€normalÏwith€"some€evidence€of€what€we€call€small€airway€obstruction,€meaning€aÏvariant€of€asthma€or€an€asthma€like€illness."€€Dr.€Heflin€did€not€find€anyÏcausal€connection€between€that€condition€and€the€claimant's€employment€byÏthe€employer.Ìà àà àThe€evidence€fails€thus€to€establish€the€claimant's€condition€asÏone€arising€out€of€and€in€the€course€of€employment.ÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓ(4)€Permanency.ÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓà àà àExcept€in€the€most€obvious€cases,€permanency€may€only€beÏestablished€by€expert€medical€testimony.€€òòDorris€v.€INA€InsuranceÏCompanyóó,€764€€S.W.2d€€538€(Tenn.€1989).€€An€injured€employee€isÏcompetent€to€testify€as€to€his€own€assessment€of€his€physical€condition€andÏsuch€testimony€should€not€be€disregarded.€€òòUptain€Construction€Co.€v.ÏMcClainóó,€526€€S.W.2d€€458€(Tenn.€1975).€€The€trial€court's€finding€ofÏpermanency€was€based€in€part€on€the€claimant's€former€wife's€testimony€thatÏhis€condition€was€better€when€he€stayed€away€from€the€employer'sÏmanufacturing€plant.Ìà àà àDr.€Arrington's€testimony€concerning€permanency€included€theÏfollowing€questions€and€answers:Ìà0 àà àà àQ.€€Now,€what€does€that€diagnosis€mean€for€Mr.€Shelton'sÏoccupational€future?€€And€by€that,€I€mean€what€environments€shouldÏhe€avoid,€due€to€this€diagnosis?Ó ¹ ÓÌà0 àà àà àA.€€Well,€as€he's€related€to€me€clinically€that€he€is€hyper„responsive€and€hyperreactive€to€these€nonspecific€airway€irritants,Ïthen€he€should€not€work€in€environments€that€are€going€to€cause€himÏto€have€heavy€exposure€or€confined€exposure€to€such€things.Ìà0 àà àà à€€€€€And€that€includes,€you€know,€industrial€solvents,Ïdusts,€fumes,€smokes.€€He€needs€a€clean€air€working€environment.€ÏAnd€that€will€impact€his€„„€his€working€ability€if€he€was€wanting€to€goÏback€to€work€in€a€closed„in€factory€situation€that€dealt€with€a€lot€ofÏdust,€smokes,€fumes,€et€cetera.Ìà0 àà àà à€€€€€In€terms€of€his€overall€health,€his€condition€is€mild.€ÏAnd€if€he€takes€good€care€of€himself,€his€life€span€and€overall€healthÏshould€be€the€same€as€anyone€else's.Ìà0 àà àà àQ.€€Doctor,€if€Mr.€Shelton€were€sitting€here€in€what€IÏpresume€is€a€clean€air€environment€here€in€your€office,€would€he€haveÏany€degree€of€permanent€impairment€under€the€guidelines€forÏpermanent€impairment?Ìà0 àà àà àA.€€No.€€His€condition€is€asthma.€€And€asthma,€byÏdefinition,€no€matter€what€textbook€you€pick€up,€is€reversible€airwaysÏdisease,€reversible€airways€obstruction.Ìà0 àà àà à€€€€€Okay.€€If€you€have€fixed€airways€obstruction€likeÏthese€chronic€bronchitics€who€smoked€a€pack€a€day€for€twenty€years,Ïthey€don't€have€asthma.€€They€might€wheeze€like€an€asthmatic,€but€doÏnot€have€asthma,€because€they€do€not€reverse€between€attacks€all€theÏway€back€to€normal.€€That€is€an€axiom€of€the€diagnosis€of€asthma.Ìà0 àà àà à€€€€€And€so€when€he€is€doing€well,€his€lung€function€testÏstatus€is€as€well€as€yours€and€mine.€€If€he€has€had€one€of€these€irritantsÏand€exposures€triggered€his€asthma,€he€could€test€out€at€an€extremelyÍimpaired€range€and€require€immediate€treatment€for€it.Ìà0 àà àà à€€€€€His€history€has€been€one€of€mild€impairment€duringÏhis€attacks.€€But€that's€based€solely€on€history.Ìà àà àThe€sum€of€Dr.€Heflin's€testimony€was€that€the€claimant€hadÏlittle€or€no€permanent€impairment,€none€according€to€approved€guidelines.€ÏThe€claimant€testified€at€trial€that€he€was€"in€very€good€physical€conditionÏnow."€€The€evidence€thus€preponderates€against€a€finding€of€thirty„fiveÏpercent€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole,€although€there€isÏsome€evidence€of€minimal€disability.Ó rAÓÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓ(5)€€Last€Injurious€ExposureÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓà àà àWhere€an€employee€becomes€disabled€as€a€result€of€anÏoccupational€disease,€the€employer€for€whom€the€employee€was€workingÏwhen€he€was€last€injuriously€exposed€to€the€hazards€of€the€disease€is€solelyÏresponsible€for€the€payment€of€compensation€benefits.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïsection€50„6„304.Ñ  ÑÑ   ÑÑ  ÑÑ€0 §u` Ñ× ƒ4 ××  ×€€"Last€injurious€exposure"€means€any€exposure€whichÏdirectly€augments€the€disease€to€any€extent,€however€slight.€€òòMorell€v.ÏAsarco,€Inc.óó,€611€€S.W.2d€€830€(Tenn.€1981).Ìà àà àSince€leaving€the€Torrington€Company,€the€claimant€has,Ïaccording€to€his€own€testimony,€worked€for€at€least€three€other€employersÏwhere€he€suffered€from€breathing€problems€brought€on€by€exposure€to€dustÏor€other€irritants.€€The€panel€therefore€finds€Torrington€not€liable€under€theÏlast€injurious€exposure€rule.Ìà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€accordingly€reversed€and€theÏcause€dismissed.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€the€plaintiff„appellee.Ó *bÓÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓ_______________________________Ó ÓÌÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Joe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓCONCUR:ÌÌ_________________________________ÌLyle€Reid,€Associate€JusticeÌÌ_________________________________ÌWilliam€S.€Russell,€Senior€JudgeÌÑ€5ÑÇÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€XÔà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌßJ€26;+'b|7` ç `€@ÿJßà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌJIMMY€DALE€SHELTON,à@ à)à àGILES€CIRCUITÌà@ à)à àNO.€9252Ìà àPLAINTIFF/APPLICANT,à@ à)Ìà@ à)à àHON.€JIM€T.€HAMILTON,Ìv.à@ à)à àJUDGEÌà@ à)ÌTHE€TORRINGTON€COMPANYà@ à)à àS.€CT.€NO.€01S01„9704„CV„00092Ìd/b/a€INGERSOLL€RAND,à@ à)Ìà@ à)Ìà àDEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.à@ à)à0 àREVERSED€AND€DISMISSEDÌÌÌà@ àòòò òJUDGMENTó óóóÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€motion€for€review€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð50„6„225(e)(5)(B),€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'ÏCompensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel's€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€itsÏfindings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ìà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€review€is€not€well€taken€andÏshould€be€denied;€and€Ìà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€areÏadopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€judgment€of€the€Court.Ìà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€plaintiff/applicant,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ìà àIt€is€so€ordered€this€13th€day€of€March,€1998.ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌÌREID,€J.€NOT€PARTICIPATINGÔ€¼Ô