WPC+& # VUNa % 0U: 4    w@ 0?[ 0D   r8 0J 0TP 0^ 0h 0rj 0| 0X 0 Bn 1u 0d D3d 0@U>U*U*?B)iDC AM"nU6Mv~5v AO$$ 0D% D/% B&HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(H=$  HTR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalTX_XXX7XXdXXd7,  AZ"Arial RegularZ;$3|xH D{DU DU((3=$ H=!  HTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXXXX7/XXdd7   `   0  (%$  1  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   d !"# ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X$$$$'dxd("$    <  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Arial<  9p`(Times% Line 7 d22227Border 1dd-3C << G  !  #d#/    H \RA'\0#d#  0   YYY FILED0X February17,1998CecilCrowson,Jr.0AppellateCourtClerk  d !#d#/    H \RA'\0#d#   $       ݀Theplaintiffneverfiledanamendmenttohispetitiontoaverhisinjurywascausedbychemicalexposure.However,bothpartiestriedthecaseonthetheoryofwhetherachemicalexposuredidordidnotcausetheplaintiffsdryeyes.SeeRule15.02Tenn.R.Civ.Proc.<  9p`(Courier New  !#d#/    H \RA'\0#d#  0   YYY FILED0X February17,1998CecilCrowson,Jr.0AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(EG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . /    H \RA'\0#11Xd##11Xd#        X  R453A1-j|O` 81 `@Rߛ@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ SPECIALWORKERS'COMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL@ ATKNOXVILLE   Ӝ        CARLW.SIDES,    ) BLOUNTCIRCUIT      )  Plaintiff/Appellee   ) NO.03S019703CV00031      ) v.      ) HON.D.KELLYTHOMAS,JR.,       ) JUDGEINSURANCECOMPANYOFNORTH )AMERICA,     )      ) Defendant/Appellant  ) FortheAppellant:    FortheAppellee: F.R.Evans,Esq.    RalphBrownMilligan,Barry,Hensley&Evans  ClintJ.Woodfin800FirstTennesseeBuilding  RalphBrown&AssociatesChattanooga,TN37402   412ExecutiveTowerDrive        ExecutiveTowerII,Suite304      Knoxville,TN37923    MEMORANDUMOPINION MembersofPanel: ChiefJusticeE.RileyAndersonSeniorJudgeJohnK.ByersSpecialJudgeRogerE.Thayer  %  AFFIRMEDand      BYERS,SeniorJudgeREMANDED   OPINION    Thisworkers'compensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)forhearingandreportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw. Theplaintifffiledthissuitandallegedhehadsustainedpermanentimpairmenttohiseyesastheresultofaninjuryinthecourseofhisemploymentwiththedefendant. Thetrialjudgeawardedtheplaintiffarecoveryintheamountof30%permanentpartialdisabilitytobotheyes.Thedefendantsaystheevidencepreponderatesagainstthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. Weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. Theplaintiffwasage60atthetimeoftrial.Hehadahighschooleducationandwastrainedasamachinistandwelder. TheplaintiffallegedhewasinjuredbyaweldingarconoraboutFebruary5,1993.Theplaintiffdidnotseeadoctoruntilsomethreedaysaftertheallegedinjury,whenhewassentbythedefendanttoDr.LouisHaun,anophthalmologist. Dr.Haunwasoftheopiniontheplaintiffhadnotbeeninjuredbyaweldingarc.Dr.Haunsuspectedtheplaintiffseyeproblemwascausedbyexposuretochemicalsandinquiredoftheplaintiffconcerningexposurethereto.Fromthistime,thecasewastriedbytheplaintiffanddefendantonthetheorythattheplaintiffwassufferingfromaconditionknownasdryeyes. 6    Theevidenceofwhethertheinjurytotheplaintiffseyeswascausallyconnectedtotheexposuretochemicalsatworkisbaseduponthetestimonyoftheplaintiffandthreedoctors. TheplaintifftestifiedthatafterDr.Haunaskedhimtorememberwhetherhehadbeenexposedtoanychemicalsatwork,herecalledcomingintocontactwithchemicalsspecificallyinthecourseoffluidizingapieceofequipmentcalledabed,whichisusedinthemanufacturingprocess. Dr.Hauntestifiedtherewerechemicalscreatedbythemanufacturingprocessinthedefendantsplantandthathehadpreviouslyseenotherworkerswitheyeproblemswhichweretreatedbyhim. Thedefendantofferednoevidencetorefutetheclaimthatchemicalswerepresentintheplant. Dr.Hauntestifiedtheplaintiffhad dryeyesasaresultofexposuretochemicals.Whenaskediftherewasacausalconnectionbetweentheexposureoftheplaintifftochemicalsandtheworkenvironment,hesaid: ButIthinktheinjuryledtotheonsetofthesymptoms,andIthinkthesymptomshavepersistedovertime,andyoutendtothinktheresacausalrelationshiptherejustbecauseitsallrelated,youknow.Dr.Hauntestifiedheformedtheopinionstatedbyhimwithinareasonabledegreeofmedicalcertainty.Dr.Haundidnotfixapermanentimpairmentratingfortheinjury. Dr.K.L.Raulston,Jr.,anophthalmologist,foundtheplaintiffwassufferingfromdryeyesandthatthiswascausedbychemicalexposure.Dr.Raulstontestifiedtheplaintiffhada39percentlossofvisionintherighteyeanda37percentlossofvisioninthelefteyeasaresultoftheinjury.Dr.Raulstonrelatedthistobeequivalenttoa50percentwholebodyimpairment. Dr.DavidJ.Harris,Jr.,anophthalmologistwithextendedtrainingincorneaandeyediseasewhichcoversthefieldofcorneatransplants,surgeryoftheeyeandextendedtreatmentofeyedisease,sawtheplaintiffalso.Dr.Harrisdidnotfindtheplaintiffsconditionwascausedbychemicalexposureanddidnotfindanypermanentimpairment. Wereviewthejudgmentofthetrialjudgedenovoupontherecordwithapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthefinding.Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(2).Wearerequiredtomakeanindepthreviewoftherecordtoseewherethepreponderanceoftheevidencelies.Gallowayv.MemphisDrumServ.,822S.W.2d584(Tenn.1991). Thetestimonyoftheplaintiffconcerningtheexposuretochemicalsintheplantisunrefuted.Beyondthis,theplaintifftestifiedinpersonandthetrialjudgeaccreditedhistestimony.Weareboundbythefindingthattheplaintiffwasexposedtochemicalsintheworkplace. Inthiscase,theplaintiffhadtoestablishthecausalrelationshipbetweentheinjuryandtheoccurrenceatworkbyexpertmedicalevidence.Johnsonv.Midwesco,Inc.,801S.W.2d804(Tenn.1990).Thetrialjudgemay,whentherearedifferencesinopinionofexperts,accepttheopinionofoneormoreoftheexpertsandrejecttheopinionsofotherexpertswhotestify.Id.Infindingcausation,thejudgmentmaynotbebaseduponmedicalevidencewhichissofarspeculativeastomakesuchafindingarbitrary.Tindallv.WaringParkAssn,725S.W.2d935(Tenn.1987).However,inreachingaconclusion,thetrialjudgemustconsidertheexperttestimonyinconjunctionwiththetestimonyoftheemployeeandanyotherlaywitnesseswhotestify.Thomasv.AetnaLife&CasualtyCo.,812S.W.2d278(Tenn.1991). Whenthereisevidencegivenbydeposition,wemaydeterminethecredibilityofthewitnessessotestifying.Landersv.FiremansFundIns.Co.,775S.W.2d355(Tenn.1989). Thetrialjudgeinthiscasecreditedthetestimonyoftheplaintiffwhomhesawandheardtestify;thetrialjudgeacceptedthetestimonyofDr.HaunandofDr.Raulstonthattheinjurywascausedbytheexposureoftheplaintifftochemicalswhileatworkforthedefendant;andthetrialjudgeacceptedthetestimonyofDr.Raulstononthequestionoftheextentandpermanencyoftheinjurytotheplaintiff.Wehavereviewedtherecordaswearerequiredtodoandfindtheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. Theplaintiffraisesanissueofpaymentofinterestinthejudgmentfromthedateofitsentry.Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(h)(1)providesforinterestonthejudgment.Iftheinteresttowhichtheplaintiffisentitledhasnotbeenpaid,thetrialjudgeshallenteranorderrequiringthedefendanttopaytheamountowed. Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforentryofanyordernecessarytocarryoutthejudgment.̛̜ Thecostofthisappealistaxedtothedefendant.      ___________________________________      JohnK.Byers,SeniorJudgeCONCUR:________________________________E.RileyAnderson,ChiefJustice________________________________RogerE.Thayer,SpecialJudge̜       77&J48;+'b|k` . `@Jߛ@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE̜@ ATKNOXVILLE CARLW.SIDES,    (      (̀PlaintiffAppellee,  (BlountCircuit      (No.L9917      (      (Hon.D.KellyThomas,Jr.,   h v.      (Judge      (      (S.Ct.No.03S019703CV00031      (    INSURANCECOMPANYOFNORTH  (   X AMERICA,     (      (   8 ҀDefendantAppellant.  (AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED.̀ 8 H.H.H' JUDGMENTORDER   ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtuponmotionforreviewpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(5)(B),theentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferraltotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanel'sMemorandumOpinionsettingforthitsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference; Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthatthemotionforreviewisnotwelltakenandshouldbedenied;and Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanel'sfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawareadoptedandaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgmentoftheCourt. CostswillbepaidbyInsuranceCompanyofNorthAmerica,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. ITISSOORDEREDthis____dayofFebruary,1998.       PERCURIAMAnderson,C.J.Notparticipating.00XԜ    0&700X