WPCX G< c?'(8 @^}ijis,й;iP{!ֺSL?R Zm!y{HWlDO^W.rz{d@z~g[<@)w_rQGM!\F)3MzXc.$[jz| $wr :N"D+j-FJeEs*]NOhA ճ44vi~5l<9@cEųIcq"Y}"#=&;_^֬nj$jk֪?'&Q4n#mI/r,fQޒ-"2t۔.U})>>;>,f#0n0A.z@'GoIrt?u}2pҁJ}$HiݧQbTy_]-~˃~7e"ҊtrǕ!ɋ3.wKMRHX SQ[V;~τq'd-˧^4Gb#\ %% N+ 0- U)N ^  w z  4_ s  m  a 'N z7E  U@                      bKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 0SSSS B >> 0[ D5 D-4 0Kaa AS 0 0Di A\\IB01S08T\knoxclerk4,,,,0(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularN1  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.wptp)/:i+003|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 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.wpt(9 Z(Times New Roman - -(|G2R$ !..8dd8         0  XMX d(|3$ !..8dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !..8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _8MXXdd8  l@@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL & @@ATKNOXVILLE#l# L June11,2004Session "r XMX #XXM#JANETSIMPSONv.DONALDSONCO.,INC.XMX   p @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforGreeneCounty  p @@No.01CV123BenW._Wexler_,Judge  \ FiledOctober12,2004 4  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   No.E200302347_WC_ԄR3CVMailedAugust3,2004   #XXM#XMXAV) ` dE<z` A {      ThisworkerscompensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkersCompensation v AppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)for b hearingandreportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.#XXM#XMXԀThetrial N courtdismissedtheclaimfindingtheemployeesconditiondidnotariseoutofheremployment. : Plaintiffappealsandarguestheevidencepreponderatesagainsttheconclusionofthetrialcourt. &v Judgmentaffirmed. b 8   Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(1999)AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt : Affirmed  &     RogerE.Thayer,Sp.J.,#XM#XMX.deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichE.RileyAnderson,J.,and  WilliamH._Inman_,Sr.J.,joined.  HowardR.Dunbar,JohnsonCity,Tennessee,forappellant,JanetSimpson. r!  AlexandraS._Deas_ԀandJimmyD.Holbrook,Jr.,Knoxville,Tennessee,forappellee,DonaldsonCo., J#" Inc. 6$#   MEMORANDUMOPINION #XXM#XMX &^!%   #XXMD #XMX  Theemployee,JanetSimpson,hasappealedfromthetrialcourtsorderdismissingherclaim '6#' uponfindingherconditionand/orinjurywasnotcausedbyheremploymentactivity. ("$(   Facts *%*    Theemployee,afortysixyearoldassemblylineworker,beganworkingforDonaldsonCo., ,', Inc.onNovember9,1992.Atthetimeinquestion,herjobwastotakefiltersofftheassemblyline n-(-1 andputalabelonit.Thefiltersweighedfromseveralouncestoseveralpounds.Shesaidthework  _involvedstoopingandbendingandthatduringMarch2000herbackwashurtingsobadshehadto  stopworking.ShewasoffworkfromApril18,2000toJuly7,2000.    Ms.Simpsonhadsurgeryin1996foraherniateddiscandwasoffworkforaperiodoffive ` months.Shetestifiedthatherbackhadbotheredheronandoffforsomeperiodoftimepriorto L  March2000.WhensherequestedmedicalleaveinMarch2000,shecompletedaformandindicated 8  both yesand notoaquestionaskingwhetherherconditionwasworkrelated. $ t   Dr.RichardKind,achiropractor,testifiedhehadoriginallyseenMs.Simpsonin1994or  L  1995buthedidnothaverecordsavailableastohercomplaintsatthattime.Hesaidhenextsawher  8  onApril18,2000.Aftertakingahistoryandexaminingher,hewasoftheopinionthatshehad $  aggravatedherpreexistingconditionandthattheaggravationwasduetoherworkactivity.He   testifiedshehadapermanentinjuryandthatherimpairmentundertheAMAGuidelineswas26   percentbutheattributedonehalfoftheimpairmenttoherpreexistingcondition.     Dr.RichardDuncan,anorthopaedicsurgeon,testifiedbydepositionandindicatedhefirst p sawMs.SimpsononJanuary5,1995,whenshewassufferingfromaherniateddisc.InFebruary \ 1996,heperformedalaminectomywhichresultedinfusingthe4thand5thvertebrae.Dr.Duncan H continuedtoseeandtreatheruntilApril6,2001,whichwasoverayearafterherallegedwork 4 relatedinjury.Hestatedthatshenevertoldhimshehadbeeninjuredatworkandthattherewasno  p evidenceofanyanatomicalchangeinhercondition.Hesaidherpresentcomplaintsaboutherback  \ wasrelatedtodegenerativediscdiseaseatmultiplelevelsinherbackandshehadnotsustaineda H permanentinjuryasaresultofherworkactivityduringMarch2000. 4   Dr.NormanHankins,avocationalassessmentwitness,testifiedhewasoftheopinionthe   employeewas100percentvocationallydisabledbasedonthetestimonyandrestrictionsofDr.Kind.    WitnessStephanieMitchell,coworkerofplaintiff,testifiedherworkstationwasnexttoMs.  Simpsonandthatshecomplainedoftenaboutherbackhurting. l   WitnessNellieDavis,thehumanresourcemanagerfordefendant,testifiedshehiredthe D! employeeonNovember9,1992andthatpriortothetimeinquestion,Ms.Simpsonhadbeenoff 0"  workonmedicalleaveatvarioustimesduetoherbackproblems.ShestatedthatinMarch2000she #l! cametotheirofficeandadvisedthatsheneededsometimeoffasshehadhurtherbackandthatshe $X" hadliftedalotoffirewoodthenightbefore.Inawrittenrequestformedicalleave,sheanswered $D #  yesand notoaquestionastowhetherherconditionwasworkrelated.Ms.Davisstatedshe %0!$ calledherabouttheinconsistencyoftheanswerandwastoldthatshedidnotknowhowshehadhurt &"% herbackandthatshehadbeenliftingwoodthenightbefore.AreportwasobtainedfromDr. '#& Duncanindicatingthebackproblemwasduetodegenerativediscdiseaseandnotworkrelatedand (#' thentheclaimwasprocessedundershorttermhealthandaccidentinsurancebenefits. )$(   Thecircuitjudgewasfacedwithaconflictonthequestionofcausationofinjuryand_resolved h+&* theconflictbyacceptingthetestimonyofthetreatingorthopaedicdoctorovertheopinionofthe  treatingchiropractor.    StandardofReview t    Thereviewofthecaseisdenovoaccompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthe L  findingsofthetrialcourtunlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.CodeAnn. 8  506225(e)(2).Wherethetrialcourthasseenandheardwitnessesandissuesofcredibilityand $ t theweightoforaltestimonyisinvolved,thetrialcourtisusuallyinabetterpositiontojudge  ` credibilityandweighevidencebutwhereevidenceisintroducedbydeposition,theappellatecourt  L  isinthesamepositionasthetrialcourtinreviewingandweighingtestimony. Landersv.Firemans  8  FundIns. Co., 775S.W.2d355,356(Tenn.1989).  $    AnalysisofIssue     "  Theemployeecontendstheevidencepreponderatesagainsttheconclusionofthecourtthat   theclaimwasnotworkrelated.Whileitwouldappearthatboththechiropractorandorthopaedic p surgeonweretreatingexperts,thecourtchoosetoaccepttheopinionoftheorthopaedicdoctoron \ causationquestion.Inourexaminationoftherecord,wecannotsaytheevidencepreponderates H againstthisconclusion.Sinceweconcurinthedispositionofthecase,wedonotfinditnecessary 4 toaddressthequestionsraisedinregardtoanawardofpermanentdisability.  p   Conclusion H %  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsoftheappealaretaxedtotheplaintiff.        `     h     ___________________________________     `     h     ROGERE.THAYER,SPECIALJUDGE l   X  __XXM   @ #XMXݯ'#lXXMINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE & #XMXl(#XXM#XMX(# XXM  JANETSIMPSONv.DONALDSONCORPORATION#XMX)#  8 -)@'' FiledOctober12,2004  8 @*AV) ` dE< ` A߈  $ @No.E200302347SCWCMCV   AV) ` dE< ` A     XXM#XMX*#@& JUDGMENT XXM#XMXU+#Ԉ   XXM#XMXݴ+#XXM#XMX+#Xa XXXM   ` ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtuponmotionforreviewpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn. R  506225(e)(5)(B),theentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferraltotheSpecialWorkers' > CompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanel'sMemorandumOpinionsettingforthitsfindingsoffact *z andconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference; f    ` Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthatthemotionforreviewisnotwelltakenand R shouldbedeniedand >    ` Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanel'sfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaware * adoptedandaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgmentoftheCourt.       ` CostsonappealaretaxedtoJanetSimpson.     ` ITISSOORDEREDthis12THdayofOctober,2004.     `     h   PERCURIAM N Anderson,J.notparticipating. !b  #XMX XXa:,#   `     h     _