ÿWPCì 1U:¾ %øþn­ 04»ïïw(ï4 0J+ 0Tu 0^É 0h' 0r 0| 0†} 0 1u“ 0dU6lB)¢ AQËÆ 0Dâ 0@& 0Df DCª D/í B B9 D3V AM‰ U*Ö   f ,o v~›vÓ<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiX#|x«<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiXÂxþ6X@É“8õ X@( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Ó îÓ€ À DÓ€ujý"( ^F2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó7Border 1dd(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd!#%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ÿÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌSeptember€12,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌSeptember€12,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ Ð ÒÙ€!ÙÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€*,%A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌÌCHARLES€H.€SMITH,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€Plaintiff/Appellant€€€€€€)€€No.€01S01„9610„CH„00207€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï)€€(No.€95„1625„II€below)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìv.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€DAVIDSON€CHANCERY,€PART€II€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï)€€ÌKINETIC€CONCEPTS,€INC.,€€€€€€€€€€)€€HON.€ELLEN€HOBBS€LYLE,€Ì€€€€€€€€Defendant/Appellee€€€€€€€)€€CHANCELLOR€€€€€€€€€Ìòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌAUGUST€C.€WINTER€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€D.€BRETT€BURROW€€€€€€€ÌTwo€Brentwood€Commons€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€BREWER,€KRAUSE,€BROOKS€&ÏMILLSÌSuite€150€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Suite€2600,€The€Tower€€€€€€€Ì750€Old€Hickory€Boulevard€€€€€€€€€€€611€Commerce€StreetÌBrentwood,€TN€37027€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Nashville,€TN€37203ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONóóÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àMEMBERS€OF€PANEL:ÌÌà@ àLYLE€REID,€ASSOCIATE€JUSTICE,€SUPREME€COURTÌ€€€à@ à€€€€WILLIAM€H.€INMAN,€SENIOR€JUDGE€€€€€€€Ìà@ àWILLIAM€S.€RUSSELL,€RETIRED€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€RUSSELL,€SP.€J.ÌÌÌÌÓÓÑ7€‚%XXdÈXXdÈ7Ñà àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€theÏSpecial€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€CourtÏin€accordance€with€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€50„6„225Ï(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€findingsÏof€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.Ìà@ àÌà àWe€have€carefully€reviewed€and€weighed€all€of€the€evidenceÏpresented€to€the€chancellor.€€The€employee€appellant€contendsÏthat€he€is€owed€temporary€total€and€temporary€partial€benefitsÏdenied€by€the€trial€judge,€and€that€the€award€of€24%€permanentÏpartial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole€is€too€low.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àOur€review€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,Ïaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€that€court'sÏfindings€of€fact,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€isÍotherwise.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€50„6„225€(e)(2).ÌÌà àWe€note€that€the€chancellor€made€and€filed€a€detailedÏfinding€of€facts,€all€of€which€are€supported€by€the€preponderanceÏof€the€evidence;€and€that€the€relevant€law€has€been€correctlyÏapplied€to€the€facts.€€Therefore,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÏis€affirmed.ÌÌà àThe€plaintiff€sustained€a€work€related€back€injury€on€AugustÏ5,€1994.€€He€is€35€years€old,€received€his€GED€in€1987,€and€had€aÏprior€work€history€involving€both€manual€labor€and€clerical€work.€ÏHe€possessed€skills€in€the€fields€of€advanced€electronics,Ïphysics€and€more€than€basic€math€skills.ÌÌà àWhen€injured€his€work€venue€was€the€Vanderbilt€UniversityÏMedical€Center.€€He€injured€his€back€while€attempting€to€move€anÏobese€patient.€€He€was€off€work€for€two€weeks,€attempted€toÏreturn€to€work,€and€determined€that€he€was€still€unable€to€do€theÏwork.ÌÌà àOn€September€6,€1994,€a€month€after€his€back€was€injured,€heÏchose€to€go€to€work€for€Lesher€Fire€Protection€as€a€salesman.€ÏHis€duties€involved€driving€around€in€a€truck€inspecting€andÏservicing€fire€extinguishers.€€His€initial€pay€rate€was€$350.00Ïper€week€during€training;€and€thereafter,€$200.00€per€week€plusÏcommissions.ÌÌà àOn€September€12,€1994,€he€was€offered€his€position€with€theÏdefendant€company€provided€that€he€obtained€a€release€from€hisÏdoctor€documenting€that€he€was€able€to€return€to€work.€€At€thisÏtime€he€was€already€working€for€Lesher€Fire€Protection€withoutÏany€physician€documented€restrictions.€€He€was€fired€by€Lesher€onÏOctober€17,€1994,€and€the€stated€reason€was€"he€was€not€matureÏenough€to€perform€his€job".ÌÌà àOn€December€19,€1994,€the€employee€was€evaluated€by€Dr.€M.ÏRobert€Weiss,€M.D.€€Dr.€Weiss€opined€that€the€plaintiff€shouldÏavoid€lifting€more€that€75€pounds€on€a€repetitive€basis,€andÏshould€avoid€repetitive€bending€or€stooping€or€maintenance€of€aÏsingle€posture€for€a€prolonged€period€of€time.ÌÌà àIn€January€of€1995€the€employer€offered€the€plaintiff€a€jobÏwith€lighter€duties,€but€he€refused€it€because€he€did€not€believeÏthat€he€would€be€able€to€do€it.€€He€never€tried€to€perform€theÏoffered€job,€or€pointed€out€to€the€employer€what€it€was€that€heÏcould€not€do.€€Plaintiff€simply€stated€that€there€was€nothing€atÏthe€defendant's€operation€that€he€could€do,€and€did€not€cite€anyÏphysician's€restriction€to€support€that€position.€€He€wasÏterminated€on€February€16,€1995,€because€he€had€not€returned€toÏwork.ÌÌà àMedical€evidence€was€that€the€plaintiff€sustained€a€lumbarÍdisc€herniation€at€L4„5.€€Dr.€David€Gaw,€M.D.,€assignedÏrestrictions€to€avoid€lifting€more€than€50€to€60€poundsÏoccasionally€or€25€pounds€frequently,€and€opined€that€he€had€aÏ10%€permanent€partial€anatomical€impairment€to€the€body€as€aÏwhole.ÌÌà àDr.€M.€Robert€Weiss,€M.D.,€characterized€plaintiff's€backÏinjury€as€a€small€disc€herniation€at€L4„5.€€He€found€no€trueÏradicular€symptoms.€€He€assigned€a€7%€permanent€partialÏimpairment€to€the€body€as€a€whole.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€considered€the€plaintiff's€impairmentÏratings,€present€employment€at€a€lower€paying€job,€his€skills€andÏabilities€to€hold€available€jobs,€and€judged€his€vocationalÏdisability€at€24%€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€We€hold€that€thisÏjudgment€is€supported€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€and€isÏin€accordance€with€the€guidelines€for€making€such€judgments,ÏòòHinson€v.€Wal„Mart€Stores,€Inc.óó,€654€S.W.€2d€675€(Tenn.€1983).ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€temporary€total€benefits,€the€plaintiff€hadÏbeen€paid€$5,955.60€at€the€rate€of€$294.40€a€week.€€The€courtÏheld€that€plaintiff€was€not€entitled€to€temporary€totalÏdisability€benefits€for€the€time€period€from€September€6,€1994Ïthrough€October€17,€1994,€because€he€was€working€for€Lesher€FireÏProtection€during€that€time;€and€that€the€commencement€of€hisÏwork€with€Lesher€established€the€date€that€he€was€able€to€returnÍto€work€and€all€temporary€total€disability€benefits€thereafterÏwere€not€owed.€€The€employer€was€given€a€credit€for€thoseÏoverpayments.ÌÌà àDuring€the€period€from€August€5,€1994,€through€September€1,Ï1994,€the€employer€paid€the€plaintiff€his€full€regular€pay.€€TheÏtrial€court€held€that€this€satisfied€the€obligation€of€theÏemployer,€because€to€award€temporary€total€disability€paymentsÏfor€that€time€would€trigger€the€result€"only€to€have€that€awardÏtaken€back€by€the€employer€as€an€overpayment"€and€was€a€uselessÏact.€€Plaintiff€contends€on€appeal€that€the€full€wage€paymentsÏwere€taken€back€by€withholding€plaintiff's€accrued€vacation€andÏleave€time.€€There€is€no€proof€concerning€the€actual€offset,€ifÏany,€which€took€place;€only€plaintiff's€statement€"they€also,Ïthrough€vacation€times€and€any€amount€of€time€I€had€piled€up,Ïthey€took€their€money€back€from€whatever€was€there€*€*€*€".€€ThisÏdoes€not€definitively€establish€the€actual€offset,€if€any.€€TheÏtrial€judge€did€not€err€in€disallowing€compensation€for€theÏperiod€of€time€for€which€the€employee€was€fully€paid.ÌÌà àThe€employee€insists€that€he€is€entitled€to€temporaryÏpartial€disability€benefits€for€the€time€that€he€worked€forÏLesher€Fire€Protection€and€thereafter,€because€his€rate€of€payÏwas€less€than€with€the€defendant€during€his€time€with€Lesher€andÏthat€he€had€not€reached€maximum€medical€improvement€thereafter.€ÏThe€flaw€in€this€contention€is€that€the€trial€court€held,€underÍthe€evidence,€that€the€plaintiff€was€working€for€Lesher€withoutÏany€restrictions€and€that€he€had€reached€maximum€medicalÏimprovement€at€that€time.€€That€finding€negates€subsequentÏeligibility€for€temporary€partial€disability€compensation.€€TheÏfactual€finding€of€the€trial€court€regarding€when€the€plaintiffÏreached€maximum€medical€improvement€is€supported€by€the€evidence.€ÏCertainly€he€never€fully€recovered,€and€that€is€the€basis€for€theÏ24%€permanent€partial€industrial€disability€to€the€body€as€aÏwhole.€€The€trial€court€logically€concluded€that€when€he€startedÏworking€for€Lesher€full„time€without€restrictions€that€he€hadÏreached€maximum€medical€improvement.€€He€was€not€on€light€duty.€€ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€stated,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€to€the€appellant.ÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÓÓóó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÏWILLIAM€S.€RUSSELL,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóLYLE€REID,€ASSOCIATE€JUSTICE€Ì€ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóWILLIAM€H.€INMAN,€SENIOR€JUDGE€€€€Ñ€-ÑÇÒ  ÒÒ £ ÒòòÔ€¼ÔßJ€*.;+'b|ûÿ¡` ç `€@ÿJßà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÔ€XÔÌÌCHARLES€H.€SMITH,à àà àà à}à àDAVIDSON€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à}à àNo.€95„1625„II€BelowÌà àPlaintiff/Appellantà àà à}Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à}à àHon.€Ellen€Hobbs€Lyle,Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à}à àChancellorÌà àà àà àà àà àà à}ÌKINETIC€CONCEPTS,€INC.,à àà à}à àNo.€01S01„9610„CH„00207Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à}Ìà àDefendant/Appelleeà àà à}à àAFFIRMED.ÌÌÌà@ àJUDGMENT€ORDERÌÌÌÓ€Óà àà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,Ïincluding€the€order€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'ÏCompensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel's€Memorandum€OpinionÏsetting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€whichÏare€incorporated€herein€by€reference.Ìà àà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€MemorandumÏOpinion€of€the€Panel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌà àà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€ofÏfact€and€conclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€theÏdecision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€judgment€of€the€Court.ÌÓ ` ` šXÓà àà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€Plaintiff/Appellant€and€Surety,Ïfor€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÓÓà àà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€on€September€12,€1997.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌóóÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ€Ìà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ