ÿWPCÙ 9# .UN9 %‡ 0(w@µ4õ UD 0J\¦ 0T® 0^ 0h` 0rÈ 0|: 0†¶ 0<ÆÌÆ’ ÆX Æ AQä Æ5 0Dû 0@? 0D 1uà D/8 Bg B„ D3¡ 0dÔU>8U*vB) DCÉ AM Y)_v~ˆvÓ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ u v w¿x¿y¿zP{P|P}P~Pk`($dxd3|x~8§ÖhZŠ,Century-WP Regular2 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  ÔLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 !"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)'''÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd&&&&'ÿÿdxdP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d22227Border 1dd "3Cþÿ << Gÿÿ üÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€1XÔÌÌò òJanuary€15,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€1ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€1XÔÌÌò òJanuary€15,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€1ôÔAppellate€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€0ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÙ€ ÙÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€1Ô›œßR€453A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌÌÌÔ€Ôà@ àÔ€0ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ àSeptember€29,€1997ÌÌÌÌÌMICHAEL€A.€SMITH,à àà àà à)€MADISON€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)€NO.€49514Ìà àPlaintiff,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€Hon.€Joe€C.€Morris,€ChancellorÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌCONTINENTAL€œCASUALTYà à›à àà à)€NO.€02S01„9704„CH„00033ÌCOMPANY,à àà àà àœà à›à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant.à àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiffóó:à àà àà àà àœòòà àFor›€Defendantóó:ÌÌMr.€Thomas€K.€McAlexanderà àà àœà àMr.›€Kenneth€R.€Rudstrom€and€ÌHill€Borenà àà àà àà àà àMr.€Thomas€F.€PrestonÌ1269€N.€Highland€Ave.à àà àà àSpicer,€Flynn€and€RudstromÌJackson,€TN€38303à àà àà àœà à80›€Monroe€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌà@ àòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONóóÌÌà@ àÌÌÌÌà@ àòòMembers€of€Panelóó:ÌÌà@ àJANICE€M.€HOLDER,€JUSTICEÌà@ àHEWITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌà@ àCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÑ7€&AXXdìXXdì7ÑAFFIRMEDà àà àà àà àà àà àTOMLIN,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌÌÓÓà àThis€workersðð€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€WorkersððÏCompensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€FollowingÏa€bench€trial,€the€chancellor€below€found€that€there€was€no€proof€that€plaintiff€injured€hisÏback€during€the€course€and€scope€of€his€employment,€and€further€found€that€plaintiff€gaveÏœhis€employer›€no€notice€of€injury.€€On€appeal€plaintiff€has€raised€one€issue€for€ourÏconsideration:€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€preventing€plaintiff€from€offering€proof€as€toÏa€specific€injury€and€notice€of€injury€by€sustaining€an€objection€to€certain€testimony€ofÏplaintiff.€€In€addition,€defendant€presents€one€issue:€whether€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€the€chancellorððs€finding€that€plaintiff€did€not€sustain€a€work„related€injury.€€We€findÏno€error€and€affirm.Ìà àMichael€A.€Smith€(ð ðplaintiffðð)€was€employed€by€Kroger€Grocery€Company€fromÏ1978€through€March€1994.€€Specifically,€on€March€16,€1994,€plaintiff€worked€a€nine€hourÏshift€and€went€home.€€The€next€morning€he€awoke€with€extreme€pain€in€his€back.€€He€laterÏwent€to€the€emergency€room€of€the€hospital€in€Jackson€where€he€was€subsequentlyÏdiagnosed€as€having€osteoporosis€and€three€or€four€œpossible€compression›€fractures€of€theÏvertebrae€in€the€thoracic€spine.€€When€plaintiffððs€pain€did€not€clear€up,€his€treatingÏphysician€referred€him€to€Dr.€Genaro€Palmieri,€who€practicesò ò€ó óa€specialty€of€endocrinologyÏand€metabolic€bone€diseases€in€Memphis.€€The€subsequent€examination€of€plaintiff€by€Dr.ÏPalmieri€confirmed€that€he€indeed€had€the€disease€osteoporosis,€in€which€the€bones€becomeÏextremely€porous€and€more€easily€subject€to€fracture.€€X„rays€taken€by€Dr.€PalmieriððsÍradiologists€confirmed€the€fractures€at€T„4€and€T„7,€which€according€to€the€radiologistsÏwere€old€and€were€present€before€1987.€€Ìà àDuring€the€course€of€the€trial,€plaintiff€was€asked€upon€direct€examination€when€aÏdoctor€first€informed€him€of€a€connection€between€his€work€at€Kroger€and€his€backÏcondition.€€Defendantððs€objection€on€the€ground€of€hearsay€was€sustained€by€theÏchancellor.€€Subsequently,€the€chancellor€ruled€that€there€was€nothing€to€indicate€thatÏplaintiff€injured€his€back€during€the€course€and€scope€of€his€employment,€therefore€theÏinjury€was€not€compensable.€€The€chancellor€also€found€that€plaintiff€had€given€no€notice€toÏdefendant€of€his€injury€within€the€thirty€day€period€as€required€by€the€workersððÏœcompensation›€statutes.€€In€essence,€there€was€a€judgment€for€defendant.Ìà àOur€scope€of€review€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€in€the€trial€court,€whose€findings€ofÏfact€are€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness,€unless€we€find€that€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2)€(Supp.€1997).€€ThisÏtribunal€is€also€required€to€conduct€an€independent€examination€of€the€record€to€determineÏwhere€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€lies.€òòWingert€v.€Government€of€Sumner€Countyóó,Ï908€S.W.2d€921,€922€(Tenn.€1995).€ÌÓÓÌà@ àò òI.€The€Causation€Issue.ó óÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€òòOrman€v.€Williams€Sonoma,€Inc.óó,€803€S.W.2d€672,€676€(Tenn.€1991)€ourÏsupreme€court€considered€an€issue€such€as€this€in€this€fashion:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà àIt€is€well€established€that€an€injury€must€both€ððarise€out€ofðð€as€well€asÏbe€ððin€the€course€ofðð€employment€in€order€to€be€compensable€underÏworkersðð€compensation.€€The€phrase€ððin€the€course€ofðð€refers€to€time,€place,Ïand€circumstances,€and€ððarising€out€ofðð€refers€to€cause€or€origin.€.€.€.ÏœGenerally,›€an€injury€arises€out€of€and€is€in€the€course€and€scope€ofÏemployment€if€it€has€a€rational€connection€to€the€work€and€occurs€while€theÏemployee€is€engaged€in€the€duties€of€his€employment.€€Ìà8 àà àExcept€in€the€most€obvious,€simple€and€routine€cases,€the€claimantÏin€a€workersðð€compensation€action€must€establish€by€expert€medicalÏevidence€the€causal€relationship€alluded€to€above€between€the€claimed€injuryÍ(and€disability)€and€the€employment€activity.€€It€is€entirely€appropriate€for€aÏtrial€judge€to€predicate€an€award€on€medical€testimony€to€the€effect€that€aÏgiven€incident€ððcould€beðð€the€cause€of€the€plaintiffððs€injury,€when€he€alsoÏhas€before€him€lay€testimony€from€which€it€may€reasonably€be€inferred€thatÏthe€incident€was€in€fact€the€cause€of€the€injury.€(citations€omitted).ÌÌÌÓÓà àIt€is€undisputed€that€plaintiff€could€not€identify€any€specific€incident€or€traumaÏwhich€preceded€his€pain.€€In€addition€to€being€œtreated€by›€Dr.€Kelly€Ballard,€who€did€notÏtestify,€and€Dr.€Palmieri,€plaintiff€was€examined€by€Dr.€Richard€E.€Fishbein,€an€orthopedicÏsurgeon€of€Nashville,€and€by€Dr.€Robert€J.€Barnett,€a€well€known€orthopedic€surgeon€inÏJackson.€€Both€examinations€were€at€the€request€of€plaintiffððs€attorney€and€both€were€forÏthe€purpose€of€evaluation.€€Dr.€Fishbein€testified€unequivocally€that€the€œcompression„type›Ïfractures€in€plaintiffððs€spine€were€triggered€by€plaintiffððs€lifting€while€working€at€Kroger€onÏthe€day€before€he€awoke€with€pain€in€his€back.€€Dr.€Barnett€was€never€asked€to€œgive,›€norÏdid€he€state€any€opinion€as€to€the€cause€and€source€of€plaintiffððs€injury.Ìà àWhen€asked€whether€or€not€the€work€activities€of€plaintiff€prior€to€the€day€inÏquestion€triggered€plaintiffððs€fractures€or€refractures,€Dr.€Palmieri,€plaintiffððs€treatingÏphysician,€stated:€ð ðItððs€possible,€itððs€very€likely.ðð€€However,€on€cross„examination€Dr.ÏPalmieri€said:€ð ðThe€only€thing€we€know€is€that€this€man€developed€these€fractures€andÏthatððs€it.ððÌà àFurthermore,€on€cross„examination€of€Dr.€Palmieri€as€to€whether€there€was€anyÏdocumentation€that€he€had€been€lifting€anything€too€heavy,€Dr.€Palmieri€answered:€ð ð[W]eÏwere€much€more€concerned€for€the€fact€that€it€was€a€young€man€with€a€fracture€and€aÏhistory€of€Wilsonððs€Disease.€€That€was€big€flashing€medically.€€It€was€nothing€to€do€withÏthe€work€or€no€work€or€nothing.€€That€was€the€major€factor.ðð€€Dr.€Palmieri€also€testifiedÏthat€while€his€radiologists€were€of€the€opinion€that€the€fractures€were€old€and€predatedÏ1987,€œhe›€was€of€the€opinion€that€the€fractures€were€likely€new.€€Ìà àIn€addition€to€the€medical€proof€on€causation,€we€must€also€consider€the€testimonyÍand€actions€of€plaintiff.€€Plaintiff€admitted€that€when€he€went€to€the€emergency€room€onÏMarch€17,€1994,€as€well€when€he€was€later€examined€by€Dr.€Ballard€and€Dr.€Smith,€he€didÏnot€tell€either€doctor€that€he€had€suffered€a€work„related€injury.€€The€record€also€reflects€thatÏhe€did€not€at€any€time€seek€to€have€Kroger€treat€this€incident€as€a€work„related€injury.€€OnÏall€of€the€Requests€for€Leave€of€Absence€forms€that€plaintiff€œfilled›€out€he€checked€theÏspecific€box€that€stated€he€was€suffering€from€an€illness,€rather€than€from€an€injury.Ìà àWhen€faced€with€conflicting€medical€evidence,€the€trial€court€has€the€€discretion€toÏaccept€the€opinion€of€one€medical€expert€over€that€of€another.€òòJohnson€v.€Midwesco,€Inc.óó,Ï801€S.W.2d€804,€806€(Tenn.€1990).€€It€seems€clear€to€this€Panel€that€the€chancellor€reliedÏmore€upon€the€uncertainty€of€causation€as€stated€by€Dr.€Palmieri€and€the€lack€of€an€opinionÏas€to€causation€in€Dr.€Barnettððs€deposition,€than€upon€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Fishbein.€ÏInasmuch€as€all€of€the€medical€evidence€was€by€deposition,€ð ðthis€Court€is€œas€able›€to€weighÏthe€testimony€in€the€same€manner€as€the€trial€judge€and€may€determine€the€weight€to€beÏgiven€thereto.ðð€€òòCoffey€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€866€S.W.2d€516,€519€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€theÏopinion€of€this€œPanel,›€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€finding€of€theÏchancellor.€€We€resolve€this€issue€in€favor€of€defendant.ÌÓÓÌà@ àò òII.€The€Hearsay€Objection.ó óÌÌÌÓÓà àPlaintiff€contends€that€the€chancellor€erred€in€sustaining€defendantððs€hearsayÏobjection€on€a€question€posed€to€plaintiff€concerning€how€and€when€he€was€allegedly€toldÏof€a€connection€between€his€employment€at€Kroger€and€his€back€complaints.€€TheÏfollowing€is€an€excerpt€of€the€transcript€relative€to€this€issue:ÌÓÓÌà0 àà0 àQ.à0 àà0 àà0 àWhen€did„„when€did€the€doctor€first€tell€you€thereÏwas€a„„could€be€a€connection€between€your€work€atÏKroger„„Ìà0 àà0 àMr.€Rudstrom:à0 àObjection€to€the€leading€or€I€mean€to€the€hearsay.Ìà0 àà0 àThe€Court:à0 àà0 àOkay.€€Sustained.Ìà0 àà0 àMr.€McAlexander:à8 àYour€Honor,€just€by€way€ofÍresponding€to€the€objection.€€IÏthink€there€is€some€case€lawÏthat€itððs„„itððs€not€necessarilyÏhearsay€if€itððs€being€offeredÏfor€the„„not€necessarily€for€theÏtruth€of€the€matter,€but€hisÏ[sic]€under„„but€rather€theÏeffect€on€this€listener.€€I€thinkÏone€of€the€hearing€cases€thatÏcame€out€of€Conalco€here€inÏJackson€addressed€that€point.Ìà0 àà0 àMr.€Rudstrom:à0 àI„„I€donððt€know€anything€about€the€cases€at€all,€but€all€theÏdoctors€are€testifying;€so€I€just€donððt€feel€œthat€that›ððs€a€properÏquestion€to€ask€him€for€hearsay€information.Ìà0 àà0 àThe€Court:à0 àà0 àOkay.€€We€will€move€on.ÌÌÌÓÓFollowing€the€ruling€of€the€court€on€this€evidentiary€matter,€plaintiffððs€counsel€did€nothingÏto€preserve€this€testimony€for€its€consideration€by€this€œPanel›€on€appeal.€€Therefore,€whatÔ€ÔÏÔ€0Ôplaintiff€would€have€testified€to€in€response€to€his€counselððs€question€is€not€in€the€record.€ÏUnder€these€circumstances,€this€issue€becomes€moot€because€there€is€no€evidentiaryÏquestion€for€this€œPanel›€to€pass€on,€and€we€must€resolve€this€issue€in€favor€of€defendant.Ìà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€chancellor€is€affirmed€in€all€respects.€€Costs€inÏthis€cause€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€plaintiff,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessaryÔ€Ô.ÌÌÓÓÔ€0Ôà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€_____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€HEWITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.,€SENIOR€JUDGEÔ€ÔÌÔ€0ÔÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________________ÌJANICE€M.€HOLDER,€JUSTICE€ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________________ÌCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÔ€ÔœÇÑ ` ÑÔ€1Ôà@ àÔ€1¼ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÔ€1XÔÌÌÌÓ#` p…XÈôÐ X#ÓMICHAEL€A.€SMITH,à àà à)à àMADISON€CHANCERYÌÓ#` p` ÈôÐ X#Óà à)à àNO.€49514ÌÓ ` p` ¸ Èx‘X Óà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à à)à àÌÓ#` p` ¸ ÈôÐ X#Óà àà à)à àHon.€Joe€C.€Morris,Ìvs.à àà à)à àChancellorÌà àà à)ÌCONTINENTAL€CASUALTY€COMPANY,à à)à àNO.€02S01„9704„CH„00033ÌßJ€46;+'b|t¶` Å `€@ÿJßà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à à)à àAFFIRMED.ÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€1¼ÔJUDGMENT€ORDERÔ€1XÔÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌÓ` p`  ’XÓà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€theÏorder€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€theÏPanel's€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusionsÏof€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference.Ìà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€OpinionÏof€the€Panel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€isÏmade€the€judgment€of€the€Court.Ìà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€Appellant,€and€surety,€for€which€executionÏmay€issue€if€necessary.Ìà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€this€15th€day€of€January,€1998.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌ(Holder,€J.,€not€participating)ÌÌÌÌÔ€Ô›