ÿWPCÖ 1# ¾UNÉ % 0(w@E4…™¨° 0J° 0Tú 0^N 0h¬ 0r 0|† 0† 0ˆ 1u 0dU>ñ AQ/ Æ€ 0DF 0@Š 0DÊ B) D/7 Bf Bƒ D3  DCÓ AM U*c ü ü‰ v~…vÓ˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ l,UmTnEop/Ó€z)D{V|î}Ó€‡•{:$i3|x‡2 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`(&Times New Roman!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó% Line 7 d(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd%%%%7Border 1dd!#*Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial òÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€,XÔÌÌJanuary€30,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó òÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€,XÔÌÌJanuary€30,€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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÙ€!ÙÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€+-*A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌNATHAN€WAYNE€SMITH,à àà à€à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àPlaintiff/Appellantà àà àà à)€€€€GILES€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€No.€œ01„S„0l›„9703„CV„00077Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌœMAREMONT›€CORPORATION,à àà àà à)€€€€HONORABLE€JIM€HAMILTONÌà àà àà àà à€ó óà àà àà àò ò)€€€€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àDefendant/Appelleeà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantà àà àà àà àà àà àFor€the€AppelleeÌÌóóó óMark€œFishburn›à àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€HenryÌ100€Thompson€Laneà àà àà àà àà àà à119€South€First€StreetÌNashville,€Tennessee€œ372ll›à àà àà àà àà àœPulaski›,€Tennessee€38478€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONóóó óÌÌà@ àò òòòMembers€of€Panel:ÌÌà@ àóóJustice€œAdolpho›€Birch,€Jr.Ìà@ àSenior€Judge€John€K.€ByersÌà@ àSpecial€Judge€Hamilton€œGayden›ÌÌÌó óÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€REMANDED€IN€PARTà àà àà àHamilton€œGayden›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSpecial€Judgeó ó€€€€€Ì€€€€This€Workersðð€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€ÌÌAppeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.ðð€50„6„225(e)€(3)€for€ÌÌhearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.Ì€ÌÌ€€€€The€Plaintiff€filed€this€lawsuit€alleging€that€he€has€suffered€permanent€partial€disability€as€a€ÌÌresult€of€an€accident€in€the€course€and€scope€of€his€employment€with€the€Defendant.€€The€matter€ÌÌwas€heard€by€the€trial€court€on€May€œ10,€1993.›€€The€court€awarded€plaintiff€25%€permanent€partial€ÌÌimpairment€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€The€trial€court€also€awarded€benefits€paid€in€a€lump€sum.ÌÌÌ€€€€€Within€30€days€from€the€œjudgment›€of€the€trial€court€the€plaintiff€filed€a€motion€to€alter€or€ÌÌamend€the€œjudgment;›€the€substance€of€plaintiffððs€motion€to€alter€and€amend€was€that€the€court€ÌÌshould€have€awarded€a€greater€percentage€of€permanent€partial€impairment€based€on€the€proof.€€ÌÌLater,€in€œl995›€the€motion€to€amend€and€alter€the€œjudgment›€was€amended€to€contain€allegations€ÌÌof€newly€discovered€evidence;€this€new€allegation€was€based€on€alleged€new€discovery€of€a€ÌÌcervical€problem,€a€slipped€disc;€plaintiff€alleged€that€this€new€injury€related€back€to€the€original€ÌÌlumbar€back€injury.€€The€trial€Judge€heard€the€motion€to€amend€and€the€later€filed€€amended€ÌÌmotion€alleging€newly€discovered€evidence.€The€motion€was€denied€in€October,€1996.€The€court€ÌÌruled€that€T.C.A.ðð€50„6„231€provides€that€lump€sum€payments€are€final€and€dismissed€plaintiffððs€ÌÌmotion.ÌÌÌ€€€€€This€appeal€presents€two€issues:€(1)€Whether€the€court€erred€in€awarding€25%€permanent€ÌÌpartial€disability,€and€(2)€Whether€the€court€erred€in€not€granting€plaintiffððs€motion€for€a€hearing€ÌÌbased€upon€newly€discovered€evidence.€ÌÌÌ€€€€€The€panel€affirms€the€trial€court€on€both€issues.€However,€the€Panel€remands€the€question€of€ÌÌwhether€the€newly€discovered€cervical€disc€problem,€that€led€to€a€subsequent€cervical€surgery€ÌÌwhich€is€the€focal€point€of€the€motion€to€alter€and€to€amend,€relates€back€to€the€original€lumbar€ÌÌback€injury€which,€in€turn,€would€render€the€defendant€liable€for€medical€expenses.ÌÌÌ€€€€€The€proof€discloses€that€Mr.€Smith,€the€plaintiff,€at€the€time€of€the€trial€was€51€years€old,€and€ÌÌpossessed€a€high€school€education.€€He€has€a€variety€of€job€skills€including€previous€employment€ÌÌas€a€carpenter,€employment€with€a€termite€company,€electrical€and€other€diverse€jobs.€€At€the€ÌÌœà@ à2Ìtime›€of€the€injury€involved€in€this€lawsuit€he€was€employed€with€œMaremont›€having€worked€there€œÌÌfrom›€June,€1967€to€October,€1988.€The€plaintiff€has€been€unemployed€since€1988.ÌÌÌ€€€€€In€December€1987,€the€plaintiff€injured€his€back€while€lifting€a€basket€of€tubes.€€Plaintiff€ÌÌcontinued€to€work€at€œMaremont›€but€ultimately€had€to€quit€because€he€could€no€longer€do€his€job.€€€ÌÌ€€€€€The€record€establishes€that€the€plaintiff€has€undergone€multiple€surgeries.€The€first€surgery€ÌÌwas€in€October€1988;€this€back€surgery€involved€the€€L.„5.€€After€this€surgery€plaintiff€attempted€ÌÌto€return€to€work€on€two€different€occasions€but€was€refused€by€the€employer,€œMaremont›€due€to€ÌÌcontinuing€problems€with€his€back.€€€Plaintiff€subsequently€underwent€a€second€operation€in€ÌÌAugust€1990,€a€fusion€of€the€L.„5,€œL5›„œS1›€vertebrae.€Screws€used€to€fuse€the€vertebrae€were€ÌÌrejected€by€the€plaintiffððs€body€and€a€third€operation€was€performed€to€remove€the€screws.€€At€ÌÌthis€point,€showing€no€improvement,€plaintiff€was€referred€to€Dr.€David€œMcCord›.ÌÌÌ€€€€€Dr.€œMcCord›€performed€another€surgery,€the€fourth,€involving€a€fusion€of€L.„œS1›.€€Dr.€œMcCord›€ÌÌgave€two€depositions€in€this€case,€one€deposition€was€given€for€the€original€hearing€in€1993€and€a€ÌÌsecond€relevant€to€the€motion€to€alter€and€amend,€based€on€the€allegation€of€€newly€discovered€ÌÌevidence€heard€in€1996.ÌÌÌ€€€€€In€the€first€deposition,€Dr.€œMcCord›€opined€the€fourth€surgery€was€successful.€Plaintiff,€ÌÌhowever,€was€not€released€to€return€to€work€until€Dr.€œMcCord›€received€a€final€assessment€and€ÌÌevaluation€from€œTheracare›€Rehab€Center.ÌÌÌ€€€€€In€turn,€experts€at€œTheracare›€Rehab€€opined€the€plaintiff€was€not€giving€his€maximum€effort€ÌÌdue€to€symptom€magnification.ÌÌÌ€€€€€Based€on€the€report€of€the€Rehab€center€and€his€own€evaluation€of€the€case,€€Dr.€œMcCord›€ÌÌreleased€the€plaintiff€with€a€30€lb.€weight€lifting€limitation€and€gave€him€an€11%€impairment€to€ÌÌthe€body€as€a€whole.€ÌÌÌ€€€€€The€court€awarded€25%€permanent€partial€disability€after€the€May€1993€trial.ÌÌÌ€€€€€The€plaintiff€contends€the€proof€did€not€justify€the€low€award€of€25%€and€that€it€should€have€ÌÌœà@ à3ÌÌbeen›€much€higher.ÌÌÌ€€€€€The€panel€addresses€the€first€issue€of€whether€the€court€erred€in€awarding€25%€permanent€œÌÌpartial›€impairment.€€€€€€ÌÌÌ€€€€€Defendant€contends€the€record€is€replete€with€contradictions€relating€to€plaintiffððs€credibility€ÌÌin€general.€€€As€an€example,€the€plaintiff€testified€that€the€professionals€at€the€œTherecare›€Rehab€ÌÌClinic€simply€lied€about€the€findings€he€was€magnifying€his€symptoms,€was€not€making€his€best€ÌÌeffort,€evidenced€€pathological€irrelevance€and€other€contra€findings.€€ÌÌÌ€€€€€At€one€point€during€the€trial€the€plaintiff€having€testified€that€he€could€no€longer€do€many€of€ÌÌthe€things€he€did€before,€such€as€coaching€athletic€teams;€the€plaintiff€was€confronted€with€a€local€ÌÌnewspaper€photo€depicting€plaintiff€as€a€coach€of€an€adult€league€softball€team„plaintiff€and€he,€ÌÌthe€plaintiff,€then€maintained€it€was€the€only€time€he€did€this€activity€after€the€injury.€There€are€ÌÌseveral€other€examples€of€€questionable€testimony,€exaggeration,€hyperbole,€and€contradictionsÌÌby€the€plaintiff.ÌÌÌ€€€€€ð ðFindings€of€a€Trial€Court€based€upon€determination€of€credibility€are€entitled€to€great€weight,€ÌÌand€a€œjudgment›€based€upon€such€findings€will€not€be€reversed€unless€the€record€contains€clear,€ÌÌconcrete,€and€convincing€evidence...ðð€òòœGalbreath›€v.€Harrisóó,€811€œSW2nd›€88€(Tenn.€œApp›.€1990).€€ÌÌBased€on€the€entire€record€the€panel€is€of€the€opinion€the€trial€judge€did€not€commit€error€in€ÌÌawarding€25%€permanent€partial€impairment.ÌÌÌ€€€€€Turning€to€the€second€issue:€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€granting€a€hearing€for€newly€ÌÌdiscovered€evidence.€€The€trial€court€denied€plaintiffððs€motion€for€the€newly€discovered€evidence€ÌÌbased€on€T.C.A.ðð€50„6„231€which€reads€in€part:€ð ðAll€amounts€paid€by€employer€and€received€by€ÌÌthe€employee€or€the€employeeððs€dependents,€by€lump€sum€payments,€shall€be€final....ðð€€Plaintiff€ÌÌmaintains€that€the€amended€motion€to€alter€and€amend,€alleging€newly€discovered€evidence,€was€ÌÌtimely€filed€as€the€previously€filed€motion€to€alter€or€amend€was€timely€filed€within€30€days€from€ÌÌthe€original€œjudgment.›ÌÌÌ€€€€€€€The€panel€does€not€address€this€issue€as€it€affirms€the€trial€judge€on€another€ground:€The€ÌÌœà@ à4ÌÌevidence›€of€the€subsequent€cervical€problem€was€reasonably€available€prior€to€the€original€ÌÌhearing.€ÌÌÌœ›€€€€€The€motion€to€alter€and€to€amend,€and€the€amendment€to€it,€languished€in€the€trial€court€for€an€ÌÌinordinate€period€of€time.€Meanwhile,€Dr.€œMcCord›ððs€second€deposition€was€taken€in€July,€1996.€€ÌÌIn€that€deposition€€Dr.€œMcCord›€testified€that€he€€first€opined€that€the€problems€with€plaintiffððs€ÌÌneck€was€degenerative€in€nature;€however,€a€later€consultation€with€a€neurologist,€Dr.€John€ÌÌCamp,€and€€an€additional€review€of€diagnostic€studies€indicated€that€plaintiff€had€a€ruptured€disc€ÌÌat€œC5›„6.€ÌÌÌ€€€€€Dr.€œMcCord›€also€testified€in€his€deposition€that€the€neck€(cervical)€problem€was€present€in€ÌÌ1989,€referring€to€another€physicianððs€record,€a€Dr.€œWilborn›,€which€documented€a€mall€disc€ÌÌprotrusion€at€C.„6.ÌÌÌ€€€€€€After€the€original€œl993›€hearing,€another€surgery€was€performed€to€remove€the€cervical€disc€ÌÌand€fuse€the€spine.€This€latter€operation€was€successful.ÌÌÌ€€€€€After€the€cervical€surgery,€Dr.€œMcCord›€assessed€an€additional€9%€impairment€to€the€body€as€a€ÌÌwhole,€in€addition€to€the€previously€assessed€11%€for€the€back€impairment.€Dr.€œMcCord›€testified€ÌÌthat€the€cervical€neck€injury€possibly€related€back€to€the€original€lumbar€injury.€ÌÌÌ€€€€€Defendant€argues€that€the€neck€problem,€even€if€connected€to€the€original€injury,€was€not€ÌÌnewly€discovered€evidence.€€The€panel€agrees€with€the€defendant€on€this€issue.ÌÌÌ€€€€€If€a€party€omits€to€€prove€evidence€with€ordinary€diligence€in€the€first€trial,€a€motion€for€a€new€ÌÌtrial€for€the€purpose€of€introducing€such€testimony€shall€be€denied€.òòœSeay›€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€ÌÌ654€œSW2nd›€397€(œCt.App›.€1983).ÌÌÌ€€€€€The€other€side€of€this€argument,€however,€is€highlighted€by€the€defendantððs€contention€that€he€ÌÌcervical€injury€was€known€before€the€May€1993€trial.€The€question€of€whether€the€slipped€disc€ÌÌfrom€the€cervical€injury€was€related€to€the€original€€lumbar€injury€was€not€answered€by€the€court€ÌÌbelow.€€Thus,€the€panel€remands€the€question€of€continuing€medical€coverage€of€the€cervical€ÌÌinjury€and€the€included€issue€of€causation€to€the€trial€court€for€further€determination€on€the€ÌÌœà@ à5Ìmerits.›€However,€the€original€adjudication€of€25%€permanent€partial€disability€is€affirmed,€ÌÌœdistinguished›€from€continuing€medical€expenses€if€proved€to€be€casually€related.Ì€€€€ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________à àà àà àà àà àà àà àHamilton€V.€œGayden›,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:Ì__________________________________ÌœAdolpho›€A.€Birch,€JusticeÌÌ__________________________________ÌJohn€Byers,€Senior€Judge€€€€œÌÌÌÇÒ  ÒÒ £ ÒòòÔ€¼Ôà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌßJ€+.;+'b|ÿÿ ` ç `€@ÿJßÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌNATHAN€WAYNE€SMITH,à àà à}à àGILES€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à}à àNo.€3082€BelowÌà àPlaintiff/Appellantà àà àà à}Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à}à àHon.€Jim€Hamilton,€Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à}à àJudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à}ÌMAREMONT€CORPORATION,à à}à àNo.€01S01„9703„CV„00077Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à}Ìà àDefendant/Appelleeà àà à}à àAFFIRMED€IN€PART,ÏREMANDEDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àIN€PART.ÌÌà@ àJUDGMENT€ORDERÌÌÌÓ€Óà àà 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 àà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€OpinionÏof€the€Panel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌà àà 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.ÌÓ ` ` šXÓà àà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€Plaintiff/Appellant,€Nathan€Wayne€Smith,€andÏSurety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÓÓà àà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€on€January€30,€1998.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌóóÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ€XÔ›