ÿWPC$ ># tUN %Í 0ûÓU:Î4 +1w@9 0?y 0D¸ ü U< Æ@ Æ ÆÌ Æ’ 0JX 0T¢ 0^ö 0hT 0r¼ AQ.Æ 0E 0@\ 0Dœ Bà D/ý 0|, B¨ D3Å 0†ø 0~ 1u 0dƒU>çU *%U*OB)yDC¢ AMåÔ2èÉîv~·vÓ5˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÓH=$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XÎ_XXXÔÑ7€¾úXXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularWX$'3|xH úDûDüDýeþDÿÓ€V îÓ€(ï(3iê$¤¤Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€X¨ˆXXXÔÑ7€4XXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(%Ã$òòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó.èB' Z‹$Arrus BT RomanLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô !"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ï3©ô$¢¢Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€X¨ˆXXXÔÑ7€4XXdìdì7ÑÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó d'''÷ÿ dxd2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔüÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxd2T 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< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d66667Border 1dd "7Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÊÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€4ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€4ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€4XÔÌÌò òMarchÏ30,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€4ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ÞÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€4ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€name€of€Baptist€Memorial€Health€Care€Systems€was€changed€toÏBaptist€Memorial€Health€Care€Corporations€after€the€accident€involved€in€this€suit.Ì ¿Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€4ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€4ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€4XÔÌÌò òMarchÏ30,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€4ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿáùEG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€3ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€4ÔÑ#€55Xd#ÑÑ#€55Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÙ€ ÙÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÑ À ÑÑ X Ñò ò›œßR€897A1-j|` 81 `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌÌÓ  Óó óÌà@ àò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€JACKSONó óÌÌÌÌÌÌPAMELA€D.€SMITH,à àà àà à)à àSHELBY€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àPlaintiff/Appellantà àà àà à)à àNO.€02S01„9611„CV„00099Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€KAY€S.€ROBILIO,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌHEALTH€TECH€AFFILIATES,€INC.à à)Ìd/b/a€MEMPHIS€PATHOLOGY€LAB,€à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appelleeà àà à)ÌÌòòò òÌÌóóó óÌÌò òòòFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€the€Appellee:ÌÌó óóóSteve€Taylorà àà àà àà àà àJames€L.€KirbyÌ6263€Poplar€Avenueà àà àà àHarris,€Shelton,€Dunlap€&€Cobb,€L.L.P.C.ÌSuite€601à àà àà àà àà àOne€Commerce€Square,€Suite€2700ÌMemphis,€TN€38119à àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103„2555òòò òÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÔ% € ÔÌÌÌMembers€of€Panel:ÌÌó óóóJustice€Janice€HolderÌSenior€Judge€John€K.€ByersÌJudge€Robert€L.€ChildersÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€IN€PART,à àà àà àà àà àà àBYERS,€Senior€JudgeÌREVERSED€IN€PART,ÌAND€REMANDEDÌÓÓÌà àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€SpecialÏWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€withÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€CourtÏof€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€Ìà àThe€plaintiff€filed€suit€on€February€10,€1995€and€alleged€she€had€sustainedÏan€injury€to€her€foot€when€a€portion€of€a€wall€fell€upon€her€as€she€was€working€forÏthe€€defendant.€€On€December€13,€1995,€the€plaintiff€amended€her€complaint€toÏallege€she€had€suffered€psychological€injury€as€a€result€of€the€accident.Ìà àOn€August€13,€1996,€the€trial€judge€entered€a€judgment€dismissing€theÏcomplaint.€€The€pertinent€portion€of€the€judgment€is€as€follows:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ H ÒÓÓAfter€duly€considering€the€testimony€and€the€evidence€and€considering€theÏcredibility€of€the€persons€who€testified,€the€court€finds€that€the€plaintiff€failed€toÏcarry€her€burden€of€proof;€that€the€alleged€psychiatric€or€psychologicalÏinjuries€were€not€caused€by€the€plaintiffððs€work€accident;€that€the€plaintiff€isÏnot€entitled€to€any€workersðð€compensation€benefits€for€her€alleged€psychiatricÏor€psychological€injuries;€that€with€regard€to€the€injury€to€her€foot€or€toeÏcaused€by€the€accident,€the€defendant€paid€all€the€plaintiffððs€medicalÏexpenses€to€which€the€plaintiff€was€entitled;€that€the€plaintiff€lost€time€fromÏwork€from€January€13,€1995€to€March€13,€1995€as€the€result€of€the€injury€toÏher€foot€and€she€was€paid€temporary€total€disability€benefits€at€the€rate€ofÏ$198.40€per€week€for€this€period€of€time;€that€the€plaintiff€was€paid€all€theÏtemporary€total€disability€benefits€to€which€she€was€entitled;€and€that€theÏplaintiff€is€not€entitled€to€any€additional€temporary€total€disability€or€otherÍworkersðð€compensation€benefits€as€the€result€of€the€accident€on€January€12,Ï1995.ÌÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÌÓÓà àThe€determination€of€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses€who€testified€before€theÏtrial€judge€was€solely€within€the€judgeððs€discretion.€€The€finding€of€the€credibility€ofÏthe€witnesses€is€not€reweighed€on€appeal.€€òòState,€ex€rel.€Balsinger€v.€Town€ofÏMadisonville,óó€435€S.W.2d€803€(Tenn.€1968).€€We€note,€however,€that€there€wereÏmany€inconsistencies€in€the€record,€both€in€oral€testimony,€in€deposition€testimony,Ïand€in€other€documents€filed,€showing€the€plaintiff€had€made€different€statements€atÏdifferent€times€concerning€the€accident.€€For€example,€she€stated€at€one€time€a€wallÏfell€upon€her€and€a€patient€leaving€them€covered€in€debris.€€At€another€time,€sheÏsaid€a€portion€of€the€wall€fell€upon€her.€€The€evidence€shows€a€piece€of€wood€whichÏwas€approximately€2€feet€long€and€6€inches€wide€fell€and€struck€her€toe.€€During€theÏtime€the€plaintiff€was€drawing€temporary€total€disability,€she€took€a€job€with€anotherÏcompany.€€The€plaintiffððs€deposition€was€taken€on€September€7,€1995,€and€sheÏtestified€then€that€she€had€not€worked€anywhere€since€her€accident.€€At€trial,€theÏplaintiff€admitted€working€while€she€drew€disability.€€The€plaintiff€testified€she€knewÏshe€could€not€work€but€that€she€needed€the€money.€Ìà àThe€medical€evidence€on€the€issue€of€a€psychological€disorder€as€a€result€ofÏthe€injury€is€practically€non„existent.€€The€experts€first€found€the€plaintiff€wasÏsuffering€psychological€disability€primarily€because€of€post„traumatic€syndromeÏbased€upon€the€catastrophic€nature€of€the€accident€„„€a€wall€falling€upon€her€asÏreported€by€the€plaintiff.€€When€these€people€were€apprised€of€the€nature€of€theÏaccident€and€the€fact€that€the€plaintiff€worked€while€claiming€to€be€unable€to€do€so,Ïall€of€them,€except€one,€revised€their€opinions€to€find€there€was€no€causalÍrelationship€between€the€accident€and€the€psychological€problems€suffered€by€theÏplaintiff.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€had€a€rather€tragic€life,€the€details€of€which€we€need€not€set€out.€ÏThe€one€expert€who€connected€the€accident€to€the€psychological€problem€was€Dr.ÏMelvin€Levitch€who€only€evaluated€the€plaintiff.€€When€Dr.€Levitch€found€the€historyÏgiven€to€him€by€the€plaintiff€was€false,€he€testified€his€original€opinion€of€theÏplaintiffððs€condition€was€wrong.€€Nevertheless,€he€was€of€the€opinion€the€accident,Ïwhen€considered€along€with€the€other€stressful€events€in€the€plaintiffððs€life,€was€theÏð ðlast€strawðð€and€precipitated€the€plaintiffððs€psychological€problems.Ìà àThe€evidence€in€the€case€does€not€preponderate€against€the€finding€by€theÏtrial€judge€that€the€plaintiff€had€failed€to€carry€her€burden€of€proof€of€showing€theÏaccident€caused€her€psychological€problems.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€says€the€trial€court€improperly€computed€her€average€weeklyÏwage€for€purposes€of€temporary€total€disability€because€only€the€wages€paid€her€byÏHealth€Tech€Affiliates,€Inc.€d/b/a€Memphis€Pathology€Lab€[ððHealth€Techðð]€wereÏincluded€in€reaching€her€average€weekly€wage.€€The€plaintiff€also€worked€for€BaptistÏMemorial€Hospital€at€the€time€of€the€injury€to€her€foot.€€The€hours€she€worked€atÏBaptist€Memorial€Hospital€were€listed€and€paid€as€overtime€hours.€€If€the€wages€hadÏbeen€included€as€a€part€of€the€plaintiffððs€average€weekly€wage,€she€would€haveÏbeen€entitled€to€$382.79€per€week€for€temporary€total€disability€rather€than€$198.40Ïper€week€as€ordered€by€the€trial€court.€€The€evidence€shows€the€plaintiff€worked€40Ïhours€for€the€defendant€and€extra€hours€at€Baptist€Memorial€Hospital.€€The€40€hoursÏworked€for€defendant€were€paid€as€regular€hours.€€The€hours€worked€at€BaptistÏMemorial€Hospital€were€paid€as€overtime€hours.Ìà àIt€appears€from€the€evidence€in€this€case€that€the€defendant€was€a€part€of€anÏoverall€corporate€operation€involved€in€the€health€care€business.€€As€we€view€theÏrecord,€Baptist€Memorial€Health€Care€Systems€[hereafter€ð ðSystemsðð]× ƒ: ××  ×€was€at€the€topÏof€a€corporate€structure€which€had€as€affiliates€Health€Tech€and€Baptist€MemorialÏHospital.€€Payroll€checks€were€written€by€Systems€to€pay€employees€who€worked€forÏthe€defendant€or€Baptist€Memorial€Hospital.€€There€was€an€accounting€entry€and€anÏaccounting€system€which€charged€the€employee€costs€back€to€the€defendant€orÏBaptist€Memorial€Hospital,€depending€upon€from€which€of€these€an€employee€hadÏearned€wages.Ìà àEmployees€who€worked€for€Health€Tech€or€for€Baptist€Memorial€HospitalÏwere€issued€payroll€checks€by€Systems.€€The€amount€an€employee€was€paid€wasÏcharged€by€Systems€to€either€Health€Tech€or€Baptist€Memorial€Hospital,€accordingÏto€where€the€wages€were€earned.€€In€the€case€of€the€plaintiff,€one€check€was€writtenÏto€her€by€Systems.€€Forty€hours€of€work€were€charged€back€to€Health€Tech€and€allÏovertime€hours€were€charged€to€Baptist€Memorial€Hospital.Ìà àThe€personnel€director€of€Health€Tech,€who€issues€payroll€checks,€testifiedÏthe€checks€were€written€by€Systems,€that€Systems€owns€Health€Tech€and€BaptistÏMemorial€Hospital,€and€that€only€one€check€is€issued€to€an€employee€for€work.€ÏWhen€asked€why€overtime€would€be€paid€if€there€were€three€companies,€theÏpersonnel€director€responded€ð ðWell,€theyððre€under€all€the€same€system.€€They€payÏovertime€for€anything€over€40€hours€in€the€whole€system.ððÌà àThe€senior€vice€president€of€Systems€testified€that€Systems€establishesÏpolicy,€general€guidance,€and€direction€for€the€œentities›€that€comprise€Systems.€€TheÍevidence€shows€Baptist€Memorial€Hospital€and€Health€Tech€were€affiliates€ofÏSystems€and€ð ðreported€upðð€to€Systems.€€If€an€employee€worked€in€either€of€theÏentities€and€wished€to€transfer€to€another€in€the€group,€no€application€forÏemployment€with€another€of€the€group€was€required.€€The€move€from€one€to€anotherÏone€of€the€group€was€done€by€corporate€transfer.€€Systems,€Baptist€MemorialÏHospital,€and€Health€Tech€are€separately€incorporated€and€have€separate€boards€ofÏdirectors.€€The€record€shows€that€Systems€appoints€to€board€of€directors€for€HealthÏTech.€€There€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€show€how€the€board€of€directors€for€BaptistÏMemorial€Hospital€is€selected.€€€Ìà àIt€is€our€view€that€the€structure€of€the€three€groups€in€this€case€indicates€for€allÏpractical€purposes€that€there€is€one€corporate€entity€for€our€purpose€in€computingÏplaintiffððs€average€weekly€wage.Ìà àIf€the€plaintiff€were€working€for€two€separate€employers€as€claimed€by€theÏdefendant,€it€is€inexplicable€why€the€hours€beyond€40€worked€each€week€would€beÏpaid€as€overtime€hours€by€Systems€and€charged€to€Baptist€Memorial€Hospital.€€If€theÏplaintiff€worked€for€two€different€employers,€there€would€be€no€overtime€hoursÏinvolved.€€Under€the€operation€revealed€in€the€record,€we€conclude€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€finding€that€the€defendant,€Systems,€and€BaptistÏMemorial€Hospital€were€separate€employers€for€purposes€of€computing€the€averageÏweekly€wage€of€the€plaintiff.€€òòSeeóó€òòStigall€v.€Wickes€Machinery,óó€801€S.W.2d€507Ï(Tenn.€1990).Ìà àWe€affirm€that€portion€of€the€judgment€finding€the€plaintiff€had€failed€to€showÏany€causation€between€the€industrial€accident€and€her€psychological€problems.€€WeÏreverse€that€portion€of€the€judgment€that€finds€the€plaintiffððs€average€weeklyÏcompensation€rate€is€$382.79€and€she€should€be€paid€at€that€rate€for€the€time€of€herÍtemporary€total€disability.€€In€all€other€matters,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt.Ìà àThis€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€entry€of€such€orders€as€areÏnecessary€to€carry€out€the€judgment.€€The€cost€of€the€appeal€is€taxed€to€theÏdefendant.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJanice€Holder,€Justiceò òòòÌÌó óóóÌ_______________________________ÌRobert€L.€Childers,€œJudgeÇÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€Ô›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÌPAMELA€D.€SMITH,à àà àà à)à àSHELBY€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€67754„5€BelowÌà àAppellant,à àà àà àà à)Ìœ›à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Kay€S.€RobilioÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJudge.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€à àNo.€€02S01„9611„CV„00099ÌHEALTH€TECH€AFFILIATES,€INC.,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌœßJ€8;;+'b|` ‚- `€@ÿJß›à àAppellee.à àà àà àà à)à àAFFIRMED€IN€PART,Ïà àà àœà àà à›à àà àà àà àà àREVERSED€INÏPART,€AND€à àà àà àœà à›à àà àà àà àREMANDED.ÌÌÌà@ àœòòJUDGMENT›€ORDERóóÌÌÓÓà àà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€motion€for€review€pursuantÏto€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(5)(B),€the€entire€record,€including€theÏorder€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€andÏthe€Panel's€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ìà àà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€reviewÏis€not€well„taken€and€should€be€denied;€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.€€ò òÌó óà àà àCosts€on€appeal€are€assessed€to€the€appellee.Ìà àà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€this€____€day€of€March,€1998.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌÌHolder,€J.€€€„€Not€participating.Ô€4Ô