ÿWPCF' ¹U0B. %p U .v r¤ 0 £ n¯³ 0rbÔw@Ô4( 0J( 0Tr 0^Æ 0h$ 0rŒ 0|þ 0†z 0 1u 0diB)‚ B«DCÈ AM +Xfƒ D3é.U6J 0@€v~ÀvÓ> D+$ AO<$Æ‹$ 0DQ% D/•% BÄ% AYá%Æ:& 0F'ô\  `*Times New RomanTTô"ÝÆÿA€ArialTT'    0 .   (e2zN$©©Ý ƒ ß!ÝÔ€XÜXôôÔÔ€XhXXXÜÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý3|x¹«ô\  `*Times New RomanTTôôCô\  PŽ6QôP"ÝÆÿA€ArialTTomanTTXXaÝÆÿptQXpô\  `*Times New RomanTT¼¼^ô\  PŽ6Q¼Pô\  `*Times New RomanTT,,)ô\  PŽ6Q,Pô\  `*Times New RomanTT6ô\  PŽ6QPô\  `*Times New RomanTT  kô\  PŽ6Q Pô\  `*Times New RomanTTXXPô\  PŽ6QXP(Jß$¡¡Ô€XÜXôôÔÔ€XhXXXÜÔÓ  Ó ¥¦§¨©ª«¬­Ó€¹Ó€­M³$a  #<4€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 Ý ƒ !ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ 8 ÒÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ@  ÔÚ  ÚÚ  ÚÔA  ÔÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓ% Line 7 d d$$$$7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ !Ý ƒ !ÝÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òAugust€10,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ%%%%'ÿÿdxd $Ý ƒ !ÝÓ ÓÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òAugust€10,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó< Œ 9p`(Courier New("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò'ÈÈÈÈdxd€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd·-¸:Müÿ << deUU…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(n$––ò ò(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)ó óÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÔ€XÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ 8 ÒÖ€#ÖÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ&  ÔÔ€¼ÔÔ€ÔÞ ÞÌIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÙ€€ÙßR€'(&A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß(May€6,€1998€Session)ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓDONNA€LEE€STEPHENS,€Individually,€)Ìand€JESSICA€NICOLE€PROCTOR€€€€Ô€,Ô€Ô€¼Ô€€€€€)Ì(STEPHENS),€ERIC€JUSTIN€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€ôÔ€Ô€¼Ô€€€€)ÌSTEPHENS,€and€JOSEPH€IAN€€€€€€€€Ô€,Ô€Ô€¼Ô€€€€€€€)ÌSTEPHENS,€b/n/f€Donna€Lee€Stephens,€€Ô€ôÔ€Ô€¼Ô)€€€€€HAMILTON€CHANCERYÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€,Ô€Ô€¼Ô€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiffs„Appellants,€€€€€Ô€Ô€Ô€¼Ô€€)€€€€€Hon.€Howell€N.€Peoples,Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€Ô€Ô€¼Ô€€€€€€)€€€€€Chancellor.Ìv.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€ôÔ€Ô€¼Ô€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€Ô€Ô€¼Ô€€€€€)€€€€€No.€03SO1„9707„CH„00091ÌR.€C.€LEAMON€and€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€ Ô€Ô€¼Ô€€€€€€€)ÌCONDITIONAIRE€COMPANY,€INC.,€€Ô€XÔ€Ô€¼Ô€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€Ô€Ô€¼Ô€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Defendants„Appellees.€€€€Ô€Ô€Ô€¼Ô€€€€)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellantsóó:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òòFor€Appellee,€R.€C.€Leamonóó:ÌÌJohn€W.€Johnson,€III€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Glenn€R.€CopelandÌHatcher,€Johnson€&€Meaney€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€,Ô€Ô€¼Ô€€Copeland€&€WhittenburgÌChattanooga,€Tennessee€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Chattanooga,€TennesseeÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òòFor€Appellee,€Conditionaire€Company,ÏInc.óó:ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€William€A.€LockettÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Cleary€&€LockettÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Chattanooga,€TennesseeÌÌÌÔ'  ÔÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓòòM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌòòMembers€of€Panelóó:ÌÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€Special€Justice,€Supreme€CourtÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓÌÌÓ  ÓAFFIRMED€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Loser,ÏJudgeÓ {ÀÓÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONóóÓ ö€ÓÌÓ €ÓÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓÓ€Óà àà àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€theÏSpecial€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€inÏaccordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€andÏreporting€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€In€this€claim€for€deathÏbenefits,€the€claimants€contend€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trialÏcourt's€findings€that€the€decedent€was€an€independent€contractor€and€that€theÏdefendant,€Leamon,€was€not€a€statutory€employer.Ìà àà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€the€chancellor€made€the€followingÏfindings€and€conclusions:Ó ÓÌà0 àà àà à"The€issue€in€this€case€is€whether€Mr.€Stephens,€Mr.ÏRaymond€Stephens,€was€an€employee€or€independent€contractor.€€InÏresolving€that€issue,€the€Court€has€placed€primary€reliance€upon€theÏtestimony€of€Kim€Ray,€Leon€Evans€and€William€Levon€Stephens,Ïbecause€those€are€the€witnesses€who€were€most€intimately€involved€inÏthe€work€that€was€performed€by€Raymond€Stephens.Ìà0 àà àà à"It's€undisputed,€based€on€the€testimony€of€these€witnessesÍthat€Mr.€Raymond€Stephens€did€perform€services€for€ConditionaireÏCompany.€€In€particular,€he€installed€duct€work€for€heating€and€airÏsystems.€€He€would€perform€that€work€in€accordance€with€plans€andÏspecifications€that€were€provided€by€Conditionaire.Ìà0 àà àà à"He€was€not€directly€supervised€in€the€performance€of€hisÏwork.€€There€was€no€one€on€a€daily€basis,€or€even€an€hourly€basis,Ïwho€reviewed€his€work€or€the€method€in€which€he€did€his€work.€€TheÏwork€that€he€did€was€reviewed€from€time€to€time€and,€uponÏcompletion€of€the€assigned€work,€was€reviewed€by€Mr.€Kim€Ray€andÏby€Mr.€Leon€Evans€on€behalf€of€Conditionaire.€€The€purpose€of€thatÏreview€was€to€ensure€that€the€work€complied€with€the€plans€andÏspecifications€and€with€the€applicable€codes.Ìà0 àà àà à"Mr.€Stephens€was€at€times€provided€with€time€framesÏwithin€which€the€work€was€to€be€done,€but€he€was€not€given€a€specificÏtime€to€report€to€work€each€day€and€a€specific€time€to€terminate€workÏeach€day.€€He€was€not€directed€as€to€when€he€could€eat€or€when€heÏcould€take€breaks.€€Primarily,€he€provided€his€own€tools;€however€heÏdid€from€time€to€time€use€ladders€and€a€vacuum€cleaner€that€wereÏprovided€by€Conditionaire.Ìà0 àà àà à"He€provided€his€own€transportation€to€and€from€workÏthat€was€to€be€performed.€€He€did€on€at€least€one€occasion€take€onÏwork€from€another€company.€€The€testimony€was€that€he€went€to€seeÏMr.€Ray€and€told€Mr.€Ray€that€he€had€an€opportunity€to€performÏanother€job€for€Southern€Mechanical€at€the€Cracker€BarrelÏRestaurant,€if€Mr.€Ray€didn't€have€work€for€him€to€do€at€that€time;Ïand€he€in€fact€did€take€on€that€other€job.Ìà0 àà àà à"It€is€apparent€from€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Ray€that€Mr.ÍStephens€at€all€times€wanted€to€maintain€a€good€relationship€withÏConditionaire€and€he€did€not€want€to€do€anything€that€wouldÏjeopardize€his€ability€to€do€work€for€Conditionaire.Ìà0 àà àà à"The€evidence€also€establishes€that€Raymond€StephensÏfrom€time€to€time€employed€others€to€assist€him.€€One€of€those€was€hisÏbrother,€William€Levon€Stephens.€€He€also€employed€another€man€toÏassist€him€on€at€least€one€occasion.Ìà0 àà àà à"The€Court€is€directed€by€statute€and€by€case€law€toÏconsider€seven€factors€in€determining€whether€or€not€there€is€anÏindependent€contractor€relationship€or€an€employee/employerÏrelationship.Ìà0 àà àà à"The€first€factor€is€the€right€to€control€the€conduct€of€theÏwork.€€With€regard€to€that€factor€it's€pretty€clear€that€Mr.€StephensÏhad€the€right€to€control€the€conduct€of€the€work.€€The€only€controlÏexercised€by€Conditionaire€was€over€the€final€product.Ìà0 àà àà à"The€second€factor€is€the€right€of€termination.€ÏConditionaire€could€terminate€Mr.€Stephens€at€any€time€because€heÏwas€paid€on€a€per€run€basis.€€He€was€not€hired€to€perform€a€specificÏjob€to€completion€of€that€particular€job.€€He€billed€by€and€was€paid€byÏthe€number€of€runs€he€completed.Ìà0 àà àà à"The€third€factor€is€the€method€of€payment.€€And€theÏCourt€noted€he€was€not€paid€by€the€hour.€€He€was€paid€by€the€run.Ìà0 àà àà à"The€fourth€factor€is€the€freedom€to€select€and€hireÏhelpers.€€In€this€regard€Mr.€Stephens€was€apparently€free€to€select€andÏhire€helpers.€€The€only€control€that€Conditionaire€had,€as€the€CourtÏhas€noted,€was€over€the€final€product.Ìà0 àà àà à"The€fifth€factor€is€furnishing€of€tools€and€equipment.€ÍPrimarily,€Mr.€Stephens€furnished€his€own€tools€and€equipment,€butÏin€two€instances€Conditionaire€furnished€equipment:€the€ladder€and€theÏvacuum€cleaner.€€On€one€other€occasion,€Mr.€Stephens€did€someÏfabrication€work€in€the€plant€of€Conditionaire€in€doing€that€work.Ìà0 àà àà à"The€sixth€factor€is€the€self„scheduling€of€work€hours.€ÏAnd€here€we€see€that€Mr.€Stephens,€within€certain€parameters,€wasÏable€to€self„schedule€his€work€hours.Ìà0 àà àà à"The€seventh€factor€is€being€free€to€render€services€toÏother€entities.€€And€there€is€evidence€that€he€was€free€to€renderÏservice€to€other€entities€as€long€as€it€did€not€interfere€with€theÏcompletion€of€the€work€he€had€been€assigned€by€Conditionaire,€withinÏthe€time€parameters€that€were€assigned.Ìà0 àà àà à"In€the€case€of€òòLindsey€vs.€Smith€and€Johnsonóó,€found€atÏ601€€S.W.2d€€923,€the€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee€points€out€thatÏmerely€checking€the€end€results€of€the€performance€of€work€does€notÏestablish€an€employer/employee€relationship.Ìà0 àà àà à"In€this€case€there€are€evidentiary€matters€that€wouldÏindicate€at€some€points€that€Mr.€Stephens€was€an€employee.€€There€areÏcertainly€elements€of€evidence€that€indicate€on€other€factors€that€heÏwas€not€an€employee.€€The€factors€are€given€no€particular€weight,€andÏthe€Court€is€to€look€at€the€factors€in€light€of€all€the€circumstances€ofÏany€particular€case.Ìà0 àà àà à"In€this€particular€case,€because€of€the€lack€of€the€right€toÏcontrol€the€conduct€of€the€work€and€the€scheduling€of€the€work€hours,Ïand€because€Mr.€Stephens€did€in€fact€exercise€the€freedom€to€selectÏand€hire€helpers€to€help€him,€the€Court€concludes€that€he€was€in€factÏan€independent€contractor€rather€than€an€employee€of€ConditionaireÍCompany,€Incorporated.Ìà0 àà àà à"As€to€R.€C.€Leamon,€evidence€has€been€submitted€thatÏwould€arguably€establish€that€he€was€a€general€contractor.€€Mr.ÏLeamon€was€the€owner€of€the€property€on€which€the€work€was€beingÏperformed€when€Mr.€Stephens€was€electrocuted.Ìà0 àà àà à"In€the€case€of€òòBrown€vs.€Canterbury€Corporationóó,€foundÏat€844€€S.W.2d€€134,€the€Supreme€Court€points€out€that€a€propertyÏowner€can€be€also€a€principal€contractor.Ìà0 àà àà à"In€this€particular€case,€the€Court€finds€that€Mr.€Leamon,Ïas€the€property€owner,€employed€persons€to€perform€services€forÏhim,€such€as€the€installation€of€the€heat€and€air€system,€the€installationÏand€repair€of€the€electrical€system,€the€installation€and€repair€of€theÏplumbing€system.€€Mr.€Leamon€employed€persons€to€perform€thoseÏservices€because€he€had€no€particular€knowledge€of€how€those€servicesÏshould€be€performed€himself.€€He€exercised€no€control€over€theÏentities€which€worked€in€those€areas.Ìà0 àà àà à"The€Court€finds€that€he,€unlike€the€CanterburyÏCorporation,€did€not€exercise€any€real€control€over€the€persons€whoÏwere€employed€to€perform€work€at€the€premises€and€therefore€he€wasÏnot€a€principal€or€general€contractor.Ìà0 àà àà à"In€addition,€the€Court€would€point€out€that€since€Mr.ÏStephens€was€not€an€employee€of€Conditionaire€or€of€any€otherÏsubcontractor€or€contractor€working€on€the€premises,€even€if€Mr.ÏLeamon€were€considered€a€principal€or€general€contractor,€noÏliability€would€be€imposed€for€the€injuries€sustained€by€Mr.€StephensÏin€this€case€by€virtue€of€the€fact€that€T.C.A.€€50„6„113(a)€makes€theÏgeneral€contractor€or€principal€contractor€liable€only€to€the€sameÍextent€as€the€immediate€employer.Ìà0 àà àà à"In€this€case€there€was€no€immediate€employer€of€Mr.ÏStephens.€€Accordingly,€this€case€is€also€dismissed€as€to€Mr.€Leamon.€ÏCosts€will€be€taxed€against€the€plaintiff."Ó {ÀÓÌà àà àAppellate€review€of€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€is€de€novoÏupon€the€record,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness,€unless€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€50„6„225(e)(2).€€Where,€as€here,€the€trial€judge€has€seen€and€heard€the€witnesses,Ïespecially€if€issues€of€credibility€and€weight€to€be€given€oral€testimony€areÏinvolved,€considerable€deference€must€be€accorded€those€circumstances€onÏreview.€€òòJones€v.€Sterling€Last€Corp.óó,€962€€S.W.2d€€469€(Tenn.€1998).Ó ŸÓÌà àà àAn€independent€contractor,€or€one€who€contracts€to€perform€aÏservice€by€his€own€methods€and€without€control€or€direction€by€hisÏemployer€except€as€to€the€result€to€be€achieved,€is€not,€as€a€general€rule,€aÏcovered€employee.€€Among€the€tests€for€determining€whether€the€workÏrelationship€is€that€of€employer„employee€or€of€independent€contractor€areÏ(1)€right€to€control€conduct€of€work,€(2)€right€of€termination,€(3)€method€ofÏpayment,€(4)€whether€or€not€the€worker€furnishes€his€own€helpers,€(5)Ïwhether€or€not€the€worker€furnishes€his€own€tools,€(6)€self€scheduling€ofÏworking€hours€and€(7)€freedom€to€render€services€to€other€entities,€but€theseÏtests€are€not€absolute€and€must€not€be€applied€abstractly.€€òòCromwell€GenÏContractors,€Inc.€v.€Lytleóó,€222€€Tenn.€€633,€439€€S.W.2d€€598€(1969).€€NoneÏof€these€tests,€standing€alone,€is€conclusive.€€òòCurtis€v.€Hamilton€Block€Co.óó,Ï225€€Tenn.€€275,€466€€S.W.2d€€220€(1971).€€While€the€primary€test€forÏdetermining€whether€an€injured€worker€is€an€employee€or€independentÏcontractor€is€"right€to€control",€it€is€not€the€sole€test€and€each€particularÍrelationship€should€be€carefully€examined.€€òòLindsey€v.€Smith€&€Johnson,ÏInc.óó,€601€€S.W.2d€€923€(Tenn.€1980).Ó …?ÓÌà àà àPrincipal€„€or€general€„€contractors€are€liable€in€benefits€forÏinjuries€to€the€employees€of€their€subcontractors€if,€at€the€time€of€the€injury,Ïthe€employee€is€engaged€upon€the€subject€matter€of€the€general€contract€andÏthe€injury€occurs€on,€in,€or€about€the€premises€under€the€control€andÏmanagement€of€the€principal€contractor.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€50„6„113.€ÏA€business€enterprise€which€undertakes€to€act€as€its€own€general€contractorÏand€contracts€directly€with€subcontractors€for€various€phases€of€constructionÏon€its€own€premises€is€liable€in€benefits€for€injuries€to€employees€of€suchÏcontractors.€€òòCampbell€v.€Dick€Broadcasting€Co.,€Inc.€of€Tennesseeóó,€883€ÏS.W.2d€€604€(Tenn.€1994).Ó >`ÓÌà àà àThe€panel€has€carefully€studied€the€record€and€finds€that€theÏevidence€fails€to€preponderate€against€the€findings€of€the€chancellor€withÏrespect€to€both€issues.€€We€further€find€that€the€deceased€was€not€anÏemployee€of€a€subcontractor.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€accordinglyÏaffirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€plaintiffs„appellants.Ó {ÀÓÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ` ‹XÓ_______________________________Ó ÓÌÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Joe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ŒXÓCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€Special€JusticeÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÓ` çÈ„XÓÑ€)ÑÇÓÓÔ€ŠÔ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€IN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEE€Ô€XÔÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€AT€KNOXVILLEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€Ïà àDONNA€LEE€STEPHENS,ÏIndividually€€€€€€€€)€€€€€€€HAMILTON€CHANCERYÌand€JESSICA€NICOLE€PROCTOR€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€€€€Ì(STEPHENS),€ERIC€JUSTIN€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€No.€9475231&€95„651€ÌSTEPHENS,€and€JOSEPH€IAN€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€à àÌSTEPHENS,€b/n/f€Donna€Lee€Stephens.€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€ÏPlaintiff„Appellants,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àà àà à€€€€€€à àà à€€€€à à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï)à àNo.€€03S01„9707„CH„00091Ìv.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï)à àÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï)à àHon.€Howell€N.€PeoplesÌLEAMON€and€CONDITIONAIRE€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àChancellor.ÌßJ€'+;+'b|` Å `€@ÿJßCOMPANY,€INC.,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àà àà àà à€à àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï)à àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€ÏDefendants„Appellees.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àà àà à€à àà àà àÌà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à€€€€€€à àà àà àÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òò€JUDGMENT€€ORDERóó€à àÌ€€€€€€€€€€€ÓÓÔ€,ÔÙ€·Ù<<€Conversion€error€>>This€case€is€before€the€Court€uponÏthe€entire€à àrecord,€including€theÏorder€of€referral€to€the€Special€à àWorkers'€CompensationÏAppeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel's€à àà àMemorandum€OpinionÏsetting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€à àconclusions€of€law,Ïwhich€are€incorporated€herein€by€à àà àreference;Ì€€€€Whereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€theÏà àà àMemorandum€Opinion€ofÏthe€Panel€should€be€accepted€and€à àapproved;€andÌ€€€€It€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel'sÏà àà àfindings€of€facts€andÏconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€à àaffirmed,€and€theÏdecision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€Judgment€of€the€Court.€CostsÏon€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€plaintiffs„à àappellants,and€surety,ÏJohn€W.€Johnson,€III€for€which€à à€€à àexecution€mayÍissue€if€necessary.Ì08/10/98à àÔ€ÔÔ€¼Ô