ÿWPC¥D ìG‡”‚]ãêM¸gV§¯oá=Ê­ìtLÇL+ÍäU·šå¡g˳‘ìA‚IiÃ3ávÒëXmtHrd¿¦M)’×dª3m߯q> F,|>Ù€ 7Ï2Ýím@_-U0ú°J+CV™*xdç»IE0:7¥­e¿ËSä̉iް’¢$¿«wΟ´²mWÞàS>JK[»¥Ê/4~0çõ0u¶¸ø·ejÂnêÒ<…ÀÎÆø%8å(ok‰/™Ÿ7>d®¦È¡"„ A)¾D`x‰Ç Y”úMè bÀ~ÄT°ÍwÞ‡–!au¸ÈZ Üçë½:§qOx{ K”«×ë§Aù=u+HÌÄ3ðÉq]cüp‹·k&ò»Ü¥Ï¡]K8O‚œnÀ”_¾ƒT_8 K÷Ö9’Ã1gL¸Ì¡˜  wQÅ1 ë“|Ϊ Á9n„b³ü%óà•mº«OKp‚¸ÿ-9VV—nK>v (yŠ0ÌýÓ"ËéœÞûK¨Ðj»Â,O4®Ñi•»¶GŽ¢ÚìòÞü$$‘amòæg˸ÙÒm@Mîwªï††Ø6Û¢}~¼þ¦ ¤´};§mˆ‰²âbÉHØ8¤Ü»}UNÖ %$ 0ˆ* #ɲ Œ{ Ú ^ á zí Ògg9 m;wRÆVÆÆâƨ4nN‚¨„ &,ERTNc be ^ÇU>% c k s { ƒ ‹ “ › £  « zµÒ// 1‡ 0cˆ 1‡ë 1ur 72çb 0U! 0év 0æ_ 0ãE 0à( 0Ý 0Úå 0׿ 0Ô– 0Cj! 0×­! 0Ô„" 0ÑX# 0Î)$ 0Ë÷$ 0ÈÂ% 0ÅŠ& 0ÀO' 0@( 0ÔO( 0Ñ#) 0Îô) 0ËÂ* 0È+ 0ÅU, 0Â- 0½Ü- 00™. 0<É. 0¾/ 0>Ã/ 0v0 0Yw0 0`Ð0 0`01 0ë1 0`{2 0`Û2 0`;3 B ›3 08¸3 0¤ð3 D5”4 D-É4 0Kö4 0ÒA5 AS6Æf6 0¤,7 0DÐ7 A«8 02¿8 0üñ8 0:í9 0_': 0 †: 0j; 0„ú< 0N~> B*Ì> D/ö> 0„%?U@©@©@©@©@ D/é@ 0ÎA 06æA 0B 0:$C$C 0^^C^C 0<¼C AMøCU6EDU*{D(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó˜\\IB27S11\STATS1ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\CUSTOM~1\OPINION3.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\Custom WP Templates\opinion3.wpt ’~1,  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5+M ÿÿ(_22Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;+M ÿÿ(_21Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8+M ÿÿ(_20Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5+M ÿÿ(_19Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*2+M ÿÿ(_18Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó* ÿÿ(_17Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô€*GM ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*DM ÿÿ(_15Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*AM ÿÿ(_14Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>M ÿÿ(_13Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;M ÿÿ(_12Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8M ÿÿ(_11Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5M ÿÿ(_10Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(2M ÿÿ&_9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó( ÿÿ&_8Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(GM ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(DM ÿÿ&_6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(AM ÿÿ&_5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(>M ÿÿ&_4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(;M ÿÿ&_3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(8M ÿÿ&_2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(5M ÿÿ&_1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó&2M ÿÿ$_Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(''ÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ  Ô6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô(ÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(|G2÷õ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@˜»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€XtX»»Ô(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ‡ôôôÔ(ÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó d2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó(|3q$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@˜»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3q$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@˜»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡{<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡{<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó ó<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡{<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/Ó<š®ÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€k(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡|%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7Ó(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ&ÿÿ  d dj)1dxd<š®ÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€q(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡|%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7Ó(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman j)2dxd0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡{<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡{<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  ÔX[ZA<< cÿÿ<þ6X9`(‹Courier New%ä2¼A`‹ArialÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@˜»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼@˜»»»ÔÑ8€tXXdì»»d8ÑÓ  ÓÔ‡îR¡î»¼@˜ÔÑ  Ñà@@7 7 ìàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÐ Ö& Ðà@@ƒƒìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼@˜»îîR¡î#ÔÐ üL ÐJANUARY€16,€2004€SessionÐ "r ÐÌò òÔ% ‡ ÔDAVID€STUPPÔ%†)Ô,€òòet€al.óó€v.€Ô% ‡ ÔÔ%†dÔPHILLIPS€AUTO€BODY,€LLC€AND€Ð F – ÐFIRST€AMERICAN€INSURANCE€COMPANY,€òòet€alóó.ó óÐ Z ª ÐÌÔ€XtX»¼@˜Ôà@@¼¼ìàò òÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%†.ÔDirect€Appeal€from€the€Ô% ‡ ÔChancery€Court€Ô%†cÔforÔ% ‡ Ô€Shelby€Ô%† “ÔCountyÐ € Ð Ðà@@ôôìàNo.€Ô% ‡! ÔCH„01„1774„1€€€€€€Ô%†!êÔWalter€L.€Evans,€Ô% ‡" Ô€ChancellorÔ%†"+ÔÐ l¼  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E</` AßÐ 0€  ÐÌNo.€Ô% ‡# ÔW2003„00825„SC„WCM„CVÔ%†#ØÔ„€Mailed€September€2,€2004;€Filed€November€30,€2004Ð +{  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` Aßó óÔ% ‡ ÔÓ  ÓÔ%†˜ÔÐ S ÐÌÌÓ  ÓThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€AppealsÐ ê: ÐPanel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€òòTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€50„6„225(e)(3)óóÐ Ö& Ðfor€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€The€trialÐ Â Ðcourt€determined€that€the€plaintiff€sustained€a€25%€vocational€impairment€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€Ð ®þ ÐThe€defendant€asserts€that:€1)€€the€plaintiff€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€proof€of€permanent€injury;Ð šê Ð2)€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€plaintiff€had€an€operative€disk€lesion€which€necessitated€surgery;Ð †Ö Ð3)€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€granting€defendant's€motion€for€additional€facts€or€to€amend€judgement;Ð r Ðand€4)€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€Dr.€Anthony€Segal's€charges€were€reasonable€and€necessaryÐ ^® Ðand€in€granting€plaintiff's€motion€for€discretionary€costs.€€Plaintiff€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erredÐ Jš Ðwhen€it€awarded€plaintiff€a€25%€disability€impairment€to€the€body€as€a€whole,€urging€that€the€awardÐ 6† Ðshould€have€been€higher.€€We€agree€with€the€position€of€the€plaintiff,€and€for€the€reasons€set€forthÐ "r Ðbelow,€we€modify€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€to€award€a€forty„five€percent€(45%)€vocationalÐ  ^ Ðdisability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€Ð ú J ÐÌò òÔ% ‡$ ÔÓ  ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)€(1999)€Appeal€as€of€RightÔ%†$Ï Ô;€Ð Ò""! ÐJudgment€of€the€Ô% ‡% ÔChancery€CourtÔ%†%Z Ôó ó€ò òAffirmed€as€Modifiedó óÐ ¾#" ÐÓÜ ÓÌòòJames€F.€Butler,€Sp.€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€Court,€in€which€òòJanice€M.€Holder,€J.,€óóandÐ š%ê $ ÐòòJames€L.€Weatherford,€Sr.€óóJ.,€joined.Ð †&Ö!% Ðà@ìì*ìàˆÌÔ% ‡ ÔRichard€W.€Vaughn,€Jr.,€Milan€Tennessee,€for€the€appellantÔ%†ž Ôs,€Phillips€Auto€Body,€LLC€and€FirstÐ ^(®#' ÐAmerican€Insurance€Company.Ð J)š$( ÐÌDavid€G.€Mills,€Cordova,€Tennessee,€for€the€aÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%†Ôppellee,€David€Stupp.Ð "+r&* Ðâ âÐ ,^'+ý ÐÔ  Ôâ âÓ  Óò òMEMORANDUM€OPINIONó óÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àPlaintiff€was,€at€time€of€trial,€38€years€old,€married€with€four€children,€and€attended€schoolÐ ˆØ Ðto€the€11th€grade.€€Plaintiff€was€employed€as€an€auto€body€frame€technician€at€Phillips€Auto€Body,Ð tÄ ÐLLC.€€The€company€was€owned€by€Mary€and€Lou€Phillips€who€also€worked€there.€€Plaintiff's€dutiesÐ `° Ðconsisted€of€vehicle€body€and€frame€work.€€At€the€time€of€his€injury€he€was€working€in€the€shop€onÐ L œ Ða€pickup€truck.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àPlaintiff€alleges€that€on€July€10,€2001,€Plaintiff€and€a€co„worker,€Scott€Taylor,€were€liftingÐ  ` Ðthe€hood€off€of€a€pickup€truck€when€Plaintiff€sustained€an€injury€to€his€neck.€€He€notified€LouÐ ü L  ÐPhillips€immediately.€€Plaintiff€worked€the€remainder€of€the€day€on€light€duty.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€next€day€Plaintiff€still€had€pain€and€went€to€Baptist€Minor€Medical€and€then€to€CampbellÐ À  ÐClinic.€€He€was€seen€by€Dr.€Douglas€Linville€at€the€Campbell€Clinic€who€sent€him€to€physicalÐ ¬ü  Ðtherapy€and€prescribed€medication.€€He€returned€to€work€the€next€day.€€On€July€17th,€2001,€PlaintiffÐ ˜è  Ðwent€to€physical€therapy€and€returned€to€work.€€A€discussion€ensued€between€Plaintiff€and€MaryÐ „Ô  ÐPhillips€because€she€thought€he€had€been€gone€longer€than€she€expected,€and€Plaintiff€was€terminatedÐ pÀ Ðthat€day.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àPlaintiff€continued€his€physical€therapy€after€termination€and€was€referred€to€Dr.€Ashley€Park,Ð 4„ Ðalso€at€the€Campbell€Clinic.€€Dr.€Park€ordered€an€MRI€and€injected€Plaintiff€with€two€steroid€blocks.€Ð  p ÐHe€was€then€referred€to€Dr.€John€Brophy€and€ultimately€retrieved€his€medical€records€from€CampbellÐ  \ ÐClinic.€€His€medical€records€contained€a€comment€about€a€previous€lawsuit€and€that€the€Plaintiff€hadÐ øH Ðbeen€videotaped€"popping€wheelies"€on€a€four„wheeler.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àDr.€Brophy€reviewed€the€MRI€and€found€cervical€spondylosis,€worse€on€the€left€at€C5„6€andÐ ¼  ÐC6„7,€without€definite€evidence€of€nerve€root€or€spinal€cord€compression.€Wanting€to€rule€out€nerveÐ ¨ø Ðroot€compression,€he€ordered€a€myelogram/CT€scan€and€later€ordered€a€bilateral€upper€extremityÐ ”ä ÐEMG/nerve€conduction€study.€€After€reviewing€these€studies,€according€to€Plaintiff,€Dr.€Brophy€toldÐ €Ð Ðhim€that€he€did€not€hurt€himself€at€work,€that€there€was€nothing€wrong€with€him,€and€that€he€shouldÐ l¼ Ðgo€back€to€work€immediately.€€Plaintiff€thereafter€sought€the€services€of€Dr.€Anthony€Segal,€aÐ X ¨ Ðneurosurgeon€and€provided€him€with€his€MRI€for€review.€€Dr.€Segal€ultimately€performed€surgeryÐ D!” Ðon€the€Plaintiff.€€After€his€recovery€period,€he€went€back€to€work€for€the€same€company€which€wasÐ 0"€  Ðunder€new€ownership.€€At€trial,€Plaintiff€was€doing€the€same€work€that€he€was€doing€prior€to€hisÐ #l! Ðinjury€with€the€exception€of€the€heavy€lifting.Ð $X" ÐÌÔ  Ôà@öö"ìàò òMedical€Evidenceó óˆÐ à%0!$ ÐÌà  àDr.€John€Brophy€initially€saw€the€Plaintiff€on€March€11,€2002.€€He€reviewed€the€PlaintiffððsÐ ¸'#& ÐMRI€and€opined€that€Plaintiff€had€cervical€spondylosis,€worse€on€the€left€at€C„5„6€and€C„6„7,€withoutÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdefinite€evidence€of€nerve€root€or€spinal€cord€compression.€€Based€on€Plaintiffððs€severity€of€pain,€Dr.Ð )à$( ÐBrophy€ordered€a€cervical€myelogram/CT€scan€to€rule€out€nerve€root€compression.€€His€plan€was€thatÐ |*Ì%) Ðif€the€myelogram€demonstrated€evidence€of€nerve€root€compression,€they€would€discuss€surgery.€€IfÐ h+¸&* Ðnot,€they€would€discuss€Plaintiffððs€return€to€work.€€Dr.€Brophy€reasoned€that€the€only€reason€to€doÐ ° Ðsurgery€would€be€to€remove€pressure€from€the€nerve.€€Since€there€are€many€causes€of€pain€in€the€neckÐ œì Ðand€arm€other€than€pressure€on€a€nerve,€he€wanted€to€verify€the€nerve€pressure.€€He€opined€that€theÐ ˆØ Ðmyelogram€is€the€ð ðgold€standardðð€to€determine€nerve€root€pressure.€€The€myelogram/CT€scan€wasÐ tÄ Ðperformed€and€there€was€still€no€definite€evidence€of€a€herniated€disk€or€nerve€root€compression.€Ð `° ÐBecause€of€Plaintiffððs€continued€complaints€of€bilateral€upper€extremity€pain,€Dr.€BrophyÐ L œ Ðrecommended€an€EMG/nerve€conduction€study.€€This€study€was€within€normal€limits.€€AlthoughÐ 8 ˆ ÐPlaintiff€still€described€pain€bilaterally,€Dr.€Brophy,€based€on€evidence€he€had€before€him,€clearedÐ $ t ÐPlaintiff€to€return€to€work€without€restrictions€on€April€16,€2002,€with€a€permanent€partialÐ  ` Ðimpairment€rating€of€zero.€€Dr.€Brophy€stated€that€generally€if€there€is€a€significant€disk€herniation,Ð ü L  Ðit€is€obvious,€but€at€other€times€the€findings€are€less€obvious,€and€Plaintiff€was€in€that€category.€€OnÐ è 8  Ðthe€subject€of€justification€for€surgery,€Dr.€Brophy€stated:Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àDr.€Brophyððs€deposition,€pages€12„13:Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àQUESTION:à0¸ Ð Ð àOkay.€Going€back€to€the€March€15òòthóó€visit,€would€you€haveð!ðbased€onlyÐ „Ô  Ðon€the€review€of€the€MRI,€would€you€have€recommended€surgeryÐ pÀ Ðwithout€the€myelogram€CAT€scan?Ð\¬¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8  àANSWER:à0¸ Ð Ð àNo.Ð4„¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8  àQUESTION:à ¸ àAnd€why€not,€Doctor?Ð \Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àANSWER:à0¸ Ð Ð àBecause€his€primary€symptoms€and€clinical€examination€at€that€timeÐ ä4 Ðdid€not€fit€the€abnormalities€on€the€MRI,€and€...there€was€notÐ Ð  Ðdefinitive€evidence€of€nerve€root€compression,€which€is€the€primaryÐ ¼  Ðissue€that€I€am€operating€on.Шø¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8  àQUESTION:à0¸ Ð Ð àAnd€you€came€to€the€same€conclusion€after€reviewing€the€myelogramÐ €Ð Ðand€CAT€scan€that€you€ordered?Ðl¼¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8  àANSWER:à ¸ àYes.ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àDr.€Brophyððs€deposition,€pages€20„21:Ð #l! ÐÌà8  àQUESTION:à0¸ Ð Ð àOkay.€€And€one€thing€that€Dr.€Segal€pointed€out€is€when€he€presentedÐ ô$D # Ðhimself€to€Dr.€Segal,€by€then€his€arm€pain€was€almost€exclusively€leftÐ à%0!$ Ðarm€pain,€which€from€Dr.€Segalððs€point€of€view€I€would€think€wasÐ Ì&"% Ðvery€consistent€with€having€an€MRI€that€showed€a€bulging€disc€on€theÐ ¸'#& Ðleft?Ф(ô#'¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8  àANSWER:à ¸ àPotentially,€yes.Ð|*Ì%)Ð Ð  ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àQUESTION:à0¸ Ð Ð àPotentially.€€So€without€havingð"ð€Dr.€Segal€didnððt€have€the€CATÐ ° Ðscans€and€the€myelograms€that€you€had,€and€from€his€point€of€viewÐ œì Ðhe€had€an€MRI€that€showed€left€armð!ðor€left€disc„„a€disc€on€the€leftÐ ˆØ Ðside€and€then€left€arm€pain€that€was€consistent,€so€he€went€ahead€andÐ tÄ Ðdid€surgery.€€Was€thatð"ðbased€on€that,€that€seemed€like€a€reasonableÐ `° Ðthing€to€do,€wouldnððt€you€say?ÐL œ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8  àANSWER:€à0¸ Ð Ð àAgain,€it€depends€on€the€presentation,€exact€description€of€the€pain,Ð $ t Ðwhat€did€the€exam€show.€€Potentially€it€could€have€fit.€€And,€ofÐ  ` Ðcourse,€the€real€barometer€to€answer€that€question€is€how€did€he€doÐ ü L  Ðpost„op.Ðè 8 ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8  àQUESTION:à0¸ Ð Ð àAnd€if€he€did€well€„€„€very€well€post€op,€that€would€be€indicative€thatÐ À  Ðthere€was€some€impingement€on€that€nerve€running€down€his€leftÐ ¬ü  Ðarm?€Ð˜è ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8  àANSWER:€à0¸ Ð Ð àYes.€ÐpÀ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà  àDr.€Brophyððs€deposition,€page€26:Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àQUESTION:€à0¸ Ð Ð àWell,€is€the€best€evidence€that€he€had€compression€on€the€nerve€theÐ  p Ðfact€that€after€the€surgery€is€over€and€a€fusion€is€done€he€is€not€havingÐ  \ Ðarm€pain€anymore?ÐøH¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8  àANSWER:€à0¸ Ð Ð àYes.ÐÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà  àDr.€Brophy€previously€rated€the€Plaintiff€at€0%€permanent€partial€impairment€with€noÐ ¨ø Ðrestrictions.€€However,€he€did€state€that€had€he€done€a€one€level€anterior€cervical€diskectomy€andÐ ”ä Ðfusion€on€the€Plaintiff,€his€rating€would€have€been€10%€based€on€the€AMA€Guides.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àPlaintiff€retrieved€his€medical€records€from€Dr.€Brophy,€including€the€MRI€andÐ X ¨ Ðmyelogram/CT€scan€and€sought€a€second€opinion€from€Dr.€Anthony€Segal,€a€neurosurgeon.€€Dr.Ð D!” ÐSegal€saw€the€Plaintiff€initially€on€April€18,€2002.€€He€reviewed€the€MRI,€but€Plaintiff€purposely€didÐ 0"€  Ðnot€provide€Dr.€Segal€with€the€myelogram/CT€scan€or€any€of€Dr.€Brophyððs€records.€€Dr.€Segal€notedÐ #l! Ðthat€the€MRI€showed€two€disk€lesions,€one€very€small€between€the€C„6€and€C„7€which€he€felt€wasÐ $X" Ðinsignificant,€and€one€between€C„5€and€C„6€with€some€bony€spur€and€with€some€compression€of€theÐ ô$D # Ðcord€and€the€nerve€on€the€left€side.€€He€continued€conservative€treatment€of€the€Plaintiff€andÐ à%0!$ Ðsuggested€Plaintiff€try€to€return€to€work.€€Plaintiff€returned€to€work€for€about€three€days,€but€had€toÐ Ì&"% Ðstop€because€of€pain.€In€May€2002,€Plaintiff€returned€to€Dr.€Segal€with€left€arm€and€left€shoulderÐ ¸'#& Ðblade€and€shoulder€pain.€€Dr.€Segal€suggested€surgery€on€one€level€between€C„5€and€C„6€and€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfusion.€€The€surgery€was€performed€on€May€31,€2002.€€During€surgery,€Dr.€Segal€noted€that€theÐ )à$( Ðâ âPlaintiffððs€posterior€longitudinal€ligament€appeared€to€have€been€stretched€for€at€least€six€months,Ð |*Ì%) Ðwhich€indicated€to€him€that€Plaintiff€had€a€long„standing€disk€problem.€€He€stated€this€condition€willÐ ° Ðnot€show€up€on€an€MRI,€a€CT€scan,€a€myelogram€or€EMG.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àAfter€surgery,€the€Plaintiff€did€well.€€After€a€recovery€period,€Plaintiff€returned€to€work.€€Dr.Ð tÄ ÐSegal€opined€the€Plaintiffððs€accident€at€work€caused€the€herniated€disk€that€he€saw€and€rated€hisÐ `° Ðanatomical€impairment€at€25%€to€the€whole€body€in€accordance€with€the€AMA€Guides.€€He€statedÐ L œ Ðthat€prior€to€his€testimony€he€had€not€seen€the€myelogram,€the€post€myelogram€CT€scan,€or€the€EMG/Ð 8 ˆ Ðnerve€conduction€study.€€He€stated€that€had€he€seen€them,€and€they€were€normal,€it€was€possible€heÐ $ t Ðwould€have€thought€longer€and€harder€and€may€not€have€done€the€surgery.€€But€given€the€results,€itÐ  ` Ðworked€out€better€for€the€Plaintiff,€according€to€Dr.€Segal.Ð ü L  ÐÌÔ  Ôò òà@žž!ìàStandard€of€Reviewó óˆÐ Ô$  ÐÌà  àAppellate€review€is€de€novo€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumptionÐ ¬ü  Ðof€the€correctness€of€the€findings€of€facts,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€Ð ˜è  ÐòòTenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2)óó€òò(Supp.€2002).óó€€The€reviewing€court€is€required€to€conduct€anÐ „Ô  Ðindependent€examination€of€the€record€to€determine€where€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€lies.€Ð pÀ ÐòòWingert€v.€Government€of€Sumner€County,€908€S.W.2d€921,€922€(Tenn.€1995)óó.€€The€standardÐ \¬ Ðgoverning€appellate€review€of€findings€of€fact€by€a€trial€court€requires€the€Special€Workers'Ð H˜ ÐCompensation€Panel€to€examine€in€depth€a€trial€court's€factual€findings€and€conclusions.€€òòGAF€Bldg.Ð 4„ ÐMaterials€v.€George,€47€S.W.3d€430,€432€(Tenn.€2001)óó.€€The€trial€court's€findings€with€respect€toÐ  p Ðcredibility€and€weight€of€the€evidence€may€generally€be€inferred€from€the€manner€in€which€the€courtÐ  \ Ðresolves€conflicts€in€the€testimony€and€decides€the€case.€€òòTobitt€v.€Bridgestone/Firestone,€Inc.,€59Ð øH ÐS.W.3d€57,€61€(Tenn.€2001)óó.€€Where€the€trial€court€has€seen€and€heard€witnesses,€especially€whereÐ ä4 Ðthe€issues€of€credibility€and€weight€of€oral€testimony€are€involved,€considerable€deference€must€beÐ Ð  Ðaccorded€the€trial€court's€factual€findings.€€òòHumphrey€v.€David€Witherspoon,€Inc.,€734€S.W.€2d€315Ð ¼  Ð(Tenn.€1987).óó€€The€extent€of€an€injured€worker's€vocational€disability€is€a€question€of€fact.€€òòSeals€v.Ð ¨ø ÐEngland/Corsair€Upholstery€Mfg.€Co.,€984€S.W.2d€912,€915€(Tenn.€1999).€óóÐ ”ä ÐÌà  àAs€to€the€first€three€issues€raised€by€the€Defendant,€the€Court€feels€that€they€are€interrelatedÐ l¼ Ðand€we€will€deal€with€them€as€such.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àò ò1.ó ó€ò ò€Whether€the€Plaintiff€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€proof€in€establishing€that€heÐ 0"€  Ðsuffered€a€permanent€injury€on€July€10,€2001,€and€that€he€had€an€operative€disk€lesion€whichÐ  #p! Ðnecessitated€surgery.€ó óÐ  $\" ÐÌà  àIn€order€to€be€eligible€for€workers€compensation€benefits,€an€employee€must€suffer€ð ðan€injuryÐ ä%4!$ Ðby€accident€arising€out€of€and€in€the€course€of€employment€which€causes€either€disablement€orÐ Ð& "% Ðdeath.ðð€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„102€(12).óó€€The€phrase€ð ðarising€out€ofðð€refers€to€causation.€€TheÐ ¼' #& Ðcausation€requirement€is€satisfied€if€the€injury€has€a€rational,€causal€connection€to€the€work.€€òòReeserÐ ¨(ø#' Ðv.€Yellow€Freight€Systems,€Inc.,€938€S.W.2d€690,692€(Tenn.€1997).€€óóAlthough€causation€cannot€beÐ ”)ä$( Ðbased€upon€merely€speculative€or€conjectural€proof,€absolute€certainty€is€not€required.€AnyÐ €*Ð%) Ðreasonable€doubt€in€this€regard€is€to€be€construed€in€favor€of€the€employee.€€We€have€thusÐ l+¼&* Ðconsistently€held€that€an€award€may€properly€be€based€upon€medical€testimony€to€the€effect€that€aÐ ° Ðgiven€incident€ð ðcould€beðð€the€cause€of€the€employeeððs€injury,€when€there€is€also€lay€testimony€fromÐ œì Ðwhich€it€reasonably€may€be€inferred€that€the€incident€was€in€fact€the€cause€of€the€injury.€€òòIdóó.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àIt€is€well€settled€in€this€state€that€a€plaintiff€in€a€workers'€compensation€case€has€the€burdenÐ `° Ðof€proving€every€element€of€this€case€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòElmore€v.€Travelers€Ins.Ð L œ ÐCoóó.,€òò824€S.W.2d€541,€543€(Tenn.€1992)óó.€€Medical€causation€and€permanency€of€an€injury€must€beÐ 8 ˆ Ðestablished€in€most€cases€by€expert€medical€testimony.€òò€See,€e.g.óó,€òòThomas€v.€Aetna€Life€&€Cas.€Co.,óóÐ $ t Ðòò812€S.W.2d€278,€283€(Tenn.€1991)óó.€€With€these€principles€in€mind,€we€review€the€record€to€determineÐ  ` Ðwhether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€court.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àPlaintiff€testified€that€he€injured€himself€on€July€10,€2001,€while€he€and€a€co„worker,€ScottÐ Ô$  ÐTaylor,€were€lifting€a€hood€off€a€pick„up€truck€when€both€were€employed€with€Phillips€Auto€Body,Ð À  ÐLLC.€€This€incident€was€confirmed€by€Scott€Taylor€in€his€testimony€and€the€employeeððs€accidentÐ ¬ü  Ðreport€on€July€11,€2001.€€The€Plaintiff€immediately€notified€one€of€the€owners€of€the€shop,€LouÐ ˜è  ÐPhillips.€€He€was€put€on€light€duty€for€the€balance€of€the€work€day.€€Plaintiff€sought€medicalÐ „Ô  Ðtreatment€the€next€day€for€which€the€employer€paid.€€The€trial€judge€made€a€finding€of€fact€that€theÐ pÀ ÐPlaintiff€sustained€an€injury€to€his€neck€and€arms€while€on€the€premises€of€his€employer,€while€liftingÐ \¬ Ðthe€hood€of€a€pick„up€truck.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àPlaintiff€initially€saw€Dr.€Linville€whose€records€indicate€symptoms€of€radiculapathyÐ  p Ðconsistent€with€nerve€root€compression€between€C5„6€on€the€right€side.€€Dr.€Ashley€Parkððs€recordsÐ  \ Ðindicate€he€felt€Plaintiff€may€have€suffered€a€cervical€disk€injury.€€Dr.€Park€ordered€the€MRI€whichÐ øH Ðindicated€a€central€disk€protrusion€at€C5€and€a€posterior€disk€protrusion€at€C6.€€Dr.€Parkððs€medicalÐ ä4 Ðrecords€contain€a€note€that€information€from€the€claims€adjuster€states€that€Plaintiff€was€videotapedÐ Ð  Ðð ðpopping€wheeliesðð€on€a€four€wheeler€with€a€child€on€the€back€and€that€the€adjuster€was€concernedÐ ¼  Ðthat€since€he€had€already€gotten€a€settlement€for€his€lumbar€spine€($80,000.00)€he€is€headed€the€sameÐ ¨ø Ðway€with€his€neck.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àAfter€being€treated€by€Drs.€Linville€and€Park,€Plaintiff€was€referred€to€Dr.€Brophy,€aÐ l¼ Ðneurosurgeon.€€Dr.€Brophy,€after€extensive€testing,€opined€that€the€Plaintiffððs€injury€was€notÐ X ¨ Ðpermanent,€and€released€him€to€go€back€to€work€with€a€zero€impairment€rating.€€He€based€thisÐ D!” Ðopinion€primarily€on€his€belief€that€there€was€no€definite€evidence€of€cord€or€nerve€root€compressionÐ 0"€  Ðwhich€would€justify€doing€surgery.€While€Dr.€Brophy€stated€his€opinion€that€the€myelogram€was€theÐ #l! Ðð ðgold€standardðð€to€determine€nerve€root€pressure,€he€did€state€also€that€the€real€barometer€to€answerÐ $X" Ðthat€question€is€how€the€patient€did€after€the€operation.€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àDr.€Segal€initially€saw€Plaintiff€on€April€18,€2002,€and€reviewed€the€medical€records€of€Drs.Ð Ì&"% ÐLinville€and€Park€at€the€Campbell€Clinic.€€He€also€reviewed€the€Plaintiffððs€MRI,€but€did€not€have€theÐ ¸'#& Ðmyelogram/CT€scan€or€EMG€performed€while€Plaintiff€was€under€Dr.€Brophyððs€care.€€Dr.€SegalÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdiagnosed€a€C5„6€disk€lesion€and€after€conservative€treatment€failed€to€provide€relief€to€the€Plaintiff,Ð )à$( ÐDr.€Segal€performed€an€anterior€cervical€diskectomy€and€fusion€of€C5€and€C6.€€During€surgery,€Dr.Ð |*Ì%) ÐSegal€discovered€a€ð ðfloppyðð€ligament€that€had€been€stretched€by€the€disk.€This€indicates€the€ligamentÐ h+¸&* Ðhad€been€stretched€for€at€least€six€months.€€In€his€opinion€this€was€further€verification€of€his€initialÐ ° Ðdiagnosis€of€a€disk€lesion.€€After€a€recovery€period,€Plaintiffððs€pain€was€gone€and€he€returned€toÐ œì Ðwork.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àDr.€Segal€opined€that€Plaintiff€had€suffered€a€twenty„five€percent€(25%)€impairment€to€theÐ `° Ðwhole€body€based€on€the€AMA€Guides.€€Dr.€Segal€explained€that€sometimes€a€disk€herniation€isÐ L œ Ðdramatic€and€obvious€and€that€the€surgeon€can€clearly€see€the€pressure€has€been€removed€from€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðnerve€and€that€had€to€have€been€the€source€of€the€problem.€€There€are€other€times€when€the€findingsÐ $ t Ðare€less€impressive€and€less€obvious,€and€Plaintiff€fell€into€this€later€category.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àDr.€Brophy€and€Dr.€Segal€disagreed€concerning€the€significance€of€the€Plaintiffððs€ð ðfloppyÐ è 8  Ðligament.ðð€€Dr.€Brophy€said€that€the€presence€of€a€floppy€ligament€had€no€significance€as€to€aÐ Ô$  Ðherniation.€€Dr.€Segal€stated€that€it€indicated€a€disk€that€had€been€herniated€for€at€least€six€months.€Ð À  ÐThey€also€disagreed€concerning€the€importance€of€the€myelogram/CT€scan€and€EMG€in€diagnosingÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€disk€lesion.€€Dr.€Brophy€said€the€myelogram€was€the€ð ðgold€standard.ðð€€Dr.€Segal€said€it€is€not€theÐ ˜è  Ðmyelogram€which€is€most€specific,€but€the€CAT€scan€after€the€myelogram.€€The€CT€scan€after€theÐ „Ô  Ðdye€has€been€put€in€place€is€slightly€more€accurate€than€the€MRI,€but€only€about€one€(1)€or€two€(2)Ð pÀ Ðpercent€difference,€particularly€in€somebody€young€like€the€Plaintiff.€€Dr.€Segal€did€not€think€the€postÐ \¬ Ðmyelogram€CT€has€much€to€offer,€nor€did€he€think€that€the€EMG€nerve€conduction€study€would€showÐ H˜ Ðthat€much€in€the€case€of€a€surgical€disk.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àWhen€faced,€as€in€the€case€before€us,€with€conflicting€medical€testimony€on€these€issues,€"itÐ  \ Ðis€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge€to€conclude€that€the€opinion€of€certain€experts€should€beÐ øH Ðaccepted€over€that€of€other€experts€and€that€it€contains€the€more€probable€explanation."€€òòHinson€v.Ð ä4 ÐWal„Mart€Stores,€Inc.óó,€654€S.W.2d€675,€676„77€(Tenn.€1983)€(citing€òòCombustion€Engineering,€Inc.Ð Ð  Ðv.€Kennedyóó,€562€S.W.2d€202€(Tenn.€1978)).€€It€should€be€noted€that€the€rule€set€out€in€òòHinsonóóÐ ¼  Ðremains€valid€even€though€òòHinsonóó€was€decided€under€the€"material€evidence"€standard€of€review.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àIn€light€of€the€foregoing€evidence,€we€are€persuaded€that€there€is€ample€evidence€in€the€recordÐ €Ð Ðto€support€the€trial€court's€finding€that€the€Plaintiff€carried€his€burden€of€proof€in€establishing€thatÐ l¼ Ðhe€suffered€a€permanent€injury€on€July€10,€2001,€and€that€he€had€an€operative€disk€lesion€whichÐ X ¨ Ðnecessitated€surgery.€€We€therefore€affirm€the€trial€court's€findings€in€this€regard.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àò ò2.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€unpaid€medical€expenses€to€PlaintiffÐ #l! Ðbecause€Plaintiff€failed€to€request€authorization€of€the€Defendant€for€the€treatment€by€Dr.Ð $X" ÐSegal.ó óÐ ô$D # ÐÌà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€50„6„204€(a)(4)(A)€provides€that€the€employer€shallÐ Ì&"% Ðfurnish€such€medical€care€as€is€reasonably€required€for€a€compensable€injury€and€that:Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(4)€The€injured€employee€shall€accept€the€medical€benefits€affordedÐ )à$( Ðhereunder;€provided€that€the€employer€shall€designate€a€group€of€threeÐ |*Ì%) Ð(3)€or€more€reputable€physicians€or€surgeons€not€associated€togetherÐ h+¸&* Ðin€practice,€if€available€in€that€community,€from€which€the€injuredÐ ° Ðemployee€shall€have€the€privilege€of€selecting€the€operating€surgeonÐ œì Ðor€attending€physician.ЈØ` x` x ÐÌà  àAfter€being€sent€to€Dr.€Brophy,€and€not€receiving€any€relief,€Plaintiff€desired€a€secondÐ `° Ðopinion.€€He€informed€Dr.€Brophy€of€this€request,€and€Dr.€Brophy€provided€Plaintiff€with€his€testÐ L œ Ðresults.€€Plaintiff€was€referred€to€Dr.€Segal€by€his€regular€physician€for€other€unrelated€complaints.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐSince€these€complaints€had€resolved€themselves€before€his€appointment,€Plaintiff€decided€to€use€theÐ $ t Ðappointment€to€discuss€his€work€injury.€€On€his€first€visit,€he€provided€Dr.€Segal€with€the€AugustÐ  ` Ð2001€MRI€and€the€records€of€Dr.€Linville€and€Dr.€Park.€€He€intentionally€withheld€theÐ ü L  Ðmyelogram/CT€scan€and€EMG€studies€given€to€him€by€Dr.€Brophy.€€Plaintiff€did€not€seekÐ è 8  Ðauthorization€from€Defendant€for€the€treatment€rendered€to€him€by€Dr.€Segal.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àPlaintiff€indicated€that€he€withheld€all€references€to€Dr.€Brophy€because€he€did€not€trust€Dr.Ð ¬ü  ÐBrophy.€€When€he€initially€saw€Dr.€Brophy€he€was€informed€that€his€case€worker€had€already€beenÐ ˜è  Ðthere€talking€to€Dr.€Brophy€for€about€a€half€an€hour.€€This€was€apparently€the€same€case€worker€whoÐ „Ô  Ðhad€informed€the€Plaintiffððs€previous€doctor€that€Plaintiff€had€been€ð ðpopping€wheelies€on€a€four„Ð pÀ Ðwheeler.ðð€€This€information€later€at€trial€was€proven€to€be€false.€€Plaintiff€felt€that€Dr.€Brophy€wasÐ \¬ Ðshort€with€him€and€seemed€to€have€an€"attitude"€with€him.€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àPlaintiff€had€experienced€difficulties€with€the€Defendantððs€insurance€carrier€and€theÐ  p ÐDefendant.€€Defendant€had€terminated€Plaintiff€shortly€after€the€injury.€€Plaintiffððs€claim€for€workers'Ð  \ Ðcompensation€benefits€was€denied.€€Plaintiff€had€to€file€suit€to€obtain€his€temporary€benefits.€Ð øH ÐDefendant€had€a€private€investigator€videotaping€the€Plaintiff€but€who€was€also€videotapingÐ ä4 ÐPlaintiffððs€brother€by€mistake.€€It€was€Plaintiff's€brother€who€was€videotaped€riding€the€four„wheeler.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àFrom€a€review€of€all€the€medical€and€lay€testimony,€the€Panel€is€persuaded€that€if€PlaintiffÐ ¨ø Ðhad€taken€Dr.€Brophyððs€advice€and€not€had€surgery,€he€may€have€not€been€able€to€return€to€work.€Ð ”ä ÐBy€seeking€a€second€opinion€and€ultimately€having€surgery,€Plaintiff€was€at€trial€time€back€at€workÐ €Ð Ðand€doing€well.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€has€authority€to€order€that€the€employer€pay€for€unauthorized€medical€care€ifÐ D!” Ðthe€employee€fails€to€consult€the€employer€beforehand€when€the€circumstances€warrant€such€anÐ 0"€  ÐOrder.€€The€Court€has€stated€the€following€proposition:Ð #l! ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWhether€an€employee€is€justified€in€seeking€additional€medicalÐ ô$D # Ðservices€to€be€paid€for€by€the€employer,€without€consulting€theÐ à%0!$ Ðemployer,€depends€on€the€circumstances€of€each€case.€€òòBazner€v.Ð Ì&"% ÐAmerican€States€Ins.€Co.,€óó820€S.W.2d€742,€746€(Tenn.1991);€òòsee€alsoÐ ¸'#& ÐDorris€v.€INA€Ins.€Co.,€óó764€S.W.2d€538,€540„41€(Tenn.€1989).Ф(ô#'` x` x ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€that€Dr.€Segalððs€surgery€and€related€expenses€were€all€paid€for€byÐ |*Ì%) ÐTennCare,€Plaintiffððs€health€insurance€carrier.€€Since€the€trial€court€ordered€Defendant€to€reimburseÐ h+¸&* ÐTennCare€for€its€cost€of€the€surgery€by€Dr.€Segal,€the€trial€court€evidently€believed€that€the€proofÐ ° Ðsupported€such€payments.€€The€trial€court's€findings€on€this€issue€are€as€follows:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€treatment€rendered€to€the€Plaintiff€by€Dr.€Anthony€Segal€and€theÐ tÄ Ðexpenses€incurred€from€Dr.€Segal,€Saint€Francis€Hospital,€and€allÐ `° Ðother€providers€in€relation€to€the€surgery€were€reasonable€andÐ L œ Ðnecessary€as€a€result€of€said€injury.Ð8 ˆ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTennCare€must€be€reimbursed€by€the€Defendant,€First€AmericanÐ  ` ÐInsurance€Company,€for€any€and€all€medical€expenses€paid€on€behalfÐ ü L  Ðof€the€Plaintiff,€David€Stupp,€to€Dr.€Anthony€Degal,€Saint€FrancisÐ è 8  ÐHospital,€and€all€other€providers€in€relation€to€the€surgery.ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€heard€the€testimony€of€Plaintiff,€viewed€the€videotapes€of€the€defendant€andÐ ¬ü  Ðhis€brother,€and€apparently€credited€the€Plaintiff's€testimony€that€he€had€reason€to€distrust€Dr.€BrophyÐ ˜è  Ðunder€the€totality€of€the€circumstances.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àFrom€our€analysis€of€the€record,€we€cannot€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÐ \¬ Ðtrial€court's€determination€that€the€expenses€related€to€Dr.€Segal's€surgery€were€reasonable€andÐ H˜ Ðnecessary€as€a€result€of€the€injury.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€that€the€expensesÐ 4„ Ðfor€Dr.€Segalððs€surgery€were€reasonable€and€necessary.Ð  p ÐÌà  àò ò3.€ó ó€ò òWhether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€PlaintiffÐ øH Ðretains€a€twenty„five€percent€(25%)€disability€impairment€to€the€body€as€a€whole.ó óÐ è8 ÐÌà  àThe€extent€of€vocational€disability€is€a€question€of€fact€to€be€determined€from€all€of€theÐ À Ðevidence,€including€lay€and€expert€testimony.òò€€Worthington€v.€Modine€Mfg.€Co.óó,€òò798€S.W.2d€232,€234Ð ¬ü Ð(Tennóó.€òò1990)óó.€€In€making€determinations€of€vocational€disability,€the€court€shall€consider€all€pertinentÐ ˜è Ðfactors,€including€lay€and€expert€testimony,€employee's€age,€education,€skills€and€training,€local€jobÐ „Ô Ðopportunities,€and€capacity€to€work€at€types€of€employment€available€in€claimant's€disabledÐ pÀ Ðcondition.€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241€(a)(1);€Roberson€v.€Loretto€Casket€Co.,€722€S.W.2d€380,€384Ð \ ¬ Ð(Tenn.€1986).óóÐ H!˜ ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€the€medical€proof€provided€the€following€anatomical€impairment€ratings€to€theÐ  #p! Ðbody€as€a€whole:€1)€Dr.€Segal€assigned€a€twenty„five€percent€(25%)€impairment€rating;€2)€Dr.€BrophyÐ  $\" Ðassigned€a€zero€percent€(0%)€impairment€rating,€but€also€said€that€if€he€had€performed€the€sameÐ ø$H # Ðsurgery€that€Dr.€Segal€had€performed€on€Plaintiff,€his€rating€would€have€been€ten€percent€(10%).€€Dr.Ð ä%4!$ ÐSegal€stated€that€according€to€the€AMA€Guides,€Plaintiff€must€be€rated€under€the€DRE€method.€€HeÐ Ð& "% Ðstated€this€is€the€first€injury€at€one€level,€and€for€fusion,€which€gives€him€loss€of€motion€segmentÐ ¼' #& Ðintegrity,€he€gets€a€permanent€partial€impairment€rating€of€twenty„five€percent€(25%)€to€the€body€asÐ ¨(ø#' Ða€whole.€€Dr.€Brophy€acknowledged€the€example€in€the€Guides€referred€to€by€Dr.€Segal€that€rates€aÐ ”)ä$( Ðpatient€who€had€a€fusion€and€did€well€at€twenty„five€percent€(25%).€€However,€he€opined€that€theÐ €*Ð%) ÐAMA€Guides€contradict€themselves€as€to€the€ratings€given€for€surgery€of€this€nature€and€that€hisÐ l+¼&* Ðstandard€rating€for€a€surgery€such€as€the€Plaintiffððs€was€ten€percent€(10%).€€Dr.€Brophy€stated€thatÐ ° Ðhe€used€the€range€of€motion€method€which€is€appropriate€in€a€two„level€surgery.€€Under€this€ratingÐ œì Ðmethod,€the€range€of€motion€must€be€actually€tested.€€Dr.€Brophy€did€not€actually€test€PlaintiffððsÐ ˆØ Ðrange€of€motion€because€he€never€saw€Plaintiff€after€his€surgery.€€Dr.€Brophy€rated€Plaintiff€with€anÐ tÄ Ðeight€percent€(8%)€impairment€for€the€surgery€and€an€additional€two€percent€(2%)€for€a€range€ofÐ `° Ðmotion€which€he€described€as€ð ðgenerous.ððÐ L œ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€made€a€finding€that€there€was€nothing€in€the€record€to€indicate€to€a€reasonableÐ $ t Ðdegree€of€medical€certainty€whether€Dr.€Brophyððs€two€percent€(2%)€rating€for€a€loss€of€range€ofÐ  ` Ðmotion€is€indeed€ð ðgenerous,ðð€equitable,€or€overly€conservative.€€Plaintiff€testified,€and€the€trial€courtÐ ü L  Ðfound,€that€the€Plaintiff€demonstrated€some€loss€of€range€of€motion€in€bending€his€neck€forwards,Ð è 8  Ðextending€his€neck€backwards,€and€tilting€his€head€from€side€to€side.€€The€court€further€found€thatÐ Ô$  ÐPlaintiff€was€unable€to€lift€the€heavy€car€parts€that€he€lifted€prior€to€his€injury.€€Scott€Taylor,Ð À  ÐPlaintiffððs€co„worker€at€the€time€of€his€injury€and€at€the€time€that€he€returned€to€work€for€his€newÐ ¬ü  Ðemployer,€testified€that€prior€to€the€Plaintiffððs€injury,€Plaintiff€did€heavy€work,€but€that€after€theÐ ˜è  Ðinjury€he€did€not€see€Plaintiff€do€any€heavy€work.€€Plaintiff€testified€that€being€a€frame€technicianÐ „Ô  Ðcan€be€a€heavy€lifting€job,€requiring€the€lifting€of€doors,€tailgates,€beds€on€trucks,€hoods€and€anythingÐ pÀ Ðheavy€on€a€car€that€comes€off.€€Plaintiff€testified€that€he€operates€two€frame€machines€now€in€hisÐ \¬ Ðcurrent€job,€but€has€helpers€that€go€from€one€machine€to€the€other€to€do€the€things€that€he€is€not€ableÐ H˜ Ðto€do.€€Plaintiff€testified€that€he€no€longer€does€any€heavy€lifting€for€his€new€employer.€€He€statedÐ 4„ Ðthat€he€gets€help€from€co„workers€to€do€heavy€lifting€required€in€his€work.€€Plaintiff€stated€that€if€heÐ  p Ðlost€his€current€job€as€a€ð ðframe€man,ðð€he€would€have€to€find€someone€who€would€employ€him€underÐ  \ Ðthe€same€circumstances,€and€that€he€had€never€seen€a€job€like€that.€€Plaintiffððs€work€history€is€oneÐ øH Ðof€manual€labor€involving€heavy€lifting.€€Plaintiff€was€38€years€old€at€the€time€of€trial€and€wasÐ ä4 Ðeducated€to€the€eleventh€grade.€€Plaintiff€was€terminated€by€his€employer€shortly€after€the€injuryÐ Ð  Ðoccurred€and€did€not€return€to€work€with€his€pre„injury€employer.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àIt€is€well€settled€that€a€claimantððs€anatomical€disability€rating€is€but€one€factor€in€consideringÐ ”ä Ðthe€extent€of€vocational€disability.€€òòRoark€v.€Liberty€Mutual€Ins.€Co.,óó€òò793€S.W.2d€932,€934óó.€Ð €Ð ÐPlaintiff's€own€assessment€of€his€physical€condition€is€competent€testimony€and€cannot€beÐ l¼ Ðdisregarded.€€òòTom€Still€Transfer€Co.€v.€Way,óó€4òò82€S.W.2d€775,777€(Tenn.€1972);€Walker€v.€SaturnÐ X ¨ ÐCorp.,€986€S.W.2d€204,€208€(Tenn.€1998)óó.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àHere€the€Plaintiff€is€38€years€old,€has€an€eleventh€grade€education€and€a€job€history€of€manualÐ #l! Ðlabor€as€an€autobody€frame€technician.€€While€Plaintiff€has€returned€to€work,€he€is€now€unable€to€liftÐ $X" Ðthe€heavy€car€parts€that€he€lifted€prior€to€his€injury.€€He€currently€has€helpers€to€do€the€things€he€isÐ ô$D # Ðnot€able€to€do.€€He€no€longer€does€any€heavy€lifting€for€his€new€employer.€€Plaintiff€testified€that€ifÐ à%0!$ Ðhe€lost€his€job€as€a€"frame€man"€he€would€have€to€find€another€employer€who€would€employ€himÐ Ì&"% Ðunder€these€same€circumstances.€€Plaintiff€testified€that€he€does€not€know€of€a€job€like€that.€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àAn€examination€of€these€factors€preponderates€in€favor€of€an€increase€in€the€trial€courtððsÐ )à$( Ðassessment€of€vocational€disability€and€in€favor€of€a€finding€of€forty„five€percent€(45%)€permanentÐ |*Ì%) Ðpartial€disability€to€the€whole€body.€Ð h+¸&* ЇÔ  Ôò òÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONó óÐ ° ÐÓ¯™ÓÌà  àWe€hold€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€assessment€of€a€twenty„fiveÐ ˆØ Ðpercent€(25%)€vocational€disability€rating€to€the€Plaintiffððs€body€as€a€whole.€€After€consideration€ofÐ tÄ Ðall€the€appropriate€factors,€we€modify€the€judgement€of€the€trial€court€and€award€a€forty„five€percentÐ `° Ð(45%)€vocational€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€As€modified,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.€€CostsÐ L œ Ðare€assessed€to€the€Appellants,€Phillips€Autobody,€LLC€and€First€American€Insurance€Company,€forÐ 8 ˆ Ðwhich€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð $ t ÐÌÌÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#à____________________________________ÐÔ$ (#(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€F.€BUTLER,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÐ À  ÐÌÐ  ˜è  ÐÔ‡¼@˜»XXtÔÑ  Ñà@™ ™ ìàÔ#†XtX»¼@˜÷#ÔÔ‡îR¡îXXtÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONˆÐ Ö& ÐÔ#†XtXîîR¡Wž#ÔÌò òÔ‡¼@˜»XXtÔÓ  ÓDAVID€STUPP,€et€al,€v.€PHILLIPS€AUTO€BODY,€LLC€&€FIRSTÐ è8 ÐAMERICAN€INSURANCE€COMPANY,€et€alÔ#†XtX»¼@˜Ÿ#Ôó óÐ üL ÐÓ%ŸÓÌà@ìì*ìàò òˆÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<ç ` A߈Ð è 8 ÐÌà@  ìàNo.€W2003„00825„SC„WCM„CV€„€Filed€November€30,€2004ˆÐ ã 3  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<º` AßÐ »  Ðó óÌà@ƒƒ(ìàò òORDERó óˆÐ ¶  ÐÌòòóóÌÌÔ‡mXtXXXtÔà  àà ` àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€motion€for€review€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð f¶ Ððð€50„6„225(e)(5)(B),€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workers'Ð R¢ ÐCompensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel's€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€factÐ >Ž Ðand€conclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ð *z Ðà  àà ` àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€review€is€not€well„taken€andÐ f Ðshould€be€denied€andÐ R Ðà  àà ` àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€areÐ î> Ðadopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€judgment€of€the€Court.€€ò òÐ Ú* Ðó óà  àà ` àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€Appellants,€Phillips€Auto€Body,€LLC,€and€FirstÐ Æ ÐAmerican€Insurance€Company.Ð ² ÐÌà  àà ` àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€this€30òòthóó€day€of€November,€2004.Ð ŠÚ ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àPER€CURIAMÐ N ž ÐÌÌHolder,€J.€„€€not€participating.Ð #b" ÐÔ#†XtXXmXt\¡#ÔÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È à