ÿWPCò' Æ# ä UNï %= 0îC Æ1w@÷47K Z 02` 0D’ÆÖÆœÆbÆ(î 0Jö 0 @ 0TJ 0^ž 0hü 0rd 0|Ö 0†R 0Ø 1uh 0dÝU >AU* D3©U*Ü¡ 0@§ 0Kçv~2vÓ° D+ƒ% B®% AOË% 0D& D/^& B& AYª& 0F' A©I'˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(Ævv$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€¼ô€¼XXÔÑ7€LXXdðXXdð7ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 &V' î(P)P*P+P,E-E.E/E%€X$ÔôÔ3|x/H(â(3Ö$¤¤Ý ƒvv!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€¼Äð¼XXÔÑ7€¬ÙXXdðdð7ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(%Ã$òòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(â3µŸ$©©Ý ƒvv!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€¼Äð¼XXÔÑ7€¬ÙXXdðdð7ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ý2" 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< Œ 9p`(Times^^^^'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial —Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€(¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ôÔA€connective€tissue€arthritis,€not€curable,€and€highly€debilitating.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿáùEG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 Ò'ÈÈÈÈdxd d-‚ƒCþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd-¸:Müÿ << deUU(n$––ò ò(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)ó ó-.:›&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€(ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€(¼ÔÑ#€))Xd#ÑÑ#€))Xd#ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+XÔ›Þ ÞÌÌò òà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÓ  ÓWORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌAT€KNOXVILLEó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌJOEY€SWEAT,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWASHINGTON€CHANCERYÌà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNO.€€œ03S01›„9701„CH„00006Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€THOMAS€J.€œSEELEY›,€JR.,ÌSUPERIOR€INDUSTRIES,€INC.,à àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellantà àà à)ÌÌÓ  Óò òòòÌóóó óÌÓ  ÓÔ€(ÔÔ€(¼ÔÌÌò òòòFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àFor€the€Appellee:Ìó óóóSteven€H.€œTrent›à àà àà àà àœHowell›€H.€œSherrod›,€Jr.ÌBAKER,€œDONELSON›,à àà àà àœSHERROD›,€STANLEY,Ìà àœBEARMAN€&›€CALDWELLà àà à€œLINCOLN€&›€œGOLDSTEIN›Ì207€Mockingbird€Laneà àà àà à249€East€Main€StreetÌP.€O.€Box€3038à àà àà àà àJohnson€City,€Tennessee€37604„5707ÌJohnson€City,€Tennessee€37602ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òòòM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌóóó óà àò òòòMembers€of€Panel:ÌÌóóó óJustice€Frank€F.€œDrowota›,€IIIÌSenior€Judge€William€H.€œInman›ÌSpecial€Judge€Joe€C.€Loser,€Jr.ò òÌÓ  ÓÌó óÌÌÌÌÌò òÌà àà àà àà à€à àó óÌò òœAFFIRMED›à àà àà àœà àà àÔ% € ÔINMAN›,€Senior€Judgeó óÌÓÓà àœÌà àThisÔ€+Ô›€Ô€(Ôworkers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€SpecialÏWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordanceÏwith€T.C.A.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€CourtÏof€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.Ìò òà@ àIÌà àó óThis€is€a€psoriatic€arthritis× ƒ, ××  ×€case,€an€on„going€debilitating€condition,Ïwhich€pre„existed€the€plaintiffððs€employment.€€He€alleges€that€he€wasÏasymptomatic€prior€to€his€employment€by€the€defendant€and€that€the€nature€ofÏhis€job€triggered€his€symptoms€and€worsened€the€underlying€disease.€€TheÏdefendant€says€that€only€the€symptoms,€i.e.,€pain€and€swelling,€wereÏexacerbated€by€employment€(as€any€physical€activity€would€do)€but€that€theÏdisease€òòper€œse›óó€was€not€worsened.Ìà àDr.€David€Lurie€testified€by€deposition.€€The€precise€issue€of€whetherÍthe€plaintiffððs€employment€caused€a€progression€of€the€disease€or€whether€itÏmerely€aggravated€the€symptoms€was€not€sufficiently€articulated€by€Dr.€LurieÏin€the€opinion€of€the€trial€judge,€and€he€requested€that€Dr.€Lurie€elucidate€theÏpoint€either€by€a€supplemental€deposition€or€by€letter.€€Counsel€agreed€to€theÏlatter.€€He€was€asked:€In€your€opinion,€based€on€a€reasonable€medicalÏprobability,€did€Sweatððs€activities€.€.€.€advance€and€result€in€an€actualÏprogression€of€his€underlying€psoriatic€arthritis?€€To€which€Dr.€LurieÏresponded:€ð ðIn€my€opinion,€based€on€reasonable€medical€probability€SweatððsÏwork€.€.€.€advanced€and€resulted€in€actual€progression€of€his€underlyingÏpsoriatic€arthritis.ðð€€He€testified€that€the€allocation€of€the€progression€of€theÏdisease€from€physical€activity€as€œcontrasted›€to€spontaneous€progression€was€notÏœquantifiable›,€but€that€the€ð ðrepetitive,€strenuous,€weight„bearing€activitiesÏresulted€in€some€permanent€joint€injury.ððÌò òà@ àIIÌó óà àThe€plaintiff€is€28€years€old,€with€a€high€school€education.€€He€held€aÏvariety€of€jobs€before€he€was€employed€by€the€defendant€in€1993.€He€workedÏin€the€foundry€transporting€liquid€aluminum€by€a€monorail€system.€€This€kindÏof€job€required€safety€clothing€and€paraphernalia.€€In€1994€he€had€a€shoulderÏinjury€which€apparently€required€no€treatment.€€Pain€and€swelling€developedÏin€his€ankles,€hip€and€shoulder,€which€eventually€disabled€him.Ìà àHe€was€employed€by€the€defendant€18€months.€€Before€working€there,Íhe€never€experienced€any€of€the€symptoms€of€psoriatic€arthritis.€€Within€a€fewÏmonths,€his€feet€became€sore;€the€condition€worsened,€until€most€of€his€bodyÏwas€affected.€€Psoriatic€arthritis€was€eventually€diagnosed€by€a€rheumatologist,ÏDr.€Lurie,€whose€opinion€we€have€alluded€to.Ìà àDr.€John€œMarshall,›€œa€physiatrist,€evaluated›€the€plaintiff.œ€€He€made€fourÏdifferent€diagnoses€of€the€plaintiff,€one€of€which€was€psoriatic€arthritis,€ofÏunknown€etiology.€€He€opined€that€the€plaintiffððs€job€activities€were€not€relatedÏto€his€condition.Ìà àThe€trial€judge€found€that€the€disease€was€not€job„related,€and€probablyÏpre„existed€his€employment,€but€he€was€unable€to€ð ðmake€the€requiredÏdistinction€.€.€.€of€whether€plaintiffððs€employment€caused€a€progression€orÏworsening€of€the€.€.€.€underlying€disease€or€merely€aggravated€his€symptoms,ððÏand€suggested€clarifying€testimony,€as€we€have€seen.€Fully€accrediting€Dr.ÏLurieððs€opinion,€the€trial€judge€found€that€the€nature€of€the€plaintiffððs€workÏð ðòòcaused€a€progression€or€actual€worsening€of€his€underlying€psoriaticÏarthritis,ððóó€and€awarded€benefits€based€on€a€finding€of€70€percent€permanent,Ïpartial€disability.Ìà àOur€review€of€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóóÏupon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€theÏcorrectness€of€the€finding,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€isÏotherwise.€T.C.A.€ðð€€€50„6„225(e)(2).€€òòStone€v.€City€of€McMinnville›,€óó896ÍS.W.2d€548,€550€(Tenn.€1995).€Ìà àThe€issue€for€review€is€ð ðwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€theÏplaintiff€sustained€a€compensable€injury€as€defined€by€the€Tennessee€WorkersððÏCompensation€Law.ððÌà àWe€adopt€the€findings€and€analyses€of€the€trial€judge:Ìà àð ðThe€general€rule€is€that€aggravation€of€a€pre„existing€condition€may€beÏcompensable€under€the€workersðð€compensation€laws€of€Tennessee,€but€it€is€notÏcompensable€if€it€results€only€in€increased€pain€or€other€symptoms€caused€byÏthe€underlying€condition.€€òòSee€Cunningham€v.€Goodyear,óó€811€S.W.2d€888,Ï890€(Tenn.€1991);òò€Smith€v.€Smithððs€Transfer€Corp.,€óó735€S.W.2d€221,€225„226Ï(Tenn.€1987);€òòœBoling›€v.€œRaytheon›€Co.,€œóó448›€S.W.2d€405,€408€(Tenn.€1969);ÏòòConner€v.€Rite€Aid,€óó1995€Lexis€220€(W.Comp.€Appeals€Panel).€€It€has€beenÏotherwise€stated€that,€to€be€compensable,€the€pre„existing€condition€must€beÏð ðadvancedðð€(òòSpringfield€v.€Eden,óó€1995€Lexis€67€(W.Comp.€Appeals€Panel),€orÏthere€must€be€an€ð ðanatomical€changeðð€in€the€pre„existing€condition€(òòœTalley›€v.ÏVirginia€œIns›.€Reciprocal,óó€775€S.W.2d€587,€591€(Tenn.€1989),€or€theÏemployment€must€cause€ð ðan€actual€progression€.€.€.€of€the€underlying€disease.ðð€ÏòòCunningham,€supraóó€at€890.Ìà àœÌà àIn›€òòœBoling›,óó€plaintiff€worked€for€defendant€some€nine€years€when€sheÏstarted€having€pain€in€her€neck,€back€and€shoulder.€€She€was€ultimatelyÍdiagnosed€with€degenerative€arthritis.€€The€Supreme€Court,€denying€recovery,Ïsaid:ÌÓÓà8 àIn€substance,€what€we€have€here€is€an€employee€with€a€disablingÏinjury€or€disease€not€related€to€employment,€but€the€employmentÏdoes€aggravate€the€disabling€injury€or€disease€by€making€the€painÏworse.€€This€situation€does€not€constitute€an€ððaccidentðð€as€thisÏword€is€used€in€our€workmenððs€compensation€statutes.€€òòœBoling›,Ïsupra€óóat€408.ÌÌÓÓà àòòSmithóó€involved€an€employee€with€the€disease€of€thoracic€outletÏsyndrome.€€She€testified€that€she€never€had€any€health€problems€while€workingÏfor€several€employers€for€the€12€years€preceding€her€employment€withÏdefendant.€€Her€pain€started€some€five€months€after€starting€work€for€theÏdefendant.€€The€Court,€assuming€plaintiff€had€been€asymptomatic€up€until€thatÏtime,€stated:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 à[œT]here›€is€no€evidence€whatever€that€[the€disease]€had€its€origin€inÏany€thing€connected€to€plaintiffððs€work€for€defendant.ÌÌà@ àò ò.€€.€€€.€€€.€€€.€€€ó óÌÌà8 àIt€is€also€undisputed€that€plaintiff€suffered€the€same€painÏassociated€with€thoracic€outlet€syndrome€when€engaged€in€non„work€related€activities.€€There€was€no€medical€evidence€thatÏplaintiffððs€keyboard€activity€or€bill€of€lading€grasping€producedÏany€physical€change€or€advanced€the€incidence€of€thoracic€outletÏsyndrome€other€than€increased€pain.€€òòSmith,€supraóó€at€224.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€plaintiff€in€òòCunninghamóó€had€osteoarthritis,€but€had€beenÏasymptomatic€until€he€started€working€for€Goodyear.€€He€soon€developed€painÏin€his€shoulders€and€all€extremities€along€with€limitation€of€motion.€€TheÍSupreme€Court€found€that€there€was€no€ð ðaccidentðð€where€the€employment€didÏnot€cause€the€underlying€disease,€but€aggravated€the€disease€by€making€theÏpain€worse.€€òòCunningham,€supraóó€at€890.€€It€is€significant€to€note€JusticeÏœDaughtrey›ððs€dissent,€in€which€she€found€that€plaintiffððs€work€had€ð ðadvancedÏthe€severityðð€of€his€condition€and€ð ðresulted€in€a€disabling€condition€other€thanÏpain€aloneðð€based€largely€on€the€fact€that€he€was€asymptomatic€when€he€firstÏwent€to€work€for€Goodyear.€€òòCunningham,€supra€óóat€894.€€The€majority€of€theÏCourt,€however,€clearly€followed€previous€decisions,€saying:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 à.€.€.€€Where€the€employment€does€not€cause€an€actual€progressionÏor€aggravation€of€the€underlying€disease,€but€simply€producesÏadditional€pain,€there€is€substantial€authority€that€a€claim€is€notÏcompensable€when€the€disease€itself€was€not€an€occupationalÏdisease€but€originated€in€conditions€outside€employment.€ÏòòCunningham,€supraóó€at€890.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àIt€is€well„settled€that€an€employer€takes€an€employee€as€he€finds€him,Ïthat€œis,›€with€his€pre„existing€defects€and€diseases.€€òòRogers€v.€Shaw,óó€813€S.W.2dÏ397€(Tenn.€1991).Ìà àIn€light€of€the€apparent€state€of€the€law,€the€Court€posed€the€followingÏquestion€to€Dr.€Lurie€in€the€agreed„upon€letter:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àIn€your€opinion,€based€on€a€reasonable€medical€probability,€didÏSweatððs€work€activities€at€Superior€Industries€ð ðadvanceðð€andÏresult€in€ð ðan€actual€progressionðð€of€his€underlying€psoriaticÏarthritis?ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àDr.€Lurieððs€answer€was:€ð ðIn€my€opinion,€based€on€reasonable€medicalÏprobability€that€Sweatððs€work€activities€at€Superior€Industries€advanced€andÍresulted€in€actual€progression€of€his€underlying€psoriatic€arthritis.ðð€€He€statedÏfurther,€the€allocation€of€how€much€his€disease€progressed€from€work„relatedÏactivity€as€opposed€to€spontaneous€progression€was€not€œquantifiable›,€but€theÏð ðrepetitive,€strenuous€weight„bearing€activities€.€.€.€resulted€œin›€moreÏpermanent€joint€injury.ððÌà àDr.€Marshall,€the€physiatrist€who€saw€plaintiff€only€once€and€forÏevaluation,€not€treatment,€apparently€disagreed€with€Dr.€Lurie.€€œDepos›.€of€Dr.ÏMarshall,€pp.56„58.€€However,€the€Court€finds€Dr.€Lurieððs€opinion€to€be€moreÏpersuasive.€€œHe›€is€a€specialist€in€this€field€and€was,€and€is,€plaintiffððs€treatingÏphysician.€€òòSee€Davis€v.€Van€Liner€œIns›.€Co.,€óóTenn.€Lexis€333€(W.Comp.ÏAppeals€Panel).Ìà àWhat€we€do€know€from€the€undisputed€testimony€is€that€plaintiff€wasÏasymptomatic€prior€to€working€for€defendant€notwithstanding€being€veryÏactive,€even€lifting€weights€and€running.€€Plaintiffððs€employment€ð ðtriggeredððÏhis€symptoms.€€There€being€no€way€by€which€the€Court€can€quantify€howÏmuch€worse€his€condition€was€made€by€his€work,€it€results€that€the€employerÏmust€bear€the€burden€of€any€uncertainty.Ìà àThe€Court€found€plaintiff€to€be€a€very€credible€witness€in€all€respects.€ÏFurther,€as€indicated€by€the€testimony€of€Dr.€œHankins›,€plaintiff€is€quiteÏintelligent€and€capable€of€doing€well€in€college€and€in€many€fields€ofÏemployment€upon€receiving€the€necessary€education€and€training.€€HisÍemployment€will€have€to€be,€in€general,€sedentary,€however.€€Clearly,€plaintiffÏis€not€limited€to€the€kinds€of€unskilled€employment€that€he€had€in€the€past.Ìò òœà@ àHolding:›Ìó óà àThe€Court€ò òFINDS€ó óand€ò òHOLDSó ó€that€plaintiff€did€suffer€a€compensableÏinjury€in€the€course€and€scope€of€his€employment€with€defendant.€ÏSpecifically,€the€prolonged€standing€on€a€concrete€floor€and€at€times€strenuousÏnature€of€his€work€caused€a€progression€or€actual€worsening€of€his€underlyingÏdisease€of€psoriatic€arthritis.€€As€a€result€thereof,€plaintiff€has€sustained€aÏpermanent€partial€disability€of€seventy€(70)€percent€to€his€whole€body.ððÌà àWe€are€unable€to€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÏjudgment,€which€is€affirmed€at€the€costs€of€the€appellant.€€The€case€isÏremanded€for€all€purposes.ÌÓÓÌÌÌà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€œInman›,€Senior€JudgeÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________ÌFrank€F.€œDrowota›,€III,€JusticeÌÌÌ________________________ÌJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€œJudgeÇÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÌà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€IN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà à€à à€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àAT€KNOXVILLEà àà àÌÌÌÌÒ Ê ÒÒ „ Òà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÒ S ÒÒ „ Òà àà àJOEY€SWEAT,à àà àà à)€€€€WASHINGTON€CHANCERY€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€ÏNo.€€30416Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff/Appellee,à àà à)à àà àà àà àà à€€€€à àà àà à€€€€€€€Ïà àà àà àà à)à à€à àÌvs.€€à àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€Hon.€Thomas€J.€Seely,€Jr.à àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àà à)€€€€€Judge€€€€à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà à)ÌSUPERIOR€INDUSTRIES,€IN.)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à)€€€€€€No.€03S01„9701„CH„00006Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à à)à àÌà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€à àÌà àÌÌà àà àà àà àJUDGMENT€ORDERÌà àà àà àÌà à€€€€€€€€€€€ÓfæÓÓ ø ÓÓ` Ü…X ì–XÓThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€includingÏthe€order€of€referral€to€the€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€Panel,€and€theÏPanelððs€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€Memorandum€OpinionÏof€the€Panel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌà àà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panelððs€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€isÏmade€the€Judgment€of€the€Court.€€à àà àÌÒ  ÒÒ „ Òà à€€€€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€defendant/appellant,€SuperiorÍIndustries,€Inc.€and€Steven€H.€Trent,,€Surety,€for€which€execution€mayÏissue€if€necessary.ÌÌ03/03/98Ì€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÙ€Ù<<€Conversion€error€>>à àà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€motion€forÏreview€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann€.ðð€50„6„225€(e)€(5)€(B),€the€entireÏrecord,€including€the€order€of€referral€to€the€Special€WorkersððÏCompensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panelððs€Memorandum€OpinionÏsetting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€areÏincorporated€herein€by€reference;Ìà àà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€review€isÏnot€well€taken€and€should€be€denied;€andÌà àà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panelððs€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€PanelÍis€made€the€judgment€of€the€Court.Ìà àà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€the€plaintiff„appellant€and€sureties,€forÏwhich€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ìà àà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€this€____€day€of€June,€1997.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌÌAnderson,€J.€„€Not€ParticipatingÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌal€to€the€Special€Workerðð€Compensation€Panel,€and€the€PanelððsÏMemorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ìà àÌà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€Opinion€ofÏthe€Panel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌÌà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panelððs€findings€of€act€and€conclusionsÏof€law€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€theÏJudgment€of€the€Court.ÌÌà àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€€to€the€plaintiff„appellant,€Vernon€Harris€andÌGilbert€and€Faulkner.€surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€ÌÌ06/03//97à àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌà àœÔ€(Ô›