ÿWPC› …# VU:a %› 0û¡U<œ w@Ø 4 , ; C 0JI 0T“ 0^ç 0hE 0r­ 0| 0†› 0! 1u± 0d&U*ŠB)´DCÝ AM ¨m Bv~2vÓ° D3ƒ 0@¶ AOöÆE 0D  D/O B~˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Óý,$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XûXXXÔÑ7€>‚XXdðXXdð7Ñ.èB' Z‹$Arrus BT Roman ÅDÆÇPÈPÉDÊDËDÌVÍîÎÓ€·‚^!xÔôlX3|xÙHR2 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`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ žÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òNovemberÏ26,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó dPtPtfHHÚ(ÿáÿáùE1À˜ýHHŽxЀxh'dHStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  inion Geneva ÒÒ  inion Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÑ  Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLE€AUGUST€1996€SESSIONó óÌÌÌDORIS€TABOR,à àà àà àà à)à àCUMBERLAND€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà àà àà à)à àNO.€03S01„9510„„CV„00117Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JOHN€J.€œMADDUX,›€JR.,̜ـ€ÙÙ€€ÙßR€#$"A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEà àÌCROSSVILLE€CERAMICSà àà à)ÌCOMPANY,€and€CNAà àà àà à)à àÌINSURANCE€COMPANIES,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àœDefendants/Appellants›à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€the€œAppellants:›à àà àà àœFor›€the€Appellee:ÌÌó óóóMichael€J.€Mollenhourà àà àœà àJohn›€T.€MarchÌJ.€Christopher€Clemà àà àà àœDAVID›€H.€DUNAWAY€&€ASSOCIATESÌLEWIS,€KING,€KRIEG,€WALDROPà àP.€O.€Box€231Ìà à&€CATRON,€P.C.à àà àà àLaFollette,€TN€37766ÌOne€œCentre›€SquareÌ620€Market€Street,€Fifth€FloorÌP.€O.€Box€2425ÌKnoxville,€TN€37901ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓMembers€of€Panel:ÌÌóóó óE.€Riley€Anderson,€œJustice›Ìà@ àà@ àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌJoe€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœMODIFIED›à àà àà àà àà àà àINMAN,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÓÓà 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€alleges€that€on€March€7,€1994€she€sustained€injuries€to€her€armsÏand€hands€during€the€course€of€her€employment€owing€to€their€repetitive€use;€thatÏshe€returned€to€work€as€a€polisher€for€the€Crossville€Ceramics€Company€and€œthat€on›ÏMarch€23,€1994€œshe€injured›€her€neck€or€back€while€pushing€a€box€of€tiles.Ìà àThe€defendants€admitted€that€the€plaintiff€suffered€a€temporary€injury€butÏdenied€that€she€sustained€a€permanent€disability.Ìà àThereafter,€on€May€24,€1995,€an€approved€Order€was€entered€whereby€theÏplaintiff€voluntarily€dismissed€ð ðher€cause€of€action€as€to€her€March€23,€1994€injuriesððÏpursuant€to€Rule€41,€Tenn.€R.€œCiv›.€P.€€This€procedure€is€unchallenged,€and€we€willÏtreat€the€complaint€as€having€been€amended€to€allege€a€compensable€injury€byÏaccident€which€occurred€on€March€7,€1994.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€testified€that€she€worked€as€a€sorter€in€the€polishing€departmentÏof€the€ceramics€manufacturer,€the€kind€of€work€that€required€repetitive€motions€ofÏboth€arms.€€On€March€7,€1994€numbness€and€tingling€developed€in€both€arms€whichÏshe€reported€to€her€œsupervisor›Ô% € Ô€and€for€which€she€received€conservative€medicalÏtreatment.€€òòShe€continued€at€her€job€for€more€than€one€year,€leaving€employment€inÏApril€1995€after€allegedly€suffering€a€neck€injury.óóÌà àDuring€the€thirteen€months€between€March€1994€and€April€1995€the€plaintiffÏwas€seen€by€a€procession€of€physicians€practicing€various€disciplines.€€Dr.ÏSimpson,€the€orthopedic€physician€selected€by€the€plaintiff,€treated€her€over€aÏperiod€of€months€and€concluded€that€she€exaggerated€her€symptoms€which€wereÏnot€anatomic.€€He€testified€that€she€suffered€no€œimpairment.€€His€findings€areÏsupported€by€those€of€the€Knoxville€Neurology€Clinic€and€the€East€TennesseeÏOrthopedic€Clinic.›Ìà àThe€plaintiff€was€referred€by€her€attorney€to€Dr.€Gorman,€an€orthopedicÏsurgeon€practicing€in€Johnson€City,€who€testified€that€she€had€a€five€(5)€percentÏimpairment€in€each€arm,€and€recommended€avoidance€of€ð ðrepetitive€factory€work.ðð€ÏShe€was€then€referred€by€her€attorney€to€Kelly€Lenz,€a€physical€therapist,€forÏevaluation.€€The€defendant€objected€to€her€testimony€on€grounds€of€irrelevanceÏsince€the€œwitnessððs›€examination€and€evaluation€involved€the€alleged€injuries€to€theÏneck€and€back€to€a€substantial€extent.€€Ms.€Lenzðð€evaluation€was€based€on€three€orÏfour€hours€of€œtesting,›€and€she€conceded€on€cross„examination€that€ð ðthe€results€wereÏinvalid.ðð€€Without€belaboring€the€point,€it€seems€clear€that€the€testimony€of€thisÏwitness€should€have€been€excluded.Ìà àDr.€Norman€Hankins,€a€œrehabilitation€›expert,€testified€that€the€plaintiff€was€80Ïpercent€vocationally€disabled;€a€counterpart,€Dr.€Rodney€Caldwell,€testified€that€theÏplaintiffððs€vocational€disability€was€35€œpercent€if€the€medical€evaluations€wereÏreliable.›€€Other€experts€testified€or€submitted€reports.€€The€trial€judge€found€that€theÏplaintiff€sustained€a€45€percent€œpartial,›€permanent€disability€to€each€arm€as€a€resultÏof€the€March€7,€1994€episode.Ìà àThe€employer€appeals€and€presents€for€review€the€issues€of€(1)€whether€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€finding€that€the€ð ðemployer€caused€permanent€impairment€toÏplaintiffððs€arms;ðð€(2)€whether€the€trial€courtððs€award€was€excessive;€(3)€whether€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€admitting€and€relying€on€the€testimony€of€Kelly€Lenz,€Dr.€ThomasÏœQualls›€and€Dr.€Norman€Hankins;€(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€assessing€theÏcosts€of€Dr.€Hankinsðð€testimony€against€the€defendant.Ìà àWe€treat€the€first€issue€as€alleging€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€aÏfinding€that€the€plaintiff€sustained€the€injuries€to€her€arms€as€she€claimed.€€OurÏreview€of€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,Ïaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€finding,€unless€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€òòTenn.€R.€App.€P.,€Rule€13óó(d).Ìò òÓ  ÓIÌÓ  Óó óà àThe€plaintiff€continued€to€work€for€thirteen€(13)€months€after€the€March€7,Ï1994€episode.€€She€never€missed€work€because€of€problems€with€her€arms€orÏhands.€€She€quit€her€job€in€April€1995€because€of€an€alleged€back€or€neck€injury,Ïwhich€was€non„suited€as€we€have€shown.€€Her€treating€physician,€Dr.€Simpson,Ïtestified€that€œhe€found€no€organic€basis€for€her€complaints€and€that€she€had€no›Íimpairment;€a€physician€hired€by€her€attorney,€who€saw€her€on€two€occasions,Ïtestified€as€to€the€claimed€carpal€tunnel€syndrome€and€that€she€had€a€five€percentÏimpairment€in€each€arm.€€While€it€is€obvious€that€the€trial€court€would€have€beenÏjustified€in€finding€the€issue€of€occurrence€and€injury€against€the€plaintiff,€we€cannotÏfind€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€a€finding€of€impairment,€although€theÏpercentage€thereof€is€excessive€and€not€supported€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence.€€òòSee€Humphrey€v.€David€œWitherspoon›,€œInc.,›€óó734€S.W.2d€315€(Tenn.Ï1987).€€We€think€the€evidence€when€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€plaintiffÏsupports€a€finding€that€she€has€a€œten›€percent€impairment€in€each€arm,€and€theÏjudgment€will€be€modified€accordingly.Ìò òÓ  ÓIIÌÓ  Óó óà àError€is€assigned€to€the€allowance€of€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Qualls,€aÏchiropractor.€€It€does€not€appear€from€the€record€that€the€trial€court€relied€on€thisÏtestimony,€and€we€need€not€further€notice€it.Ìò òÓ  ÓIIIÌÓ  Óó óà àThe€testimony€of€Dr.€Hankins€is€somewhat€perplexing.€€He€assumed€that€theÏplaintiff€was€unable€to€perform€repetitive€œwrist„motion›€factory€work€despite€the€factÏthat€she€did€so€for€thirteen€months€before€she€stopped€work€on€account€of€anÏalleged€back€injury.€€The€defendant€argues€œthat€his€testimony€should€not€have€beenÏconsidered€for€any€purpose.€€We€think€the€anomaly€inherent€in€his€testimonyÏpresents€only€a€matter€of€the€weight€to€be€accorded€it,€and€we€are€as€well€able€toÏjudge€of€its€worth€as€the€trial€judge.€€òòHumphrey,€supraóó.€€We€cannot€find€that€theÏtestimony€of€Dr.€Hankins€has€no€probative€value;€rather,€its€evidentiary€value,€whileÍlessened€by€his€assumption,€is€of€some€benefit€to€the€decisional€process,€and€weÏcannot€find€that€the€award€of€discretionary€costs€was€an€abuse€of€discretion.›Ìà àAs€modified,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.€€The€costs€are€divided€evenly€and€theÏcase€is€remanded.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌE.€Riley€Anderson,€Chief€JusticeÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌJoe€C.€Loser,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌœÇÒ € ÒÒ H ÒÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€Ôà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÌÌDORIS€TABOR,à àà àà àà à)à àCUMBERLANDÏCIRCUITà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€NJ„2010€BelowÌà àAppellant,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€John€J.€Maddux,€Jr.,Ìv.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.€€03S01„9510„CV„00117ÌCROSSVILLE€CERAMICSà àà à)à àÌCOMPANY€and€CNA€INSURANCEà à)ÌCOMPANIES,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellees.à àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àòòJUDGMENT€ORDERóóÌÌÌÓÓÔ€ Ôà àà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€motion€for€review€pursuant€toÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(5)(B),€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€ofÏreferral€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel'sÏMemorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,Ïwhich€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ìà àà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€review€is€notÏwell„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€divided€evenly.Ìà àà àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED€this€____€day€of€______,€1996.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌAnderson,€J.€„€Not€participating.›à àà àà àà à