WPC> eƍǮ09|'spwлߧọMU1;U!(@R'sRvB D))†\2au1DH<@swq`*Fp*0aQ(敛!7z`c[͇HjK~pQ_hE=8b,V֢nRpY1vOi` m%*KB$j + L+6{%t\t⾣W|a\NlK)cuGv֒avI c񋧔=|;DFnTD_ƕ@lwGf=bG*Uo;7R"ˆwWd_Vc:Lb %\^ b 0nULNwD4H\ zk m #  Q 0DiNUNEN zUNb333333333333333333333333333333333333 0;;;; B && 0C D3 D- 0KGG AS 0 0DO An{o- (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regulardb,xP3|x 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.wptUHP LJ 4000/4050 PCL 5e,,,,0  RW]$      1  XXX  _ XXXԀThetrialcourtawardedbenefitsseparatelyforthebackandankleinjuries.Whenanemployeesuffersa  permanentpartiallossofuseofbothascheduledmember(leg)andanunscheduledmember(back),thereshouldbeone t overallratingofdisability,andthatratingshouldbetothebodyasawhole.Kerrv.MagicChef,Inc.,793S.W.2d927, 8 928(Tenn.1990).Theemployer,however,didnotraisethisissueattrialoronappeal.#XXX ~#ԁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5('$  2  (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular  RW]$      2  XXX  _ XXXԀDr.Cokerreachedthesameconclusionbut,asdiscussedbelow,thetrialcourterredinadmittingDr.Cokers  medicalconclusionsinevidence.Consequently,wehavenotconsideredDr.Cokersconclusions. 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(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular- -(|G2W]$ !..8Edd8         0  XXX d(|3.$ !..8Edd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3.$ !..8Edd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Edd8     _E8XXXdd8  E@@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL & @@ATNASHVILLE#E# L July25,2002Session "r XXXE #EXXX#CHESTERGRAYTHOMPSONv.NASHVILLEELECTRICSERVICEXXXE   p @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforRobertsonCounty  p @@No.9253JohnH._Gasaway_,III,Judge  \ @@*AV) ` dE<` A   No.M200102306_WC_ԄR3CV#EXXX#XXXEԀMailedOctober14,2002   #EXXXn#XXXEFiledNovember15,2002   AV) ` dE<` A       Thisworkers'compensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppeals  PaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)forhearingand v reportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.Inthisappeal,#EXXX#XXXEthe b employer#EXXX #XXXEԀinsists#EXXXm#XXXEԀ(1)theawardofpermanentpartialdisabilitybenefitsbasedon37.5percenttothe N bodyasawholeisexcessive,(2)thetrialcourterredinfindingthattheemployeesufferedaback : injury inthescopeandcourseoftheemployment,and(3)thetrialcourterredincommutingthe &v awardtoalumpsum.Theemployeequestionstheadmissibilityofthetreatingphysiciansrecords b becausetherecordswereneitheradmittedthroughamedicalrecordscustodiannorthedeposition N ofthetreatingphysician,andnoC32formwassubmitted.Asdiscussedbelow,thepanelhas : concludedthatanyerrorintheadmissionofthemedicalrecordswasharmless.Wethereforeaffirm & thejudgment.     Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(2001Supp.)AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuit  CourtAffirmed        #EXX#XXX.EJoeC.Loser,Jr.,Sp.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJaniceM.Holder,J.,and ^"! JamesL._Weatherford_,Sr.J.,joined. J#" MarkA._Baugh_ԀandEugeneWard,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,NashvilleElectric "%r $ Service &^!% E.Guy_Holliman_ԀandWilliamJosephButler,Lafayette,Tennessee,fortheappellee,Chester '6#' Thompson ("$(    MEMORANDUMOPINION #EXXX" #XXXE *%*   #EXXX#XXXE  Theemployeeorclaimant,Mr.Thompson,initiatedthiscivilactiontorecoverworkers ,', compensationbenefitsforinjuriestohisbackandankleallegedlyresultingfromafallduringa n-(- _trainingexerciseauthorizedbytheemployer,NashvilleElectricService.Thetrialcourtawarded  permanentpartialdisabilitybenefitsbasedon37.5percenttothebodyasawholeand5percentto  hisankle.  '  1      ׀Bothpartieshaveappealed.    XXXXXXAppellatereviewisdenovoupontherecordofthetrialcourt,accompaniedbyapresumption ` ofcorrectnessofthefindingsoffact,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.#XXXXXX#Tenn. L  CodeAnn.506225(e)(2)(2001Supp.).XXXXXXԀThereviewingcourtisrequiredtoconductan 8  independentexaminationoftherecordtodeterminewherethepreponderanceoftheevidencelies.#XXXXXXB#XXXXXXԀ $ t Wingertv.GovernmentofSumnerCounty,908S.W.2d921,922(Tenn.1995).#XXXXXX(#XXXXXXThestandard  ` governingappellatereviewoffindingsoffactbyatrialcourtrequirestheSpecialWorkers  L  CompensationAppealsPaneltoexamineindepthatrialcourtsfactualfindingsandconclusions.#XXXXXX#XXXXXXԀ  8  GAFBldg.Materialsv.George,47S.W.3d430,432(Tenn.2001).#XXXXXX #XXXXXXWherethetrialjudgehasseen $  andheardthewitnesses,especiallyifissuesofcredibilityandweighttobegivenoraltestimonyare   involved,considerabledeferencemustbeaccordedthosecircumstancesonreview,becauseitisthe   trialcourtwhichhadtheopportunitytoobservethewitnessesdemeanorandtoheartheincourt   testimony.#XXXXXX#XXXXXXLongv.TriConInd.,Ltd.,996S.W.2d173,178(Tenn.1999).#XXXXXX#XXXXXXԀThetrialcourtsfindings   withrespecttocredibilityandweightoftheevidencemaygenerallybeinferredfromthemannerin p whichthecourtresolvesconflictsinthetestimonyanddecidesthecase.#XXXXXX#XXXXXXTobittv. \ Bridgestone/Firestone,Inc.,59S.W.3d57,61(Tenn.2001).#XXXXXXX#XXXXXXԀTheappellatetribunal,however,isas H wellsituatedtogaugetheweight,worthandsignificanceofdepositiontestimonyasthetrialjudge. 4 #XXXXXX#XXXXXXWalkerv.SaturnCorp.,986S.W.2d204,207(Tenn.1998)#XXXXXX#XXXXXX.Theextentofaninjuredworkers  p vocationaldisabilityisaquestionoffact.#XXXXXXp#XXXXXXSealsv.England/CorsairUpholsteryMfg.,984S.W.2d  \ 912,915(Tenn.1999).#XXXXXX#XXXXXXԀWherethemedicaltestimonyinaworkerscompensationcaseispresented H bydeposition,thereviewingcourtmaymakeanindependentassessmentofthemedicalproofto 4 determinewherethepreponderanceoftheprooflies.#XXXXXX#XXXXXXWhirlpoolCorp.v.Nakhoneinh,69S.W.3d   164,167(Tenn.2002).#XXXXXX#XXXXXXԀ#XXXXXX#XXXXXXConclusionsoflawaresubjecttodenovoreviewonappealwithoutany   presumptionofcorrectness.#XXXXXX#XXXXXXԀNuttv.ChampionIntern.Corp.,980S.W.2d365,367(Tenn.1998).#XXXXXX #    Itisundisputedintherecordthatanaccidentoccurredduringthecourseofemploymenton  March2,2000.Xraystakenalmostimmediatelythereafterreflectedacompressionfracturewith l some wedgingofthetwovertebrae.Thereisconflictingmedicalevidenceastobothcausation X  ofthebackinjuryandpermanency. D!   Theradiologistwhoreadthexraysopinedthewedgingpreexistedthefall. '  2      ׀Dr.Landsberg #l! estimatedtheclaimantspermanentimpairmentfromthebackinjurytobe11percenttothewhole $X" personandattributedtheinjurytothefallatwork.Dr.Dyerestimatedtheclaimantspermanent $D # impairmenttobe19percenttothebackand2percenttotheleftankle,bothofwhichheattributed  tothefall.Drs.LandsbergandDyerprescribedpermanentlimitations.    Theclaimantis52yearsoldwithahighschooleducation.Hehasworkedfortheemployer t forthirtyyears.Hetestifiedhehasnoothertrainingortransferablejobskills.Sincetheaccident, ` hisactivitieshavebeenlimitedbynaggingbackpain. L    XXXXXXUndertheTennesseeWorkersCompensationLaw,injuriesbyaccidentarisingoutofand $ t inthecourseofemploymentwhichcauseeitherdisablementordeathoftheemployee,are  ` compensable.#XXXXXX&#Tenn.CodeAnn.506103(a)XXXXXX.Generally,aninjuryarisesoutofandinthecourse  L  ofemploymentifithasarationalcausalconnectiontotheworkandoccurswhiletheemployeeis  8  engagedinthedutiesofhisemployment.Anyreasonabledoubtastowhetheraninjuryaroseout $  oftheemploymentornotistoberesolvedinfavoroftheemployee.#XXXXXX!(#XXXXXXԀ#XXXXXX)#Hallv.AuburntownIndustries,   Inc.,684S.W.2d614(Tenn.1985).XXXXXXԀTheemployeesdutiesincludedthetrainingexerciseinwhich   hewasparticipatingatthetimeofhisinjury.     Theemployercontendstheawardofpermanentdisabilitybenefitsisexcessivebecausethe p employeecontinuestoworkforitandhasevenreceivedawageincrease.Theextentofaninjured \ workersvocationaldisabilityisaquestionoffact.#XXXXXX}*#Sealsv.England/CorsairUpholsteryMfg.,984 H S.W.2d912,915(Tenn.1999).XXXXXX 4 #XXXXXX,#  XXXXXXForinjuriesarisingafterAugust1,1992,incaseswhereaninjuredworkerisentitledto  \ permanentpartialdisabilitybenefitstothebodyasawholeandthepreinjuryemployerreturnsthe H employeetoemploymentatawageequaltoorgreaterthanthewagetheemployeewasreceivingat 4 thetimeoftheinjury,themaximumpermanentpartialdisabilityawardthattheemployeemay   receiveistwoandonehalftimesthemedicalimpairmentratingpursuanttotheprovisionsofthe   AmericanMedicalAssociationGuidestotheEvaluationofPermanentImpairmentortheManual  forOrthopedicSurgeonsinEvaluatingPermanentPhysicalImpairment.#XXXXXXO-#Tenn.CodeAnn.506  241(a)(1).XXXXXXԀInmakingdeterminations,thetrialcourtsaretoconsiderallpertinentfactors,including  layandexperttestimony,theemployeesage,education,skillsandtraining,localjobopportunities l forthedisabled,andcapacitytoworkattypesofemploymentavailableintheclaimantsdisabled X  condition.#XXXXXX0#ԀId. D!   Thetrialcourtfoundtheemployeesmedicalimpairmentratingtobe15percent,implicitly #l! givingequalweighttotheopinionsofDrs.LandsbergandDyer.Theawardequatestotwoandone $X" halftimesthatnumber.Fromourindependentexaminationoftherecord,wecannotsaythe $D # preponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise. %0!$   XXXXXXPermanentdisabilitybenefitsaregenerallypayableperiodicallybutmaybecommutedtoone '#& ormorelumpsumpayment(s)onmotionofanypartysubjecttotheapprovalofthetrialcourt.#XXXXXXX4#Tenn. (#' CodeAnn.506229(a).XXXXXXԀLumpsumpaymentsshall,intheaggregate,amounttoasumofallfuture )$( installmentsofcompensation.Id.Indeterminingwhethertocommuteanaward,thecourtsmust |*%) consider(1)whetherthecommutationwillbeinthebestinterestoftheemployee,and(2)the_ability h+&* oftheemployeetowiselymanageandcontrolthecommutedaward.Id.Whethertocommutea  workerscompensationawardtoalumpsumisdiscretionarywiththetrialcourt.Thetrialcourts  decisionwillnotbedisturbedonappealunlessthetrialcourtsdecisionamountedtoanabuseof  discretion.#XXXXXX5#_Edmonds_Ԁv.WilsonCounty,9S.W.3d106,109(Tenn.1999).XXXXXXԀThetrialcourtfound, t basedontheevidence,thattheclaimanthadtheabilitytomanagealumpsumandthatitwouldbe ` inhisbestinteresttocommutetheawardtoalumpsum.Theappellantscontentionthatsuch L  commutationwaserroriswithoutmerit. 8    ThetrialcourtadmittedintoevidencethemedicalrecordsofDr._Coker_.Nomedicalrecords  ` custodiantestified,andtherecordswerenotadmittedthroughDr._Coker_sdeposition.Inaworkers  L  compensationcase,asignedmedicalreport,onaformestablishedbythecommissioneroflabor,  8  maybeintroducedinevidence,subjecttocompliancewithstatutoryprocedures.#XXXXXX9#XXXXXXԀ#XXXXXX<#Tenn.CodeAnn. $  506235(c)(1).XXXXXXԀThecommissionerhasestablishedFormC32.Dr._Coker_smedicalreportwas   notsubmittedbyfilingaC32form.Althoughthetrialcourterredinadmittingthemedicalrecords   ofDr._Coker_Ԁunderthesefacts,theerrorwasharmless.Theopinionsoftheexaminingphysicians   werebasedinpartoninformationcontainedinDr._Coker_smedicalrecords.Tenn.R._Evid_.703   permitsanexperttousefactsordatathatarenotadmissibleinevidence.Wefindnoreversibleerror p intherecord. \   Fortheabovereasons,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsaretaxedtothe 4 parties,equally.  p #XXXXXX4=#   `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     JOEC.LOSER,JR.      _EXXX  @@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL  #XXXE4B# EXXXCHESTERGRAYTHOMPSONv.NASHVILLEELECTRICSERVICE#XXXEC#  " @@ CircuitCourtforRobertsonCounty  " @@No.9253   @@*AV) ` dE<` A   No.M200102306WCR3CVFiledNovember15,2002 }  AV) ` dE<T` A U       EXXX#XXXEHE#