WPC: S$JSDPXJЇ,V-.78 H3W[U^[0GAN{̑郾rljÊ,}\`ζEƤ㜑$6\ż!$(C 8̲gwdC'ɨ-D[:Y\7f>>-xWegBpmTj˜)-%F%+&L#>U65C3#c{ \>f,0T-֢|~@/?o`Qm÷Mt<]OzAPev:W'o$0%u " WpĨ9; iE8ccwM?B\ɹd{bL0pĨ>ݵZ'ȁi{7I'XʨP}E?yQ[0PgoQGkB?Rr$L!|©Su}nOHi"|as'`]ϯ&|4خ,;+b %\UNb 0U6N8^ w4 z$   m  &   x #> NN 1uEx 72z 0cNUN 0D_ zU@b//////////////////////////////////// 07777 B "" 0? D3 D- 0KCC AS 0 0DK A(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular=r-s [-+00 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.wpt3|xU Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5HP LaserJet 4 Plus,,,,,,03#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(#$  0  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(Times New Roman - -(|G2>$ !..8dd8         0  XX d(|3;$ !..8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3;$ !..8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _8XXdd8  @@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL , @@ATJACKSON## X August16,2002Session 4 XX #XX#MICHAELLLOYDTODDv._BEKAERT_ԀSTEELWIRECORPORATION, <  etal.XX  T  @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDyerCounty \  @@No.00C459J.StevenStafford,Chancellor L  @@*AV) ` dE<` A l  No.W200103004_WC_ԄR3CVMailedOctober30,2002;FiledDecember5,2002 k  #XX#XXAV) ` dE<` A ;      Thisworkers'compensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppeals : PaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)forhearingand * reportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.Inthisappeal,#XX#XXthe  employer#XX#XXԀinsists#XX3#XXԀtheawardofbenefitsbasedon36percenttotheleftarmisexcessive.Asdiscussed   below,thepanelhasconcludedthejudgmentshouldbeaffirmed.#XX}#XX  [   Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(2001Supp.)AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChancery  CourtAffirmed  z     JoeC.Loser,Jr,.Sp.J.#Xi#XX.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJaniceM.Holder,J.,andJoe Z H.Walker,III,Sp.J.,joined. J PaulC.Peel,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellants,_Bekaert_ԀSteelWireCorporationandLiberty *!z MutualInsuranceCompany "j  JeffreyA._Garrety_ԀandJosephR._Taggart_,Jackson,Tennessee,fortheappellee,MichaelLloydTodd #J" b   MEMORANDUMOPINION #XX #XX %*!$   #XX@ #XXX( XXX  Theemployeeorclaimant,Todd,initiatedthiscivilactiontorecoverworkerscompensation ' #& benefitsforanallegedworkrelatedinjurytohisleftarmandelbow.Whenmediationfailedto (#' resolvethedisagreementbetweenthepartiesastotheextentoftheclaimantspermanentdisability, )$( atrialwasheldonOctober22,2001.Afterweighingandevaluatingdisputedmedicalevidence,the ~*%) trialcourtawardedpermanentpartialdisabilitybenefitsbasedon36percenttothearm.The j+&* employer,_Bekaert_ԀSteelWireCorporation,anditsinsurerhaveappealed. V,'+  B-(,   Appellatereviewisdenovoupontherecordofthetrialcourt,accompaniedbyapresumption  ofcorrectnessofthefindingsoffact,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.#XX XX( #Tenn.  CodeAnn.506225(e)(2)(2001Supp.).X( XXXԀThereviewingcourtisrequiredtoconductan  independentexaminationoftherecordtodeterminewherethepreponderanceoftheevidencelies.#XX XX(#X( XXXԀ  _Wingert_Ԁv.GovernmentofSumnerCounty,908S.W.2d921,922(Tenn.1995).#XX XX(#X( XXXThestandard  governingappellatereviewoffindingsoffactbyatrialcourtrequirestheSpecialWorkers t  CompensationAppealsPaneltoexamineindepthatrialcourtsfactualfindingsandconclusions.#XX XX(#X( XXXԀ `  _GAF_ԀBldg.Materialsv.George,47S.W.3d430,432(Tenn.2001).#XX XX(#X( XXXWherethetrialjudgehasseen L  andheardthewitnesses,especiallyifissuesofcredibilityandweighttobegivenoraltestimonyare 8  involved,considerabledeferencemustbeaccordedthosecircumstancesonreview,becauseitisthe $ t  trialcourtwhichhadtheopportunitytoobservethewitnessesdemeanorandtoheartheincourt `  testimony.#XX XX(#X( XXXLongv.TriConInd.,Ltd.,996S.W.2d173,177(Tenn.1999).#XX XX(#X( XXXԀThetrialcourtsfindings L  withrespecttocredibilityandweightoftheevidencemaygenerallybeinferredfromthemannerin 8  whichthecourtresolvesconflictsinthetestimonyanddecidesthecase.#XX XX(4#X( XXX_Tobitt_Ԁv. $  Bridgestone/Firestone,Inc.,59S.W.3d57,61(Tenn.2001).#XX XX(p#X( XXXԀTheextentofaninjuredworkers   vocationaldisabilityisaquestionoffact.#XX XX(.#X( XXXSealsv.England/CorsairUpholsteryMfg.,984S.W.2d   912,915(Tenn.1999).#XX XX(#X( XXXԀWherethemedicaltestimonyinaworkerscompensationcaseispresented  bydeposition,thereviewingcourtmaymakeanindependentassessmentofthemedicalproofto  determinewherethepreponderanceoftheprooflies.#XX XX(#X( XXXWhirlpoolCorp.v._Nakhoneinh_,69S.W.3d p 164,167(Tenn.2002).#XX XX(##XX #XX \   Theclaimantisthirtyeightyearsoldwithatenthgradeeducationandexperienceasa 8 laborer.Hegraduallydevelopedleftcarpaltunnelsyndromeandulnarnervetranspositionfrom (x repetitiveuseofhisdominantlefthandwhileworkingfortheemployer.Thereisafactualdispute h astotheextentoftheclaimantspermanentmedicalimpairmentfollowingcorrectivesurgery.The X operatingsurgeon,Dr.CarlHuffestimatedhispermanentmedicalimpairmenttobe5percenttothe H leftarm.Anotherphysician,Dr.Joseph_Boals_,estimatedhispermanentimpairmenttobe10percent 8 totheleftarm.Bothopinions,accordingtothedoctorstestimony,werebasedontablesprovided ( bytheAMAGuidelines.Bothtestifiedbydepositionbutneitherwasimpeached.    Theappellantscontendtheawardisexcessivebecausetheemployeehasreturnedtowork   atthesameorgreaterwageandbecauseitexceedstwoandonehalftimeseitheroftheabove ! impairmentratings,citingTenn.CodeAnn.506241(a)(1).X( XXXForinjuriesarisingafterAugust1, "  1992,incaseswhereaninjuredworkerisentitledtopermanentpartialdisabilitybenefitstothebody #! asawholeandthepreinjuryemployerreturnstheemployeetoemploymentatawageequaltoor t$" greaterthanthewagetheemployeewasreceivingatthetimeoftheinjury,themaximumpermanent `% # partialdisabilityawardthattheemployeemayreceiveistwoandonehalftimesthemedical L&!$ impairmentratingpursuanttotheprovisionsoftheAmericanMedicalAssociationGuidestothe 8'"% EvaluationofPermanentImpairmentortheManualforOrthopedicSurgeonsinEvaluating $(t#& PermanentPhysicalImpairment.#XX XX(!#ԀTenn.CodeAnn.506241(a)(1).Becausethepresentawardis )`$' tothearm,ascheduledmember,ratherthantothebodyasawhole,thesectionisinapplicableand *`%( theargumentwithoutmerit. +P&)  +@'*   TheappellantsfurthercontendthatthetrialcourterredinconsideringthetestimonyofDr.  _Boals_Ԁbecauseitwasnotconsistentwiththeappellantsinterpretationofthelatesteditionofthe  AMAGuides.ThetrialcourtfoundotherwisebasedontheunambiguoustestimonyofDr._Boals_.  Thetrialcourtdidnoterrindoingso.Moreover,itisundisputedintheproofthattheclaimantis  permanentlyimpairedtosomeextent.Wehaveconsistentlyheldthatamedicaloranatomical p impairmentratingisnotindispensabletoanawardofpermanentdisabilitybenefits.X( XXXWalkerv. `  SaturnCorp.,986S.W.2d204,207(Tenn.1998)#XX XX(9)#. `    X( XXXOncethecausationandpermanencyofaninjuryhavebeenestablishedbyexperttestimony, P  thetrialjudgemayconsidermanypertinentfactors,includingage,jobskills,education,training, <   durationofdisability,andjobopportunitiesforthedisabled,inadditiontoanatomicimpairment,for (x  thepurposeofevaluatingtheextentofaclaimantspermanentdisability.#XX XX()#_McCaleb_Ԁv.SaturnCorp., d  910S.W.2d412,416(Tenn.1995).X( XXXԀTheopinionofaqualifiedexpertwithrespecttoaclaimants d  clinicalorphysicalimpairmentisafactorwhichthecourtwillconsideralongwithallotherrelevant d  factsandcircumstances,butitisforthecourttodeterminethepercentageoftheclaimantsindustrial P  disability.#XX XX(U,#ԀX( XXXԀMoreover,trialcourtsarenotboundtoacceptphysiciansopinionsregardingtheextent < ofaclaimantsdisability,butshouldconsideralltheevidence,bothexpertandlaytestimony,to < decidetheextentofanemployeesdisability.#XX XX(-#WhirlpoolCorp.v._Nakhoneinh_,69S.W.3d164,170 ( (Tenn.2002).Fromourconsiderationofthepertinentfactors,totheextenttheywereestablished ( bytheproofinthiscase,andgivingduedeferencetothefindingsofthetrialcourt,wecannotsay  theevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsaward.    Fortheabovereasons,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsaretaxedtothe  appellants.     `     h     ___________________________________ H    `     h     JOEC.LOSER,JR. 8   !h @7 7 XXINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @==SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL  @''%ATJACKSON 0 @"August16,2002 H    MICHAELLLOYDTODDv._BEKAERT_ԀSTEELWIRECORPORATION, ( x etal.  @  4@e e  ChanceryCourtforDyerCounty p  @%No.00C459   @*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @ No.W200103004_WC_ԄR3CVFiledDecember5,2002 /  AV) ` dE<` A _  @qq# JUDGMENTORDER  6 +    ` ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtupontheentirerecord,includingtheorder f ofreferraltotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanel's x MemorandumOpinionsettingforthitsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,which  areincorporatedhereinbyreference;     ` Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthattheMemorandumOpinionofthe  Panelshouldbeacceptedandapproved;and "    ` Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanel'sfindingsoffactandconclusions F oflawareadoptedandaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgment !X oftheCourt. "j Ѐ ,#|    ` CostsonappealaretaxedtotheAppellants,_Bekaert_ԀSteelWire >$ CorporationandLibertyMutualInsuranceCompany,forwhichexecutionmayissue P%  ifnecessary. b&!!    ` ITISSOORDERED. (## # +6#   `     h     PER_CURIAM_ *%% #;##XX2# +'&