ÿWPCw 9Ênæg¬ð†'½3,7Ñ+Ògûñ.¥„$õòŠßzLè(j( ö@mZžüˆ¿ßªçM àòa®ö™M¹\ƒ¾÷–€gß&méE+±’õ]zî:5–EXšIsÃæ2÷³jQµ¯‘M(Å8+!Ï Ó@²–e›ýØé®‚›)Ùcø5»äÛ³ñ-\MX‰?Å¡Sà£T¥½C»rS!Ï8mÊÓÁ!ˆÓ掓Žk¸Îáb3M³DY¹†¢š±êE‚Èýe#!|äÿªÄë¿+§lªà\÷R’EÃ|ýóŽøŸOo9xAîÂþôKíÅý8C ¯á!;&/g™‹§Oócwkvo®’¿k{ÜSNâÀÀ;¤ÏŘ|¯×°[éêß›v¦÷F{’Ð~&×kíÏhC}èü–½xXTh‰nÄ WÇÁg(À8:ä4k;Sæò:‰íaè¤ýäByí{4+î™ÓN5üvŽÝ¢{ÐUÍY­f| wõ°Lè»Ý©)÷"¥…ù‹™3½'èëâð˜ å•8³·…ÛxX†§1ù¶å&Bó Š1:QƒUªƒGÐ3kî\¥°Ky g¢«Q?‚o ³Âëʽ÷®£hÐxÿ“ìºÉ·#Á %à U:É 0ˆU#N‹ 0DÙN zÒ™ 0¤k^ w4Æ3ÆùƿƅKNZI\¥E§$©àÍ m­+ÄNïLññññññññññññññññññb==================================== 0ëEEEE B 00 0¤M D3ñ D-$ 0KQQ ASœÆï 0¤µ 0DY A« AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH 0°Ç˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0»,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(+Ã$òòÚ  Ú4Ú  Úóó ˜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(|3#$©©Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€ºt»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÉc5)L ˜L-( #Ûk7§Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 53|x ?Ý ƒR‘ª$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€X·#X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€plaintiff€denied€ever€receiving€letters€from€the€company€dated€March€20€and€July€11,Ð ° Ð1996.€€The€contents€of€the€letters€are€discussed€below€in€Mr.€Bowserððs€testimony.  Ý ƒR‘ª$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€X·#X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMr.€Ô_ÔBowserÔ_Ô€testified€that€he€is€employed€by€Pick€&€Pay€Stores,€Inc.,€of€which€Shoe€City,Ð ° ÐInc.€is€a€part. ÖÝ ƒR‘ª$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€X·#X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€transcript€of€the€hearing€mistakenly€has€Ms.€Cantyððs€last€name€as€ð ðKenton.ððÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ !Ý ƒR‘ª$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€X·#X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€unpublished€Panel€opinion€is€not€binding€but€we€consider€it€as€persuasive€pursuant€toÐ ° ÐSupreme€Court€Rule€4(H)(1),€as€amended€Nov.€1,€1999.C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT- ù-(|G2‘ª$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€ºt»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¼ÃX»»Ô d(|3#$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€ºt»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3#$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€ºt»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKXyúÿ  <<= 8ÀÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ(ˆ3äa$««Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€ºt»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ d ÔÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¸¤»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼¸¤»»»ÔÑ8€·#XXdð»»d8ÑÓ  ÓÑ  Ñà@@7 7 ìàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÐ È Ðà@@ƒƒìàAT€JACKSONÐ à0 Ð(November€15,€1999€Session)Ð øH ÐÔ‡X·#X»¼¸¤ÔÌò òÔ#†¼¸¤»XX·#æ#ÔÔ_ÔERNESTYNEÔ_Ô€M.€WEBB€òòóóv.€SHOE€CITY,€INC.,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡X·#X»¼¸¤Ôó óÐ  P ÐÌà@@¼¼ìàò ò€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ  X Ðà@@ôôìàNo.€79201€T.D.€€€€€€Karen€R.€Williams,€JudgeÐ ø H ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Ç` AßÐ È  ÐÌNo.€W1998„00741„SCÔ_Ô„WCM„Ô_ÔCV€„€Mailed€May€17,€2000;€Filed€September€20,€2000€Ð Ç  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¦` AßÐ §÷  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓThis€case€involves€a€back€injury€sustained€in€1995€by€Ô_ÔErnestyneÔ_Ô€M.€Webb,€an€employee€of€ShoeÐ ¦ö ÐCity,€Incorporated.€€The€employee€brought€suit€against€the€employer€and€its€insurer,€The€TravelerððsÐ –æ ÐInsurance€Company.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€employee€had€sustained€a€herniated€disk€at€theÐ †Ö ÐL„4€level€of€her€spine€and€suffered€a€15€percent€anatomical€impairment€rating€as€a€result.€The€courtÐ vÆ Ðawarded€benefits€based€upon€67.5€percent€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€The€court€also€foundÐ f¶ Ðthat€the€employee€was€not€returned€to€work€and€declined€to€apply€the€two€and€one„half€(2.5)€timesÐ V¦ Ðcap€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€50„6„241(a).Ô#†¼¸¤»XX·#„#ÔÔ‡X·#X»¼¸¤Ô€€The€defendants€have€presented€the€followingÐ F– Ðissues€on€appeal:€(1)€whether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€theÐ 6† Ðplaintiff€was€not€returned€to€work€as€required€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€50„6„241(a);€and€(2)Ð &v Ðwhether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€courtððs€finding€that€the€plaintiff€suffered€a€15€percentÐ f Ðanatomical€impairment€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€We€find€that€we€must€affirm€the€trial€courtððsÐ V Ðjudgment€as€modified.Ô#†¼¸¤»XX·##ÔÔ‡X·#X»¼¸¤ÔÐ öF ÐÓÁÓÌò òTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)€(1999)€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€isÐ Ö& ÐAffirmed€as€Modified.ó óÐ Æ  ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ_ÔTatumÔ_Ô,€Sr.€J.Ô#†¼¸¤»àX·#ˆ #ÔÔ‡X·#X.¼¸¤Ôóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHolder,€J.,óó€and€òòEllis,€Sp.€J.óó,€joined.Ð ¦"ö! ÐÌMarc€A.€Ô_ÔSorinÔ_Ô,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€Shoe€City,€Inc.,€et€al.Ð †$Ö# ÐÌLewis€K.€Garrison,€Sr.€and€John€H.€Ô_ÔBledsoeÔ_Ô,€for€the€appellee,€Ô_ÔErnestyneÔ_Ô€M.€Webb.Ð f&¶!% ÐÌÔ  ÔÓr ÓÓ  Óò òMEMORANDUM€OPINIONó óÔ#†¼¸¤»XX·#Î #ÔÐ F(–#' ÐÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X·#X»¼¸¤Ôà  àAt€the€time€of€trial,€the€plaintiff,€Ô_ÔErnestyneÔ_Ô€M.€Webb,€was€a€sixty€(60)€year€old€widow€withÐ N*ž%) Ða€tenth€grade€education.€€The€plaintiff€was€employed€by€Shoe€City,€Incorporated,€as€a€store€managerÐ >+Ž&* Ðapproximately€six€(6)€years€before€she€was€injured€on€June€14,€1995.€€She€spent€approximatelyÐ .,~'+ Ðeleven€(11)€years€prior€to€that€time€working€for€Shoe€Fair.€€The€plaintiff€admitted€to€having€ð ðslightÐ -n(,ýG Ðarthritisðð€prior€to€her€injury€but€was€otherwise€in€good€health.€€She€described€her€managerial€dutiesÐ ° Ðas€including€stocking,€racking,€and€packing€shoes,€as€well€as€cleaning€and€maintaining€the€store.€€OnÐ  ð ÐJune€14,€1995,€the€plaintiff€was€stacking€boxes€of€menððs€work€shoes€in€crates€when€she€felt€a€sharpÐ à Ðpain€in€the€lower€part€of€her€back.€€When€the€pain€did€not€subside€two€days€later,€she€was€x„rayedÐ €Ð Ðby€her€doctor,€who€referred€her€to€Dr.€Jesse€McGee.€€Dr.€McGee€examined€the€plaintiff€and€sent€herÐ pÀ Ðto€the€emergency€room€of€Baptist€East€Hospital.€€She€was€ultimately€hospitalized€with€two€rupturedÐ ` ° Ðdisks,€and€surgery€was€performed€by€Dr.€Harry€Friedman.Ð P   ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiff€testified€that€her€back€problems€did€not€improve€following€her€surgery,€as€sheÐ 0 € Ðwas€in€constant€pain.€€She€stated€that€Dr.€Friedman€never€recommended€a€work€hardening€programÐ  p  Ðor€any€type€of€physical€therapy€for€her€until€almost€a€year€after€the€surgery,€and€her€elevated€bloodÐ `  Ðpressure€prevented€her€from€continuing€therapy.€€In€December€of€1995,€the€plaintiffððs€husband€diedÐ P  Ðfrom€lung€cancer,€but€the€plaintiff€denied€that€she€was€under€stress€from€his€treatments€and€death.Ð ð@  ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiff€testified€that€she€received€a€slip€of€paper€from€Dr.€Friedman€in€March€of€1996,Ð Ð  Ðstating€that€she€was€to€return€to€work.€€She€went€to€the€store€on€Elvis€Presley€Boulevard€to€report€forÐ À Ðwork,€but€the€store€manager€did€not€know€she€was€supposed€to€be€there.€€The€store€managerÐ ° Ðattempted€to€reach€the€District€Manager,€Mr.€Ô_ÔBowserÔ_Ô,€but€was€unsuccessful.€€The€plaintiff€waitedÐ  ð Ðalmost€three€hours€at€the€store€for€Mr.€Ô_ÔBowserÔ_Ô€to€call€back€before€leaving.€€On€another€occasion,€theÐ à Ðplaintiff€met€with€Mr.€Ô_ÔBowserÔ_Ô€at€another€store,€but€he€told€the€plaintiff€that€he€could€not€offer€herÐ €Ð Ðany€work€at€that€time€until€he€got€the€results€of€an€MRI€that€the€plaintiff€said€was€ordered€by€Dr.Ð pÀ ÐFriedman.€€She€never€heard€from€Mr.€Ô_ÔBowserÔ_Ô€or€Shoe€City€after€that€time,׃×Ý ƒ+ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€nor€did€she€ever€call€Mr.Ð `° ÐÔ_ÔBowserÔ_Ô€once€the€MRI€results€came€back.€€The€plaintiff€denied€that€she€was€aware€that€her€doctor€hadÐ P  Ðreleased€her€to€return€to€work€without€restrictions,€and€she€testified€that€she€never€saw€anyone€onÐ @ Ðlight€work€duty€at€Shoe€City.€€She€never€applied€for€any€other€positions.€€Ð 0€ ÐÌà  àAs€a€result€of€her€injury,€the€plaintiff€stated€that€she€is€unable€to€do€housework,€sit€for€veryÐ ` Ðlong€without€pain,€or€walk€very€far€without€experiencing€spasms€in€her€left€leg.€€She€testified€thatÐ P Ðshe€is€very€nervous€and€does€not€sleep€well€due€to€pain.€€The€only€medication€prescribed€by€herÐ ð@ Ðdoctor€is€Extra€Strength€Tylenol.€€The€plaintiff€testified€that€she€believes€she€is€75€percent€disabled.€Ð à0 ÐIn€her€managerial€position,€she€was€trained€to€run€the€cash€register,€do€the€store€payroll,€scheduleÐ Ð  Ðemployees,€and€make€decisions€relevant€to€employee€disputes.€€The€plaintiff€stated€that€she€can€readÐ À! Ðand€write€well,€add€and€subtract€well,€and€communicate€well€with€others.€Ð °"  ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiffððs€daughter,€Kimberly€M.€Haynes,€testified€at€trial€that€her€mother€was€physicallyÐ $à" Ðactive€before€the€back€injury€at€work€but€has€to€have€help€with€daily€chores€now.€€Her€testimonyÐ €%Ð # Ðessentially€supported€her€motherððs€regarding€the€plaintiffððs€problems€with€sitting€and€walking.Ð p&À!$ Ðâ âÐ `'°"% Ðà  àLarry€Donnell€Pfeiffer,€a€family€friend,€also€testified€for€the€plaintiff.€€His€testimonyÐ ° Ðâ âsupported€that€of€the€plaintiff€and€her€daughter€as€to€the€plaintiffððs€lack€of€ability€to€do€her€usualÐ  ð Ðdaily€activities€unassisted€due€to€pain.Ð à ÐÌà  àDavid€H.€Ô_ÔBowserÔ_Ô,€Shoe€Cityððs€District€Manager,Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ+ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€testified€for€the€defendants.€€He€stated€thatÐ pÀ Ðhe€came€to€Memphis€in€November€of€1995,€after€the€plaintiffððs€injury€had€occurred.€€As€theÐ ` ° Ðplaintiffððs€supervisor,€it€was€his€duty€to€find€work€that€she€was€able€to€do€upon€her€release€from€herÐ P   Ðdoctor.€€The€plaintiffððs€duties€as€a€store€manager€included€a€45€hours€per€week€position€that€requiredÐ @  Ðstaffing€the€store,€supervising€employee€schedules€and€work€loads,€handling€payroll,€and€makingÐ 0 € Ðsure€the€general€maintenance€of€the€store€was€properly€kept.€€According€to€Mr.€Ô_ÔBowserÔ_Ô,€lifting€casesÐ  p  Ðof€shoes€was€not€the€managerððs€duty€alone,€since€she€would€delegate€this€as€part€of€the€workÐ `  Ðassignments€for€the€entire€staff.€€Ð P  ÐÌà  àMr.€Ô_ÔBowserÔ_Ô€stated€that€he€met€with€the€plaintiff€on€February€6,€1996,€at€approximately€11:30Ð à0  Ða.m.€at€the€Ô_ÔSouthhavenÔ_Ô,€Mississippi,€store€to€discuss€her€return€to€work.€€He€stated€that€the€plaintiffÐ Ð  Ðgave€him€a€note€from€her€doctor€and€told€him€she€was€not€able€to€return€to€work€at€that€time.€€Mr.Ð À ÐÔ_ÔBowserÔ_Ô€further€explained,€ð ðAnd€I€told€her€that€I€was€sure€that€our€offices€would€be€in€contact€in€theÐ ° Ðfuture€but€also€that€she€could€feel€free€to€contact€me€when€this€situation€with€the€doctor€wasÐ  ð Ðcompleted.ðð€€Mr.€Ô_ÔBowserÔ_Ô€stated€that€he€understood€that€the€plaintiff€had€agreed€to€contact€him.€€HeÐ à Ðmade€a€record€of€the€meeting€on€the€company€form€at€or€near€the€time€of€the€meeting€which€stated:Ð €Ð ÐÌà0  àà8` (#(#àMs.€Webb€handed€me€a€note€from€Dr.€Ô_ÔHarrieÔ_Ô€[sic]€Friedman€which€stated€thatÐ `° Ðher€return€to€work€could€be€after€the€ð ðcompletion€of€work€hardeningÐ P  Ðprogram.ðð€€Ms.€Webb€stated€to€me€that€the€completion€would€be€Friday€2„9„Ð @ Ð96.€€She€agreed€to€come€to€my€office€on€Monday€2„12„96€to€discuss€herÐ 0€ Ðfuture€employment€with€our€company.€€€€€€€€Ð p` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà  àMr.€Ô_ÔBowserÔ_Ô€testified€that€Dr.€Friedmanððs€note€prevented€him€from€offering€the€plaintiff€a€jobÐ P Ðat€their€meeting.€€The€plaintiff€did€not€contact€Mr.€Ô_ÔBowserÔ_Ô€on€February€12;€nor€was€he€aware€of€anyÐ ð@ Ðattempts€by€the€plaintiff€to€contact€anyone€else€at€Shoe€City€about€returning€to€work.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔBowserÔ_ÔÐ à0 Ðtestified€that€he€submitted€a€list€of€stores€where€the€plaintiff€could€work€to€the€corporate€office.€€TheÐ Ð  Ðplaintiff€was€to€be€offered€a€position€as€an€assistant€manager,€since€all€manager€positions€were€fullÐ À! Ðat€that€time.€€The€physical€requirements€of€the€job€were€to€be€based€on€the€doctorððs€statement.€€Mr.Ð °"  ÐÔ_ÔBowserÔ_Ô€stated€that€the€plaintiffððs€previous€training€and€experience€with€the€company€would€haveÐ  #ð! Ðallowed€her€to€do€light€work€in€the€form€of€running€the€cash€register,€handling€transactions€and€otherÐ $à" Ðpaperwork,€as€well€as€straightening€shoes€on€upper€racks,€depending€on€what€the€doctorððs€restrictionsÐ €%Ð # Ðwere.€€Her€pay€would€remain€the€same.Ð p&À!$ Ðâ âÐ `'°"% Ðà  àThe€witness€recognized€the€signature€of€Minnie€Canty,׃×Ý ƒ+ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Director€of€the€Benefits€DepartmentÐ ° Ðâ âin€Charlotte,€North€Carolina,€on€a€letter€dated€March€20,€1996,€that€was€addressed€to€the€plaintiff.€Ð  ð ÐThe€letter€stated:Ð à ÐÌà0  àà8` (#(#àWe€have€received€notification€from€your€doctor€that€you€have€been€fullyÐ pÀ Ðreleased,€[sic]€from€your€Workersðð€Compensation€leave,€[sic]€to€your€normalÐ ` ° Ðduties€as€of€March€26,€1996.€€David€Ô_ÔBowserÔ_Ô[,]€your€District€Manager,€talkedÐ P   Ðto€you€and€offered€you€the€job€as€Assistant€Manager€in€store€2722.€€PleaseÐ @  Ðreport€to€work€Tuesday[,]€March€26,€1996[,]€at€12:30.€€If€you€do€not€returnÐ 0 € Ðto€work,€we€will€assume€that€you€have€abandoned€your€job.€Ð p ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌDuring€the€plaintiffððs€testimony,€she€stated€that€this€letter€had€the€wrong€address€on€it.€€It€wasÐ P  Ðaddressed€to€ð ð1589€Ride€Street,ðð€whereas€the€plaintiffððs€address€was€1599€Rice€Street.€€The€zip€codeÐ ð@  Ðwas€correct.€€She€denied€ever€receiving€this€letter.€Ð à0  ÐÌà  àMr.€Ô_ÔBowserÔ_Ô€identified€a€second€letter€from€Ms.€Canty€dated€July€11,€1996,€that€was€€correctlyÐ À Ðaddressed€to€the€plaintiff€and€stated€in€part:Ð ° ÐÌà0  àà8` (#(#àYou€were€placed€on€medical€leave€of€absence€on€July€7,€1995.€€As€stated€inÐ à Ðthe€Employee€Handbook,€your€maximum€leave€of€absence€time€is€1€year.€Ð €Ð ÐYour€leave€expired€July€7,€1996.€€When€you€receive€a€full€release€from€yourÐ pÀ Ðdoctor,€you€will€be€considered€for€re„employment€based€on€the€position(s)Ð `° Ðavailable€at€that€time€and€your€qualifications.ÐP ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà  à€€€€€€€€€€Ð @ ÐMr.€Ô_ÔBowserÔ_Ô€testified€that€he€never€made€a€specific€job€offer€to€the€plaintiff€but€was€not€given€theÐ 0€ Ðopportunity€to€do€so,€since€she€never€contacted€him€as€agreed€after€their€meeting€of€February€6.€€HeÐ  p Ðstated€that€he€did€not€know€in€July€of€1995€that€the€plaintiff€had€ever€been€released€from€her€doctorÐ ` Ðand€felt€that€she€had€an€obligation€to€have€contacted€him€one€way€or€the€other€as€to€what€her€doctorððsÐ P Ðstatement€was.€€€à ¸ à€€Ð ð@ ÐÌà  à€€Three€doctor's€depositions€were€introduced€into€evidence€at€trial.€€Dr.€Harry€Friedman,€theÐ Ð  Ðplaintiffððs€neurosurgeon,€first€saw€her€on€July€7,€1995.€€The€plaintiff€had€been€taken€to€theÐ À! Ðemergency€room€with€back€pain€that€radiated€into€her€left€leg.€€She€related€this€to€the€June€14,€1995,Ð °"  Ðincident€in€which€she€lifted€the€box€at€work.€€After€an€examination€and€tests,€the€plaintiff€wasÐ  #ð! Ðdiagnosed€with€a€disk€rupture.€€Dr.€Friedman€performed€surgery€on€July€11,€1995.€€He€found€quiteÐ $à" Ða€bit€of€arthritic€spurring€at€the€T3€level,€along€with€a€mildly€abnormal€disk,€and€a€ruptured€disk€atÐ €%Ð # Ðthe€T4€level.€€According€to€Dr.€Friedman,€the€arthritic€spurring€preexisted€the€accident€by€a€longÐ p&À!$ Ðperiod€of€time.€€Ð `'°"% Ðâ âÐ P( #& Ðà  àBy€August€17,€1995,€the€plaintiff€was€doing€quite€well€and€was€not€having€any€of€the€pre„Ð ° Ðâ âoperative€leg€pain.€€She€continued€to€have€some€back€pain€and€numbness€in€her€foot€but€did€not€needÐ  ð Ðdaily€medication€for€either.€€Dr.€Friedman€recommended€that€the€plaintiff€increase€her€physicalÐ à Ðactivity,€as€well€as€lose€weight.€€He€did€not€want€her€to€return€to€work€at€this€point.€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àAt€her€September€21,€1995,€visit,€the€plaintiff€was€still€having€pain€in€her€back€and€was€nowÐ ` ° Ðcomplaining€of€right€leg€pain.€€Although€most€of€her€neurological€exam€was€normal,€Dr.€FriedmanÐ P   Ðrecommended€strict€bed€rest€for€seven€to€ten€days€and€suggested€that€the€plaintiff€try€to€go€back€toÐ @  Ðlight€duty€work€in€two€weeks.€€He€had€been€assured€by€the€rehabilitation€nurse€that€the€plaintiffÐ 0 € Ðcould€work€without€doing€any€lifting.Ð  p  ÐÌà  àDr.€Friedman€next€saw€the€plaintiff€on€December€28,€1995.€€She€was€complaining€ofÐ P  Ðworsening€lower€back€pain€from€the€right€side€across€the€lower€back,€as€well€as€left€calf€pain.€€TheÐ ð@  Ðplaintiff€was€not€doing€all€of€the€exercises€she€had€been€given€to€do€and€was€under€a€lot€of€strain,Ð à0  Ðbecause€her€husband€was€hospitalized€with€terminal€cancer.€€Bending€and€driving€back€and€forth€toÐ Ð  Ðthe€hospital€aggravated€the€pain.€€The€plaintiff€told€Dr.€Friedman€that€she€had€not€returned€to€work,Ð À Ðbecause€there€was€no€light€duty€work€available.€€Tests€on€her€back€reported€to€Dr.€Friedman€by€theÐ ° Ðrehabilitation€nurse€were€normal.€€He€again€put€the€plaintiff€on€strict€bed€rest€with€muscle€relaxantsÐ  ð Ðand€pain€medications€and€suggested€she€try€to€return€to€light€duty€work€in€three€weeks.€€Ð à ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiff€returned€to€Dr.€Friedman€on€January€30,€1996,€after€getting€no€relief€from€bedÐ pÀ Ðrest.€€She€had€not€had€any€physical€therapy€and€had€not€returned€to€work,€due€to€the€pain€and€the€factÐ `° Ðthat€her€husband€had€just€died.€€Dr.€Friedman€recommended€that€the€plaintiff€attend€a€work„Ð P  Ðhardening€program€and€return€in€two€months.Ð @ ÐÌà  àOn€February€27,€1996,€the€plaintiff€returned€with€lower€back€pain€and€pain€in€the€left€calfÐ  p Ðwhen€walking.€€She€had€not€had€any€physical€therapy,€because€her€blood€pressure€became€elevatedÐ ` Ðon€the€third€day€of€the€program.€€Dr.€Friedman€discussed€the€plaintiff€with€Dr.€Jesse€McGee,€theÐ P Ðplaintiffððs€cardiologist,€and€stated€that€Dr.€McGee€emphasized€to€him€the€stressful€impact€that€herÐ ð@ Ðhusbandððs€recent€death€was€having€on€the€plaintiff.€€Dr.€Friedman€suggested€an€MRI€of€the€lowerÐ à0 Ðback€and€that€the€plaintiff€start€physical€therapy.€€He€also€suggested€that€she€return€to€light€duty€inÐ Ð  Ðtwo€weeks€with€a€twenty€(20)€pound€lifting€restriction€and€no€bending€or€stooping.€€The€plaintiffÐ À! Ðdeclined€to€participate€in€the€physical€therapy.€€He€did€not€place€any€permanent€restrictions€on€theÐ °"  Ðplaintiff€at€that€time€and€rated€her€with€a€9€percent€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€left€leg€withÐ  #ð! Ðreference€to€the€body€as€a€whole,€using€the€most€recent€edition€of€the€AMA€Guides.€€Dr.€FriedmanÐ $à" Ðreleased€the€plaintiff€from€his€care€at€the€February€27€appointment.Ð €%Ð # ÐÌà  àThe€MRI€performed€on€March€12,€1996,€showed€no€evidence€of€nerve€root€entrapment€byÐ `'°"% Ðscars€or€current€disk€rupture,€and€there€were€no€objective€findings€of€any€kind€of€neurological€defect.€Ð P( #& ÐThe€previously€noted€preexisting€arthritic€changes€were€still€present€primarily€at€the€T3€level.€Ð @)$' ÐÌà  àDr.€Jesse€McGee,€the€plaintiffððs€cardiologist,€testified€that€he€saw€the€plaintiff€withÐ  +p&) Ðcomplaints€of€back€and€knee€pain€on€November€23,€1993.€€The€doctor€had€noted€in€his€records€onÐ ,`'* ÐApril€3,€1992,€three€years€prior€to€the€accident€at€Shoe€City,€that€the€plaintiff€had€degenerativeÐ ° Ðarthritis.€€He€had€referred€her€to€a€Ô_ÔrheumatologistÔ_Ô€on€November€22,€1993,€because€the€plaintiffððsÐ  ð Ðarthritis€was€severe.€€Dr.€McGee€was€also€treating€her€for€high€blood€pressure.€€Ð à ÐÌà  àOn€March€14,€1994,€Dr.€McGeeððs€records€reflected€that€the€plaintiff€got€relief€from€herÐ pÀ Ðsymptoms€and€was€being€followed€by€the€Ô_ÔrheumatologistÔ_Ô.€€On€July€6,€1995,€Dr.€McGee€saw€theÐ ` ° Ðplaintiff€after€her€accident€at€work€with€back€pain,€abdominal€pain,€headaches,€urinary€tract€infection,Ð P   Ðand€hypertension.€€Dr.€McGee€yielded€a€number€of€times€throughout€his€deposition€to€the€treatingÐ @  Ðneurosurgeon€concerning€the€plaintiffððs€back.€€X„rays€taken€of€the€plaintiffððs€spine€in€November€ofÐ 0 € Ð1995,€some€three€months€after€her€surgery,€revealed€degenerative€arthritic€changes€and€degenerativeÐ  p  Ðdisk€disease€in€the€lumbar€region.€€Ð `  ÐÌà  àDr.€McGeeððs€records€of€February€8,€1996,€reflect€that€the€plaintiff€was€very€stressed€over€theÐ ð@  Ðdeath€of€her€husband.€€Dr.€Friedman€recommended€an€MRI€in€March€of€1996,€and€this€wasÐ à0  Ðperformed€on€March€12,€1996.€€The€results€showed€abnormal€facet€degenerative€changes€where€theÐ Ð  Ðtwo€disks€had€been€removed.€€Dr.€McGee€stated€that€this€condition€could€easily€be€a€progression€ofÐ À Ðthe€plaintiffððs€preexisting€arthritis;€however,€it€was€his€opinion€on€April€11,€1996,€that€she€wasÐ ° Ðpermanently€and€totally€(100€percent)€disabled,€due€to€the€facet€changes€and€the€pain.€€He€did€notÐ  ð Ðrefer€to€the€AMA€Guides€in€making€this€assessment.€€The€doctor€was€unable€to€testify€as€to€whatÐ à Ðpercentage€of€the€plaintiffððs€impairment€was€related€to€the€accident€at€work€or€to€what€degree€theÐ €Ð Ðaccident€caused€the€pre„existing€condition.€€He€stated,€however,€that€the€plaintiffððs€arthritis€in€theÐ pÀ Ðlumbar€spine€may€have€been€aggravated€by€lifting€boxes€or€the€surgery,€since€ð ðany€trauma€canÐ `° Ðaggravate€arthritis.ðð€Ð P  ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiffððs€lawyer€sent€her€to€Dr.€Samir€R.€Ô_ÔDawoudÔ_Ô,€an€orthopedic€surgeon,€for€anÐ 0€ Ðevaluation€on€December€18,€1997.€€The€plaintiffððs€chief€complaints€were€low€back€pain€and€right€legÐ  p Ðnumbness€and€cramps.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔDawoudÔ_Ô€conducted€a€neurological€examination,€€x„rayed€the€plaintiffððsÐ ` Ðlower€spine,€and€reviewed€a€report€that€compared€an€MRI€performed€in€January€of€1998€with€the€oneÐ P Ðdone€on€March€12,€1996.€€The€report€found€unchanged€findings€at€L3„4€and€5„6€where€the€surgeryÐ ð@ Ðwas€performed€and€no€new€disk€Ô_ÔherniationsÔ_Ô.€€Degenerative€disk€disease€at€L4„5€had€slightlyÐ à0 Ðincreased€and€a€slight€increase€in€the€spondylolisthesis.€€Bilateral€L3„4,€L4„5,€and€left€L5„S1€facetÐ Ð  Ðdisease€was€unchanged€over€almost€two€years€between€the€Ô_ÔMRIsÔ_Ô.€€It€was€Dr.€Ô_ÔDawoudÔ_Ôððs€opinion€thatÐ À! Ðthe€plaintiff€had€a€€permanent€partial€disability€due€to€Ô_ÔlumbosacralÔ_Ô€disk€disease,€osteoarthritis,€andÐ °"  Ðsurgery.€€Using€page€3„113€of€the€AMA€Guides,€he€rated€the€plaintiff€with€a€15€percent€disabilityÐ  #ð! Ðto€the€body€as€a€whole.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔDawoudÔ_Ô€broke€this€rating€down€into€10€percent€for€the€lumbar€diskÐ $à" Ðdisease€and€5€percent€for€the€spondylolisthesis€and€arthritis€together.€€He€also€restricted€the€plaintiffÐ €%Ð # Ðfrom€lifting€more€than€fifty€(50)€pounds,€spinal€bending,€stooping,€kneeling,€climbing€ladders€orÐ p&À!$ Ðmultiple€stairs,€or€working€in€extreme€temperatures.€€It€was€Dr.€Ô_ÔDawoudÔ_Ôððs€opinion€that€the€plaintiffððsÐ `'°"% Ðsurgery€and€injury€could€have€aggravated€the€Ô_ÔosteoarthriticÔ_Ô€process.Ð P( #& Ðâ âÐ @)$' ÐÔ  Ôâ âò òà@ææìàSTANDARD€OF€REVIEWó ó€€€€€ˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€standard€of€review€of€factual€issues€in€workersðð€compensation€cases€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€upon€theÐ à Ðrecord€of€the€trial€court€with€a€presumption€of€correctness,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÐ €Ð Ðis€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50„6„225(e)(2)€(1991€&€Supp.€1998);€òòHenson€v.€City€ofÐ pÀ ÐLawrenceburgóó,€851€S.W.2d€809,€812€(Tenn.€1993).€€Under€this€standard,€we€are€required€to€conductÐ ` ° Ðan€in„depth€examination€of€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€to€determineÐ P   Ðwhere€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€lies.€€òòSeeóó€òòThomas€v.€Aetna€Life€&€Ô_ÔCasÔ_Ô.€Co.óó,€812€S.W.2dÐ @  Ð278,€282€(Tenn.€1991)€€In€making€such€a€determination,€this€Court€must€give€considerable€deferenceÐ 0 € Ðto€the€trial€judgeððs€findings€regarding€the€weight€and€credibility€of€any€oral€testimony€received.€Ð  p  ÐòòTownsend€v.€Stateóó,€826€S.W.2d€434,€437€(Tenn.€1992);€òòThomasóó,€812€S.W.2d€at€283.€€However,Ð `  Ðwhen€the€determination€of€factual€issues€involves€medical€testimony€derived€solely€from€depositions,Ð P  Ðso€all€impressions€regarding€weight€and€credibility€must€be€drawn€from€the€contents€of€theÐ ð@  Ðdocuments,€rather€than€an€evaluation€of€live€witnesses.€€òòThomasóó,€812€S.W.2d€at€283.€€Therefore,€thisÐ à0  ÐCourt€may€draw€its€own€conclusions€about€the€weight,€credibility,€and€significance€of€suchÐ Ð  Ðtestimony.€€òòÔ_ÔSeiberÔ_Ô€v.€Greenbrier€Indus.,€Inc.óó,€906€S.W.2d€444,€446€(Tenn.€1995).€€With€theseÐ À Ðprinciples€in€mind,€we€turn€to€the€issues€at€hand.Ô‡X2 XXX·#ÔÐ ° ÐÌÔ  Ôà@ß ß ìàÔ#†X·#X XX2Äh#Ôò òPLAINTIFFððS€MEANINGFUL€RETURN€TO€WORKó óˆÐ †Ö ÐÌà  àThe€defendants€argue€that€Shoe€City€made€a€reasonable€attempt€to€return€the€plaintiff€toÐ f¶ Ðwork,€and€it€was€the€plaintiff€herself€who€made€a€unilateral€decision€not€to€return€to€work€after€sheÐ V¦ Ðwas€released€by€her€doctor€to€do€so.€€The€plaintiff€argues€that€she€could€not€have€refused€to€returnÐ F– Ðto€work,€because€a€specific€job€offer€was€never€made€by€Shoe€City€that€she€could€refuse.€€SheÐ 6† Ðcontends€that€the€two€and€one„half€(2.5)€multiplier€does€not€apply.€€After€careful€review€of€theÐ &v Ðrecord,€we€find€that€the€two€and€one„half€(2.5)€multiplier€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€50„6„Ð f Ð241(a)(1)€does€apply.€€Ð V ÐÌà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€50„6„241€governs€the€maximum€award€that€an€employee€is€ableÐ æ6 Ðto€receive€for€a€permanent€partial€disability.€€ðð€50„6„241(a)(1)€provides€a€cap€of€two€and€one„halfÐ Ö& Ð(2.5)€times€the€medical€impairment€rating€where€€ð ðthe€employer€returns€the€employee€to€employmentÐ Æ  Ðat€a€wage€equal€to€or€greater€than€the€wage€the€employee€was€receiving€at€the€time€of€the€injuryð8ð.ðð€Ð ¶! ÐConversely,€when€ð ðthe€pre„injury€employer€does€not€return€the€employee€to€employment€at€a€wageÐ ¦"ö  Ðequal€to€or€greater€than€the€wage€the€employee€was€receiving€at€the€time€of€injury.€.€.,ðð€ðð€50„6„241(b)Ð –#æ! Ðraises€the€cap€to€six€(6)€times€the€medical€impairment€rating.€€Ð †$Ö" ÐÌà  àIn€òòNewton€v.€Scott€Health€Ctr.óó,€914€S.W.2d€884€(Tenn.€1995),€the€panel€construed€ðð€50„6„Ð f&¶!$ Ð241(a)(1)€as€requiring€the€employee€to€have€a€meaningful€return€to€work€before€the€two€and€one„halfÐ V'¦"% Ð(2.5)€times€cap€can€be€applied.€€òòId.óó€at€886€(citing€òòBailey€v.€Ô_ÔKruegerÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔRingierÔ_Ô,€Inc.óó,€No.€02S01„9409„Ð F(–#& ÐCH„00061€(Tenn.€May€17,€1995)).€€The€determination€of€whether€there€has€been€a€meaningful€returnÐ 6)†$' Ðto€work€turns€on€the€facts€of€each€case.€€òòNewtonóó,€914€S.W.2d€at€886.€€Particularly€relevant€is€theÐ &*v%( Ðreasonableness€of€the€employer€in€attempting€to€return€the€employee€to€work€and€of€the€employeeÐ +f&) Ðin€failing€to€return€to€work.€€The€court€explained:Ð ,V'* Їà0  àà8` (#(#àIf€the€offer€from€the€employer€is€not€reasonable€in€light€of€the€circumstancesÐ ° Ðof€the€employeeððs€physical€ability€to€perform€the€offered€employment,€thenÐ  ð Ðthe€offer€of€employment€is€not€meaningful€and€the€injured€employee€mayÐ à Ðreceive€disability€benefits€up€to€six€times€the€amount€of€the€medicalÐ €Ð Ðimpairment.€€On€the€other€hand,€an€employee€will€be€limited€to€disability€ofÐ pÀ Ðtwo€and€one„half€times€the€medical€impairment€if€his€refusal€to€return€toÐ ` ° Ðoffered€work€is€unreasonable.€€The€resolution€of€what€is€reasonable€must€restÐ P   Ðupon€the€facts€of€each€case€and€be€determined€thereby.€Ð@ ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€òòHale€v.€Ô_ÔABBÔ_Ô€Combustion€Ô_ÔEngððgóó.Ô_Ô,€No.€03S01„9506„CH„00062,€1996€WL€99298€(Tenn.Ð  p  ÐMar.€7,€1996),€a€panel€decision€adopted€and€affirmed€by€the€Supreme€Court,׃×Ý ƒ+ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€panel€discussedÐ `  Ðboth€òòBaileyóó€and€òòNewtonóó€and€stated€that€a€court€must€determine€if€the€employee€has€the€ability€toÐ P  Ðperform€the€duties€to€which€he€returns.€€The€mere€fact€that€an€employer€offers€a€return€to€work,€orÐ ð@  Ðthat€the€employee€does€not€return€at€all,€or€that€the€employee€returns€and€later€leaves,€is€notÐ à0  Ðcontrolling.€€òòHaleóó,€1996€WL€99298,€at€*2.€€In€the€same€vein,€an€injured€employee€cannot€increaseÐ Ð  Ðthe€maximum€award€by€unreasonably€refusing€to€return€to€work€in€a€position€for€which€he€isÐ À Ðqualified€and€able€to€perform€within€his€medical€restrictions.€€òòBrown€v.€Campbell€Bd.€of€Educ.óó,€915Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€407,€420€n.12€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€òòHaleóó€court€set€out€several€relevant€factors€for€the€court€toÐ  ð Ðweigh€in€making€its€assessment€of€the€return€to€work,€such€as:€Ð à ÐÌà0  àà8` (#(#àthe€employerððs€offer€to€return€to€work,€the€nature€of€the€work€to€be€performedÐ pÀ Ðin€relation€to€the€restrictions,€if€any,€placed€on€the€employee€by€a€doctor,Ð `° Ðwhether€the€refusal€of€an€employee€to€return€to€work€is€reasonable€orÐ P  Ðunreasonable€in€light€of€the€nature€of€the€work€offered€vis„a„vis€the€medicalÐ @ Ðrestrictions€placed€on€the€employee€and,€if€the€employee€returns€and€thenÐ 0€ Ðleaves,€the€reason€for€leaving€the€job.Ð p` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌòòHaleóó,€1996€WL€99298,€at€*2.€€We€are€persuaded€of€the€soundness€of€weighing€such€factors.Ð P ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€in€the€present€case€found€that€the€plaintiff€did€not€have€a€meaningful€returnÐ à0 Ðto€work€and€awarded€her€four€and€one„half€(4.5)€times€the€medical€impairment€rating€of€15€percent,Ð Ð  Ðor€67.5€percent€vocational€disability.€€In€a€letter€to€the€attorneys€outlining€her€findings,€the€trial€judgeÐ À! Ðstated:Ð °"  ÐÌà0  àà8` (#(#àDefendant€did€not€effectively€offer€to€return€plaintiff€to€any€job.€€A€letter€wasÐ $à" Ðsent€but€to€the€wrong€address.€€Even€though€Plaintiff€came€to€talk€with€aÐ €%Ð # Ðrepresentative€of€Defendant,€because€she€was€still€under€medical€treatment,Ð p&À!$ Ðhe€did€not€offer€her€a€job€at€that€time.€€There€was€no€proof€that€DefendantÐ `'°"% Ðever€conveyed€to€Plaintiff€an€offer€of€employment.€€òòò òThey€only€stated€thatÐ P( #& Ðthey€were€willing€to€re„employ€heró óóó,€not€that€this€offer€was€made€to€[Ô_ÔP]laintiffÔ_Ô.€Ð ° ÐTherefore€the€2.5€multiplier€does€not€apply.€€(emphasis€added).€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ð` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà  àWe€must€respectfully€disagree€with€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€The€questions€that€we€must€askÐ €Ð Ðourselves€in€the€present€case€are€how€far€an€employer€must€go€to€return€a€restricted€employee€to€theÐ pÀ Ðworkforce,€and€what€should€be€reasonably€expected€of€the€employee€in€returning€to€work?€€It€wasÐ ` ° Ðclearly€conveyed€to€the€plaintiff€at€the€February€6,€1996,€meeting€with€Mr.€Ô_ÔBowserÔ_Ô€that€she€couldÐ P   Ðreturn€to€work€once€she€was€released€by€her€doctor.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔBowserÔ_Ô's€handwritten€notes€made€close€toÐ @  Ðthe€time€of€the€meeting€with€the€plaintiff€reflect€that€Dr.€Friedman€would€release€the€plaintiff€toÐ 0 € Ðreturn€to€work€after€she€completed€a€work„hardening€program.€€She€was€to€contact€Mr.€Ô_ÔBowserÔ_Ô€onÐ  p  ÐFebruary€12,€1996,€after€completing€the€program.€€The€plaintiff€denied€that€she€agreed€to€contact€Mr.Ð `  ÐÔ_ÔBowserÔ_Ô,€but€it€seems€reasonable€to€expect€her€to€have€done€so€at€some€point€after€she€was€releasedÐ P  Ðfor€work.€€The€plaintiff€knew€after€the€February€6€meeting€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔBowserÔ_Ô€was€waiting€for€her€MRIÐ ð@  Ðresults€and€word€from€her€doctor€specifying€work€restrictions€before€offering€her€a€specific€position.€Ð à0  ÐShe€had€also€been€in€management€with€the€company€for€several€years€and€was€used€to€schedulingÐ Ð  Ðand€directing€employees.€€A€reasonable€person€with€that€experience€who€wanted€to€return€to€workÐ À Ðwould€have€or€should€have€contacted€the€company€when€the€MRI€results€came€in€and€her€restrictionsÐ ° Ðwere€determined€by€her€doctor.€€The€plaintiff€denied€receiving€either€letter€from€the€companyÐ  ð Ðconcerning€her€re„employment,€but€there€is€no€dispute€that€the€letter€dated€July€11,€1996,€was€sentÐ à Ðto€the€correct€address.€€The€companyððs€efforts€were€reasonably€designed€to€return€the€plaintiff€toÐ €Ð Ðwork€when€her€doctor€said€she€was€ready€and€under€the€restrictions€ordered€by€him.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔBowserÔ_ÔððsÐ pÀ Ðtestimony€and€notes€from€the€meeting€with€the€plaintiff€show€that€he€was€prepared€to€offer€theÐ `° Ðplaintiff€an€assistant€manager€position€at€store€#2722€but€was€unable€to€do€so€at€that€time€becauseÐ P  Ðof€the€note€from€Dr.€Friedman.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔBowserÔ_Ô€testified€that€the€plaintiff€also€told€him€she€could€notÐ @ Ðreturn€to€work€at€that€time.€€Apparently,€Dr.€Friedman€released€her€to€return€to€work€on€February€27,Ð 0€ Ð1996,€but€the€plaintiff€never€contacted€the€company.€€The€company€attempted€to€contact€her€by€letterÐ  p Ðin€March€and€July€of€that€year€but€got€no€response.Ð ` ÐÌà  àWe€do€not€believe€that€an€employer€should€be€required€to€relentlessly€pursue€an€injuredÐ ð@ Ðemployee€in€order€to€return€the€employee€to€work.€€At€some€point,€the€employee€has€to€take€theÐ à0 Ðinitiative€to€go€back€to€work,€and€that€point€is€logically€when€he€or€she€is€released€to€go€back€to€workÐ Ð  Ðby€the€doctor.€€We€find,€under€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€that€the€plaintiff€had€an€obligation€toÐ À! Ðnotify€the€employer€of€her€release€by€the€doctor€and€of€her€work€restrictions.€€The€company€hadÐ °"  Ðalready€left€that€door€open€for€the€plaintiff€but€never€had€the€opportunity€to€talk€to€her€about€theÐ  #ð! Ðassistant€manager€position.€€The€restrictions€that€Drs.€Friedman€and€Ô_ÔDawoudÔ_Ô€gave€the€plaintiff€wouldÐ $à" Ðhave€allowed€her€to€do€the€assistant€manager€position€as€described€by€Mr.€Ô_ÔBowserÔ_Ô€at€trial.€Ð €%Ð # ÐÌà  àTherefore,€we€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€that€theÐ `'°"% Ðplaintiff€did€not€have€a€meaningful€return€to€work.€€The€plaintiffððs€award€is€limited€to€two€and€one„Ð P( #& Ðhalf€(2.5)€times€the€anatomical€rating.Ð @)$' Ðâ âÐ 0*€%( ÐÔ  Ôâ âà@§§!ìàò òPERCENT€DISABILITYó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àIt€is€well„established€that€the€plaintiff€in€a€workersðð€compensation€case€has€the€burden€ofÐ à Ðproving€causation€and€permanency€of€his€injury€by€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€using€expertÐ €Ð Ðmedical€testimony.€€òòSeeóó€òòThomas€v.€Aetna€Life€&€Ô_ÔCasÔ_Ô.€Co.óó,€812€S.W.2d€278,€283€(Tenn.€1991);Ð pÀ ÐòòÔ_ÔRoarkÔ_Ô€v.€Liberty€Mutual€Ins.€Co.óó,€793€S.W.2d€932,€934€(Tenn.€1990).€€However,€such€testimony€isÐ ` ° Ðnot€evaluated€in€total€isolation€but€must€be€considered€in€conjunction€with€the€employeeððs€testimonyÐ P   Ðas€to€how€his€injury€occurred€and€his€subsequent€physical€condition.€€òòThomasóó,€812€S.W.2d€at€283.€Ð @  ÐIn€determining€where€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€lies,€this€Court€may€choose€which€expertððsÐ 0 € Ðview€to€believe€among€differing€opinions€and€may€consider€the€expertsðð€qualifications,Ð  p  Ðcircumstances€of€their€examination,€what€information€was€available€to€them,€and€how€important€thatÐ `  Ðinformation€was€to€other€experts.€€òòSeeóó€òòOrman€v.€Williams€Ô_ÔSonomaÔ_Ô,€Inc.óó,€803€S.W.2d€672,€676Ð P  Ð(Tenn.€1991).€€€€€€Ð ð@  ÐÌà  àò òó óUpon€our€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review,€we€find€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trialÐ Ð  Ðcourtððs€findings€that€the€plaintiff€sustained€a€15€percent€medical€impairment€rating.€€Her€treatingÐ À Ðsurgeon€rated€her€with€only€a€9€percent€disability€rating€under€the€AMA€Guides,€but€he€did€not€takeÐ ° Ðinto€account€any€aggravation€of€the€osteoarthritic€condition€that€was€connected€to€the€injury€inÐ  ð Ðvarying€degrees€by€Dr.€McGee€and€Dr.€Ô_ÔDawoudÔ_Ô.€€The€trial€court€apparently€credited€the€plaintiffððsÐ à Ðown€evaluating€physician,€Dr.€Ô_ÔDawoudÔ_Ôððs,€rating€of€15€percent€as€the€most€reliable,€and€we€have€noÐ €Ð Ðreason€to€disagree.€€Taking€into€account€the€plaintiffððs€level€of€education,€skills,€age,€and€otherÐ pÀ Ðrelevant€factors,€we€find€that€she€is€entitled€to€the€maximum€two€and€one„half€(2.5)€multiplierÐ `° Ðpursuant€to€ðð€50„6„241(a)(1).€€We,€therefore,€modify€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€and€find€that€theÐ P  Ðplaintiff€sustained€a€37.5€percent€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€Ð @ ÐÌÔ  Ôà@FF%ìàò òCONCLUSIONˆÐ  p ÐÌà  àó óFor€the€above€reasons,€we€find€that€the€two€and€one„half€(2.5)€times€cap€does€apply.€€WeÐ P Ðmodify€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€and€find€that€the€plaintiff€sustained€a€37.5€percent€permanentÐ ð@ Ðpartial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€dispositionÐ à0 Ðconsistent€with€this€opinion.€€As€modified,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àCosts€will€be€shared€equally€between€the€plaintiff€and€defendants.Ð °"  ÐÌÐ  $à" ЀÔ#†¼¸¤»XX·##ÔÔ€X·#X»¼¸¤ÔÐ ° ÐÌÔ‡¼¸¤»XX·#ÔÑ8€¸¤»»dXXdð8Ñà@7 7 ìàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ à Ðà@''%ìàAT€JACKSONˆÐ ¨ø ÐÔ#†X·#X»¼¸¤b¡#ÔÌò òÔ‡¼¸¤»XX·#ÔÓ  ÓÔ_ÔERNESTYNEÔ_Ô€M.€WEBB€€v.€€SHOE€CITY,€INC.,€òòet€alóó.Ô#†X·#X»¼¸¤[¢#Ôó óÐ °  ÐÓz¢ÓÌà@zzìàò òCircuit€Court€for€Shelby€CountyˆÐ ¸  Ðà@pp#ìàNo.€79201€T.D.ˆÐ ¨ ø ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<w` A߈Ð xÈ  ÐÌà@ô ô ìàNo.€W1998„00741„SC„WCM„CV€„€Filed€September€20,€2000ˆÐ wÇ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<V` AßÐ W§  Ðó óÌà@ƒƒ(ìàò òORDERó óˆÐ V¦ ÐÌòòóóÌÔ‡X2 XXX·#Ôà  àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€motion€for€review€of€Ô_ÔErnestyneÔ_Ô€M.€WebbÐ &v Ðpursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50„6„225(e)(5)(B),€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€ofÐ  \ Ðreferral€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel'sÐ òB ÐMemorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€areÐ Ø( Ðincorporated€herein€by€reference;Ð ¾ ÐÌà  àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€review€is€not€well€taken€andÐ ŠÚ Ðshould€be€denied;€and€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€areÐ <Œ Ðadopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€judgment€of€the€Court.Ð "r ÐÌà  àCosts€will€be€paid€by€equally€between€the€plaintiff€and€the€defendants,€for€whichÐ î >  Ðexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð Ô!$! ÐÌà  àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED.Ð  #ð# ÐÔ#†X·#X XX2¥#ÔÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPER€Ô_ÔCURIAMÔ_ÔÐ F(–#( Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌHOLDER,€J.„€NOT€PARTICIPATINGÐ &*v%* Ð