WPC$ ta\m Yo#CèBZ4?2OKnVO w:kݖ 냓9:;0m=L88HEYjrLHQ{|/iϚ4a%UL'9gK,RWj=Fzjm,or&_o`}% hk<*`+0%]؉LD{Qcs1)!:XNL4OAynOy-*-YIw7O!ⓖdu?&Vܓ.ң^:bt !_r[/C2h7Nw wh)o#tLj$%[DEjHr:恘h]8~wjGrX:֮$S[cUҵ3XOoDe(s|v" ~q;n@ tI%$|%#)# >UNI % 0U:4 1m 0cb w@ 0? 0DR 3 ( U: (+U:SS AQ 0D 0D 0DD B D/ B D3HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(H=$  HTR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalTX_XXX7XXdXXd7,  AZ"Arial RegularAq$%3|xK #)e37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;3$2)e  0  .3  0  H KKKKKKKKUKDKP((3b$ H=!  HTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXXXX7%9XXdd7   `   0  (#$  0   )  b$HXXXX `   1    ݀Theinjuryinthiscaseoccurredpriorto1992andisnotsubjecttothe  limitationsofawardsunderTenn.CodeAnn.506241(a)(1)and(b).  !"  XXXXJXX   Ad FILEDXXJ   October21,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.vXXAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular  !"  XXXXJXX   Ad FILEDXXJ   October21,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.vXXAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 !"#%C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1   d''' dxdP Pd$$$$'dxd H=!  HTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXXXX7%9XXdd7  ݛX     ќ #  @@  INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  Kt(>.*jxV` `@E` ttx$ tߛK@@B B SPECIALWORKERS'COMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL@@ATJACKSON   ELIZABETHA.WILSON, h     )    `     h     ) p     ` Plaintiff/Appellee h     ) p OBIONCHANCERY  (#     `     h     ) p  l  v. `     h     ) p NO.02S019712CH00113 R   `     h     ) p  8x WORTHCO,INC.(d/b/aMcDonalds  ) p HON.WILLIAMMICHAELMALOAN, ^ Store#5092)andLUMBERMENS  ) p CHANCELLOR D MUTUALCASUALTYCOMPANY,  ) *  `     h     ) ` Defendants/Appellants    )   FortheAppellants: h     FortheAppellee: ,  StevenW.Maroney h     JimmyC.Smith  Waldrop&Hall,P.A. h     ConleyCampbellMossSmith    106S.Liberty   h     317SouthThirdStreet !! Jackson,TN38301 h     P.O.Box427 v""   `     h     UnionCity,TN38261  \##    MEMORANDUMOPINION  *&+  MembersofPanel: v,(-  SeniorJudgeJohnK.Byers N.*/ SpecialJudgeF.LloydTatumSpecialJudgePaulR.Summers %  AFFIRMED    h      p   BYERS,SeniorJudge =9@ Ї   OPINION      ` Thisworkers'compensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)forhearingandreportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw. ` Thetrialjudgefoundtheplaintiffhadsufferedacompensableinjuryandenteredajudgmentinherfavorof50percentvocationalimpairmenttothebodyasawhole. ` Thedefendantraisesthefollowingissues:` I. WhetherthetrialcourterredinrejectingDefendantsMotiontoDismiss 8  ongroundsthatthestatuteoflimitationshadexpiredpriortothefiling ofPlaintiffsclaim.II. WhetherthetrialcourterredinfindingthatPlaintiffsallegedinjurywas   compensableandnotanoncompensableaggravationofapreexisting condition.III. WhetherthetrialcourterredinfindingthatthePlaintiffsustainedafifty (h  percent(50%)permanentpartialdisabilitytothebodyasawhole.`  ` Weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. ` Reviewofthefindingsoffactmadebythetrialcourtisdenovouponthe  recordofthetrialcourt,accompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthefindings,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(2);Stonev.CityofMcMinnville,896S.W.2d548,550(Tenn.1995). %N!% TheapplicationofthisstandardrequiresthisCourttoweighinmoredepththefactualfindingsandconclusionsofthetrialcourtinaworkerscompensationcase.See ($) Corcoranv.FosterAutoGMC,Inc.,746S.W.2d452,456(Tenn.1988). z*&+   FACTS  J,(-    ` Theplaintiffwas49yearsofageatthetimeoftheoccurrence,hasa10thgradeeducation,adegreeasanursingaid,andhasexperienceinlaborintensiveworksuchaszKzKcomputerandzKzKautomotivework,carpentry,brickandblocklaying,andotherrelatedwork. ` OnJuly3,1991,herbackwasinjuredwhenaboxofhamburgerpattiesfellonhershoulderinthecourseofherworkwithMcDonalds. ` TheemployersenttheplaintifftoMinorMedicalClinic,whichreferredhertoDr.MorrisRay.Dr.Raysawherforanextendedperiodoftime. <8? Ї   STATUTEOFLIMITATIONS      ` ThedefendantcontendstheplaintiffsclaimisbarredbytheoneyearstatuteoflimitationssetoutinTenn.CodeAnn.506203.ThedefendantclaimsthestatuteoflimitationsbegantorunonNovember3,1992becausethiswasthelastdaymedicalserviceswereprovidedbyDr.RayandthereforethefilingofthecomplaintbytheplaintiffonJanuary18,1994cametoolate. ` IndeterminingwhenthestatuteoflimitationsbeginstorunundertheprovisionsofTenn.CodeAnn.506203,zKzKthezKzKSupremeCourthasheldthataclaimforcompensationistimelyfiledwithinoneyearfromthelastdatethedefendanthasfurnishedmedicalservices.Blockerv.RegionalMedicalCtr.,722S.W.2d660 8 (Tenn.1987);NortonCo.v.Coffin,553S.W.2d751(Tenn.1977);Fieldsv.Lowe  FurnitureCorp.,415S.W.2d340(Tenn.1967).   ` Thequestionofwhenthedefendantlastfurnishedmedicalservicesfortheplaintiffinrelationtotheinjuryshereceivedisindispute.ThedefendantcontendsthelastmedicalcarebyDr.RaywasonNovember3,1992,whiletheplaintiffsaysshewasseenbyDr.RayforherbackonMay11,1993. ` Dr.Raywasaskedaboutthereleaseoftheplaintifffromtreatmentinhisdeposition,andhetestifiedthatattheNovember3,1992visithenotedamongotherzKzKthings,zKzK Iwouldsuggestthatshecontinueexerciseandbeasactiveaspossibleandseeherbackonanasneededbasis. ` Forfurtherdiscussionoftheissueofwhethertheplaintiffwasreleasedfromtreatmentonthatdate,therecordrevealsthefollowing:` Q. (BYMR.MARONEY)Canyoutelluswhetherornotthisladywas `+', releasedonNovember3,1992?A. Ididnotgiveheraspecificfollowupappointmentasofthatdate.Ileft ,-l). theoptionopenthatifshehadsomethingthatdevelopedthatwasdifferentorconcernedherorshewishedto,Iwouldbegladtoseeherback,soshewasnotterminated,shewasreleasedfrombeingrequiredorrequestedtoreturnonaspecificdate.Q. Asfarasyouwereconcerned,canyoutelluswhetherornotyoufelt 1-3 yourtreatmentofthisladyhadendedonthatdate?A. Ididnotanticipate,unlesssomethingdevelopedfurther,thatIwoulddo v3/5 anythingfurtherordifferently.Thenextstep,ifthepainwereintolerable,wouldbetoconsiderfusion,whichIdonotdoandIhadreferredhertodifferentorthopedicsurgeonsfortheiropinionsonthatandthatwouldbecarriedoutbythem.Q. Andthisladydidatsomepointreturntoyouroffice;isthatright? 744: A. Thatscorrect. 85; Q. Whenwasthat? 96< A. ShereturnedMay11,1993. :6=  Q. Andwhatdidyouseeherforonthatdate? ;7> A. Shehadcontinuedcomplaint[sic]ofbackandbilaterallowerextremity   pain,buthernewcomplaintofseveralmonthsdurationwasofprogressivelyseverenumbnessinbothhandsandwithwakingnumbnessinbothhands.` ^l ` Dr.RayonNovember10,1995signedanaffidavitwhichbasicallysetouthisviewofwhenhereleasedtheplaintifffromcare.Thisversionislittledifferentfromhistestimonyinthedeposition. ` TheplaintifftestifiedshewasnottoldbyDr.RaythathewasreleasingherfromcareforherbackonNovember3,1992.TherecordreflectsthatinAugustof1993theclinic,outofwhichDr.Raypracticed,notifiedtheplaintiffthattheinsurancecarrierwouldnotpayforanyfurthertreatmentfortheinjurytoherback. ` ThereisnothingintherecordtoindicatetheplaintiffwasevertoldbyDr.RayorthedefendantthatshewasreleasedfromcareonNovember3,1992.ThereisnoreportbyDr.Rayintroducedinthisrecordinformingthedefendantofsuchreleaseorfindinganymedicalimpairmentratingfortheinjury. ` ThetrialjudgefoundthattheplaintiffhadnoknowledgethatDr.RayhadreleasedherfromtreatmentonNovember3,1992andthattheplaintiffdidnotknowuntilAugust1993thatnomoretreatmentsorserviceswouldbefurnishedtotheplaintiff.Therecordsupportsthisfinding. ` Thedefendantarguesthatthetrialcourtimproperlyimposedarequirementofactualknowledgeonthepartoftheplaintiffofterminationofbenefitsbeforethestatuteoflimitationsbeginstorun.InthecaseofNancyEvansv.KayserRoth %$"& Hosiery,Inc.,No.37,RoaneCountyzKzK(filedatKnoxvillezKzKMar.26,1990),theSupreme '#( Courtheldthattheterminationofbenefitstriggerstherunningofthestatuteoflimitationsiftheemployerknowsthebenefitshavebeenterminated.Actualknowledgethereforeseemstobetherule. ` ThequestionthenzKzKbecomes:whetherzKzKtheplaintiffzKzKhasKdsKtKvetKzKzKknowledgethatmedicalbenefitswereterminatedonNovember3,zKzK1992uK?uKzKzKzKzKvK.vKzKzKWethinknot. ` Dr.RaytestifiedheintendedtoterminatethetreatmentoftheplaintiffforthebackinjuryonNovember3,1992.However,thereisnoindependentobjectiveevidenceinthisrecordtoshowhecommunicatedthistotheplaintiff.Hetestifiedheadvisedhertoreturntohimiftherewasneedor,inmedicalparlance, P.R.N.NeithertheinsurancecompanynorMcDonaldsintroducedanyevidencetoshowtheyhadadvisedtheplaintifftheywereterminatingfurthermedicaltreatment.The |;7> onlyevidenceconcerningacommunicationtotheplaintiffoftheterminationofmedicalcarewastheshowingthatinAugustof1993theclinicwheretheplaintiffobtainedcareadvisedherzKzKwKthatwKthezKzKinsurancecompanywouldnolongerpayfortreatmentforherback. ` TheknowledgethatmedicalcarewastobeterminatedwasknownbyatleasttheinsurancecompanyandDr.Ray,theirselectedphysician.Neitherofthemcommunicatedthistotheplaintiff.Thedeterminationofwhenapersonneedsnofurthertreatmentforaninjuryorwhennofurthertreatmentwillbebeneficialisamedicaldecisiontobemadebythetreatingphysician.ItissomethingbeyondtheabilityofapatienttodetermineandtheapplicationofthezKzK reasonablyzKzKshouldhavezKzKknownzKzKruledoesnotapplyinsuchcircumstances.  COMPENSABILITY      ` Theplaintiffhasspondylolisthesis,adegenerativedisease,whichhadcaused \ someproblemfor25years.Dr.Raytestifiedhecouldnotfindanyevidencethattheaccidentchangedtheanatomicalconditionoftheplaintiff.ThedefendantsaysthereforethattheaccidentonlyincreasedtheplaintiffspainandisthusnotcompensableundertheholdinginSmithv.zKzKSmithxKsxKzKzKTransferCorp.,735S.W.2dzKzK221yK    (Tenn.1987)yK,zKzKandvariousothercaseswhichfollowedSmith. \""  ` Wethink,however,thiscasediffersfromSmithbecauseDr.Raytestifiedthe ,$l $ plaintiffsinjurycausedthesymptomswhichshenowhasandwasoftheopinionthattheplaintiffcouldhaveworkedwiththepreexistingconditionandthatshecannotcontinuenowinthattypework.Further,Dr.Raywasoftheopiniontheworkrelatedinjurytriggeredhercurrentdisability. ` InHillv.EagleBendMfg.,Inc.,942S.W.2d483(Tenn.1997),theSupreme ,-l). Courtheld:` Anemployerisresponsibleforworkerscompensationbenefits,eventhoughtheclaimantmayhavebeensufferingfromaseriouspreexistingconditionordisability,ifemploymentcausesanactualprogressionoraggravationofthepriordisablingconditionordiseasewhichproducesincreasedpainthatisdisabling.` Z7h7 ` Theinjurytotheplaintiffiscompensable.    96< EXTENTOFDISABILITY #  1            ` Thetrialcourtfoundtheplaintiff50percentvocationallyimpairedtothebody  asawhole.Theevidenceshowsthatpriortotheinjurytheplaintiffwascapableofanddidperformheavyphysicalworksuchasbrickandblocklaying,etc.Sincetheinjury,accordingtohertestimonyandthetestimonyofothers,shecannolongerdothistypeofwork. ` Dr.Raydeterminedtheplaintiffhadasevenpercentmedicalimpairmenttothebodyasawholeasaresultofspondylolisthesis.Hetestifiedthesymptomsshenowsufferswerecausedbytheaccidentatwork.Further,hetestifiedshecouldnolongerperformthetypeofworkshehadpursuedduringherworkinglife.Baseduponallofthis,wefindtheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainsttheawardof50percenttothebodyasawhole. ` Thejudgmentisaffirmed.Thecostofthisappealistaxedtothedefendant. `     h     _____________________________ `     h     JohnK.Byers,SeniorJudgeCONCUR:________________________________F.LloydTatum,SpecialJudge________________________________PaulR.Summers,SpecialJudgeK  n*&+ KKKK` KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK@  XXINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE `  KK$XX XX$KK@)ATJACKSON#XX  ?#Ԉ x  KKKKK3XXp XXX X3KKKKr(<,(j 8` `@E0S` ttx$hP rKKKKKK3Xp XXX X3KKKKK6XpxXXX X6KKELIZABETHWILSON, h KKK  KKK p KK)  OBIONCHANCERY P KKK?Xp XXpxX?KKKKKK?p XXpxX?KKKKK?pxXXpxX?KK p )  NO.17,800 6 K6pXpxX6KKK9` p XpxX9KKK<` pxXpxX<K ` Plaintiff/Appellee, p )    K<p X` pxX<KKK<` p X` pxX<KKKKt(>.*jx76` `@EL8` ttx$( t `  p )  Hon.WilliamMichaelMaloan,  vs. `  p )  Chancellor    `  p )WORTHCO,INC.(d/b/aMcDonald'sStoreKKK p KKKK)KK T  K#5092K)K p )  NO.02S019712CH00113 :  andLUMBERMENSMUTUALCASUALTY p )   COMPANY, p ) f   `  p ) ` Defendants/Appellants. p )  AFFIRMED. 2 @' XXJUDGMENTORDER#XX  iH#Ԉ j   6` pX` pxX6 ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtupontheentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferraltotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanel'sMemorandumOpinionsettingforthitsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference. Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthattheMemorandumOpinionofthePanelshouldbeacceptedandapproved;and Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanel'sfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawareadoptedandaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgmentoftheCourt. CostswillbepaidbyAppellantsandsurety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. ITISSOORDEREDthis21stdayofOctober,1998.      x   (#    PERCURIAM H<28 ЇKKK    KK