WPC< <# XUNc % 0 (w@43 0lB 0D 0J 0T< 0^ 0h 0r^  0| 0R 0 Bh AQ  0D 0@ 0D 1ud D/ 0d Bl D3 U> B) DC# U*f AM  j:v~viHP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ ӀӀeH# ` 3|x((3$ !      0  ()$  3  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  H2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   d!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)((' dxdP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` XP Pd'dxd<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d11117Border 1dd<  9p`(Arial!#2C << G !0  ""  33   YYY FILED3XNovember7,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk   !0   $       ݀TherecordconsistsonlyofthedepositionsofDr.LanfordandDr.Fishbein,andthe memorandumoftheChancellor. ` !0   $       ݀AsobservedbyadifferentPanelonanotheroccasion,theplaintiff,inthisMontgomery Countycase,travelledalongdistanceinemployingDr.Fishbein,overlookingmany dozensoforthopedicspecialistsintheprocess. !0   $       ݀NeitherhisdepositionnorhisCVrevealthisinformation. !0  ""  33   YYY FILED3XNovember7,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ! . 0        \RA'\!3\RA'\R452A1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ SPECIALWORKERS'COMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL@ ATNASHVILLE MARGARETWILLIAMSON,  ) MONTGOMERYCIRCUIT      )  Plaintiff/Appellee   ) NO.01S019703CV00066      ) v.      ) HON.JAMESE.WALTON,      ) CHANCELLORCLARKSVILLEMEMORIALHOSPITAL)      ) Defendant/Appellant  ) FortheAppellant:    FortheAppellee: CharlesC.TrabueIII   StacyA.TurnerJeffreyZager    105SouthThirdStreetTrabue,Sturdivant&Dewitt  Clarksville,TN370402500NashvilleCityCenter511UnionStreetNashville,TN372191738   MEMORANDUMOPINIONMembersofPanel: JusticeFrankF.Drowota,IIISeniorJudgeWilliamH.InmanSpecialJudgeJoeC.Loser,Jr.  AFFIRMEDand       INMAN,SeniorJudgeREMANDED.       ̜   ћ Thisworkers'compensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithϜ%  Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)forhearingandreportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw. Thetrialjudgefoundthattheplaintiffhada10percentanatomicalimpairmentwhich,extrapolatedbythemultiplierof2.5,resultedinapermanentpartialdisabilityof25percentandawardedbenefitsaccordingly. Theemployerappeals,insistingthatthereisnobasisforafindingofananatomicalimpairmentof10percent. 6   כThethrustoftheHospitalsargumentisdirectedtotheallegeddiscreditingofDr.FishbeinstestimonybytheChancellor. 7   כ Itisconcededthattheplaintiff,anurse,sustainedaneckandshoulderinjuryonJuly8,1993whileliftingapatientatthedefendantHospital.ShewasinitiallyseenbyDr.DouglasPorter,anorthopedistofClarksville,whoreferredhertoDr.G.B.Lanford,aneurosurgeon,whomweassumepracticesinNashville. 8   ׀Dr.Lanfordtestifiedthattheplaintiffhadsomediscbulgingandspondylosis,butnonerverootcompressionandnooperativeproblems.BecauseofcontinuingarmandbackpainDr.Lanfordassessedheranatomicalimpairmentat5percent. Dr.RichardE.Fishbein,orthopedist,practicinginAntioch,testifiedthatattherequestofplaintiffscounselheexaminedtheplaintiffonJuly7,1994.BeforethattimehehadbeenfurnishedwithcopiesofDr.PortersandDr.Lanfordsevaluations,andhadreviewedthexrayandmyelogramreports.HereferredtoDr.Portersreportthattheplaintiffhadsufferedanacuteherniationofadisc;hefoundexquisitetendernessovertheparacervicalmuscles,weaknessofgripstrength, andbasicallyInotedthatshehadaherniateddiscasnoted,andthatherhistoryandphysicalfindingswereconsistentwithit.Dr.Fishbeinopinedthatshehadacategory3radiculopathysecondarytoherherniateddiscwitha15percentimpairmenttoherwholebody. Ourreviewofthefindingsoffactmadebythetrialcourtisdenovoupontherecordofthetrialcourt,accompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthefinding,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(2);Stonev.CityofMcMinnville,896S.W.2d584(Tenn.1991).Where,asinthiscase,themedicaltestimonyispresentedbydeposition,thisCourtisabletomakeitsownindependentassessmentofthemedicalprooftodeterminewherethepreponderanceoftheevidencelies.Cooperv.INA,884S.W.2d446(Tenn.1994). ThedifficultypresentedbythetestimonyofDr.FishbeinistobefoundinthefactthathedidnotreadDr.Portersnotescarefully. Dr.Porteronlysuspected,initially,aherniateddisc.Itwasnothisfinaldiagnosis,andthereisnoevidenceofsuchacondition. Thusisformedthepredicatefortheappellantsargument:sinceanatomicalimpairmentmustbeshownbyexperttestimony,theimpairmentof15percentbyDr.Fishbeincannotbeconsideredbecausethepredicateofhisopiniontheherniateddiscdidnotexist.Asthetrialjudgefound, thereisnoevidenceofanacute,herniateddiscandthatassumptionbyDr.Fishbeinisnotwhatisshown.Thisleavesuswith,theargumentcontinues,theopinionofDr.Lanfordthattheplaintiffhada5percentimpairment,andthereforethefindingof10percentisnotsupportedbytheproof. Thetrialcourtrecognizedtheproblem.Butheapparentlythoughtthatafindingof5percentwouldnotadequatelycompensatetheplaintiff.Wequotefromhisbenchpronouncedfinding: AlothadtodowiththecredibilityofMs.Williamson,astowhetherornotwhenshemakesthesecomplaints,shesbeingtruthful.Ihaveobservedherfromthestand,testifying,andtheotherwitnesseswhohavetestified.IbelieveMs.Williamsoniscredible.Ibelievesheistellingthetruth.Ibelieveshedoeshavepainrunningdownintoherarmandcausingthedifficultiesaboutwhichshetestified. WhenIconsiderallofthat,itisappropriatefortheCourttodeterminetheanatomicalimpairmentbaseduponthemedicalproof,andthenwhenthereissomedisputeinthatmedicalproof,Icanalsolooktofactsoutsideofthat,whichIhavedone.AndthefactsspecificallywhichIhavelookedtoisthecomplaintofpainthatMs.Williamsonmakes,anditwasdiscussedbybothdoctorsandtreateddifferently. Inanyevent,IfindthatMs.Williamsonhassustaineda10percentanatomicalimpairmentasaresultofthisinjury.   ThedirectexaminationofDr.Fishbeinindicatedthathisfindingof15percentimpairmentwasbasedentirelyonhisunderstandingthatDr.Porterhaddiagnosedaherniateddisc.Butoncrossexamination,hetestifiedthattheacutedischerniationwasonlyoneofhisassumptions,theotherbeingthattheplaintiffhadsomelossofreflexandsomelossofnormalcurvatureofherneck.Absentthecrossexamination,thereisnodoubtthattheopinionofDr.Fishbeincouldhavenoprobativevaluewhatever,sinceitwouldhavebeenbasedonafaultypremise. ButnotwithstandingthatwedonotresoundinglyagreethatthetestimonyofDr.Fishbeinmaybeconsideredatall,weareunabletofind,undertheprevailingstandardofreview,thatthefindingof10percentanatomicalimpairmentiscontrarytothepreponderancetotheevidence.Thejudgmentisaccordinglyaffirmedatthecostsoftheappellant,andthecaseisremanded.                   ______________________________      WilliamH.Inman,SeniorJudgeCONCUR:_______________________________FrankF.Drowota,III,Justice_______________________________JoeC.Loser,Jr.,SpecialJudge̜    @ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLEJ49;+'b|`  `@JMARGARETWILLIAMSON,  } MONTGOMERYCIRCUIT      } No.C10114Below Plaintiff/Appellee   }      } Hon.JamesE.Walton,vs.      } Judge      }CLARKSVILLEMEMORIAL  }HOSPITAL,     } No.01S019703CV00066      } Defendant/Appellant  } AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED.@ JUDGMENTORDER  ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtupontheentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferraltotheSpecialWorkers'CompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanel'sMemorandumOpinionsettingforthitsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference.  Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthattheMemorandumOpinionofthePanelshouldbeacceptedandapproved;and  Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanel'sfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawareadoptedandaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgmentoftheCourt. ` ` X  CostswillbepaidbyClarksvilleMemorialHospitalandSurety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.  ITISSOORDEREDonNovember7,1997.       PERCURIAM̛