ÿWPC> jßQ‘¡ÎÀy¶¢(yŒw{’æ…™ªn¡`º*-¤.ú»öc*ÝÀ•“ï~7éXò œI™ÊG»˜oÂëp¸3gT %lÓ#x&N*uº€m'†|‹g "ûˆÞqþíJ)JXÀ·8dW«¢+%ôb‚×ÈWÏÞ8æ¬.ú#êÃ3M„à#ÿ³„Y@+ T8•<™AlC#Ý=|'ëÊf9y;;ùݺ8 ¡«C_ÒÐ<Ÿ²Ö¨å„-À<&ÅÙeWBï›?\åÓF¸µRñ´¹uTß@]ro”C\ØØÊàßé\èûnÜù”rÔV$Ýíåf—·²´aåWÇÍA¾ŽdïnÓŠ5ž_Ÿ0±uË!£ ™ýÝVjàq›#vfiß÷Îf€3ÝžÕ£Ï@<Ó$Å ñx_¡ˆÉ$ǽØÊycû ƼIjçì¹wæHÙ cæÒ È1iáEa$F.5ÐÜ  /à0›æhï¹.PŸàe¸z(Ë'/˜4Æù7‚|dz¶†® Ô\ÇÖ¤,0s/u[«Ì)°E€qÚ¨ZoûOü´©z³²6Ýj¬8,º0eb{7Ææj ¬)›TùÂSæý&Ù&H{D b#É\UN% %s 0:y ^ ³ w¿ 4à × æ mè bÿ : A ;I 0~„ 0D 1‡F 72Í 1uÿ 72t 0 b¦NÆ ÆÐÆ–Æ\N" D5$ zYÒÓUN¥Eóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó 0Võ BK D-h 0K•• ASàÆ3 0Vù 0DO A«“˜\\IB01S08T\knoxclerk4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,ÔR¤L1 ²p)/ê:i¢×+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù- 0Ñ#€Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € Ñ  1Ý ƒÄ($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô‡ô– òXXÔThe€disclaimer€of€Union€Carbide€Corporation€apparently€was€intended€to€serve€as€the€answer€forÐ ° ÐLockheed€Martin€also.Ô#†X`“X òô–g#Ô(.(3Ä($¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(%Ã$òòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(:Hg$´´Ô25hÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5YYYY)ÿÿ!dxdx˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(.3½Þ$££Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ý d)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`Eþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(.3½Þ$¢¢Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ ÖŽXXÔÓ  ÓÑ€ 6^ÑIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÐ ê: ÐAT€KNOXVILLEÐ $t ÐJune€11,€2004€SessionÐ ^® ÐÌò òÔ‡¼)» ÖŽÔELLIS€L.€WOODS€v.€LOCKHEED€MARTIN€ENERGY€SYSTEMS,€INC.Ð Ò " Ѐòòet€al.Ô#† ÖŽ.¼)A#ÔÐ æ 6 ÐÌÔ€X`“X| ÖŽÔóóDirect€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Morgan€Countyó óÐ 4„  Ðò òNo.€01„04€€€€€€€€Frank€Williams€III,€Chancelloró óÐ  p  Ðò òÌFiled€October€12,€2004ó óÐ øH  Ð______________ò òó ó______________Ð ä4  ÐÌò ò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€No.€E2003„01789„Ô_ÔWCÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Mailed€June€29,€2004Ð ¼  ÐÌ____________________________ó óÐ ”ä ÐÌÓ  ÓThis€workersðð€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workersðð€CompensationÐ l¼ ÐAppeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€forÐ X¨ Ðhearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€Findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€The€PlaintiffÐ D” Ðsustained€a€gradual€hearing€loss€while€working€for€successive€employers€performing€essentially€theÐ 0€ Ðsame€duties.€€The€trial€judge€held€that€the€last„injurious€employment€rule€applied.€€We€affirm.Ð l ÐÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)€(1999)€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€CourtÐ ôD ÐAffirmedó óÐ à0 ÐÓ  ÓÌòòWilliam€H.€Ô_ÔInmanÔ_Ô,€Sr.€J.,€óódelivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòE.€Riley€Anderson,€J.óó,€andÐ ¸ ÐòòRoger€E.€Thayer,€Sp.€J.óó,€joined.Ð ¤ ô ÐÌGary€T.€Ô_ÔDuplerÔ_Ô,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€attorney€for€appellant,€Operations€Management€International,Ð |"Ì ÐInc.Ð h#¸ ÐÌJohn€P.€Dreiser,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€attorney€for€Appellee,€Ellis€L.€Woods.Ð @% ! ÐÌTimothy€W.€Conner,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€attorney€for€appellees,€Lockheed€Martin€EnergyÐ 'h"# ÐSystems,€Inc.€and€Union€Carbide€Corporation.Ð (T#$ ÐÌÓ  Óò òMEMORANDUM€OPINIONÐ Ü),%& ÐÓ  Óó óÌà  àThe€plaintiff€filed€this€action€seeking€benefits€for€loss€of€hearing.€€He€alleged€that€onÐ ´+'( ÐFebruary€2,€2000€ð ðhe€was€notifiedðð€of€noise„induced€hearing€loss€while€employed€ð ðwith€allÐ  ,ð') Ð[Ô_ÔD]efendantsÔ_Ô,ðð€and€that€on€August€3,€2001€he€ð ðwas€notifiedðð€of€increased€work„related€hearing€lossÐ Œ-Ü(* ÐÑ 6^Ñâ  âÑ8€`“XXdìdÈ8ÑÑ€ Ñâ  âÑ  Ñas€a€result€of€his€regular€employment€duties,€from€April€1,1998€to€the€present€time,€with€theÐ ° ÐÔ_ÔDefendant,€Operations€Management€International€[hereafterððOMIðð].Ð œì ÐÌà  àDefendant€OMI€argued€that€the€Plaintiff€was€its€employee€from€April€1,€1998€throughÐ tÄ ÐDecember€27,€2000€when€he€retired,€and€denied€knowledge€of€the€asserted€loss€of€hearing€of€theÐ `° ÐPlaintiff,€or€notice€thereof.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant,€Union€Carbide€Corporation,€Inc.€[hereafter€ð ðUnion€Carbideðð],€agreed€thatÐ $ t Ðit€employed€the€Plaintiff€but€denied€that€it€received€proper€notice€of€an€injury€or€hearing€loss.׃×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€Plaintiff€sustained€a€loss€of€hearing€at€the€low€to€mid„rangeÐ è 8  Ðlevel€as€a€result€of€his€employment€with€the€three€Defendants,€but€that€Defendant€OMI€is€solelyÐ Ô$  Ðresponsible€for€the€injury€to€the€Plaintiff€because€he€was€last€injuriously€exposed€while€in€its€employ.€Ð À  ÐThe€court€further€found€that€the€Plaintiff€suffered€a€50€percent€disability€ð ðto€his€earsðð€and€awardedÐ ¬ü  Ðbenefits€accordingly.€€The€Defendants,€Lockheed€Martin€Energy€Systems,€Inc.€[hereafter€ð ðLockheedÐ ˜è  ÐMartinðð],€and€Union€Carbide€were€dismissed.€€The€Defendant€OMI€appeals€and€presents€for€reviewÐ „Ô  Ðthese€issues:Ð pÀ ÐÌÓ€ (5h83ÓÝ"‚Hg"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚HgÝÔ25hÔÚ  ÚIÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€determining€that€the€Plaintiff/Appellee€wasÐ H˜ Ðð ðinjuriouslyðð€exposed€while€employed€by€Defendant/Appella[nt]€OMI.݃HgÆÝŒÐ4„` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ"‚Hg"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚HgÝÔ25hÔÚ  ÚIIÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝWhether€the€Plaintiff€has€met€his€burden€and€presented€sufficient€medicalÐ  \ Ðproof€to€show€that€Plaintiffððs€compensable€hearing€loss€occurred€during€hisÐ øH Ðemployment€with€the€Appellant€(April€1998€to€December€2000)?݃HgMÝŒÐä4` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ"‚Hg"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚HgðÝÔ25hÔÚ  ÚIIIÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€substituting€its€own€personal€observations€andÐ ¼  Ðlife€experiences€in€place€of€expert€medical€testimony€presented€by€depositionÐ ¨ø Ðat€trial.݃Hgð)݌Дä` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà  àOur€review€is€òòde€novoóó€on€the€record€accompanied€by€the€presumption€that€the€findings€of€factÐ l¼ Ðare€correct€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„Ð X ¨ Ð225(e)(2);€Rule€13(d)€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€€This€standard€requires€that€we€weigh€in€more€depth€theÐ D!” Ðfactual€findings€of€the€trial€court€and€its€conclusions.€€òòò òCorcoran€v.€Foster€Auto€GMC€Inc.óóó ó,€746Ð 0"€  ÐS.W.2d€452€(Tenn.€1988).€€Deference€must€be€accorded€to€the€trial€judge€who€has€seen€and€heardÐ #l! Ðwitnesses,€especially€where€issues€of€credibility€and€weight€of€oral€testimony€are€involved.€€òòò òStoryÐ $X" Ðv.€Legion€Ins.€Co.óóó ó,€3€S.W.3d€451€(Tenn.€1999).€Ð ô$D # Ðò òÌÌòòÓ  ÓAnalysisóóó óÐ ¸'#& ÐÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà @ àÓÌÓà  àThe€Plaintiff€is€a€sixty„three„year„old€high€school€graduate.€€He€worked€for€Union€CarbideÐ ° Ðfrom€1972€to€1975,€where€his€regular€duties€demanded€frequent€use€of€a€jackhammer€and€pavingÐ œì Ðsurfaces.€€He€thereafter€began€working€at€another€plant€(K„25)€in€1975€as€a€laborer€whose€chiefÐ ˆØ Ðduties€included€grounds„keeping€and€required€the€use€of€an€industrial„sized€lawnmower€and€weed„Ð tÄ Ðeater.€€During€the€winter€months€the€Plaintiff€worked€indoors€around€convertors€and€very€largeÐ `° Ðmotors.€€According€to€the€Plaintiff,€early€in€his€career€with€Union€Carbide€hearing€protection€wasÐ L œ Ðnot€provided€and€not€worn.€€By€1991€the€Plaintiff€had€suffered€significant€noise„related€loss€asÐ 8 ˆ Ðindicated€by€audiograms€taken€by€the€medical€staff€at€the€K„25€site.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àIn€April€1998€the€Plaintiff€retired€from€Lockheed€Martin€and€immediately€was€employed€byÐ ü L  ÐOMI€where€he€worked€until€December€2000.€€At€OMI,€during€the€summer€months,€he€performedÐ è 8  Ðmany€of€the€same€duties€he€performed€at€the€end€of€his€employment€with€Lockheed€Martin,€asÐ Ô$  Ðcontrasted€by€his€earlier€duties€with€Union€Carbide,€but€OMI€insisted€that€he€wear€specific€foam€earÐ À  Ðplug€protection€and€provided€protective€ear€pieces€for€this€purpose.€€The€Plaintiff€wore€thisÐ ¬ü  Ðprotective€equipment.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€Plaintiff€worked€for€Union€Carbide€and€Lockheed€Martin€from€1972€until€April€1,€1998.€Ð pÀ ÐWhen€he€left€Lockheed€Martin€he€had€a€hearing€loss€impairment€rating€of€3.8€percent.€€On€the€dayÐ \¬ Ðhe€left€Lockheed€Martin,€he€began€his€work€with€OMI€at€the€same€facility€he€had€been€working€atÐ H˜ Ðfor€twenty„six€years€under€Union€Carbide€and€Lockheed€Martin.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€work€that€he€performed€at€OMI€was€substantially€the€same€as€the€work€he€had€performedÐ  \ Ðwhile€at€Union€Carbide.€€During€the€summer€months,€he€would€mow€the€grass€using€the€sameÐ øH Ðequipment€he€had€used€while€he€was€employed€with€Union€Carbide€and€Lockheed€Martin.€€TheÐ ä4 Ðamount€of€hours€that€he€spent€mowing€with€OMI€were€also€substantially€the€same€as€the€hours€spentÐ Ð  Ðmowing€with€Union€Carbide€and€Lockheed€Martin.€€He€used€the€same€type€of€hearing€protection€atÐ ¼  ÐOMI€that€he€used€while€he€was€with€Union€Carbide.€€When€he€left€OMI€in€2000,€his€impairmentÐ ¨ø Ðrating€had€increased€to€21.8€percent.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àDr.€Overholt€opined€that€the€Plaintiffððs€hearing€loss€was€noise€induced€and€related€to€work.€Ð l¼ ÐDr.€Brown,€OMIððs€physician,€stated€that€the€Plaintiffððs€hearing€loss€was€noise€induced€hearing€loss.€Ð X ¨ ÐAs€a€result€of€being€exposed€to€noise€at€work,€he€now€suffers€from€noise€induced€hearing€loss€andÐ D!” Ðtinnitus.€€Tinnitus€is€a€condition€that€subjects€him€to€a€constant€ð ðringing€or€buzzing€in€[his]€ears.ðð€Ð 0"€  ÐDr.€Overholt€testified€that€the€tinnitus€is€related€to€the€noise€induced€hearing€loss.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€Plaintiff€testified€that€he€first€began€to€notice€his€hearing€loss€ð ðeight€to€ten€to€fifteenÐ ô$D # Ðyears€ago[,]ðð€indicating€the€time€he€worked€for€Union€Carbide€and€Lockheed€Martin,€and€that€heÐ à%0!$ Ðð ðthink[s]ðð€his€hearing€grew€worse€after€April€1,€1998€when€he€began€work€for€OMI.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àThe€dispositive€issue€is€whether€the€last€injurious„exposure€rule€is€applicable€as€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðconcluded€by€the€trial€judge.€€OMI€argues€that€the€rule€does€not€apply€unless€the€proof€reveals€thatÐ )à$( Ðthe€employee€was€actually€injuriously€exposed,€and€that€the€evidence€does€not€establish€that€theÐ |*Ì%) ÐPlaintiff€was€injuriously€exposed€while€working€for€OMI.€€It€is€not€controverted€that€the€PlaintiffÐ h+¸&* Ðworked€for€Union€Carbide€and€its€successors,€including€Lockheed€Martin,€for€twenty„six€years,€fromÐ ° Ð1972€until€1998.€€During€this€time€the€Plaintiffððs€duties€included€cleaning,€maintenance,€jackÐ œì Ðhammering,€paving,€and€mowing€the€lawns€at€the€K„25€and€Y„12€sites€in€Oak€Ridge,€Tennessee,€withÐ ˆØ Ðan€industrial„sized€lawn€mower€and€weed€eater.€€During€the€winter€with€Union€Carbide,€the€PlaintiffÐ tÄ Ðworked€indoors€around€convertors€and€very€large€motors.€€He€testified€that€early€in€his€career€withÐ `° ÐUnion€Carbide€he€did€not€wear€ear€protection,€and€it€was€during€his€work€with€Union€Carbide€andÐ L œ ÐLockheed€Martin€that€the€Plaintiff€first€noticed€a€ringing€in€his€ears.€He€underwent€numerousÐ 8 ˆ Ðaudiograms€while€employed€with€Union€Carbide€and€Lockheed€Martin€and€according€to€theÐ $ t ÐPlaintiffððs€medical€expert,€Dr.€Overholt,€these€audiograms€evidenced€a€high€frequency€work„relatedÐ  ` Ðhearing€loss€occurring€before€1991.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àAs€we€stated,€in€April€of€1998,€the€Plaintiff€began€working€for€OMI€where€he€continuedÐ Ô$  Ðworking€until€retirement€in€December€of€2000.€At€OMI,€during€the€summer€months,€the€PlaintiffÐ À  Ðperformed€many€of€the€same€duties€he€performed€at€the€end€of€his€employment€with€LockheedÐ ¬ü  ÐMartin,€as€opposed€to€his€earlier€duties€with€Union€Carbide.€€In€1999,€while€employed€by€OMI,€theÐ ˜è  ÐPlaintiff€had€an€audiogram€performed€which€indicated€a€binaural€hearing€impairment€of€3.8€percent.€Ð „Ô  ÐBy€2001,€when€a€second€audiogram€was€performed,€the€Plaintiffððs€binaural€hearing€impairment€hadÐ pÀ Ðincreased€to€20.3€percent,€mostly€in€the€low€to€mid„frequency€ranges.€€Dr.€Overholt€testified€that€aÐ \¬ Ðhearing€loss€in€the€lower€frequencies,€is€typically€age„related€and€not€noise„related,€and€that€was€theÐ H˜ Ðcase€with€Mr.€Woods.€€In€fact,€Dr.€Overholt€testified€that€Mr.€Woodððs€rateable€hearing€loss€(3000Ð 4„ ÐHz€or€less)€was€more€likely€than€not€due€to€age€or€some€other€degenerative€condition.Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€concludes€that€although€the€Plaintiffððs€hearing€impairment€score€increasedÐ øH Ðduring€his€employment€with€OMI,€his€òònoise„related,€óóor€òòwork„relatedóó€hearing€loss€remained€in€statusÐ ä4 Ðquo€because€the€Plaintiff€was€not€ð ðinjuriouslyðð€exposed.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àDr.€Samuel€Mark€Overholt,€M.D.,€testified€by€deposition€that€hearing€loss€is€measured€by€aÐ ¨ø Ðpersonððs€ability€to€hear€different€frequencies€of€sound.€€These€frequencies€are€high,€low€and€midÐ ”ä Ðrange.€€High€frequency€hearing€loss€occurs€when€an€individual€has€difficulty€hearing€high€pitchÐ €Ð Ðsounds€with€frequencies€of€above€3000.€€Low€to€mid€range€frequency€hearing€loss€occurs€when€anÐ l¼ Ðindividual€has€difficulty€hearing€sounds€with€frequencies€in€the€250€to€3000€Hz€range.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àDr.€Overholt€further€testified€that€high€frequency€hearing€loss€is€most€often€caused€by€noiseÐ 0"€  Ðrelated€trauma€and,€as€stated,€low€frequency€hearing€loss€is€most€often€caused€by€old€age€or€earÐ #l! Ðdisease.€€The€Plaintiff€suffers€from€both€high€and€low€frequency€hearing€loss,€and€his€audiogramsÐ $X" Ðprior€to€1991€indicated€that€he€was€already€suffering€from€significant€high€frequency€hearing€loss.Ð ô$D # ÐHe€was€then€working€for€Union€Carbide€and€Lockheed€Martin.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€Plaintiffððs€hearing€problems€continued€to€worsen.€€In€2001,€a€year€after€the€PlaintiffÐ ¸'#& Ðretired€from€OMI,€another€audiogram€was€taken€which€revealed€that€his€ability€to€hear€low€frequencyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsounds€had€decreased.Ð )à$( ÐÌà  àThe€somewhat€disjointed€and€confusing€testimony€of€Dr.€Overholt€is,€at€times,€frustrating€Ô_ÔandÐ h+¸&* Ðdifficult€to€follow.€€He€clearly€testified€that€the€Plaintiff€has€a€high€frequency€[above€3000€Hz]Ð ° Ðhearing€loss€which€would€not€be€noise€induced€but€would€be€part€of€the€ageing€process€or€aÐ œì Ðdegenerative€condition.€€But€he€also€stated€that€some€of€the€Plaintiffððs€hearing€loss€is€in€the€lowerÐ ˆØ Ðfrequency€„€a€mixed€loss€„€and€the€precise€amount€of€loss€cannot€be€quantified.€€The€employer€mustÐ tÄ Ðtherefore€be€burdened€with€the€entire€impairment.€€òòSee,€ò òSweat€v.€Superior€Industries,€Inc.óóó ó,€966Ð `° ÐS.W.2d€31€(Tenn.€1998).€€In€avoidance€of€this€rule,€Ô_ÔOMIÔ_Ô€argues€that€the€Plaintiff€was€not€injuriouslyÐ L œ Ðexposed€to€the€loss„producing€noises€while€in€its€employ,€because€he€wore€noise„protection.€€TheÐ 8 ˆ Ðmedical€proof€indicated€that€the€hearing€loss€increased€after€he€left€Lockheed€Martin.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àThe€trial€judge€opined,€in€part:Ð ü L  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[Ô_ÔI]fÔ_Ô€I€accept€what€Dr.€Ô_ÔOverholtÔ_Ô€said,€that€the€loss€in€the€lower€rangesÐ Ô$  Ðis€more€often€than€not€cause€by€age€.€.€.€.€then€I€have€to€find€for€bothÐ À  ÐDefendants€because€[Dr.€Ô_ÔOverholtÔ_Ô]€cannot€attribute€any€of€this€manððsÐ ¬ü  Ðloss€to€what€happened€to€him€on€the€job,€and€Iððm€not€going€to€do€thatÐ ˜è  Ð.€.€.€.€I€think€this€man€has€sustained€a€hearing€loss€on€the€job€.€.€.€andÐ „Ô  Ðin€my€opinion€they€were,€given€all€the€facts.ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌà  àWhen€studied€in€its€entirety,€or€with€no€statement€out€of€context,€we€think€the€proofÐ H˜ Ðestablished€that€a€portion€of€the€employeeððs€hearing€loss,€at€all€range€levels,€occurred€while€he€wasÐ 4„ Ðemployed€by€Ô_ÔOMIÔ_Ô.€€This€being€so,€the€last„injurious€rule€applies.Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€complains€that€the€trial€judge€discarded€Dr.€Ô_ÔOverholtÔ_Ôððs€opinion€as€evidencedÐ øH Ðby€his€statement€that€ð ðthere€is€a€chanceðð€that€the€Plaintiffððs€low€frequency€hearing€loss€is€work„Ð ä4 Ðrelated.€€We€understand€this€comment€to€mean€that€the€loss€was€not€subject€to€apportionmentÐ Ð  Ðbetween€these€employers.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àWe€are€unable€to€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÐ ”ä Ðand€it€is€affirmed€at€the€costs€of€the€Appellant,€Operations€Management€International.Ð €Ð Ðà  àÌÌò òòòó óóóÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð 0"€  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€H.€Ô_ÔINMANÔ_Ô,€SENIOR€JUDGEÐ #l! ÐÐ  $X" ÐÔ_ÔÔ‡¼)»XX`“ÔÑ8€Ì£XXdìXXdì8ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñà@™ ™ ìàÔ#†X`“X»¼) H#ÔÔ‡î1òîXX`“ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†X`“Xîî1ò­H#ÔÔ‡¼)»XX`“ԈРÖ& Ðà@ÖÖ ìàJune€11,€2004€SessionˆÐ üL ÐÔ#†X`“X»¼)DI#ÔÌò òÔ‡¼)»XX`“ÔÓ  ÓELLIS€L.€WOODS,€òòet€al.óó€v.€OPERATIONS€MANAGEMENTÐ úJ ÐINTERNATIONALÔ#†X`“X»¼)ÝI#Ôó óÐ  ^ ÐÓüIÓÌà@Ô Ô ìàò òChancery€Court€for€Morgan€CountyˆÐ  ^ Ðà@WW&ìàNo.€01„04ˆÐ ú J ÐÌà@''ìàFiled€October€12,€2004ˆà È àà  àà x àà Ð àÐ Ò"  Ðà  àà ` àÌßA€Y ) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@ìàNo.€E2003„01789„SC„WCM„CVˆÐ ¥õ  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àÌßA€Y ) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í Ðó óÌÔ‡¼)»XX`“ÔÔ#†X`“X»¼)&M#Ôà@±±&ìàò òJUDGMENTó óÔ‡¼)»XX`“ÔÔ#†X`“X»¼)ˆM#ԈРxÈ ÐÌòòóóÔ‡¼)»XX`“ÔÔ#†X`“X»¼)çM#ÔÌÔ‡¼)»XX`“ÔÔ#†X`“X»¼)*N#Ôà  àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€motion€for€review€filed€by€Operations€ManagementÐ <Œ ÐInternational€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50-6-225(e)(5)(B),€the€entire€record,€including€the€orderÐ (x Ðof€referral€to€the€Special€Workersðð€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panelððs€MemorandumÐ d ÐOpinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€Ð P ÐÌà  àIt€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€review€is€not€well„taken€and€is€therefore€denied.€Ð Ø( ÐThe€Panelððs€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€by€reference,€are€adoptedÐ Ä Ðand€affirmed.€€The€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€judgment€of€the€Court.Ð ° ÐÌà  àCosts€are€assessed€to€Operations€Management€International,€for€which€execution€may€issueÐ ˆØ Ðif€necessary.Ð t Ä ÐÔ‡XÌ£XXX`“ÔÔ‡¼Ÿo»XXÌ£ÔÔ#†XÌ£X»¼ŸoFR#ÔÌÌÌÌÌANDERSON,€J.,€NOT€PARTICIPATINGÔ#†X`“XXXÌ£'R#ÔÔ_Ô