ÿWPCÕ yºÈŒ±Iù—ÛS˜lÉ­bØó~å«ûï„! –¥ËøÏU3ZÑ|L\zç®’cÓ¸·^“¡S¬„xâÕºCÆå³÷˜µ­¾úÄWö#âî2B¿¸~ÃS à«ÛSßzô' ù ‹mø™ë졼,L9O»ë@{´)%4«½“ÕWðLÅm8J}qqáxúãPY÷„eéÁú¾»éáð¿DÆü4ïùdö6ºRD ,0rØgfw‚˜¹¿Â…™MÀÎù]꜎ƿO®Óó_'WV€…øê%³ûn2 ›@û`¢Ai•]÷ŠÌ²Žˆ.xâ=h¿U˜ÂfµW-’WIØÁȪ8£²£ð1@¸¤¸‡€ ø;â‚ÖÂX_xlP#@Æ ¨i1‹¤Û~ºn„NÆ%"ì%¤nÀíÝú±|gsØM0 »Ž¬‘œä‚exÒ¸U@ŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠbÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ 0ëÒÒÒÒ B ½½ 0¤Ú D3~ D-± 0KÞÞ AS)Æ| 0¤B 0Dæ A«*˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularRy+â  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptHEô*xL œÈÒ3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  JÝ ƒR±p$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€X /X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€trial€court€awarded€thirty€percent€(30%)€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€right€arm€orÐ ° Ðsixty€(60)€weeks€of€benefits€and€twenty€percent€(20%)€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€left€arm€orÐ œì Ðforty€(40)€weeks€of€benefits,€based€on€a€two€hundred€(200)€week€maximum€loss€of€an€arm€for€a€totalÐ ˆØ Ðaward€of€one€hundred€(100)€weeks€of€benefits.€€Loss€of€two€arms,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„Ð tÄ Ð207(3)(A)(ii)(w),€is€a€scheduled€injury€with€a€maximum€of€four€hundred€(400)€weeks€of€benefits.€Ð `° ÐTwenty„five€percent€(25%)€permanent€partial€disability€to€both€arms€is€also€one€hundred€(100)€weeksÐ L œ Ðof€benefits.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóX[Z‘ I&mage <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman - ù-(|G2±p$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€I„»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X"ôX»»Ô d(|3Î$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€I„»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Î$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€I„»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€It»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ‡»õü»»»ÔÔ€¼õü»»»õüÔÑ8€%´XXdê»»d 8ÑÓ  ÓÔ‡îI’õüÔà@@7 7 ìàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐSPECIAL€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÐ Ö& Ðà@@ƒƒìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼õü»îîI’ý#ÔÐ üL ÐJanuary€22,€2001€SessionÐ "r ÐÔ‡X /X»¼õüÔÌò òÔ#†¼õü»XX /(#ÔSONNIE€GAIL€PHILLIPS€WOODòòóó€v.€PORTER€CABLE€CORPORATION,Ð  p Ðòòet€alóó.Ô‡X /X»¼õüÔó óÐ 4 „ ÐÌà@@¼¼ìàò ò€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Madison€CountyÐ 4 „ Ðà@@ôôìàNo.€55675€€€€€€Joe€C.€Morris,€ChancellorÐ  p  ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<÷` AßÐ øH  ÐÌNo.€W2000„01771„WC„R3„CV€„€Mailed€March€22,€2001;€Filed€August€20,€2001€Ð óC  ÐÔ#†¼õü»XX /Ë#ÔÔ‡X /X»¼õüÔÌÌßA€V) °°` dE<¶` AßÐ · Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ#†¼õü»XX /Ÿ#ÔÔ‡X /X»¼õüÔThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€Special€Workers'€Compensation€AppealsÐ ² ÐPanel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)(2000)€for€hearingÐ žî Ðand€reporting€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€TheÐ ŠÚ ÐDefendant/Appellant€Van€De€Kampððs,€Inc.,€and€Defendant/Appellee€Porter€Cable€Corporation,Ð vÆ Ðappeal€the€judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€of€Madison€County€awarding€Plaintiff/Appellee,€SonnieÐ b² ÐGail€(Phillips)€Wood,€thirty€percent€(30%)€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€right€arm€and€twentyÐ Nž Ðpercent€(20%)€to€the€left€arm.€€Van€De€Kampððs,€Inc.€raises€three€additional€appellate€issues:€(1)Ð :Š ÐWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€the€ð ðLast€Injurious€Exposure€Ruleðð€applied€to€the€factsÐ &v Ðin€this€case;€(2)€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€Porter€Cable€Corporation€a€directed€verdictÐ b Ðat€the€close€of€Plaintiffððs€proof;€and€(3)€Whether€Porter€Cable€Corporationððs€inaction€when€givenÐ þN Ðnotice€of€Plaintiffððs€injury€estops€them€from€denying€liability.€€Defendant€Porter€Cable€raises€threeÐ ê: Ðadditional€appellate€questions:€(1)€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€applying€the€ð ðLast€InjuriousÐ Ö& ÐExposure€Ruleðð;€(2)€Whether€it€was€harmless€error€for€the€trial€court€to€grant€Porter€CableÐ Â ÐCorporation€a€directed€verdict;€and€(3)€Whether€equity€was€achieved€when€Plaintiffððs€injuryÐ ® þ Ðworsened€at€Van€De€Kampððs.€€From€our€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgmentÐ š!ê  Ðas€modified.€Ô#†¼õü»XX /U#ÔÔ‡X /X»¼õüÔÐ †"Ö! ÐÓ&ÓÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)€(1999)€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ ^$®# Ðis€Affirmed€as€Modified.ó óÐ J%š $ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ#†¼õü»àX /œ #ÔÔ‡X /X.¼õüÔL.€Terry€Lafferty,€Sr.€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJanice€M.€Holder,€J.,óó€andÐ "'r"& ÐòòJoe€C.€Loser,€Sp.€J.óó,€joined.Ð (^#' ÐÌJeffrey€P.€Boyd,€Jackson,€Tennessee,€for€Defendant/Appellant,€Van€De€Kamp's;€and€Michael€V.Ð æ)6%) ÐTichenor,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€Defendant/Appellee,€Porter€Cable€Corporation.Ð Ò*"&* ÐÌArt€D.€Wells,€Jackson,€Tennessee,€for€the€Plaintiff/Appellee,€Sonnie€Gail€Phillips€Wood.Ð  ª,ú',ý ÐÓŸ ÓÓ  Óò òMEMORANDUM€OPINIONó óÔ#†¼õü»XX /Î #ÔÔ‡X /X»¼õüÔÐ ° ÐÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼õü»XX /B#Ôà  àÔ€X /X»¼õüÔSonnie€Gail€Phillips€Wood,€age€32,€a€self„employed€residential€cleaner,€testified€that€at€theÐ ˆØ Ðtime€of€her€employment€with€Porter€Cable€Corporation€(ð ðPorter€Cableðð),€her€name€was€SonnieÐ tÄ ÐPhillips,€but€she€is€now€married.€€Plaintiff€did€not€complete€the€eighth€grade,€with€no€furtherÐ `° Ðeducational€attempts.€€Plaintiff€began€working€for€Porter€Cable€in€August€1996€as€an€assembler€andÐ L œ Ðpain€commenced€in€her€hands€in€August€1997.€€Plaintiff€worked€both€the€router€line€and€belt€sandÐ 8 ˆ Ðline,€which€required€the€continuous€and€repetitive€use€of€her€hands€with€a€power€screwdriver.€€WhenÐ $ t Ðher€hands€began€to€ð ðswell€like€a€balloon,ðð€she€notified€Walter€Longmire,€a€shift€manager,€about€herÐ  ` Ðcondition.€€Longmire€suggested€that€she€ð ðsuck€it€up.ðð€€Plaintiffððs€pain€continued€and€radiated€intoÐ ü L  Ðher€shoulders.€€She€told€the€plant€nurse,€Connie€Leaper,€who€suggested€that€it€might€be€tendinitis€andÐ è 8  Ðthat€she€should€take€Ibuprofen€and€use€splints.€€On€her€own,€Plaintiff€saw€Dr.€Timothy€Hayden,€whoÐ Ô$  Ðsuggested€that€her€problems€could€be€from€her€work.€€Dr.€Hayden€referred€her€to€Dr.€Keith€Nord.€Ð À  ÐDr.€Nord€recommended€that€she€wear€braces€at€night€and€at€work,€but€they€did€not€help.€€In€AprilÐ ¬ü  Ð1998,€Dr.€Nord€advised€her€that€she€had€carpal€tunnel€syndrome€and€recommended€that€she€take€offÐ ˜è  Ðwork€at€Porter€Cable.€€In€September€1998,€Plaintiff€decided€to€leave€employment€at€Porter€Cable€dueÐ „Ô  Ðto€certain€problems,€her€hands€were€painful€and€that€if€she€continued€to€work,€her€hands€mightÐ pÀ Ðbecome€permanently€damaged.€Ð \¬ ЀÌà  àBetween€September€and€November€of€1998,€Plaintiff€worked€for€International€PaperÐ 4„ ÐCompany€for€a€very€short€time.€€She€began€working€for€Van€De€Kampððs€Inc.€(ð ðVan€De€Kamp'sðð)€inÐ  p Ðearly€November€1998.€€Plaintiff€began€working€the€pancake€and€waffle€line,€in€which€the€pancakesÐ  \ Ðand€waffles€came€down€a€line€bunched€up,€so€she€had€to€pick€them€up€and€stack€them€four€at€a€timeÐ øH Ðand€put€them€in€bins€for€packing.€€Plaintiff€worked€a€twelve„hour€shift.€€On€the€very€first€day,Ð ä4 ÐPlaintiff€felt€intense€pain€but€did€not€tell€anybody€for€about€a€month€because€she€was€new€on€the€job.€Ð Ð  ÐIn€December€1998,€Plaintiff€reported€her€injury€to€her€employer€and€was€provided€a€panel€of€threeÐ ¼  Ðphysicians.€€Since€Dr.€Nord€was€on€the€list,€she€returned€to€see€Dr.€Nord€and€he€placed€her€on€lightÐ ¨ø Ðduty,€but€Van€De€Kampððs€did€not€honor€her€restrictions€and€put€her€back€on€the€waffle€line.€€SinceÐ ”ä Ðher€hands€became€worse€and€she€could€not€do€the€job,€she€left€Van€De€Kampððs€in€December€1998.€Ð €Ð ÐPlaintiff€worked€at€various€jobs€until€she€started€her€own€residential€cleaning€service.€€As€to€her€dailyÐ l¼ Ðroutine,€Plaintiff€testified€that€she€has€some€problems€with€vacuuming,€and€house€cleaning.€€She€hasÐ X ¨ Ðdifficulty€in€brushing€her€seven€€year€old€daughterððs€hair€and€cannot€lift€her€weights€since€her€wristsÐ D!” Ðare€weak.€€Plaintiff€conceded€that€she€did€not€have€surgery€for€her€wrist€and/or€hand€problems.€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àMr.€Jason€Wood,€Plaintiffððs€husband€of€one€and€one„half€years,€testified€that€he€met€PlaintiffÐ $X" Ðwhile€they€worked€at€International€Paper€in€October€1998.€€He€stated€that€his€wife€cannot€lift€a€castÐ ô$D # Ðiron€skillet€or€heavy€pots,€and€in€the€mornings€he€must€help€her€daughter€get€ready€for€school.€Ð à%0!$ ÐPlaintiff€cannot€do€weeding€in€the€garden€or€twist€off€tops€of€jars€and€bottles.€€Mr.€Wood€did€notÐ Ì&"% Ðknow€Plaintiff€when€she€worked€at€Porter€Cable€and€is€not€familiar€with€her€problems€at€that€plant.€Ð ¸'#& ÐHe€stated€that€when€they€dated€in€October€1998,€she€had€no€problems€with€her€hands€and€he€neverÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhelped€her€to€open€jars.€Ð  )à$( ÐÓ  Óò òMEDICAL€EVIDENCEó óÐ ° ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€medical€evidence€in€this€case€consists€of€the€depositions€of€Dr.€Keith€Nord,€Dr.€JosephÐ ˆØ ÐBoals€and€Dr.€Riley€Jones.€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àDr.€Keith€Nord,€an€orthopedic€surgeon€and€treating€physician,€testified€that€he€first€sawÐ L œ ÐPlaintiff€on€April€22,€1998,€with€a€complaint€of€wrist,€elbow,€shoulder€and€neck€pain.€€PlaintiffÐ 8 ˆ Ðworked€a€production€line€and€her€hands€would€swell€and€she€could€not€sleep€at€night.€€X„rays€of€theÐ $ t Ðhands€were€normal,€and€positive€Phalenððs€and€Tinelððs€tests€indicated€probable€bilateral€carpal€tunnelÐ  ` Ðsyndrome€to€the€right€wrist.€€Dr.€Nord€recommended€an€EMG€and€nerve€conduction€study.€€PlaintiffÐ ü L  Ðwas€to€stay€off€work€until€April€25,€1998,€take€medication,€warm€soaks,€and€use€splints€for€nightÐ è 8  Ðsleeping.€€Dr.€Nord€saw€Plaintiff€on€May€4,€1998,€and€the€EMG€suggested€mild€median€sensoryÐ Ô$  Ðslowing€across€the€right€wrist.€€The€left€upper€extremity€was€normal.€€Dr.€Nord€opined€that€PlaintiffÐ À  Ðhad€mild€right€carpal€tunnel€syndrome.€€He€treated€it€with€an€injection€and€advised€Plaintiff€toÐ ¬ü  Ðcontinue€using€splints€for€sleeping.€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àOn€December€7,€1998,€Dr.€Nord€saw€Plaintiff€again€with€a€complaint€that€her€left€wrist€wasÐ pÀ Ðhurting€more€than€the€right.€€Plaintiff€had€positive€Tinelððs,€Phalenððs€and€median€nerve€compressionÐ \¬ Ðtests€on€the€left.€€Diagnosis€ruled€out€bilateral€carpal€tunnel€syndrome,€but€the€EMG€had€alreadyÐ H˜ Ðshown€that€she€had€mild€right€carpal€tunnel€syndrome€on€the€right.€€Dr.€Nord€recommended€limitedÐ 4„ Ðduty,€12„7„98,€no€repetitive€gripping€or€twisting,€and€the€use€of€night€splints€for€both€wrists.€€Dr.Ð  p ÐNord€saw€Plaintiff€on€May€17,€1999,€and€July€12,€1999,€with€complaints€to€the€right€wrist.€Ð  \ ÐDiagnosis€was€mild€right€carpal€tunnel€syndrome.€€As€of€July€1999,€Dr.€Nord€opined€that€PlaintiffÐ øH Ðdid€not€have€an€impairment€rating€for€the€right€or€left€wrist.€€Also,€Dr.€Nord€could€not€testify€as€toÐ ä4 Ðwhether€Plaintiffððs€symptoms€were€caused€by€working€at€Porter€Cable,€Van€De€Kampððs€or€otherÐ Ð  Ðactivities.€€During€cross„examination,€Dr.€Nord€agreed€that€either€employment€at€Porter€Cable€or€VanÐ ¼  ÐDe€Kampððs€could€have€caused€carpal€tunnel€syndrome€and€that€the€work€at€Van€De€Kampððs€couldÐ ¨ø Ðhave€accelerated,€aggravated€or€contributed€to€her€carpal€tunnel€syndrome,€but€he€had€no€objectiveÐ ”ä Ðway€of€quantifying€that€Plaintiff's€condition€worsened€between€May€1998,€and€December€1998.€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àDr.€Joseph€C.€Boals,€III,€a€board€certified€orthopedic€surgeon,€testified€that€he€evaluatedÐ X ¨ ÐPlaintiff€on€November€2,€1999,€at€the€request€of€counsel.€€Plaintiff€worked€for€Porter€Cable€for€aboutÐ D!” Ðthree€years€and€worked€for€Van€De€Kampððs€for€one€month€performing€repetitive€production€work.€Ð 0"€  ÐHer€symptomology€began€one€and€one„half€years€before€in€her€wrists,€hands,€shoulders,€neck€andÐ #l! Ðback.€€Dr.€Nord€had€treated€Plaintiff€for€carpal€tunnel€syndrome.€€Dr.€Boalsðð€examination€ruled€outÐ $X" Ðany€injury€to€Plaintiffððs€neck€and€back,€but€a€positive€Phalenððs€test€indicated€that€the€right€wrist€wasÐ ô$D # Ðworse.€€Dr.€Boals€opined€that€Plaintiff€suffered€from€bilateral€carpal€tunnel€syndrome€and€bilateralÐ à%0!$ Ðover„use€syndrome€of€both€upper€extremities.€€Plaintiffððs€repetitive€work€caused€these€conditions.€Ð Ì&"% ÐWhen€asked€if€Plaintiffððs€activity€at€Van€De€Kampððs€either€accelerated,€aggravated€or€worsened€herÐ ¸'#& Ðcarpal€tunnel€syndrome,€Dr.€Boals€testified:Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà8  àð ðWhat€I€understand€is€that€this€woman€did€have€some€symptoms€while€working€atÐ |*Ì%) ÐPorter€Cable€but€apparently€got€worse€when€she€went€to€her€job€at€Van€De€Kampððs,Ð h+¸&* Ðthatððs€the€understanding€I€have.€€Based€upon€that€assumption€and€based€upon€the€factÐ ° Ðthat€I€had€no€knowledge€there€was€any€treatment€under€a€workmen's€compensationÐ œì Ðclaim€while€at€Porter€Cable,€then€one€would€make€the€assumption€with€the€facts€thatÐ ˆØ Ðare€before€me€here€that€the€thing€that€kind€of€put€her€over€the€edge€was€the€work€atÐ tÄ ÐVan€De€Kampððs€which€necessitated€her€going€to€a€doctor€and€getting€the€workup.ðð€Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àDr.€Boals€opined€that€Plaintiff€sustained€a€ten€percent€(10%)€permanent€partial€impairmentÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€the€right€arm€with€less€symptoms€on€the€left€side,€and€a€five€percent€(5%)€permanent€partialÐ $ t Ðimpairment€to€the€left€arm.€€Plaintiff€needs€to€eliminate€any€repetitive€work,€heavy€gripping€andÐ  ` Ðrepetitive€use€of€her€hands.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àAt€the€request€of€Porter€Cable,€Dr.€Riley€Jones,€an€orthopedic€surgeon,€saw€Plaintiff€onÐ Ô$  ÐDecember€3,€1999,€with€a€complaint€of€problems€with€her€hands€which€began€while€working€forÐ À  ÐPorter€Cable€in€1997.€€An€EMG€study€was€made€in€April€1998,€which€indicated€a€mild€median€andÐ ¬ü  Ðsensory€slowing€across€the€wrist€and€a€normal€left€upper€extremity€EMG.€€After€leaving€PorterÐ ˜è  ÐCable,€Plaintiff€went€to€work€at€Van€De€Kampððs€and€quit€work€because€it€bothered€her€too€much.Ð „Ô  ÐThe€Plaintiff€still€has€some€tingling€in€the€end€of€her€finger,€occasional€pain€in€her€elbow,€and€someÐ pÀ Ðnumbness€in€the€thumb€and€along€the€ring€finger.€€Dr.€Jones€performed€strength€and€sensory€testingÐ \¬ Ðon€Plaintiff€and€the€strength€tests€were€grossly€inconsistent.€€X„rays€were€negative€and€Dr.€JonesÐ H˜ Ðopined€that€Plaintiff€has€possible€mild€carpal€tunnel.€€Dr.€Jones€opined€that€since€Plaintiff€lackedÐ 4„ Ðsurgery€and€based€upon€the€EMG€of€April€1998,€she€would€have€no€impairment,€therefore,€he€couldÐ  p Ðnot€give€Plaintiff€an€impairment€rating.€€When€showed€an€EMG€taken€in€January€2000,€Dr.€JonesÐ  \ Ðstated€that€the€EMG€showed€a€minimal€median€sensory€slowing€across€the€wrist,€which€hasÐ øH Ðimproved€since€the€EMG€of€April€1998€and€that€Plaintiff€has€no€permanent€partial€impairment.€Ð ä4 ÐWhen€asked€if€Plaintiffððs€work€at€Van€De€Kampððs€caused€an€increase€in€pain,€and€that€her€physicalÐ Ð  Ðdeterioration€got€aggravated€or€worsened,€Dr.€Jones€responded:Ð ¼  ÐÌà8  à€ð ðNot€unless€thereððs€some€comment€in€Dr.€„„€I€was€looking€to€see,€not€unless€thereððsÐ ”ä Ðsome€comment€in€Dr.€Nordððs€records.€€Letððs€see.€.€.ððЀÐÐ Ð  ÐÌ.€.€.€.€.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà8  àð ðI€know€what€they€do€at€Porter„Cable.€€I've€visited€Van€De€Kampððs.€€So€I€assume€byÐ 0"€  Ðthe€length€of€time€that€she€was€there,€that€you€could€relate€her€carpal€tunnel€to€theÐ #l! Ðtype€of€work€they€did.€€Itððs€a€repetitious€work.ððÐ$X"Ð Ð  ÐÌÌà  àFurther,€Dr.€Jones€opined€that€there€is€no€medical€evidence€that€the€employment€at€Van€DeÐ Ì&"% ÐKampððs€increased,€aggravated€or€made€her€carpal€tunnel€more€severe€than€it€was€in€April€1998.€€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThe€trial€record€established€that€at€the€end€of€the€testimony€of€Plaintiff€and€her€husband,Ð )à$( ÐPorter€Cable€moved€the€trial€court€for€a€directed€verdict,€similar€to€Porter€Cableððs€motion€forÐ |*Ì%) Ðsummary€judgment€filed€prior€to€trial€and€denied.€€The€trial€court€held€:€Ð h+¸&* Їà8  àð ðAll€right.€€Itððs€my€opinion€in€this€case€that€from€the€testimony€of€the€plaintiff€and€IÐ ° Ðstill€have€„„€I€havenððt€read€the€depositions,€that€would€„„€I€think€the€last€injuriousÐ œì Ðexposure€rule€applies€here,€and€Iððm€going€to€dismiss€Porter€Cable,€and€weððll€take€upÐ ˆØ Ðthe€rest€of€this€at€1:00€oððclock€or€as€soon€thereafter€as€possible.ðð€€ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€its€written€order€of€June€2,€2000,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€live€testimony€of€theÐ L œ Ðwitnesses,€combined€with€the€testimony€of€Drs.€Boals€and€Nord,€indicate€that€Plaintiff€developedÐ 8 ˆ Ðproblems€while€at€Porter€Cable,€but€the€problems€intensified€and€a€new€injury€was€sustained€at€VanÐ $ t ÐDe€Kampððs.€€Therefore,€Van€De€Kampððs€is€the€Defendant€responsible€for€the€resulting€permanentÐ  ` Ðpartial€disability€benefits.€€Furthermore,€based€on€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€and€the€treating€andÐ ü L  Ðevaluating€physicians,€Plaintiff€has€sustained€a€thirty€percent€(30%)€permanent€partial€impairmentÐ è 8  Ðto€the€right€arm€and€a€twenty€percent€(20%)€permanent€partial€impairment€to€the€left€arm.Ð Ô$  ÐÌÓ  Óò òLEGAL€ANALYSISó óÐ ¬ü  Ðò òSTANDARD€OF€APPELLATE€REVIEWó óÐ ˜è  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àReview€of€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novo€óóupon€the€record,Ð pÀ Ðaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings,€unless€the€preponderance€of€theÐ \¬ Ðevidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(2)(2000);€òòStory€v.€Legion€Ins.€Co.,€óó3€S.W.Ð H˜ Ð3d€450,€451€(Tenn.€Sp.€Workers€Comp.€1999);€òòStone€v.€City€of€McMinnville,óó€896€S.W.2d€548,€550Ð 4„ Ð(Tenn.€1995).€€The€application€of€this€standard€requires€this€Panel€to€weigh€in€more€depth€the€factualÐ  p Ðfindings€and€conclusions€of€the€trial€court€in€a€workersðð€compensation€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòCorcoran€v.€FosterÐ  \ ÐAuto€GMC,€Inc.,€óó746€S.W.2d€452,€456€(Tenn.€1988).€€However,€considerable€deference€must€beÐ øH Ðgiven€to€the€trial€court,€who€has€seen€and€heard€witnesses€especially€where€issues€of€credibility€andÐ ä4 Ðweight€of€oral€testimony€are€involved.€òò€Story€v.€Legion€Ins.€Co.,€óó3€S.W.3d€at€451.€Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ  Óò òLAST€INJURIOUS€EXPOSURE€RULEó óÐ ¨ø ÐÌÓ  Óà  àDefendant€Van€De€Kampððs,€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€the€last€injuriousÐ €Ð Ðexposure€rule€applied€to€the€injury€sustained€by€Plaintiff€while€employed€at€Van€De€Kampððs.€Ð l¼ ÐFurther,€the€lay€testimony€and€medical€testimony€established€that€Plaintiffððs€injury€occurred€at€PorterÐ X ¨ ÐCable€and€that€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€must€be€reversed,€liability€assessed€to€Porter€Cable€and€VanÐ D!” ÐDe€Kampððs€dismissed€from€this€case.€€Naturally,€Porter€Cable€contends€that€the€trial€court€wasÐ 0"€  Ðjustified€in€finding€that€the€last€injurious€exposure€rule€applied€in€this€case€and€requests€this€PanelÐ #l! Ðto€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€as€to€this€issue.€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiff€in€a€workers'€compensation€case€bears€the€burden€of€proving€every€element€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€case€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€including€the€existence€of€a€work„related€injury€byÐ Ì&"% Ðaccident.€òò€Talley€v.€Virginia€Ins.€Reciprocal,€óó775€S.W.2d€587,€591€(Tenn.€1989).€€To€be€eligible€forÐ ¸'#& Ðworkersðð€compensation€benefits,€an€employee€must€suffer€an€injury€by€accident€arising€out€of€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðin€the€course€of€employment€which€causes€either€disablement€or€death.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„Ð )à$( Ð102(a)(5).€€Generally,€an€injury€arises€out€of€and€in€the€course€and€scope€of€employment€if€it€has€aÐ |*Ì%) Ðrational€connection€to€the€work€and€occurs€while€the€employee€is€engaged€in€the€duties€of€his€or€herÐ h+¸&* Ðemployment.€€òòHall€v.€Auburntown€Industries,€Inc.,€óó684€S.W.2d€614,€617€(Tenn.€1985).€Ð ° ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€found€that€while€Plaintiffððs€problems€began€at€Porter€Cable,€sheÐ ˆØ Ðsustained€a€new€injury€when€her€problems€intensified€at€Van€De€Kampððs.€€Thus,€Van€De€KampððsÐ tÄ Ðwas€responsible€for€her€workersðð€compensation€benefits.€€A€successive€employer€may€become€liableÐ `° Ðfor€a€plaintiffððs€carpal€tunnel€syndrome,€even€though€the€symptoms€of€such€injury€may€have€begunÐ L œ Ðwhile€employed€at€another€or€with€another€employer.€€The€last€injurious€injury€rule€was€first€adoptedÐ 8 ˆ Ðand€recognized€in€Tennessee€in€òòBaxter€v.€Smith,€óó211€Tenn.€347,€364€S.W.2d€936€(Tenn.€1962).€€InÐ $ t ÐòòBaxter,€óóthe€rule€is€stated€as€follows:Ð  ` ÐÌà8  àThe€rule€then€in€Tennessee€is€that€an€employer€takes€an€employee€as€he€finds€him.€Ð è 8  ÐHe€is€liable€for€disability€resulting€from€injuries€sustained€by€an€employee€arising€outÐ Ô$  Ðof€and€in€the€course€of€his€employment€even€though€it€aggravates€a€previousÐ À  Ðcondition€with€resulting€disability€far€greater€than€otherwise€would€have€been€theÐ ¬ü  Ðcase.€€Ð˜è Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àThis€rule€seems€to€be€almost€identical€with€the€Massachusetts„Michigan€ruleÐ pÀ Ðindicated€above.€€It€is€the€rule€in€Tennessee€that€there€must€be€a€causal€connectionÐ \¬ Ðbetween€the€employment€and€the€resulting€injury€or€that€the€most€recent€injuryÐ H˜ Ðcausally€related€to€the€employment€renders€the€employer€at€that€time€liable€for€fullÐ 4„ Ðcompensation€for€all€of€the€resulting€disability€even€though€increased€by€aggravationÐ  p Ðof€a€previous€condition€of€disease€or€injury€of€such€employee.Ð \Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThis€rule€was€applied€by€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòBarker€v.€Home„Crest€Corp.,€óó805€S.W.2d€373Ð ä4 Ð(Tenn.€1991),€in€which€the€Court€was€faced€with€the€question€of€which€of€two€successive€insuranceÐ Ð  Ðcompanies€were€liable.€€The€Court€held€that€the€second€insurance€company€was€liable,€because€thisÐ ¼  Ðgradual€injury€commenced€during€the€time€that€the€first€insurance€company€carried€the€employerððsÐ ¨ø Ðinsurance€but€that€the€injury€continued€to€progress€during€the€period€that€the€second€insuranceÐ ”ä Ðcompany€was€the€insurance€carrier.€€òòId.€óóat€373.€€The€question€in€this€suit€is€identical€to€the€factsÐ €Ð Ðdecided€by€the€Court€in€òòBarker€v.€Home„Crest€Corp.óó€€òòSeeóó€òòMoore€v.€Liberty€Mutual€Ins.€Co.,€óóNo.Ð l¼ Ð02S01„9806„CH„00056,€1999€WL€640251€(Tenn.€Sp.€Workers€Comp.€1999).òò€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  à€óó€From€our€review€of€the€lay€testimony€and€medical€evidence€in€this€record,€we€find€thatÐ 0"€  ÐPlaintiff€sustained€a€gradual€injury€at€Van€De€Kampððs,€in€lieu€of€a€new€injury€as€found€by€the€trialÐ #l! Ðcourt.€€We€do€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€Plaintiffððs€condition€intensified,€worsened€and€wasÐ $X" Ðaggravated€by€the€repetitious€work€at€Van€De€Kampððs.€€Dr.€Nord€was€equivocal€in€his€testimony.€Ð ô$D # ÐDuring€direct€examination€he€could€not€say€if€Plaintiffððs€symptoms€were€caused€by€working€at€PorterÐ à%0!$ ÐCable€or€Van€De€Kampððs€or€her€other€activities.€€However,€during€cross„examination,€Dr.€NordÐ Ì&"% Ðagreed€that€either€employment€could€have€caused€carpal€tunnel€syndrome,€or€that€the€work€at€VanÐ ¸'#& ÐDe€Kampððs€could€have€accelerated,€aggravated€or€contributed€to€her€carpal€tunnel€syndrome,€but€heÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhad€no€quantifying€objective€test€to€determine€if€Plaintiff's€condition€worsened€between€May€1998,Ð )à$( Ðand€December€1998.€€Dr.€Boals€opined€that€Plaintiff,€in€the€absence€of€treatment€for€a€workers'Ð |*Ì%) Ðcompensation€claim€at€Porter€Cable,€believed€that€the€work€at€Van€De€Kampððs€put€Plaintiff€over€theÐ h+¸&* Ðedge€necessitating€medical€treatment.€€Dr.€Jones€found€no€medical€evidence€that€the€work€at€Van€DeÐ ° ÐKampððs€caused€a€worsening€of€Plaintiffððs€injury.€€Where€medical€testimony€is€documentary€or€byÐ œì Ðdepositions,€such€as€in€this€case,€this€Panel€is€able€to€pass€on€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidenceÐ ˆØ Ðas€the€trial€court.€òò€Humphrey€v.€David€Witherspoon,€Inc.,€7óó34€S.W.2d€315,€315„16€(Tenn.€1987).€€WeÐ tÄ Ðfind€that€Plaintiffððs€condition€did€not€result€from€a€single€accident,€but€developed€gradually€fromÐ `° Ðrepeated€work„related€incidents€and€culminated€when€Plaintiff€had€to€leave€Van€De€Kampððs€sinceÐ L œ Ðshe€could€no€longer€do€her€job.€€After€considering€the€medical€testimony,€Plaintiffððs€and€herÐ 8 ˆ Ðhusbandððs€testimony,€we€do€not€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€rulingÐ $ t Ðon€this€issue.€Ð  ` ÐÌÓ  Óò òDIRECTED€VERDICTó óÐ è 8  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àDefendant€Van€De€Kampððs,€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€Porter€Cableððs€motionÐ À  Ðfor€a€directed€verdict€at€the€close€of€Plaintiffððs€proof€without€reading€the€medical€depositions€of€anyÐ ¬ü  Ðdoctor.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€could€not€have€determined€that€the€last€injurious€exposure€rule€applied.€Ð ˜è  ÐVan€De€Kampððs€would€have€this€Panel€reverse€for€the€trial€court€to€review€the€entire€proof€for€aÐ „Ô  Ðproper€determination€of€the€application€of€the€last€injurious€exposure€rule.€€Defendant€Porter€Cable,Ð pÀ Ðcontends€that€the€trial€court€reached€the€correct€result,€but€if€the€trial€court€did€err,€it€was€at€bestÐ \¬ Ðharmless€error.€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€Plaintiffððs€proof,€the€trial€court,€upon€motion€of€Porter€Cable,€grantedÐ  p Ða€directed€verdict.€€The€trial€court€based€its€decision€that€the€last€injurious€exposure€rule€applied€onÐ  \ Ðthe€testimony€of€Plaintiff€and€candidly€admitted€that€it€did€not€read€the€medical€depositions€prior€toÐ øH Ðits€ruling.€€We€agree€with€Van€De€Kampððs€that€this€is€reversible€error.€€However,€we€must€decide€ifÐ ä4 Ðsuch€error€is€harmless€at€best.€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àPrior€to€trial€of€these€issues,€Defendant€Porter€Cable€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgmentÐ ¨ø Ðon€February€14,€2000,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56,€on€the€grounds€that€no€genuine€issue€as€to€aÐ ”ä Ðmaterial€fact€exists,€therefore,€the€Defendant€is€entitled€to€a€summary€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.Ð €Ð ÐAt€the€conclusion€of€a€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€the€Defendantððs€motion€for€summary€judgment.Ð l¼ ÐWe€agree.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€Porter€Cable€moved€the€trial€court€for€a€directed€verdict€onÐ X ¨ Ðtwo€grounds:€(1)€Plaintiff€failed€to€file€her€law€suit€within€the€statute€of€limitations;€and€(2)€the€proofÐ D!” Ðfully€established€the€application€of€the€last€injurious€exposure€rule.€€In€opposition€to€this€motion€byÐ 0"€  ÐVan€De€Kampððs,€the€trial€court€granted€the€motion€for€a€directed€verdict€without€reading€the€doctors'Ð #l! Ðdepositions.€€As€we€have€stated,€ordinarily€this€would€constitute€reversible€error.€€From€our€reviewÐ $X" Ðof€this€record,€we€agree€with€Porter€Cable€that€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€a€directed€verdict€is€harmlessÐ ô$D # Ðerror€at€best.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àUnder€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€36(b),€an€error€does€not€of€itself€necessarily€require€a€reversal;€aÐ ¸'#& Ðjudgment€ð ðshall€not€be€set€aside€unless,€considering€the€whole€record,€error€involving€a€substantialÐ ¤(ô#' Ðright€more€probably€than€not€affected€the€judgment€or€would€result€in€prejudice€to€the€judicialÐ )à$( Ðprocess.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòBlackburn€v.€Murphy,€óó737€S.W.2d€529,€533€(Tenn.€1987).€€Thus,€unless€the€errorÐ |*Ì%) Ðaffirmatively€appears€to€have€affected€the€result,€the€error€is€considered€harmless€and€this€Panel€isÐ h+¸&* Ðcompelled€to€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.€€òòBass€v.€Barksdale,€óó671€S.W.2d€476,€486€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð ° ÐApp.€1984);€òòThomas€v.€Harper,€óó53€Tenn.€App.€549;€385€S.W.2d€130€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1964).€Ð œì ÐÌà  àBefore€rendering€its€final€judgment,€the€trial€court€reviewed€the€testimony€of€Wood€and€herÐ tÄ Ðhusband,€then€considered€the€medical€evidence€of€Drs.€Nord€and€Boals€in€determining€theÐ `° Ðapplication€of€the€last€injurious€exposure€rule€in€this€case.€€We€have€agreed€with€the€trial€court€thatÐ L œ Ðthe€record€established€that€Van€De€Kampððs€is€liable€for€Plaintiffððs€compensation€benefits.€€Likewise,Ð 8 ˆ Ðwe€agree€with€Porter€Cable€that€to€remand€this€case€on€the€basis€urged€by€Van€De€Kampððs,€the€trialÐ $ t Ðcourt€will€reach€the€same€conclusion.€€From€our€review€of€the€whole€record,€we€cannot€find€that€theÐ  ` Ðtrial€courtððs€granting€of€Porter€Cableððs€motion€for€a€directed€verdict€affected€the€ultimate€result€inÐ ü L  Ðthis€case.€€There€is€no€merit€to€this€issue.€Ð è 8  ÐÌÓ  Óò òEQUITABLE€ESTOPPELó óÐ À  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àDefendant€Van€De€Kampððs€asserts€that€an€equitable€construction€of€the€WorkersððÐ ˜è  ÐCompensation€Act€dictates€that€Porter€Cable€is€estopped€from€denying€Plaintiff€benefits€on€the€basisÐ „Ô  Ðthat€Porter€Cable€ignored€her€repeated€requests€for€assistance,€ultimately€causing€her€to€quit€her€job.€Ð pÀ ÐThis€issue€is€viable€even€if€the€last€injurious€exposure€rule€applies.€€Van€De€Kampððs€cites€Tenn.€CodeÐ \¬ ÐAnn.€ðð€50„6„116.€€Defendant€Porter€Cable€contends€that€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€50„6„116,Ð H˜ Ðrequires€a€liberal€construction€of€the€coverage€of€the€act€and€not€of€matters€of€practice€and€procedure,Ð 4„ Ðsuch€as€the€burden€of€proof€and€weight€accorded€to€evidence.€€Thus,€Van€De€Kampððs€interpretationÐ  p Ðis€misguided.€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àFrom€our€review€of€the€record,€we€must€respectfully€disagree€with€Defendant€Van€DeÐ ä4 ÐKampððs€argument.€€Van€De€Kampððs€claims€that€Porter€Cable€ignored€Plaintiff's€repeated€requestsÐ Ð  Ðfor€assistance.€€We€assume€that€this€assistance€was€for€workersðð€compensation€benefits.€€However,Ð ¼  Ðour€search€of€the€record€does€not€establish€that€Plaintiff€actually€filed€an€employeeððs€notice€of€injuryÐ ¨ø Ðfor€workersðð€compensation€benefits€with€Porter€Cable€from€August€1997,€through€September€4,Ð ”ä Ð1998,€although€she€may€have€sustained€a€work„related€injury€during€this€period.€€Plaintiff€did€file€anÐ €Ð Ðemployeeððs€notice€of€injury€on€December€14,€1998,€with€Van€De€Kampððs.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€50„6„116€provides:Ð D!” ÐÌà8  àThe€rule€of€common€law€requiring€strict€construction€of€statutes€in€derogation€ofÐ #l! Ðcommon€law€shall€not€be€applicable€to€the€provisions€of€the€Workers'€CompensationÐ $X" ÐLaw,€but€the€same€is€declared€to€be€a€remedial€statute€which€shall€be€given€anÐ ô$D # Ðequitable€construction€by€the€courts,€to€the€end€that€the€objects€and€purposes€of€thisÐ à%0!$ Ðchapter€may€be€realized€and€attained.ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àOur€Supreme€Court€in€its€analysis€of€this€statute€suggests€that€a€liberal€construction€shouldÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbe€limited€to€the€coverage€of€the€Act€and€not€usually€applied€to€matters€of€practice€and€procedure,Ð )à$( Ðsuch€as€issues€of€burden€of€proof€and€weight€of€evidence.€€òòTenpenny€v.€Batesville€Casket€Co.,€Inc.,Ð |*Ì%) Ðóó781€S.W.2d€841,€845€(Tenn.€1989).€€Likewise,€the€interpretation€involved€means€to€find€coverageÐ h+¸&* Ðfor€employees€in€workers'€compensation€cases€where€an€injured€worker€may€otherwise€go€withoutÐ ° Ða€remedy.€€òòId.€óó€It€has€been€long€recognized€in€Tennessee,€ð ðthat€an€employer€takes€an€employee€as€heÐ œì Ðfinds€him€or€her,€that€is,€with€his€or€her€existing€defects€and€diseases.€ðð€òòSweat€v.€Superior€Industries,Ð ˆØ ÐInc.,€óó966€S.W.2d€31€(Tenn.€Sp.€Workers€Comp.€1998).€€The€trial€court€utilized€this€statute€toÐ tÄ Ðdetermine€if€Plaintiff€sustained€a€gradual€injury€and€thus€the€application€of€the€last€injurious€exposureÐ `° Ðrule€to€the€facts€of€this€case.€€There€is€no€merit€to€this€issue.€Ð L œ ÐÌÓ  Óò òVOCATIONAL€DISABILITYó óÐ $ t ÐÌÓ  Óà  àBoth€Defendants,€Porter€Cable€and€Van€De€Kampððs,€assert€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ ü L  Ðawarding€Plaintiff€permanent€partial€disability€of€thirty€percent€(30%)€to€the€right€arm€and€twentyÐ è 8  Ðpercent€(20%)€to€the€left€arm.€€Naturally,€Plaintiff€urges€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderateÐ Ô$  Ðagainst€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€Ð À  ÐÌà  àBoth€Defendants€argue€that€Plaintiff€has€not€undergone€carpal€tunnel€syndrome€surgery,€andÐ ˜è  Ðthat€her€injury€is€mild€carpal€tunnel€syndrome€to€the€right€wrist€at€best.€€Further,€nerve€conductionÐ „Ô  Ðstudies€in€April€1998,€and€January€1999,€indicate€that€Plaintiffððs€condition€is€self€resolving.Ð pÀ ÐFurthermore,€Plaintiff€has€had€several€periods€of€employment€since€leaving€Van€De€Kampððs.€€SheÐ \¬ Ðis€running€her€own€residential€cleaning€service,€and€the€treating€physician,€Dr.€Nord,€failed€to€findÐ H˜ Ðany€permanent€medical€impairment.€€But,€if€Plaintiff€continued€to€work€in€a€factory€environment,Ð 4„ Ðshe€would€have€problems.€€Plaintiff€counters€that€Dr.€Boals€found€that€she€sustained€permanentÐ  p Ðmedical€impairment€to€both€arms€and€that€in€the€future€she€would€be€restricted€in€heavy€gripping,Ð  \ Ðrepetitive€work€and€use€of€hands.€Ð øH ÐÌà  àWhere€there€is€a€difference€in€the€opinions€of€medical€experts,€the€trial€court€may€accept€theÐ Ð  Ðtestimony€of€one€or€more€experts€over€the€opinion€of€other€experts.€òò€Johnson€v.€Midwesco,€óó801Ð ¼  ÐS.W.2d€804€(Tenn.€1990).€€Where€the€trial€court€has€seen€and€heard€witnesses,€especially€if€issuesÐ ¨ø Ðof€credibility€and€weight€to€be€given€oral€testimony€are€involved,€considerable€deference€must€beÐ ”ä Ðaccorded€those€circumstances€on€review,€because€the€trial€court€had€the€opportunity€to€observe€theÐ €Ð Ðwitnessesððs€demeanor€and€to€hear€the€in„court€testimony.€òò€Long€v.€Tri„Con€Ind.,€Ltd.,€óó996€S.W.2dÐ l¼ Ð173€(Tenn.€1999).€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àIn€making€determinations€of€vocational€disability,€the€trial€court€is€to€consider€all€pertinentÐ 0"€  Ðfactors,€including€lay€and€expert€testimony,€the€employeeððs€age,€education,€skills€and€training,€localÐ #l! Ðjob€opportunities€for€the€disabled,€and€capacity€to€work€at€types€of€employment€available€in€theÐ $X" Ðclaimantððs€disabled€condition.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„241(a)(1).€€An€injured€employee€isÐ ô$D # Ðcompetent€to€testify€as€to€her€own€assessment€of€her€physical€condition€and€such€testimony€shouldÐ à%0!$ Ðnot€be€disregarded.€òò€McIlvain€v.€Russell€Stover€Candies,€Inc.,€óó996€S.W.2d€179€(Tenn.€1999).€Ð Ì&"% ÐPlaintiffððs€ability€to€engage€in€her€own€business€of€residential€cleaning,€which€requires€someÐ ¸'#& Ðrepetitive€use€of€her€hands,€is€somewhat€troublesome.€€However,€the€trial€court€saw€and€heard€herÐ ¤(ô#' Ðtestimony€about€her€ability€to€accomplish€this€work.€€Thus,€from€our€independent€evaluation€of€theÐ )à$( Ðrecord€and€consideration€of€applicable€law,€we€cannot€say€that€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€trial€courtððs€finding€as€to€the€extent€of€Plaintiffððs€permanent€disability.€Ð h+¸&* Їà  àWe€note€the€trial€court€made€separate€awards€to€each€arm.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€50„Ð ° Ð6„207(3)(A)(ii)(w)€provides€scheduled€benefits€for€the€loss€of€two€(2)€arms;€therefore,€we€modifyÐ œì Ðthe€award€to€twenty„five€percent€(25%)€permanent€partial€disability€to€both€arms€which€will€neitherÐ ˆØ Ðincrease€nor€decrease€the€award€but€will€conform€the€trial€court's€judgment€to€the€statute.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àFor€the€above€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€of€Madison€County€is€affirmedÐ L œ Ðas€modified.€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€both€Defendants.€Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àÌà  àÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð Ô$  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àL.€TERRY€LAFFERTY,€SENIOR€JUDGEÐ À  ÐÌÐ  ˜è  ÐÔ‡¼õü»XX /Ôà@7 7 ìàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@''%ìàAT€JACKSONˆÐ  ÐÔ#†X /X»¼õü˜#ÔÌò òÔ‡¼õü»XX /ÔÓ  ÓSONNIE€GAIL€PHILLIPS€WOOD€€v.€€PORTER€CABLE€CORPORATIONÐ À ÐAND€VAN€DE€KAMPððS,€INC.€Ô#†X /X»¼õüܘ#Ôó óÐ Ô$ ÐÓû˜ÓÌà@· · ìàò òChancery€Court€for€Madison€CountyˆÐ Ô $ Ðà@FF&ìàNo.€55675ˆÐ À  ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<ƒ` A߈Ð „Ô  ÐÌà@ ìàNo.€W2000„01771„SC„WCM„CV€„€Filed€August€20,€2001ˆÐ Ï  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<V` AßÐ W§  Ðó óÌà@ƒƒ(ìàò òORDERó óˆÐ R¢  ÐÌòòóóÌà  àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€motion€for€review€of€Van€De€Kampððs,€Inc.,€pursuant€toÐ f ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50„6„225(e)(5)(B),€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€of€referral€to€the€SpecialÐ R ÐWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel,€and€the€Panel's€Memorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€itsÐ î> Ðfindings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€which€are€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ð Ú* ÐÌà  àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€motion€for€review€is€not€well€taken€and€shouldÐ ² Ðbe€denied;€and€Ð žî ÐÌà  àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panel's€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€are€adoptedÐ vÆ Ðand€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€judgment€of€the€Court.Ð b² ÐÌà  àCosts€will€be€paid€by€Porter€Cable€Corporation€and€Van€De€Kampððs,€Inc.,€for€whichÐ :Š Ðexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð & v ÐÌà  àIT€IS€SO€ORDERED.Ð þ!N! ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPER€CURIAMÐ š&ê!& ÐÌHOLDER,€J.€„€NOT€PARTICIPATINGÐ r(Â#( ÐÌÔ#†X /XXX /{#ÔÔ_Ô