Please enter some keywords to search.
| National Healthcorp, L.P. v. James Puckett
01S01-9510-CV-00187
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employer filed this complaint asking the trial court to determine whether the employee sustained any permanent partial disability as a result of an incident at work in which he was in an elevator which fell or sped downward for ten floors. The trial court found that plaintiff sustained a work-related injury resulting in temporary disability but failed to meet his burden of proving permanent impairment and therefore was not entitled to permanent partial disability benefits. The court found that certain court-ordered temporary total disability benefits had been paid beyond the employee's period of temporary disability, and ordered the employee to reimburse the employer $3,826.32 for this overpayment. Further, the court ordered the employer to pay medical expenses for authorized physicians and the employee to pay medical expenses for treatment he secured on his own. An issue raised on briefs as to the characterization of benefits so as to affect Social Security payments was withdrawn by employee's counsel at oral argument and will not be discussed herein. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The employee worked for this employer from 199 until February 1992, when he was involved in an on-the-job accident. On February 19, 1992, while he was in a company elevator, the elevator "fell" or traveled too quickly from the fourteenth to the fourth floor. The employee was tossed about inside the elevator, wrenching his shoulder and neck. The employee was treated by various physicians, some of whom were approved by the employer and some of whom he saw on his own. Dr. Richard Rogers, an orthopedic surgeon, found degenerative changes in plaintiff's cervical spine not caused by trauma. Dr. Arthur Cushman, neurosurgeon provided a second surgical opinion at the court's order and found no permanent impairment.
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers
Originating Judge:Hon. Robert E. Corlew |
Rutherford County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/13/96 | |
| Vicky Ladd v. Perma-View Processed Glass
01S01-9509-CH-00158
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Plaintiff injured her back on December 8, 1989 while working for defendant. The trial judge set the weekly benefit rate at $144.67, ordered defendant to pay certain discretionary costs and awarded plaintiff 35 percent permanent vocational disability. We affirm the trial judge's award of 35 percent permanent vocational disability and remand for further hearing on plaintiff's weekly benefit rate and discretionary costs. Plaintiff was injured at work on December 8, 1989 when a crate hit her in the back, resulting in a contusion of her left shoulder and subsequent symptomatic thoracic outlet syndrome and reflex sympathetic dystrophy. She was evaluated and treated by a number of doctors but has continued to have severe pain and other symptoms. Dr. W. D. Hudson saw plaintiff on the date of the accident and diagnosed brachial plexus contusion. When plaintiff continued to have severe pain, Dr. Hudson determined she had reflex sympathetic dystrophy from trauma to the left brachial plexus nerve fiber and referred her for neurosurgical evaluation and for treatment of chronic pain. He thought her permanent partial impairment was probably between twenty and thirty percent. Dr. Andrew Miller, orthopedic surgeon, treated plaintiff at the employer's request. He prescribed physiotherapy, heat, traction and an exercise program, with no improvement in plaintiff's symptoms. Dr. Miller diagnosed cervical degenerative arthritis at C-4 through C-6 and mild bulging disc at C-4/5, which he did not think were related to her work. Dr. John W. Klemin, chiropractor, diagnosed chronic cervicothoracic strain or sprain complicated by rotary scoliosis and vertebral subluxations resulting in thoracic outlet syndrome and thought the prognosis for recovery was guarded. Dr. Arthur Bond, neurosurgeon, evaluated plaintiff on August 8, 1991 and opined that plaintiff's history was compatible with thoracic outlet syndrome 2
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Originating Judge:Hon. Alex W. Darnell |
Montgomery County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/13/96 | |
| Vicky Ladd v. Perma-View Processed Glass
01S01-9509-CH-00158
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Plaintiff injured her back on December 8, 1989 while working for defendant. The trial judge set the weekly benefit rate at $144.67, ordered defendant to pay certain discretionary costs and awarded plaintiff 35 percent permanent vocational disability. We affirm the trial judge's award of 35 percent permanent vocational disability and remand for further hearing on plaintiff's weekly benefit rate and discretionary costs. Plaintiff was injured at work on December 8, 1989 when a crate hit her in the back, resulting in a contusion of her left shoulder and subsequent symptomatic thoracic outlet syndrome and reflex sympathetic dystrophy. She was evaluated and treated by a number of doctors but has continued to have severe pain and other symptoms. Dr. W. D. Hudson saw plaintiff on the date of the accident and diagnosed brachial plexus contusion. When plaintiff continued to have severe pain, Dr. Hudson determined she had reflex sympathetic dystrophy from trauma to the left brachial plexus nerve fiber and referred her for neurosurgical evaluation and for treatment of chronic pain. He thought her permanent partial impairment was probably between twenty and thirty percent. Dr. Andrew Miller, orthopedic surgeon, treated plaintiff at the employer's request. He prescribed physiotherapy, heat, traction and an exercise program, with no improvement in plaintiff's symptoms. Dr. Miller diagnosed cervical degenerative arthritis at C-4 through C-6 and mild bulging disc at C-4/5, which he did not think were related to her work. Dr. John W. Klemin, chiropractor, diagnosed chronic cervicothoracic strain or sprain complicated by rotary scoliosis and vertebral subluxations resulting in thoracic outlet syndrome and thought the prognosis for recovery was guarded. Dr. Arthur Bond, neurosurgeon, evaluated plaintiff on August 8, 1991 and opined that plaintiff's history was compatible with thoracic outlet syndrome 2
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Originating Judge:Hon. Alex W. Darnell |
Montgomery County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/13/96 | |
| Larry Coleman v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation
02S01-9602-CV-00021
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer contends the award of permanent partial disability benefits is excessive and that the trial judge "erred in failing to use the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fourth Edition, to review the anatomical impairment assigned by" the operating surgeon. The employee contends the award is inadequate. The panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed as modified herein. The employee or claimant, Larry Coleman, is 52 and a high school graduate with no other training or education. He has worked all his adult life as an unskilled worker. On November 17, 1992, the fork lift which he was operating for the employer fell out of a truck bed to a parking lot, injuring him. He was treated and released at an emergency room and returned to work with pain. He ultimately was referred to a neurosurgeon, whom he first saw on January 26, 1993. The doctor diagnosed a herniated lumbar disc and prescribed an epidural block for the relief of pain. When conservative care no longer relieved the claimant's pain, surgery was performed. Since the surgery, he has continued to have disabling leg and back pain and numbness. The operation was the claimant's second for a ruptured disc in the low back, the other having occurred some seventeen years earlier. The claimant cannot sit or stand for long periods of time and has severely limited ability to bend forward. The operating surgeon assigned a permanent impairment rating of eighteen percent to the whole body, from the injury and surgery superimposed on his pre-existing spinal stenosis, using the AMA guidelines. Mr. Coleman does not think he can return to any kind of work. He has not worked since the surgery. A vocational expert examined the claimant and his medical records. The expert opined that the claimant has no transferable job skills and that he has no employability. The expert's opinion is based in part, however, on a hip problem which is not shown to have pre-existed the injury at work or to have been caused by the injury at work. We find no countervailing medical or vocational testimony in the record. The trial judge found the claimant's permanent industrial disability to be eighty-eight percent to the body as a whole and awarded benefits on that basis. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Kay S. Robilio, |
Shelby County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/11/96 | |
| Larry Coleman v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation
02S01-9602-CV-00021
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer contends the award of permanent partial disability benefits is excessive and that the trial judge "erred in failing to use the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fourth Edition, to review the anatomical impairment assigned by" the operating surgeon. The employee contends the award is inadequate. The panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed as modified herein. The employee or claimant, Larry Coleman, is 52 and a high school graduate with no other training or education. He has worked all his adult life as an unskilled worker. On November 17, 1992, the fork lift which he was operating for the employer fell out of a truck bed to a parking lot, injuring him. He was treated and released at an emergency room and returned to work with pain. He ultimately was referred to a neurosurgeon, whom he first saw on January 26, 1993. The doctor diagnosed a herniated lumbar disc and prescribed an epidural block for the relief of pain. When conservative care no longer relieved the claimant's pain, surgery was performed. Since the surgery, he has continued to have disabling leg and back pain and numbness. The operation was the claimant's second for a ruptured disc in the low back, the other having occurred some seventeen years earlier. The claimant cannot sit or stand for long periods of time and has severely limited ability to bend forward. The operating surgeon assigned a permanent impairment rating of eighteen percent to the whole body, from the injury and surgery superimposed on his pre-existing spinal stenosis, using the AMA guidelines. Mr. Coleman does not think he can return to any kind of work. He has not worked since the surgery. A vocational expert examined the claimant and his medical records. The expert opined that the claimant has no transferable job skills and that he has no employability. The expert's opinion is based in part, however, on a hip problem which is not shown to have pre-existed the injury at work or to have been caused by the injury at work. We find no countervailing medical or vocational testimony in the record. The trial judge found the claimant's permanent industrial disability to be eighty-eight percent to the body as a whole and awarded benefits on that basis. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Kay S. Robilio, |
Shelby County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/11/96 | |
| Anthony S. Hopson v. Protein Technologies
02S01-9603-CV-00027
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer contends only that the award of permanent partial disability benefits on the basis of fifty percent to the arm is excessive. The panels finds the award should be reduced to one based on thirty-five percent to the arm. The employee or claimant, Hopson, is forty-three with a high school education, one year of college and three years of military service as an aviation ordinance mechanic. On April 14, 1994, while working for Protein Technologies, he injured his left arm lifting a product weighing forty-four pounds. His doctor diagnosed lateral epicondylitis and acute olecranon bursitis, and prescribed injections, medication and physical therapy. The claimant reached maximum medical improvement on August 1, 1994, when the doctor assessed his permanent impairment at five percent to the left arm and released him to return to work with a weight lifting restriction of twenty pounds. The claimant first returned to light duty, then to a position earning as much as or more than before the injury. The trial judge awarded, among other things, permanent partial disability benefits based on fifty percent to the arm. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(2). Once the causation and permanency of an injury have been established by expert testimony,the courts may consider many pertinent factors, including age, job skills, education, training, duration of disability, and job opportunities for the disabled, in addition to anatomical impairment, for the purpose of evaluating the extent of a claimant's permanent disability. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-241(a)(2); McCaleb v. Saturn Corp., 91 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1995). From a consideration of the pertinent factors established by the proof in this case, the panel finds that the evidence preponderates against an award based on fifty percent to the arm and in favor of one based on thirty- five percent to the arm. The judgment of the trial court is modified accordingly, but otherwise affirmed. Costs on appeal are taxed to the plaintiff-appellee. 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Anthony S. Hopson, |
Shelby County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/11/96 | |
| Anthony S. Hopson v. Protein Technologies
02S01-9603-CV-00027
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer contends only that the award of permanent partial disability benefits on the basis of fifty percent to the arm is excessive. The panels finds the award should be reduced to one based on thirty-five percent to the arm. The employee or claimant, Hopson, is forty-three with a high school education, one year of college and three years of military service as an aviation ordinance mechanic. On April 14, 1994, while working for Protein Technologies, he injured his left arm lifting a product weighing forty-four pounds. His doctor diagnosed lateral epicondylitis and acute olecranon bursitis, and prescribed injections, medication and physical therapy. The claimant reached maximum medical improvement on August 1, 1994, when the doctor assessed his permanent impairment at five percent to the left arm and released him to return to work with a weight lifting restriction of twenty pounds. The claimant first returned to light duty, then to a position earning as much as or more than before the injury. The trial judge awarded, among other things, permanent partial disability benefits based on fifty percent to the arm. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(2). Once the causation and permanency of an injury have been established by expert testimony,the courts may consider many pertinent factors, including age, job skills, education, training, duration of disability, and job opportunities for the disabled, in addition to anatomical impairment, for the purpose of evaluating the extent of a claimant's permanent disability. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-241(a)(2); McCaleb v. Saturn Corp., 91 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1995). From a consideration of the pertinent factors established by the proof in this case, the panel finds that the evidence preponderates against an award based on fifty percent to the arm and in favor of one based on thirty- five percent to the arm. The judgment of the trial court is modified accordingly, but otherwise affirmed. Costs on appeal are taxed to the plaintiff-appellee. 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Anthony S. Hopson, |
Shelby County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/11/96 | |
| Mark Anthony Parker v. National Surety Corporation
02S01-9601-CH-00004
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 5-6-225 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this case the first employer appeals the ruling of the trial court that the injury occurred during his term of employment with the first employer. The trial court found no second injury after April 1 and awarded benefits against the first employer. The second issue is raised by Appellant to the awarding of 4% to each arm. We affirm the findings of the trial court. The Plaintiff's carpal tunnel symptoms began in the right hand "at the beginning of the 9's." (T. at 24). The left hand became symptomatic "a year or so later." (T. P. 25). His symptoms became worse with time. (T.P. 25). "Q. . . .(t)hat you went to the doctor finally when it got so bad that you couldn't stand it. Is that correct? A. Yes, ma'am." (T. P. 39). "Q. . . .(t)hat was while you were working for the first employer? A. Yes, ma'am." (T. P. 39). The Plaintiff had a conversation with the second employer's representative a few days before the second employer became responsible and reported a work related injury while working for the first employer. (T. P. 4). The complaint here was filed alleging a February 1994 injury. The second employer took over on April 1, 1994. The employee further testified that, "Q Activities caused you to experience pain in your hands? 1
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Originating Judge:Mark Anthony Parker |
Madison County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/09/96 | |
| John Ivory, Jr. v. Emerson Motor Company
02S01-9505-CH-00042
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Our scope of review of findings of fact by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn.Code Ann. _ 5-6-22 5(e)(2). The employee contends the trial court erred in: 1. Failing to assign perman ent partial disability to the right arm as opposed to the right hand; and 2. Limiting the award o f perman ent partial disab ility benefits to 55% to the right hand. We affirm the trial court in all respects. The plain tiff, John Ivo ry, Jr., ("Ivory") is 25 years o f age with an eleven th grade education. He received a G.E.D and successfully completed Job Corps training in brick masonry. His previous work experience included upholstering furniture, w orking as a construction laborer and as a produ ction line w orker at a chee se fa ctor y. On August 15, 1992, Ivory was repairing a die cast machine for Emerson Motor Company when the machine activated, injuring the fingers of his right hand. Ivory was treated by Dr. Frederick Torstrick, an orthopedic surgeon, for crush injuries to the index, long and ring fingers, fractures to the index and ring fingers, and longitudinal lacerations to the top and bottom of his hand. A later surgical procedure performed to improve movement required incisions in each of the injured fingers, the removal of adhesions between the tendon and underlying bone and cutting of some of the tissues of the capsule of the joints. Ivory was referred to a work ha rdening p rogram w here there w as some q uestion of h is coope ration. 2
Authoring Judge: Janice M. Holder, Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. George Ellis, |
Gibson County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/09/96 | |
| John Ivory, Jr. v. Emerson Motor Company
02S01-9505-CH-00042
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Our scope of review of findings of fact by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn.Code Ann. _ 5-6-22 5(e)(2). The employee contends the trial court erred in: 1. Failing to assign perman ent partial disability to the right arm as opposed to the right hand; and 2. Limiting the award o f perman ent partial disab ility benefits to 55% to the right hand. We affirm the trial court in all respects. The plain tiff, John Ivo ry, Jr., ("Ivory") is 25 years o f age with an eleven th grade education. He received a G.E.D and successfully completed Job Corps training in brick masonry. His previous work experience included upholstering furniture, w orking as a construction laborer and as a produ ction line w orker at a chee se fa ctor y. On August 15, 1992, Ivory was repairing a die cast machine for Emerson Motor Company when the machine activated, injuring the fingers of his right hand. Ivory was treated by Dr. Frederick Torstrick, an orthopedic surgeon, for crush injuries to the index, long and ring fingers, fractures to the index and ring fingers, and longitudinal lacerations to the top and bottom of his hand. A later surgical procedure performed to improve movement required incisions in each of the injured fingers, the removal of adhesions between the tendon and underlying bone and cutting of some of the tissues of the capsule of the joints. Ivory was referred to a work ha rdening p rogram w here there w as some q uestion of h is coope ration. 2
Authoring Judge: Janice M. Holder, Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. George Ellis, |
Gibson County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/09/96 | |
| Jimmy Johnson v. WaUSAu Insurance Company
02S01-9601-CH-00008
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court, in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Jimmy Johnson ("plaintiff") has appealed the trial court's dismissal of his suit for workers' compensation benefits on the grounds that plaintiff failed to prove that he sustained an injury arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment by preponderance of the evidence. Plaintiff was employed by Gurien Finishing Corporation ("Gurien"), who was insured by defendant, Wausau Insurance Company. For the foregoing reasons, we find no error and affirm. Plaintiff was employed at Gurien as a washer operator as part of Gurien's manufacturing process of stonewashed jeans. Plaintiff alleges that on August 1, 1993, he injured his lower back while pulling open a washer door that had been jammed with a rock. He stated that he did not report the injury at the time of the accident because it felt more like a cramp. When he woke up in pain the following morning, plaintiff testified that he reported the accident to his shift manager, Cindy Long. He stated that he advised Long that he hurt himself jerking on a washer door. Plaintiff was treated by his personal physician, Dr. Philip Sherman, on August 16, 1993. He gave Dr. Sherman a history of hurting his back while pulling machines at work. Plaintiff complained to Dr. Sherman of low back pain with some pain radiating into his legs, with the pain being worse in his left leg than his right. Dr. Sherman diagnosed pl aintiff as suffering from lumbosacral strain and prescribed pain medication. In November 1993 plaintiff returned to Dr. Sherman with compl aints of 2
Authoring Judge: Hewitt P. Tomlin, Jr., Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. William Michael Maloan |
Johnson County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/09/96 | |
| Jimmy Johnson v. WaUSAu Insurance Company
02S01-9601-CH-00008
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court, in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Jimmy Johnson ("plaintiff") has appealed the trial court's dismissal of his suit for workers' compensation benefits on the grounds that plaintiff failed to prove that he sustained an injury arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment by preponderance of the evidence. Plaintiff was employed by Gurien Finishing Corporation ("Gurien"), who was insured by defendant, Wausau Insurance Company. For the foregoing reasons, we find no error and affirm. Plaintiff was employed at Gurien as a washer operator as part of Gurien's manufacturing process of stonewashed jeans. Plaintiff alleges that on August 1, 1993, he injured his lower back while pulling open a washer door that had been jammed with a rock. He stated that he did not report the injury at the time of the accident because it felt more like a cramp. When he woke up in pain the following morning, plaintiff testified that he reported the accident to his shift manager, Cindy Long. He stated that he advised Long that he hurt himself jerking on a washer door. Plaintiff was treated by his personal physician, Dr. Philip Sherman, on August 16, 1993. He gave Dr. Sherman a history of hurting his back while pulling machines at work. Plaintiff complained to Dr. Sherman of low back pain with some pain radiating into his legs, with the pain being worse in his left leg than his right. Dr. Sherman diagnosed pl aintiff as suffering from lumbosacral strain and prescribed pain medication. In November 1993 plaintiff returned to Dr. Sherman with compl aints of 2
Authoring Judge: Hewitt P. Tomlin, Jr., Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. William Michael Maloan, |
Johnson County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/09/96 | |
| Mark Anthony Parker v. National Surety Corporation
02S01-9601-CH-00004
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 5-6-225 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this case the first employer appeals the ruling of the trial court that the injury occurred during his term of employment with the first employer. The trial court found no second injury after April 1 and awarded benefits against the first employer. The second issue is raised by Appellant to the awarding of 4% to each arm. We affirm the findings of the trial court. The Plaintiff's carpal tunnel symptoms began in the right hand "at the beginning of the 9's." (T. at 24). The left hand became symptomatic "a year or so later." (T. P. 25). His symptoms became worse with time. (T.P. 25). "Q. . . .(t)hat you went to the doctor finally when it got so bad that you couldn't stand it. Is that correct? A. Yes, ma'am." (T. P. 39). "Q. . . .(t)hat was while you were working for the first employer? A. Yes, ma'am." (T. P. 39). The Plaintiff had a conversation with the second employer's representative a few days before the second employer became responsible and reported a work related injury while working for the first employer. (T. P. 4). The complaint here was filed alleging a February 1994 injury. The second employer took over on April 1, 1994. The employee further testified that, "Q Activities caused you to experience pain in your hands? 1
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Originating Judge:Mark Anthony Parker |
Madison County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/09/96 | |
| Charles E . Carey v. Carolina Freight Carriers
02S01-9506-CH-00050
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In its appeal, the employer contends that the evidence does not support the trial court's award of seventy percent (7%) to the lower extremity and that the trial court erred in computing the employee's average weekly wage at $273. instead of $22.21 per week. The panel concludes that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's assessment of permanent disability and modifies th e award to thirty-five percen t (35%) to the lower e xtremity. Prope rly computed, the employee's average weekly wage is $22.21 per week. Charles E. Carey ("Carey") was injured on December 27, 1991, when a bank vault weighing five hundred pounds fell off a fork lift and struck the front part of his left thigh. He was initially treated by Dr. R. Michael Cobb, an orthopedic surgeon, who suspected a torn ligament in Carey's knee. Dr. Cobb later concluded, however, that the ligament was not torn and that surgery was not needed. In February, 1992, Carey began to complain of numbness in his toes, although Dr. Cobb was unable to find any indication of injury to the sciatic nerve, which provides feeling to the toes. Carey was given a note to return to work on March 1, 1992. Upon examination on March 16, 1992, Carey's range of motion was excellent and his strength appeared to be normal. He advised Dr. Cobb that he was hav ing no pro blem at w ork. A ne rve cond uction study, pe rformed as a result of the c ompla ints of to e num bness, s howe d no sig n of inju ry to the sc iatic nerv e. Carey was given no permanent physical anatomical impairment and was discharged from Dr. Cobb's care on March 16, 1992. When he returned to work in March, Carey performed the same duties that 2
Authoring Judge: Janice M. Holder, Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Joe C. Morris, |
Madison County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/09/96 | |
| Charles E . Carey v. Carolina Freight Carriers
02S01-9506-CH-00050
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In its appeal, the employer contends that the evidence does not support the trial court's award of seventy percent (7%) to the lower extremity and that the trial court erred in computing the employee's average weekly wage at $273. instead of $22.21 per week. The panel concludes that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's assessment of permanent disability and modifies th e award to thirty-five percen t (35%) to the lower e xtremity. Prope rly computed, the employee's average weekly wage is $22.21 per week. Charles E. Carey ("Carey") was injured on December 27, 1991, when a bank vault weighing five hundred pounds fell off a fork lift and struck the front part of his left thigh. He was initially treated by Dr. R. Michael Cobb, an orthopedic surgeon, who suspected a torn ligament in Carey's knee. Dr. Cobb later concluded, however, that the ligament was not torn and that surgery was not needed. In February, 1992, Carey began to complain of numbness in his toes, although Dr. Cobb was unable to find any indication of injury to the sciatic nerve, which provides feeling to the toes. Carey was given a note to return to work on March 1, 1992. Upon examination on March 16, 1992, Carey's range of motion was excellent and his strength appeared to be normal. He advised Dr. Cobb that he was hav ing no pro blem at w ork. A ne rve cond uction study, pe rformed as a result of the c ompla ints of to e num bness, s howe d no sig n of inju ry to the sc iatic nerv e. Carey was given no permanent physical anatomical impairment and was discharged from Dr. Cobb's care on March 16, 1992. When he returned to work in March, Carey performed the same duties that 2
Authoring Judge: Janice M. Holder, Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Joe C. Morris, |
Madison County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/09/96 | |
| Frances Reynolds Kellerman v. Food Lion, Inc.
01S01-9512-CH-00226
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer contends (1) the chancellor erred in not accepting the opinion testimony ofthe claimant's treating physician, (2) the claimant's back injury is not compensable because the evidence failed to establish that "the accident either otherwise injured her or advanced the severity of her preexisting condition, (3) that the chancellor erred in considering expert medical testimony not based on reasonable medical certainty, and (4) the award of permanent partial disability benefits is excessive. The panel concludes that the evidence fails to preponderate against the findings of the trial court. The judgment is modified as provided herein. On November 29, 1993, the claimant, Kellerman, slipped and fell in a puddle of water at work, twisting her right knee and injuring her back. She was eventually referred to Dr. Richard Bagby, who saw her on January 13, 1994 and January 2, 1994. Dr. Bagby ordered a CT scan and studied the results. He opined that the claimant reached maximum medical improvement on January 24, 1994, when she was released to return to work with some minor restrictions. The doctor further opined that she would not retain any permanent impairment. We do not find in the record the degree of certainty upon which the doctor's opinion was based. The claimant returned to Dr. Bagby on March 1, 1994, when he noted her continuing pain but did not change her restrictions from lifting more than twenty pounds or any repetitive bending, or assess any permanent impairment. The claimant was referred to Dr. Keith Brown for examination and evaluation. Dr. Brown performed additional testing which put stress on her knee and back. From his examination, particularly a positive McMurray's test, this doctor diagnosed a torn medial meniscus in the right knee joint, which, if not treated, will worsen, he said. He assigned a permanent impairment rating of five percent to the right leg, using AMA Guidelines, and added restriction from any kneeling or stooping activities. Dr. Brown further opined that the claimant's disabling back pain was permanent and causally related to the injury at work. He diagnosed circumferential disc disorder which, he said, may or may not have preexisted that injury but was aggravated by the injury, and assigned an additional permanent impairment of ten percent to the whole person, from AMA Guidelines. His testimony included the following question and answer: Q. In the opinions you have expressed, have they been based on a reasonable degree of medical certainty? 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Jeffrey F. Stewart, |
Franklin County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/05/96 | |
| Frances Reynolds Kellerman v. Food Lion, Inc.
01S01-9512-CH-00226
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer contends (1) the chancellor erred in not accepting the opinion testimony ofthe claimant's treating physician, (2) the claimant's back injury is not compensable because the evidence failed to establish that "the accident either otherwise injured her or advanced the severity of her preexisting condition, (3) that the chancellor erred in considering expert medical testimony not based on reasonable medical certainty, and (4) the award of permanent partial disability benefits is excessive. The panel concludes that the evidence fails to preponderate against the findings of the trial court. The judgment is modified as provided herein. On November 29, 1993, the claimant, Kellerman, slipped and fell in a puddle of water at work, twisting her right knee and injuring her back. She was eventually referred to Dr. Richard Bagby, who saw her on January 13, 1994 and January 2, 1994. Dr. Bagby ordered a CT scan and studied the results. He opined that the claimant reached maximum medical improvement on January 24, 1994, when she was released to return to work with some minor restrictions. The doctor further opined that she would not retain any permanent impairment. We do not find in the record the degree of certainty upon which the doctor's opinion was based. The claimant returned to Dr. Bagby on March 1, 1994, when he noted her continuing pain but did not change her restrictions from lifting more than twenty pounds or any repetitive bending, or assess any permanent impairment. The claimant was referred to Dr. Keith Brown for examination and evaluation. Dr. Brown performed additional testing which put stress on her knee and back. From his examination, particularly a positive McMurray's test, this doctor diagnosed a torn medial meniscus in the right knee joint, which, if not treated, will worsen, he said. He assigned a permanent impairment rating of five percent to the right leg, using AMA Guidelines, and added restriction from any kneeling or stooping activities. Dr. Brown further opined that the claimant's disabling back pain was permanent and causally related to the injury at work. He diagnosed circumferential disc disorder which, he said, may or may not have preexisted that injury but was aggravated by the injury, and assigned an additional permanent impairment of ten percent to the whole person, from AMA Guidelines. His testimony included the following question and answer: Q. In the opinions you have expressed, have they been based on a reasonable degree of medical certainty? 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Jeffrey F. Stewart, |
Franklin County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/05/96 | |
| Mart E. Kobeck v. Murray, Inc.
01S01-9511-CV-00207
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Plaintiff injured his neck at work in October of 1991 and subsequently underwent anterior cervical disc removal, dissection and fusion after which he did not recover. The trial judge found the plaintiff to be 8 percent vocationally impaired as a result of his work injury. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Plaintiff had worked for Murray, Inc. for 35 years when, on October 21, 1991, he injured his neck on the job while working overhead repairing lawn mowers. The company sent him to see Dr. Norman Henderson, who then referred him to Dr. Rex Arendall, neurosurgeon, on April 1, 1992. Dr. Arendall diagnosed cervico-thoracic radiculopathy and prescribed physical therapy and pain medications, but plaintiff did not improve. On April 23, 1992, Dr. Arendall performed anterior cervical discectomy, anterior cervical fusion and microscopic dissection at C4-5 and C5-6. Post-operatively, plaintiff continued to have increasing pain and weakness in his right arm and shoulder. He also developed loss of balance. Dr. Arendall re-admitted plaintiff for investigation of the continuing symptoms, and MRI of the brain then revealed small areas of infarction. Dr. Arendall referred plaintiff to his medical practice partner and neurologist, Dr. Mary Clinton, for a second opinion, and then to another neurologist, a Dr. Rubinowicz. Neither examiner could find a neurological basis for plaintiff's problems except for the brain infarctions. Dr. Arendall stated that after the second hospitalization, plaintiff "seemed to go progressively downhill." His right arm and hand atrophied. Dr. Arendall thought that plaintiff might be exhibiting early onset symptoms of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or multiple sclerosis, but there were no objective findings to indicate either disease. On October 21, 1992, Dr. Arendall saw the patient and opined that he was totally and permanently disabled as a result of his medical problems. He opined that 15 percent of the disability was "purely for his work-related findings." Plaintiff testified that for many years prior to his accident, he had worked without missing a day and that he had no prior medical problems that required him to 2
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers
Originating Judge:Hon. James L. Weatherford |
Lawrence County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/05/96 | |
| Mart E. Kobeck v. Murray, Inc.
01S01-9511-CV-00207
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Plaintiff injured his neck at work in October of 1991 and subsequently underwent anterior cervical disc removal, dissection and fusion after which he did not recover. The trial judge found the plaintiff to be 8 percent vocationally impaired as a result of his work injury. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Plaintiff had worked for Murray, Inc. for 35 years when, on October 21, 1991, he injured his neck on the job while working overhead repairing lawn mowers. The company sent him to see Dr. Norman Henderson, who then referred him to Dr. Rex Arendall, neurosurgeon, on April 1, 1992. Dr. Arendall diagnosed cervico-thoracic radiculopathy and prescribed physical therapy and pain medications, but plaintiff did not improve. On April 23, 1992, Dr. Arendall performed anterior cervical discectomy, anterior cervical fusion and microscopic dissection at C4-5 and C5-6. Post-operatively, plaintiff continued to have increasing pain and weakness in his right arm and shoulder. He also developed loss of balance. Dr. Arendall re-admitted plaintiff for investigation of the continuing symptoms, and MRI of the brain then revealed small areas of infarction. Dr. Arendall referred plaintiff to his medical practice partner and neurologist, Dr. Mary Clinton, for a second opinion, and then to another neurologist, a Dr. Rubinowicz. Neither examiner could find a neurological basis for plaintiff's problems except for the brain infarctions. Dr. Arendall stated that after the second hospitalization, plaintiff "seemed to go progressively downhill." His right arm and hand atrophied. Dr. Arendall thought that plaintiff might be exhibiting early onset symptoms of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or multiple sclerosis, but there were no objective findings to indicate either disease. On October 21, 1992, Dr. Arendall saw the patient and opined that he was totally and permanently disabled as a result of his medical problems. He opined that 15 percent of the disability was "purely for his work-related findings." Plaintiff testified that for many years prior to his accident, he had worked without missing a day and that he had no prior medical problems that required him to 2
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers
Originating Judge:Hon. James L. Weatherford |
Lawrence County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/05/96 | |
| Woodrow Cecil Foster v. Coffee County Highway Department and Coffee County, Tennessee
01S01-9512-CH-00232
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer questions the trial court's conclusion that the claim is not barred by Tenn. Code Ann. section 5- 6- 23, a one year statute of limitation. The employer also contends the award of permanent partial disability benefits based on forty-five percent to the body as a whole is excessive. This panel finds that the judgment should be affirmed. The action was commencedby the employee or claimant, Woodrow C. Foster, by the filing of a complaint on March 6, 1991, against the employer, Coffee County Highway Department and Coffee County, Tennessee, seeking workers' compensation benefits for injuries occurring in 1986 and 1987. The defendants served an answer raising the affirmative defense that the claim was barred by the above statute of limitation. Our review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(2) (1992). We accept the chancellor's relevant findings of fact as follows: "The plaintiff was a 59 year old male with a tenth grade education who, for the most part, had spent his adult life either driving a truck or loading and unloading a truck with short periods of employment as a carpenter's helper and working at a service station. Mr. Foster testified that in March, 1986, while changing a flat tire, he thought he 'broke his back,' that he went to a doctor who put a corset on him for two weeks and told him he had a 'pulled muscle.' Plaintiff went back to work and testified that he thought (the 'pulled muscle') was the only condition for which he suffered any discomfort. Plaintiff testified that in 199 he saw a doctor because his back continued to hurt. He saw Dr. Robison and Dr. Jekot, who asked him to return for another appointment but he did not let him return to work without seeing a neurosurgeon. He went to see Dr. Verne Allen...(who) performed an MRI that showed a bulging disc...(for which) he ultimately had surgery.... Plaintiff testified that he went back to work after surgery. He was off work approximately two months, but despite being given no restrictions as a result of the surgery he has constant pain out of the left side of his back and down his leg, that he presently takes steroids and walks to try to stay limber although he continues to hurt. Plaintiff testified that he continues to try to perform his job as a truck driver with the defendant Highway Department." An action by an employee to recover workers' compensation benefits for an accidental injury must be commenced within one year after the occurrence of the injury. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-224(1). However, if within such one year period the employer or its insurer makes voluntary payment of benefits, the action may be commenced within one year after the cessation of benefits. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-23. 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Retired Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. John W. Rollins, |
Coffee County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/05/96 | |
| Gary Allen Ferrell v. Batesville Casket Company
01S01-9512-CV-00218
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiff appeals this ruling. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Plaintiff reported problems with swelling, pain and numbness in his right arm to his supervisor in June or July 1991. These problems occurred after using a pneumatic sander at work which plaintiff alleged was defective. He went to the company doctor about a week after he reported these problems to his employer. The company doctor advised him that his problems with his right arm were the result of his use of the pneumatic sander and further advised him to forever avoid using vibrating tools with his right hand. Plaintiff continued to have the same problems with his right arm and experienced exacerbations of his pain whenever he used a vibrating tool. He continued to see physicians, by referral from defendants and on his own. No proof was offered as to whether the defendants had paid any medical expenses for the plaintiff in relation to his alleged injury within a year of his filing this complaint in March 21, 1994. The trial judge held that there was no question in the court's mind that the plaintiff had known since June/July 1991 that he had a work-related injury and that the action was dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations. Our review is de novo on the record, accompanied by the presumption that the factual findings of the trial court are correct. TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225 (e)(2). TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-23 provides: The right to compensation under the Workers' Compensation Law shall be forever barred, unless within one (1) year after the accident resulting in injury . . . occurred the notice required by _ 5-6-22 is given the employer and a claim for compensation under the provisions of this chapter is filed with the tribunal having jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter; provided, that if 2
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers
Originating Judge:Hon. Gerald L. Ewell, Sr. |
Coffee County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/05/96 | |
| Woodrow Cecil Foster v. Coffee County Highway Department and Coffee County, Tennessee
01S01-9512-CH-00232
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer questions the trial court's conclusion that the claim is not barred by Tenn. Code Ann. section 5- 6- 23, a one year statute of limitation. The employer also contends the award of permanent partial disability benefits based on forty-five percent to the body as a whole is excessive. This panel finds that the judgment should be affirmed. The action was commencedby the employee or claimant, Woodrow C. Foster, by the filing of a complaint on March 6, 1991, against the employer, Coffee County Highway Department and Coffee County, Tennessee, seeking workers' compensation benefits for injuries occurring in 1986 and 1987. The defendants served an answer raising the affirmative defense that the claim was barred by the above statute of limitation. Our review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(2) (1992). We accept the chancellor's relevant findings of fact as follows: "The plaintiff was a 59 year old male with a tenth grade education who, for the most part, had spent his adult life either driving a truck or loading and unloading a truck with short periods of employment as a carpenter's helper and working at a service station. Mr. Foster testified that in March, 1986, while changing a flat tire, he thought he 'broke his back,' that he went to a doctor who put a corset on him for two weeks and told him he had a 'pulled muscle.' Plaintiff went back to work and testified that he thought (the 'pulled muscle') was the only condition for which he suffered any discomfort. Plaintiff testified that in 199 he saw a doctor because his back continued to hurt. He saw Dr. Robison and Dr. Jekot, who asked him to return for another appointment but he did not let him return to work without seeing a neurosurgeon. He went to see Dr. Verne Allen...(who) performed an MRI that showed a bulging disc...(for which) he ultimately had surgery.... Plaintiff testified that he went back to work after surgery. He was off work approximately two months, but despite being given no restrictions as a result of the surgery he has constant pain out of the left side of his back and down his leg, that he presently takes steroids and walks to try to stay limber although he continues to hurt. Plaintiff testified that he continues to try to perform his job as a truck driver with the defendant Highway Department." An action by an employee to recover workers' compensation benefits for an accidental injury must be commenced within one year after the occurrence of the injury. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-224(1). However, if within such one year period the employer or its insurer makes voluntary payment of benefits, the action may be commenced within one year after the cessation of benefits. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-23. 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Retired Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. John W. Rollins, |
Coffee County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/05/96 | |
| Gary Allen Ferrell v. Batesville Casket Company
01S01-9512-CV-00218
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiff appeals this ruling. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Plaintiff reported problems with swelling, pain and numbness in his right arm to his supervisor in June or July 1991. These problems occurred after using a pneumatic sander at work which plaintiff alleged was defective. He went to the company doctor about a week after he reported these problems to his employer. The company doctor advised him that his problems with his right arm were the result of his use of the pneumatic sander and further advised him to forever avoid using vibrating tools with his right hand. Plaintiff continued to have the same problems with his right arm and experienced exacerbations of his pain whenever he used a vibrating tool. He continued to see physicians, by referral from defendants and on his own. No proof was offered as to whether the defendants had paid any medical expenses for the plaintiff in relation to his alleged injury within a year of his filing this complaint in March 21, 1994. The trial judge held that there was no question in the court's mind that the plaintiff had known since June/July 1991 that he had a work-related injury and that the action was dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations. Our review is de novo on the record, accompanied by the presumption that the factual findings of the trial court are correct. TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225 (e)(2). TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-23 provides: The right to compensation under the Workers' Compensation Law shall be forever barred, unless within one (1) year after the accident resulting in injury . . . occurred the notice required by _ 5-6-22 is given the employer and a claim for compensation under the provisions of this chapter is filed with the tribunal having jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter; provided, that if 2
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers
Originating Judge:Hon. Gerald L. Ewell, Sr., Judge |
Coffee County | Workers Compensation Panel | 09/05/96 | |
| Debra Michelle Lambert v. Famous Hospitality, Inc.
02S01-9511-CV-00112
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Plaintiff was working at Bruce Hardwood Floors when she injured her right shoulder in October of 1991 while lifting pieces of wood from a conveyor belt. In May of 1992, she complained to her treating physician of pain in her hands and wrists. She alleged work-related permanent disability as a result of these conditions. The trial court awarded plaintiff 33 percent permanent partial disability to each arm. We find the plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of proving permanent partial disability and therefore reverse the decision of the trial court and dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff testified that she was removing thin or short wood from a conveyor belt and lifting 4 to 5 pounds frequently when her right shoulder started bothering her, sometime in October or before October. The employer referred her to Convenient Care Clinic, then referred her to Dr. Alan Pechacek, board-certified orthopedic surgeon, at Jackson Clinic. Dr. Pechacek's examination and x-ray on November 11, 1991 gave him the impression that plaintiff's right shoulder pain was due to some irritation or inflammation of the rotator cuff tendons. He prescribed physical therapy, exercises, pain medication and work restrictions, which improved plaintiff's condition. In January of 1992, Dr. Pechacek told plaintiff she could return to full work with no restrictions. He continued to see her for renewal of prescriptions but felt she was "basically functional, as far as being able to do her job." In May of 1992, plaintiff returned to Dr. Pechacek complaining of shoulder pain and also bilateral wrist and hand pain and numbness. She said this bothered her both at work and at home at night. At her June, 1992 office visit, Dr. Pechacek stated that plaintiff's symptoms were "mild and vague," and he gave her splints to wear on her wrists. She was no longer working because of some dispute with her employer, and he thought she could control her hand activity at home. In July 1992, she returned still complaining of discomfort, so Dr. Pechacek ordered nerve conduction studies, which showed mild changes in the median nerve 2
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers
Originating Judge:Hon. Joe C. Morris |
Smith County | Workers Compensation Panel | 08/30/96 | |
| Blanche Rene Smith v. Bruce Hardwood Floors
02S01-9512-CH-00130
This case is before the Court upon a motion for review purAppellate suant to C ourt Tenn.Clerk Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(5)(B), the entire record, including the order of referral to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel, and the Panel's Memorandum Opinion setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are incorporated herein by reference; Whereupon, it appears to the Court that the motion for review is not well- taken and should be denied; and It is, therefore, ordered that the Panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law are adopted and affirmed, and the decision of the Panel is made the judgment of the Court. Costs will be paid by the plaintiff-appellee, for which execution may issue if necessary.
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Originating Judge:Hon. Joe C. Morris, Chancellor |
Smith County | Workers Compensation Panel | 08/30/96 |