WORKERS COMPENSATION PANEL OPINIONS
| Michele Renee Smith v. Cookeville Regional Medical M2001-00982-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: James L. Weatherford, Sr. J. Trial Court Judge: John J. Madduxjudge The defendant appeals the judgment of the trial court finding that the employee, an ICU nurse: 1) suffered a back injury while caring for a patient that aggravated her pre-existing back condition; 2) gave proper notice of her injury under the circumstances; and 3) sustained a 17% anatomical impairment and 37% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. We hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's findings. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Smith County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Michele Beeler v. Southeast Service Corporation d/b/a 2001-02527-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J. Trial Court Judge: Wheeler A. Rosenbalm, Judge This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6- 225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found the plaintiff had failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that she had suffered carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of her work for the defendant. The plaintiff, in two issues, basically claims the trial judge erred by finding the plaintiff had failed to carry the burden of showing she was entitled to recover for a work related injury. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court is Affirmed JOHN K. BYERS, SR. J., in which WILLIAM M. BARKER, J., and HOWELL N. PEOPLES, SP. J., joined. James C. Cone, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Michele Beeler. Linda J. Hamilton Mowles, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellees, Southeast Service Corporation d/b/a SSC Service Solutions and CNA Insurance Company. MEMORANDUM OPINION Facts At the time of trial, the plaintiff was 39 years of age, married and the mother of two children. She had a high school education. The parties agree that the plaintiff has carpal tunnel syndrome but do not agree on its cause. Medical Dr. C. Stanford Carlson Jr. treated the plaintiff for the carpel tunnel syndrome. He testified in a deposition that first she had carpel tunnel syndrome in the left hand with borderline findings of carpel tunnel syndrome in the right hand. The history according to Dr. Carlson given by the plaintiff was that her work duties with the defendant required her to do intensive computer work with fine manipulation of the hands all day long. He understood she used both hands eight hours a day to do the work. Based upon this, Dr. Carlson was of the opinion the carpel tunnel syndrome was caused by the work. When it became clear that the plaintiff did not use the computer all day long and that she seldom used her left hand in the work, a second deposition of Dr. Carlson was taken. When asked in the second deposition whether the correct history, which showed the plaintiff did not use her left hand for data entry, would affect his previous diagnosis of a work related carpel tunnel syndrome, Dr. Carlson replied that would be "problematic." Further exchange between counsel and Dr. Carlson produced the following question and answer: Q. And Doctor, your opinions that the plaintiff has bilateral carpal tunnel is related to her - that her bilateral carpal tunnel is related to her employment with Southeast Services is based on the truth and accuracy of the history that she provided you. A. Correct. ... There's no question but that carpal tunnel syndrome or any orthopedic condition that is produced by use is dependent upon the accuracy of the history and a determination about where the bulk of the use - hand use and the aggravation is produced. Dr. Carlson further testified that there are a variety of activities that can cause carpel tunnel syndrome and rated the use of a key board as being low on the causation list. Discussion The resolution of the case lies upon the testimony of two key witnesses - the plaintiff and Dr. Carlson. Dr. Carlson clearly testified his original determination of the cause of the plaintiff's carpel tunnel syndrome was caused by the plaintiff's work as outlined on the history given to him by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's testimony showed the history given to Dr. Carlson was not accurate. When Dr. Carlson was made aware of the inaccuracy, he testified that whether the carpel tunnel syndrome was caused by the work was problematic, and further testified that the work the plaintiff did is low -2- |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Wilma Adkins v. Modine Manufacturing E2001-01237-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: Thayer, Sp. J. Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr., Circuit Judge The trial court awarded the employee 75 percent permanent partial disability to each arm. The employer has appealed and insists the award is excessive and should have been fixed to the body as a whole. The judgment is affirmed. |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Melissa Suzanne Dew v. Pro-Temp E2001-01165-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: Thayer, Sp. J. Trial Court Judge: Robert M. Summit, Circuit Judge 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 awarded the employee 2 percent permanent partial disability to her right hand. The employee appeals insisting the court had used the multiplier statute in computing the award and that the statute does not apply to scheduled member injuries. The judgment is modified to award the employee 4 percent to the right hand. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court is Modified and Affirmed. THAYER, SP. J., in which ANDERSON, J., and BYERS, SR. J., joined. Roger E. Ridenour, of Clinton, Tennessee, for Appellant, Melissa Suzanne Dew. B. Chadwell Rickman, of Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee, Pro-Temp. MEMORANDUM OPINION The trial court awarded the employee, Melissa Suzanne Dew, 2 percent permanent partial disability to her right hand. The employee has appealed insisting the court had restricted her recovery to two and one-half times the 8 percent medical impairment and that the multiplier statute does not apply to scheduled member cases. Facts The employee is a high school graduate and was 26 years of age at the time of the trial. After high school, she had some vocational training in office technology and data processing. She was employed by defendant, Pro-Temp, and was working on the assembly-line at Eagle Bend Manufacturing Company, Inc., on February 5, 1998, when she was injured. The work in progress involved the manufacture of automobile trunk hinges. She testified that the machine had jammed and while working with it, the machine "pinched her." At the time she was wearing gloves but her right index finger was cut and later began to swell. She went to the emergency room and was released to see a regular physician who eventually referred her to an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. John M. Ambrosia, an orthopedic surgeon, testified by deposition and stated he prescribed therapy treatments initially but then recommended surgery since she had not made a lot of progress. Surgery was performed on June 12, 1998, and resulted in freeing up the scar tissue around the extensor tendon and the joint of the finger. After surgery, therapy was resumed and he released her to return to work without any restrictions. The doctor stated she would have a 42 percent impairment to her right finger. The employee was also seen and examined by Dr. Geron Brown, an orthopedic surgeon, for an independent medical examination. He testified by deposition and said she had sustained a crushing injury with laceration and that the fracture of her finger had healed; that she was right hand dominant and the medical impairment would be 42 percent to the finger and 8 percent to the hand. When he was asked about returning to work with restrictions, he replied that because of the limited motion of the hand, there would be activities that she would either have difficulty with or simply could not do. He did not place permanent restrictions because when he saw her she was working at another job although the functional capacity evaluation recommended she should work at a level less than medium work. In describing the present condition of her injury, the employee testified she could not straighten out her finger; that it stayed cold most of the time; that she had problems in gripping things with her hand and that when she used her hand a lot, she would have pain down the center of the palm of her hand. She testified the strength of her hand was not near what it used to be. With regard to the pain down the center of the palm of her hand, she said she had been told this was because of the tendon on the front side of her finger. In rendering a decision, the trial judge originally awarded the employee 42 percent disability to the right hand. Upon defense counsel inquiring if he had made a mistake in the 42 percent award since this exact percent was given to the finger only, the court retracted the award and asked if the multiplier statute applied. When advised it had no application to a scheduled member injury, the court announced the award would be fixed at 2 percent to the right hand. After entry of the judgment, the employee filed a motion for new trial insisting the recovery had been reached by using the multiplier of two and one-half times the 8 percent medical impairment. The court stated his decision was not reached by that computation and that he had considered the usual factors in assessing the evidence and fixing the 2 percent disability to the hand. -2- |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Ronald Haywood v. Ormet Aluminum Mill Products W2001-01494-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: L. Terry Lafferty, Senior Judge Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley, Judge In this appeal, the Employer/Defendant asks: (1) Whether the limitations in Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-241(a)(1) apply?; and (2) whether the evidence supports an award of fifty-six percent (56%) to the body as a whole? As discussed below, the Panel concludes the trial court's judgment is affirmed. |
Haywood County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Lisa Sills v. Humboldt Nursing Home, Inc. W2000-03034-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: Robert L. Childers, Sp. J. Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis, Chancellor The appellant presents the following issues for review: (1) Whether the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the plaintiff sustained a work related injury that resulted in a permanent disability to the plaintiff, and (2) Whether the evidence preponderates against the trial court's award of benefits to the plaintiff based on a percentage of the body as a whole rather than to a scheduled member. |
Gibson County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Kenneth Trivett v. Norman Litchfield E2000-01307-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: W. Neil Thomas, III Trial Court Judge: G. Richard Johnson, Chancellor Although the appellant argues that he was unfairly forced to trial and that the decision of the trial court was improper, no timely notice of appeal was filed. Although this issue was neither briefed nor argued, failure to file a timely appeal is jurisdictional. Consequently, the appeal will be dismissed. |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Janet Crame v. Grinnell Corporation W2001-00542-SC-WCM-CV Authoring Judge: W. Michaelmaloan, Special Judge Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris, Chancellor In this appeal, the employer, Grinnell Corporation, contends the evidence preponderates against the trial court's award to the employee, Janet Crame, of twenty-two percent (22%) permanent partial disability to both arms. For the reasons stated in this opinion, We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Chester County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Johnny A. Stephenson v. Container Products Corporation E2001-00385-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J. Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr., Judge The trial court found that the plaintiff had suffered a work-related injury and awarded permanent partial disability of thirty percent to the body as a whole. We affirm the judgment of the trial court but reduce the amount of the award to twenty percent (2%) vocational disability. |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Birdie I. Treece v. Lear Corporation E2001-02160-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: Thayer, Sp. J Trial Court Judge: Kindall Lawson, Circuit Judge The trial court found the employee was totally and permanently disabled. The court also found the employer was entitled to a set off for payment of long-term disability benefits and made other rulings as to the employee's rights under the employer's disability retirement plan. Judgment of the trial court is affirmed as to the award of total disability and set off rulings, and vacated as to issues relating to the employee's vested rights to future disability retirement benefits. |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Nicolaie Lucescu v. Twin City Motors, Inc. E2001-00672-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: W. Neil Thomas, III, Trial Court Judge: Telford Fogerty, Jr., Chancellor The issue presented by this appeal is whether there is evidence to support the finding of the trial court that the hernia experienced by the employee occurred before the date of the report of the accident and is, therefore, not compensable under the Hernia Statute, T.C.A. _5-6-212. After a review of the record and the briefs and after consideration of the arguments of counsel, we find that the trial court simply chose to believe the plaintiff's treating physician rather than the plaintiff as to when the hernia occurred. We, therefore, affirm. |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| David Boles v. Kirt T. Lamb D/B/A, Lamb Oil Company M2001-01037-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Sr. J. Trial Court Judge: John A. Turnbull, Judge 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 plaintiff drove a gas transport truck for eight years before he fell from the tanker following an inspection of it. After an initial onslaught of pain he resumed his duties. The day following, the pain returned, which he attributed to kidney stones. Three months later, a diagnosis of mid- back and low-back disc problems was made. Causation was vigorously disputed, since the plaintiff had a long history of pre- accident problems. Recovery was allowed. We affirm. |
Putnam County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Robertson County Board of Education v. Karen Knight M2001-00516-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: Howell N. Peoples, Special Judge Trial Court Judge: John Gasaway, III, Circuit Judge The employer appeals an award of 5 percent disability to the body as a whole as excessive, and an award of past and future chiropractic expenses as unauthorized. We modify the judgment below to award 4 percent disability to the body as a whole. |
Robertson County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Helen L. Sizemore v. Quebecor Printing, Inc. E2000-02624-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: Thayer, Sp. J. Trial Court Judge: Ben K. Wexler, Circuit Judge The trial court awarded the employee 39 percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The employer appealed insisting the employee's condition was not work-related. Judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Jeffery A. Wright v. Johnston Coca-Cola & Dr. Pepper E2000-02542-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J. Trial Court Judge: Jerri S. Bryant, Chancellor The trial court found the plaintiff suffered a 5 percent permanent medical impairment as a result of an injury sustained while working for the defendant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Jeffery A. Wright v. Johnston Coca-Cola & Dr. Pepper E2000-02542-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J. Trial Court Judge: Jerri S. Bryant, Chancellor The trial court found the plaintiff suffered a 5 percent permanent medical impairment as a result of an injury sustained while working for the defendant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| James Burks v. Williams Typesetting, Inc. E2001-00252-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: Thayer, Sp. J. Trial Court Judge: Lawrence H. Puckett, Circuit Judge The trial court found the employee was permanently and totally disabled. The employee appealed insisting the award should be fixed as a permanent partial award payable for a period of 4 weeks. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed as to the 1 percent award of permanent and total disability, the denial of attorney's fees on unpaid medical expenses and the commutation of a lump-sum award for payment of attorney's fees. The judgment is reversed as to allowing a credit against the total disability award and the commutation of benefits in favor of the employee. The case is remanded for the purpose of amending the judgment to allow additional temporary total benefits and for further hearing on the employee's application for commutation benefits. |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al v. Daniel Wilson M2000-02978-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: Hon. J.O. Bond, Judge Trial Court Judge: Hon. J.O. Bond, Judge This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court awarded permanent partial disability benefits based on the functional equivalent of 4% to the employee's left arm and 6% to his right arm. The court based its findings upon the conclusions of a local doctor not presented as a panel option to the employee. The employer contends that the trial court erred in 1) interpreting the appropriate composition for a medical panel under Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6- 24 and (2) assessing permanent partial disability benefits. As discussed below, the Panel has concluded that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed on both issues. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed. GAYDEN, Sp. J. delivered the opinion of the Panel, in which DROWOTA, J., and LOSER, Sp. J. joined. Allen, Kopet & Boyd, PLLC Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Farrar & Holliman Lafayette, Tennessee, for the appellee, Daniel Wilson. 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION The employee/appellee, Daniel Wilson, is a thirty-nine-year-old male with a sixth grade education. Mr. Wilson never passed the G.E.D. and claims to have no special skills or training. His work experience has been limited to labor work. Mr. Wilson worked for Wal-Mart, Inc., as a stocker for the dairy department in the Gallatin, Tennessee store. On or about July 17, 1998, he began to experience elbow pains while opening boxes of juice and stocking the dairy department. He described his injuries as tendonitis of the elbow from repetitious work. Before his employment with Wal-Mart, Mr. Wilson had never sustained an injury to his right or left arm. Wal-Mart, the employer-appellant, provided Mr. Wilson with a panel of three physicians as provided by Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-24(a)(4) for the July 17 injury. From this panel, Drs. Sanders and Cowden treated Mr. Wilson. He returned to work on light duty on August 25, 1998, and full duty on September 2, 1998. Upon returning to work on full duty, Mr. Wilson reported a second aggravating injury to his arms. When he sought treatment, Dr. Cowden advised him to visit an orthopaedic physician. Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-24(a)(4), Wal-Mart presented Wilson with a separate panel of three orthopaedic physicians, all of who practiced in a neighboring community. Mr. Wilson saw Dr. McInnis, who diagnosed bilateral tennis elbow and ultimately performed surgery on both of Mr. Wilson's elbows. Dr. McInnis assigned Mr. Wilson permanent restrictions of less than 2 pounds and a permanent partial disability of 5% to each arm. After surgery, Mr. Wilson continued to complain of elbow discomfort and sought additional treatment from Dr. Calvin Dyer, a local orthopaedic surgeon not included as a panel option. In accordance with AMA guidelines, Dr. Dyer performed a detailed examination before diagnosing epicondylitus. Dr. Dyer measured Mr. Wilson's range of motion and tested his grip strength. Based upon this test, Dr. Dyer assigned a permanent partial impairment rating of 1% to each arm. He also assigned permanent lifting restrictions of less than thirty pounds. The trial court used the conclusions of Dr. Dyer, rather than those of Dr. McInnis, to award permanent partial disability benefits to the Mr. Wilson in the amount of $34,66.. The court assigned a 4% permanent partial disability rating to the Mr. Wilson's left arm and a 6% permanent partial disability rating to his right arm. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Panel composition is determined in accordance 2 |
Wilson County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Tamatha Marie Howe v. Jones Plastic and Engineering W2001-00555-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: L. Terry Lafferty, Senior Judge Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn, Judge This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, Defendant asserts: (1) the trial court erred in not limiting Plaintiff's permanent partial disability award to two and one-half (2-1/2) times her medical impairment rating of ten percent (1%) as provided by Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-241(a)(1); (2) the trial court's award of seventy-five percent (75%) disability, a multiple of seven and one half (7-1/2) times her impairment rating, should be reduced when there are no specific findings supported by clear and convincing evidence of at least three of four factors contained in Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-242; and (3) the trial court erred in granting Plaintiff temporary total disability benefits from May 2, 1999 until November 3, 1999. After a review of the entire record, applicable law and as discussed below, the Panel affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands to the trial court for specific findings with respect to permanent partial disability benefits. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court is Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part and Remanded. L. TERRY LAFFERTY, SR. J., in which JOE C. LOSER, SP. J., and JANICE M. HOLDER, J., joined. John D. Burleson and V. Latosha Mason, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellant, Jones Plastic and Engineering Company. Charles L. Hicks, Camden, Tennessee, for the appellee, Tamatha Marie Howe. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, Tamatha Marie Howe, was thirty-one years old at the time of her injury and had worked for the employer, Camden Plastics, for three months. Plaintiff completed the 1th grade and has been attempting to obtain her GED. Her prior work history consisted of dishwashing, cooking and building furniture. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a machine operator. On April 19, 1999, Plaintiff slipped on some grease at work and injured her back when it struck a metal bar. On April 2, 1999, x-rays at the Camden General Hospital emergency room reflected no fracture, subluxation or bony destruction. No significant degenerative changes were noted. Plaintiff was given pain medication and referred to her primary doctor. On April 21, 1999, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Jesse Sewell with complaints of pain in her lower back radiating down her right thigh and leg. Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Sewell several times between April 21, 1999 and May 17, 1999. Dr. Sewell performed an MRI and treated Plaintiff conservatively. Plaintiff was treated by Dr. Sewell until June 2, when she was seen by other doctors. According to company policy, Plaintiff provided Defendant with Dr. Sewell's certificates for return to work/appointments. Plaintiff acknowledged that she did not return to work after receiving a letter from Defendant one day stating, "no show, no call, she was fired." At time of trial, Plaintiff stated that she has not worked since her accident, her back hurts, she cannot lift, bend or hardly walk and is currently on pain medication prescribed by her doctor. Plaintiff's husband corroborated his wife's testimony concerning her difficulties in performing her housework and physical complaints. Plaintiff has attended a school offering vocational assistance, but she complained that the jobs all required lifting. Plaintiff acknowledged that she did not see a doctor after May 2, 1999, because she had been fired and assumed her medical treatment would not be covered. Stacy King, a receiving clerk and Plaintiff's supervisor, testified on behalf of Defendant. She recalled Plaintiff's injury in April 1999, as Plaintiff reported the injury to her. Ms. King was also aware that Plaintiff was terminated. Ms. King testified that she saw Plaintiff one time between April 19, 1999, and her termination date. She stated she was driving along a highway in Bruceton, Tennessee, passing a factory outlet store, when she observed Plaintiff either climbing in or out of a car door window. Plaintiff denied that she could climb in and out of a car window. Sylvia Page, Human Resource Manager, testified that she handles workers' compensation claims for Defendant. Ms. Page identified off-work slips from a doctor's office indicating appointments, return to work, or if the employee is on restricted duty. After Plaintiff's first visit, she was to return to work on April 27. Ms. Page stated that she advised Plaintiff, "When you go for your doctor's appointment, whatever paper work is given to you at the doctor's office, please come back by our office and leave it with us so that we know whether you're on restricted duty or off work." Ms. Page testified that she made the decision to terminate Plaintiff. On the last page of Exhibit 1, Ms. Page identified a doctor's slip which indicated that Plaintiff could return to work on May 2, 1999. Also, above these words were the words "next appointment." To Ms. Page, this indicated that Plaintiff had both an appointment and a return to work on the same day. Plaintiff was scheduled to -2- |
Benton County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Jimmy Wagner v. Tower Automotive 001-00728-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: W. Michael William Michael Maloan, Special Judge Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis, Chancellor This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _5-6-285 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings and fact and conclusions of law. The defendant, Tower Automotive appeals the judgment of the trial court which awarded fifteen percent (15%) permanent partial disability to each arm as being excessive. For the reasons stated in this opinion, We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (2) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed W. MICHAEL MALOAN, SP. J., in which JANICE M. HOLDER, J. and JOE C. LOSER, JR., SP. J., joined. Deana C. Seymour, Jackson, Tennessee, for appellant, Tower Automotive Products Company, Inc. Gayden Drew IV, Jackson, Tennessee, for appellee, Jimmy Wagner MEMORANDUM OPINION The plaintiff, Jimmy Wagner, was forty-one (41) years old at the time of trial. He has a high school education. Prior to working for the defendant, Tower Automotive Products (Tower), in 1992 or 1993, he worked restoring furniture, drove a truck, worked construction, and obtained a welding certificate. He testified he had no prior problems with his arms, elbows, or shoulders before working for Tower. While at Tower, he developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome in 1994 and had surgery on both wrists. He did not file a workers' compensation claim. As a result of the surgery, he doesn't have the grip he used to have. At Tower, plaintiff placed twenty (2) to twenty-five (25) pound parts into a press at a rate of two hundred (2) per hour. Plaintiff reported right shoulder and arm pain to his employer on June 9, 1999. Tower referred him to Dr. Claiborne Christian, an orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed tendinitis of the shoulder. On June 21, 1999, plaintiff complained to Dr. Christian of pain in both elbows which he diagnosed as lateral epicondlylitis. Dr. Christian continued conservative treatment until October 12, 1999, when he performed surgery on the right elbow and on January 19, 2, for the left elbow. Dr. Christian assigned a three percent (3%) permanent partial disability to each upper extremity based on the AMA Guidelines and no impairment for his shoulders. He did not assign any permanent restrictions. Dr. Larry Johnson, an orthopedic surgeon, saw plaintiff on June 3, 2, for shoulder problems. Dr. Johnson was of the opinion plaintiff's work aggravated a congenital defect known as os acromiale, where the end of the acromion is not completely fused. On the last visit of November 6, 2, Dr. Johnson felt his shoulder problems had resolved and did not assign any impairment or work restrictions. Dr. Joseph Boals examined plaintiff on April 12, 2, with a history of injuries to both shoulders and elbows. On examination, Dr. Boals found a full range of motion with impingement syndrome in both shoulders and a full range of motion in both elbows. His grip strengths were average. Dr. Boals assigned a fifteen percent (15%) permanent impairment to each arm for the residual weakness from the elbow surgeries and five percent (5%) permanent impairment to each shoulder for tendinitis for a combined value of nineteen percent (19%) to each upper extremity. Dr. Boals did not rely on the AMA Guidelines. Dr. Boals stated plaintiff should not engage in his present work as a press operator and should not work overhead or away from his body and to avoid repetitive work and gripping. After being released by Dr. Christian, plaintiff returned to Tower as a press operator on a different machine which is easier on his arms because he does not have to bend or straighten them as much as before. Plaintiff testified his elbows bother him every time he has to grip or twist and pain in his shoulders keep him up at night. The trial court awarded fifteen percent (15%) permanent partial disability to each arm. The scope of review of issues of fact is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Lollar v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 767 S.W.2d 143 (Tenn. 1989). When a trial court has seen and heard witnesses, especially where issues of credibility and weight of oral testimony are involved, considerable deference must be accorded the trial court's factual findings. Humphrey v David Witherspoon, Inc., 734 S.W.2d 315 (Tenn. 1987). However, where the issues involve expert medical testimony which is contained in the record by deposition, -2- |
Gibson County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Jody Collins v. Lear Seating Corporation, E2001-00223-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J. Trial Court Judge: Ben W. Hooper, Ii, Judge The trial court found the plaintiff had suffered a work-related injury and awarded 7 percent permanent partial disability to the right arm. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss this case. |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Tammy Jean Dedmon v. Tennessee Food Services, Inc. d/b/a W2001-00067-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: W. Michael William Michael Maloan, Special Judge Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley, Judge In this appeal, the employer contends the evidence preponderates against the trial court's award of twenty-five percent (25%) permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. For the reasons stated in this opinion, We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Henry County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Melinda F. Peeler v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, E2001-00541-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: Thayer, Sp. J. Trial Court Judge: Frank V. Williams, III, Chancellor The trial court dismissed the complaint finding proper notice of injury had not been given and that a reasonable excuse did not exist for the failure to give notice. The employee appealed insisting she was not aware that she had a work-related injury. Judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Judy Lynn Popa v. Mckinnon Lumber Co., Inc. M2001-01743-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: James L. Weatherford, Sr. J. Trial Court Judge: Allen W. Wallace, Judge The appellant (mother of the three minor children of the deceased employee) contends that the trial court erred in not commuting the surviving childrens' benefits to a lump sum. The trial court ordered: 1) that the accrued death benefits be paid into the Circuit Court Clerk's office and held in trust for the three minor children until their eighteenth birthdays; and 2) the remaining benefits be paid to the clerk's office in bi-weekly installments to be invested and held in trust for the children's benefit. |
Houston County | Workers Compensation Panel | ||
| Timothy Tidwell v. Verplank Enterprises, Inc. M2000-00551-WC-R3-CV Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J. Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton, Circuit Judge This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6- 225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court is Affirmed JOHN K. BYERS, SR. J., in which FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, J. and JOSEPH C. LOSER, JR., SP. J., joined. Joseph M. Huffaker, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Verplank Enterprises, Inc. Robert D. Massey, Pulaski, Tennessee, for the appellee, Timothy D. Tidwell. OPINION Facts At the time of this trial, which was held on January, 4, 2, the plaintiff was 36 years of age. He had graduated from high school and had vocational training in combination welding. The plaintiff was in the United State Air Force for six years where he worked as a combination welder. The plaintiff's work history and training are almost exclusively as a welder. On July 28, 1998, the plaintiff was working for the defendant. On that date, he was moving a casket lid from a saw to a table. The plaintiff felt a burning sensation in his shoulder as he did so. The defendant referred the plaintiff for medical care and the plaintiff was seen by Dr. Lloyd Johnson, an orthopedic surgeon, a physician approved by the defendant. The plaintiff was seen by Dr. John McInnis on one occasion at the request of the defendant for evaluation. The plaintiff was unable to continue working for the defendant because of the injury. Medical Evidence Dr. Johnson first saw the plaintiff on September 29, 1998, and determined he had sustained a cervical strain and an injury to his right shoulder. Dr. Johnson saw the plaintiff again on October 13, 1998 after an MRI had been done. The MRI showed the plaintiff had a bulging disc at C4-C5. Dr. Johnson was of the opinion the plaintiff's bulging disc was caused by the injury of July 28, 1998. Dr. Johnson continued to see the plaintiff over the course of several months, during which he found the plaintiff's range of motion was diminished and that he was continuing to have pain as a result of the injury. Dr. Johnson placed permanent restrictions of lifting up to 5 pounds frequently, 65 pounds occasionally and to not work with a helmet (hard hat) for more than one hour at a time twice a day. Dr. Johnson found the plaintiff suffered a 12 percent whole body permanent disability as a result of the injury. Dr. John McInnis examined the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant for the purpose of evaluation. The examination was done on April 15, 1999. Dr. McInnis found there was some loss of motion in the plaintiff's spine and that he had a chronic strain of the muscle in the neck and of the trapezius muscle. Dr. McInnis would restrict the plaintiff from lifting more than five or ten pounds above his shoulders and was of the opinion his work as a welder may accentuate the plaintiff's neck pain. Dr. McInnis was of the opinion the plaintiff had sustained a 5 percent permanent medical impairment to the body as a whole. Discussion The defendant's first contention that the evidence does not support the finding of the trial court that the plaintiff suffered a worker's compensation disability of 72 percent is because the trial court relied upon the testimony of Dr. Johnson, who, according to the defendant, did not properly evaluate the plaintiff under the A.M.A. guidelines. The defendant's complaint is that Dr. Johnson's evaluation is not in compliance with the A.M.A. Guidelines because Dr. Johnson did not use an inclinometer in determining the range of motion as set out in the guidelines. Dr. Johnson testified he followed the A.M.A. Guideline and these allowed the use of other methods of determining loss of motion if the injury did not fit within the definition of the Guidelines. He was of the opinion that the plaintiff's injury fit the exception and proceeded accordingly. The defendant insists that Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-24(d)(3), which directs the use of the guidelines is for the purpose of standardizing the method of rating disabilities. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc.,746 S.W.2d 452 (Tenn. 1988). The defendant argues, therefore, that Dr. Johnson's evaluation should be rejected. The defendant contends that the only reliable medical testimony is that of Dr. McInnis, who used the inclinometer in determining the plaintiff's range of motion. The defendant argues, therefore, that the impairment rating of 5 percent found by Dr. McInnis should control. Based upon this, the defendant says the award should not be more than 3 percent vocational impairment. We find the defendant's assertions on the issue not to be persuasive. Dr. McInnis found the only -2- |
Lawrence County | Workers Compensation Panel |