Randy F. Shadden v. ITT Hartford Ins. Co., et al.

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's insurer, Hartford, argues (1) the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the employee or claimant, Shadden, suffered a work related injury, (2) the evidence preponderates against the trial court's award of permanent total disability benefits and (3) the trial court erred in awarding medical expenses not disclosed in response to discovery requests and not "properly proven at trial." The Second Injury Fund (the Fund), which was made a party by an amended complaint, contends the evidence preponderates against the trial judge's finding that the claimant is permanently and totally disabled. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. As a result of a previous compensable injury in 1984, while working for another employer in another state, the claimant was awarded benefits equating to fifty-three percent to the body as a whole. In a vehicular accident in 1989, which was not work related, he suffered spinal injuries which necessitated the insertion of metal rods in his back. The rods were removed in 1994. The employer at all relevant times knew of his pre-existing disabilities. He continued to work with pain and received a number of awards for sales excellence. In January of 1995, he was sales manager for a company in Cookeville which sold copiers. There is conflicting evidence with respect to the exact date of the occurrence, but during the week of January 9, 1995, the claimant noticed a truck driver unloading a large copier, weighing over six hundred pounds, from a truck. He attempted to assist the driver with the unloading when something "popped" in his back and he felt immediate pain. He told a co-worker immediately about the occurrence and had her write it down. He also gave timely written notice. The co-worker testified she had seen the claimant with his hands on the copier, one hand on the side and one on the bottom. The same day, the claimant drove to Fentress County General Hospital's emergency room where he received a shot to relieve his pain. He may or may not have also played racquetball that afternoon, but there is no medical evidence that his new injury was from something other than the lifting incident. He also worked for a few days immediately following the injury but was soon forced to quit because of severe pain. The treating physician, Dr. Leonard Carroll, who was familiar with the claimant's medical history, testified the claimant suffered a new spinal cord injury causally related to the lifting incident and an exacerbation of the pre- existing conditions and that, as a result, he developed, in addition to severe low back pain, bladder incontinence and depression to the extent of being suicidal. 2