Essie M. Butler v. Emerson Motor Co .

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. Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court in a workers' compensation case. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). The trial court found the plaintiff had failed to show she was entitled to compensation because of an alleged back injury.1 We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The facts in this case are reasonably simple. The plaintiff, age 49, had been working for the defendant for 25 years. Several years prior to 1995 she injured her back at work. This injury is more historical than significant in the case before us. In January 1995, the plaintiff was working at a lathe, putting machine parts on the lathe and turning them. She began to experience pain in her back. She testified this was caused by having to twist her body side to side or back and forth in doing the work. Ultimately, the plaintiff was seen by several doctors and had several diagnostic tests and various treatments done. The most significant treatment was done by Dr. Dan Spengler, an orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed the plaintiff as having instability of motion at the L4-5 section of her spine with some pinching of the nerve. Dr. Spengler was of the opinion that the cause of this problem was a degenerative process in a person of the plaintiff's age. He was of the opinion the plaintiff's work did not cause the problem. 1 The plaintiff also sued for carpal tunnel syndrome and was found to be entitled to compensation. That matter is not raised in this appeal. 2