Charles D. Scott v. The Travelers Insurance Co., et al

This workers' compensation appeal was referred to the Special W orkers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-225(e)(3) (Supp. 1998) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The plaintiff, Charles D. Scott, brought this suit against Travelers Insurance Company, the workers' compensation insurance carrier for Kraus Model Cleaners (Kraus Cleaners), and the Second Injury Fund. After hearing the evidence, the chancellor found that the plaintiff did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his back injury was caused or aggravated out of or in the course of his employment for Kraus Cleaners and entered judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff has presented two issues for review: 1. Did the trial court err in finding that there is not sufficient evidence to show that plaintiff's lower back problems arose out of and were incurred in the course of his employment and that defendants are not liable under the Tennessee Worker's Compensation Law? 2. Whether plaintiff's claim is barred by wilful misrepresentation and fraud in his employment application? In considering these issues, we must be mindful of certain well established principles. Our review is de novo upon the record of the trial court with a presumption of correctness unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code. Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). We are required to conduct an in-depth examination of the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law to determine where the preponderance of evidence lies. Thomas v. Aetna Life and Cas. Co., 812 S.W.2d 278, 282 (Tenn. 1991). In making such determination, this Court must give considerable deference to the trial judges's findings regarding the weight and credibility of any oral testimony received. Townsend v. State, 826 S.W.2d 434, 437 (Tenn. 1992); Thomas, 812 S.W.2d at 283. However, this court may draw its own conclusions about the weight, credibility, and significance of deposition testimony. Seiber v. Greenbrier Indus. Inc., 96 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tenn. 1995). The plaintiff in a worker's compensation case has the burden of proving causation and permanency of his injury by the preponderance of the evidence using expert medical testimony. See Thomas, 812 S.W.2d at 283; Roark v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 793 S.W.2d 2