Brenda Barton v. Anvil International, Inc.,

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. In this appeal, the employer insists (1) the trial court erred in considering an examining physician's opinion as not being based on statutory guidelines and (2) the award of permanent partial disability benefits based on 5 percent to one arm and 45 percent to the other arm is excessive.1 As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (21 Supp.) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed JOE C. LOSER, JR., SP. J., in which JANICE M. HOLDER, J., and MICHAEL MALOAN, SP. J., joined. Jeffery G. Foster, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellant, Anvil International, Inc. Scott G. Kirk, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellee, Brenda Barton MEMORANDUM OPINION The employee or claimant, Ms. Barton, initiated this civil action to recover workers' compensation disability benefits for a work-related injury. The employer, Anvil International, denied liability for permanent disability. After a trial on the merits, the trial court awarded, among other things, benefits based on permanent partial disability to both arms. The employer has appealed. 1 An injury to both arms is a scheduled injury and the better practice is to average the awards to each arm for a single award base d on a per centage of b oth arm s. Scales v. City of Oak Ridge, 53 S.W .3d 649 at n. 1 (Tenn. 2 1). Th e issue d eem ed w aived since it wa s not raised in this a ppe al. For injuries occurring on or after July 1, 1985, 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. _ 5-6-225(e)(2) (21 Supp.). The reviewing court is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.