Edward Ring v. Chemetals, Inc.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Tenn. Code Ann. Section 5-6- 225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Claimant has appealed the trial court's decision awarding 15% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole as being inadequate. Claimant seeks an increase award and particularly urges a finding of total disability benefits. Appellee (hereinafter "Employer") filed in its brief a request for consideration of post-judgment evidence. Employer also requests the panel take judicial notice of active and passive range of motion. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's finding and Employer's request for consideration of post- judgment acquired evidence is denied. Employer's request that the panel take judicial notice of active and passive range of motion is also denied. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (22 Supp.) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed ALLEN W. WALLACE, SR. J., in which JANICE M. HOLDER, J. and D. J. ALISSANDRATOS, SP. J., joined. Charles L. Hicks, Camden, Tennessee, for the appellant, Edward Ring. Sean Antone Hunt, Memphis, Tennessee, for appellee, Chemetal, Inc. MEMORANDUM OPINION The employee, or claimant, Edward Ring, initiated this civil action in the Circuit Court of Benton County, Tennessee to recover workers' compensation benefits for injuries he sustained initially on October 23, 1999, and again on August 8, 2, to his shoulders. Following the trial on May 3, 22, the trial court awarded 15% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The claimant has appealed this award as being inadequate. Appellant review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the finding of facts, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code. Ann. Section 5-6-225(e)(2) (22 Supp.). The reviewing court is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.