Thomas H. Hartley v. Snap-On Tools Corporation

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. The issue presented is whether the trial court erred in finding that the plaintiff sustained a 35 percent disability to his right arm as a result of a job-related accident. The standard of review is de novo on the record accompanied with the presumption that the judgment is correct unless the evidence otherwise preponderates. TENN. R. APP. P. 13(d); T.C.A. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). The parties stipulated that the "plaintiff had incurred work-related bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome." The finding of disability to the left arm is not contested on appeal; the defendant argues that a finding of 35 percent to the right arm is excessive. The treating physician, Dr. Gorman, testified that the plaintiff's right arm was asymptomatic following corrective surgery and without impairment. Dr. Eric Roberts was employed by the plaintiff's attorney to examine and evaluate the plaintiff. He is a board-certified physical medicine specialist. He testified that he performed extensive testing of the plaintiff, reviewed the voluminous medical reports and believed that the plaintiff had a 2 percent impairment to his right arm, based on AMA Guidelines. The deposition of Dr. Roberts is unusually lengthy, and we have considered it in depth. Henson v. City of Lawenceburg, 851 S.W.2d 89, 812 (Tenn. 1993). The plaintiff apparently had some non-job-related problems with his right elbow which are not fully recounted in the record. The defendant argues that most, if not all, of any impairment to the plaintiff's right arm is attributable to these problems of which both experts were aware and considered. While we are able to asses the weight of testoimony by deposition as well as the trial judge, It is not within our province to substitute our judgment for that of the trial judge; and we cannot find that the evidence preponderates against his finding that the plaintiff sustained a 35