Andrea Nichols v. Square D Company

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court's award of 65% permanent partial disability to the p laintiff's left ha nd is exces sive. The p anel conc ludes that it is and reduces it to 5%. While working in an assembly line job in August 1994,, the plaintiff developed a repetitive motion injury to her left hand. She is right handed. The initial conservative medic al treatm ent con sisted of restrictin g the rep etitive us e of the plaintiff 's left ha nd. She tried on e job, but said she could n't do it, then w as given a jo b she cou ld perform with only one hand. She said s he couldn't do that, either. The employer informed the plaintiff that no more jobs were available for her that day, but mad e an appo intment fo r her to see an orthoped ic surgeon . The first av ailable appointm ent was f airly far in the futu re, so the em ployer told the p laintiff that it w ould attempt to accommodate her restriction until the appointment. The plaintiff responded by quitting her job . She ne ver retu rned to work for the e mployer . And s he has n ot soug ht any oth er emp loyment. Dr. Howard Miller performed outpatient surgery on the plaintiff in January 1995 and released her to light duty work shortly thereafter. He released her to return to her former job at the end of February. The doctor reported in June 1995 that the plaintiff had full motion in her wrist a nd digits and that she w as largely asympto matic. Dr. M iller did not give the plaintiff any permanent restrictions and did not give her any permanent impairm ent. The plaintiff's attorney sent her to see another doctor, Earl Jeffres, in September 1995. He assessed a 22% permanent partial impairment to the plaintiff's left hand. He acknowledged that the plaintiff's complaints of pain exceeded his objective findings. The plaintiff's complaints of pain in her left hand and the probability that she should av oid repetitive u se of it does limit her emp loyability. But she is ce rtainly employable. She completed two years of business school and worked as assistant mana ger at a r estaura nt for a n umbe r of years . Given the treating physician's finding of no permanent impairment, the other physician's finding of 22% impairment to the non -dominant hand , and the plaintiff's acknowledged refusal to even attempt to find any other work, the panel concludes that the award of 65% to the left hand is excessive and reduces it to 5%. Costs are taxed to the - 2 -