James Ed Linkous, Jr. v. Federated Rural Electric

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellant, Reliance Insurance Company, insists (1) the chancellor erred in applying the successive or "last injurious injury" rule and (2) the award of permanent partial disability benefits is excessive. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The employee or claimant, Linkous, is in his late thirties with a high school education, a few junior college courses, apprenticeship training as a journeyman lineman and twenty years' experience as a lineman. On September 13, 1993, he fell from a bucket truck and was injured. After conservative treatment and work hardening, he returned to work in April of 1994 with no permanent medical impairment or restrictions. He performed the same duties as before the accident, until July of 1994, when he suffered a second injury at work. The second injury was surgically treated and the claimant has again returned to his same duties, but with restrictions and a permanent impairment rating. The primary dispute before the trial court was whether disability and medical benefits should be the responsibility of the insurer at the time of the first or second injury, a factual dispute. The trial judge invoked the successive injury rule, long recognized in Tennessee, and sometimes referred to as the last injurious injury rule. Because both issues involve questions of fact, our 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. section 5-6-225(e)(3). Where the trial judge has seen and heard the witnesses, especially if issues of credibility and weight to be given oral testimony are involved, considerable deference must be accorded those circumstances on review. Humphrey v. David Witherspoon, Inc., 734 S.W.2d 315 (Tenn. 1987). As to the first issue, Reliance Insurance Company, the insurer in July of 1994 argues that it should not be subjected to liability because the July 1994 injury was merely an onset of increased pain resulting from the first injury, citing Cunningham v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 811 S.W.2d 888 (Tenn. 1991) as authority. In that case, the trial court found that plaintiff's condition was due to a general arthritic condition predating his employment at Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and that, although his employment may have aggravated his preexisting condition by increasing his pain, there was no connecting industrial injury or accident that might be considered the triggering incident producing an acceleration of his condition. That finding was supported by expert medical evidence. The medical proof in the present case is quite different. The doctor who 2