Sharon Rivers v. Cigna Property & Casualty Co.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated Section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The first issue presented to the Court is whether or not the trial court erred in finding that the plaintiff was entitled to benefits for permanent partial disability based upon fif ty percent (5%) to the left lower extremity. It is not disputed that the claimant sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her employment with the defendant on January 24, 1995, when her left foot became crushed between pieces of equipment. She did not have a fracture but had a crush injury of the soft tissue to the left foot. She was placed in a cast and given medication and recommendations for exercise and warm soaks. She eventually returned to work around March 1, 1995. She was under the treatment of the physician provided by the employer but was released to resume her work and she did resume her regular work as a stacker machine operator for approximately one year. She continued to have complaints of pain and irritation in her ankle from time to time and saw the company doctor. Some time after July 11, 1995, her supervisor told her that the employer would not be responsible for her doctor's bill for the preceding visit to the company doctor. Subsequent to that, however, she returned to see the company doctor, who saw her without expense to her. He felt that she reached maximum medical recovery on July 25, 1995 and opined that she had not suffered any permanent impairment. He concluded that she had sustained a soft tissue injury without any fracture or disarrangement of the joint. On January 17, 1996, Plaintiff's attorney referred her to a rheumatologist in Memphis without prior notice or consultation with the employer. She was subsequently seen and treated by the rheumatologist. She had been satisfied with the treatment given to her by the company doctor before her supervisor told her that his bill would not be paid. The rheumatologist has testified that the claimant suffered a fifteen percent (15%) permanent impairment to her left lower extremity. He based his opinion upon his 2