Craig Stephen Portman v. Camelot Care Centers, Inc.

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 only issue for resolution is whether the trial court properly concluded that the injury to the eye of the plaintiff, Craig Stephen Portman, arose out of his employment with the defendant, Camelot Care Center, Inc. We agree with the trial court and affirm.1 The plaintiff Portman was an employee of the defendant on September 4, 1996, when he was involved in an incident, where a minor child spit in his eye. Three to five days later he experienced irritation in that eye. He sought medical treatment on the seventh day following the incident. Ultimately he came under the care of Dr. Subba Rao Gollamudi, an ophthalmologist who focuses on diseases and surgery of the cornea and anterior segment of the eye. Dr. Gollamudi noted the plaintiff related to him that he had normal ocular health prior to the onset of symptoms in the eye, which occurred coincident with the incident at work, and further testified as follows: Q. Doctor, if you assume Mr. Portman worked at the Camelot Care Center which was where he worked in the capacity as a counselor with children and that on the 4th day of September, 1996, a child spit in his eye, assume that's correct, and that he is then followed with the conditions that he described to you, are you able to form an opinion based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty given the current level of scientific and medical research whether or not that episode at work was the causative factor in the development of the condition you ultimately diagnosed and treated? A. I would say that I feel reasonably certain that the time frame and episode as related to me are consistent with saliva that has herpes in it causing ocular surface herpes. The Plaintiff testified: Q. Prior to September of 1996, had you ever experienced any symptoms, problems, been treated for or been told you had the herpes simplex virus? A. No. There is no evidence the plaintiff's ocular simplex herpes condition was caused by any other occurrence. The standard of review of factual issues in workers' compensation cases is de novo upon the record of the trial court with a presumption of correctness, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2) (1991 of Supp. 1998). "In order to be eligible for workers' compensation benefits, an employee must suffer `an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment which causes either disablement or death.' Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-12(a)(5). The phrase `arising out of' refers to causation. The causation requirement is satisfied if the injury 1W hile all th e issu es in this ca se w ere n ot co nclu ded, the p arties and the tria l cour t agre ed th at it should be treated as a final judgment pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure No. 54. 2