Johnny L. Frye v. Athens Products

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225(e)(2); Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial courts in workers' compensation cases. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). The plaintiff appeals from the trial court finding that he had failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he had sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of his work. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. There is little need to go into significant detail concerning the facts in this case. There are significant discrepancies between the testimony of the plaintiff at trial and in the statements he made to medical providers concerning whether he sustained an injury on June 1, 1998, or whether he experienced pain on the prior Sunday while walking in the mall, or whether he sustained an injury at work on June 2nd. The plaintiff gave the only evidence concerning an alleged accidental injury. The determination of the trial judge was, by necessity, based upon his assessment of the evidence and his ruling based upon the testimony of the plaintiff. The trial court found that the plaintiff did not tell the defendant of any work- related accident until June 28th but found that he did notify the physician and especially the nurse practitioner on June 2nd that he sustained a work-related injury on June 1. The court found this unusual and ruled that the two histories cancelled out each other, thus causing the plaintiff to fail in carrying his burden of proof. 2