Shirley K. Hensley v. England/Corsair Upholstery

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 trial court awarded 5 percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The employer has appealed insisting the expert medical testimony is not sufficient to support the award. The judgment is affirmed. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court is Affirmed. THAYER, SP. J., in which ANDERSON, J., and, BYERS, SR., J., joined. J. Steven Collins, of Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellants, England/Corsair Upholstery Manufacturing Company, Inc., and Lumbermen's Underwriting Alliance. Edwin A. Anderson, of Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee, Shirley K. Hensley. MEMORANDUM OPINION The trial court awarded the employee, Shirley K. Hensley, 5 percent permanent partial disability as a result of sustaining an occupational disease. The employer and insurance carrier have appealed insisting the evidence is not sufficient to support the award. Facts The employee had been working as a seamstress or sewing operator for about thirty years. At the time of the trial, she was fifty-five years of age and had completed the ninth grade in school. In August 1993 she started working for the defendant furniture manufacturing company. She testified she worked with fabric material most of the time and that in handling fabric, her hands became very dry. She and other sewing operators kept lotion for use on their dry hands. She said that about one year prior to stopping work in November 1998, she began to work with leather. Her hands started swelling and cracking. It got so bad that they would bleed. She stated the green dye would actually rub off on her hands and she tried wrapping her hands with gauze and masking tape. Sometime later, she testified her "feet broke open." She worked with leather for about a year before going to the doctor. She eventually saw Dr. Ellis who treated her for several years. He recommended she see Dr. Alexander, a dermatologist. She stated she went to see him and his treatment was the same as Dr. Ellis and more expensive so she quit going to Dr. Alexander and returned for treatment with Dr. Ellis. After being off from work for about six months, she was terminated. The employee testified she had tried to find work with Wal-Mart as a greeter but when they saw the condition of her hands and asked what had caused the problem, Wal-Mart officials advised her they did not have a job available. She said her hands and feet have healed to some extent but she has not found any employment. Dr. Roy C. Ellis, a family physician, testified by deposition, and said he first saw Ms. Hensley on August 22, 1998 and she had severe hand dermatitis; that he prescribed several medications; she returned to work on September 8; she came back to see him on September 28 showing signs of severe rash and allergic dermatitis which he felt was definitely due to the fabric, either leather or vinyl, or both. He stated that over a period of time when she was off work, she would get better and when she returned to work, she got worse. He opined her "work conditions led up to and caused the allergic dermatitis." The doctor stated the medical impairment would fall into class three in the range of 25 to 54 percent and he gave her a 5 percent impairment. Dr. Jay Hammett, a family practice physician testifying by deposition, performed an independent medical examination on October 8, 1999 and examined the records of several other doctors. He learned she was also being treated for a thyroid condition and hypertension and thought her problems could be related to her medications for these problems. He said he thought the opinion of Dr. Ellis on causation was speculation since a skin biopsy or patch test had not been conducted. He was of the opinion she could resume her sewing work. Also, if her work conditions did cause her problems, he felt her impairment would be in the class two range of 1 to 24 percent and he fixed her impairment rating at 2 percent. Defendant's plant manager and company nurse both testified Ms. Hensley told them during July 1998 her problem was not work-related. However, these conversations were prior to the August 1998 visit to Dr. Ellis. The plant nurse admitted that during November 1998 she advised her doctor had said her condition was work-related. The nurse also testified no other employee had complained of the same problem. -2-