Naomi Gentry v. Lumbermens Mutual Co., et al. 01S01-9608-CH-00165
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. C. K. Smith,
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. This action was filed January 18, 1995 seeking benefits for a back injury sustained on April 6, 1994 while employed by the defendant hospital. The allegations of the complaint were generally denied, thus requiring the plaintiff to prove every element of her case by a preponderance of the evidence, except when relying upon TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-242 which requires clear and convincing evidence as a predicate. The appellee allegedly suffered a back injury while lifting a patient. She was initially treated by a general practitioner in Gainsboro, Dr. E. M. Dudney, who referred her to Dr. Ray Hester, a neurosurgeon in Nashville, on May 5, 1994. Dr. Hester had treated the plaintiff for injuries she sustained in an automobile accident in 1982. These injuries involved, inter alia, a ruptured disc. She was released from treatment in 1983 with a 15 percent permanent partial impairment, and her activities were restricted. As stated, Dr. Hester saw the plaintiff eleven years later for this workers' compensation injury. He ordered a CT scan which revealed no significant pathology or findings and ultimately diagnosed her complaint as a lumbar strain. On July 19, 1995, he advised the employer by letter that: " . . . Mrs. Gentry apparently had a back strain. She had underlying degenerative joint disease in her back which was the result of her previous injuries to her back and not the more recent one where she was doing some lifting. I don't think she has any permanent impairment in relation to her lifting incident and no anatomical changes as a result of it." At some point before his deposition was taken for proof, Dr. Hester changed his opinion. He testified that the appellee had a five percent permanent impairment solely as a result of her 1994 injury. He found no objective signs of radiculopathy or loss of structural integrity. He imposed moderate lifting restrictions, and thought the appellee should be able to return to work. He found no anatomical changes in her back. Significantly, he testified that his impairment ratings of 15 percent for the 1982 injury and five percent for the 1994 injury were "separate and not a part and parcel of 2
Smith
Workers Compensation Panel
Donald Groton, Etc. v. Traverlers Insurance Co. 01S01-9607-CV-00154
Authoring Judge: Robert S. Brandt, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Bobby Capers,
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 of findings of fact and conclusions of law. This Court is once again called upon to decide wither an injury sustained en route to work is compensable. We conclude that it is not and reverse the trial court's finding that it is. Regrettably, this case involves more than an injury. Donald Groton died from injuries he sustained in a car wreck while traveling to work on January 14, 1994. He worked for John Coleman Hayes, P.C. an engineering firm under contract with Nashville's airport authority to supervise noise abatement modifications being made to homes in the Antioch and Donelson neighborhoods close to the airport. Groton was one of two inspectors who examined the work of the contractors. He used his own vehicle in his work. The employer paid Groton mileage for driving from the office to job sites and from one job site to another. The employer did not pay Groton for driving from his home to the office or to the first job site of the day if Groton went there first. Likewise, the employer did not pay Groton for travel away from the office or from the last job site at the end of the work day. On the date of the accident, Groton did not report for duty at either the office or a job site as usual. James Michael Smith, John Coleman Hayes's construction manager, called Groton the day before and instructed him to go to a job site of a sister company, John Coleman Hayes Construction Company. Smith needed some surveying work done and Groton knew how to do it. -2-
Wilson
Workers Compensation Panel
Earl Barrett v. City of Lebanon, et al. 01S01-9608-CH-00158
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Charles K. Smith,
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 plaintiff is a 4-year-old man whose work experience has essentially been limited to manual labor. On August 2, 1994, during the course and scope of his employment by the City of Lebanon and while using a jackhammer, he sprained a neck muscle while attempting to dislodge the implement. He returned to light duty on February 6, 1995 and full duty on March 2, 1995. The issue is whether the evidence preponderates against the judgment of the trial court that the plaintiff retained a 12.5% permanent partial disability to his body as a whole as a result of the cervical strain. Our review is de novo on the record with the presumption of the correctness of the judgment unless the evidence otherwise preponderates. T.C.A. _ 5-6-225(e)(2) and TENN. R. CIV. P. 13(d). The treating physician was Dr. W. Garrison Strickland, board-certified in psychiatry and neurology. His examination and testing revealed mild degenerative changes in the cervical spine. He testified that the results of a functional capacity evaluation were inconsistent, meaning that the plaintiff's efforts were not always sincere. Dr. Strickland declined to state an opinion as to whether the plaintiff had any impairment because there were no objective findings and the functional capacity evaluation was inconsistent. The plaintiff was referred to Dr. Jack Fishbein, an orthopedic surgeon, by his attorney. He saw the plaintiff only on one occasion and testified that he found muscle tightness and limited range of motion with pain radiating from the right shoulder. He assessed 5% impairment to the body as a whole. The trial judge found the testimony of Dr. Fishbein to be more credible than the testimony of Dr. Strickland, who, as stated, declined to state an opinion because he found no objective symptoms and does not give impairment ratings if the functional capacity evaluation is inconsistent. 2
