State vs. Bolden 03C01-9706-CR-00230
Trial Court Judge: E. Eugene Eblen
Roane
Court of Criminal Appeals
Special Judge Hamilton v. Gayden, Jr. 02S01-9707-CV-00069
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. C. Creed Mcginley,
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 judge found the plaintiff had suffered a 5 percent impairment to each of her arms as a result of carpal tunnel syndrome which arose out of her employment with United Postal Service ("UPS"). We find the evidence in this case preponderates against an award of 5 percent to each arm and find the evidence preponderates in favor of an award of 25 percent to each arm. At the time of the trial of this case, the plaintiff was 45 years of age. She has a twelfth grade education and had worked for UPS for 18 years as a truck driver. The plaintiff's work history included operating an antique store and working as a sales clerk, a loan officer for a bank, and an executive secretary. The only issue before us is whether the trial court's award of 5 percent to each arm is supported by the evidence. The evidence concerning the extent of the plaintiff's disability is supplied by the plaintiff's testimony; by the medical report and records of Dr. Lowell Stonecipher, an orthopedic surgeon and the treating physician who was furnished by the defendant; by the report of Dr. Robert J. Barnett, an orthopedic surgeon, who evaluated the plaintiff at her request; and by the report of Dr. Ronald C. Bingham, who conducted nerve conduction tests on the plaintiff at the request of Dr. Stonecipher -- these tests showed mild residual median neuropathy. The plaintiff began to experience difficulty with her arms and hands in June 1996. Dr. Stonecipher diagnosed the condition as carpal tunnel syndrome and did surgery to relieve the condition in her left arm on February 21, 1996. On April 2, 1996, Dr. Stonecipher did surgery on the plaintiff's right arm. The plaintiff returned to work in June 1996 doing the same work she had done prior to having surgery. The plaintiff testified the work caused her hands and 2
James Biggs v. Jones Stone Company, Inc. 01S01-9711-CH-00239
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Irvin H. Kilcrease,
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 employee was awarded benefits for a 3 percent permanent partial disability to his whole body. He appeals, claiming that his anatomical impairment is ten percent, which should be extrapolated to total and permanent disability. The thrust of his argument is directed to the weight to be given to the expert testimony. The employer admitted that the employee suffered a compensable back injury on September 8, 1995. The issues at trial were limited to the extent of physical impairment and residual vocational disability. The Chancellor found the plaintiff had a five percent impairment. He applied a multiplier of six, T.C.A. _ 5-6-241, resulting in a finding of 3 percent permanent partial disability to his whole body. The treating physician was Dr. Stanley G. Hopp, an orthopedic specialist, who testified that the plaintiff's radicular pain was emanating from the right L-5 nerve root. He performed surgery on February 23, 1996 and removed the offending spurs. Recovery was hampered because of diabetes, but with the passage of time the plaintiff was able to work, with lifting restrictions. Dr. David Gaw, orthopedic specialist, examined the plaintiff for purposes of evaluation. He testified that in his view the plaintiff had a ten percent impairment based on DRE Category III of the Guidelines, which he interpreted as requiring this rating because "anybody that has a radiculopathy that's proven by tests and has surgery, that throws them into Category III." He conceded that he found no symptoms of nerve damage, that the plaintiff was in no distress or pain, that he was taking no medications, had no back spasm, no atrophy or weakness in his legs and had good movement. 2
Davidson
Workers Compensation Panel
Thurman D. Vanwinkle v. Bridgestone U.S.A., Inc. 01S01-9709-CH-00190
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. James K. Clayton, Jr.
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 alleges that he suffered a heart attack attributable to the demands of his job and therefore compensable within the purview of the Workers' Compensation law. The words "heart attack," as alleged, are generically used and are generally referable to any sudden adverse cardiac condition; in the case at Bar, the plaintiff suffered a myocardial infarction.1 The trial court found that the "petition for workers' compensation benefits should be sustained," and that the plaintiff had a 6 percent permanent impairment,2 presumably attributable to his heart condition. The employer appeals, questioning the finding that the plaintiff's heart problem is work-related. 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). Background 1An infarct is a region of dead or dying tissue which is the result of a sudden obstruction to the blood circulation supplying the involved part, usually by a clot. A myocardial infarct is a region of dead or dying tissue in the muscle of the heart which is the result of an obstruction to the blood supply usually by a clot lodged in a coronary artery. 2The judgment refers to a letter containing a "Finding of Facts" but this letter is not in the record. We thus have no findings to review under the appropriate standard, RULE 13(d), T.R.A.P., which requires a presumption of correctness. We therefore have conducted a de novo review with no presumption. 2
