Michael Siniard v. Saturn Corporation

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, age 43, remains employed by Saturn Corporation, where he began in 199. He developed carpal tunnel syndrome in both wrists in 1994 and was provided with splints, medication, and access to physical therapy. In time the plaintiff was referred to Dr. James W iesman, an orthopedic surgeon, who performed a carpal tunnel release on his right hand. He returned to work for Saturn which assigned him a job not involving repetitive use of his hands. The plaintiff filed this complaint seeking benefits for a permanent partial disability occasioned by the asserted impairment caused by the carpal tunnel syndrome. The trial judge awarded benefits based on a finding of ten percent permanent partial disability to his right arm. The plaintiff appeals, insisting the award is inadequate for the reasons hereafter discussed. The treating physician testified that the release surgery was successful and that the plaintiff retained a two (2) percent impairment to his right arm. The plaintiff was referred by his attorney to Dr. David W. Gaw, also an orthopedic surgeon, for evaluation. Dr. Gaw saw the plaintiff only on one occasion. He conducted various tests and concluded that the plaintiff had a ten percent permanent partial impairment to his right arm. He disdained as unauthorized by the AMA Guides an evaluation of two (2) percent impairment as found by Dr. Wiesman. Our 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 584 (Tenn. 1991). The plaintiff criticizes Dr. Wiesman for his alleged failure to use the AMA Guides. While Dr. Wiesman apparently was not enamored by the Guides, he testified that "I used those Guides," and that "I did the impairment rating based on 2