Michael A. Smith v. Continental Casualty Co.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with T.C.A. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Following a bench trial, the chancellor below found that there was no proof that plaintiff injured his back during the course and scope of his employment, and further found that plaintiff gave his employer no notice of injury. On appeal plaintiff has raised one issue for our consideration: whether the trial court erred in preventing plaintiff from offering proof as to a specific injury and notice of injury by sustaining an objection to certain testimony of plaintiff. In addition, defendant presents one issue: whether the evidence preponderates against the chancellor's finding that plaintiff did not sustain a work-related injury. We find no error and affirm. Michael A. Smith ("plaintiff") was employed by Kroger Grocery Company from 1978 through March 1994. Specifically, on March 16, 1994, plaintiff worked a nine hour shift and went home. The next morning he awoke with extreme pain in his back. He later went to the emergency room of the hospital in Jackson where he was subsequently diagnosed as having osteoporosis and three or four possible compression fractures of the vertebrae in the thoracic spine. When plaintiff's pain did not clear up, his treating physician referred him to Dr. Genaro Palmieri, who practices a specialty of endocrinology and metabolic bone diseases in Memphis. The subsequent examination of plaintiff by Dr. Palmieri confirmed that he indeed had the disease osteoporosis, in which the bones become extremely porous and more easily subject to fracture. X-rays taken by Dr. Palmieri's radiologists confirmed the fractures at T-4 and T-7, which according to the radiologists were old and were present before 1987. During the course of the trial, plaintiff was asked upon direct examination when a doctor first informed him of a connection between his work at Kroger and his back condition. Defendant's objection on the ground of hearsay was sustained by the chancellor. Subsequently, the chancellor ruled that there was nothing to indicate that plaintiff injured his back during the course and scope of his employment, therefore the injury was not compensable. The chancellor also