J. C. Mcdowell v. United Technologies/Carrier Corp.

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 complaint in Chancery was filed November 9, 1995 seeking benefits for a back injury which the plaintiff alleged he suffered on March 14, 1995 while attempting to move a heavy tank. The employer defendant answered in course, alleging that the plaintiff had a degenerative back condition of many years duration and denying the plaintiff suffered a compensable injury as alleged or that it had notice of any injury. The trial judge referred the case to the Clerk and Master pursuant to RULE 53, TENN. R. CIV. P.1 A judgment was entered finding that the plaintiff sustained a compensable injury on March 14, 1995 resulting in a 3 percent permanent partial disability to his whole body, and benef its were awarded accordingly. The defendant appeals and presents the issue of whether the evidence preponderates against the finding of a compensable injury. We hold that it does not for reasons hereafter recited, and therefore affirm the judgment. The plaintiff is 52 years old and has been employed at Carrier since 1972. He had three prior back surgeries in 1975, 1976, and 1985. On March 14, 1995, while working on a chiller tank, he twisted his body, and, as he stated, "I hurt myself." He did not report for work the following day, but on March 16, 1995, he went with a shop steward to see Joel Holt, the Safety Director. He testified that he reported to Holt that he had injured his back and requested some time off. He saw his family physician who said the pain was not work related. In course, he was referred to Dr. George Lien, a neurosurgeon who performed surgery on May 7, 1995. The plaintiff returned to work on August 23, 1995 with restrictions. 1A Spec ial Maste r may b e appo inted in any ca se, and his/her du ties ma y be particula rized. W e ass um e the Clerk and M aste r was appo inted as S pec ial Ma ster to hear and r epo rt the t estim ony, with recommendation, but there is no Appointing Order in the record. There are two relevant documents in the record. The first such is a Finding of Fact signed by the trial judge. The second is an Order reciting that "the cause came on to be heard before the Honorable Charles D. Haston, Judge., etc. who referred the matter to J. Richard McGregor, Special Master. Thereafter, the court . . . filed a finding of fact . . . which is incorporated herein . . ." This Order [i.e. Judgment] is signed, not by the trial judge, but by J. Richard McGregor. "In the absence of the Judge, J. Richard Mc Gregor, sitting as Chancellor pro tem ." So far as the record reveals the Spe cial Master filed no repo rt, and the trial judge thus made findings o f fact without hearing any proof. The anomaly continues: the Special Master, as Judge Pro Tem, also entered the final judgment, thereby approbating his prior action. The parties make no issue of this `unusual' procedure, and we therefore treat the case as one heard in compliance with RULE 53.4. 2